Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 November 28

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ = November 28 =

Ronnie Hawkins
The article on Ronnie Hawkins claims that Roy Buchanan was the guitarist on Hawkins' version of "Who Do you Love". I believe that to be incorrect and that Robbie Robertson is the actual guitarist. 2600:6C44:5500:A7:C4:957A:6CDB:5205 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please address your concerns to the article talk page(Talk:Ronnie Hawkins, I think), but you will need more than your belief. You will need a reliable source to support your claim. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia - sympathizer/opposition
eature summary (what you would like to be able to do and where):

Hello everyone, I would like to propose an idea for wikipedia that in my judgement should be there a long time ago, to promote fair and responsible information.

On the biografy/info should have 2 sections, one from people who are against the subject/ideas and other from people that are in favor of it. It not necessarily need to have 2 sections, but allow contest quotes. It could be even extended, for the whole subject page depending on the subject's controversy.

Use case(s) (list the steps that you performed to discover that problem, and describe the actual underlying problem which you want to solve. Do not describe only a solution):

Example: A famous celebrity in his/her page would have 2 sides one narrative by their supporters and the other by their opositors if it has. People could select one part of the biography for example and put that under contest and explaining the other point of view. Sometimes even the person could write a personal note upon a specific theme.

Benefits (why should this be implemented?):

This is importante because, the subject written from only one point of view will be always biased. Allowing both sides to express their thoughts will eliminate the bias from the page. And we always should persuit the truth. This is a way to promote debate and allowing people to have a free and personal judgment upon a theme. 2804:14D:5C83:9BBC:0:0:0:D460 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are based on what is published in reliable sources and are not the place for support/opposition of a topic. RudolfRed (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Are abbreviations such as "i.e." and "etc." endorsed in Wikipedia articles.
To Wikipedia Arbiters, I have been editing Wikipedia articles for close to 14 years. For brevity, I have been using two abbreviations quite frequently, "i.e." (in other words) and "etc." (for example). I know Wikipedia tends to discourage the use of abbreviations, even though I cannot find the exact editor's Wikipedia page which mentions this at the moment. Are these two particular abbreviations ("i.e." and "etc.") acceptable, considering their wide usage? Is there a editor's Wikipedia article which discusses acceptable abbreviations? SMargan (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * SMargan, I think you want Manual of Style/Abbreviations and "i.e." and "etc." are fine. TSventon (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @TSventon - Thanks you so much for the clarification! That issue has been a constant matter of concern. A follow-on question from that is this. If an article uses the abbreviation of "etc." at the top, and "for instance", in another part of the article (where you would use "etc."), would you go through the article page and change each instance for continuity, and if so, which would you use in preference, "etc." or "for instance".SMargan (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, SMargan. If that inconsistency bothers you, you are welcome to edit it to make it consistent. But I don't think there is any policy that requires that sort of consistency. ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SMargan: I'm not aware of a requirement to use the same standard English language constructions throughout an article. I'd use a mixture of both, plus "for example", "such as", and any other similar synonyms to make the article interesting to read. I also try not to use abbreviations in open prose, restricting them to parenthesised phrases, infoboxes, tables and other places where brevity might be wanted. Context, as is often the case, is everything. Bazza (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @ColinFine, Bazza & TSventon: Thanks for your advice guys! It is good to get some bearings whilst editing these Wikipedia pages, via a clarification on some arbiter's positions on the Wikipedia edit policy. You have put my mind to rest. Thanks! SMargan (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we have a photo-hacker-magicians kiosk?
Hello! Not sure where to ask but maybe someone here knows where to go.

I'd like to get a high-res version of this image off the Mississippi Department of History website for use on Forks of the Road slave market and individual slave trader bios but it seems impossible.

https://da.mdah.ms.gov/series/maps/detail/572788

Do we have people who might have suggestions on how to pull it?

