Wikipedia:Help desk

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

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

Ask a question

June 10

Please open my own now

Please open my own 105.112.123.209 (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I don't understand what you are asking. Please clarify. ColinFine (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

My account is "lost"

Hi, I have an issue. I have created my wiki account very long time ago. The old e-mail is not working anymore, so I am not able to reset the password. The password got changed in 2016 by Wikipedia mass password resets (because many passwords were compromised). I would like to access my old account and continue working with it. But how? Who can fix my e-mail address in the account? How can I open a ticket for wikipedia support?

Thank you. 90.64.194.49 (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if you no longer have the password or access to that email address, then there is no way to recover the account. I suggest you create a new one, and edit the user page of both the new account and the old one to say that they are the same person, and why there are two. ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I have contacted Wiki support (info-en@wikimedia.org) and they opened a ticket, found my changed user id and told to try to login with that user and the old password. It has worked. Case closed.

Thanks. 90.64.194.49 (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

how to set languages i want in suggested languages?

Hi! I'm a relatively new user, and recently I went into a bit of a deep dive into some topics which required me to look across multiple language versions of the same page.

Now, I have an overwhelming amount of suggested languages when I want to switch the language. Is there a way to set the languages I speak so I can easily access them? For clarity, I would like to set my languages to English, Hebrew, and Simple English, without having languages like Hungarian or Italian (and about 20 others) appear in the suggested languages menu.

Also, I use Wikipedia from my phone a lot, so i use the mobile version on it, which is drastically more convenient than the desktop version (when using a phone). The problem is that it makes the autocomplete for certain articles I read a lot direct to en.m.wikipedia instead of en.wikipedia, so it is less convenient on my desktop.

Is there a way to stop my browser from going to the mobile version instead of the desktop version? (instead of manually editing the URL or scrolling to switch to the desktop view).

Thank you guys so much for reading and (hopefully) helping :) Skiddaddle (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

On the desktop version, the languages that you've frequently switch to would be placed on the top of the language sidebar (assuming ccorresponding articles do exist in those languages). I think something similar might exist on the mobile website version but can't be certain. As for the second question, on the very bottom of each Wikipedia webpage there would be a tool bar, the ones with "term of use" and other options, and you can click/tap on the last one that says "mobile view" or "desktop" to switch to the other version. Generally your device will remember your preference. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the claim that it will automatically put your "frequently switched to" languages at the top of the language sidebar. (T presume that by "frequently switched to", you are referring to the setting for the languages used in menus. It appears to me that the available languages for the current page are simply listed in alphabetical order (by the code prefix). There may also be some unavailable languages listed before the available languages are listed. (Don't ask me why.) On "simple English" wikipedia, it's a little different, in that the languages are arranged in groups. If there is some kind of customized ordering of the languages, I'm not noticing it. Fabrickator (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi,

I tried to post an article, and it got deleted based on Wiki's U5 ("Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages..."). However, I am not sure why it got deleted, as I did include many references and links to other sites and articles. My article was about a person, who I did get permission to write about. Please advise me as to why my article was deleted, and how I can do it again so as to avoid being deleted. This is who my article was about: https://www.constancescharff.com/. Lisacourtnadge (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lisacourtnadge. Even though trying to create an article on one's user page is a mistake that's commonly made and isn't something explicity prohibitted by Wikipedia's user page policy, such content is often mistaken for a fake article or being otherwise inappropriate for a user page; so, the page often ends up being tagged ans subsequently deleted per speedy deletion criterion U5. For this reason, it's generally better to work on drafts for articles in the draft namespace or as a userspace draft instead. What you can try doing is posting a message on the user talk page of the administrator who deleted the page, explain you were working on a draft for an article, and ask them to restore it either as a draft or a userspace draft. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't see what was deleted, but the deleting adminsitrator would probably be willing to restore it unless it was so hopeless or so filled with serious violations of relevant Wikipedia policies that restoring the page wouldn't be allowed or would otherwise be pointless to do so. If that's the case, you may have no alternative but to start again.

Finally, you don't need the permission of the subject to try and create a Wikipedia article about them, but you do need to clearly be able to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability because only subjects deemed to be Wikipedia notable can have stand-alone articles written about them. Given that the subject you want to create an article about is a person, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for reference. You will need to first self-assess this person to see whether the meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines because nobody is going to be able to create an article about them without being able to establish that they do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly it was the username/sandbox page so the location is not an issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lisacourtnadge I've taken a look at the deleted page, but I'm none the wiser about why it was deleted as it appears to be a legitimate draft. Hopefully the deleting admin, @Fastily would explain soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a promotional piece about a non-notable individual intended to boost their SEO visibility. It's a stretch to describe this as a "legitimate draft" -Fastily 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

what is the world's worst wildfire?

We need a history of the greatest and worst wildfires of the world. Please help with this. 2405:201:C030:118D:EDC4:DA37:79A0:E4BD (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, attempting to compile lists of this kind usually runs into problems with original research. There is a source here that has some suggestions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You're also going to run into the problem of definition. Worst for the trees? Worst for the wildlife? Worst for loss of human life? Worst in terms of financial loss? Or the largest or most difficult to put out? Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Bold/Italics w/ piped Wikilink.

Is ''[[target|text]]'' preferred to [[target|''text'']] to the point where it should be changed from the second to the first in artices? (similarly for bold) Naraht (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd mildly prefer the second, but I certainly wouldn't bother changing either. Maproom (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

On another hand, I have recently changed [[Title|''Title'']] to ''[[Title]]''. —Tamfang (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the second form used to break WP:popups or some other quick-formatter tool, but I can't reproduce it now. The first form feels semanatically more correct in many cases also: assuming 'text' is some sort of approximate synonym for 'target', 'target' would be an italicizeable text if it were displayed, just we'd rather display a synonym. DMacks (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Torah Tape

Is there an article on the topic Torah Tape? Nuts240 (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't appear so. What is "Torah tape"? ColinFine (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

To reply to your question, Colin, it can refer to a tape (or other similar medium) recording of the Torah being recited: there is rabbinic debate about whether this is as 'Talmudically' valid as reading the Torah or hearing it recited by someone physically present.

There are also Torah-related music tracks and CDs (and YouTube videos), some of which appear under the rubric of 'Torah Tapes'. Disclaimer: IANAR.

