Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 October 30

= October 30 =

Iga Świątek
I forget where to fix this, so am asking one of you fine folks to do it.

When I search on mobile for Iga Świątek, the suggested results tell me that she is a football player and boxer. Is this maybe Wiki Data?

Thanks, † dismas †|(talk) 00:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was just regular vandalism. Reverted. —  Wasell ( T ) 🌻🇺🇦 05:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

List of NFCC images
I would like more clarity regarding the usage of Non-free content, specifically multiple logos in list style Wikipedia articles. Examples include Apple worker organizations, most political party lists e.g. List of political parties in the United States which all use multiple fair use images, some of which are available in standalone articles. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All the ones in List of political parties in the United States that I looked at claim either public domain or a CC licence. The apple article does hae two fair use ones that don't have their own articles. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Non-free content is generally not allowed to be used in stand-alone list articles or embeded lists within other articles per WP:NFLISTS because such non-free use is almost always considered to be WP:DECORATIVE and thus not satisfying non-free content use criterion #1 (WP:FREER) and non-free content use criterion #8 (WP:NFC). There can also be non-free content use criterion #3a and non-free content use criterion #10c issues associated with such types of non-free use because the same logo sometimes ends up being used multiple times in the same article. Instead, simply linking to (either by WP:WIKILINK or WP:HATNOTE) the primary stand-alone articles about the individual entries tends to be considered more than a sufficient alternative to non-free use. Moreover, the use of logos (free or non-free) is, in general, also discourage in lists and tables per MOS:LOGO if the logo's primary function is a sort of "decoration" and not contextual. However, freely licensed or PD content is not subject to the same restrictions as non-free content, and thus you often find such logos used in articles like "List of political parties in the United States". As for the non-free use of logos in articles like "Apple worker organizations", it too is typically not allowed even though the article may not seem like a true list article. Generally, non-free logos are fine to use for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the entity they represent, but uses in other articles or in other ways tends to be be much harder to justify per WP:NFCCP. Often such logos start out being used in stand-alone articles, but these articles end up subsequently being merged into a parent article for some reason (e.g. lack of notability); since the non-free logo was originally being used in accordance with relevant policy, it often is mistakenly assumed that the justification for that particular non-free use is automatically just as valid for the way the logo is now used after the merge. Of course, this almost never the case, but it's not really something those merging the text content give much thought. Unless there's specific sourced critical commentary related to the logo itself (not what the logo represents), such non-free use is almost never considered OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What to do with link that now leads to a spammy site
In the article Upattinas School and Resource Center, there is a link to the former school's website. The link now leads to a spammy site of unknown purpose. Should I remove the link, mark it as dead, or do something else? Thanks!  Physeters ✉ 02:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Look for a current working URL and substitute it if you find one. Do not leave the bad URL, that is clearly dicey. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the original site archived anywhere (Wayback Machine, archive.today, etc)? If so then for any references that use it, if the article is using a Citation Style 1/2 template set the archive-url parameter to the archive URL, archive-date to the date the site was archived, and set url-status to "usurped" or "unfit". If the article is not using a CS1/2 citation template, then you may want to either convert the article to that citation style (if there's only a couple of references), or use the webarchive template.
 * If the URL is in the Infobox or the external links though, I'd probably just remove it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sideswipe9th, the url is in the infobox, but has but the site it links to has been extensively archived. Should I not insert an archive link and just fake the original's appearance?  Physeters ✉ 02:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ELDEAD suggests that it can be acceptable to use an archive link in the external links section, and I'd probably extend that to cover the website parameter in an infobox. So yeah, I think that'd be OK. Just make sure to add in your edit summary why you're doing this so that other editors know why the links in the article have changed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, Thanks!  Physeters ✉ 03:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Source replier and topic adder isn't really working
I have discussion tools enabled. Six days ago I added User:Mr.Z-man/badimages.js to my common.js. Ever since then I"ve been having issues with discussion tools' source mode like being unable to enter after clicking on the text box until I switch to visual and back again or click on mention and delete the @, being unable to do newlines unless I just use , etc. Is that script really causing all these issues? If so, which part of it? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Aaron Liu You seem to have commented about the script at User_talk:Mr.Z-man/badimages, which is probably the best venue for sorting this out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Michael D. Turnbull: @Mr.Z-man hasn’t edited in over 2 years, so a fix from him is likely not coming. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

My name is being used in appropriate information
I am reporting the page "Val Kalende." 209.6.155.52 (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we'll need a bit more information that just "the page is defamatory". Is there inaccurate information in the article, or do you have another complaint? (As an aside, using words like "defamation" is not a good idea here as it could be interpreted as a legal threat, which are not allowed on Wikipedia.) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The article Val Kalende seems to be passably well written. See WP:AUTOPROB if there are specific concerns.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Contribution problem
I just sent a contribution to Wikipedia. However, when I got to the employer box, I entered N/A. As I clicked on the send box, I saw at the last minute that your checking mechanism changed that to the name of some company. I do not care, you still get my shekels. However, depending on how the back end is structured, that company will probably not match my contribution. Bottom line, it annoyed me, so I am mentioning it. Beyond that, it is unlikely to change the fate of nations. AkivaPI (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, us on the English Wikipedia have nothing to do with the donation process, which is handled by the Wikimedia Foundation. Questions about donations should be sent to .  ■ ∃ Madeline</b> ⇔ ∃ <b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b> ; 18:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm rather puzzled by this as the Wikipedia Foundation should not be requesting personal information like that. I just filled out the form myself and there was no request for the name of my employer. Are you sure this was the genuine form? (You might also be interested to read about Wikipedia finances if you haven't already.) Shantavira|feed me 20:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Jahrbuch zur Liberalismus-Forschung
Should I be able to access Jahrbuch zur Liberalismus-Forschung, specifically an article in 28. Jahrgang 2016, via the Wikipedia Library? Searching the Library 2 volumes appear in the results list but not 28 and not the article.

Is there a more appropriate place to post the issue? Mcljlm (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Mcljlm, an internet search suggests that Jahrbuch zur Liberalismus-Forschung is available via Nomos. I accessed Nomos via Wikipedia Library, searched for Jahrbuch zur Liberalismus-Forschung, filtered for 2016 and was able to access the issue. TSventon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks TSventon. I'm now reading the article. 02:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Mcljlm (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)