Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 March 16

= March 16 =

Handling a loooooooong list of authors
I am starting a new article (User:Gronk_Oz/Graeme Stewart (immunology)) and I want to cite the author's paper in Nature. The problem is that the paper reports on an international research effort, so it has 242 listed authors. This makes for a very unwieldy Ref list. If you look at it, you will see what I mean.

I want to leave all the authors in the source, so they populate the metadata properly (and the cite journal documentation says this is required). But I want something readable in the References. I know about the display-authors=x parameter, but that displays the FIRST x authors, and this paper follows the convention that the primary authors (including my guy) are listed LAST. FWIW, some sources, including the University, refer to the authors as "Sawcer, S., Hallenthal, G., Pirinen, M., Spencer, C., Patsopoulos, N., Moutsianas, L., Dilthey, A., Su, Z., et al, Booth, D., Heard, R., Stewart, G."

So... can anybody think of a way to display the LAST x authors, or otherwise to display my guy without filling up the page?--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You may want to leave all the authors in the source, Gronk Oz, but I suspect that few people (other than yourself and 242 others, or 241 if you're one of them) will be interested in this. Too many authors spoil the credit: many of the credits are likely to be pretty much meaningless, and Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. If Cite Journal actually requires this (and I'll take your word for this), then I'd say ignore the requirement. You're thereby Ignoring One Rule. Liberating! (And it could be said that you're also tastefully avoiding the disruption of Wikipedia to make a point.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a parameter authorn-mask that can do what you want, although it’s hacky (not the intended use). Giving suppresses the display of the n-th author. The doc is in Template:Cite_journal.
 * Here’s a ref with four authors.
 * Here’s the same ref, but showing only the first and fourth author.
 * Does it mean you have to type 231 (=242-11) entries in the template? Why, yes, of course. Will it break the template rendering stuff to have that many parameters? Who knows, let’s find out! Would it be better to have a proper filtering scheme (for instance, giving a list of author positions to display)? Yes, it would.  Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest picking one or two authors and saying "et al"? Would save a ridiculous reference. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - I'm trying to do the right thing for the cite journal template, which specifies "you must still include the values for all names for metadata purposes". If that's not possible or practicable, then surely the guideline should be changed?--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The documentation is a bit over-restrictive in my opinion. The purpose of a citation is to help readers locate a copy of the source.  It is highly unlikely that a reader will need all 242 author names to distinguish this article from another article.  Citations are not about giving credit where credit is due; that is the duty and obligation of the publisher.
 * How does the article of record name the authors? At the doi landing page the authors are all lumped together into two consortiums and none are named individually.  Still, you might pick Graeme and some other names and then do something like this:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I laughed out loud at your comment that "It is highly unlikely that a reader will need all 242 author names..."  And the rest of your comment is very interesting.  I originally used the URL to the article in Nature, which is where the long list of authors came from (using Autofill; I did not type them all in manually).  I have added that collaboration parameter, which I have never seen before. I had also came up with my own awkward-but-it-works approach for the names:  I left all the names in plac, and I added "display-authors=1", so it just displays the first one et al.  And then I added "author-mask=Stewart, Graeme J.; Hafler, David A.; Hauser, Stephen L.; McVean, Gil; Donnelly, Peter; Compston, Alastair" so that first author's name is replaced by that text when it displays in the reflist.  It is terribly awkward, but it works!  The reader sees a manageable ref, and it's there for the metadata.  The only problem I can see will be that it won't support author-links.