To answer Nuts240, the only mention of the term on Wikipedia is found in the article about Avigdor Miller, who issued such tapes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

A reliable source for a debate might be used in Torah reading but it doesn't sound like a topic for a whole article if "Torah tape" merely means an audio recording of the Torah. We have a general article audiobook which doesn't mention the Torah. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Date/time formatting

Hi, there is this wikitext in an article June 6, 2024, 12:50:00 [[UTC]] (7:50 am [[Central Time Zone|CDT]]) which is a manually printed and converted date showing the UTC date of the event (matching the MOS of the section of wikipedia it is located in) and also the local time of the event. Is there a wikipedia template that will generate this just specifying the utc time (or local time) and the converted time in the requested time zone? Ergzay (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We have a ton of Category:Time, date and calendar templates but I don't see one that does this full task. The closest is {{time}}, which displays the current date and/or time in a variety of formats, adjusted for a given timezone. But it does have a documented parameter to force use of an alternate specific date+time. So you could call it twice, once for UTC and once for CDT:

12:50, 6 June 2024 UTC (07:50, June 6, 2024 CDT)

Check the documentation for the |df= parameter for the (too limited, in my opinion) formatting options. Does our Lua support include strftime to allow enhancing this template? We also have the {{#time:}} parser function for comparable formatting flexibility, but it cannot make the TZ string as a link. There are a few other formatting templates listed in that one's docs that might be more flexible for format but not cover both date and time simultaneously. DMacks (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks Am I perhaps misreading that template? That only works for the _current_ time which isn't what's needed as this is the time a specific event took place, not the current time. That's why I didn't bother looking at it further. Ergzay (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

See my "But..." sentence:) My example output is an actual use of the template for the time and date you proposed. The code is:

{{time|hide-refresh=y|_TEST_TIME_=20240606125000}} ({{time|hide-refresh=y|CDT|_TEST_TIME_=20240606125000}})

DMacks (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I see, so it's kind of a hacked use of it. Maybe the template is due for a fork to make that the primary feature and also accept additional, more readable, time input formats. Ergzay (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Register of interests as source for politicians

Can the Register of Interests for a politician be used as a citation source? I ask just in case it might fall foul of WP:BLPPRIMARY, and be classed as a public record. I am thinking of this link for use on the article about Georgia Gould. It doesn’t have her home address. BLP says "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." The link mentions the organisations she is a member of, which would be an interesting addition to the article. TrottieTrue (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I would advise against using it as a source, since it is a public document and written like a self published material. Note that not everything about the subject need to be put on the Wikipedia article, if the subject's membership in certain organization has not received coverage from the press or other independent secondary sources, its inclusion in the article would be optional. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

adding unique discovery to an existing page or own page

Several years ago I made a discovery, recently I've narrowed it down to a formula. The concept has been thoroughly researched and to date, this fact remains to eluded the most extensive websites on the associated subject. In the first instance it needs independent validation. As trivial as it may be, nothing is achieved by adding unqualified data on Wikipedia. I should add, I do not wish to exaggerated what is, in one sense "trivia", nevertheless I consider it may be regarded as a "why didn't we think of that before !". Any help would be appreciated (conditional). Many thanks, Hgpone Hgpone (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hgpone – Wikipedia is intended to be simply a summary of what reliable sources have already said, and is not for original ideas or research. If, as you say, your discovery has not been reported on in any reliable sources, it unfortunately can't be published on Wikipedia. Tollens (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Being required to log in and not being able to do so

I'm not pleased with not being able to use the search capacity. I have been with wikipedia from the beginning nad have donated when aske to. I probably logged in the first time and have never needed to repeat that until now. I don't recall my used name or password but Jimmy always sends me emails so that much you do know. I'm waiting for a response to my password queery, but the bot or person seems to be in no hurry, meanwhile I'm loosing my patience. Of course I know writing this is a waste of time because I need to log in and that I can't do in order to get an answer. Now I'm thinking it will be possible to live without Wikipedia. 81.40.93.60 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to log in to post here or edit most pages. "Jimmy always sends me emails" sounds like you once donated and gave your email address at the time. Donations are not tied to user accounts. Search does not require logging on. If you don't see a search box then maybe you have to first click a magnifying glass icon at the top of pages. If you tried to use Special:PasswordReset then mails are sent immediately. I receive them within seconds. I guess you never created an account.PrimeHunter (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Posting a Bibliography

How long does the process take of uploading a Wikipedia page about someone very important and is there any way to expedite this process?  RevitateIntern1 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi RevitateIntern1, the time for a draft to be reviewed is currently anywhere up to three months due to a sizable backlog. There is no way to expedite the process. If you are referring to User:RevitateIntern1/sandbox, this draft would not be approved as Wikipedia is not for hosting fictional content. Tollens (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

OP indef'ed for UPE/etc. DMacks (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have submitted an article to en.wikipedia, but it was actually meant to be on pt.wikipedia

I need help to transfer an article which was originally submitted to en.wikipedia as a draft (Hábitos Alimentares em Animais) to pt.wikipedia. The article was written in portuguese, so it makes more sense to be in the portuguese version of the platform. Can I transfer it to pt.wikipedia? If so, how? Rafaeltrivella (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

As you are basically the main author, I would think it would be ok to just copy/paste the whole thing over, the other option is to find someone over there with the import user right and ask them to import it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the submission request for Rafaeltrivella, I agree that there is no issue with the user copying the draft over to the Portuguese Wikipedia. Note that the references should be tweaked to convert the fields to Portuguese. Meters (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Here [1] I'd like the first note to be below the "Notes" section and the second note to be under the poem. The article is modeled after this one [2] but I happened to need to add another note which is unrelated to the poem so it shouldn't be below it. I thought I'd be able to sort it out with Template:Efn's parameters (I imagined I'd be able to set a name for a specific group of notes and set the same name for Template:Notelist so it only lists those with that name, or something, I don't know) but I haven't been able to. Can anyone help here? Super Ψ Dro 23:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus. The problem has to do with the two {{notelist}} templates being used in the article. All the notes located above the first template will automatically be displayed wherever it is located, and all the notes added below the first template will automatically be displayed where the second template is located. In my personal opinion, it just seems better to keep all of the notes in the same section, but you might be able tell the software to locate them in different sections by using the |group= parameter as explained in Template:Efn and Template:Notelist.

