Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 January 9

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ = January 9 =

country
This information could go right above the "References" part of the current article on the Country Yumkins an make the article more complete.

"...made by a company called Trudy, based in Norwalk, CT., represented by the Gregory Greunke Company of San Francisco which presented the original prototype samples to the Del Monte Company. The Country Yumkin Christmas ornaments were also produced by Trudy, represented by the Gregory Greunke Company. 2601:647:67F:A720:F938:865E:3CF0:AE6F (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The place to ask for an article update is on the article's Talk page, at Talk:Country_Yumkins. That article has horrible sourcing, with general references only, and the one online source is not really in-depth.
 * If you do add this request to the Talk page, you'll need to also give a reference -- that is, tell us how you know this is true or where did this information come from?. David10244 (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Maintenance category visibility
Should Category:Redirects from pseudonyms really be a subcategory of (and therefore visible in) Category:Pseudonyms? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No. You can't put a maintenance category in a content category. You can read it in the template in the top of such categories. Pierpao (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Person biography eligibility
Can I use Google books reference for a author biography submission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnicalThakur (talk • contribs) 10:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You may certainly give a Google books link as the URL in a reference: that is an optional part of the reference, as a convenience for the reader. The important part of the reference is the author, title, date, publisher, page etc. (And it makes no difference whether this is for an author biography or any other kind of article: the sourcing requirements are the same - reliably published sources, in most cases independent of the subject of the article (though non-independent sources can be used for a limited range or information)). ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ISBN is a useful extra parameter, if available. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a usable reference, but it does not help demonstrate notability of the author because it is not independent of the author. See WP:CSMN to see some of the ways to figure out which references do not contribute to notability. -Arch dude (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify,, books written by author A are not evidence that author A is notable. Most authors are not notable. However, a book written by respected literary critic B that devotes significant coverage to author A's life and books is excellent evidence of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328 Well said; I was going to try to write the same thing,  but you did it better.  The earlier advice could have been misinterpreted, I think. David10244 (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

how to block a user
there are some users i wish to block, how do i block them? Jackson883941 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a social media site, it is an encyclopedia. Individual editors can not "block" each other. Admins can block editors, but only to stop damage to the project. This block removes the ability to edit. You can work with other editors to resolve whatever issues you have, or you can request help at one of the various admin boards. Interaction bans can be implemented between editors, but they can't be unilaterally declared by indivudual editors.  He  iro  23:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * then how to apply an "interaction ban"? Jackson883941 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's generally for people who have a long history of not being civil to each other, and is generally deemed to be not only a last ditch effort, but is very much a sanction on both parties. From what I can see, you actually want to block any user from interacting with you. You've commented "dont touch my talk page without my permission" et al. We are a collaborative project, I'd suggest working with other users than trying to assert this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You can use one of the admin boards (whichever one is applicable to your issue). You would have to explain your issue with other editors and why you think you need the iban. But this may not go well for you. I would listen to User:Lee Vilenski.  He  iro  23:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OP is now indefinitely blocked. Shantavira|feed me 09:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Couple formatting questions
At Corruption_Perceptions_Index, if you scroll to the right, there is an extra "2012 rankings" that is blank; how do you remove that row?

At Democracy_Index the sorting starts with "North America" instead of the usual ranking by number (from 1 to 167 in this case) - How do you change it so that the default sorting is numerical instead of by region? Thanks -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Somedifferentstuff, not sure about the second question, but the Corruption_Perceptions_Index table had code for a duplicate column header and no code for content in the duplicate column, so I removed the code for the header. TSventon (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * TSventon, thanks for fixing that 👍 -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Will await info on the second question. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm an editor of Democracy Index. Democracy Index shows the score of each country in 14 different years. It's deliberately organized to make it easy to find a country of interest. A numerical sorting would have to pick a year (probably the latest) and ignore the other 13. The page already has a table at Democracy Index which is sorted by the score in the latest year and that table is actually about the latest year so the current sort orders make sense to me. For the technical part, the default sort order cannot be changed. It's always the order of the source text (even if it doesn't match any of the sortable columns) so you would have to reorganize the whole source text. Don't do that without seeking consensus on the talk page. I would oppose. Maybe the table sorted by latest score should be displayed before the score history by country but that's another discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi PrimeHunter, thanks for your detailed response. When you look at some other rankings type lists, such as the List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index or Corruption_Perceptions_Index, they are sorted by ranking (not region).  I wasn't aware of the Democracy Index section, which is great, but I still don't think users benefit from sorting the current list by region. Not to worry, I will not make any changes to the current article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to check, @Somedifferentstuff; are you aware that the clicking the little set of up-and-down arrows in each column header resorts the table by that column's value? XAM2175  (T) 16:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Time between repeat nominations of a requested move
Half a month ago I requested the move of USACO. A user made a single objection that was invalid and didn't reply to me explaining why it was invalid. The discussion was relisted but then nobody replied. How long do I have to wait before starting another discussion? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a WP:Volunteer project, so no guarantees made for any timelines. If you renominate it for a move, I would agree with your opinion. It was rejected for lack of consensus/participation, and you didn't make many arguments. NATO is a famous example per MOS:ACRO where it's primarily referred to by its initialism. Ping me when you make the WP:RM/T again. USACO is also far more common name than the full name is. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that that's an entirely valid rationale, to be honest. Yes, NATO is overwhelmingly referred to in that short form both in text and in speech, but even in the list of exceptions at MOS:ACRO every other article there has a long-form title; European Union not EU, United Arab Emirates not UAE, United Nations not UN, and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics not USSR. In any case, MOS:ACROTITLE is the guideline covering this situation. To me, "USA Computing Olympiad" seems to strike a better balance between brevity and clarity than going down to acronym-only. XAM2175  (T) 16:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t get your argument about the exceptions here. I thought entries in the exceptions list DON’T have to be written out in full Aaron Liu (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, they don't have to written out in full anywhere in the body of an article – but even though they're that prominent, their articles still spell out the full name in the title. Per MOS:ACROTITLE, the burden for getting an initialism/acronym-only title is much higher than just "has an acronym"; the subject has to be "known primarily by its abbreviation" to such an extent that, in general, "readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym" (my emphasis). I accept that for NATO and NASA, and probably a few others with acronyms that can be spoken as though they're words, and for one or two non-wordform ones like IBM (which has been IBM in pretty much every usage except its legal name "International Business Machines Corporation" for more than 50 years now), but I don't really picture USACO being in the same boat. XAM2175  (T) 18:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it now. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)