Help desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 22

Direct linking to other language wikis

Hello. I'd like to ask, if it is accepted practice to directly link articles in other language wikis from English Wikipedia. For example in 2024–25 Women's Floorball Champions Cup, great deal of links point directly to articles at Czech, German, Swedish and Finnish wikis. I haven't seen this practice in other English wikipedia articles. Except for links using Template:ill, which clearly mark the link as pointing to other language. I've asked the author of the article. But from his/hers response, it rather seems like this was his/hers deliberate choice rather than a practice based on an accepted norm. I find this quite confusing, when I land on a completely different languages after clicking a link. Thanks. Prikryl (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen already, WP:ILL says The best practice is to use the template {{interlanguage link}} (my emphasis), but I don't see anywhere that actually forbids linking directly to a foreign-language article, and Help:Link actually has some examples of it.

I agree that a direct link to a foreign-language article is not desirable, according to the principle of least surprise. ColinFine (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another advantage of using the interlanguage link template is that it can create a WP:REDLINK, which is helpful in identifying missing articles that we may wish to create (or, in this case, translate from other language wikis). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy against direct links to sister language projects, although not calling them out in any way is certainly not best practice. Template:ill has some foibles, like always creating a redlink even if the sister language article would not meet en.wp's standards for inclusion, and has problems displaying non-ASCII glyphs on mouse hover / long press in certain browsers. I actually prefer direct linking for Chinese-language interwiki links for this reason. Folly Mox (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the redlink objection. I can add Folly Mox to an article even if such an article would not meet en-wp's standards for inclusion. There is no way for the redlink "code" to know that, it's an editorial judgement. I agree with the text of WP:ILL that it's best practice. When I click something that looks like a wikilink on en-WP, I should not be taken outside en-WP. But there are worse things than interwiki links, like Hope Dickson Leach. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely editorial judgement, and I recognise I hold a minority opinion. For clarity, the only thing I directly interwiki link is native Chinese characters, which I feel is reasonably unsurprising to be a link to a Chinese-language article. Folly Mox (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree directly linking makes more sense, but I would prefix it with the language code like zh:计算机科学 instead of 计算机科学 which are both preferable to Computer science [zh] ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where would a link to a zh-WP article that has an en-WP version be useful outside the "languages" menu? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just demonstrating an example that happened to be a blue link, but even so, if the enwp article was a stub, with a wealth of knowledge, I might link to the other language edition. And also slap a {{Expand Chinese}} template on the English language stub edition. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your responses. I'll look into replacing the direct links in the mentioned article (and other related articles by the same author) with {{Interlanguage link}}, as that seems to be the best practice based on your responses. Prikryl (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

move article to update name from Joe Frank Chambers to Joe Chambers (Entrepreneur

i can't find the moved article. I need help please. Thanks. MikeMARS52 MikeMARS52 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MikeMARS52 It is at Joe Chambers(Entrepreneur) so it needs to be moved to Joe Chambers (Entrepreneur) with a space added. TSventon (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a clean up as some sections seem to be copyvios of this Valenciano (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin (2018 film)

There are two different 2018 films named "Benjamin", Benjamin (2018 film) (British) and Benjamin (2018 American film). I just added hatnotes to keep them straight. Could someone please rename the first article to Benjamin (2018 British film)? Some other pages here refer to it with that name, including Benjamin (disambiguation)#Other. Thanks! 100.19.66.49 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. The name you want to move to is already a redirect. Moving articles over redirects needs admin rights, I think. You can ask at WP:RM/TM. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOVEOVERREDIRECT applies so any autoconfirmed editor can move it. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article name suggestions

I just found Lt Col Dwarakesh and was intending to move it to a better name. The problem is that all the references and search results refer to him as Lt Col Dwarakesh or Lieutenant Colonel Dwarakesh. The swimming results call him DWARKESH C. (missing the second A). Dwarakesh is a redirect to Dwarakish. Any suggestions where the article should go? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather welcome to Help Desk! I would keep it as is per WP:COMMONNAME. You could create a helpful redirect from Lieutenant Colonel Dwarakesh to Lt Col Dwarakesh if you want. See WP:REDIRECT for instructions on how. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You gave me a chuckle there. I'll make the redirect and hat note Dwarakish. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Christie