Finally, the article Zicu Araia is only using one "notelist" template: the notes appearing under the poem are formatted using the templates "efn" and "notelist", but the notes appearing in the "Citation" section are formatted using the templates {{sfn}} and {{Reflist}}. Since there's no template conflict, the software puts everything where it's intended to go. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not able to figure it out with the |group= parameter. If any editor has any clue, please tell me, or feel free to edit my sandbox for applying it. Super Ψ Dro 10:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

June 11

Edit history

An editor replaced the contents of Operation Star with another, which is really Operation Star 94, on 10 June. I would like to move the newer material to that other title and restore the much more significant World War II operation, but how can I attach the three-edit Star 94 history to the new article? Does this require an admin? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a WP:HISTSPLIT, which does need admin assistance. DMacks (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I did it:) DMacks (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

How can I report malicious edit of existing Wiki Page?

A profile photo of Samdech Hun Manet, Prime Minister of Cambodia, had been replaced by a photoshopped photo. It has now been reversed to the original photo, but how can I report this so that it won't happen again?

Where did you see this? The article Hun_Manet has not been edited in the past few weeks. If you do notice ongoing persistent vandalism, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP but that won't be granted for a one-time event. RudolfRed (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a help desk for the English Wikipedia. I don't know why but the poster removed their own link to the affected page https://km.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%9E%A0%E1%9F%8A%E1%9E%BB%E1%9E%93_%E1%9E%98%E1%9F%89%E1%9E%B6%E1%9E%8E%E1%9F%82%E1%9E%8F.[3] We have no authority over the Khmer Wikipedia and Wikipedia editions have different processes and policies. I don't know theirs or their language. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

signing into my wiki page

I'm trying to edit my page but I can't remember my password. I've tried resetting it but receive no instructions to my email address 49.224.233.208 (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP 49.224.233.208. Does my page mean a user page or a Wikipedia article? If you had previously created a Wikipedia account and don't remember the password, please take a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical#How do I recover a password I have forgotten? for some general information on how to reset your password. However, in order for the process to work, you will need to have registered an email address when you created your account, and you will need to be able to access that account. If you can still access your email account, try checking the accpount's spam folder to see whether any emails related to Wikipedia accidentally ended up there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

To continue what Marchjuly said: if you mean an article about you, then you should not edit it. If there are changes you think should be made, please see AUTOPROB. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Request to upload an English Wikipedia image

Request to upload an English Wikipedia image. Currently, the logo image of the Wikipedia entry (Soul (app)) is old and needs to be updated with the latest brand logo.

Wikipedia: Soul (app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_ (app);

The source file is: https://s3.amazonaws.com/i.snag.gy/f0UkRC.jpg Lihaiyue88 (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Lihaiyue88 Please go to Files For Upload. 331dot (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Lihaiyue88. You should be able to update the logo yourself by going to File:Soul App logo.jpg, scrolling to the bottom of the page and clicking on "Upload a new version of this file"; however, you'll need to download the new logo to your computer first before uploading to Wikipedia. If you're unable to do this yourself, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Files for upload. FWIW, though, there doesn't appear to be any real difference between the logo currently being used in the article and the one you want to upload; so, there might not really be a need to change things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! My account does not have permission to upload images. Can you help me upload the latest logo? The latest logo still has a significant difference from the original image. The new logo has a green border and a "Soul APP" logo, making it more representative. Lihaiyue88 (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

BUt the current is much represented. I mean File:Soul App logo.jpg. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Above, I've commented out your intended inclusion of the file File:Soul App logo.jpg, SafariScribe, because its copyright status does not license such appearances. -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Unsure whether the user is a sock or not

This user's last reply to me on their talk page said that they "edited several pages" when the account was just created today so I'm not sure if the account is a sock or not and that's why I go here instead of reporting it at WP:SPI. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 11:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius It is possible block evasion, or, more simply, that the editor no longer has access to a prior account, or that this is the first account they have created after editing anonymously. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius I have made a polite request for clarification on their talk page. Until the mist clears may I suggest you take them at face value? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is it exactly - I took some time off and used to do it anonymously. But opened a new account yesterday based on my thrill for Show 8

I have created several pages before and wrote out Plot sections that provide more details to a tv show that offers more detail than the episode summaries and synopsis while keeping with the rules. This user deleted 5 hours of my work without explanation and threatened to report me if I added it back. This is why my replies were less than cordial. DanFromHR (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright but I disagree with this line: "This user deleted 5 hours of my work without explanation and threatened to report me if I added it back." — I gave an explanation when I reverted your edits on The 8 Show and it is a warning not threatening. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 17:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The Talk page is clear. You absolutely deleted 5 hours of my work - I wrote it because the synopsis nor the episodes give a good summary of the show and I stayed within Plot guidelines. When I was editing the page, you wrote me to say you would report me to the administrator if I put it back, meanwhile your editing left a huge space game on the page that I fixed. Your whole approach was rude and unpleasant. DanFromHR (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Additionally you flagged it as one error, and then changed it to another - there was no acknowledgement or explanation until I was editing it again in which you threatened me. A warning is a threat lol. I still stand that it was not in violation of either of the rules you linked and you didn't say a thing until the second time I reposted it. It would be better if you would be honest DanFromHR (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @98Tigerius: per the sockpuppetry policy, users are allowed to use more than one account, and if they have edited logged out they are permitted (encouraged, even) to create an account and continue editing. Only certain deceptive and inappropriate uses of multiple accounts are forbidden; see WP:ILLEGIT. If you have evidence that a user is using multiple accounts in a way that is not allowed then you should report that to administrators to take action, otherwise you are generally expected to assume good faith. I hope that helps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Help moving from sandbox to wikipedia

Hello. I am attempting to move this link User:NY wikiwiki/sandbox into an open page to share. I have checked the help information and even YouTube walk throughs, with no luck. My version of wikipedia, on my computer (Safari) seems different than what the video was showing. Help please. Thank you. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons Generally, unless the sandbox has been submitted for review, we leave other people's sandboxes well alone. There are specific exceptions. Why do you believe that NY wikiwiki wishes this sandbox to become an article at this stage, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Users that are not autoconfirmed (have been active for at least a week and have made at least 10 edits) cannot move articles directly from a sandbox or draft to the main article space. You can add {{draft article}} to the top of the page, which will give you the option to submit it to Articles for Creation for review, but why would you be submitting this article on behalf of someone else? Reconrabbit 12:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

