Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 June 25

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ = June 25 =

Search box
Why was the search box removed from the top of pages so that only a magnifying glass remains. Please bring back the search box! Having a search box make it much easier to find the page you want when using a mouse! Disguy (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This may be an issue with the default skin called Vector 2022. In your account preferences you can switch to a different skin, such as legacy vector.  That's what I am using and I see the searchbox.  RudolfRed (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RudolfRed! Your reply really helped me! After reading your reply I learned that the search box disappeared because I had been switched to Vector 2022 while logged out. After I logged in to Wikipedia, I was switched to the MonoBook skin, which I disliked despite there being a search box. On your advice, I switched to the legacy vector which I like better! Disguy (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is only Vector 22 that replaces the search bar with a magnifying glass icon in narrow windows. Those of us who edit on bigger monitors don't see the problem. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Villa Mapelli Mozzi
References 1,  3 and 9  are all in red. Please fix, I cannot. Sorry! 115.70.23.77 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As the error message says, you need to fill in the "journal=" parameter any time you use Cite journal RudolfRed (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Rollback
I have roughly a hundred mainspace edits, and WP:ROLL says I need over two hundred to be a rollbacker, which I really want. Some of the time I have mistaken good-faith edits for vandalism, and the article says I need to demonstrate good judgement. How would be a good way to determine accurately what is vandalism, what should I categorize it as for a user warning, and how to be ready to ask for rollbacker status. Additionally, would I need to be extended-confirmed? Apollo getticax | talk  03:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea, . Rather than amassing merit points so that you can acquire (humdrum) superpowers, just improve articles. While doing this, you will of course help the encyclopedia. You'll also read something of accusations (justified or unjustified) of vandalism, and denials (ditto) of vandalism, and from these will gradually get a pretty solid understanding of what is and isn't vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have a fairly good record of undoing unconstructive edits. Feel free to make a request for the right at Requests for permissions/Rollback. Bear in mind that you should continue reverting as before when an expanation is required. Rollback is to be used only in specific cases, like obvious vandalism. I don't use rollback much myself, because most of the time when I revert, it requires an explanation in the edit summary. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I have only around 125 mainspace edits. Isn't that too less for rollback? Also, I've only been patrolling for a week.
 * Either way, thanks for the encouragement and advice! I'll make sure to follow it. Apollo getticax  | talk  20:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Mira Redina.jpg
How to nominate this fair-use image for deletion properly? There is the free replacement uploaded under the same name: c:File:Mira Redina.jpg. Quick1984 (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . There are two possibilities: (1) remove the file from wherever it's being used and tag it with Template:di-orphaned non-free use per WP:F5, or (2) leave the file in place wherever it's being used and tag it with Template:di-replaceable non-free use per WP:F7. Regardless of which approach you follow, you should notify the uploader of the file as a courtesy. Moreover, if someone disagrees with your assessment of the non-free file, deleting it is considered contentious and you should start a discussion about it at WP:FFD.If you follow approach (1), make sure you leave an edit summary clearly explaining why you've removed the image. If you follow approach (2), in addition to leaving an edit summary, it's also a good idea to use Template:Deletable file-caption and possibly post something on the article's talk page briefly explaining why you feel the non-free image is no longer policy compliant for future reference. Before you do either (1) or (2),though, you should be pretty sure (at least as sure as you can be) that the Commons file is something that's actually OK for Commons per c:COM:L. Lots of people upload files to Commons that ultimately end up being deleted (sometimes very quickly). You can ask about the Commons file at c:COM:VPC if you want other opinions on its copyright status.Finally, since the local non-free file is shadowing the Commons file, you're either going to need to request a rename one of the two files or wait until the local non-free is deleted per F5 before adding the Commons file (the software will keep using the local file over the Commons file if you try to replace the former with the latter because the file name is the same). If you follow approach (2), you don't need to do anything regarding the file's syntax; the software will automatically replace the non-free with the Commons file after the former has been deleted. You should, however, make sure to remove the "deletable file-caption template" if you used one and also update the caption if necessary once the non-free has been deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The two images look like different scans of the same source photo. —Cryptic 08:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Quick1984: If the two files are bascially the same as pointed out above by Cryptic, then there's really no need for the local file to be deleted because only the copyright status of the original source (i.e. the film) matters. Since creating a screenshot or cropping an image are pretty much never considered sufficiently creative enough acts to generate a new copyright, you can simply convert the local file's licensing to the same one used on Commons and replace the non-free use rationale with Template:Information. However, you'll still need to deal with the file name issue if you either want to move the local file to Commons or want to use the Commons file instead of the local file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * These are not scans but movie stills probably made closely in time to each other. Quick1984 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If both files are screenshots taken from the same film, then the only thing that would matter is the copyright status of the film. If the film is considered to be within the public domain, both screenshots should be OK for Commons. If, however, each image is from a separate publicity photo during the making of the film to promote the film, then the copyright status of each photo would need to be considered, I think. FWIW, I don't think either of the source websites provided for the non-free image should be considered the original source of that image; the two websites listed in the non-free use rationale's source parameter almost certainly got their version of the image from somewhere else; so, any claim of copyright ownership they might possibly claim wouldn't (at least in my opinion) be valid, -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:William Boleyn Archdeacon of Winchester d.1582
I recently (last week) created an article in Article Wizard entitled William Boleyn Archdeacon of Winchester d.1552. I then tried to SUBMIT it but there was no SUBMIT button. After some difficulty I discovered that I could MOVE it out but it would not allow me to do so unless I changed the title (which I did not want to do). I didn't know what I should change it for but I gave it some new name and the MOVE was successful but there was no mention of a review. Since then I have received 2 incomprehensible and unreadable emails from your HELP desk and I have no idea where my article is or under what title. Can you find it for me? If you can please let me know whether or when it will be reviewed. Please don't send me loads of gobbledygook. I am NOT a computer man, just a user. Thank you, Andrewcliftonpayne Andrewcliftonpayne (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , your draft is at Draft:William Boleyn Archdeacon of Winchester d.1582. You should be able to submit the draft for review by tapping the blue button at the bottom of the header, just above your text. Folly Mox (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add Welles Crowther to the list of notable alumni of Belmont High School, Belmont, MA
Dear Sir or Madame: I have noticed today that the list of the notable alumni of the Belmont High School (Massachusetts) does not have the name of Welles Crowther who was a hero of September 11, 2001 and was an alumni of this school. The article should absolutely include his name as well. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Irina Matveeva Author of several Wikipedia articles 2601:19B:F00:AE0:E1FA:F42:50BB:2443 (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In order to add Welles Crowther's name to the list of alumni, we would need published evidence that he attended that school. Shantavira|feed me 15:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, multiple sources say he grew up in Nyack. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * According to his obituary, Welles Crowther attended Nyack High School and is listed as an alumni in that article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Best method for using [sic] template inside Reference tags?
I am sorry to ask what is probably a dumb question, but I've read the MOS/SIC material over multiple times and studied the SIC template enough to understand how to apply the SIC tag in the normal text of an article, but when I try to use it within a Reference tag, it does not display as I would expect, and I've grown frustrated with trial and error testing to get something that renders the SIC tag "properly" in the References section and adheres to WP best practice.

