Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 May 8

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ = May 8 =

What infobox should I use?
I am going to add an infobox to Ubehebe Crater, but it is a volcanic crater, not an impact crater, meaning I probably shouldn't use. DarkNight0917 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Nearby craters, such as the Amboy Crater use Template:Infobox mountain. If you don't think that is suitable, then I suggest you omit any infobox. Shantavira|feed me 08:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Your other choice would be to create Template:Infobox volcanic crater if you really think it is needed. Use and  as worked examples. -Arch dude (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Citation with unverifiable content
I recently came across an citation that claims its source was published by a certain faculty of a certain university, but without any other information at all. When I followed the link, I found it was a blog site written by a collection of writers with zero background on the writers, and zero publishing details for the website as a whole. In other words, the only thing we know about the website is its title, and the info contained in the citation appears to have been invented. What is the best way to deal with this type of citation? Should it be deleted, or if not what is the best maintenance template to add to it? Junglenut &#124;Talk 05:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Junglenut, certain aspects of your description above permit two interpretations, so a conscientious response would have to be verbose. Therefore please point to the specific dud citation. -- Hoary (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Haha, sorry about that. The article in question is Polytrichum juniperinum, the citation is #7, the last in the list, which simply states "Thunder Bay, ON, Lakehead University, Faculty of forestry and the forest environment (Producer)", i.e. there is no author name, no publication details. Going to the external link in the citation, we find a page with a small amount of information on the WP article's topic, but there is nothing to say that this is a reliable source. There is no bio for the author, and no publication or bio for the website. The website has a lot of pages on a variety of subjects, written by a lot of different authors with no background information.
 * Additionally, since posting this question, I've realised that the cited page does not support (at least some of) the statements in the WP article. Junglenut &#124;Talk 06:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fascinating! borealforest.org looks to me like a congeries of mildly interesting stuff lifted from elsewhere, and advertorials. At the foot of the page, we read "Conctact us / Email: marketing[at]shantelllc.com". I opened a "private window" to take a look at shantelllc.com, half expecting to be confronted by (illustrated!) products for erectile dysfunction or whatever. Nothing (to my relief). I guessed that the domain name referred to "Shantel llc", and gurgled Shantel, but nothing obvious came up. Oh, but yes, it did after all. Conclusion: Junk source; delete. -- Hoary (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, ? Fixed. -- Hoary (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Signifying ability to use Content Translation Tool
Hello all, I have recently gained extended-confirmed protection and am now able to use the Content Translation Tool (I am also fluent in French). Is there a template of sorts that I can put on my userpage to show other editors that I can do this? I'd rather just do translations and leave the work of determining notability to other editors. Alternatively, is there a way I can either see a category of pages that were poorly machine-translated or pages that have already been determined to need an article in English? Thanks so much! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As somebody fluent in French, JuxtaposedJacob, you'll be unusually well qualified to judge the reliability of the sources identified by the particular French-language article you're thinking of translating. Why "leave the work of determining notability to other editors", when determination (one way or another) is likely to be harder for them than for you, and determination of lack of notability will mean that the work you'd done will be wasted? (And probably wasted in a way that will generate yet more waste, as it may well have to go through the tiresome AfD process, with comments, arguments, misunderstandings of French, corrections to misunderstandings, etc etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @JuxtaposedJacob You might want to consider looking through Category:Articles needing translation from French Wikipedia. These are articles which already exist here, but where the French language equivalent contains a significant amount of extra information that could be translated. 192.76.8.90 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

About VGSCOPE
The article on the Dream SMP has an insanely detailed description of the plot. However, the article on Hypixel has no description at all of gameplay. How are we allowed to give excruciating detail on the Dream SMP and not allowed to give a few sentences on Hypixel's gameplay? When Sataybfaridi ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypixel&diff=prev&oldid=1126220208 ) and SpaceByte ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypixel&diff=prev&oldid=1141196397 ) added more detail they got reverted. superMinecraftL (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @hello world 6: because every statement on wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. sportskeeda and wikihow are not reliable, see this and this. lettherebedarklight晚安 07:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * (for this your username), editors mustn't add unsourced material and mustn't cite unreliable sources. One of these reversions cited a lack of a source; the other the unreliability of sources. This is clearly stated in the respective edit summaries. (I haven't looked at the accuracy of these summaries.) I can't judge whether the detail in Dream SMP is insane or excruciating -- I find any game description soporific, I regret to say -- but if you do then you are free to argue on Talk:Dream SMP for abridgement or compression. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

