Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 January 15

= January 15 =

Why was my edit removed?
This was my first attempt at using the software to edit a page. I rewrote the page entitled A Course in Miracles -- a three day project. My revision was up for a short time and then deleted. I would appreciate knowing why.David_A_Scott (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the article, and of Wikipedia. The author of A Course in Miracles may very well claim that Jesus, via 'an inner voice' is responsible for the content of her work. Wikipedia, however will do no such thing. And nor will it fill the remainder of the article with credulous waffle taking the author's word as, well, gospel, and promoting the book accordingly. Beyond that obvious issue, there are multiple problems with formatting, referencing etc, which could of course be rectified - but frankly, I'd advise you not to bother trying to learn how to do such things until you have figured out what Wikipedia is actually for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, while the current article is not necessarily exemplary, if you look at the citations you'll notice that they are independent from the book or author(s). This is on purpose: WP articles are a tertiary source and written about the topic, summarizing independent secondary sources.  The book is considered a primary source and to avoid original research editors should avoid interpreting it directly themselves.  The purpose of the article is not to persuade readers with the book's arguments and should instead reflect how others perceived those arguments.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ David_A_Scott : I was the editor who reverted your edits. I fully support the previous comments. You should have noticed my comments when I reverted your edits. I did so because your edits contained multiple style, formatting and policy errors, far too many to expect any other edit to improve. So the appropriate action was to revert your edits completely. It is also not usually a good idea for any editor, especially a new one, to unilaterally decide to rewrite an article to any substantial degree, particularly all at once. This is more than likely to create problems. It is much better to start with a few small edits and then see if other editors accept them or not. If they don't then the most appropriate place to discuss things is on the article's talk page. I hope these comments are helpful. Best wishes, Afterwriting (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation hatnote consistency between all entries for people with the same or a close name
As I'm writing this, all people named Margaret Hamilton with Wikipedia entries (and one named Maggie Hamilton also listed in the disambiguation page) have hatnotes linking back to the disambiguation page, except Margaret Hamilton (software_engineer). (Not all did initially, but Margaret Hamilton (publisher) did, and I added them to all others for consistency. My addition to Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) was first reverted with an edit summary that led me to think the wording of my hatnote was the reason, so I changed all hatnotes (including putting in a revised version of the reverted one) to what I thought was the better wording. That was reverted as well, and my question about the reasons for the inconsistency still has no answer after 2.5 weeks, so I decided to ask here: what difference do people see between this Margaret Hamilton and the others I changed in the same way (none of which were reverted), that justifies the exception ywp other editors seem to be insisting on? If my impression that all such pages should be consistently hatnoted (all or none) which is it, and does it need to be discussed on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (publisher) since that page had one before I started this?

