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.
• 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

August 13

Problem while fixing Errors

I am working on a backlog category Category:CS1 errors: URL.There is an article which shows that there are issues in two reference. but when i open edit windows, its just gone but if i again open article, it shows that there are issues in reference. The Article: Alive Alive-O!
–– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 02:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Article title corrected -- John of Reading (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@KEmel49: The {{Album chart}} template builds its own references based on the information supplied in the other parameters. According to Template:Album chart/doc#Supports, for Italy and Spain, it was trying to build a reference from the "artist" and "album" parameters; these were missing, causing the invalid URL error. The template was not expecting to see a fully-formed reference as its third unnamed parameter; although they were visible in the edit window, they were ignored by the template coding.

I've chosen to restore an old version of the album chart without the extra entries added in December 2023. I was not convinced by the references that were visible in the edit window. And when I added the missing parameters and allowed the {{Album chart}} template to build its own version of the Italy and Spain references, they did not verify the supplied chart positions. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Thanks –– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Your edit of JD Vance

Why did you remove the awards and commendations that he received in the Marines? Are you trying to censor the truth? If so, that is despicable. 2601:647:4400:D8B0:AC99:D7B6:487B:5C91 (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Join the ongoing discussion at Talk:JD_Vance RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

How do i remove statements that persecute based on religion?

How do i remove slanderous false statements that are solely intended to persecute a company because of the owners religion? When I try editors blindly deny the edits. Newsbuffstuff (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide article name.-- kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 06:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably Desert Tech.   Maproom (talk)

Newsbuffstuff, the statements that you tried to remove from the article accurately summarize what reliable sources like CBS News and the Salt Lake City Tribune have said about that company. That is exactly what we do on Wikipedia. You have no basis to remove that content. You clearly have a Conflict of interest regarding this company and should not edit that article. What is your connection with User:DTNEY1? Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Rename the page title and url

Hi, I am working as a senior webmaster and designer in Liwa College. As our college name has been changed from Emirates college of technology to Liwa College. I want to update my college name in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_College_of_Technology But there is no option to edit the name. I cant see any move or more option to change or update the page name. Can you please help or guide me to solve this issue.

Thanks Liwa College (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Liwa College and added a reference for this being the new name. Unfortunately I've also had to block your account as a breach of WP:ORGNAME which prohibits usernames that unambiguously represent a company. I appreciate you likely created this account in good faith to make this suggested change but we don't generally allow usernames like this. There are instructions on your usertalk page on how to request a rename, perhaps to something like "<person name> at Liwa College." Also as outlined on your userpage, you need to be aware of both the policy on paid editing and the policy on conflicts of interest. Again, you do seem to be here in good faith so please don't take this list of policies as a criticism: there are simply some fairly strict rules for how representatives of companies are allowed to contribute to their own company pages. Happy to discuss further if required, after you've renamed your account. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

How to Properly Integrate Cited References for New Technological Advances in Existing Articles?

Hello Community,

I am working on updating Wikipedia articles related to building and construction technologies, with a focus on new methodologies impacting deck repair. My objective is to enrich these articles with updated, reliable information and ensure all additions are substantiated by authoritative sources.

As I aim to enhance the content quality, I seek advice on several aspects:

1. Verifiability and Reliable Sources: What are the best practices for verifying and integrating sources, particularly new ones from rapidly evolving fields? How can I ensure these sources meet the community's standards for reliability?
2. Seamless Integration of New Data: When introducing significant new information to well-structured articles, what strategies should I employ to maintain the article’s coherence and neutrality?
3. Advanced Citation Practices: Are there specific citation techniques or common pitfalls I should be aware of, especially for citing online studies or technological advancements?

For a broader perspective and detailed analysis, here is a link to my project's data Spreadsheet with Technological Advances in Deck Repair. Additionally, further information about our methodologies can be found on our project’s webpage at DeckRepairLittleRock.

I appreciate your guidance to help me make responsible and effective contributions to Wikipedia’s knowledgeable community.

