Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 July 7

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ = July 7 =

Hiding TfD notifications
My saved links page looks awful at the moment because of TfD notifications about one of the templates I've used on it. What would I have to put in my CSS to hide these notifications? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 00:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have hidden it on the page itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :] Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Chinese premiers
Hi, recently a editor named User:Utoppiaa575 caught my attention. They seemed to number every single premiers in China, but User:The_Account_2 kept reverting them. I'm here to ask do we need to number them? Martin talk ( sign ) 04:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Please don't. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you help me tell him? Because i don't know why. Martin  talk ( sign ) 04:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Pages needing cleanup question
Please reply at the teahouse: Teahouse. Thank you. 2601:644:9083:5730:240E:C260:4C41:7F43 (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Lorna Patterson's birth date
just trying to figure out how to bring to someone's attention that this article about Lorna Patterson has info that conflicts with all other sites I've visited. It's listed as Oct. 1,1956 in Wikipedia but is listed as July 1,1956 on all other sites I've visited. Just wanted to alert someone so that info can be verified/ confirmed to be valid. 2603:800C:3D06:D0EB:1599:5E71:1FC7:EA80 (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Go to Talk:Lorna Patterson, and there point out that she was born on July 1, 1956 according to two reliable sources that seem to be independent of each other. (Specify the sources, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The date of birth was changed from July 1,1956 by an IP editor without explanation in 2017 so I have changed it back and added (what looks like) a reliable source. The editor also changed the date of birth of Abby Elliott, but that had already been reverted. TSventon (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a policy about using the quote parameter in a cite tag?
When adding or editing a ref using one of the cite tags, one parameter is the quote attribute which is for including "Relevant text quoted from the source".

I'm not finding any guidelines about when or how to use this parameter other than that. I prefer to include a brief sentence or clause via the quote parameter so that anyone can hover over the cite and see that it supports the referenced material. Of course, it needs to be short enough to not violate copyright, but other than that I'm not seeing any guidance.

Another editor on a page I watch is "fixing" cites and the quotes are being removed. I'm not sure if this is due to some policy, or it's an artifact of the visual editor (which has some issues with dealing with references). So, before I say "Hey, let's restore all these quotes in the citations" I'd like to know if I'm on solid ground. Thanks Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Citations never require quotes, and many editors see them as unnecessary clutter. I'm not sure where the guidance on this is located, but I think the idea is that an editor can write whatever they want in the quote parameter, so the only real way to verify a citation supports a claim is to inspect the original source. In practice, quotes inside citation templates have a tendency to duplicate the text citing them. Folly Mox (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A pox on quote which causes way too much clutter. For the record, I am not the editor who is removing quotations from articles on OP's watchlist.  If the quotation is  for the article, place the quotation in the article and cite it.  Quotations require citations; citations do not require quotations.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, it seems like there is varying opinion about whether to include this parameter, but no consensus or policy one way or another. Is this a correct reading?
 * Seems to me that when citing a long article (or a book) a concise excerpt means someone trying to validate the citation doesn't have to hunt for it. But this is just my opinion, and I didn't start this thread to solicit opinion, I'm looking for policy or some other guidance ala the MOS. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No pox from me! In principle, a citation asserts that the cited source  contains text to support the claim. The challenge is how to verify which portion of the text actually supports the claim ... and when there are multiple claims/sources involved, you don't even know which claim is supported by which source.  Providing a quote means that you're making very clear what content you feel supports the pertinent claims.  Having the precise text enables the reader to determine if the claim actually is supported by the text.  That's a lot easier than reading through perhaps a chapter of text and wondering which content presumably supports a given claim. Fabrickator (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly we are going to disagree. But could you clarify?  You wrote and when there are multiple claims/sources involved, you don't even know which claim is supported by which source. What?  Each claim should be paired with its own citation so that the claim/source pairing is clear.  If the condition you describe refers to a bundle of citations (WP:BUNDLING), it is better unbundle so that each claim is independently sourced and cited.  If that is not what you mean, please explain.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've found WP:FQ which says
 * A footnote may also contain a relevant quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. However, caution should be exercised, as always, to avoid copyright violations.
 * So, it's not required but may be "especially helpful" or "useful". Basically, it's the editors' call in any specific instance. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This feels like cherry picking. The first sentence of  reads:
 * In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article.
 * Taken as a whole, I read the WP:FQ guidance to mean: quote when necessary else leave the quotations out.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read it. A cite is sufficient without a comment, which implies comments are not a requirement.  But they may be "useful" or "helpful" and I don't see anything that implies they should be included only when necessary.  That seems to be making things up. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Presumably those who hew to may be "useful" or "helpful" see the inclusion of quotations as to some degree.  I'm pretty sure that I never said only when necessary. (emphasis mine).  I do not believe that may be "useful" or "helpful" should be used by editors as a 'carte blanche' to insert quotations into references that they create.
 * Yes, my personal view is that quotations are rarely necessary in any sense of that word. I believe that lifting a quotation out of its source deprives the quoted text of its context.  Without context, the meaning of a quotation gets fuzzy.  Nothing at en.wiki is permanent so quoted text is subject to the same 'improvements' that are applied to regular article text (spelling, punctuation, etc) which can alter a quotation's meaning; I have seen quotation text that has been altered by (perhaps well meaning) editors modernizing archaic language, for example.  An already fuzzy quotation becomes fuzzier.  Quotations are fragile.  For these reasons, I do not accept that quotations ensure that the reader can see precisely what we claim is supported by the source.  Let the readers themselves decide what the source actually says.
 * The only use for quote that comes to mind is as an in-source locator when the cited text lacks any other form of in-source locator (page number, section number, etc); this is an issue that arises when citing certain ebooks.  For these cases, a brief incipit of minimal length that can be used as a search string is sufficient to help the reader locate the text that our editor claims will support our article's text.
 * Yeah, I know, you didn't want opinion but there it is anyway.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The only use for quote that comes to mind is as an in-source locator when the cited text lacks any other form of in-source locator (page number, section number, etc); this is an issue that arises when citing certain ebooks.  For these cases, a brief incipit of minimal length that can be used as a search string is sufficient to help the reader locate the text that our editor claims will support our article's text.
 * Yeah, I know, you didn't want opinion but there it is anyway.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