So, I'm humbly asking for help.

What is the best way to indicate that a typo exists in the source material within the Reference tag so that it shows up "properly" in the References section at the end of the page?

Note, I have read and understand the preference to silently correct trivial typos. This particular use-case is called into question when the typo is in the title of a referenced work, posing a risk to a researcher's ability to locate the source without making the typo part of their query. ShoneBrooks (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The reason that doesn't work is that title in cite web becomes part of a link, but sic also makes a link. You can't have a link inside another link, so it breaks. I changed it to, which suppresses the inner link. Rummskartoffel 17:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thank you! ShoneBrooks (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Shonebrooks The documentation for sic says it shouldn't be used in CS1 and CS2 templates as it breaks the COinS data (which I confess I don't fully understand). All the template is doing is adding a wikilink to sic for the convenience of readers who don't know what the word means. Hence I would suggest just adding the simple text " [sic] " to your title, which will be OK for most readers. Using |nolink=y is going to suppress the wikilink anyway, so I can't see the point of using the template in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Changing username
What is the best procedure to usurp an existent username (of an inactive user) and set it as my global user account name? — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa  16:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * See WP:UNC. However, it doesn't seem like a good idea to request someone else's username as it might lead to confusion.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * the last time the guy was active was in 2006... — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa  16:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But why is it important to have his username? This would only lead to confusion.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * aighty then, will look up another name, thanks! — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa  16:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:USURPNAME would be the exat policy on this, but you can't usurp a username that was ever active here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That isn't true. I started out on Wikipedia as User:Amatulic, but my username in most other places on the internet is Anachronist. The name 'Anachronist' was already taken on Wikipedia, and it had one edit and hadn't been active for several years. Eventually that username was changed to something random because the account was abandoned (sort of like what happens with WP:VANISH) and the username became available. Now it's mine. You can usurp a username from an abandoned account that has edited. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In your case the old account (Special:CentralAuth/Anachronist-retired) was apparently controlled by you, so of course you could have it renamed. More generally, the renamers are willing to ignore accounts with a de minimis number of edits. If the number of edits isn't de minimis then how long ago they are is irrelevant. There's no exact definition of "de minimis", though. But I've been thinking about renaming my account to just "Perry", which I probably can't do since Special:CentralAuth/Perry has 70 edits on German Wikipedia in 2006. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't controlled by me. The only account I ever had before then was Amatulic, and I created that username because "Anachronist" wasn't available. I believe I created "Anachronist" accounts on other WikiMedia projects such as Wiktionary (this was before the global username thing was implemented), so I had "Anachronist" established elsewhere. I waited years before I could usurp that username here, in fact it didn't happen until long after I became an administrator with the "Amatulic" username.
 * I didn't request that the old "Anachronist" be renamed either. I can only assume that my other wiki-presences convinced a bureaucrat to rename it. There was, I recall, one edit in the contribution history (no longer there) in an article I had never touched. What happened to that edit, I don't know, maybe it's now in my own contribution history. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * m:Special:PermaLink/16050927 suggests otherwise. Note that accounts are (and were in 2016) global on all WMF wikis. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is a stretch, but it seems like just maybe Anachronist knows what happened with their accounts back then better than you. Next time you think there's a discrepancy, better to ask them about it rather than tell them about it.  As I recall, when accounts were being reconciled after global accounts came into being, this kind of statement was often needed before non-global accounts could be usurped. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The user rename log is missing a rename here so I can understand Pppery didn't find it. The log for Anachronist only shows a 2016 rename to Anachronist-retired, an account controlled by the current Anachronist. The log for Anachronist-retired oddly shows a 2015 rename from Anachronist to Anachronist~enwiki where Anachronist-retired wasn't involved. Special:Contributions/Anachronist~enwiki shows a single 2002 edit so Anachronist remembers right. The log for Amatulic shows a rename to Anachronist. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Plot present tense
The Eternaut is a comic with a narrator character that introduced himself in the begining and then procees to narrate his story, from first-person perspective. Except for the prologue and epilogue (the character showing up to narrate his story, and his actions after doing so), everything in the story happens in the past. Should the plot be described in present tense anyway? Cambalachero (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:FICTENSE said on the matter: "Conversely, discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well." So the answer to your question is no, for events that took place in the fictional world's past, it should be written in the past tense. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * MOS:PLOT, the guidance on plot summaries recommends narrative present and quotes Citizen Kane as an example where non-linear storytelling elements have to be explained in out of universe perspective.. WP:FICTENSE is part of an essay and recommends historical present tense, but makes an exception when talking about fictional history. TSventon (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

