Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ColinFine (talk | contribs) at 14:26, 21 March 2023 (→‎List of Exorcists: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

    March 17

    Changing a picture

    What are the rules on changing pictures? For example, I want to change Devante Adams picture from a Green Bay Packers to a Las Vegas Raiders. What picture can I use? Btdellis2729 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Btdellis2729, if there is a more descriptive photo for Devante Adams, and it is Creative Commons compatible, then you can upload it and change the image. See commons:COM:LICENSE for a description of what would be acceptable. Most random images online are not acceptable, but photos you took yourself are. In the case of Devante Adams, someone uploaded the photo to flickr under a CC license. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 02:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Edit summary search"

    Hello. How can I, by searching for keywords in the "Edit summary search" option, review all my changes for that or those keywords? I could only find a few results via the filter. JackkBrown (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi JackkBrown. Are you using this tool? I'm able to get 500 results at a time for a given search. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: yes, but I am on a mobile device and cannot view more than 50 changes at most. JackkBrown (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry JackkBrown. I'm not able to reproduce that issue. Using iOS's Firefox app, I'm still getting up to 500 results per page. Do you have a "Next 50 results" button at the bottom at least? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: I have the "next 500 results" button, but I still only display a few dozen changes; for example, if I enter "MOS:CAPTIONS" as a keyword and click on the button (I have made over 1,500 changes by indicating this word in the description), it takes me to another screen where I can display another dozen changes, but nothing more. JackkBrown (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn! I tried that search on my mobile device and did get a large number of results. Is it possible for you to try another browser on your mobile device? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: I will try. I would like to take this opportunity to ask whether a sentence like this: > "Orestes at Delphi". Painting of two naked males, ca. 330 BC. <, is correct according to MOS:CAPTIONS. In my opinion yes, because since there is a full stop, the full stop should also be added at the end; this part is not well explained in the rules. Am I right, or not? JackkBrown (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the guidance is not iron-clad on cases like that, but the spirit of the guideline is "don't use full stops for sentence fragments". My response would probably be to rewrite the caption as either a single sentence fragment with no full stop or a full sentence ended with a period. You could do "Orestes at Delphi": painting of two naked males, ca. 330 BC or The painting "Orestes at Delphi", which depicts two naked males, was created ca. 330 BC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: ok, so in case there is already a full stop ("Orestes at Delphi".) (full stop after "Deplhi"), it is not incorrect to add another one as a "closing" to the caption (Painting of two naked males, ca. 330 BC.) (full stop after "BC"); I understood this from what you wrote, I hope I got it right. JackkBrown (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite what I was saying but I don't totally disagree. Here's my hierarchy of preferences:
    1. Rewrite so no full stop is needed: "Orestes at Delphi": painting of two naked males, ca. 330 BC
    2. Rewrite with full sentence(s) and full stop(s): The painting "Orestes at Delphi", which depicts two naked males, was created ca. 330 BC.
    3. Violate the spirit of MOS:CAPTION, where doing otherwise is maybe impossible or awkward: "Orestes at Delphi". Painting of two naked males, ca. 330 BC.
    4. Violate both the spirit and the letter of MOS:CAPTION (note the lack of a final full stop): "Orestes at Delphi". Painting of two naked males, ca. 330 BC
    I don't think #3 is a disaster, but it's better than #4. If you get to a point where you have to end some sentence fragments with full stops, better to go all in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: can comments be saved, without necessarily having to take a screenshot? What you wrote is very, very useful for what I'm doing, thank you very much! JackkBrown (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted it at your user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JackkBrown: If you're changing the caption, note MOS:CIRCA's preference for using {{circa}} rather than "ca."; {{circa|{{nowrap|330 BC}}}} will provide the full formatting for your article: c.330 BC Bazza (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How to Edit the Article?

    My article is keep on Reverting despite providing valuable information and source of the content. Aryan2866 (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your additions to articles keep on being reverted, Aryan2866, because they refer the reader to a website with the domain name statsfact.com. A glance at the website suggests that its content is money, gossip, and tits. Adding references to it doesn't obviously benefit the readers of Wikipedia; there's a suspicion that you're adding them in order to benefit statsfact.com. You're welcome to go to WP:RSN and argue for the reliability of statsfact.com; but I suspect that this would be an uphill struggle. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, by the way, you tagged each of your edits as "minor", which they ain't. A "minor" edit is technical and uncontroversial, such as correcting punctuation or format. —Tamfang (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    newspapers.com reference url and wikipedia library url

    Greetings from Sunny Melbourne Australia,

    I am working outside and enjoying the autumn sunshine 23 degrees. :-). Yes I am skiting but not for long as the brisk Melbourne"winter is coming"

    So, Is there a way around having to maually change a wikipedia reference url from (say) https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/399777850/ to a wikipedeia library url https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/399777850/. Apologies if this should me raised on meta or phab, but I couldn't work out the correct place! Thanks. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Wakelamp. This may not answer your question, but FYI, neither of those links are ideal in a Wikipedia article. Per Wikipedia:Newspapers.com, we prefer to clip the articles and link the clip url. Assuming you want the Transformers review, you could use this link, which allows everyone to see a lower quality clipping of the piece. I did have to clip it manually, and I don't think there's any other way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever you do, do not use the https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/... url in wikipedia articles. Those urls do not lead readers (who won't have access to the wikipedia library) to the source.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Penal Code (Turkey)

    This paragraph needs to be completely fixed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_nationalism#/editor/9; I would do it myself, quietly, but the texts of the articles of the Penal Code of the States are not sure if they should be put in italics. JackkBrown (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Which paragraph? Ruslik_Zero 07:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ruslik0: ==The "Insulting Turkishness" laws==. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_nationalism. JackkBrown (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mobile section edit links like ...#/editor/9 only work for users of the mobile version. Most editors use the desktop version and are taken to the top of the page with no indication of the section unless they guess it from the number in the url. It's much better to click the section in the table of contents and post the resulting url, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_nationalism#The_%22Insulting_Turkishness%22_laws. The best is a wikilink like Turkish nationalism#The "Insulting Turkishness" laws but it requires a little more work. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Expanding articles on Cameras

    Hi everyone! I was thinking about how I might continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and I found that there are a lot of articles on cameras that seem quite lackluster. Consider for example Sony α7R V, Canon EOS R6, or the lack of an article on the Canon EOS R6M2. To be clear, I do not have a conflict of interest in expanding these articles, it's just a personal interest of mine that I'd like to put to use here.

    However, I'm a little worried about notability and undue weight. It's quite a specific field, and there are a LOT of different camera models, so I want to avoid e.g. giving undue weight to a certain model by editing its article when all the articles on camera models are extremely brief.

