Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1253

Source dispute?

Resolved

 – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 13:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sparkle & Fade, and I am working on the article Baldwin's Tower. While sifting through sources, I notice several sources seem to cast doubt on whether or not Baldwin IX died or was imprisoned there, with a relative balance between them. I'm not sure exactly how to go about this, and a second opinion would be appreciated. Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 05:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Which sources exactly are contradictory to each others ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The first source ("Archaeologist Uncovers 13th Century Monastery Dining Room in Bulgaria's Veliko Tarnovo") and second source (Bousfield and Richardson) both explicitly say Baldwin died or "ended his days" there, while the Sofia Globe only attributes his death location to be the tower itself. The Balkans, a historical book by William Miller from 1896 with a passage about Baldwin's death, leaves his death location ambiguous. But after searching through Google Books, this book says he probably died there, three other books don't mention his death and only his imprisonment, this history book only say she was imprisoned in the castle and the tower got it's name from it, this 1888 book only says Baldwin was said to have been imprisoned there, among others. No idea how to go around it, and I'm not sure if I should move this to the Help Desk or not. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 06:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if "Help Desk" can be useful.

It's wrote on the "Help Desk" "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."

I think you should use "Talk:Baldwin I, Latin Emperor" even if I think it's unlikely you get an answer.

You can also try one of the Wikiprojects concerned by this article.

Are you saying some sources said he died in "Tarnovo" when others said he died elsewhere or not mentionning his death at all ?

If all sources that are mentionning his place of death say. This is "Tarnovo".

Does they mention exactly the same place in "Tarnovo" or a different place in the same city ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle & Fade I forget to say that you can read the next lines on "Help Desk".

"If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!"

[...]

New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places)." Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

anatole-berthe, it's generally preferred if you don't put excessive breaks in your lines. Back on topic, I felt like moving it to the Help Desk because I am no longer a 'newer editor' and thus this page is not targetted for me. Again, the dispute is over whether Baldwin IX died in the tower or not, or if he was verifiably imprisoned there. I'm saying some of the sources died in the tower while others cast doubt on it, meanwhile others cast doubt if he was ever imprisoned there at all (using words like 'probably', 'allegedly', or attributing it to legend). That's all, thanks! —Sparkle and Fade (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sparkle and Fade, how about something like the following? It is commonly said that Baldwin was imprisoned in, and eventually killed in, the tower.{{Efn|Some sources report this as fact.<ref>First source</ref><ref>Second source</ref> Others hedge with "probably", "allegedly", or similar.<ref>Third source</ref><ref>Fourth source</ref> Others again dismiss it as mere legend.<ref>Fifth source</ref><ref>Sixth source</ref>}} -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was just worried because I wanted to avoid weasel words and I was also unsure of what to do. Thanks again, Hoary! —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 13:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

My Draft submission

Hi All,

I am new to Wikipedia, and was wondering if someone could review my draft submission for me. I am having some difficulty getting this over the line.

Thanks! David Change (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

David Change You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending; please be patient. Asking for a review on top of submitting it will not speed the process, which is entirely volunteer-driven. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, like I said, I am new to this and just checking. I am not trying to speed up the process. Rather to ensure my draft is as best it can be, prior to a further review of my draft.

Thanks! David Change (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I made a few modest changes that may improve the odds of it being accepted. Also restored the second Declined notice, as these must remain while a draft is being considered. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this, much appreciated. David Change (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Paul Calvert (whistleblower) now accepted by a Reviewer. There will be a delay possibly as long as three months before a search engine such as Google will 'see' this article, but a search within Wikipedia will find it. I added your article to the list of people at Paul Calvert. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to request Un Deletion of a page (Through a discussion or elsewhere)

Hi! I am actually interested in creating a Redirect for a page that was previously deleted. The article is Gordon Centre which was deleted in 2016. I was wondering, if I created a redirect, would it meet Wikipedia's Speedy Deletion Criteria? I previously did it on 2026 Indian Premier League due to being previously deleted, but it was rejected due to being about article rather than redirect. Is there a way to open a discussion about the article to Un Delete it and change it to a redirect possibly? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere, it wouldn't be CSD'd if what you created was a redirect. Just go ahead and create one if you like. -- asilvering (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering Good news. I have just discovered Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It might be the harder way, but it is my preferred way of doing it. You might be a bit shocked, but I am willing to wait. Should I do that? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No. You don't want the content undeleted; you just want to create a redirect. So create the redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I suppose your message dated "APRIL/20/2025" at "05:44 UTC" is a reference to "Be bold" concept. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No, not really. It's not a particularly bold action to create a redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering I forgot to mention that I was going to request it be a redirect. My idea was, should we un delete the content and change the page to a redirect, or just create a seperate article with no a seperate page history. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No, you should not undelete the content and change the page to a redirect. You should simply create the redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Asilvering For what reasons? Anyways, I might nonetheless open a discussion on another article that the page is related else to request un deletion of content and change it to a redirect. I will notify those who were involved in the deletion discussion if I do. Basically what I am considering discussing is whether it should be Un Deleted, or a Redirect should be created on a new page with no similar page history. Note: The Page that was deleted had no copyright violations. I am still discussing my options. Thanks for your collaboration. Basically what I am considering asking is: Should the redirect have the page history in it or not? Thank you for collaboration Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere, please be considerate of other editors' time. There's no need for any of these discussions. Please just create the redirect. The redirect does not need the page history in it, since the redirect won't be using any of that page history. Restoring that page history, even under a redirect, would be vacating the result of the previous AfD. An admin isn't going to do that, except in very limited circumstances. This isn't one of those circumstances. -- asilvering (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Translated Plagiarism -- Unsure what to do