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I consider author links a low priority. I do like your work-around for chosing other than only the initial 4 or 5 to list, but that means you made an arbitrary decision about whom to list. Also, for sci refs, I thought standard was surname and initials. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I laughed out loud at your comment that "It is highly unlikely that a reader will need all 242 author names..."  And the rest of your comment is very interesting.  I originally used the URL to the article in Nature, which is where the long list of authors came from (using Autofill; I did not type them all in manually).  I have added that collaboration parameter, which I have never seen before. I had also came up with my own awkward-but-it-works approach for the names:  I left all the names in plac, and I added "display-authors=1", so it just displays the first one et al.  And then I added "author-mask=Stewart, Graeme J.; Hafler, David A.; Hauser, Stephen L.; McVean, Gil; Donnelly, Peter; Compston, Alastair" so that first author's name is replaced by that text when it displays in the reflist.  It is terribly awkward, but it works!  The reader sees a manageable ref, and it's there for the metadata.  The only problem I can see will be that it won't support author-links.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I consider author links a low priority. I do like your work-around for chosing other than only the initial 4 or 5 to list, but that means you made an arbitrary decision about whom to list. Also, for sci refs, I thought standard was surname and initials. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How to anonymize contributions?
Hi, I'd like to anonymize a few contributions of mine (Under this account + an IP address). I live in the EU so I believe that is my right under the GDPR. That would also include the requests around that... I'm not sure of how to proceed though. --Spafky (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Spafky. If you want to invoke GDPR then you will probably be invited to approach WMF Legal. They may or may not mention how they're in California and you've irrevocably agreed to release your contributions under a free copyright licence. TBH, I don't know what they will say, but you don't hear of much success coming from this avenue. More informally, editors can sometimes have their IP address removed from page histories, by following Oversight. This may also apply to logged-in contributions, especially if there is personal data. A second avenue might be to ask an admin for Revision deletion. There's fairly strict criteria for deletion; I can't assess whether they would apply or whether you might be able to make a persuasive case to bend the rules a bit. Consider also, that Wikipedia get copied all over the place. This has already happened. See WP:AKASHA. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot anonymise individual contributions. You can have some of them deleted in very limited situations. For instance, if they contain private identifiable information (like zzuuzz pointed out). You can also give up your entire account have it renamed and start over, see Courtesy vanishing. Note that GDPR has limits. You cannot publish a book and then demand it becomes unpublished. That's basically what your contributions to Wikipedia fall under as well. You agreed to publish your contributions under an eternal, non-revokable license to the public and you are pointed to those terms and conditions repeatedly when you make contributions. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, if this is a safety issue, please contact Trust and Safety —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Extract encoded SVG (new request)
could you help me to extract encoded logo from https://nuovavenezia.gelocal.it/venezia ? I attempted to copy the code into Notepad, as you suggested but no work... How can I do? Many thanks in advance!!! --2001:B07:6442:8903:791D:9FDD:2B2D:6972 (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're using Chrome or Firefox or any other main-stream browser, go to https://nuovavenezia.gelocal.it/venezia, right-click the big logo, choose "Inspect" (or similar), and copy the highlighted tag and its contents. I did this and it gave me this:
 * Bazza (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell Vs Antonio Meucci
Wikipedia represents that Bell invented the Telephone. It is False! Bell Stole Meucci's design and erased the name and Patented the telephone because Meucci did not have the 60.00 filing fee. This Italian inventor was denied all the years and profit and notoriety because Bell was a Thief.

