Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 February 12

= February 12 =

Is there is anyway I can make the Template:FranceFlagNote template work like the Template:UKFlagNote template
I wanted to make the Template:FranceFlagNote template in any French flag articles (e.g. List of flags of Île-de-France) work like the Template:UKFlagNote template in any British flag articles (e.g. List of English flags). But how can I fix this template? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - is this something you are able to assist with? Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 01:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * preliminary tests show positive results. Can more specifics be added here to aid in troubleshooting? What exactly does the FranceFlagNote template not do that you want it to do, or what does it do that you don't want it to do exactly?  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 01:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It supposed to display something like "reg" just like in List of English flags. When clicking on the "regd", it supposed to go directly to the footnotes section. Instead, it displays like this:  SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it displays what the template tells it to display. For example, at List of English flags, the "Flag of Oxfordshire" displays, which is what the UKFlagNote template tells it to display. That's governed by the switch function in the templates: (Registered by the Flag Institute). In the FranceFlagNote template, the switch is set to (Registered by the French Society of Vexillology), so that is what will be displayed. In the List of flags of Île-de-France, I used  (in preview, not saved) for the "Regional council flag of Île-de-France". That created a footnote and a link to https://drapeaux-sfv.org/drapeaux-de-france/ (like this: ). That is what the FranceFlagNote template makes it do. Exactly what would you have the template do differently?  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 10:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia
What exactly does Wikipedia do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B024:44B8:55BB:5B28:F4D5:677D (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello IP! To answer your question I'm going to quote the first sentence of WP:Purpose. "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." Hope that helps answer your question! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Payment debit
I have had £2.00 deducted from bank account. These are the details as displayed:

Wikipedia -£2.00 Website: https:/www.Wikipedia.org PayPal Wikipedia Visa Purchase 402-935-7733 US

I’m hoping you can help identify what it is for Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.48.119 (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. Almost everybody who looks at this page is a volunteer editor of Wikipedia, and we have no knowledge or information about donations, which are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation; so nobody here will be able to help you. Please go to Problems donating. --ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Digital clock – how to change color of the clock for each day in a week?
How to change color of the clock for each day in a week? For example, Monday is orange, Tuesday is yellow, Wednesday is lime-green,… Sunday is red. Thanks for much. Ccv2020 (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can use a statement over  (with a similar effect as Template:Digital clock), which outputs a number corrsesponding to the current date in weekk (Sunday=0, Monday=1, etc). Example:
 * produces