my account
I recently created an account and the same day, I got a message saying one of my recent edits were undone. I did not make an edit and I was wondering if this has ever happened before; if it was a mistake, if someone else used my account or if something else happened. Thanks, P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peetzareea (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Contributions by your username can be found at Special:Contributions/Peetzareea, which you can also access via the "user contributions" item in the "tools" menu. If you did not make these contributions, then someone else is making edits under your user name. Change your password and log out, and always log out when you leave your computer from now on. -Arch dude (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The first edit claiming Catherine Eddowes had 18 children was made 2 minutes after you created the account. Considering the speed, if it wasn't you then it was probably somebody using the device you created the account with. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

My Bitcoin address: what is my IP
string/ HTTPS in the world 🌎 🌍 🌍 2600:1700:5060:32B0:ED:4B42:5A8F:752B (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 5060:32B0:ED:4B42752B:5A8F:752B 2600:1700:5060:32B0:ED:4B42:5A8F:752B (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the Help Desk for editing Wikipedia- we cannot help with bitcoin.  Qcne  (talk)  17:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Appointment Mohammad Rasool Mohammadi
Respected Sir/Ma'am

Greetings! Hope this email reaches you well.

I am Mohammad Rasool Mohammadi an Afghan National, i worked in different capacity to backed GOIRA (Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan) for bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan, and i also did the social activities especially in women empowerment, Human right and etc. As now GOIRA ( Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan) collapsed and the coalition forces are pulled out from Afghanistan, now due to my previous activities my personal safety became under tremendous threats, therefore I'm requesting to apply for the international protection act to find a safe haven for myself. I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely Mohammad Rasool Mohammadi 119.59.87.104 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello. This is a forum for getting help editing Wikipedia, and we are unable to help with other matters. We have no affiliation with any national governments or international organisations. AntiDionysius  ( talk ) 17:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

strange sentence in Myxococcus
Hello,

I just found this sentence: "Myxococcus is a single celled predatory bacteria that are facultative bacteria." Some sense can be guessed but it looks rather strange to me. In particular, what does "facultative bacteria" mean? A bacteria is not "facultatively" a bacteria - it's one or it's not - even though it can form colonies acting like a single organism that does not resemble bacteria at first glance. 176.159.12.72 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Facultative bacteria is a redirect to Facultative anaerobic organism, so I assume that article describes what is meant by "facultative" in the usage in question. Deor (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have a topic page Facultative. It might be intended to refer to their Quorum sensing abilities, but that article does not use the term, nor do the three references cited in the relevant paragraph, so I think that usage would be dubious and certainly in need of clarification. Is there a Microbiologist in the house? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.226.178 (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest you ask for clarification on the talk page of that article. Shantavira|feed me 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)