The US Patient office has made the change. Now it seem that Wikipedia should as well or at the very least check it out.

Dominic DeBellis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.95.104.76 (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia!  I just you read the Telephone article, which also links to articles about Bell, Meucci, and the history of the telephone.  For any article that you think should be improved, you may post your request on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:Telephone) with a published reliable source that supports your suggestion.  Hope this helps and happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Format error on citation
Can anyone else figure out why there is a format error on the first citation in this article? The template (Template:Cite AV media) is a bit complicated, so it's not clear to me. I'm assuming the format requires a URL? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at what's described in Help:CS1 errors, the parameter  is used for if the ref is a file to specify the file type (PDF, DOC, etc.) It suggests to use   if it's not that, however since that ref already uses   I just added the type of DVD it is to the medium parameter. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I just stumbled across the article and noticed the error. My eyes were going cross eyed trying to read through the parameters, but I didn't want to just let the error go, either. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! I honestly can see why that error would come up since "format" isn't exactly clear that it is referring to the format of a file and not just the format of the reference if it's not a link. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

List of anthropologists
Your list of anthropologists is not complete. I hold a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the State University of New York and am published under my name in the American Ethnologist, along with other publications.

Rose O. Hayes, Ph.D. 1975

American Ethnologist, 1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.250.143.248 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Rose! Our list of anthropologists is made up of people who have been determined to be notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. If you think you might be notable enough to have an article, I suggest you read WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO and not create the article yourself. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Rose! Wikipedia has a fairly high bar for notability for academics, and often people who request articles about themselves may not qualify even though they have a substantial research career. Certainly, I don't have enough familiarity with the field to judge how your contributions to anthropology should be assessed against those criteria. However, for the moment we can perhaps put aside the issue of notability because it seems Wikipedia already has an article on Rose Oldfield Hayes, created in 2019. As the article exists, I went ahead and added your name to the List of anthropologists; I'll leave it for others to determine whether the notability criteria are met. Blaze Wolf's recommendation to read the WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO guidelines is a good one. Perhaps you'd be interested to help improve other Anthropology articles not directly related to your own research?Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Revert question
Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop contain a section with a lot of images, raster and svg. The question of the user who opened the section, is for conversion request. A lot of those images are in svg and there is not conversion needed. I have attempted to remove images that do not need conversion but my edit is always reverted. Why? It is wrong? --151.71.42.64 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You have been reverted a few times. Don't edit war.  Start a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop to get consensus from other editors.  RudolfRed (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

SHOULD I CREATE A SINGLE WIKIPEDIA PAGE OR SEVERAL?
Hi, I want to create a wikipedia page for about 4 literary awards sponsored by one entity Texas Review Press. Each of the 4 awards has a different name and is for a different literary genre. Each of the 4 prizes have been around for over 20 years, so each of them has at least 20 prize winners each.

I'm unsure whether I should create a single wikipedia page for all the awards, or a separate page for each of the 4 prizes. Someone from Texas Review Press has indicated that they would prefer to have different wikipedia pages for each award -- I've looked at wiki pages for other literary prizes, and I see that some prizes from the same organization are listed separately while some are listed together on the same page. On the other hand, it might be easier to get an all-on-one-page submission approved -- to be split up later if needed.

(For examples of wikipedia page literary prizes, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_fiction_awards )

One other detail. Even though Texas Review Press probably merits its own wikipedia page, there is currently no page for it, and I would not be the right person to work on that (I just want to list the prize winners). Any advice/suggestions about how to submit this? Robert J Nagle (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Do reliable sources typically combine treatment of these awards, or do they write about them separately? What we do here should not depend so much on what the award sponsors say about their creation, but on what independent sources say. —Kusma (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I see a page that is so small, and so specific, that it seems that it should combine with something else. I would, at least partially, judge based on the size of the (expected) page. I suspect that means one page, with appropriate sections. Maybe you just have to write it and see how it looks? Gah4 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I see a page that is so small, and so specific, that it seems that it should combine with something else. I would, at least partially, judge based on the size of the (expected) page. I suspect that means one page, with appropriate sections. Maybe you just have to write it and see how it looks? Gah4 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I would draft out the one page so it can cover the organization that gives out the awards. The individual ones can always be redirects and spun out later if independently notable. But if you are doing this at the request of the group, then you'll have to disclose conflict of interest per WP:COI  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If there isn't even an article here about Texas Review Press, I'd say the odds that we would consider awards given out by that press to be pretty close to nil. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I agree with Orangemike. Creating Wikipedia articles about awards given by an organization that is not itself the subject of a Wikipedia article is like putting the cart before the horse, as the old saying goes. You are asking to fight an uphill battle against editors who will argue, with a certain degree of logic on their side, "How can awards given by a non-notable organization themselves be notable?" That will be a very tough battle to win. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all who replied. (By the way, I have no conflict of interest here). This is useful information. I will look into how the awarding body could qualify for notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)