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).

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

March 28

Help needed with an account

I had this account called Pact64 and I forgot the password and had no way of resetting the password. If there is any way I can prove the account is mine I will provide. 00:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPTV (talk • contribs)

@TPTV: User:Pact64 has not specified an email address so you cannot get a password reset. The account has too few edits to be considered for proof of identity. You can write on the user pages that you are the same user. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does a committed identity have to be memorized?

From {{Committed identity}}, the committed identity should end in a random string. Does that mean that it has to be memorized, because hashing is irreversible? I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 02:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In order to confirm your identity at a later date (in the hopefully unlikely event that you need to), you would need to recall the secret text you used to generate the hash, so if you decide to use a committed identity, you would want to record or memorize your secret string, including both your identity-establishing information, and the random passphrase at the end. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 02:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me publish the below article

Help me publish it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shyam_Maheshwari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucygirl03 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft lacks substantial sourcing, so I'm going to reject it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucygirl03: this is at least the fourth time that article has been rejected for the same reason. Please take the time to read the messages on your User talk:Lucygirl03 page for the specifics of why it has been rejected, and what you need to fix before it will be acceptable. Basically, you need to base the article on significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject - there is a good, short summary here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fordham University

Fordham University pabe has a lat/lon that goes to an area near the Black Sea. Looks to be somewhere In Russia. I suspect ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.20.16 (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine to me: [1] is on East Coast US, which looks correct for Fordham University, which is in New York. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

e/c The co-ordinates given for Fordham University, (40°51′43″N 73°53′10″W) describe a location in New York City, near the Botanical Garden.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia a political movement?

Firstly, apologies if this is not the correct place to ask. I originally raised this issue on the talk page of Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia but it was removed.

My question is: Is Wikipedia intended to be a neutral observer reporting the facts without any bias, or is Wikipedia a political movement which seeks to effect political change in the world? I have always assumed the former, but I recently found contradictory evidence, in the form of a highly political banner on Wikipedia, promoting a very strong view on a highly controversial social issue. I will not go into any more detail about the banner, because in my original question I went into detail, and one user accused me of posting "abusive" comments pertaining to the issue in question. That is obviously not my intention, I just want to address the issue of the very purpose of Wikipedia. Is it to report fact, or to effect political change? Grand Dizzy (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply. In light of what you have said, the banner I recently saw on Wikipedia would seem (to me at least) to be contradictory to this policy as it seemed to be encouraging Wikipedia users to 'right a great wrong' with regards to gender in society.

As far as I could understand from this banner (and please do correct me if I am wrong), Wikipedia rejects the traditional view that men and women are fundamentally different and naturally occupy different roles in society. Wikipedia therefore stands in opposition to all historical human societies, plus half the world today, including the Muslim and Christian world. Wikipedia basically seeks to set right what it sees as an erroneous view that has pervaded all human history until now.

Wikipedia's solution to this problem appears to be to 're-write history' by giving women more historical significance than they ever actually had. As we know, 99% of notable historical figures were male. But Wikipedia wants to create a new, fictional version of history by claiming that women had prominent, equal roles in society and made significant achievements equal to men, in order to bring the number of articles about women up to 50%.

Now may I make it extremely clear that by raising this issue, I do not wish to offend anyone on either side of the argument. Nor am I here to debate this issue itself or promote my own personal views. As it so happens, my own personal view on this issue is that this particular Wikipedia incentive is sexist, being anti-male. However, my personal views are not what's important, since Wikipedia contributors comprise a diverse range of cultures and political and religious ideologies. We are never going to agree on those issues, nor is the purpose of the site to debate or find agreement. The purpose (I should hope) is merely to report the world and its history - good or bad.

My only real concern here is simply that, as a lover of truth and integrity, I find the notion of 'lying about the past' very troubling, especially with regards to an encyclopedia. It seems to be entirely at odds with the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS policy. So I would simply like to try and understand how such a banner, which, to me, seems highly political, can be reconciled with Wikipedia's stance on neutrality? I find the issue worthy of being raised. Sadly, a user named Dronebogus felt very strongly to the contrary and threatened to report me for merely asking about Wikipedia's policies. I find that quite baffling and sad. Grand Dizzy (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do we entertain blatant misogyny. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Dizzy Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Everyone has biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view, which is different. Wikipedia does not tell facts, it summarizes independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is very good to hear. I would like to humbly suggest that, to my eyes, the banner in question did seem very clearly misandristic/sexist. Grand Dizzy (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a community of contributing people. Wikipedia the community is organized as a community of absolutely equal people, and to uphold our views that each and every person is as equal and valuable is our ethos, not a political campaign. I understand you are objecting to Wikipedia the community having this point of view and are trying to conflate it with the neutrality we practice in the encyclopedia. But you are wrong to to confuse the two and wrong in your beliefs about people. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may benefit from reading the foundation:Policy:Human Rights Policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take some of your questions and points one at a time