I noticed that the majority of sources indicate that the actress Julie Christie was born in 1941, but we have 1940 with a reference that I'm not able to consult because it requires a registration. Someone have access to this source? I would like to verify it. Thanks in advance. 87.1.243.195 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask at WP:RX for someone with access to look it up for you. However, according to WP:RSNP, Findmypast is not a reliable source. RudolfRed (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed Many thanks for your kind consideration. If it isn't a reliable and definitive source, I think that we should mention both dates, because multiple reliable sources cite 1941 (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp10132/julie-frances-christie ------ https://www.theguardian.com/film/2007/apr/01/awardsandprizes ------ https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/movies/oscars/julie_christie.htm ------ https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/light-at-last-on-julie-s-half-sister-british-paper-acts-detective-unveils-life-of-actress-s-hidden-indian-connection/cid/615877 ------ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/julie-christie-beauty-that-never-fades-774338.html). 87.1.243.195 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to check if a page has been reviewed/patrolled?

From WP:NPPLOG:

>Patrolled pages (or new pages patrolling) is a subset of the patrolled edits MediaWiki software feature, installed in Wikipedia in November 2007, that indicates whether an article has been patrolled by a reviewer or administrator through Special:NewPages, Special:NewPagesFeed, Special:RecentChanges, or otherwise.

However, it doesn't make clear how exactly to access this info. Is there a permission I need to view it? Is there page I can search on? I think that page should be made more clear.

I can see if my own articles have been patrolled via Special:NewPagesFeed or Special:NewPages but I am not looking for that. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2UDY7r00CRjH: This info can be accessed through Special:Log in a couple of ways. A link to a page's logs is provided when looking at a page's history. You do it like this (specifically like this) or like that. Note the different option choices provided here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz Thanks. I have one more question: if a page is not listed as reviewed, but was created by someone with autopatroled rights, does it have the same status as reviewed/patroled? specifically, I am trying to understand if there is any benefit to having Unreal Engine 5 be reviewed (log here). When I say benefit of having it reviewed, I mean in terms of google page ranking. To be clear, I have zero relation with Unreal Engine, so I am not trying to do SEO for them. I recently split Unreal Engine into multiple articles, including Unreal Engine 5, which used to be a redirect to Unreal Engine, and which is now ranked on page two for the Google search "unreal engine 5" while the "Unreal Engine" page is on page one. Basically, I want to know it the reviewed status would help it go to page one, as I know Google special cases Wikipedia results separate from the standard pagerank algorithm. I think users will be confused if they search for "unreal engine" and see "Unreal Engine" as the result. I also know it could just be a matter waiting for Google's search to update more but I'd like to know the answer in any case. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're now approaching the outer limits of my NPP knowledge, and some quirks and geek. Autopatrolled 'creations' don't appear in the log, so the initial revision was reviewed even though it doesn't appear in the log. However, converting the redirect to an article made it unreviewed. See WP:NPPREDIRECT, again not appearing in the log. The one true test I know of is to check the served article's (HTML) source, and check for a noindex in the robots meta tag (if you know Unreal you may understand that). Noindex is never good in search engines, and removing it is a primary feature of patrol. How to easily get it patrolled again ... oh, that's the limit of my knowledge. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say you can just look at Page Information (it's in the Tools dropdown in the default skin) to see whether indexing is allowed, instead of having to grovel through the html source... but it's saying "Allowed" for me even on new unpatrolled pages that are marked noindex in the source. Anyone able to confirm that this used to work like this? Or does this just look at the namespace and/or index/noindex magic words? :very confused: —Cryptic 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, this is phab:T157747, broken since at least 2017. —Cryptic 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>How to easily get it patrolled again ... oh, that's the limit of my knowledge

Wouldn't it just be a matter of someone reviewing it again? Anyway, thanks for the link to WP:NPPREDIRECT. I knew something seemed off with Google's indexing, and this may be the reason. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreviewed pages are not indexed at all unless they are >90 days old. Unreal Engine 5 is indeed currently not reviewed, and I'm not willing to review it myself since the merits of the dispute are contested at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Proposal_to_split_-_Unreal_Engine and this is exactly the sort of thing NPP should handle. People patrol Special:NewPagesFeed from both ends to find articles to patrol, but your article is currently in the muddle and NPP had a recent crisis causing a lot more pages than normal to enter the queue so it will take a while. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. that's interesting, because google is indexing it (it appears on the second page for the search "unreal engine 5"). I guess once it is indexes it once it takes some time for them to unindex it. In general they do respect the noindex robots.txt so I assume it is just a bug or time-related thing, although I would expect them to re-index Wikipedia more regularly than other sites.