So, this started as a semester long project of research in a class. Our instructor has been asking us to submit it but my class mate (who originally typed out everything in her account) and I have both been unable to get it moved. Neither of us have submitted anything to Wikipedia before, so that is probably why this is going on. I will try the review. Thank you. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons in a few moments I will add the necessary template to allow it to be submitted for review. Please count to 50, slowly. It should be the sandbox owner who submits it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense and is good to know. I appreciate the help with this. I have read stuff on Wikipedia plenty but never submitted and edited anything. So this is a whole new experience but it is nice to see that it is still a community. Thank you. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons It is now at User:NY wikiwiki/Demetrus Coonrod whch makes more sense. It has not been submitted for review 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons and, bizarrely, I see no submit button there. {{Draft article}} is intended to show them. Perhaps another Help Desk editor might take a look, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for editing that. It does make more sense. I'm still very green. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If need be, I can try and ask the sandbox owner to join the conversation, maybe? I'm assuming I can just send her this link and she will be able to view it. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons Unless oyu can see a submit button or they can it is technical help we need. Adding their voice is not a problem but it will just make a longer thread 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I will just relay the information to her through text then. Thanks. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons I chose a different template, whch has worked 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Great! Thank you so much for your help. Before submitting, I will check over everything again. I appreciate all of the help and patience with this. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Quote from Draft:Demetrus Coonrod: "Her journey from prison to public office exemplifies resilience, determination, and the power of redemption. Demetrus Coonrod’s life serves as a testament to transformation, second chances, and the ability to rise above circumstances. Her advocacy and commitment inspire us all." I think that a look at WP:PEACOCK might be useful here. Also, "Our instructor has been asking us to submit it" bears all the hallmarks of WP:BOSS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Reusing of sources on an article about Glorb

Hello, I'm currently working on Draft:Glorb and I was wondering if the reusing of sources in multiple parts of an article to prove something's existence is allowed. In my case, I want to use a YouTube interview source from the "Interview with MoistCr1TiKaL" section of the draft in the article's Identity section to prove Glorb gave hints about his identity in the interview. Thanks in advance. 2pxc. ^dms 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 2pxc. Yes, you can reuse the same source multiple times in an article: see WP:NAMEDREF for how to do it.

But, "prov[ing] something's existence" is almost irrelevant to a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has articles about things that don't exist, such as unicorns and Atlantis; conversely, there are trillions of things in the universe that do exist and Wikipedia will never have article about, such as (probably) you, and me, and my left big toe.

What Wikipedia is interested in is not whether things exist, but whether reliable independent sources have written about them. (which is the case for unicorns and Atlantis - not just that there are writing about them as though they existed, but that there are scholarly investigations into them).

The kind of questions you need to be asking are not "Does Glorb exist?", or "does anybody know Glorb's identity?", but "where have people wholly unconnected with Glorb chosen to write about them at some length and been published in reliable sources?"

Unless you can find some examples of this, then your draft cannot be accepted.

As for their identity, (assuming there is enough independent material to base an article on in the first place), unless somebody independent has discussed their identity in a reliable source, you should probably not even mention the issue. It might be OK to report that they have said X and Y in an interview, but you must not do any theorising, suggesting, arguing, deducing, or concluding in the article: that would be original research, which is forbidden. Nor should you report any theorising or suggesting which has taken place on social media or other unreliable sources (unless, again, a reliable independent sources has written about such discussion). ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Mansu Hill Grand Monument

I apparently cannot link the image in the infobox to the Wikimedia Commons image, although it exists and is legally allowed. Instead, the image it takes you if you click into it directs to the Wikipedia file. Why might this be the case and how can I fix it? In fact, when I link the file, it automatically links to the Wikipedia file.

Depicted image

2003 LN6 15:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That's just the standard way image pages appear here, you are linking to the the image on Commons, you can see a notice on it that says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: When I click on the image from the infobox on the article, the bottom right corner shows a blue button that links to the Wikipedia file, not the Commons file. 2003 LN6 16:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

As a featured picture, it has a local description page, the file is transcluded from Commons on that page. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. All Commons files also have a local file page showing the Commons image and Commons description (unless there is a different local file with the same name). It varies whether image features will link to the Commons file page or the local file page. The blue button in MediaViewer normally links the Commons page and indicates that with a Commons icon on the button. But if a local file page has been created (only wikitext, no uploaded file) then it's linked instead with another icon. The local file page File:Mansudae-Monument-Bow-2014.jpg was created in 2015.[4]. It only contains {{FeaturedPicture|Mansu Hill Grand Monument}} and {{picture of the day|2017-12-03}} which is displayed above the Commons description, but misleadingly below a box saying "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." PrimeHunter (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

So is the image link currently correct on the page? 2003 LN6 18:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Track and field

Track and Field history which mention disable athletes included Paralympic Games. There was no mention of history of Deaf Olympic Games. Why is it Deaf Olympic Games not included? This is my dispute. Please advise. Thank you. Respectfully,

Duncan Payne SeniorBigDog (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We have an article: Deaflympics. As for whether it should be included in the Track and field article, I'd say most likely yes, but you'd do better to make the suggestion at Talk:Track and field. It is possible that article contributors were simply unaware of these events. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The Paralympics are much better known than the Deaflympics. Sport of athletics#Athletes with disabilities briefly mentions the Deaflympics. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wide pane/frame added on the right side

Why was another wide pane/frame added on the right side? It was annoying enough when the left pane/frame was added a while back, now the reading portions of the pages are uselessly narrow. PLEASE PUT IT BACK THE WAY IT WAS. Thank you. 32.221.117.248 (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If you see menus to the sides then they should have a "hide" link. If you already hide them and refer to blank space in a relatively wide window then it's a design feature of the current default skin. If you create an account then you can select the former skin Vector legacy at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. You can also test it out by adding ?useskin=vector to a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk?useskin=vector. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You can click the hide button to hide the bar. assuming you're talking about the Appearance menu. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Re:

Appearance [Hide] 
Text
Small
Standard
Large

With my 1366 horizontal resolution, this column is taking up 25% of the screen, and comes up for every WP page I open even after I clicked the "Hide" button on another page earlier. On some pages I can't even see the intro text without scrolling down because an infobox is taking up all the space at the top. Is the only way to get rid of this column, the enshitification step of forcing me to allow cookies from the domain, or to create an account? This column is useless because browsers handle this vastly better, is automatically remembered per domain by them, and can be done with keyboard shortcuts. 105.245.232.250 (talk)

Responded at the Teahouse. Folly Mox (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

How to generate a link that highlights a selected excerpt

Hello!
How does one create a link that highlights a selected excerpt in a Wikipedia page's body? And do there exist any tools or usersrcipts that make such link generation easier than writing it oneself? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Zanahary, are you referring to how, for example this link will take you to this section on this page if you open it in a new tab? If so, you can add a # after the article name in the link, then put the name of the section (in this case, for example, "How to generate a link that highlights a selected excerpt") after that, like Wikipedia:Help desk#How to generate a link that highlights a selected excerpt, or Rainbow#Explanation. The template {{section link}} can also do this if you don't want to change the text of the link, for example {{section link|Rainbow|Explanation}} → Rainbow § Explanation. I don't think there are any scripts which do this any faster (you'd have to provide all the information anyways so it can't really get much faster).