"Is Wikipedia intended to be a neutral observer reporting the facts without any bias?"
- No. Wikipedia is intended to be a neutral encyclopedia summarizing the information available in reliable, secondary sources about any given topic. It is not intended to be an observer or a reporter. The bias in Wikipedia reflects the bias in available sources.
"or is Wikipedia a political movement which seeks to effect political change in the world?"
- Yes. Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, one of the goals of which is political advocacy. The Wikipedia Prime objective, summed up in this quote by the founder, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." is inherently political. The mission here is to create a free - in more ways than one - educational resource. The mission of the foundation is to work to ensure that free educational resource is accessible by all people. In that vein they lobby for freer copyright laws, expanded internet access and infrastructure, less censorship, etc. Individual Wikipedians may not always agree with the Foundation on all things, but everyone who contributes here is participating in the inherently political action of trying to make information free.
"I recently found contradictory evidence, in the form of a highly political banner on Wikipedia, promoting a very strong view on a highly controversial social issue"
- I have gone back and read your removed comment about the banner. I'm sorry the person who removed it did not assume good faith in their edit summary, although I understand why they thought it was, in their words "misogynistic trolling." Nevertheless you expressed concerns that deserve to be taken seriously, in so much as you clearly did not understand the message the banner was attempting to convey.
You began your comment here by apologizing if this was not the correct place to ask your question. Let me help you explore the correct place to ask various types of questions.
- Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia was an incorrect place to pose questions about the banner. The correct place to ask questions about the banner or discuss the banner and the message it conveys is Meta:Talk:Celebrate Women, which if you had clicked on the banner, is the talk page attached to the page it would have taken you to.
- For more general philosophical discussion about Wikipedia, the Wikimedia movement, and their objectives, (such as the discussion you appear to be trying to start here), the miscellaneous and idea lab sections of the Village Pump are the appropriate places. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, more responses to my question than I was expecting. Thank you all sincerely for taking the time to answer. I found ONUnicorn's answer particularly excellent. I still have questions and concerns, however, I feel it would be wasting people's time (including my own) to continue responding to every answer, since I have already expressed my concerns and confusion surrounding this issue. I really just wanted to raise the issue, so if you folks here are satisfied that there is nothing amiss here, and that Wikipedia does not have a sexist anti-male agenda, then I suppose that is good enough for me. I thank you again for your answers and your time. Grand Dizzy (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand Dizzy: You refer to a banner which linked to meta:Celebrate Women. Banners and meta: are not article content. Banners may sometimes be displayed on top of Wikipedia articles but don't have to satisfy rules for article content. I don't think it's a sexist anti-male agenda to celebrate women and encourage writing about them but that discussion doesn't belong here. Wikipedia does not have a goal that subjects should be represented in a ratio corresponding to their perceived importance. Editors are volunteers and choose what to work on. Nobody is assigned to write a specific article. If an editor wants to write about a subject which satisfies Wikipedia:Notability then they are welcome. It doesn't force other subjects out. Wikipedia is not printed or size limited. There is plenty of server space for more articles about any notable subject. Anyway, it's very exaggerated that 99% of notable historical figures were male, and a large part of Wikipedia biographies are about living people where it's extremely exaggerated. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an easy way to view maintenance messages for an article?

Currently when I do an edit preview for Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States, I see the following message at the top of the article:

Script warning: One or more {{cite web}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).

When I click "help" I am directed to Help:CS1 errors#Controlling error message display. However, the help article does not explain an easy way to view the maintenance messages. It talks about using CSS to dispay the maintenance messages, but CSS is not real fresh in my memory (learned it a long time ago) and I have no idea how it would apply to a wikipedia article. There has to be an easier way to view the maintenance messages I am thinking. Can anyone help?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I am often able to scan the article in the non-visual editor and look for red exclamation points. I found one in that article (I think it was a unicode character that seemed to be causing a problem) and fixed it but it didn't seem to make the error go away. Will watch this question and see if there is a better approach. Jessamyn (my talk page) 03:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessamyn, I'll ping Trappist the monk and see if he can help since he recently fixed a few citation errors in the article and I think he is experienced dealing with this type of thing. If he can tell us then maybe I'll update Help:CS1 errors so it is easier for ordinary editors to find out what the maintenance messages for an article are.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesy0627144, I'm no expert on this, but learned a little recently. There are two kinds of messages that can appear at the top of the preview page: (1) Green ones about "maintenance messages", and (2) red ones about "errors". You (clearly) got the green one. I didn't get to the bottom of it, but my take is that ordinary editors can (and probably should) ignore the green "maintenance messages"; by default they are not displayed, I think for that reason.

On the other hand the red "error" messages should be fixed (if possible). Those errors will usually have red text shown somewhere in the preview, most often in the "References" section where citation footnotes appear. The red message down there will have some information about what it detected, and that may be enough for you to figure out how to fix the problem.

I'll also note that it's possible to get red error text down in "References" even when there is no red header message at the top about "errors", so it's good to check the References section anyway. If editors don't do that, they can leave broken citations which will appear, with red error messages, in the published article (maybe you've seen that in an article). - R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see all of the CS1 maintenance messages all of the time, click on User:Jamesy0627144/common.css, insert the two lines

.mw-parser-output span.cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */

.mw-parser-output span.cs1-hidden-error {display: inline;} /* display hidden Citation Style 1 error messages */

and click Publish. Then any messages will become visible on each page you visit. I find such messages are rare, but useful, especially when I am adding citations myself. --Verbarson ^talk_edits 08:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reference is using |url-status=unfit because the original url now redirects to a site called https://theweedprof.com/.

There is no way to show maintenance messaging except with css. If the instructions at Help:CS1 errors § Controlling error message display are not clear, tell me how to make them more clear.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. S. Shaw, Verbarson, and Trappist the monk – thanks for the help as I can now see the maintenance message. I'm not really sure why I had such a hard time understanding the help page instructions before. I guess it was because I had never heard of a common CSS page before or using CSS on wikipedia, so the concept was pretty foreign to me.

Trappist, the instructions could maybe be improved slightly although I feel a little silly for not understanding it when I initially read it. If it were to be improved, I was thinking something like this could possibly be added just below where the CSS code is given:

For example, if the page User:[Your user name]/common.css is not already created, use the line of CSS code given above as the source code for the new page that you create. This will allow maintenance messages to be viewed on any page you visit.