Hi! In the page Feast of All Saints of Russia, at least one section seems to have been directly copied and translated from the original Russian source, only linked on the Russian-language version of the page (https://www.pravoslavie.ru/2367.html). Specifically, the paragraph ending in "(11, 74, 12, 275)" in the English-language "Origins" section is directly copied from the link, with just minor rephrasing. I'm not sure what to do here, as the plagiarism seems to be fairly clear but the extent is hard to determine and rewriting the page is beyond my capabilities. Is there somewhere I'm meant to report it? How would I go about this? Thedoglover12 (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Thedoglover12, you should list the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and follow the instructions there. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thedoglover12, you don't need to put this up at WP:CP, since it's pretty clear-cut. You can request revision deletion of the offending material yourself. There's a very helpful user script for that at User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel. Basically, you need to remove all of the offending content first - simply edit the article, highlight all the copied stuff, and press delete, nothing complicated. When you do this, leave an edit summary like "removing translation copyvio from https://www.pravoslavie.ru/2367.html". Then, use that userscript to put in a revdel request. You need to highlight every diff that has the offending text in it, from the very first insertion of the material up to (but not including) your own edit where you removed it. Thanks for catching this, and let us know if you run into any trouble. -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

LP or EP

Hello. I am wondering if I should change the page Timewave Zero (Blood Incantation album) to be classified as an EP, instead of a studio album. The band themselves seem to consider it an EP, and in my opinion I think the most important distinction between what makes an LP or EP is what the artist themself considers the project to be, but of course that is only my opinion and may not align with Wikipedia's policy. The band made a post on Facebook around the time of the project's release calling it an EP, but I know that's not exactly the most encyclopedic source. In terms of secondary sources, I can only find one source explicitly calling it an EP, which seems to be from a lesser known publication. So given all of that, I think it's safer if I just leave the page as it is, but I am wondering if anyone would think it's valid for me to change it, again mostly given that the band themselves refer to it as an EP. Thanks. Ackyducc (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ackyducc! Wikipedia differs from many other situations in that we consider secondary sources better than official ones (for a similar situation, see WP:OFFICIALNAME). The reason behind this is that it removes the potential for bias from the source, which isn't so important in this situation but might be in others.

You mention one secondary source that calls it an EP but not how many secondary sources call it an album. How many are there of those? If none, I'd say it's safe to change it to EP. But if most secondary sources use album, I'd leave it be. Hope that helps!

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 17:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Most secondary sources do seem to use album, so I'll probably just leave it be. If I see more secondary sources calling it an EP I might switch it, but for the time being it's probably more in line with policy to leave it how it is. Thanks. Ackyducc (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

"Album" is defined as a collection of recordings, so even an EP would be referred to as an album. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as an EP; there were LPs (albums) and singles. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of secondary sources I can find for other EPs often just refer to them broadly as "album". Some do specify EP but it's not universal. As much as there's not very many sources explicitly calling that release specifically an EP, there's not very many specifically calling it an LP either. I'm still not sure how widely agreed it would be if I changed it, but like I said a lot before, the band themselves have referred to it as an EP so I feel like that's the best source we really have on this. I'll probably wait to see if there's more discussion or a pretty solid consensus before I do any changes personally. Ackyducc (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb The Wikipedia practice of sidelining primary sources should be used judiciously. Taking information about an event from someone's diary would definitely be suspect, but when it comes to an originator providing information about themselves or their work, the primary source is going to be best. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Really, Ghost writer's cat? So we should take a publisher's word for it when it says that a book, EP, album, movie or whatever is "groundbreaking", "epochal", or whatever; and indeed the word of "breatharians" for the benefits of "breatharianism", the word of the press secretary of a head of government for that head's insights, wisdom, public-spiritedness, etc? -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary As I said, the information should be used judiciously. No need to get excited. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

User Talk or Article Talk?

When you're having a disagreement with another editor about an article edit, is that better discussed on the User Talk page or on the article Talk page? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Ghost writer's cat. I'd say the article's talk page, since its purpose is to improve the article and solve disagreements. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s such a good question, @Ghost writer's cat — helpful in not just the early stages of our Wiki editing but even after emerging from a few skirmishes.

I look forward to seeing all the replies you get, as I think there could be several different suggestions depending on the context of the disagreement. Augnablik (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the useful replies above, if you reach an impasse between yourself and one other editor on the article talk page, you can request a third opnion to get a tiebreaking view. See Wikipedia:Third opinion for more information. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend WP:DISPUTE for more information about how to act when in a disagreement. It highlights an important dichotomy between content and conduct disputes. If part of the disagreement is over conduct (e.g.: you insulted me), that part is best taken to a user talk page. Anything focused on the article's content is best at the article talk page. My experience matches Augnablik's: many experienced editors could benefit from more thought about the best place to have a disagreement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Ghost writer's cat: Firefangledfeathers nailed it. Nutshell version: article Talk page to discuss the words (and images) in the article, user Talk to discuss editor behavior. One exercise you can try: if you are on the article Talk page discussing improving the article, see if you can avoid using the words you or your in your comments. This is not an ironclad rule, but if you find yourself using you a lot, you should stop a minute, and think about whether your comment is really about the article content, or about the other editor. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate all the feedback. Very helpful. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)