Thank you for your support! Deckrepairlittlerock (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked your account for your promotional username indicating shared use. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals only, not for businesses. Advertising, marketing and promotion are not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I'm wondering if someone(s) have reached out to the editor/user to suggest re-registering with a personalized login? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

See the (standard) message which @Cullen328 put on their user talk page, Ceyockey. ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Navbox and sidebar consistency

Hello there fellow ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask your opinions as to the information concerning navboxes and sidebars, (assuming that there exists both for a particular topic, say Discrimination) should they link to the same number of articles or not? If not, which should link to more articles?

Atakes Ris (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Atakes Ris I think that some guidance is given at WP:CLN, especially WP:BIDI. However, I may not fully understand your question, so please be more specific if the links don't help sufficiently. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

For example, the articles related to Geography have a sidebar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Geography_sidebar) and a navbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Geography_topics), however the number of articles in the sidebar is less than that of the navbox.

Another case, the articles related to Discrimination have a sidebar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Discrimination_sidebar) and a navbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Discrimination) as well, but the number of articles in both are the same.

So I would like to ask, among the general consensus of Wikipedians or otherwise, should a sidebar have the same amount of articles as its respective navbox (assuming that both exist)?

Thanks! Atakes Ris (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Atakes Ris WP:SIDEBAR says that sidebars .... should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. That suggests to me that there should be fewer entries in a sidebar than in a navbox which is doing roughly the same job. However, none of this is a policy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks! Atakes Ris (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

How can I protect important information from a vandal?

User:Mellk is vandalizing the article, removing important information with reliable source[1]. I think that he is not going to stop vandalize. So what should I do? Пинча (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Пинча Firstly, removing another editor's content under these circumstances is not vandalism, which has a very specific meaning here as you can read at that link. Melik's edit summary pointed out that the new information should not be placed in the WP:LEAD of the article, which is supposed to summarize what appears later. Hence, if the same information is not in the body text, it should not be solely in the lead. Please follow our normal WP:BRD process and discuss the issue on the Talk Page of the article at Talk:Arkady Babchenko. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

So User:Mellk could have improved it, couldn't he? Removing important information with reliable source is vandalism. Пинча (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If information is 'important', it needs to be discussed in depth in the article body, and then possibly summarised in the article lede. As it is, you have provided nothing that suggests that this nickname is of any significance at all, instead merely citing a single source which mentions it in passing. I suggest you find further sources that discuss it, and then list them on the article talk page, where their relevance to the article can be assessed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have questions about why an editor made the choices they made, the best thing you can do is ask them about it in a non-confrontational manner. There was no need to escalate this to this page. DonIago (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Pincha, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Different editors can and do have different opinions as to what is important, and what belongs where in an article.

To insist that you are right, and that anybody who disagrees with you is a vandal, is not collaborative. Please discuss the issue with the other editor, according to WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing important information with reliable source is vanalism. Now the vandal accused me in edit war because I reverted his vanalism. Пинча (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You are edit warring. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I reverted obvious vandalism, improved the article, and asked here how to protect the article from vandals and avoid edit war. Пинча (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:EW: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. It is what User:Mellk and User:Theroadislong are doing. Пинча (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You can do this "I know you are but what am I" routine all you want; a stubborn refusal to talk to other editors on an equal footing will just mean that you don't succeed in getting your edit made. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Mellk called another vandal, User:Theroadislong who reverted even improved version. It is what I am talking about: they are just vandals and don't what to improve the article. Пинча (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to you several times now that disagreeing with you about what is relevant to an article is not "vandalism". Please stop accusing other editors of vandalism. Editors on Wikipedia are required to assume good faith of each other, which you are not doing. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That person calls himself StarshinaZapasa in every social media.[2][3][4] Why can't it be stated in the article? Пинча (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that. Maybe the information belongs in the article; maybe it doesn't, as not everything that is true is important enough to be noted on Wikipedia. I don't know, in this case. What I am saying is that you need to discuss these things in a constructive manner with other editors in order to reach WP:CONSENSUS and stop accusing them of vandalism. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, they need to discuss these things in a constructive manner with other editors in order to reach WP:CONSENSUS to avoid being accused of vandalism. Пинча (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a vandal makes it less likely that your preferred version of the article will end up prevailing. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not their own page and they cannot decide what is important not knowing the subject at all. Пинча (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