Also, I'm kind of puzzled why a maintenance message is even shown for |url-status=unfit in the first place. As far as I know that parameter is not deprecated / obsolete, so I do not understand the purpose for bothering editors with a "warning" at the top of the page wherever it is used. Is this something you have any control over and if so what do you think of perhaps getting rid of the warning for the |url-status=unfit or |url-status=usurped parameters?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Setting |url-status=unfit hides the original url in the rendered citation. Compare:

{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-03-29}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2022-03-29. ← 'original' is linked

with:

{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-03-29 |url-status=unfit}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2022-03-29.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) ← 'original' is not linked

This (and other) maintenance messages are an easy and explicit way, for those who are interested, to see which cs1|2 template might be improved with a bit of polishing – in this case, perhaps there is a better source ...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good reason that the Script warning: One or more… have maintenance messages… message isn't also under the CSS display:hidden default used for the maint messages themselves? Its presence seems to be useless to all but pretty sophisticated editors, yet raises concern in them, and will essentially waste their time trying to puzzle out the meaning. At a minimum, could the word "warning" be changed to "advisory" or something else more neutral? - R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the purpose of the messaging is to get en.wiki editors to write better citations and to fix citations that are in need of fixing. The number of editors creating citations far outweighs the number of editors who are attempting to make repairs. Bots, automated scripts, and visual editor are help and hindrance. If editors don't realize that they have created malformed citations (because they are at the bottom of the page so out-of-sight-out-of-mind) then the repair is left to someone else. The messaging is intended to draw attention. I suspect that most editors ignore the preview messages; there has been very little pushback since we enabled the preview messaging on 22 January 2022.

The 'script warning:' text is out of our control. That text is emitted by MediaWiki when Module:Citation/CS1 calls mw.addWarning(), a function in the Scribunto library. If you want that changed, WP:Phabricator is the place to raise that issue.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Yes, I've used the unfit parameter before on a few occasions where I came across a suspicious-looking website (possibly malicious) where a reference was previously located. I don't see the need for any editor to be notified that it is used in an article though, at least as long as an archive link is already provided for the reference. According to this page the purpose is to make sure the parameter is properly applied, but to me that seems like a small benefit at the expense of distracting and/or taking the time up of a lot of editors.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change how cs1|2 does things, this is not the proper venue. Raise the issue at Help talk:Citation Style 1.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I posted something over there.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just submitted an article. What should I do next?

Hello everyone, I just submitted an article about a persian Opera Singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anousha_Nazari

What should I do next?

Thanks,

PS: There's already an article about the same artist in the French version. How can I relink them together? [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainsa12 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ainsa12: ~~Welcome to the Teahouse.~~ While you're waiting for it to be submitted, you can continue to work on it and make it even more presentable to a reviewer. I would not link the two unless the draft makes it into articlespace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!

Would be possible to find a way to accelerate the submission process?

Regards Ainsa12 (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ainsa12 Why do you want to process to be sped up? Generally, there are WP:NODEADLINEs when it comes to the draft review process. Are you connected to the subject of the article in some way? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

The reason is that I just read an article about the release of an art work concerning this artist on Radio France internationale (RFI) and I would imagine that people may search about her. That's why I wanted it to be speed up.

Regards, Ainsa12 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ainsa12, 2 suggestions: Punctuation should go before the references, and crop the picture to head and shoulders, so the reader can more easily see what she looks like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much !

I do not know how to crop the picture :( Ainsa12 (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a message thread caused duplication of threads

You may or may not agree with the content of my very recent addition to another user's talk page, but I think you'll agree that there was no obvious technical jiggery-pokery involved. However, it seems that there was some: the thread has somehow caused itself and two others to be duplicated. What's the best way for me to fix the mess that I made, and what did I do wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do anything wrong. An earlier editor transcluded the page itself.[3] I have fixed it.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duh! I should have spotted that, PrimeHunter. I've encountered the same goof in the past, but not so recently that the possibility was uppermost in my tired mind. Thank you for fixing it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

Problem with a page redirecting.

I have no idea how to fix it or I would do it myself. The Snowpiercer TV show page keeps redirecting to the Happy Anderson page as soon as you scroll or click on any links on the page. I have also been unable to find any place to report technical bugs like this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:ECA6:2C2:D961:27F6:4E73:B1C1 (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snowpiercer (TV series) works fine for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it works for me on both a computer and the Android App. What are you looking at it with? --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also have no trouble accessing Snowpiercer (TV series) and staying on it. WP:VPT might be able to help you better, but you should know what device you're using and what browser/app so people can help you more easily. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General

How to read the Wikipedia database from the start from the first article and first thing was published in Wikipedia database — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostafa Mohamed zakria (talk • contribs) 04:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start by reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. There are more than 6.4 million articles on the English Wikipedia, so if you read 1000 a day it will take you about seventeen years. There have been more than a billion edits, so there have been more than a billion article versions. If you read 1000 a day it will take you 2740 years. More realistically, if you want a copy of the entire database including all the history, you can download it: see Wikipedia:Database download. This is multiple terrabytes of data, so you will need a good internet connection. -Arch dude (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that link to "Solothurn" (a city in Switzerland, just an example)

In the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Solothurn

I have searched for Solothurn in the Brussels article and in the page source without success.

What do I miss ?

Are they "cheating" in some way ?