If you're referring to how this link (might) directly emphasize specific text, you shouldn't use this on Wikipedia. It only works on some browsers right now, and I don't think there's any way to do it that is directly supported in wikilinks. If you want to do it for you own purposes, though, and you are fully aware that it will not work for many people, you can create the link by adding #:~:text= after the full URL of the page, followed by the text on the page you want highlighted but with each space replaced with %20, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#:~:text=This%20angle%20is%20independent%20of%20the%20size%20of%20the%20drop,%20but%20does%20depend%20on%20its%20refractive%20index

If neither of these are what you're asking about, can you maybe link to a page that has an example on it so we can see what you mean? Tollens (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It was the latter—I see that it doesn't work for Firefox. Bummer! Thank you very much for your detailed helpful answer @Tollens! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

{{vanchor}} also does something related to this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

June 12

Article Deletion

Hello there!

My name is Darren Walters, and I created a boardgame called OOF DAH! The Organic Farm Strategy Game. There's 600 plus hours of OOF DAH on Youtube, making it a relevant and topical subject for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of viewers. My article, containing the rules of the game, however, were hastily deleted for obscure reasons (it doesn't align with Wikipedia's goals, etc). So I'm wondering: what was the criteria that allowed other boardgames, such as Trivial Pursuit, Monopoly, and Pictionary, to receive articles? Thank you for your clarification. Waltrs1 (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Those existing articles were probably not written by the games' respective creators. —Tamfang (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The criteria is that a great deal of independent material has been published about those games in Reliable sources that are independent of their creators, vendors, etc. Please consult Wikipedia:Golden Rule. More broadly, see Wikipedia:Not, especially Section 2.

[Note that I cannot access your deleted article, so cannot discuss its details.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Waltrs1 the text was pure spam, written by an LLM (not permitted) with a fake edit summary "I removed a few typos." for an edit that added 105,648 bytes and no proper refs. I'm tempted to block you now, i definitely will if you try this again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

delete "Suerior olivary nucleus" article

I made Suerior olivary nucleus with typo and it should be deleted. The original one is Superior olivary nucleus, and I realized that it was already made by someone.(They're redirect pages.) Dollasdal (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I have tagged the page for deletion, it should be gone shortly. Tollens (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Cannot publish a page edit - limited by Wikipedia

I am making a minor edit on a page. When I publish changes, I get this error:

"As an anti-abuse measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes. If you are attempting to run a bot or semi-automated script, please read and understand our bot policy, then request approval. Users who run unauthorized bot scripts may lose their editing privileges."

I am editing by hand, not a frequent editor, and I've tried this a few times each a week apart in case it is a temporary problem. How can I save my edit? Mbseales (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:RIGHTS, new users are limited to 8 edits per minute. I don't see that many edits in your contributions, so it shouldn't restrict you so much. Could you be pressing the button more than once? Anyway, you should reach the autoconfirmed access level after 5 more edits so this is not likely to be an issue for long. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone reported a similar issue here at the Teahouse last week. HerrWaus (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

About the talk log under discussion

Is it a violation of Wikipedia policy to delete or hide discussion logs without the permission of the parties involved? 163.136.36.56 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking about this edit, archiving discussion logs is not the same thing as deleting them and is standard practice on talk pages. Deleting would have been a violation of the WP:TALK guideline. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleting or hiding ("collapsing") material may be appropriate. If there is good reason for it, this good reason will normally also be apparent to editors who are both uninvolved in the matter and experienced. It's usually better to leave the deleting or hiding to them. -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone deleted all the photo collages i made

Hello, i would like to know if it is ok for a user to delete photo collages which were there for 3-4 weeks, without discussing that on the respective talk pages first. Someone deleted my photo collages at Leipzig, Dresden, Halle (Saale), Freiburg, Frankfurt and Vienna, and even other, very long-lasting collages at Berlin and Cologne and other cities, stating that the collages consisted of "too many", and also "low quality images". However, articles like Miami show something different, and i think that the new photos are completely ugly to be honest. It is really unbelievable how ugly the collages now are, compared to my versions from before. If someone could look at my edits and tell me what i can do now, or am not allowed to do now. Or do i just have no taste and find truly beautiful things to be ugly and ugly things to be beautiful? Thank you. Tibesti1 (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's okay to make almost any edit without discussing it first. See WP:BRD for how it's usually handled. MOS:INFOBOX and WP:GALLERY have advice that applies here. I only looked at the Leipzig article, but I agree there were too many images. Including too many images causes visual clutter and increases an article's file size which may make it inaccessible for users with bad internet. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I see you are discussing this with the other editor on your talk page. FWIW I agree with the deleting editor. Please continue the discussion there. If you have an issue with other articles, then the place to discuss this is the talk pages of those articles. Incidentally, we are not concerned with whether the images are ugly or beautiful; what matters is whether they provide useful information on the topic. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I want to know if i may revert the changes that have been done by the user. The most obvious example is Dresden. Compared to the version of June 7, it is now unbelievably reduced in quality. It can not be the case that anyone can make changes as he pleases, and then the version has to stay that way no matter how it looks then. Since he is the one who changed an existing version and i disagree, he would have to start a discussion on the talk page before making changes. Tibesti1 (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You prefer a collage with eleven images, another editor prefers one with five, as at the beginning of May. You should discuss this on the talk page, rather than edit-warring. Maproom (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

What Maproom said, see WP:BRD. You made that changes that pleased you, correct? That is fine (up to a point), but if someone reverts your WP:BOLD edit, and you disagree with the revert, it's time for discussion at the article talkpage. More at WP:DR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