    Let me know your thoughts, please :)) Actualcpscm (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Actualcpscm The nature of this volunteer project is that people work on what they want, when they want, when they have time to do it. Due to this, articles are quite often not similar in structure and size, even within the same field of topics. Undue weight only applies to information within an article, not to one article having more coverage than another because someone chose to write about one topic and not another. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add, if you want to contribute about cameras, you aren't expected to make every article on every model of camera roughly the same size. We appreciate everything and anything that you do, even if it's just one article at a time or one article period. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Actualcpscm: See also WP:NPRODUCT. GoingBatty (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Actualcpscm: Sometimes you can find other editors to collaborate with, often by finding an appropriate Wikiproject. Cameras are not in my area, but you might start by asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts to see if that is the right place, or if someone there can point you to the right place, or if you want to start a separate sub-project. You and others can then discuss what an ideal camera article would look like, and decide on how to identify and evolve the camera articles to this standard. If you prefer to simply work alone with no project structure, that's fine too. There is no deadline and any improvement you make will be appreciated. -Arch dude (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Overlap between articles

    Two closely-linked articles describing current events in Israel are being developed in parallel. The main article is 2023 Israeli judicial reform and a closely-related article is 2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests. Hitherto, the latter has been used to describe street protests only, while all other kinds of protests have been described in the main article, in section 2023 Israeli judicial reform § Reactions opposing the changes. Recently, two items were added to the "protests" article, describing military service refusals. These and other military service refusals are already covered in the main article. I have removed them from the "protests" article, explaining to the two editors where to find (and edit) that kind of content. In the subsequent discussion at Talk:2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests, a disagreement has arisen as to whether it is useful to describe the same events in two articles. Are there Wikipedia guidelines covering this kind of thing? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Company split and page needs updating

    Hi - How do I make edits to a company's page? The company recently went through a split and the company description on the wikipedia page is not correct now. Every time I try to make a change on the page, the page is reverted back by another user. Any guidance you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Atalmadge (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Collabera: What company? And how do you know it has split? Bazza (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Atalmadge We prefer the term "article" as opposed to the broader "page". I'm wondering if you are associated with this company- if so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing(which includes employment) for information on required formal disclosures.
    What is it exactly that you want to do on the article? 331dot (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about Collabera.   Atalmadge, your first edit removed well-referenced content, your second added unreferenced promotional twaddle. Neither had an edit summary. You should expect such edits to be reverted. If you want to remove content, give your reasons, in an edit summary, on the article's talk page, or both. If you want to add content, write it in neutral language and cite a source, Maproom (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am an employee of the company and we announced the split of Collabera Inc. into Ascendion and Collabera, LLC. (see ignitingourevolution.com/). How do we reflect changes to our information so that it is accurate if employees of the company cannot make edits? Atalmadge (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Atalmadge First, please make the required paid editing disclosure on your user page(User:Atalmadge). This is a Terms of Use requirement.
    You are permitted to make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Collabera, detailing changes you feel are needed. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sort key not working

    I'm trying to sort Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality so it appears under N in the Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality Category:Assassinated politicians. For some reason it is not working. Compare with such sorting of Category:Assassinated politicians by continent, which is working. Help. Thinker78 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thinker78, I assume you want to sort Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality so it appears under N in the Category:Assassinated politicians. I have removed the sort key following Category:Assassinated politicians to make that happen. TSventon (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that sort key. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinker78, sort keys are explained at WP:SORTKEY. I don't think that Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality needs a default sort as it is included in three categories and they all need a different sort Category:Assassinated people by nationality is sorted by "Politicians", Category:Assassinated politicians is sorted by "Nationality" and Category:Politicians by nationality should be sorted by "Assassinated". TSventon (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Two Factor Authentication Setting

    Hi. Can anyone confirm if there are any two-factor authentication settings here I can turn on for my account? Fabonikazell (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There are, but it's deliberately hidden away to make sure you know what you're doing. See Help:Two-factor authentication#Accessing 2FA, particularly the second paragraph. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically you can't have 2FA if you are an ordinary user. 2FA is at best experimental.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ianmacm The linked section says it a bit differently: "If you are not in one of these groups, you need to submit a request at m:Steward requests/Global permissions#Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions to obtain access to 2FA (see request examples). Most users need to request access before they can use 2FA." David10244 (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    March 18

    Happy Saturday, 18 March, everyone. On the Kyiv page, I have ordered the positions, clockwise from top, of the six monuments. I realised, however, that the fourth monument is missing, so I left a "note" to indicate the absence of that monument ("insert here the fourth monument clockwise from top"). JackkBrown (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've replaced it with the correct caption. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    can you please tell me what is the longest article that is published in WIKI.

    can you please tell me what is the longest article that is published in WIKI. hello, I was wondering what article that is published is the longest one. I see that a few are quite long and i was curious as to what one is the longest one!? thank you. Brian 2601:602:900:15E0:6CFA:E23C:4503:B0A7 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:LongPages. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Science

    Quantum physics 2405:205:150A:3E25:A0CB:1321:EE9B:1BB0 (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? If you have questions about science you can read Quantum physics or ask at WP:RDS RudolfRed (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How to create a template with a dropdown selection for a param.

    See: cite web; where in Visual Editor the parameter "url-status" has a menu with a few selectable options, not a text field. I want to do this to combine the functionality of a few templates (UR Libraries, MIT Libraries, Vanderbilt Libraries, etc.) into one template where there will be a dropdown field for which institution's library you would like to access from. First, I ned to know how to have a field with only a few selectable options.

    Thanks! BhamBoi (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @BhamBoi: See Wikipedia:TemplateData#Adding suggested values for parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That’s super helpful! Cheers to you— BhamBoi (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat Boone's page has incorrect information

    The article says his name at birth was Patrick Charles Eugene Boone. (It used to say "Charles Eugene Patrick Boone.) Pat's real name on his birth certificate is Charles Eugene Boone. I read this years ago but had the opportunity to verify this fact with Pat face to face in November 2022 on a TCM cruise. I told him both Wikipedia and IMDB had it wrong. On page 11 of "Pat Boone's America -- 50 years" Pat tells how his mother expected to have a daughter. When she had a son, she named him after family members but ALWAYS called him "Pat" -- and so did everyone else. BigBooneFan (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, BigBooneFan. The best place to discuss this is on the talk page Talk:Pat Boone. Please be aware that Wikipedia requires that all information in an article be verifiable from a reliable published source. Neither your recollection of reading it, nor what he said to you, is enough: you need a published source. ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    advice please I'am new to wikipedia

    hello I am new to Wikipedia and i would like some help/advice on the best way to get started. I am the local snooker and billiards historian and i would like to publish on Wikipedia on how the league started and to publish all the league tables and competition winners throughout the 113 years it has been going would it be best to do everything on Word or Publisher then copy and paste or do everything on the Wikipedia many thanks Bernie Barker147 (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello @Bernie Barker147 and welcome to Wikipedia. Some general advice: if your goal is to make edits that can "stick", you need to know how to add references correctly, this is essential. WP:TUTORIAL has good guidance on how. You can create your personal Wikipedia:Sandbox to prepare text in and experiment on what works. You can also edit articles directly, but "learn to walk before you run" applies. If other editors disagree with your edits, WP:COMMUNICATE. And when you edit articles, use Help:Edit summary to help other editors understand what you are doing.
    See also WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:SELFCITE and WP:EXPERT. WP:SNOOKER may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Bernie Barker. It sounds as if you want to record your original research. This is laudable, but I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not the place to do it. See original research. ColinFine (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    indeed. We don't generally care about cataloguing local leagues. However, as a big cue sports editor, we do need a lot of updating to our pool and billiards articles. If you have any published books or resources from history that might be of help, please let me know. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Lee Vilenski Are there any external wikis for cue sports? I found localwiki.org and this [| quora discussion] , but nothing specific on cue sports. If the OP set it up, where would they link it on wiki? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wakelamp, per WP:ELNO #12, nowhere. Userpage perhaps, but you know, advertising. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank-you for the link. The link states "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." It looks like [LocalWiki]] may pass the requirements based on List_of_LocalWikis I only checked that it was a non-profit and open source and active. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Old discussion: Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_15#LocalWiki_as_a_RS_for_EL? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The consensus isn't very clear. I have no attachment to localwiki.org, but have a similar concern to the IP editor on that discussion about not losing information "such as a local newspaper, which arsuch as a local newspaper, which are increasingly disappearing)". The solution that I was suggesting was if this was to do with a local region, then have a link at an article referring to that local region. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In edit source mode, the text does not scroll.