Thank you kindly. jengod (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Click the full screen button, zoom in all the way, screenshot each chunk, stitch them together. The image is roughly 5000x6500px; that's only about 21 subimages even if you've only got a 1080p screen.  Hardly impossible. —Cryptic 06:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do everything on my phone so it gets wonky *BUT* I just found it as much higher res in a PDF so extracted it from there. TY so much for the guidance tho! I'll try that next time. Best, jengod (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

android app
does anyone use this for editing? It seems focused on reading and caching. 3MRB1 (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * https://f-droid.org/packages/org.wikipedia/
 * 3MRB1 (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot create my user page while logged in with android app. What is this ? 3MRB1 (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Mobile apps for Wikipedia are quite limited in some ways (though they have some features that aren't there in the browser version), and most people do not use them for serious editing. But some editors edit extensively on their phones, using a browser. See Editing on mobile devices ColinFine (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist question
Is there a way to hide "MassMessage delivery" edits and/or edits from User:MediaWiki message delivery on your watchlist? Thanks - w o lf  05:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * User scripts/List shows User:Nardog/RCMuter. I haven't tried it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check it out and report back. - w o lf  15:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

How to view recent changes from mainpage?
I can't view recent changes from the mainpage. CometVolcano (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You may have it on a hamburger button ☰ at the top left. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not there. --CometVolcano (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a "main menu" taskbar at the left of the screen? 331dot (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is "main menu" taskbar, but no "recent changes" section in that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CometVolcano (talk • contribs) 13:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CometVolcano the RecentChanges button should show as in the image I put above. Is this not what you see? Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 13:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I can only see a "main menu" taskbar at the left upper corner upon clicking which there are main page, contents, current events, random articles, but no recent changes. CometVolcano (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you upload an image as Sungodtemple did so we can see what you are seeing? 331dot (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * CometVolcano It is under the 'Contribute' tab not directly under Main menu. Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 14:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got it, thank you Sungodtemple. --CometVolcano (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Article's subject is being sued
I have a doubt, it starts with Controversies involving Javier Milei, but it happens elsewhere from time to time. Someone has sued some famous person with a wikipedia article, and of course this is mentioned by the press (it would be a great scoop and clickbait, how not to publish it?). Problem is, anyone can sue for basically anything (in the linked case, for doing publicity for a business that later turned to be a scam, even if he had no other link to it besides the advertising), and most such weak cases are silently closed and archived by the judiciary some time later, without the press noticing so. Sometimes there are complex cases that take years before reaching a verdict, but sometimes it's just a weak case that anyone with a minimal knowledge of law would say it has no future of ever getting anywhere but to the archive. So, is there a threshold a judicial case should reach before being worth of mention in an article, or anything that can be referenced goes?

Just to clarify: I'm talking about public figures and how to deal in the articles with press reports of them being sued. I'm not suing anyone nor getting sued myself, nor I'm asking for any kind of actual legal advise. Cambalachero (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * On general Wikipedia principles, if it's reported in Reliable sources, it can be mentioned, but should not be given more prominence relative to the rest of the article than its significance (or lack of it) in the context of the subject overall. How much that is, is I suppose down to editorial judgement/consensus, unless someone known of a more specific policy? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.15} 51.194.245.32 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy point would be WP:BALASP: significance is determined by weighing the sources talking about one aspect against the body of all sources on the subject; that is, if only a few out of a great many articles about this person discuss a certain lawsuit, that lawsuit should be assigned low significance, but if it is referred to by a great many sources when talking about them, it is more significant. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, but then on the other hand WP:BLP, also a core rule, wants us to be cautions; at WP:BLPCRIME it says
 * It doesn't say (there) not to publish accusations/arrests/indictments, but I mean why else would it say what it does. And it says crimes not torts, probably because there's a limit to how much we can spell out, and it doesn't have language specifically exempting torts, which if (for some unfathomable reason) the writers had wanted to, you'd think it would say so.
 * It doesn't say (there) not to publish accusations/arrests/indictments, but I mean why else would it say what it does. And it says crimes not torts, probably because there's a limit to how much we can spell out, and it doesn't have language specifically exempting torts, which if (for some unfathomable reason) the writers had wanted to, you'd think it would say so.


 * But then on the other other hand, it says not to publish accusations/arrests/indictments if the person is not a public figure, which kind implies that for a public figure it's OK. It doesn't say that directly though. This could be an oversite, or deliberate, but again if they had meant to exclude public figures from the protection they could have said so straight out. (I kind of doubt they really meant that, I would guess that they meant particularly regarding private persons; it depends on how much you want to interpret the text of our rules as a strict textualist, which hopefully not very much.)