And it's not your page either, so you have to talk to people and don't get to sidestep that by pretending they're "vandals". AntiDionysius (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not 'call' anyone. I removed the social media name from the lead because it is not important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence. Also not mentioned as a nickname in the lead of ru:Бабченко, Аркадий Аркадьевич. Mellk (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

See how he is lying! He didn't just removed the information from the lead, he removed the information at all. It is called vandalism on Wikipedia. Пинча (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I quite literally removed it from the lead. But the continued personal attacks suggest that a block is needed until you understand the policies better. Vandalism has a very specific meaning as you have been told. Mellk (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There is the obvious difference between moving from lead to another place, and removing at all. Don't speculate here. Пинча (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

how to create account

pasagott! 119.92.138.20 (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a special page for that. Please visit Special:CreateAccount. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Updating company page

Hello! I've read various rules about updating data on your own company page. Ours is a bit out of date and I've gathered several links (to outside sources) to show progress that should be reflected on our page. Can someone tell me best way to submit these to a Wiki editor to update? Much appreciated. - Erin Ehbrown.writes (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The best way to do this is to use the edit request wizard to place requests on the article's talk page. Remember to make these requests as precise as possible, and that all information you wish to insert must be verified by published sources, and preferably by sources wholly unconnected with the company. 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) 14:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ehbrown.writes Best practice is also to declare your WP:PAID status on your own userpage. See that link for how to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Briefly looking at the useful "edit request wizard", it doesn't seem obvious where the edit requests go. Is this something that could be clarified, or a pointer to clarification provided? Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ceyockey The instructions on the ERW page say editors are encouraged to submit an edit request on the article talk page using the form below (my bolding). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to give it a try myself and see how it works out. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Proper use of "van"

Hi, which of the two is correct:

• van Pelt, Robert Jan (2014). "Freemasonry and Judaism". In Bogdan, Henrik; Snoek, Jan A.M. (eds.). Handbook of Freemasonry. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Brill. p. 197. ISBN 978-90-04-27312-2. Retrieved 12 August 2024.
• Pelt, Robert Jan van (2014). "Freemasonry and Judaism". In Bogdan, Henrik; Snoek, Jan A.M. (eds.). Handbook of Freemasonry. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Brill. p. 197. ISBN 978-90-04-27312-2. Retrieved 12 August 2024.? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu My understanding is that Van Pelt is a surname in which the "van" means "from". Hence the first of your versions seems better. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(ec) You need to add |authorlink=Robert Jan van Pelt. Once you have done so, either is "correct" depending on where you are, see van (Dutch). Wikipedia:Citing sources does not prescribe anything so you can do what you like as long as you are consistent within your article. —Kusma (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I asked the question at nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg. They replied that "last1=Pelt | first1=Robert Jan van" is correct. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

We had this question last year at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 September 5 § Sorting of Dutch names. The guidance is at WP:SUR, with backup guidance at this external source. I feel like I remember there being different answers depending on the nationality of the person in question: for Europeans, "van" / "von" is sorted into |first=; some North Americans have "Van" / "Von" (with initial capital) as the beginning of their surname. When there's doubt, I put "van" / "von" at the end of the forename. Folly Mox (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Dress code of gumboot dance

What they worn? 41.122.1.58 (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is incoherent. Are you asking a question about a certain article? 331dot (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Is the answer here Gumboot dance in which case the answer is wellies. Knitsey (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

TOC not displayed for non-logged in users

I know this must be an extremely dumb question, but please bear with me.

I have just finished drafting a long article (7,000 words readable prose) in my User space. I asked a friend for comments and was told there is no Table of Contents (TOC). This seems to be the case: unless you are logged in (which my friend wasn't), an article displays with no TOC. This seems to hold for any article, in mainspace or otherwise.