Thank you

Jean-Michel — Preceding unsigned comment added by JM Swift (talk • contribs) 13:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of Brussels is a Navbox titled 'Articles related to Brussels'. Inside that is another navbox titled 'Capitals of European states and territories' ({{List of European capitals by region}})

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @JM Swift: Solothurn is linked in Template:List of European capitals by region which is transcluded (meaning displayed) at the bottom of 161 articles. You usually have to click "[show]" once or twice to see it in the articles. User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js gives a way for registered users to search for articles which link a page in their own source text and not via a transcluded template. On Solothurn it produces Source links. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The link is hidden in the (collapsed) Navbox "Articles related to Brussels" under "Capitals of European states and territories". The link comes from Template:List of European capitals by region, thats why its not present in the Wikitext source. Most browser's "Find on Page" feature do not search hidden elements. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homages before death

Raúl Alfonsín died in 2009, but before that moment there was a ceremony that unveiled his bust at the "Casa Rosada" (Argentina's presidential palace). Should this info go at "Later years" or "Legacy"? Cambalachero (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put it in Legacy, personally. A preferred place for questions like this is the talk page of the article in question. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Legacy, but this is more of a talk page thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I asked here because that's not a very visible page and talk page question may not be noticed by anyone, and also because it's a detail that may arise in other biographies as well. Cambalachero (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do new user subpages need to be reviewed?

About 45 minutes ago I noticed that one of my user subpages had been reviewed. Is this process mandatory?

Seems odd since a lot of user subpages are simply for personal use. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 15:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think all new pages get added to an unreviewed pages category. There's reasonable debate about the necessity or untiity of reviewing every page outside of the article namespace. But if someone happens to look at a non-mainspace page and think it's fine they may as well mark it reviewed to get it out of the category. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sex! Now that I have your attention...

When I hover my mouse over the link to some users, the pop-up sometimes says "he/him" or "she/her". It is useful to know how people prefer to be addressed, and I would like to do the same but I don't know where that information comes from. Where should I specify my sex so it gets picked up like this?--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences --> User profile --> Internationalisation (for some reason?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+ + + Sniffs around. + + + -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this article?

We used to have an article. It was entitled something like "Oldest Surviving Academy Award Winners" ... or "Earliest Surviving Academy Award Winners" ... or some such. I can't seem to find it. Anyone know anything? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro we have List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees is that what you were thinking of ? - Arjayay (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees seems to be by age at the time of their win, not oldest still living. I don't see anything in Category:Academy Awards lists that matches what you are describing. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No, I am familiar with -- and I am not seeking -- List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees. I am seeking something like "Oldest Surviving Academy Award Winners" ... or "Earliest Surviving Academy Award Winners". It would state, for example, that Kirk Douglas was the oldest Best Actor nominee still living ... or Louise Rainer was the oldest Best Actress winner still living ... that type of thing. I made tons of edits to that article, over the years. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this. These were the "official" names: List of earliest surviving Academy Award winners and nominees ... and ... List of oldest living Academy Award winners and nominees. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: There should be enough items in Wikidata to permit you to form a query to display the list you want. This approach is better than relying on editors to keep an article up to date. -Arch dude (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. It appears that those articles were deleted. I was unaware of the deletion, till now. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

How to edit on Wikipedia

How to edit on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.163.1.230 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. To get started, check out the tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. RudolfRed (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must have an account to use WP:ADVENTURE. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 30

being told Im vandalizing a page when I'm adding citations and information value

hello, I recently registered and this is my first edit. I am a professional journalist whom has been collecting information on a deceased actor and the many lawsuits that surround his historical material. Ive attempted on many accounts to update the information that is available with the correct fact based work cited material but have been repetitively told that what I am doing is vandalizing the page without further explanation or context. Ive reworded things to eliminate any options and cited 13 sources. Still I am told that the revisions will be reversed and now being told if I edit it again I'll be blocked. I worked extremely hard to find the facts and provided credible resources in my citations. Please can you tell me why this is taking place and what if anything can I do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataCollectionExpert (talk • contribs) 01:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DataCollectionExpert: I suggest you take it slowly and learn how to cite sources on Wikipedia; Easy referencing for beginners is a good primer on that. For example, this edit of yours does not have an inline citation, so it was understandably reverted. I also invite you to take the time to digest Reliable sources, as some references, like Discogs, are not considered to be reliable by Wikipedia's standards due to their user-generated content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DataCollectionExpert, your additions have been written in an almost incoherent fashion with many errors of grammar, spelling and capitalization. Your writing lacks clarity. Your referencing skills are very poor. It is not surprising that your edits have been reverted. If you want to make contributions to the encyclopedia that will stick, you will need to step up your game and do a much better job of writing and referencing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DataCollectionExpert: I agree that "vandalism" is probably too strong a term, because you don't appear to be deliberately causing harm. But don't get into an "edit war" by putting the same material back repeatedly. There is a normal process in Wikipedia (described at WP:BRD) to Be Bold - somebody Reverts - Discuss. You boldly added your material, then others reverted it, so the next step is to discuss it on the article's Talk page (Talk:Alexander Scourby). Explain what change(s) you want to make and list the sources. Editors can discuss it and agree on what to do: Wikipedia operates by consensus. You might also want to remember that Wikipedia aims to summarize what the best sources have to say about a subject; we do not use that to build an argument or to prove a point. For instance, nowhere in the article on Adolf Hitler does it say he was a bad man; it is left to the reader to reach their own conclusion about that. So make specific proposals on the Talk page, with sources, and build an agreement.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors

Only American Civil War and Clara Bow, have Category:Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@0mtwb9gd5wx: I've fixed American Civil War, following the advice at Template:Sfn#More than one work in a year, and the category is currently empty. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Hello,

2018, 10 Oct I created Page in Georgian language. page name is - დავით ზილფიმიანი.

I need to translate the page to make the information understandable to all of readers. But the system says that I have not right to translate the page. How could you help me? Is any other way to translate my page without these 500 edits restiction?

