Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    • For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
    • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
    • If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
    • Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
    • For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
    • New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).
    Ask a question
    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    February 6

    Interviews as sources

    As we know, interviews are problematic. Wikipedia:Interviews is a page devoted to them; but it's merely an essay, thus lacking the heft of a guideline, let alone a policy. Interviews bring up the matter of independence -- but Wikipedia:Independent sources too is a mere essay. I thought I remembered some more authoritative page (probably a guideline) that dealt with interviews and their (mis)uses; but now that I look for it, I can't find it. Is there anything?

    And if no there is not, any tips for efficaciously countering You're citing something that announces itself as "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines", one that has "not been thoroughly vetted by the community". So really it's just your opinion against mine? -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hoary: Wikipedia:Independent sources is an explanatory essay, which means it links to a policy or guideline. WP:NPOV may be the most relevant policy here? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPV has no instance of the string "interview". Further, it wants "as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Well, the view that some celeb takes of himself, as published in an interview in The Guardian or similar, surely is a significant view as published by a reliable source. Moreover, WP:NPV barely mentions the independence of sources; and for this, it links to WP:Independent sources. Now, as it happens English is my first language and I can, if I wish, read this essay with ease. But I don't wish. As I skimread it, I see a photo of a cup of coffee (or Bovril or who knows what) with the caption "It doesn't matter if you love it or hate it. If you aren't selling it, you're probably an independent source about it." This strikes me as so obviously wrongheaded that my minor appetite for reading the page quite withers away. I can hardly expect a new user to read something so long. -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like all sources, it depends on what it's used for. Interviews are primary sources for the subjects being interviewed, so their use should comply with WP:PRIMARY. They're neither secondary nor independent to the subject, so they don't indicate notability as described by WP:GNG. Regarding essays, Wikipedia:Quote your own essay is a good read. They're shorthands so we don't have to type out the same 3,000 word argument every time it comes up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alien, WP:PRIMARY is an (important) ingredient of WP:No original research. This only mentions interviews in its footnotes. Essays are indeed handy for citing. I just wish that their creators put more effort into the shorthand aspect. Of course, if I find guidelines inadequate (insufficiently informative, or verbose), I'm free to make or (much more wisely) suggest changes to them. I plead laziness. But a sanity check: Usedn't there to be some reasonable, concise, helpful prescription/proscription/advice about interviews in one or more of the guidelines? -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoary, I think it is a bit of a mistake to describe any given essay as "merely an essay". Not all essays are equal. As the standard essay header says, Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.. So, the issue as I see it is not so much whether the use of interviews is described only in an essay, but rather whether or not that essay and related essays represent widespread norms. If the essay is cited by thousands of editors going back decades with negligible pushback, we can conclude that it represents a widespread norm.
    When it comes to interviews, I believe that most editors agree that most interviews published by reliable sources are reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF content, even if interviews are often considered potentially questionable. Unless the article subject has a reputation as a liar, who would quibble with "My father was a machinist and my mother taught a kindergarten class"? But "My father was North Dakota's greatest poet" would require toning down for neutrality and additional sources. The standard is that the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
    In my experience, the real bone of contention is whether or not interviews contribute to notability. Since the WP:GNG memorably says A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then it is clear that an understanding of independence is essential. You are correct that Wikipedia:Independent sources is "merely" an essay, but it is a special kind of essay that has a header saying that This is an explanatory essay about the policies and guidelines and the guideline in question links to that essay in its very first sentence. One can only assume that this particular widely read essay represents "widespread norms" since that header and that link have persisted for so long. Here is where I believe that editorial judgment enters into the equation. Let's say that multiple respected major magazines and newspapers going back many years have published completely different interviews of a person with detailed introductory sections providing original biographical reporting about the person and their unique contributions before getting to the Q and A section, and there was no hint of press agent involvement. Even if grudgingly, I think that most editors would see those interviews as indicators of notability. On the other hand, if a trade magazine called Widget World runs a story about 2025 widget breakthroughs and quotes Joe Jones, the chief engineer of North American Widgets as saying "We have perfected the fourth generation widget", then that brief interview is not evidence that Joe Jones is notable (or that their widget model is a breakthrough). Between those two extremes, there is a continuum, and good editorial judgment is the ability to conclude that a good source is good enough and that a mediocre source should be disregarded. Cullen328 (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An excellent summary, Cullen328: I disagree with none of it and, had I been thinking as clearly when I wrote my questions as you must have been when writing the above, I could have refined their wording. What prompted my questions was my AfC review of Draft:Steffi Klenz, whose biography is, it appears, sourced to ... Steffi Klenz. ("Appears" because, after noticing that this was an interview, I didn't bother to read it.) It occurred to me that were my comment to earn me the oft-heard riposte "The most authoritative source for a subject's biography is that subject", I'd have to point to en:WP policy [small "p"!] on the use of interviews. User-generated content gets its own, palatably short section within WP:RS, a content guideline. I'd thought that interviews got a similarly compact comment somewhere, but perhaps I just imagined that. -- Hoary (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    toolforge:linkcount might be something of an efficacious counter. "Not thoroughly vetted" may be the case, but half a million links (in the case of WP:IS) surely indicates some broad support. Folly Mox (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very solid description of the main points. That is also a very solid Afc review. Best I've seen. The problem with modern interviews where most of the problems stems from, is that they tend to be paid-for PR that transitory, promotional, brand-driven and short-termist Q and A sessions that don't have much intellectual depth and they are only there to drive an agenda. Compare that with years ago; I read a biography, I think it was on Peter Falk in the 90's. He gave tons of interviews on Colombo. And he was already massively famous, everywhere he went on the planet. Those interviews are absolute gold and if you had make a ref, then they would be ideal. He was already world famous. The Wikipedia:Interviews essay is pretty good from a policy viewpoint, tying it into the relavent policy points but it doesn't give the core reasons, which is essentially the spirit aspect the thing. I suggest if its a BLP, push back at every turn. Folks, the reader, want quality. They don't want to be manipulated by some person paying to hold a Q and A in Vogue that starts as "Meet Juliana..., they are opening a water park. How cool is that". Go for quality every time. The article will be more salient, last longer and be more intellectually valuable over the long term, if the quality is there. scope_creepTalk 20:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayd with line break