 * Hope this helps, Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Polytonic
Live ecast box filee Symbols: ~ | ¡ ¿ † ‡ ↔ ↑ ↓ • ¶  # ∞   ‹› «»   ¤ ₳ ฿ ₵ ¢ ₡ ₢ $ ₫ ₯ € ₠ ₣ ƒ ₴ ₭ ₤ ℳ ₥ ₦ № ₧ ₰ £ ៛ ₨ ₪ ৳ ₮ ₩ ¥   ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦   𝄫 ♭ ♮ ♯ 𝄪   © ® ™ Latin: A a Á á À à Â â Ä ä Ǎ ǎ Ă ă Ā ā Ã ã Å å Ą ą Æ æ Ǣ ǣ  B b   C c Ć ć Ċ ċ Ĉ ĉ Č č Ç ç   D d Ď ď Đ đ Ḍ ḍ Ð ð   E e É é È è Ė ė Ê ê Ë ë Ě ě Ĕ ĕ Ē ē Ẽ ẽ Ę ę Ẹ ẹ Ɛ ɛ Ǝ ǝ Ə ə   F f   G g Ġ ġ Ĝ ĝ Ğ ğ Ģ ģ   H h Ĥ ĥ Ħ ħ Ḥ ḥ   I i İ ı Í í Ì ì Î î Ï ï Ǐ ǐ Ĭ ĭ Ī ī Ĩ ĩ Į į Ị ị   J j Ĵ ĵ   K k Ķ ķ   L l Ĺ ĺ Ŀ ŀ Ľ ľ Ļ ļ Ł ł Ḷ ḷ Ḹ ḹ   M m Ṃ ṃ   N n Ń ń Ň ň Ñ ñ Ņ ņ Ṇ ṇ Ŋ ŋ   O o Ó ó Ò ò Ô ô Ö ö Ǒ ǒ Ŏ ŏ Ō ō Õ õ Ǫ ǫ Ọ ọ Ő ő Ø ø Œ œ   Ɔ ɔ   P p   Q q   R r Ŕ ŕ Ř ř Ŗ ŗ Ṛ ṛ Ṝ ṝ   S s Ś ś Ŝ ŝ Š š Ş ş Ș ș Ṣ ṣ ß   T t Ť ť Ţ ţ Ț ț Ṭ ṭ Þ þ   U u Ú ú Ù ù Û û Ü ü Ǔ ǔ Ŭ ŭ Ū ū Ũ ũ Ů ů Ų ų Ụ ụ Ű ű Ǘ ǘ Ǜ ǜ Ǚ ǚ Ǖ ǖ   V v   W w Ŵ ŵ   X x   Y y Ý ý Ŷ ŷ Ÿ ÿ Ỹ ỹ Ȳ ȳ   Z z Ź ź Ż ż Ž ž   ß Ð ð Þ þ Ŋ ŋ Ə ə Greek: Ά ά Έ έ Ή ή Ί ί Ό ό Ύ ύ Ώ ώ  Α α Β β Γ γ Δ δ   Ε ε Ζ ζ Η η Θ θ   Ι ι Κ κ Λ λ Μ μ   Ν ν Ξ ξ Ο ο Π π   Ρ ρ Σ σ ς Τ τ Υ υ   Φ φ Χ χ Ψ ψ Ω ω Cyrillic: А а Б б В в Г г  Ґ ґ Ѓ ѓ Д д Ђ ђ   Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж   З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і   Ї ї Й й Ј ј К к   Ќ ќ Л л Љ љ М м   Н н Њ њ О о П п   Р р С с Т т Ћ ћ   У у Ў ў Ф ф Х х   Ц ц Ч ч Џ џ Ш ш   Щ щ Ъ ъ Ы ы Ь ь   Э э Ю ю Я я   ́ IPA: t̪ d̪ ʈ ɖ ɟ ɡ ɢ ʡ ʔ  ɸ β θ ð ʃ ʒ ɕ ʑ ʂ ʐ ç ʝ ɣ χ ʁ ħ ʕ ʜ ʢ ɦ   ɱ ɳ ɲ ŋ ɴ   ʋ ɹ ɻ ɰ   ʙ ⱱ ʀ ɾ ɽ   ɫ ɬ ɮ ɺ ɭ ʎ ʟ   ɥ ʍ ɧ   ʼ   ɓ ɗ ʄ ɠ ʛ   ʘ ǀ ǃ ǂ ǁ   ɨ ʉ ɯ   ɪ ʏ ʊ   ø ɘ ɵ ɤ   ə ɚ   ɛ œ ɜ ɝ ɞ ʌ ɔ   æ   ɐ ɶ ɑ ɒ   ʰ ʱ ʷ ʲ ˠ ˤ ⁿ ˡ   ˈ ˌ ː ˑ ̪    -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.191.48.204 (talk • contribs) 2022-02-12T11:25:43 (UTC)
 * Hello. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Nonpartisanism and Non-partisan democracy, two articles i do not understand. (I think they are to blame for it, not me)
Maybe some of my problems are due to my en-2(at most), but i think at least a part of my problems are issues of the articles. In Talk:Nonpartisanism and in Talk:Non-partisan democracy i addressed some of the problems. I was not the first one to state lacks of quality on these talk pages.

The article Nonpartisanism is imho not a low-importance article, since for instance the National Rifle Association article links there (quotation: "Until the 1970s, the NRA was nonpartisan"), and the NRA is categorized in Category:Nonpartisan organizations in the United States. Many other articles link there, some of them dealing with scientific advisory committees to governments and so on.