>the merits of the split are contested

I think the result of that discussion was that we should try it out and if any of the editors don't like we could revisit the split. But that's fair that you don't want to review it given that there wasn't a very conclusive resolution there. That said, it has been almost a month since that discussion, and I have been sharing my drafts for input since the beginning, as well as having added a split proposal notice on the main page, which nobody responded to for about a week. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The index state for all pages are in the meta header tag. Robots.txt would be unwieldy to be updated with 6.5 million main space pages to be parsed through. There are some quirks as to how Google works with indexing Wikipedia. At risk of WP:BEANS, let's not go into there. – robertsky (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is appearing on page one or not is not a matter of the article being reviewed or not. As you have observed, it is currently on page two, but likely is due to the previous crawl that they did which indicated that the title was a redirect. Whether it appears on page one or not, it will be dependent on when Google will crawl the page next, which timeline is only known to Google. There is no way for us to request Google to crawl the page earlier. – robertsky (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Harris page, Early life and education section says she was born in 1964 and earned her Phd also in 1964. Can that be correct?

Kamala Harris page, Early life and education section says she was born in 1964 and earned her Phd also in 1964. Can that be correct? 2603:8001:4B00:E800:30BD:18A2:2C5:880F (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not. I'll see if I can figure out what it should read, and fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked, it is Hariss's mother that gets the PhD in 1964. Maybe this could be better worded though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Harrison Mason’s Profile

Dear Wikipedia, I have painstakingly added the standard books listed below, which were reviewed and published, including reliable information about Charles H. Mason’s life and works, to his Wikipedia profile. He is a religious leader, denomination builder, and a significant historical figure in the African American Pentecostal faith community. I am curious as to why all of my scholarly edits have been deleted, to which I have dedicated considerable time and effort. Dr. Elton H. Weaver III

Definitive Works on Bishop Mason and COGIC:

David M. Ticker, Black Pastors & Leaders: The Memphis Clergy, 1819-1972 (Memphis, TN: Memphis State University Press, 1975). C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence K. Mamiya, The Black Church in the African American Experience (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990). Ithiel C. Clemmons, Bishop C. H. Mason and the Roots of the Church of God in Christ (Centennial ed. Bakersfield, CA: Pneuma Life Publishing 1996). Anthea D. Butler, Women in the Church of God in Christ: Making a Sanctified World (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2007). Elton H. Weaver III, Bishop Charles H. Mason in the Age of Jin Crow: The Struggle for Religious and Moral Uplift (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2020). Eweaver3 (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You are clearly promoting your own book - see the WP:SELFCITE section in particular. While it is certainly possible that your book may be considered a valid source for citation, you will have to convince us first that it meets our Wikipedia:Reliable sources criteria. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia policy, and then start a discussion on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with hate speech on the talk zone

Hi, On the Anti-Quebec sentiment talk page we have to deal with lot of unrelated comments that can be classified as hate speech. Most of the time the comments are about the balance of the article and try to argue on why this hate speech is "Legitimate". Arguing on law 21 and law 96 are "heinous” and others unrelated topic. The classic.

Normally I just erase the comments and leave a comment of my own telling that the talk page is not to be used as a forum to express an opinion on the topic and the story end here. The talk page is kept relatively clean free of hate and off topic comments.

Why I do this: I don't want hate speech to remain on the talk page. It gives them one to many place to promote theirs idea if we leave the comments in place. Especially since Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia It give them some sort of legitimacy that any forum like X or Facebook or other don't have.

Last time an other remove my comments on the off topic comments are restored the hate speech while accusing me of erasing without leaving comments which I didn’t.

I would like an advice on what proper channels is to be used and how to address it?

thank you for your advice. Alain.C123 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you just created this account, I would assume you were formerly editing as an IP and are the person making edits like this? That is not hate speech and you should not just be removing it. I realize this is a fraught area, but there need to be good reasons to simply remove comments by others, and while hate speech is one of those reasons, this was not hate speech, and calling it that on the talk page is significantly more inflammatory than the comment you removed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor who most recently undid the IP's (presumably Alain.C123's) removal of talk page threads on Talk:Anti-Quebec sentiment, and I did not accuse them of having removed the threads without leaving comments. I used a standard warning template and the wording was: "Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Talk:Anti-Quebec sentiment, you may be blocked from editing. Stop removing talk page threads." They did not use edit summaries but instead sometimes attempted to justify their actions by subsequent posts on the article's talk page (not an appropriate way of doing it even if they were removing hate speech, which I didn't see). I went directly to a level 3 warning since the IP had been doing this for 10 months (see Special:Contributions/24.202.113.225) and the talk page was so thoroughly messed up that I gave up on trying to repair it. Meters (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]