Subsidiary question: do I (or someone) need to link to here from my initial question? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The reversions were correct and linked WP:NAMB to explain them. You should have removed the hatnote on Margaret Hamilton (publisher) to get consistency, not add hatnotes to a bunch of other articles. Activity on different articles vary greatly and it's just a coincidence that your oher hatnotes haven't been removed yet. You quoted WP:NAMB: "There are cases where some editors strongly believe that such hatnotes should be included, such as the various articles about treaties called Treaty of Paris." Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) is not such a case since the other people at Margaret Hamilton are in completely different fields. Treaty of Paris has dozens of treaties which are only disambiguated by the year. Lots of readers will not know the exact year of a treaty they are looking for so they easily end up on the wrong page. Maggie is a common nickname for Margaret so I would keep a hatnote on Maggie Hamilton but remove the rest. Hatnotes are generally for cases where readers may see an article name and incorrectly think that's the article they want. There will probably be a few readers who have no idea of the occupation of the Margaret Hamilton they are searching for but it's rare compared to not knowing whether a treaty is from 1810, 1812, 1814 or 1815. Hatnotes are a distraction to readers who are already on the right page so we rarely use them when the article name is not easily confused. It would be appropriate to link this discussion from Talk:Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The revert included WP:NAMB in the edit summary. That is a link to the guideline that says It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous. It explains why it is unnecessary. It goes on to explain that this is only a guideline, not a policy that has to be followed in all cases - which explains the inconsistency you noticed. MB 15:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Combined answer to both: you both say, if I understand you right, that the removal from Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) is how it should be. One then goes on to address consistency by saying other hatnotes should be removed as well, the other doesn't address consistency. My conclusion is twofold: 1- I have invested all the time and energy on this that I could afford to and justify to myself, so whoever straightens this out, it won't be me; 2- removing that hatnote made Wikipedia a tiny bit less useful to me as a mostly reader (if you check my contributions, you'll see they're overwhelmingly correcting typos, grammar, and red links) and removing the other hatnotes would take it further in that direction; I'm starting to think that editors, or some of them, are treating policies as an end in itself and not a mean to the end of usefulness to readers. I believe that whichever Margaret Hamilton a search engine takes me to, being able to tell this isn't the one I want is only part of the problem hatnotes solve, and a small one at that. The more important part is letting readers know there are other homonymous entries and provide an easy way to navigate to them. But as I said, whether that hatnote is restored and whatever becomes of the other hatnotes is no longer a worry of mine. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on you made the external search https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Margaret+Hamilton to find a nurse and clicked on a link saying "Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) - Wikipedia", knowing it was the wrong person but hoping to find easy navigation to a Wikipedia article about the nurse. I don't know how common that scenario is. I assume you wouldn't have clicked the NASA link to look for a NASA article about the nurse. If people want to find a Wikipedia article and not another website then why not search Wikipedia itself? A search here goes straight to Margaret Hamilton where the nurse is listed first. Has Wikipedia become so ubiquitous that people commonly choose a Wikipedia article in external search results even though they know it's the wrong topic? I would have guessed that if people use an external search engine and don't get the wanted topic in the hits then they refine the search. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Margaret+Hamilton+nurse has Margaret Hamilton (nurse) as the top result. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't remember at this point whether I noticed the (software engineer) bit and still clicked hoping for a hatnote that would lead me to the right article or a disambiguation page (because a lot of entries, of those I've visited, have such a hatnote), or didn't notice it, so to answer your question, maybe. Also, consider the following scenario, variants of which have happened to me: news item: "Margaret Hamilton has a new book coming." someone: *thinks* "Who's Margaret Hamilton"? *uses DDG to find out*, and note that the Margaret Hamilton this is about may just as well be the book publisher, the software engineer, or someone with that name but no Wikipedia entry, so it's not at all obvious which entry would be the correct one, or even that there is a single correct entry. Being led to the software engineer's Wikipedia entry and not finding either mentions of a new book coming or a path to entries for the homonymous people could very easily lead to thinking Wikipedia has no information about that book. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the OP that the hatnote would improve the usability for the reader.  it's not only external searches that are used this way.  I have looked over a reader's shoulder as they typed "Epping" into the WP search bar.  This pops up a list of hits to choose from.  They were looking for the Epping in New South Wales, Australia, and that is clearly marked a few entries down - but they ignored it and picked the first one.  When I asked why, they were confused by the question, and said something like "this is the first article about Epping so it's the best one."  I'm sure some users are very sophisticated in their use of search engines etc.  And some are not.  We should cater for both.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A hatnote is a significant help for readers who are looking for an article it leads to, while it's only a small annoyance to skip for readers who aren't. But there are probably far more readers of the latter type when the page name cannot be mistaken for the other subjects. The first Google hit on "Donald" is Donald Trump. Should it have a hatnote to Donald for readers who were looking for other Donald's (not called Trump)? Probably not. Should American Idol (season 8) use a hatnote for easier navigation to other seasons? Probably not. Other seasons are already fairly easy to find by clicking links in the article. The question is where to draw the line. We usually (not always) omit hatnotes on people if a disambiguation in parentheses doesn't apply to other subjects with Wikipedia articles. I think it varies more whether place names like Liverpool, Texas have a hatnote for subjects which aren't in Texas. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your argument, to me, seems to boil down to: even though the perceived inconvenience of it being present to an individual reader not using or needing it is very minor and the real help to one needing or using it is major, the combined annoyance to the large majority not needing it trumps the combined benefit to the minority needing it, so whether to do it at all should be decided case by case. Did I understand it right? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say case by case. We have guidelines and practices which cover many cases. The prevailing practice for biographies is no hatnote if the full page name has clear disambiguation. Some pages don't follow the practice, sometimes because an editor didn't know the practice. Readers can enter "Margaret Hamilton" in our search box (or alter the url) so it's not that hard to find the other articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I submit that even then, reader convenience, which includes not having to type text, edit URLs or know how and when to do that, or navigate to the Wikipedia search box or the URL bar in the browser, all of which can be and often are impossible hoops to jump through for people with motor disabilities, should always trump overconcision. Those policies, as they seem to be applied, look ablist to me and should be revised with that in mind. How do I go about suggesting that? This is similar to why access ramps for wheelchair users are mandated by law in most places, even though many people don't need them or find them useful and some deem them eyesores. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The main guideline is WP:NAMB (which was changed after this discussion began). Suggestions can be posted on the talk page but there is already Wikipedia talk:Hatnote so don't start a new section. An archive search of NAMB finds other discussions. I actually made a script User:PrimeHunter/Base title.js but haven't promoted it. It could be mentioned in some places but few users would probably install it. I think your access ramp analogy is exaggerated. Wikipedia is one of the most interlinked websites. Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) has around 150 links to other articles (300 if you include the navigation boxes at the bottom). You can always add more links but we also have a guideline MOS:OVERLINK about that. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael Fidler
I refer to your comments below.

Hello, I'm Serols. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Michael Fidler, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Serols (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Michael Fidler. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Serols (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Please note that I have registered as an Editor and regarding the article on Michael Fidler – my late Father-in-Law - all the information was taken from the book ‘Michael Fidler – A Study in Leadership’ which was written by the historian Bill Williams. This source was provided at the end of the article. It is therefore unclear to me why my updated version is being rejected by Wikipedia.