What can i now do there? For instance, is intensive use of the Template:Citation needed allowed for a Wikipedia youngster (youngster = ~400 edits in en Wiki, many of them m or talk) like me? I do not know sources of information that could serve as references for the articles. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Nonpartisanism is not about a subject, it's about a word – moreover, a word which, as it shows, has been used with a wide range of meanings. In my view, the whole article should be deleted, citing WP:NOTDICT.
 * I sympathise with your comment at Talk:Non-partisan_democracy, though I would instead object to the whole paragraph being included in an article on "non-partisan democracy". If elected advisors have no control over the laws passed by an unelected person or body, it is not any kind of democracy. Maproom (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense user talk page
Special:Pagehistory/User talk:167.98.223.66 is quite useless. What is the proper action to be taken? Utfor (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Blank and leave the history seems fine; I'm not even sure you have to go that far, but it does somewhat impede with communication. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  06:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Pop-up ad delivered by article source
I was looking at East Bay Walls. Some time later I noticed a little window - actually it was a pop-under, hidden behind my browser, advertising McAfee antivirus. I haven't seen one of these for years, I thought they belonged to a bygone era. But looking at my history, it evidently emerged from source number 1 on the article (I had visited the source to read it), a news item on the site "Newser". I just wonder how to react to that: if I delete the source, well, I'd be depriving the article of a source, one which it makes extensive use of. I guess it's only an ad, it was just delivered in a nefarious sort of way through a series of redirects and window data apparently embedded in URL strings. Should I write "warning, contains popup ads" in the reference? Is there a template for that? Or does it not matter? Card Zero (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Critique of political economy - apparently needs to be updated
Hi!

First of all thank you if you answer this request.

I'd like to know what I should do if I've gotten a request to update something on this page, but I can't really understand what needs to be updated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_political_economy

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critique_of_political_economy&diff=1071283588&oldid=1071283143

Any help will be appreciated.

Kind regards//Pauloroboto (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . There's no particular reason why anybody who looks at this page will have any knowledge or interest in the content of that article. You are doing the right thing in engaging with the other editor on Talk:Critique of political economy. If you want to involve other knowledgeable editors, there is a list of relevant WikiProjects at the top of the talk page, and you can ask at the talk pages of those WikiProjects. By the way it is not true that I've gotten a request to update something: an editor has added a tag suggesting that the article needs to be updated. If you choose to work on it, that's fine, but it is not a request to you. The article, like all Wikipedia articles, is not owned by anybody. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You could start a section on the article's talk page, and then leave a link to it on User:X-Editor's along with an invitation to explain the tagging. The tag does say "discuss these issues on the talk page", after all, so in my opinion the user ought to have initiated that first before slapping the template on.
 * ...I see you've recently done exactly that with another editor. This is the sort of article that tends to be fought over, unfortunately, because  from the point of view of every editor, every other editor is biased.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason I put those tags on the article is because User:SPECIFICO raised concerns about its neutrality and datedness on this talk page. If you want to discuss the problem, you should invite him to the talk page of the article in question. X-Editor (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine. I get that wikipedia is decommodified for now, sorry for my bad phrasing, what I meant to say was rather that I've ran into someone who wants a page updated, and I'd be glad to help.

CardZero

Thanks for the suggestion. I found it interesting that one user placed another template due to the wishes of another user as well. That makes the situation somewhat unclear.

When I'm already here, how does the praxis look regarding when a user creates a template and she isn't willing to elaborate much on how it can be resolved and one has looked at e.g the POV page, but if can't figure out anything more to improve after reading that, how should one then proceed in trying to improve the page? I removed it once according to the instructions on this page, after improving the article, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal) but that was apparently to no satisfaction.