    I rewrote the entire text of the wiki article Ban Pa, Phitsanulok in my sandbox.
    Replacing the original article text requires me to copy the new text from the sandbox.
    Normally in edit source mode I highlight from the top left corner of the text and downwards.
    Dragging the mouse to the end of the whole text.
    But in the new wiki environment, the highlighted text doesn't scroll, but stops at the bottom of the monitor window.
    What is the solution for this?
    SietsL (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    SietsL, you don't mention a phone, so I'll assume that you're using a computer. When editing the source-of-the-copy page in source mode, move the cursor anywhere in the edit window, and, for most operating systems, press Ctrl-A Ctrl-C. Open the target-of-the-copy page in source mode, delete however much you want to delete, and press Ctrl-V. That's for Linux or Windows. However, if your OS is either OS X or macOS, then do the same but with the command key (perhaps labeled with a square with a circle at each corner) rather than the control key. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SietsL I see that you worked out how to make the transfer. However, when you did so to reach this version, you included unnecessary stuff that was also present in your sandbox. I have now removed that so that Ban Pa is now in a better state. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Non Factual Misinformation

    There is an article published by someone calling Donald Trump’s personal airplane “Trump Force One” this is not an actual, factual name and is used as a similarity to “Air Force One” reserved especially and only for the current President of The United States. This article encourages non-factual bias of an elected official and is not an honest, truthful description of a random airplane for an actual President. That is a position for the highest elected official and the specially designed, uniquely manufactured vehicles solely for the purpose of safe travel and protection of the President. This is inflated priority to suggest Trump has such similarly important vehicles for similar reasons. He is no longer POTUS, so he no longer enjoys the title or the Air Force One, Beast, Helicopter, White House or any of its uses. please delete this page on your site called “Trump Force One”. Thank You, Christy HunterJetSetChristy (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    JetSetChristy, I think this suggestion raises a number of questions, among them: (i) Just what does "actual, factual name" mean? In particular, (i.a) Searching in Google Books for the string "trump force one" brings a lot of hits in what appear to be published books. Should these be ignored, and if so, why? (ii) Just what is the relationship between the "actual, factual name" (whatever this means) of a concept, and the most appropriate title of a Wikipedia article on that concept? Incidentally, it had never occurred to me that "Air Force One" was "solely for the purpose of safe travel and protection of the President". -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Air Force One" is not a specific aircraft, it is the call sign of any USAF plane which is carrying the president. Likewise "Marine One", "Navy One" and "Army One". If the vice-president is onboard, then the same terms are used with "two" instead. The special call signs alert ATC and other traffic. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JetSetChristy, I also don't know what you mean by saying that one name "is used as a similarity to" another name. "The Beatles" were so named because of the Crickets, because of beetles, and/or because of beat. And they broke up half a century ago. But I don't think that anyone argues (A) that they were/are the Crickets, beetles, or a kind of beat, or that they still exist; or (B) that the fact that they weren't/aren't the Crickets, beetles, or a kind of beat, or that they no longer exist, is grounds for deleting the article about them. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JetSetChristy: Wikipedia has only one absolute requirement for the existence of an article: Notability, as we define it (WP:N). Trump Force One is notable by our definition, so it should have an article. Its notability is attested by the multiple independent articles in reliable sources. Notability is permanent: once notable, always notable. The points you make can be added to the article if they are supported by reliable sources. The existence of the article is not a judgement by Wikipedia of anything except the subject's notability. -Arch dude (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not published

    Why has my post not been published for other to find online Wintersisters (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wintersisters You have made roughly the same post on your user page, your user talk page, and your sandbox. None of these pages are part of the encyclopedia and are not searchable by outside search engines. Your user page is meant for you to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. Your user talk page is meant for communication with you. Your sandbox is meant for editing tests and drafting. The best place to draft and submit a new article is Articles for Creation. Be advised that your text is not acceptable as an article, as it is completely unsourced. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Writing a Wikipedia article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia; we usually recommend that users first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest them, as well as using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.
    It appears that you are writing about yourself; this is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. We are interested in what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. If you want to tell the world about yourself, that is what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you cite a police report

    How do you cite a police report StrongALPHA (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    StrongALPHA Generally police reports should not themselves be cited, as they are a primary source; it would be more appropriate to cite independent reliable sources that report on a police report. However, you don't describe the cirumstances of what it is you want to do. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It´s just a FBI file which is itself cited in a book, which other editors will not allow claims to be taken from because they don´t like its publisher Autonomedia. StrongALPHA (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SA, it would help if you'd provide links to where these discussions are being held. You're saying which other editors will not allow claims to be taken from because they don´t like its publisher Autonomedia. Can you show us where this discussion is happening so we can assess what's going on? Valereee (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    Good morning. In the paragraph 'Lineages', should the quotation marks be removed or left? Sanguszko. JackkBrown (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    JackkBrown You seem to be discussing a specific article, but don't say what it is. You may ask here, but the best place to ask about a particular article is on its associated talk page (for example, Talk:Joe Biden for the Joe Biden article). 331dot (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: in the previous comment I provided the link to the article I refer to. JackkBrown (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JackkBrown Well, I missed that one. Apologies. I've made it a normal internal link instead of a url. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: no more help needed, I fixed it by removing the quotation marks. JackkBrown (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    George Talbot 6th Earl of Shrewsbury

    Under childre, Henry, final lime reads Elizabeth Rayner survived her husband "remarried" Thomas Holcroft. The editor has confused father and son there were 2 Thomas Holcrofts,she only married one, see Wikitree for Elizabeth (Reyner) Holcroft for souces 86.3.57.56 (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikitree is not a reliable source, as a wiki. But otherwise, I think the whole section is pretty much unreadable and might fare better as a family tree, like Template:Family tree, or trimmed to only include the children who themselves have Wikipedia articles. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 12:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the best way to deal with long-term abusers / constantly returning vandals?

    Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this question.

    Over my few days' tenure of recent changes patrolling, I have come across quite a number of vandals, who just won't stop coming back to make the same edits in masses to a large variety of articles again and again. They'll 'farm' new accounts or 'obtain' a bunch of IP addresses to edit from and evade several blocks.

    I have looked at the WP:LTA page and it appears to be a place for severe long-time disruptors, and reports there are more of a reference guide to show the history of the LTA.

    I really don't know what's the best way to deal with this type of situation when the next wave of it comes around. Do I just report every single user to AIV as they come?

    Sometimes the number of targeted articles is so big that it's overwhelming to request protection on every single one of them. And you'll never know what they'll target next.

    I've made several reports at ANI before, they don't seem to garner much attention. Well I've had one problematic user whose main/primary IP range become blocked long time.

    They'll never stop coming too. When it seems and feels like it's all over, two weeks later suddenly they are back. Once again using new accounts/IPs to get around blocks.

    Is there an investigation / monitoring going on behind the scene (i.e. not on any public noticeboard) when it happens?

    I'm asking for advice from admins and experienced users.

    I will say that the vast majority of cases, just one block is enough to stop disruptive behaviour. Sometimes the warning templates actually even work. I'm talking about persistent disruptors here.