    Hi, is there an easy way with {{Ayd}} to make the year and day figure separated with a comma appear under each other in the table cell? Cause when I try to set the separation parameter to ,<br> it doesn't work... . I would like it to look like this, using the template if possible:

    2 years,
    9 days

    — Antoni12345 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Antoni12345: That's using content to affect layout, and might be contrary to MOS:NOBR. Bazza 7 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antoni12345, With that {{Ayd}} template, you simply can't display that. You have to done that manually as you did here as example.––kemel49(connect)(contri) 16:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antoni12345: I have a vague memory that I once did something similar (forcing the latitudes and longitudes displayed by the {{coord}} template to appear on separate lines in table cells) by playing around with the width of that column of the table until I forced the desired appearance. You might try that. Deor (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After investigation: You can see the edit I made as the first change in this diff. (Another editor had asked me to make the table display the coordinates in that way.) Deor (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks! I've actually mannaged to do this that way. — Antoni12345 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    English as underlying language of the underpinings of Wikipedia?

    If I have done a search on the English Language Wikipedia and then I change the URL by hand from en.wikipedia.org to it.wikipedia.org, it will give me the same search on the Italian Language Wikipedia. If I do a search on the Italian Language Wikipedia and change the URL by hand from it.wikipedia.org to en.wikipedia.org , it doesn't work. I've tried that with English to many other language Wikipedia, all of the changes only work in one direction *from* English and don't work from any other language to any language. Is this expected?Naraht (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Naraht: This happens because the English names of special pages work at all languages, but local names only work locally. A search at the Italian Wikipedia gives a url like https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=roma+italia&title=Speciale%3ARicerca&ns0=1. Here title=Speciale%3ARicerca says to use the special page it:Speciale:Ricerca which is the Italian version of Special:Search. If you manually change it.wikipedia.org to en.wikipedia.org then you get the url https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=roma+italia&title=Speciale%3ARicerca&ns0=1. This asks to do something at a non-existing English page called Speciale:Ricerca. It isn't even a special page because in English it's only called "Special" without "e". It's treated like an article name but it wouldn't help to remove "e" because there is no special page called Special:Ricerca at the English Wikipedia. I think it's nice that the names of special pages are translated while English names also work everywhere. It would be chaotic if every translation of all special page names had to work at every language. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    February 7

    Is it possible to report disruptive user?