Thank you in advance

--Stereo Plus (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inga Bajelidze, Admin of Stereo Plus

^[1]

References

^ https://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%93%E1%83%90%E1%83%95%E1%83%98%E1%83%97_%E1%83%96%E1%83%98%E1%83%9A%E1%83%A4%E1%83%98%E1%83%9B%E1%83%98%E1%83%90%E1%83%9C%E1%83%98

Let me check that I understand your situation, Stereo Plus. (1) When you say that you are the/an "Admin of Stereo Plus", do you mean that you are an employee of the company Stereo Plus? (2) Do you hope to create an article about the founder of the same company, Stereo Plus? -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stereo Plus You will need to change your name, as business names are not permitted on the English Wikipedia. Please go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest to change your name. It must be a name for you alone. Please understand that writing on the Georgian Wikipedia is different from writing on the English Wikipedia. There are different standards here. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Stereo Plus, if you are indeed at the company Stereo Plus, you'd be welcome to use a name such as "Inga at Stereo Plus" or "IB at Stereo Plus". -- Hoary (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have requested the name change. thank you for advise.

what do you mean in different standards? as I have read, admin should have 500 edits to have permission of translating English articles. is it correct? Stereo Plus (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Yes, I am an employee. I already requested the name change. as for the second question, I need to translate the Georgian article in English language.

Georgian article already exists.

Thank you for your reply Stereo Plus (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stereo Plus, any editor (aside from those who are banned or evading blocks) may create a draft article. Being an administrator has nothing to do with it. (Actually I suspect that you misunderstand "admin", or anyway use the word very differently to the way other people here use it.) A draft article may be a translation into English of an article written for the Wikipedia of another language. That other language may of course be Georgian. However, (1) the first edit to the English translation should have an edit summary declaring what it's a translation of; (2) the talk page of the English translation should provide more details of what it's a translation of; (3) the translation (or augmented version of the translation) must satisfy the policies of English-language Wikipedia (which are likely to be very different from those of Georgian-language Wikipedia); (4) as you have a conflict of interest, the draft will have a conflict-of-interest template until some other editor (not you) removes it; (5) as you are being paid to create the article, you must disclose this conspicuously; (6) I hope that you are not in a hurry: having a draft such as this accepted as an article is a process that tends to take months (and may never succeed). -- Hoary (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDITING MY PROFILE

Hi,

I would like to find out how I edit my profile.

Thanks Elizabeth Littlefield — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:A80D:E701:95D2:E98:8D47:1DC8 (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have profiles, it has articles. You are welcome to visit Talk:Elizabeth Littlefield and make a formal edit request(click for instructions) detailing changes you feel are needed. They should be sourced to a published independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] Wikipedia is not social media and does not contain any "profiles." It is an encyclopedia which contains articles about subjects, based solely on information that has been published in Reliable sources that are completely independent of their subjects. Any information not so published is not allowed, because readers would not be able to check its source and verify it for themselves. (Also, this helps to prevent malicious actors inserting false information about a subject; a danger that any politician, for example, will be aware of.)

Autobiography, while not strictly forbidden, is strongly discouraged, and the subject of an article should not make any edits to an article about themself. Instead, they should make edit requests on the article's Talk page, with exact suggestions and with links or citations to reliable sources that corroborate the information in question; other Wikipedia editors will then evaluate these and perform (or not) the relevant edits.

To be clear, are you the subject of the article Elizabeth Littlefield? {The editor formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.233.48 (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the editor formerly known as 87.81.230.195? --R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me. In March 2011 my home ISP, which provided a static IP, was taken over by Sky, which provide dynamic IPs. Since for ideological reasons I do not wish to have an account, I adopted the "formerly" tag to ensure continuity in conversations such as this.

Did you have a reason specific to the current topic to ask the question? I asked the current querent if she was the Elizabeth Littlefield of the linked article both to provide a convenient link for everyone's convenience, and to confirm that she was actually talking about that "~~profile~~" article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.233.48 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of my own wikipedia page

Good morning to whom it may concern,

I have had a wikipedia page from a very young age. I would like to request to delete the page entirely as I have grown older and realised I do not really want all that information about me online for anyone to access. is there any possibility to delete the page.

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.82.25 (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if we knew which page it is, and if you really are the subject. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Gayatri Nair Theroadislong (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed a bunch of unsourced or poorly sourced cruft. On the fence about AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 81.170.82.25. There's really no way for anyone to tell for sure that you're Gayatri Nair (if that's the page you're referring to) unless you register for WP:ACCOUNT and have your identity verified by WP:VRT. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself for more information, but there are way for people written about on Wikipedia to seek assistance for others. There's even something called a courtesy deletion as explained here that is sometimes applied in cases like this, but please understand, though, that no such action is likely going to be taken as long as your identity remains unverified. You shouldn't post any of your personal contact information on any Wikipedia pages as explained here, but you can have your identity verified via email if you wish. It's also important to understand that Wikipedia articles aren't owned by their subjects, and the subjects of articles don't have an sort of final editorial control over what written about them on Wikipedia. Articles are written about subjects, not for or on behalf of subjects; so, it's not really your article per se in the sense that a social media account or personal website might be considered to be yours. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning behind "ndash"

I have had several reviewers have me replace the keyboard "-" with "ndash". Why is that important? Is it best then to us that with "{{ }}" these brackets or can just the word "ndash" be used to replace the "-"? Is this "ndash" only suppose to be used to separate page numbers (i.e. pp. 31-39) or is it also to be used for all dates in an article (i.e. 1 April 2022 - 2 March 2022)? Should the "ndash" template have been used on this on this date example? I'm trying to figure out why it needs to be used and why can not the everyday keyboard "-" be used in an article. Thanks for simple explanation for reasoning on this "ndash" thingie.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Coldwell. You'll find some information about this at MOS:NDASH, but what's written there might not be well known by most editors. Grammatically, there is a difference as to how n-dashes, m-dashes and hyphens are supposed to be used, but I'd imagine many people don't worry about such things when it comes to casual writing; Wikipedia articles are, however, expected to be written in more formal style, which is why you might come across others who are sticklers for "fixing" this kind of thing. As for the difference between {{ndash}} as a template, and n-dash as the plain text symbol –, they both seem to display the same way and which is used may simply come down to preference; for example, 100{{ndash}}200 using the template looks like 100–200, and 100–200 using the text symbol also looks like 100–200. Using the template, however, might place the page where it's used in maintenance category so that it can be reviewed since templates are often connected to category pages in some way, which is something that using plain text might not allow. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell, it's also normal practice in printing books and journals, so it's consistent with other formal writing. ndash is used for any range, whereas the hyphen is to join words or parts of words, so the usage is quite different Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marchjuly and Jimfbleak for your replies. Now I have a good idea for its purpose and how to use it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog (film series)