    Thanks guys, signing off, AP 499D25 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Focusing mainly on your second question, I would say that yes, the depth of investigation and monitoring will increase as the disruption increases. In some cases you will see different admins turning up, checkusers reverting edits, different block reasons, protections, global locks performed by stewards, and other subtle changes. What you're looking for is the depth and number of admins increasing. More eyeballs means fewer bugs. This isn't usually the result of some secret cabal holding internal discussions, although you can sometimes spot these on admin talk pages, but it's an increase in numbers and independent expertise. Now, sometimes expertise doesn't always work 100%, so do remember this: yes we get a lot of repeat customers, but all vandals go away eventually. Should you report them? Well, if they're not blocked, sure. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To resolve this issue, I would recommend just AIV-ing any new vandal socks, as they will eventually get bored and leave. How long have they been around? Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 23:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of them have been around for mere months at least, some others 8+ years. For example there's a guy who keeps changing the names of hurricane articles to "Bad Motherf*cker", who's been doing it for years now. Though they actually have an LTA case page here. AP 499D25 (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to use the Primacy of Youtube, Odysee, Vimeo, etc.

    Simply to describe the views of someone as they are saying their own views in their own terms and cite that. StrongALPHA (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @SA, you can do that, within certain limitations. What is it that you're trying to add to what article, and using what source? Valereee (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @StrongALPHA To quote what ColinFine often says, "Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources."
    In slightly plainer words: The views of some random person are not very useful here. Info in an article should be about the subject, written by someone else, published by an outlet which has a reputation for fact-checking. Like Valereee, I am curious what the article is, and the source. David10244 (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it depends. Wikipedia might very well be interested in what a person says about themselves. If they're saying "I am a member of Far Hills Baptist Church" or "I believe in UFOs" or "I have three sisters" or "Today is my 50th birthday", sure. If they're saying "I am one of the leading thinkers in the Libertarian Party", not so much. Valereee (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @StrongALPHA The policy is given at WP:ABOUTSELF and does allow use in the cases specified at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Valereee, that's true. I could say "today is my 29th birthday", but that would make me younger than my daughter... David10244 (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and when we have what are normally non-controversial facts in a statement by self that are disputed by reliable sources, we don't accept them from the self-source. But if a normally non-controversial fact isn't dubious or disputed, we can accept it from a self-source. That often includes biographical details and statements of belief, position, values. If Beyonce posted on twitter, "Today is my 28th birthday", we would not use it, as it's highly dubious. If Bo Burnham did, we would. In fact, we did. Valereee (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    dark mode

    Can you guys add a dark mode please? 666999joe (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi 666999joe Please see Wikipedia:Dark mode - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanishing map on Federative units of Brazil infobox?

    This edit of mine caused the clickable map not to show, even after correcting the formatting of the map's name in curly brackets. Full disclosure: I moved the clickable map to the bottom of the infobox.

    Is there some sort of "dominance" being exerted by File:Brazil, administrative divisions (states) - en - colored.svg, the image I added, such that the clickable map cannot appear within the infobox? The clickable map is no substitute for a readable map, but they are quite complementary.-- Quisqualis (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't answer your question. But I find the clickable map easier to read than the non-clickable map. I do find the non-clickable map prettier. Maproom (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are both pretty in their own way. My situation was that I wanted to look at a map of the states of Brazil to get a visual overview of size, location, names, as I have some, but quite limited, knowledge of Brazilian political geography. The clickable map was pretty fiddly. If I wanted to see the names of the coastal northeastern states, well, I could click or hover, I guess, though that wouldn't help me see the shape of any one of them. The standard-style map gives a pretty immediate overview, and it enlarges well, which the clickable map does not. I'd like users to be able to conveniently have a go at either one.-- Quisqualis (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked at this in detail, but I can see two problems in your edits just looking at the diffs.
    1. Usually an infobox image parameter wants just the name of the file, not a wikilink or "File:".
    2. Curly brackets are for WP:transclusion, usually for a template, which is a different operation from linking to a file. {{Brazil labelled Wap}} is transcluding a template called Template:Brazil labelled Map, which doesn't exist.
    You'll need to look at the documentation for Template:infobox subdivision type to be certain what kind of arguments it wants, but I would be amazed if it wants a transclusion. I would expect it to want the name of the map file. ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ColinFine did you mean to type "Wap" above? David10244 (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't. How did you guess? ColinFine (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong are my psychic powers. David10244 (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait -- the text still says "((Brazil labelled Wap)) is transcluding a template called Template:Brazil labelled Map, which doesn't exist." It's that "Wap" that I saw. Are you going to correct it, or will you let my mild OCD bother me?  :-) I can handle it either way! David10244 (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    {{lang}}: what is it good for?

    All {{lang}} does, visibly, is put the content in another font, which I can do as easily (and more concisely and with less violence to other format syntax) with ''…''. Big deal. Does it also do something useful like add the page to an invisible Category:Pages containing Italian text? —Tamfang (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tamfang: According to the template docs, "The purpose of this template is to indicate that a span of text belongs to a particular language. It often makes no visible changes to the text but can prompt web browsers to use a more appropriate font or screen readers to use a particular kind of pronunciation and so on. " See Template:Lang#Rationale for more reasons to use it. RudolfRed (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See Template:lang#Rationale. ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    March 19

    How to specify multiple locations using sfnp?

    I noticed that Padre Pio had multiple error messages in the references, saying "sfnp error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFCastelli2011". These arose from code such as the following: {{sfnp|Castelli|2011|pp=20, 100ff, 139ff}}. The author is trying to refer to multiple locations in that source, but when I look at the documentation for {{sfnp}}, it does not seem to cater for this situation. I have tried a couple of ideas, including "|loc=pp.20, 100ff, 139ff" without luck, and unfortunately the error message does not show up in Preview so I only see it when I publish. I don't want to continue with trial and error on the published page - is there a way to refer to those multiple locations? Gronk Oz (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not about the pages, it's about the number of possible Castelli 2011s that the citation could point toward. I'd recommend removing the full citation to Castelli (#5 currently) and leaving the §Sources entry as the only possible target. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @Firefangledfeathers: I figured that while you were typing and it is fixed now! Sorry for wasting your time. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's always the option of not referring to page numbers in the reference and using {{rp}} immediately whenever it's cited to show which pages are being sourced. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tenryuu: LOL. Thanks, but last time I did that it got reverted (twice) because the other editor was adamant that it was ugly beyond anything that could be tolerated. In any case, I agree that would have been a good option this time except that the problem turned out to be something else.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Help me

    I am editing post East Asian cultural sphere, I just want to say that Vietnam is not really part of Sinosphere. I can't really find a proper source to substantiate this. But I dare say this because the classification of Vietnam in Sinosphere is controversial. The Vietnamese were divided into 3 camps, one pro-Vietnam faction classified as Sinosphere, one pro-Vietnam faction classified as Indosphere, the other saying that Vietnam was a mixture of Sinosphere and Indosphere. I don't know what to do. The pro-Vietnam faction belongs to Sinosphere because they love Chinese culture and especially because they are infected with toxic Chinese cultures such as movies and comics, The pro-Vietnam side belongs to Indosphere because they hate China, the rest are neutral. In addition, the original culture of Vietnam is the Dong Son culture and many other cultures before being invaded by China. If anyone knows about Vietnam, please help me find a source to prove that Vietnam does not belong to Sinosphere, I am grateful to that person. 27.3.1.242 (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not here to help you "prove" anything. If there are two or more conflicting viewpoints that are both supported by reliable sources, then the article should reflect all of the viewpoints, and point out that there is a conflict. as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is not one "correct" viewpoint. Please discuss this on the article's talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Internal project discussions

    Do internal project discussions for purposes of WP:ECR include formal merge discussions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal

    I would like to know why my info from the Kelly Severide Page keeps getting removed when it is nothing but accurate and I have documentation to prove it. Dsummjr11 (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Materialscientist, care to comment? No edit summaries at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Er...and marking reversions as minor? Um...I would think a reversion of a well-intentioned addition, even a problematic one, is never a minor edit. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Dsummjr11. It looks to me as if you have been adding information unsupported by a source. You say you have "documentation" to prove it. Provided this documentation is a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition, you can add the information, properly cited to the source. ColinFine (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Colinfine if you understand the show you would know that he has had many love Interests in the show and his fandom page as well as all the updated info for that. Dsummjr11 (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dsummjr11, a fandom page is likely crowdsourced and therefore not considered by WP to be a WP:reliable source. If you add content without any source, it's quite likely to be immediately removed. Ditto a bad source. Valereee (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have your opinion and I have mine I just know I have seen every season and episode and know what are the facts and what are false. I am just making sure they are accurate information Dsummjr11 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not doubting your knowledge. What I am telling you is that your own knowledge is not good enough for Wikipedia. Valereee (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dsummjr11 Verifiability is a major part of Wikipedia. A reader should be able to follow your references to see the source information for themselves. Writing "what you know" is not acceptable, as Valereee said. Besides, if everyone "understands the show" the way you do, there would be no need for an article. David10244 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dsummjr11, when you find someone is reverting your edits, go to the talk page Talk:Kelly Severide and open a discussion. Don't just keep re-adding them, as you can end up blocked for edit-warring. Discussing is always necessary. Valereee (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking within an article

    I tried to link to another section from Montana (disambiguation)#Naval vessels, but it doesn't work. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If you didn't use Template:Anchor for this purpose, try it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope it works now, Clarityfiend . . . but does it? -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The link had a typo, fixed in [2]. You don't need an anchor to link to a section heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    where is my article in queue

    About five weeks ago I submitted an article on William Thompson Boos (1943-2014). As far as I know, it had been deemed appropriate in other ways, but because I am related to the subject I needed to fill out a conflict of interest form, which I did. However, I haven't heard back. It's o. k. if it's taking a while, but I don't want it to be lost in the queue. Could you kindly check to be sure it hasn't been lost?

    Many thanks.

    Florence S. Boos (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Florence S. Boos, per the template at the top of Draft:William Thompson Boos, "Submission declined on 9 February 2023". See WP:TUTORIAL on how to add reference correctly, the text-sections needs work on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    . . . and you haven't submitted it since 9 February. There's another problem. It's not just that the material in the draft is linked in a very odd way to its source, it's the source itself. Most of the article is sourced to this piece in the Iowa City Press-Citizen. The latter sounds like a newspaper, so I expect to see a newspaper article. However, it doesn't read like an editorial obituary; it reads instead like something submitted to the ICPC by a member or friend of the family. The other examples of obituaries linked from and sampled at this page are more obviously submitted by a member or friend of the family (or perhaps a writer for hire); at the foot of the page we read "Iowa City Press-Citizen is not responsible for screening, editing or verifying obituary content submitted. The submitter is solely responsible for all such content." And so the ICPC piece doesn't seem to me to be a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Florence, also please read WP:NOTABILITY and Wikipedia:Notability (people). What we need are three sources that represent significant coverage in an independent reliable sources. That's how we show a subject is notable, which is the minimum requirement for having an article about that subject. More sources isn't better; to help assess, we'd like to know which three (not four, not ten) are the best for supporting a claim to notability. Do not skip reading the links above. Notability is literally the crucial piece you're trying to prove right now, and from a brief look at that article almost nothing is independent. It all looks like it was either written by him or written/edited by you or another family member. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: To be pedantic, WP:THREE is an essay that strongly recommends three sources when awaiting draft review. It's (in my opinion) invaluable advice, but by no means is it needed by virtue of being policy or a guideline. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, just trying to give the simplest possible info to someone with 23 edits. Three instances of sigcov in independent RS, at least two of which are non-local/non-niche publications, will get over the notability hump for almost all subjects. Fewer than three, unless extremely strong indeed, are always going to be at risk of rejection/AfD. Valereee (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Valeree. I appreciate this helpful advice, since I'm not certain what to do next. My subject was a professor and publisher of academic articles and a book, but I'm not sure of how to find independent sources beyond listing his publications and degrees. The academic publications are of course in non-local professional sources, both national and international. What would you suggest? Florence S. Boos (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not every professor is notable. What we need to see is sources that prove this particular one notable: significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Which are the best three sources that would represent significant coverage in independent reliable sources? In addition to the links above you can also look at WP:NACADEMIC, which discusses how academics are a different case.
    I know this is all very confusing, and I apologize for that. We have a lot of policy. Valereee (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Florence S. Boos, when a professor dies, it's not unusual for an academic journal with which they were closely associated to publish a brief article about him. And periodicals may publish obituaries written (and signed) by other academics working in related areas. These would be usable. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and also: Academics do have other ways to be proven notable, generally involving having made an important contribution to their field. Generally this is proven by things like how often they were cited by other academics, or whether a textbook they wrote was widely used. Often Google Scholar can give you a clue about that, but I'm not finding an entry for him. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Automatically Expanding All Sections

    Wikipedia has been automatically expanding all sections when I read content on my phone. I'm using the browser version on an iPhone, I am signed in, and I've reverted to the classic vector legacy 2010 skin because the new one has a completely unacceptable layout. Whenever I open an article all of the sections automatically expand, making it annoying to find the information I'm after. Additionally, I am no longer able to locate the "expand all pages" setting in preferences. Has this issue been reported already? Strangely, when I sign out, the expand all setting comes back, but since I'm not signed in I can't save pages to my watchlist :( Devilsavocado6596 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Popular pages configuration

    Hi there,

    I am trying to add the popular pages script to this page but I am hitting walls to what I am doing wrong. [3] Nocturnal781 (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nocturnal781: User:Community Tech bot/Popular pages config.json says to post en edit request on the talk page. That means on User talk:Community Tech bot/Popular pages config.json, not on the page where you want the report. See User talk:Community Tech bot/Popular pages config.json/Archive 1 for example requests. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Locating Saved Page Content

    To whom it may concern,

    Perhaps a little more than a year ago, I established a Wiki account and began working on adding content to a page. I was interupted due to other pressing obligations. Now, as I attempt to locate the content I saved, I cannot find it. Mind you, the page never went live as it was not yet completed. Where do I find the content I saved? Yonupe (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yonupe: This post is the only saved edit by your account. It was created 5 February 2021. You have to click a "Publish" button to save an edit. "Publish" on a draft just means it becomes visible to others, not that it is submitted to the encyclopedia. You don't have to be logged in to make edits. If you did save it but was not logged in at the time then we may be able to find it if you say what it was about. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IP users in move requests

    Are IP users allowed to vote in move requests? Treetoes023 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Treetoes023 Per WP:RMCOMMENT, "All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move". 331dot (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Treetoes023 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Lowercase or uppercase?