    One user keeps making disrupt with me, I think he / she keeps stalking my contribution list and doing roll back or like that. So I wonder if I can report him / her, but he / she didn't do vandalism thing, so I want to know whether this person can be reported. Camilasdandelions (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 17:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Camilasdandelions, have you tried discussing with that editor what their objections to your edits were? Schazjmd (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't yet. But this user keeps tracking me and tries to report me, or revert edit etc. But it's kinda vague if he is targetting on me and keeps making disrupts, so to be honest, I don't know what to directly say to him. Camilasdandelions (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 18:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest a post on that editor's talk page asking them to explain the problem with your edits. If this is about the multiple editors reverting your attempts to turn a redirect into an article, the problem is that you added unsourced claims for a song that lacked sufficient sources to satisfy notability requirements for a single song. Schazjmd (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though they can, but I mean it's strange that one person keeps deleting my edits like this way. Is there any policy talking about "stalkings" or something? Camilasdandelions (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 18:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Camilasdandelions, I went through a bunch of your reverted edits, and I see a lot of different editors making those reverts. There is no indication of "stalking" by a single editor. It would be more productive to try to learn from those reverts so that you can improve your editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reflections of a biography subject on past events

    Hi, I wonder if it is encyclopedic to include a reflection (not really critical one) of a politician on past actions, like here? — Antoni12345 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Self reflection should be avoided as much as possible for being WP:PRIMARY. In my opinion, the reasons for her joining PZPR and the labor union can be kept, while others are not suitable for inclusion. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    February 8

    My information is wrong

    Hi, there is a Dutch page of me, because I’m an actress in the Netherlands, but the information on it is wrong. It has the wrong birthdate and place where I was born. I am born on September 23rd 1972 in Huntinton, NY, USA. Can this be corrected please? Thanks, best Nina Deuss Ninadeuss1 (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ninadeuss1, this is the helpdesk for English Wikipedia, the helpdesk for Dutch Wikipedia is nl:Help:Helpdesk. I have removed the date of birth from nl:Nina Deuss because the article did not give a source for it. TSventon (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ninadeuss1: Please use "articles" when your talking about articles, not pages. Pages are social media name that no meaning on here. Only use articles when your talking about article. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 20:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Article and acronym identification

    Evening folks!! Does anybody know what this is "W. M. of the Royal Society of Natural Scientists in Moscow". Is there any article on Wikipedia on this and what does the W.M. mean. Its concerns the Dionýz Štúr article. Also what would the "Natural Sciences Association for Styria in Graz" be, if there is an article on here. scope_creepTalk 18:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have responded at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Article and acronym identification. TSventon (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Answered at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Article and acronym identification. scope_creepTalk 14:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    2017 wikitext editor is broken

    Hi all, is it just me? The 2017 wikitext editor that I'm used to using just recently seems to have disabled the ability to edit references (this page would not let me upload a screenshot, but the contents of a citation between <ref> and </ref> tags shows up in green and can't be clicked on or edited).

    I'm at a loss for why this is occurring, could someone enlighten me or is something wrong with my setup? Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This was part of a WP:THURSDAY update. The ref tags are highlighted in green now presumably so it's easier to spot them, but I personally haven't had any issues clicking on and changing them. You might be able to get more answers from the people who hang out at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll try there. It looks like it does let me edit but the cursor is not visible - I'm on Firefox, but I see a similar visual bug in Safari. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    February 9

    update confirmed-protected edit request ?

    I have a pending c-p edit request on the Alison Weir (activist) page which consists of a request to move a large segment of text from one section to another. As my edit request has languished there so long, the text in question has gone through some editing including some deletions. Am I permitted to edit the request to update it to the current version? Kenfree (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kenfree: I would think you should probably strike or withdraw your initial edit request as no longer relevant and create a new edit request. A more experienced editor in edit requests may correct me, though. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skarmory, thank you for your reply. I would happily follow your suggestion if it were the case that the new edit would receive prompt action, but you see, if that were the case then this problem would never have arisen in the first place. In point of fact the edit request was submitted a month ago, and has happily worked its way up to sixth place in the backlog. I really don't want to add another month+ to the waiting time to get this edit acted on, so unless you have another idea, I guess I'll just have to leave things as they are, and let whichever editor acts on it when it finally reaches the front of the backlog queue sort it out... Kenfree (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kenfree: your 11 January 2025 request has been discussed at length since 14 January and two other editors disagreed with it. It could probably be closed as not done. You could also add a reply withdrawing the request and continue the discussion about individual claims in later sections. TSventon (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible to transclude an article lead but not the hatnote at the top?

    The lead for the article Torino scale starts with a hatnote: This article is about Torino scale concept. For current ratings, see List of objects with non-zero Torino ratings When the lead is transcluded in to List of objects with non-zero Torino ratings the hat note is bogus. Can it be excluded? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Links to websites without content

    Is there a template for indentification of links that go to websites without any content? (e.g. this link and its mirror on the Wayback Machine, which are used as references for the article on The Coffin of Andy and Leyley) Yyannako (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That link does load for me, after a very long wait, and eventually produces a page with the right title. So it's not a {{dead link}}, which is what I'd use if it really did go to an empty page. But there might be a better template that I'm unaware of. (There's a list of related ones in the See also section of the {{dead link}} page.) Musiconeologist (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1274862860"