amarcord (ensemble)
Good morning, could someone correct the title of the amarcord (ensemble) page by changing it to "Amarcord (ensemble)" (uppercase)? JackkBrown (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @JackkBrown all you need to do is remove the  template from the page 192.76.8.90 (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much IP address, done! JackkBrown (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Search box
missing search box 78.150.0.44 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The search box is at top left. Depending on your browser width and zoom level, it may simply appear as a magnifying glass icon. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Weird redirect
Oversteps redirects to Oversteps (album) even though there is no other article named Oversteps on Wikipedia, nor a disambiguation page, so there is no room for confusion. Other language Wikipedias just use Oversteps as the title with no (album) disambiguator. Why is this? Why not just use Oversteps as the article name? — theki   (hit me up)  15:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the article histories. It appears that the article was originally titled just "Oversteps", before it was WP:BOLDly moved to "Oversteps (album)" in 2014. The reason given by the mover was that overstep plural is the basic meaning of oversteps - i.e., a claim that the album isn't the primary topic for the title. As a consequence of this move, the old page title was left as a redirect to Oversteps (album), and the mover apparently opted not to retarget the redirect to either Overstep or Overstep (disambiguation).I would recommend doing either of two things at this point. (1) If you agree with the move, I would recommend retargeting the redirect at Oversteps so it points to Overstep (disambiguation) instead. (2) If you feel that the album's article should return to the plain title Oversteps, I would recommend opening a Requested Move discussion on its talk page. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. I was quite conflicted but I went with the former suggestion of retargeting it to the disambig page. I'll see how it turns out as it doesn't seem like any article uses Oversteps to link to Overstep (with the only use of the plural redirect being used in user pages). Fortunately if someone comes around and disagrees they can always change it. — theki   (hit me up)  13:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Question in French
Bonjour Je cherche à retrouver la page que j'ai commencé mais hélas impossible de la retrouver ! je ne suis pas assez douée pour créer mon wikipédia ... BebeRoseEvane (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @BebeRoseEvane Bonjour. I think you may be looking for fr:Utilisateur:BebeRoseEvane/Brouillon. You have not created a page on the English language Wikipedia.
 * Je pense que vous cherchez peut-être fr:Utilisateur:BebeRoseEvane/Brouillon. Vous n'avez pas créé de page sur Wikipédia en anglais. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Si vous cherchez la version de ce brouillon du 1. mai, celle que vous avez supprimé, voir https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:BebeRoseEvane/Brouillon&oldid=203873200 . ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV
It seems to me that these 3 articles do not follow a NPOV and that they lack reliable secondary sources: Charles Upton (poet), Ziauddin Sardar and Evgeny Mechkasov. As English is not my mother tongue and as, furthermore, I am rather new on WP, would someone be kind enough to intervene in these 3 pages since I can't do it? Thank you, Manamaris (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've nominated Charles Upton (poet) for deletion. It does not appear to be about a person for which enough source text exists to support an article.  The Ziauddin Sardar article could use some cleanup, but it appears that person is likely notable enough for an article.  Many of the sources for Evgeny Nechkasov appear to be in Russian, a language I don't speak, so I have a hard time judging that one.  I'll leave it for someone who does to make an assessment.  -- Jayron 32 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Manamaris: In the future, you may add POV or primary sources to the top of an article and/or detail your concerns on the article's talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GoingBatty. --Manamaris (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Ideology
When we talk about political parties and politicians it is usually needed for context to define their ideology or political position. Should we use their self-identification when available (interviews, Party platforms, etc), or third party's categorizations?

Self-identification may sound like a primary source, but a man saying "I'm a firm believer of Movementarianism" or a party officially stating "This party endorses the principles and ideas of Movementarianism" would sound like clear-cut things to reference. And besides, this is not info that exists out there like the color of the sky, it's info that originates on that man or party.

And let's say that sources "say" something else. If there is a dispute we should of course mention all sides and their arguments, but if a source is merely adding an adjetive in passing (e.g.: "John Doe is a Xist politician") instead of a full argument over it (e.g.: "John Doe claims to be an Xist, but he's actually a Yist, and those are the reasons..."), is that even a dispute, are such references worth anything? Cambalachero (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Por qué no los dos? Why not write "The party describes itself as X, Y and Z.  While they do not describe themselves as such, sources such as A, B, and C describe them as P, Q, and R".  There's no reason to not do both.  -- Jayron 32 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If we only use their self-identification, we'd lose any distinction between conservative and far-right; and I think there is a distinction to be made. But people don't (generally) identify as far-right, and when a politician is described as such in Wikivoice it's often a matter of contention, however if reliable sources describe them as such, I think it's appropriate for us to do the same. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Attach photo to related text
Photos that I have added to support specific topics on a page do not stay with that topic but show up with other topics depending on the screen size that I am viewing. How do I attach a photo so it stays with the appropriate topic? Thanks! Stardust39 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Stardust39: Please provide the specific article name, and provide information on which photo should be associated with which section. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I just fixed the MOS:SANDWICH problem on Radio-controlled car. As I mentioned in my edit summary, there are far too many images on that article. Keep the ones that show key points and bin the ones that are there for decoration or because they look nice. After that has been done your problem of images not staying near the associated text will miraculously disappear. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Provide Article about Horace A Crosswell?
In the wiki article on Crosswell Glacier, Horace A Crosswell's name is highlighted in red, indicating no article associated with his name. We, his son and daughter, have relevant factual information about his background and role in establishing the scientific station at the South Pole in 1956–57. We would happily draft a brief, factual article if that would be useful. Please advise Suzjohns (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Suzjohns, who is operating this account - the son or the daughter? Only one person should have access to it. That said, you should review our notability standard for people: WP:NPERSON, and also our guideline about editing with a conflict of interest: WP:COI. There's a lot of reading on those two pages, take your time. If you decide that our notability standard is met, I recommend proceeding to read Help:Your first article and following the directions. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, Suzjohns. In addition to what 199. told you, please note that information from your own knowledge or from unpublished documents may not be used at all, (unless it is also in published works, of course), and sources written, edited, or published by Crosswell or his associates may only be used in limited ways (see PRIMARY). The bulk of the information in an article should come from reliable sources unconnected with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have removed the redlink. Based on what I've found (or rather not found), it appears he does not cross the notability threshold as a soldier. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)