Kind regards,

Pauloroboto (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to be blunt here. You are publishing a lot of content from a Marxist point of view that does not represent mainstream thinking on the subjects of the articles. In other cases the names of the pages are themselves problematic, e.g. Critique of political economy -- do we have an article called critique of physics, critique of cooking, critique of animal behavior, etc? You might do better to go to, e.g. the page for Mills Principles of Economics and add text that narrates widely voiced significant views about that work and its content and implications.  The editing I see you doing now, over and over, is building content forks or POV forks that accumulate a lot of article text that details views that are not widely held or are WP:FRINGE.  Finally, after an editor has responded to you and stated their view of a problem with your proposed content, the WP:ONUS and the WP:BURDEN are on you to find RS sources and to demonstrate their significance relative to the subject. Just one more observation -- you might be more successful if you would treat your work as falling within the field of sociology rather than setting up the last 200+ years of economic thinking as a straw man. That is certainly not a mainstream approach and it's not likely to be a productive use of your time. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that returns a lot of interesting results. I think that it wouldn't hurt you to explain what you want, to begin with. If this turns into a kind of fillibustering on Pauloroboto's part then by all means wheel out the ONUS link again. If I was Pauloroboto I'd follow your advice to use WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN, and see what happpens. Get a bit of oversight in, for reassurance that Pauloroboto isn't trying to sneak fringe views into Wikipedia (heavens!) and that you aren't pressuring the poor innocent (?) editor to conform with your personal preferences either. I note that this article was originally in Swedish: just mentioning that because what seems like a case of being politically fringe may turn out to actually be a case of being culturally Swedish, where Marxism is possibly more mainstream.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, so move the page to Marxist views of classical economic theory and it gets at least a little closer to on track. But there are similar problems on many articles. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The behavior is escalating at various articles, including the Critique of political economy. I am about done giving OP advice on PAGs that could help them edit constructively. If anyone's interested in mentoring OP, please begin. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Moved the page
I have moved the page to Marxist critique of political economy. I think this goes a long way to resolving some of the worst NPOV problems and setting a course for possible improvement of the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this response  SPECIFICO. It's always helpful with communication. I'm glad that you still want to improve the article even after all this time. I've missed a lot due to the lack of tags, which has made this slightly frustrating due to me having missed that you've written some kind of response.

I disagree with this move completely. And have called upon other users to take a look at the page, something we probably should have done a long time ago.

Please note that there is a page regarding this in german, arabic and spanish by this point. It's hardly a fringe subject and has been around for ages. Marx, Baudrillard and Ruskin is hardly fringe.

However! It's fringe within the subject of economics, but the thoughts that's commonplace in economics is also fringe in the critique of political economy. Hence what you're pointing out does not really amount to much. It's equivalent to saying that soccer is fringe within hockey. It is different fields.

Regarding some edits you make I sincerely doubt that you have much understanding of the topic at hand, but I might be wrong and would like to be proven wrong. However, edits like the one where you changed the definition to make it look like critics of economy claim that "the economy doesn't exist" really makes me wonder.

I also do not think that you really think that critique of political economy is some swedish cultural phenomenon. At least I've never heard of some form of traditional ABBA, smörgåsbord and ekonomikritik, if you know someone who has that's really somewhat of a black swan. If you would have checked the Versionsgeschichte on the german wikipedia you would have quickly found out that it is a page created in 2007.

Regarding this viewpoint "You might be more successful if you would treat your work as falling within the field of sociology rather than setting up the last 200+ years of economic thinking as a straw man. That is certainly not a mainstream approach and it's not likely to be a productive use of your time.

If you are going to read the article without grasping the context within which the authors write, why bother? I'll guess that what you reacted to was the recent addition "A brief sketch of the contemporary critique of economy". If you glance at the footnotes you'll quickly notice, that is if you didn't manage to read the whole topic, that it's a critique of contemporary (mainstream) economics. That you call the opinions of authors within the academy "straw-men" speaks volumes in my opinion. I'll gladly argue about this in good faith, but I guess that you certainly understand that those three topics aren't meant to address every sentence that has been written about economics since 1822.

My only intention here is to spread knowledge, I assume you're trying to do the same. Which makes it hard to understand why do you question my motives? Do you think this debate would get to a higher quality level if I started questioning your motives. Let's talk about the issue at hand.

I hope we can reach a understanding soon enough, and that the opinions of other editors can contribute to a worthwhile process for everyone involved.