    Good morning. Why is 'pseudo-Arabic' written in capitals on this page ('pseudo-Arabic'): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Kufic, while on all other pages the term 'pseudo-Kufic' (a variant of 'pseudo-Arabic') is written differently, i.e. with 'pseudo' in lowercase? JackkBrown (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Of the 14 times it appears on the page, only two have 'pseudo' capitalized (except at the beginning of sentences or captions.) You can probably just go boldly make corrections. If anyone has a reason they object, you can discuss it with them. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JackkBrown, because that particular article needs copyediting for consistency, since the lower case form is used later in the article. A Google Books search shows that reliable sources consistently use the lower case version mid-sentence. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: @Cullen328: I meant that in the first lines of the page it says 'Pseudo-Arabic', but on all pages other than this one, including this one, it says 'pseudo-Kufic' ('pseudo' in lower case), when it should, in line with 'Pseudo-Arabic', also be written 'pseudo-Kufic' in lowercase. JackkBrown (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JackkBrown, go ahead and make the corrections. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, just make the corrections you believe are needed. If someone objects, you can discuss it with them. Valereee (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: @Cullen328: the problem is that there are too many pages with this "error"; wouldn't it be better to write "Pseudo-Arabic" in lowercase (in "pseudo-Arabic")? JackkBrown (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, no idea what you're suggesting...requiring it to appear as p-A? But what happens when it starts a sentence? Valereee (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most mentions of pseudo-Arabic are from Template:Arabic culture, which appears in around 100 articles. Pseudo-Arabic is capitalised in the template as an article title. TSventon (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    CAN bus, references, and ISO specs

    This article, CAN bus, has 21 inline references, and almost as many external links. However, it's a long article at 61,000 bytes. When I read it, it just feels like citations are lacking. Large sections of the article don't have any inline citations. Is this a case where "general references" can support information in an article? Is this article properly referenced?

    In addition, the article goes into a lot of detail, down to the bit level of the protocol, with examples and narratives. Is this too much detail, or is it appropriate?

    Finally, the level of detail appears to be what you would get from the specification itself (I have read some ISO specs) -- but you have to purchase the specification from the ISO. The spec itself (or a now-obsolete revision) is cited. Is the spec a primary source, and, are we allowed to purchase an ISO spec and then republish it in an article? David10244 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No, general references are not good enough, and that article does not appear to be adequately sourced. If I knew anything at all about the subject I'd likely be placing multiple tags asking for inline citations. If you have any knowledge of the subject, definitely place tags where you think something can be improved. If others object to your tags, you can discuss on the talk, but go ahead and be WP:bold. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @Valereee. Being a computer programmer, I know a bit about the subject, and I can probably add a lot of "cn"s, or a full-article citation-needed thingy. But...
    I am concerned about the excessive detail in the article, much of which probably came from the ISO spec. I don't want to buy the spec to see if the detail that is in the article is a copyright infringement or not. Of course, the spec is copyrighted -- ISO says:
    • All content on ISO Online is copyright protected. The copyright is owned by ISO. Any use of the content, including copying of it in whole or in part, for example to another Internet site, is prohibited and would require written permission from ISO.
    • All ISO publications are also protected by copyright. The copyright ownership of ISO is clearly indicated on every ISO publication. Any unauthorized use such as copying, scanning or distribution is prohibited.
    From https://www.iso.org/privacy-and-copyright.html
    "Any use of the content"... does that include "rewriting in my own words"?
    I am curious whether all of the visuals were copied from the ISO spec, or if someone actually recreated them. And whether the prose was copied, or rewritten. I could be wrong, but it seems that, even if there's not a direct copyright violation, if we reproduce and rewrite enough of a copyrighted operational specification -- that doesn't seem right somehow. I don't suppose that the Wikipedia library gives us access to ISO specs, so that we can check this, does it? Thanks for any suggestions. David10244 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @David10244, again we're not in my wheelhouse (literally don't know what the acronyms stand for), but I would assume that an ISO copyright statement such as "any use of the content" would not include forbidding you from summarizing it in your own words. That's how all Wikipedia articles are written: we read the content in a (often copyrighted) reliable source, and then summarize the important parts in our own words. Copyright does not apply to ideas, but to the expression of those ideas.
    Re: excessive detail. That's actually usually a separate problem. We are concerned with what is useful to the reader. If the detail is trivia that isn't useful to the reader, we leave it out. But if it's helpful to people who are interested in or trying to learn more about CAN bus(ses?) and ISO specs, then we would typically leave it in. Is your concern that the level of detail is so specific that it would render the ISO itself less valuable because Wikipedia has provided so much information that no one would need to buy the ISO? I think you might want to start a discussion at that article talk; it looks like the article has hundreds of watchers, and 30 visited recent edits, so there are people interested. Or, if you think the article has too much unhelpful detail, just start trimming. If someone objects, you can discuss.
    Re: WP Library...don't assume they can't give you access to something, but again this is not in my wheelhouse. Valereee (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Javascript tools in external links

    Having seen online practice tools included before on several pages about writing systems, I added several from one place. These changes where reverted on the basis that private tools should not be included in EL sections. Is there any consensus on whether online tools are appropriate? The guidelines on external links did not clarify anything for me. 82.43.190.243 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a high-level index page. Did you intend to link to that? David10244 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the index from which I was taking the links. 82.43.190.243 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Generally, links to a top-level page are not very helpful. David10244 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Calculation of the population density in the Infobox

    Hi there,

    i have a problem with the population density in the Infobox. The calculation is clearly wrong in my opinion, but unfortunately I can't make any change. The value is not displayed in the source code. Am I correct and how can I fix the problem?

    PS.: The article in which I would like to correct this is Magdeburg. Bildersindtoll (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bildersindtoll: Please always say what you think is wrong when you report a perceived problem. Do you mean that it's rounded? It says Area Total 201.03 km2 (77.62 sq mi), Population Total 236,188, Density 1,200/km2 (3,000/sq mi). Without rounding it should be 236,188/201.03 = 1,175/km2. It doesn't appear the rounding can be avoided. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned from Russian Wikipedia

    Dear Sirs and Mesdames

    The [lifetime!] block recently imposed on me by Russian Wikipedia is unnecessarily harsh. Furthermore, I was given absolutely no prior warning that my "sins" were bad enough for that penalty; thus, I had no opportunity to try and rectify or remove the offending item before the ban was enforced.

    In fact, it is very debatable whether I really am guilty of any serious, punishable 'incorrect behaviour', because I was only trying to be helpful - attempting to enrich their "Delta-T" site by linking to [what I believe is] a first-class diagram showing recent changes in the value of that important parameter.

    Furthermore, I cannot attempt to reason with them by writing to the person who initiated it, because the block extends to not allowing me any access to their personal correspondence file!

    I have uploaded the same link [showing that diagram] into the English, German, Spanish and Japanese Wikipedias - and they are all still there, available for public viewing. Certainly, none of these four sites has hinted that I deserve to be blocked.

    I am quite happy *not to challenge* the deletion of my last Russian Wikipedia post regarding Delta-T... More than that - I am prepared to never contribute anything more to Russian Wikipedia, but just cannot see why [in this instance] my block there has to affect my membership of other Wikipedias [by being a 'blot' on my record].

    There must presumably be a way of appealing against my ban, but my Russian is probably not good enough to investigate where and how to do that. In any event, it looks as if the conditions of my block will probably not allow me to do that!

    It seems that it was "Q-bit array" who blocked me: so - may I please ask somebody to forward this complaint and request to a *different* Russian administrator, who could perhaps give a second opinion on this matter.