Hello. I am ZX2006XZ. For the past month, I have a working on a draft for Paramount Pictures/Sega's Sonic the Hedgehog film series. I started working on the draft a few days after a third Sonic movie and a spinoff series on Paramount+ centered on Knuckles were announced. Now that critical reception for Sonic the Hedgehog 2 has surfaced, I have submitted the draft for review. The only problem is that Sonic the Hedgehog (film series) is a redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog (film), and is protected due to "disruptive editing". See redirect's revision history at this link.

So, what I'm trying to ask is if this redirect can be unprotected so submitting the draft of it won't be such a hassle. It would also be great if I could get into contact with an administrator for this. Thanks. ZX2006XZ (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZX2006XZ: Go ahead and submit the draft. When the draft is approved, the reviewer will handle getting it moved over the existing redirect. Requests for unprotecting a page can be made at WP:RFPP RudolfRed (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I have submitted the draft for review. ZX2006XZ (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's nothing for you to do but wait for it to get reviewed. ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A reviewer will pick up that bit. For what it's worth, WP:RM/T is the place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to the page contents when a Wikipedia article is deleted?

What happens to the page contents when a Wikipedia article is deleted? I assume it is no longer available to the general public, to view? Or is it? If I (an editor) want a copy of that page, where can I make such a request? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: When a page is deleted, all edits are moved to a different database table, including all information about the edit such as content, edit summary, author, revision number, etc, from which they can also by restored. Assuming that the page or the edit in question wasn't removed by people with higher force, all administators have the technical ability to view the deleted revisions. Some administrators might choose to provide copies of deleted pages, see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro Also, depending on the reason it was deleted, you can request a copy of it to be restored via the request for undeletion process. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accused of Hijacking My Own Account...?

Please help me understand something - I signed into Wikipedia and got to MY page, only to find details for someone with teh same name, but it clearly was not "me." I updated the page with my information and received an email that I had "hijacked" the page.

I replied that I did not mean any ill-will and told the person to correct it and put it back the way to was prior to making my edits. I checked this morning and the detail has been updated to the old information for the other person (with my same name), yet I still have logon rights to make edits to the page.

So ----- If I have established a login and password for this specific account, how is it that I'm being accused of "hijacking" the page? Seems to me that if the other person wanted their detail to be shown, then they would have the access to do this themselves.

Please help me clarify this -

Thank you very much -

Dean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.78.171 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the operator of the DeanTracy account, you currently are not logged in to it. You "hijacked" the article Dean Tracy(which is not an account and not associated with a particular account) which is about a different individual from yourself. If you merit a Wikipedia article(per the notability criteria), any article about you will need to be created and will need to have what we call a disambiguation in the title(such as "Dean Tracy (coach)"). It is strongly advised that you not attempt to write about yourself, please read the autobiography policy. However, if you can set aside what you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about you, you may create and submit a draft at Articles for Creation.

It is not necessarily desirable to have an article on Wikipedia. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the message that User:Johnj1995 left on your talk page, the word "hijacking" is linked to Wikipedia:Article hijack, which explains what you did. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused as to how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That means you can edit (virtually) any page in the encyclopedia (with the exception that some articles are protected, usually temporarily, usually due to vandalism). You do not need an account to edit articles here. Although we may have an article about someone with the same name as you, no one owns that article. If we had an article about you, it would not be your article, you would not own it. The other Dean Tracy does not own that article, although it is about him. You still have rights to make edits to the page because you still have rights to make edits to any page, because this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Does this make sense? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This may be as simple as not understanding the difference between a WP:USERPAGE and an WP:ARTICLE. For the most part, you are free to edit your user page as you see fit, but you can't change the content (e.g. WP:HIJACK) of an article about another person to turn it into your user page. And, if you wish to create either a user page or an article promoting yourself, then you should probably just go elsewhere. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish Enlightenment

"Category:Polish enlightenment", now spelled with a lower-case "e", should be corrected to "Category:Polish Enlightenment", with the word "Enlightenment" capitalized, as is customary for that historical period.

I don't know how to make that correction. Could someone please make it?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil noviI'd add an entry in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. If the article Polish Enlightenment was under that name rather than being a redirect to Enlightenment in Poland than I think you'd be able to put it in as a non-controversial, but since it isn't, I think adding to the above is probably best. Note, if you go through that process, (or even the non-controversial) getting approved, I believe that a bot program will go through all of the entries that are in that category and move then. I'm not saying your suggestion is wrong, I'm saying there is a formal process that if it is approved, then someone who wants to change it back would need to go through another discussion.Naraht (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Naraht! I've added an entry to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, per your suggestion. Nihil novi (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to start a page

I'm trying to create a new page and I'm having a hard time sifting through all the articles. Can you someone direct me to an easy button page or instructions for getting my page submitted to go live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderfront Festival (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfront Festival Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. Before you get into creating articles, however, you will need a different username, that is not that of an event(which I presume is what you want to write about). Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look around in a web search and concluded that the Wonderfront Festival would have difficulty meeting the general notability guideline. It is a music festival in San Diego, California that is being staged in November 2022. An article simply to create publicity for it would likely lead to a speedy deletion request.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