Kind regards, Pauloroboto (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the Swedish thing, that was introduced by me. I was just trying to broaden SPECIFICO's no doubt already very broad mind to the possibility that you're editing in good faith, and writing about a subject that's normal, or at least definitely real, from whatever background you're coming from. Suspicion is a plague on Wikipedia, and makes everybody hostile, but is unfortunately necessary due to all the various spammers, vandals and peculiar drama-hungry saboteurs.
 * I expect all this should be continued on the article's talk page rather than the help desk, as it's getting quite involved (and may be useful for other editors to find there).
 * So far as the name goes, the question is, what title will a visitor look for this page under? (What kind of background knowledge will cause the visitor to expect the page to exist?) And of course: are we sure the chosen title is devoid of opinion-pushing, so that it approximates a NPOV? Card Zero  (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see nobody accusing OP regarding good faith. The move, as I said, resolved the worst of the page's problems. It's clearly an exposition of a bygone Marxist view that is notable for its 19th and 20th century hisory but which is WP:FRINGE today when presented in the context of current thinking and RS coverage.  Many of the links that OP has propogated as part of their campaign to establish this article are to pages with the Marxian economics infobox Marxian economics. OP's kneejerk revert of this move and several other editors' improvements on this and other articles over the past 6+ months, are problematic. But at this time, I'm not going to invest the time to document a behavioral complaint. I responded here just in the hope that others would help get things on course. Anyone who's interested can follow OP's edit history and talk page posts. SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Created new article and can't find it now
I just spent 3 hours creating an article for Emily James, the American actress that just hit with the DraftKings commercial, and I can't find it now to continue editing. My computer's browser crashed and I had to restart the computer to resolve. I looked at "Contributions", but it isn't showing up. Is there some "undo" I'm not aware of? Did I lose everything?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron12589 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit history indicates no edits to any such article. I suspect your browser crashed before you could click "publish changes". Unfortunately I think you lost it. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I recommend that you develop new content in a personal sandbox page (not the main sandbox) or in a draft page, clicking the blue "publish changes" button frequently. This will minimize any losses due to a crash. Cullen328 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

My search history
How can I recall my recent searches on Wikipedia? I want to go back about a week. --GWS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:7F:FD2F:ECD0:985C:E9DC:D4A5 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe your browser history can help. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can not. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I think that your only hope is the "history" menu of your browser, seeking the URL of the pages you visited at the time. Wikipedia itself doesn't hold records of searches, only of edits made. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

wikipedia new name
Hi

I wish to include a name who is globally known in wikipedia, can u let me know the steps

thank s Surya [mail redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.171.68 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, Surya. I have removed your email - nobody will reply to you from here in that way, but having your address on such a public page is inviting spam.
 * The operation you are considering is not "include a name" but "write an encyclopaedia article" - that is the only way to include somebody in Wikipedia. Writing an article is much more difficult than people realise, and I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million articles before trying this. But when you feel ready, please read your first article. Note that unless you first find the sources required to establish that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then you may be wasting any work you put in. --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Recreation of a G11 deleted page
What is the next step when a user simply recreates a page (with the exact same problematic content) that had previously been speedy deleted as unambiguous promotion (G11)? See the deletion log -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just tag it for deletion. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If it keeps happening, you could ask the deleting admin to add create protection when asking them to delete the latest version - Arjayay (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Or tag and then ask for a salt at WP:RPP. Protection and deletion both require the same user right (Administrator). —A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

LGBT-related slurs category page update
Hello! Is there any way I can take the term truscum off the LGBT-related slurs category page, or any way that someone else could do it? I'm not quite sure how to edit it myself, but truscum is not an LGBT slur. It's slang, and usually used in a derogatory way, but that does not make it a slur by any means. It would be like saying MAP or TERF is a slur. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:AF0F:2000:9D40:DF7D:2B10:676F (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You must remove the category from the article, not the article from the category. However, please obtain consensus to do so on the article talk page first. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Truscum is a redirect to Transmedicalism and not an article. Redirects rarely have activity on the talk page. A word with "scum" used in a derogatory way sounds like a slur to me but I don't know any of the terms truscum, MAP, TERF. You could try Reference desk/Language. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)