First, note that he also changed collages which were long-standing, and not from one month ago, like Cologne and Berlin. I know that at least those changes can be reverted for sure. Secondly, he did not revert the collages to the state in which they once were, but he changed them completely. Therefore, the question is, in which state do the collages have to stay during possible talk page discussions, and whose task is it to begin such discussions. I am not interested in them. It seems that during the discussions, the collages would have to stay like they were the past weeks and not like they are since the user's recent changes, and that the discussions would have to be initiated by the person who made the most recent changes others disagreed with, and therefore not by me. Also, the current not nice collage at Dresden also recently replaced another collage that was also from me, and which was there for a year or longer. Tibesti1 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a help desk. It is not a platform for content disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

However, i didn't get an answer. The questions are easy: if someone changes a collage which existed for months or years, am i allowed to undo the changes as long as the discussion is ongoing. Secondly, if the collages existed for three weeks only, in which state do the collages have to remain during the discussions: in the recently created state from a few days ago or in the state they were the weeks before? Tibesti1 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You've got the only answer you are going to get here. Arguing the toss over which state the article should be in while discussions are taking place isn't productive. Starting such discussions (on the article talk page, whey they are supposed to take place) is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an inappropriate answer. We all know that the collages of course can be reverted to the state before the first disagreements and discussions arose. When i once altered a collage someone else undid the change and told me to discuss on the talk page first. And now i want a confirmation that i'm allowed to undo the changes, in order to prevent an edit war. As far as i know, if someone makes a change someone else disagrees on, the change is made undone until a solution has been found. Tibesti1 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

How would insisting on your version while the discussion is going on "prevent an edit war"? It seems to me that it would be precisely edit warring. ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, if you didn't understand the logic behind it, of course i want a confirmation, in order to prevent the other user to then again undo my revert and accuse me of edit warring. To take the extreme example, Cologne. The user changed a collage which was there since ages, and now you are telling me that no one is allowed to undo these changes without being accused of edit warring? I ask again now: if someone makes changes to articles that someone else disagrees on, can the change be undone then before the discussion about it has ended, or will the disputed change stay in the article forever from then on. How can i be the one having to start discussions on all the talk pages to defend the old collages? This is against all logic. The one who wants new disputed changes be included in the article would have to discuss it. Is that so difficult to understand. Tibesti1 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm, based on many years of contributing to Wikipedia, that if you persist in trying to argue the toss here over who should start a discussion over a content dispute, rather than actually doing something useful and starting one, eventually peoples' patience will run out. You are unlikely to be satisfied with the outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so the other user changed around 10 collages, some of which were there since years, some since months, and some since weeks. So, now, what to do again now if i disagree with all these changes? I have to copy the old and the new collages on all the ten articles' talk pages and ask which one is better? Tibesti1 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to copy them, you can just link the relevant diffs.

The fact that an aspect of an article has existed in a particular state for a long time does not preclude someone deciding that it can be improved. Work through the BRD process. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

But somehow, this BRD process is on my side: it says there that someone edits an article, then if someone else disagrees he may revert it, and it is then up to the user who made the new edit to discuss it with the reverter, and then, he may attempt a new edit. This is exactly what says the BRD page. And therefore, if i revert all the collages now, the user could not accuse me of edit warring. Anything else would be illogical anyway. Otherwise i also could create new collages for several cities now, and every time someone doesn't like the collage and reverts me, i'd just say "discuss on talk page please". And therefore i'd like to know now, if the user can accuse me of edit warring if i revert the collages to the state of before. Tibesti1 (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they can. BRD is an essay (albeit one that I'd argue is pretty widely respected); it's not license for you to insist that it's the other party's obligation to start the discussion and that you're entitled to keep reverting them until they do so. If you know the next step in the process should be a discussion (and clearly you do at this point), and you're making a deliberate choice not to do so because you think it's their responsibility, not yours, then you're not editing in good-faith. DonIago (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

​(Non-administrator comment) When it comes to edit warring, there's no right and there's no wrong. So, no matter how right you know you are and how wrong you know the other person is, the two of you are likely going to end up blocked at some point if you keep reverting each other back and forth. If you end up at WP:AN3 because of this and try to argue that it was OK for you to continue reverting because the other person was the one who should've started discussing things on the talk page, an adminstrator is almost certainly going to tell you that's not how things work and you be lucky to get off with jsut a warning. So unless you're going to claim that your reverts are clearly not edit warring (i.e. one of the things listed here), you should be careful.

FWIW, one of the advantages of you being the person to start a discussion about this is that you get to make the first post; as long as your WP:CIVIL and keep your comments focused on the content of the edits being disputed and not the other person, you'll able to present you side first. The other person isn't obligated to respond, but you would've at least shown that you're the one willing to try and resolve things in accordance with WP:DR. You don't need the other person to participate in discussion per se, but if others do participate and agree with your position, it's likely that a WP:CONSENUS will be in favor of the collages. A consensus isn't something that the other person can't really ignore; they either have to accept it and move on or use the article's talk page to try and change it. If they continue reverting once a clear consensus has been established, they will be the one edit warring against consensus, and they will be the one that ends up blocked. If article talk page discussion between the two of you doesn't lead to compromise or other solution, you can move to another stage of the dispute resolution process as explained in WP:SEEKHELP. If even then, things still aren't resolved to your satisfaction, your best option might simply be to move on to something else.

There are, after all, more than six million Wikipedia articles and pretty much all of them are in need of some improvement. Of course, you're free to continue focusing all of your time and energy on this one particular dispute, but others aren't obliged to do the same. At some point, some administrator might decide that the who thing has become too much of a time sink, decide enough is enough, and block the two of you. At some point, you're going to need to ask yourself whether you want this to be your hill to die on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this answer. One question, how can i copy collages on talk pages so that they are directly viewable there. Somehow, it doesn't work. Aside from that..... at Vienna, which still has a comparable beautiful collage because most of my photos remained, the following happened: someone copied a discussion i had with them on their talk page, onto the Vienna talk page. I don't even know if that is permitted because now it looks like as if i wrote something on the Vienna talk page although i never have done so. And there, no one answered for weeks. And Vienna is comparably important, and not even there was someone interested in such a discussion. It is foreseeable that the same thing will happen on the other talk pages. I'm not interested in opening ten different discussions where no one is going to answer. What is also foreseeable is that this one person will want to talk through with me every single new photo he included, and tell me why his choices are better than mine. The beginning of that is viewable on my talk page. And therefore, there must be a way to prevent people from "destroying" collages without the defender of the original state being obliged to be drawn into discussions with the potential of never coming to an end. There were perfect collages at Frankfurt (until June 8) and Leipzig (until June 11) that i created and now look what they have become. During the process of discussion, it should be normal that the original state remains until the discussion is concluded. Otherwise it would mean that if someone would exchange a collage with a single photo, this single photo would have to remain on the page until a discussion about whether a single photo or a collage is better, has ended, and this can definitely not be the case. Tibesti1 (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