Fundraising

Not a question

I see this site constantly ask for donations yet I see how biased this website has become. Quite frankly, I used to depend on this site to provide dependable information. Unfortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth in 2022. You'll never see a dime from me or many visits to the site going forward. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.227.61.130 (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bye then, I guess. Us volunteer editors never see a penny of the donations, so that doesn't really affect us. If you would like to have this site retain dependable information, you could contribute to pre-existing articles with reliable sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: Do not reply to "questions" that are written to be inflammatory virtue-signaling; just revert them off. They're not after help, they're after a reaction. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: Most times I do, though occasionally I respond to one to let others know what actually is the case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minimized and de-emphasized. -Arch dude (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonce repetition of text on page without dedicated template

Is there a way have some piece of text, which appears once in the Wikitext, appear two or more times in arbitrary locations on the resulting page? Essentially, it would be like creating and using a one-off template, except all on a single page. Is there already some sort of lambda calculus-y metatemplate?

In case I'm having a brain fart, and to address the XY problem, I'll say that I'm specifically trying to make a table of template test cases like this:

Wikitext	Template	Sandbox
<testcase 1 Wikitext>	<testcase 1 output>	<testcase 1 sandbox output>
<testcase 2 Wikitext>	<testcase 2 output>	<testcase 2 sandbox output>
...	...	...

which the current testcase templates don't support (though someone proposed it a couple years ago). Because I want the cases to be easy to create and edit in the future, the Wikitext specific to each case should appear only once in the source Wikitext. Each case can thus be edited without having to synchronize copied text, and new cases are easily made by duplicating existing ones.

At first I tried:

{{Expand wikitext
| {{Unstrip
  | {{Replace
    | <nowiki>{{Testcase table|_showheader=no|_rowheader=$|$}}</nowiki>
    | $
    | TESTCASE_ARGUMENTS
    }}
  }}
}}

Edit: Fixed nowikis not showing up — wqnvlz (talk · contribs) 05:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but {{Replace}} doesn't work on text within nowiki tags (e.g., {{Replace|a<nowiki>a</nowiki>a|a|b}} produces 'bab'). Why is that?

I then discovered {{Make code}}, which exists to avoid nowikis, so I ended up with this:

{{Expand wikitext
| {{Make code
  | {{Replace
    | 1=<<Testcase table!_showheader=no!_rowheader=$!$>>
    | 2=$
    | 3=TESTCASE_ARGUMENTS
    }}
  }}
}}

which works, but is long and hard to understand, especially because of the {{Make code}} replacement. Is there a better way? And what about the general case, such as an article that contains multiple instances of a statistic that must be updated?

— wqnvlz (talk · contribs) 05:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Formatted Wikitext — wqnvlz (talk · contribs) 05:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a Wikipedia page why is it not published?

Hi, I made a page about an artist a few months ago and it’s still not published? Any idea of why this would be? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Frida1984&oldid=1047399556 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frida1984 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You created a draft of an article in your user page, which is the wrong place for an article or draft. I suggest that you move it to draft space – or ask someone else to, if you don't know how. Maproom (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DRAFT and WP:AFC. It's unlikely that anyone has seen the article about Studio Lenca because it is currently on your user page. It should also be said that it can take months for AFCs to be reviewed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your draft to Draft:Studio Lenca and added the submit template, please also not the comment that they need to pass the criteria at WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you inserted a link to the {{submit}} template (like the one I have here) instead of using the template. This happens when you add the template text using the default editor, VisualEditor, since it thinks that you want to write that text in the article verbatim. You can apply the template by switching to the source editor using the pencil icon and adding the {{subst:submit}} text there (on its own line at the top of the page).

When a template is applied, you should, when viewing the page, see its output (in this case the 'Review pending' header) instead of a name in brackets. {{submit}} is one of the minority of templates used with the subst: prefix, which causes it to be substituted. That is, when you save the page, {{subst:submit}} is replaced in the Wikitext source by the 'Pending' header. Most other templates are transcluded instead of substituted, which means {{<name of template>}} remains saved in the Wikitext source and will be visible when source editing. More on templates at Help:Templates.

It is possible to inserting templates with VisualEditor, but only on desktop. Use Insert > Template, and include the subst: prefix when entering the template name.

Oh, also, on pages where you're talking to other users, you should sign by putting ~~~~ after your message.

— wqnvlz (talk · contribs) 08:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{e/c) @Frida1984: I notice that you posted copies of the artist's work to Wikimedia Commons, claiming that you are the person who produced them. Are you Studio Lenca also known as Jose Campos? If so, you should be aware that Wikipedia strongly discourages people writing autobiographies and there are strict constraints on them - see Wikipedia:Autobiography. I took the liberty of making some changes to bring the article's layout more in line with Wikipedia's standards: you can always undo that if you don't approve.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As we often end up saying on the help desk, Wikipedia articles should not be created purely for promotional purposes by someone with a conflict of interest. The article would probably be declined for creation in this form. Please find reliable secondary sources that mention Studio Lenca to establish its notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing etiquette: adding explanation to published change

I recently made a small change to the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPUID#EAX=80000006h:_Extended_L2_Cache_Features

I clumsily pressed enter before filling out the reasoning behind the change. Was going to add a reference showing previous code contained a typo.

Browsing through FAQ, help pages and how-to's leads me to several options:

   1) "undo" the change and republish the same change with an explanation (leads to three changes for a tiny typo-correction in history)
   2) Publish a "dummy-change" with an explanation
   3) Leave a note on the articles talk page
   4) Leave "as is" since the change is self-explanatory to anyone who has used fputs() in C

Q1: What is the preferred way to provide a clarification in this instance?