 * My reading is "don't do it", but then on the other hand Javier Milei is very much a public figure and wants to be. He's not going to sue us, and we can't hurt his feelings, but can we hurt his reputation? I do think we can. Other editors might not. For people like Barack Obama or Donald Trump etc, we can't really hurt their reputation much, but this guy... He's not been well know in the Anglosphere, hella people are going to want to learn about him, and his article is the #1 result in googling his name (after the stuff Google puts up now), so we are a big factor in defining his public face to the Anglosphere. We want to err on the side of caution with living people, and it's not like we don't pile on him enough in that article for the reader to get a sufficiently comprehensive idea on what his deal is, on an encyclopedic level.


 * TL;DR: Leave it out. Herostratus (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He was promoting a scam, for payment. Maybe he was too lazy to do his due diligence, but he accepted the payment and promoted it anyway. That should be mentioned. Maproom (talk)\
 * What's your proof? Herostratus (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What is WikiChecker?
why are some users blocked from access? Palisades1 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a website giving statistics on users and pages. It's not one I've often seen used, there are other websites (like XTools) that provide similar data in a slightly more accessible manner.  I don't know why some people are blocked from access - I'm not, although I don't recall using it before today. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Palisades1 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

references group="N"
Where is references group="N"? Mcljlm (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Which article? An editor may name a new reference group anything. Some editor named this one "N" in some article. -Arch dude (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Mcljlm the typical use case is an old-school alternative to efn. You might find them called under with syntax like {{reflist|group=N}}, but they could be grouped like that for another reason, and called in a  section. Folly Mox (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned here. I wanted to wikilink Whitaker's Almanack and Bloomsbury Publishing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-nominal_letters_(United_Kingdom)#References #7.Mcljlm (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. The ref (ref 7) is embedded in a "Note" (note 12). That note is in the wikitext as a ref with group="N". Your easiest approach is use the source editor on the whole article (hit the "edit" button at the top instead of editing a section). Search for "Whitaker" using the ctrl+F key in your browser, and when you find it, turn it into a wikilink. -Arch dude (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just did this. Thank you for providing the explanation. Folly Mox (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was useful to see what you did . I'm not sure I would have done it correctly. Mcljlm (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , this was a bit of a special case. Although some fields in the citation templates can just be turned into wikilinks (like publisher), the best practice for linking the title of a work is to add the title-link parameter. Similarly for authors and editors, you should use author-link or editor-link as appropriate. See Help:Citation Style 1 for the full details.The reason this was a special case is that the title of the work cited was, but the target article for title-link was Whitaker's Almanack. To avoid creating a surprise link, I first tried setting 2012, but that didn't make it sufficiently clear that the work changes contents yearly, which is why I used 2012 in the published edit.If you had just set title=Whitaker's Almanack 2012 as advised, it still would have been fine ☺️ Folly Mox (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I'm sure I'll come across other cases where links can be added. Mcljlm (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Province of Sondrio
Hi, why is the infobox on this page before the text? JackkBrown (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , because that is where infoboxes are almost always placed. Cullen328 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * in the sense that in visual mode there is first the image and then the explanation of what this province is (you understood in non-visual mode). JackkBrown (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , the underlying wikicode can be seen in the source editor. I see nothing at all out of the ordinary with the infobox coding, or how the infobox is displayed on the rendered article. Am I missing something? Cullen328 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * see the difference between the Province of Ravenna and Province of Sondrio pages. JackkBrown (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no difference in desktop. Most editors use the desktop site where the infobox behaves normally. I assume you refer to the mobile version viewed in a narrow window like a phone. Please always say you use the mobile version if you report layout issues. Infobox code nearly always appears before the first paragraph in the wikitext and therefore also in the generated html for the desktop site. Infoboxes have  which place them at the top right and allows text to "float" to the left if there is room. That works well in most desktop screens. Mobile viewers often don't have room to the left of an infobox so the designers of the mobile version chose to move the lead paragraph up above the infobox in the html. See mw:Reading/Web/Projects/Lead Paragraph Move. Some things can prevent this move. In Province of Sondrio it appears to be the use of coord before the infobox. Maybe the mobile code incorrectly thinks that the template output is the lead paragraph and there is no need to move another paragraph. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @JackkBrown: Building on the answer above, Province of Ravenna has coord at the end of the article, while Province of Sondrio has coord at the top. The documentation at Template:Coord states "Per WP:ORDER, the template is placed at the bottom of the article..." so I fixed the Province of Sondrio article, which I hope fixed your issue. GoingBatty (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)