    With thanks in anticipation, Regards, David McNaughton [Wikipedia Identifier: "DLMcN"] DLMcN (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We have zero control over what happens on the Russian Wikipedia. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like this is going to seem mean, and I don't intend it that way, but if your Russian isn't good enough to figure out how to appeal, why are you working at ruwiki? I kind of feel like people should be working at the wikis where they have reasonable language skills. Here on enwiki we consider it a WP:Competence is required issue. Valereee (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee - I submit that you are 'out of order' with your unhelpful remarks. Many decades ago, I was actually the official translator of scientific Russian articles for a government in southeast Africa - and my efforts and contributions were appreciated. Before this last episode, my last posts in Russian-Wiki were ten years ago - and they too were welcomed.
    With the relentless passage of the decades, my command of Russian has, unfortunately, faded through lack of practice and usage. Despite that, I did manage to find a couple of places in Russian-Wiki where it seemed that I could register my complaint - only to find that I was blocked from editing there.
    My Japanese is significantly worse than my Russian, but it still seemed worth telling them about the Delta-T diagram. And [contrary to what you imply] they had the grace to thank me - in English ! --DLMcN (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DLMcN Your block on ru Wikipedia can only be undone by appeal there. However, you are not globally blocked and can continue to contribute everywhere else, as evidenced by this Teahouse thread, for example. You have added a link to your personal website as a reference in our article on ΔT (timekeeping) and have explained on its Talk Page why you did that. I don't think you would be blocked for doing such a thing here so if I were you I'd just stop worrying about ru Wikipedia on the basis that if they don't want your contributions there are plenty of other ways to assist the overall Project. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Mike T, for your reassurance and advice. The Russian block is enough to prevent me from using the Wikipedia Library. The Library authorities do, however, imply that they might be able to ignore that if I provide some clarification - so I have written to them. --DLMcN (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DLMcN: I speak no Russian at all, but what I gather from DeepL is that you were blocked for promotional editing and a promotional username. Promotional editing is at least dubious, but I see no case at all for promotional username, and in any case a block without a warning is extremely severe. Hence, I do sympathize with your plight.
    That being said, I concur with Valereee. To edit ru-wp, you do need a basic ability to read the guidelines there and speak the language decently enough to communicate. (That is not only a requirement of language skills - navigating the policy pages is an art in itself.) If you cannot find the way to appeal blocks, that’s a sign that you probably will not be able to contribute much to ru-wp.
    If you are ok with abandoning ru-wp (and again, I am not saying that’s fair), then there is not much need to "set the record straight". A block on X-wp will usually not be "counted against you" in Y-wp unless there is evidence that the same issues carried over from one wp to the next. That occurs usually in conversations about civil POV-pushing ("editor X is rewriting articles to paint East Domania in a good light and West Domania in a bad light" / "oh well, they seem civil and their edits are sourced, come back when there’s more evidence" / "actually, they were banned from Domanian Wikipedia after a very long discussion of their edits there, they switched to English Wikipedia just afterwards"). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the "Welcome" message which I received from Russian-Wiki (12 years ago, admittedly) -
    "Hello and welcome to the Russian Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions. If your Russian skills are not good enough, that's no problem. We have an embassy where you can inquire for further information in your native language. We hope you enjoy your time here!" ... [However, my block prevents me from going in there and asking for help !] --DLMcN (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DLMcN, was your talk page access revoked there? If not, you can ask the user to discuss there. Not sure what you mean by their "personal correspondence file", but they do have an email link on their user page. I would first try to simply respond on your user talk to their block message, pinging them. If they don't respond, you can (if able) email them. If they still don't respond, perhaps you can find a Russian speaker who can post a request at ruwiki's version of AN. Valereee (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Valereee -
    I could not see an e-mail option on Q-bit array 's Russian page, but did find one on his English page [and used it]; this facility was also available in his "Russian bot" page-site. In addition, I left a copy in his English Talk-Page:
    User talk:Q-bit array - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Q-bit_array
    which shows that there have been other people who feel that he has blocked them unfairly !
    For that^ reason, it may be necessary to try and contact a different administrator, for a second opinion.
    Cheers ! - David Mc DLMcN (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Success ! ... Q-bit array has lifted the block ! ... I really appreciate the comments and suggestions made by everybody above... Three Cheers ! --DLMcN (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Approval of restructure of Road signs in Ireland topic

    Hello, I have prepared a restructure of the Road signs in Ireland article in my sandbox. I was referred to here as well as the WP:Peer review page, as I would like my proposal to be approved by others rather than immediately changing it in an edit, but am unsure what is the best way to go about it. Thanks in advance, EthanL13 (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @EthanL13: You should mention this also at Talk:Road_signs_in_Ireland RudolfRed (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done so now, thanks EthanL13 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to link the Sanhujoriwon document to the Korean ko:산후조리원 document.

    I wanted to connect, but an error appears. How can I connect? 망고소녀 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @망고소녀: Sanhujoriwon is a redirect to Sanhujori#Sanhujoriwon. Do you mean you want to add the English redirect as a language link at ko:산후조리원? The normal Wikidata method doesn't allow redirects. You can instead add the code [[en:Sanhujoriwon]] to the wikitext of ko:산후조리원. In addition you can add [[ko:산후조리원]] to the redirect page but few people will see it. See more at Help:Interlanguage links#Local links. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    March 20

    a lot of mistakes because there is an independentist organization in the north of chad. those close to the manipulative Chad regime. for example Toubou flags. there are several flags .

    look web site Toubou governement in exil Enesu Tudaa-a, State of Tubu, Tubuland, دولة التُبو (tibesti-gov.info) Kalimiduna (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are problems with the article Toubou people, Kalimiduna, you're free to point them out at the foot of Talk:Toubou people. I suggest that you start by pointing out just one problem, providing a precise reference to a specific web page -- not some unspecified page somewhere within a website -- that authoritatively corrects the mistake. Once other editors have agreed that the article was wrong and your "correction" really was a correction, add comments on more problems, but never more than a few at one time. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about Recent Changes filters

    What are the differences between the "Contributor quality predictions" and "User intent predictions" filters on the Recent Changes page? The little "How do these work?" help popup doesn't seem to say much about the differences. AP 499D25 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @AP 499D25 There is a detailed explanation at this mediawiki URL. I reached that by clicking through the "learn more" option of the popup on the filter changes menu of Special:RecentChanges. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism help request from Sparaig2

    I have noticed some editorial screwups (by me) at Jyotir_Math. Namely, I tried to add the phrase "(disputed)" and signed it with "02:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)" as per the old style, and that inserted into the text itself and now I can't figure out how to gracefully undo the damage. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Sparaig2 (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted it to the previous version. I'd also suggest adding a citation to any claim that a figure is disputed, as that could be a contentious claim. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Max for table that also scales to viewport

    How do I make a table scale to viewport if the viewport width is under the max width but only have width at the max width if the viewport exceeds the max width? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a question about Wikipedia? As far as I know, we don't have anything called a "viewport". ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu (and @ColinFine for info): I suspect this refers to the apparent device viewport, or area the user sees an article's content in. (See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Viewport for a summary explanation.) Anything parts of a object (such as a table) which is too large to fit in the viewport will not be visible until the user scrolls or zooms (if either are allowed) in the appropriate direction.
    The original question is not entirely clear, but I interpret it as asking how a table can be made bigger or smaller when it's too wide to fit inside a user's viewport. In a nutshell, one of the following can be done:
    • decrease the font size used in the table (but note MOS:FONTSIZE and, in particular, WP:ACCESSIBILITY);
    • remove content from the table;
    • remove unnecessary formatting, such as non-breaking spaces which prevent content from "flowing" inside table cells;
    • consider presenting the information in a different way; see MOS:TABLES.
    Bazza (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    how do i download an audio file from wikipedia?

    how do i download an audio file from wikipedia? Orange-wp (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Orange-wp Taking as example the one at Gettysburg Address, click the i in a circle, then the linked bolded bit in "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.", and on that page you'll see a download link. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for you kind help Orange-wp (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with moving articles

    I'd like to ask someone to help me with the following:

    I can move pages, but I don't know if the current Dom Aleixo (the disambiguation page) should be deleted first, in order to not mess up page history and I don't have deletion privileges.