Q2: If I stumble into the same situation again. And I feel an explanation must be provided to motivate a change, what is the best way to go back and provide such an explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vospup (talk • contribs) 10:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vospup If you are just doing something simple like fixing a typo, and forget to write an edit summary, I wouldn't necessarily worry about explaning it too much as long as it is obvious that is what you were doing. If you feel it necessary, I would just edit the article talk page leaving an explanation. Anything more complicated than a typo, I don't think there is a preferred method, but if the explanation is anything longer than a short sentence, the talk page should be used. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification 331dot!

I don't think it should be necessary in this case. But in the future I will make sure to leave a note on the talk page when needed. Vospup (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vospup If you would like, you can set your account preferences to prompt you for an edit summary if you don't provide one. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vospup: H:ES#Fixing tells you when and how to fix an edit summary using a dummy edit. Bazza (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vospup: Use editorial judgement. These fixes are intended to help other editors. You are an editor, so you can apply the golden rule: for each fixup you need to make, what fixup would you like to see if another editor had made the mistake? -Arch dude (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Hello,

On the page 2022 French presidential election, the link "R!" below the candidate Éric Zemmour in the infobox is "Reconquête (political party)", which should simply be "Reconquête" to avoid a redirection. If the link is corrected directly on the page (which I tried to do), the colour below the candidate in the infobox disappears. Could someone fix that please, i.e. create a new colour template for the link "Reconquête" alone, as I do not know how to do that? Thank you.

2A02:A452:7DDC:1:3D9D:FC45:B61A:238D (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in Module:Political party/R.[5] The link to the redirect was not broken so it didn't have to be updated but I have done it [6] and checked it works. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convert template pound parameter needed

I can see how to use this template with the "s" ...intending to run the 21,000 pounds (9,500 kilograms) locomotive... However I want to drop BOTH "s"s to where it reads ...intending to run the 21,000 pound (9,500 kilogram) locomotive.... Can someone add the needed parameter to drop the "s"s. Please reply here with the example corrected template to use and I will see it. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Coldwell. You may want to use the "adj=" parameter to get the hyphenated, singular, adjectival form. "intending to run the {{convert|21,000|lb|kg|adj=on|abbr=off}} locomotive" renders as "intending to run the 21,000-pound (9,500-kilogram) locomotive" Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: That's it!!! Thanks. Appreciate the help.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to open edit window?

Hi all, is it possible to link to the open edit window with an internal link rather than an external? SN54129 16:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Edit/Wikipedia:Help desk. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's very clever! :) thanks Pppery, much appreciated. SN54129 17:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about consensus and variatns of languages in the main lead of article

I have a problem for editing as one the editiors is reverting my edits and I have discussed that here.Can anyone help me with it.the problem I had was that the current version includes the variant of a language in the lead of an article.Is that normal!?should we add all variants of a language in the lead of an article and make in overwhelmed with unnecessary information?!Simsala111 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using a URL with "|" in with cite web

Hi, I'm trying to use the following page as a reference {{cite web|url=https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/schools-and-education/schools-directory/school-directory.aspx?searchInput=&page=1&resultsPerPage=50&view=List&categoryfilters=|&schoolTypes=Primary&schoolLocation=Ware%20and%20surrounding%20villages#resultsContainer |title=help}} Unfortunately it has "|" in the URL which is breaking the cite web template. I can't find anywhere in the template documentation that addresses this. Is there a workaround? RicDod (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RicDod, the usual workaround is to replace | by {{!}} inside template calls. —Kusma (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's worked. I knew it would be something simple! RicDod (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%93%E1%83%90%E1%83%95%E1%83%98%E1%83%97_%E1%83%96%E1%83%98%E1%83%9A%E1%83%A4%E1%83%98%E1%83%9B%E1%83%98%E1%83%90%E1%83%9C%E1%83%98

[1]

v t e Wikipedia help pages
*Visit the Teahouse* or the Help desk for an interactive Q & A forum. FAQs (?) Reference desks (?) Noticeboards (?) Cheatsheet (?) Directories (?)**
About Wikipedia (?)	Administration Purpose Principles Policies and guidelines What Wikipedia is not Disclaimer (parental advice) Making requests Who writes Wikipedia?
Help for readers (?)	FAQ Books Copyright Glossary Mobile access Navigation Other languages Searching Students Viewing media
Contributing to Wikipedia (?)	Advice for young editors Avoiding common mistakes Etiquette Simplified Manual of Style Simplified rule-set "Ignore all rules" "The rules are principles" Style-tips Tip of the day Your first article (article wizard)
Getting started (?)	Why create an account? Introductions by topic Graphics tutorials Picture tutorial IRC (live chat) tutorial VisualEditor user guide
Dos and don'ts (?)	Accessibility Biographies Biographies (living) Categorization Consensus Discussions Disambiguation Images Leads Links Lists References Tables Titles (of articles)
How-to pages and information pages (?)	Appealing blocks Article deletion Categories Citations/references Referencing for beginners Citation Style 1 Cite errors References and page numbers Convert Diff Editing Minor edit toolbar edit conflict Find sources Files Footnotes Image deletion Infoboxes Linking (link color) Logging in Merging Page name Renaming pages Redirect Passwords Email confirmation Reverting Simple vandalism cleanup Talk pages (archiving simple archiving) User contributions WP search protocol
Coding (?)	Wiki markup Barcharts Calculations Characters Columns Elevation Hidden text HTML Lists Magic words Music symbols Sections Sounds Tables Templates Transclusion URL Visual files
Directories (?)	Abbreviations Contents (Encyclopedia proper) Departments Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Guidelines Manual of Style Policies Tasks Tips Tools
Missing Manual Ask for help on your talk page (?)