What to do if I disagree with notability reason for rejection
My biography article was rejected due to notability, but I do include a ton of secondary sources, also this person I am writing about is quite well known in the Buddhist world. I believe the rejection was done in error, because the reviewer did not see the many references that are secondary sources. It's possible the reviewer did not see those because they are interspersed among other sources that are primary (the biography person's own writings) but the reviewer may have missed the secondary sources in the references (there are 53 references there).

Most of the references in the "Chronology" section of my article are valid secondary sources.

These may have been confused with primary sources as follows: some of these sources are the audio talk or article of the person being written about. However, these are well known websites (such as dharmaseed.org) and I include those links because they contain an introductory paragraph about the author whose biography this article is about. If the DharmaSeed website writes the biography of Santikaro - isn't that a good enough secondary source? I include many such secondary sources but as I explained about the reviewer may not have followed them and may have thought they are primary sources.

I am not sure what to do - this person is hugely well known lay teachers of Buddhism in the West. How am I supposed to enhance or fix this article if I thought I already found all secondary sources out there that I could find. There are at least 10 in my list of 53 references. I am extremely dissapointed with this verdict because I believe it is super unfair. There are so many other teachers who do the same as Santikaro but have accomplished much less, yet they have a page on here.

Please advise on what I can do to find better secondary sources. Or if I could just resubmit this as-is, hoping for a more reasonable reviewer to do their job.

Thanks for any consideration! Peaceful-D (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I suggest you begin a discussion with the reviewer who declined it. I suggest you point to your three best sources - if the reviewer was not impressed with the quality (reliability and independence) of many of the sources, then more sources would not improve things. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Your draft was declined not rejected. Those are very different outcomes. Your draft is over-reliant on primary and non-independent sources. The backbone of an acceptable Wikipedia article is the list of references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic and that are entirely independent of the topic. I recommend that you rewrite Draft:Santikaro to summarize what the highest quality independent  sources say about him. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cullen328. There were 7-8 secondary sources, but hidden among many primary ones. In the rewrite I'll try to reduce the number of primary sources to articles by perhaps pointing to the parent website that contains each group. This way the secondary sources will stand out more. Peaceful-D (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , be sure that your sources are entirely independent of Santikaro. That is required to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ColinFine, I did what you suggested and asked politely. Thanks for your suggestion! Peaceful-D (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , when you cite seven or eight sources for a simple uncontroversial statement, as in Draft:Santikaro, it can give the impression that you are up to something fishy. I suggest that you reduce the citations to one (the best one, reliable and independent) in each case. Maproom (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Maproom. I understand. Will follow reducing citations to best one in Chronology. Peaceful-D (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)