I look forward to finding out how I can rectify the situation.

Yigal Levine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yigeolev (talk • contribs) 11:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * if the source is a book, you need to use cite book to reference it. Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yigeolev, welcome to Wikipedia! After a brief look, I can see several problems. Some, in no particular order:
 * This version has no inline references whatsoever. Neither did the previous version  but note what you removed from that version, that is not improvement. A WP-bio is meant to be a summary of WP:RS independent of the topic, so several references is wanted. If you want to make significant edits to WP. you need to learn how to add inline citations here, see WP:TUTORIAL, and include pagenumbers etc.
 * Don't refer to the subject by first name in a WP-bio.
 * Language like "Michael was a good and quick learner", "A forceful and eloquent speaker, he..." and "He had lived a full and meaningful life, on the local, national and international stage in both the Jewish Community and the political world. He was a lifelong Zionist, he would have been pleased to know that his 2 children now both live in Israel, as do 5 of his 6 grandchildren and 17 of his 19 great grandchildren." does not fit on WP, see WP:NEUTRAL and WP:FLOWERY.
 * Your source may have been selfpublished, see WP:SPS, and may be problematic because of that. If you have WP:COPYPASTEd text from the book, don't do that.
 * Also, see WP:BRD and WP:Conflict of interest. Pinging @Serols. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Without sources, the change is not acceptable. Only to write Source: Michael Fidler – A Study in Leadership by Bill Williams is not a source. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on self-published sources in BLPs
I have a question about the interpretation of WP:BLPSPS, which says not to use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person. If a person is on the board of an organization (whether it be a company or a charity), often the only record of that will be on the organization's web site or in their Annual Report - both of which are self-published by the organization. Nevertheless, it seems to me they are reliable sources about that particular information. So does this guideline forbid the use of those sources, and hence most board roles in articles?--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * IMO, yes, the org website (at least if it's a notable org) can be an RS for the fact, BUT. It doesn't help the argument for WP:N, and, if the org is the only source that bothered to notice, it can be argued that inclusion fails WP:PROPORTION. If the board-ship matters, shouldn't an independent source have noticed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear - I'm not talking about using this to contribute to notability. I'm just trying to give a complete picture of the main aspects of the person, and it seems to me that a board membership should be included.  I don't know that I have ever seen media sources which listed who sits on a board, so if that is required then board service would be left out of Wikipedia articles, to their detriment.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the board of what? Government Office for Science or a local charity? "Organization" covers a lot, and I would not be ok with a primary source in all cases. As an example, I thought this was a reasonable edit. To me a "board of an organization" in a bio seems similar to an award or selfpublished book, secondary sources is preferable, existing is not enough. But if the award is a pulitzer or the board is The Trump Organization, primary source will probably do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Lfstevens deleted 25% of Applications of artificial intelligence
User:Lfstevens deleted 25% of Applications of artificial intelligence this needs a review... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Looks like improved the flow of the writing, removed a lot of promotional guff, and generally improved the article. I'm going to go and give them a barnstar.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But, more generally,, if you disagree with edits that an editor has made to an article, the proper course of action is to open a discussion with that editor, preferably on the article's talk page: see WP:BRD. Reviewing changes is not the function of the Help Desk (though Girth Summit has chosen to do so), and talking about an editor without discussing it with them first is certainly bad manners. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am justly (if very mildly) rebuked. Yes, I realise that reviewing changes is not the function of this noticeboard; I suppose I was just trying to make the point that sometimes articles need some aggressive pruning to get them into decent shape. This particular one was bloated with citespam, promotional editorialising and the like - I'm genuinely grateful to Lfstevens for tackling it. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Archiving noticeboard topics
This sounds like a bit of a newbie question, but what is the custom/convention for archiving noticeboard topics? Sometimes I will see a noticeboard discussion that has been resolved (for example, I know of one at WP:COIN). Are non-admins permitted to do this? Does it differ between noticeboards? Just curious... thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:COIN is automatically archived by a bot that runs daily, and the same applies to most other busy noticeboards. You can find the archiving parameters at the top of the page's wikitext.  --David Biddulph (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing mistake
Hi I think I've made a mistake in trying to correct something which didn't look right, for which I do apologise and please could you fix the problem it said in the squad tab that christian eriksens name appeared I tried just removing the name. Apologies again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.173.132 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Maproom (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I cant publish a translated article
Hi, I have translated this article User:SimonLuzuriaga/Golden sun from La Tolita but i can not publish it. I guess its because I do not have enough edits on english wikipedia. But I have heard that it is possible for someone else to publish it for me. It that right? and if that is the case, could someone do it please? — Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . You are correct that your account needs to be at least four days old and have made at least ten edits in order to publish an article. Please see WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. It is unlikely that any other editor will move your draft to main space unless they are reasonably fluent in Spanish and have an interest and competence in the topic area. So, I suggest that you spend the next three days improving your draft and improving other articles here on the English Wikipedia, and then move the draft to the main space of the encyclopedia when you are eligible to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)