If you keep using words like "destroying collages" when you try to discuss this, any discussion regarding them is unlikely going to get very far. If from the very start you frame a discussion as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, others are likely going to repond accordingly. Everytime you click the "Publish changes" button, you're agreeing to allow others to take your edits and modify or revert them as they seem fit. It's hope they do so in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy and guideline, and edits which are clearly WP:VANDALISM or otherwise a serious policy violation can be reverted asap. It's content disputes where two editors who believe they're making improvements in good faith disagree that WP:DR is intended to help resolve. The idea isn't for one side to come away the winner and another to walk away the loser; the idea is for both sides to see whether any compromise can be reached in which Wikipedia ends up being the winner. So, if you don't at least try to WP:AGF at the beginning of a discussion, you can't really expect others to respond to you in good faith.

The collages you created are also not destroyed because they can be found within the article's page history. You can link to older versions of an article for reference in talk page discussion much in the same way you would add an external link to any Wikipedia page. You can go to the article's page history and scroll down until you find the version that you want, and then on the time stamp for the entry to display the article version that was current at that time and date. If you copy and paste the url from the top of the page into the take page discussion, others will know which version you're referring to, This might actually be a better approach then trying to format images onto the talk page for comparison purposes.

Some article are more heavily watched then others; so, responses you receive to article talk page post may come quickly, slowly, or never at all. There's no way to work around that. If you post something and are hoping for a quick response, you can try adding a {{Please see}} template to the talk pages of any WikiProjects listed at the top of the talk page to let others know about the discussion. As long as you avoid WP:INAPPNOTE, doing so should be OK. If nobody responds even after posting at the WikiProject level, then perhaps nobody's interested and you're then going need to decide whether pursuing the matter is worth any more of your time and energy.

If all of the collage disagreements are related to one another, you can probably one of the article talk pages or one WikiProject talk page as the venue for discussing things, and then just add links to the other talk pages to let others know about the discussion. You don't need to try to simultaneously manage multiple discussions about essentially the same thing on multiple talk page; in fact, you should probably avoid this because doing so almost always leads to a fractured discussion, redundant comments and confusion.

If someone copied something you posted on one talk page onto another talk page, then they probably did so in good faith. It would've simply been better for them to post a link to the original discussion instead, but they either didn't know how to do that or didn't think to do that. (In additon, the original source page is required to be properly attributed per WP:CWW, but many users just don't make the effort to do that. So, you could post a comment below theirs to clarify that you originally posted the content in question on some other talk page. You could also try to modify the quoted part of their post using a template like {{talk quote block}} to show that it's quoted text originally posted on some other page. Whatever you decide to do, you should make sure to leave a clear byt civil edit summary that explains the reasons for your edit to others. If you do decide to "edit" someone else's talk page post, you should only do what is absolutely necessary per WP:TPO; you shouldn't modify any of their original words in anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hm ok thank you for the detailed answer. Am i right in assuming that all this is also valid conversely too. So if i create new collages now for some cities, my new collage can not be deleted and reverted with the comment: "discuss on talk page first" or "long-standing collage reinstated", but as soon as someone doesn't like my collage, they would also have to open discussions on talk pages, and my collages would stay. And why is it not possible to show collages on talk pages by just copying them from the history pages, somehow it doesn't work. Thank you Tibesti1 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Number of years on Petersen Automotive Museum

I was reviewing the Petersen Automotive Museum article and noticed that, although the infobox indicates it was founded on June 11, 1994 (and today is June 12, 2024), it shows it has been in existence 29 years instead of 30 years. Why might that be? Bahooka (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bahooka, ages and other auto-updating figures, remain unaltered until the article is edited. I have added a space to that article, and saved it, and the figure has updated to 30 years. - Arjayay (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I had no idea. I will try to remember that and do the same if I see that in the future. Bahooka (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bahooka: A purge is enough to force an update and articles are sometimes updated automatically but it's unpredictable how long it will take. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bahooka; strictly speaking, I have confused a Help:Dummy edit with a WP:NULLEDIT - I described it as a null edit, but adding a space is actually a dummy edit, so I was the Dummy making the edit ! - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking for guidance on using the term "best known for" in the lede

As an editor, I really dislike seeing uncited superlatives. They are often just thrown in, without adding any needed clarification. Largest as of when? Oldest according to whom? And little consideration of the maintenance aspects added to the article.

"best known for" is a very common occurrence that drives me nuts, because the claim is almost never cited. In those cases, I assume that it is mainly the opinion of the editor(s) of the lede, hopefully based upon cited facts presented in the rest of the article. But even this seems a clear case of SYNTH (where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources). I think to include that statement, we would really need to provide a reputable secondary source that specifically states that this person is "best known for" whatever.

Doing a search for "best known for her role" provides a snapshot of many uncited cases. And another problem is that claims of this sort can be very generational. Actors in a well known role in the 1980's and again in the 2010's are going to be "best known for" different things. Which begs the question "best known" to whom?

So back to my original thought that superlatives are often not encyclopedic and become stale over time. I think we should state what roles the actor (for example) was in, their history, awards, reviews, etc. and stick to the facts. Let the reader decide for themselves what is "most significant" in the article.

Any thoughts on this, or directions to an applicable WP consensus? Many thanks!  • Bobsd •  (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. If it isn't attributed to a source that directly says someone or something is "best known" for something then it's WP:SYNTH. Popcornfud (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Popcornfud Thanks for the response. Would you say that the cite for the "best known" should follow the phrase directly in the lede? Because I know that the lede is considered a summary of the article, so somewhere else in the article there may be a citation for that "best know" although hidden in the cited article. That would take a lot of research to untangle. Or put another way, should those uncited (in the lede) claims be removed? Don't worry, I'm not going to start nuking all the articles ... I need a lot of feedback, and some consensus is agreed upon.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the article, and plenty of folks prefer to keep citations out of the lede since they should ideally already exist later on in the article, but in cases where there's an extraordinary claim there shouldn't be an issue with sticking the citation for one specific statement in the lead as well as later on. Ex.: In James John Joicey, the description of his contributions to entymology is cited in the lede, but the size of his collection is not. It is really a matter of preference and depends on the article. If the information exists later on in the article though, like if a reputable source describes a person by what they are "best known for" directly or there are multiple sources just describing one thing that they achieved or did, then why remove it in the lede and make it less clear what the article is going to describe?