    The only place where this "Dom Aleixo Timorese" comes up is Wikipedia. Every literature about him gives his name as "Dom Aleixo" without "Timorese" in it, that would be like addressing Biden as "Joe Biden American". Bastewasket (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:RMPM for instructions. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of Mental Floss

    My edit of Cher was reverted with the claim that Mental Floss is not a reliable source. Is this claim correct? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Clarityfiend the only discussion at WP:RSN is here which concluded "Mental Floss is a listicle website/youtube channel, and it should never be cited for anything." - Arjayay (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Updating name of company on company Wikipedia page

    Hi there. Our company has recently been renamed from "Cumming Corporation" to "Cumming Group". I'm not seeing an "Edit > Move" option when on the Wikipedia page. How can I update this? Cumming Corporation Czanutto (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Czanutto - the reason there is no "Edit > Move" option is that your account is not WP:Autoconfirmed - more worrying is that, from your statement "our company" you have a clear WP:Conflict of interest and, I assume, you are also a WP:Paid editor, please read those sections, make the necessary declarations and do not edit the article again, but make proposals, supported by WP:Reliable sources on the article's talk page. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Category not working

    Hi. I added the category Category:Assassinated American federal politicians to the page Robert F. Kennedy but the latter is not showing in the list of pages in the category. Help. Thinker78 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes things take a little while to update. I see it on that Category page under "K". See Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#Why_might_a_category_list_not_be_up_to_date? for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thinker78: fixing ping. RudolfRed (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How to add a subject page to wikipedia.

     – Splitting sections. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been a member of wikipedia for about 20 years, and I've made a multitude of changes and additions over the years -- under my other user account name. But when I tried to log in this time, I was unable to remember my password, and because I had not provided an email address when I opened my account, I wasn't able to get help when I was trying to log in. Consequently, I've now opened a new account. Makes me very sad that I've lost the history of my voluminous contributions.

    In any case, what I want to do now is add a subject page about the short film, "Cradle Song" (1981), written, produced, and directed by Sharron Miller. Can you please tell me how to do this?? It's been decades since I have added a new page. Please help if you can. Thank you. Vistalane (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Vistalane. If you would like to create an new article about a film, you will need to demonstrate that the film meets WP:NFILM. Generally, you will need to show that the film has received WP:SIGCOV in WP:RELIABLESOURCES to establish that it's WP:NOTABLE for an article to be written about it. You might want to ask about the film at WT:FILM if you have any specific question about Wikipedia notability and films. As for your question about accounts, there's no way to merge account contribution histories together per WP:DELETEACCOUNT; if, however, you remember the other accounts you used, you can add links to them to your "new" user page to unofficially connect the accounts together if you want. You can either add the link manually or use a userbox to do so (e.g. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Marchjuly. I will do my best to do as you suggest, and I very much appreciate your help. -- Vistalane Vistalane (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    March 21

    publications

    Hi. My name is Sergio, I received the inquiry for a costumer to introduce the data for a Spanish painter, but for some reason it was imposible. And we would like how can we write the data in the wiki. The name of the painter is José Luís Mesas and you can find several material in google about him. Please, can you help us to know what is happening. Thanks in advance. waiting for your reply. Sergio 2806:2F0:8560:BA78:F4BF:CA43:A211:D03C (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Sergio, I couldn't find any trace of any prior attempt, so you would have to be more specific in what is impossible to track down the cause. Putting that aside, Editing Wikipedia for a customer is a form of paid editing, which, while not forbidden, must be disclosed (this is a Terms of Use requirement). Please also note that we are not interested in what a subject wants to tell about themselves. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources have written about a subject (if these sources are wrong, take it up with them, Wikipedia is not the right place to do corrections). That being said, please see Your first article for guidance about creating a new article, and also Creating articles backwards. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    wikiversity

    I would like to teach writing theree 72.225.176.145 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wonderful! Visit https://www.wikiversity.org/ to learn more about Wikiversity. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Citation needed?

    How do I know what to put in a 'citation needed' spot? Nice user2 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi! If you would like to add a citation needed tag, you can add {{cn}} to an unsourced claim, if the claim is not sourced or referenced. Tails Wx 04:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean when i'm editing and come across a citation needed what do I do? Nice user2 (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh! Well, you can source it, and once you have a source for the claim, you can remove it. If you don't, you can leave it, and maybe even remove the unsourced claim if there are no reliable sources for the claim! Tails Wx 04:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say source for the claim, do you mean a site that proves a statement? Nice user2 (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I'm wasting your time, sometimes I have trouble understanding things. Nice user2 (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, whoops, I meant proof for the statement. Nice user2 (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, wait, nevermimd, I just read it wrong. Nice user2 (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We mean a reliable published source, preferably independent of the subject of the article, that says whatever is claimed in the article. Many reliable sources are websites, or are to be found on websites (eg Google books). But many reliable sources are not on the web (eg printed books, or newspapers that have not been scanned).
    On the other hand, many websites (as well as some books etc) are not reliable sources, and should not be cited. For example, wikis (including Wikipedia), blogs, forums, and iMDB, are not regarded as reliable; and nor are books published by vanity presses. See WP:RSN for discussion of reliability of sources, and WP:RSP for a list of sources that are commonly asked about.
    You cite a source by giving essential bibliographic information like title, author, date, publisher/website, page number: if the source is on the web, then a URL may be given as a convenience, but (unless that is the only place the source is to be found) it is not an essential part of the citation. See WP:REFB for how to do this. ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How to create a new wikipedia page

    Hello Team, I am ML Gayatri and i am a playback singer in the sounth indian films. I have red-colored link already existing. However, i am unable to create a page/draft using this link. Do you ahve any standard template that i need to follow to create a draft and then publish? Please guide me. ML Gayatri AdityaTel (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @AdityaTel: Hi there! WP:AUTO explains that Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. Creating a new Wikipedia article can be challenging, especially when you have a conflict of interest (COI). To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. When you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple published independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of you, and determine whether they demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could create an account and declare your COI on your user page. Then follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. If you are successful, then you could never edit the article directly due to your COI, but could submit edit requests on the article talk page. Hope this helps. GoingBatty (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Who rescinded my revision and why? My comment was based on law (5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution).

    Who rescinded my revision and why? My comment was based on law (5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution). Cuban-American Patriot (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cuban-American Patriot: Hi there! I see you edited the List of LASD deputy gangs article. When you go to the article and click the "View history" link, you'll see who reverted your edit, which an edit summary explaining the reversion because "not providing a reliable source (WP:CITE, WP:RS)". Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you could post on the article's talk page - Talk:List of LASD deputy gangs - to discuss your concerns. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that we don't write our own opinions or interpretations of law into articles, even if they're obviously correct. We just summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Exorcists

    How can my ministry as an Exorcist be added to the List of Exorcists? Carolyn-1956 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you assist me in adding my name under the list of Christian Non-denominational exorcists. Carolyn-1956 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It probably can't, Carolyn. List most list articles on Wikipedia, List of exorcists is not, nor intended to be, a list of every exorcist who ever existed. It is a list of Wikipedia articles or potential articles about exorcists. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that a significant amount of material has been published about you in reliable sources, and without you or your associates being involved in any way in that publication - then there could be an article about you. You are strongly advised against writing an article about yourself, but not forbidden. But unless you meet those critiera, anybody trying to write such an article will be wasting their time. ColinFine (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]