If I can clarify this, though - there are many cases where, if it is not specifically stated in a source that a specific role or accomplishment is what a person is "best known for", in my opinion, there is no harm in simply removing "best known for" and replacing it with a neutral statement of fact ("She is best known for her role as..." -> "She played the role of...") Reconrabbit 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit that is certainly the direction in which I would like see changes made. Thank you.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Not really relevant but I found Curtis Brown (agency)#Clients which has 39 "best known for", all unsourced. Wow. PrimeHunter (talk)

You made my day!!!  • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that a persistent IP user ended up blocked after trying to do something about this WP:PUFFERY shouldn't deter others from trying. It's non-neutral and unencyclopaedic in almost every case, and is almost invariably unsourced. Removing it is a service to the project. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, and thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure that any removals are clearly WP:SYNTH and/or WP:PUFFERY before removing. And personally, I don't think it's worth a fight for what is basically a common catch phrase. When I get reverted, I hit the article or user talk page, and unless it's a factual error, I let it lie. Especially due to the fact that nothing is ever locked down, so the same thing can happen next week. Life is too short.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert wars and 3rv rule?

Hey, I use the Spanish wiki a lot so rules may be a bit different here.

It seems that general policies like edit warring and 3rv rules are present in both wikies. Now where would be an appropriate place to report such incidents? I think there would need to be 2 places, one to seek a neutral third party for dispute resolution, (ideally before the 3rv rule is broken)and another to actually report violations of such rules (when other resources are extinguished).

Thank you for the info.--TZubiri (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@TZubiri: To seek a third party for dispute resolution, your best bets are Wikipedia:Third opinion (WP:3O for short) or the dispute resolution noticeboard (WP:DRN for short). (I'd suggest trying 3O first, as it's a more lightweight process and thus likely to be faster.) If there's active edit warring that needs to be addressed, you can report it at the Administrators' Noticeboard for edit warring (WP:ANEW for short). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks!

Another informative alternative is also involving editors from other articles, more eyes are more points of view and attention to the problem, and it can give cohesion to the wiki as a whole too. TZubiri (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Line breaks

In some situations I use <br> to force a line break, but I often see that some use <br />. Which is the proper method? What's the real difference? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

<br> is HTML, whereas <br/> is XHTLM, which is the HTML subset of XML. I always use <br> which the WP parser seems to handle well.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: <br /> is generally preferred but they currently and maybe forever have the same effect in wikitext since Help:Line-break handling#<br> says <br> is automatically converted to <br />. Such fixes aren't always made forever when our software is updated but I guess <br> will never be allowed to fail. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the help. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if MediaWiki stopped converting <br> to <br/> and just left it unchanged, it'd still be valid HTML either way. The HTML standard states that br is a void element, that "void elements only have a start tag", and that you may (but need not) put a forward slash in a void element's start tag. Rummskartoffel 09:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I need a number to donate

I need a number to donate some money 2600:100C:B025:D41A:515E:579F:566E:50D2 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know which type of number you want but maybe donate::Problems donating will be of help. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia finances before doing so. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

What's up with the maps in New York?

For example, in articles like Empire State Building, the map shows misspelled names such as "tudor siti" (tudor city) and "hadson jards" (hudson yards). What's up with that? (I can't seem to find the same misspellings on openstreetmap.org.) Weeklyd3 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Weeklyd3: It was reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 212#Serbian place names displayed on Manhattan maps. gerrit:1030307 may be a fix on the way. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, "Vašington Skver" is not a mis-spelling, it's Serbian some Slavic language (but not Serbian, which is written in Cyrillic). Maproom (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Serbian language has both a Cyrillic and Latin writing system and I think that's the cause of the problem. The Serbian in this case is marked as using the Latin script while English has no script variations and is not marked with Latin. The map software currently prefers scripts marked as Latin over unmarked scripts, or something like that. It's being worked on. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

"Hudson jards" and "Tudor siti" seem to be romanization of their Russian names, both of which are recorded on OpenStreetMap. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Weeklyd3, PrimeHunter, Maproom, and Tutwakhamoe: It is Serbian (sr-Latn), see phab:T195318. More exactly "Hadson jards" is coming from here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5706568334/history. Cheers, VIGNERON * ^discut. 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

June 13

Content is in Draft Since long

Dear All, We have created content three months back for education university and waiting for live content for user information, please suggest anyone and help us to get it live. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mangalayatan_University_Jabalpur

Regards, Rajesh Kumar Rajesh Kumar Noida (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rajesh Kumar Noida the draft was never submitted. I've added the submission template for you, please be patient, as there are over 3000 drafts pending review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Where to post about Internet Archive takedowns?

Hi everyone. It has come to my attention that over half a million books were recently made unavailable for borrowing from the Internet Archive's lending library. I wanted to ask if there's some way we can find out which Wikipedia articles were affected by this (i.e. in which articles we link to now-unavailable books), but I'm not sure which noticeboard to raise this. Could someone here direct me to the best place I can ask about this? Cheers. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, we are citing the actual book, not the IA version of that book. If the link is dead, it should be marked as such, but it doesn't make the ref invalid. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but that's not what I was asking about. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe WP:ELN? DMacks (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Sortable table now unsortable

Hey all, if it's possible could someone have a quick peek here and see if they can spot why the tables that used to be sortable in both columns are now only sortable in one? I've spent a while tweaking headers, etc, and checking for hanging braces, etc., but nothing jumps out. Any help would be appreciated! ——Serial Number 54129 09:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

can you actually sort by icon? You might need to define what the sorting means in the cell. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Please clarify which columns you mean and what you mean by not sortable. I see sort buttons in all columns. The first table has two columns and the second has three. Images are ignored in sorting so all cells in the icon columns sort as blank cells, meaning they sort identically so sorting has no effect. Same for the empty Date column in the second table. You can use Help:Sortable tables#Specifying a sort key for a cell if you want the icon column to sort differently. I think images once sorted by file name but that's long ago. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)