Can this really be true? It makes long articles very difficult to read for readers who are not logged in (i.e. most of them). I have tried forcing a Table of Contents with but it makes no difference.

Am I missing something obvious, or is there a way of fixing this problem? Ttocserp 21:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This question might be better suited to WP:VPT, they tend to know about this sort of thing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ttocserp: Logged out, I see a TOC on the left hand side, looking at User:Ttocserp/Slave-owning_slaves. It looks like if that is hidden, then the TOC may be at the top of the page, to the left of the page title. RudolfRed (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 Just tested this logged out with the same results. RudolfRed is referring to the directly to the left of the page title in the event that the ToC isn't appearing in the left sidebar. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ttocserp This happens because the logged-out interface defaults to Vector 2022, which places ToC off to the left if visible at all. Logged-in users can choose from a number of skins at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

August 14

I can't log in!!!!

I can't log in!!!! wikipedia tells me I have two user names associated with my single account - and I can't log into either of them. Temporary passwords don't wor 2600:480A:29D1:C900:7163:25A2:DAD9:F7E3 (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What is your Username? –– kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Citing video interviews referencing sworn testimony vs court reporting documents (WWE EDITION)

So I would like to understand what level of source I would need to provide context to a claim made by Jesse Ventura that I've laid out on this talk page Talk:Hulk Hogan#Hulk Hogan 2024 election. The claim is one made against Hulk Hogan by Jesse Ventura that references the sworn testimony of Vince McMahon. I have not been able to find a primary court report of the statement made by Vince McMahon. I understand that YouTube sources are not going to cut the muster, but CNN does not provide a full transcript of the interview, and I don't believe the other source is of enough journalistic standing to reference. I was considering contacting the court clerk to see about accessing the court report, but I'm not sure about the process for turning around and citing that, especially since it seems that it is not accessible via a public-facing site but instead a document I will need to pay to receive. Spicygarbage (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If it hasn't been published, by a reliable source, you can't use it. There's no way around it. --Orange Mike | Talk 09:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review of Resubmitted Article

Hello, I apologize for any inconvenience my previous submission may have caused. I've worked on improving the article based on the feedback and have resubmitted it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could review it again. The article is now well-sourced, and I’m eager to ensure the content meets Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for your time and support.

Koorosh Ghorbani Neginghaderii (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Neginghaderii Since your sources are in Persian and Turkish, you may have to wait a while before someone with appropriate language skills does the review. It is acceptable to politely ask the reviewer who declined the previous version to take another look (ask via their Talk Page). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing the draft and the references, I'm not convinced that you know the standard for inclusion. WP:GNG requires an article to ge backed up with multiple in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources, and none of the cited sources covered the subject in-depth, instead merely talked about their ranking or role. The subject does not seem to pass WP:NATH as well. You would need to provide sources that talked about the subject in more details, preferably not any types of announcements about change in position or upcoming events as those are considered to be WP:ROUTINE. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on the article for Koorosh Ghorbani. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to review the draft.

I understand that these might not fully meet the WP criteria, but I am eager to improve the article and would appreciate any guidance you can offer on how to strengthen it.

Would you be able to suggest specific types of sources or approaches that could help meet Wikipedia’s standards? If additional or different sources are required, I am committed to searching further or revising the content accordingly.

Thank you again for your support and advice. Neginghaderii (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

News articles, books or other publications (online or offline, doesn't have to be in English) where the subject are talked about in detail. Don't use anything written by the subject or people/organizations associated with him, including interviews. Official records in which most information came form the subject himself can not be used as well. Try to find any source can prove that he passes WP:NATH. There are a lot of athletes over the history of mankind, and Wikipedia only have limited amount of storage space, we need to make sure that the athlete you are writing about has received enough attention so we can verify the information provided about him. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Defunct taskforce

What is the process for reinstating a defunct taskforce? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio, I remember when I first started editing 15 years ago and Wikiprojects and task forces were portrayed as a "really big thing". The more I learned about these efforts, the less impressed I was. Making something like this work again depends entirely on attracting a critical mass of editors. If several editors do not participate regularly,then the Wikiproject or even vague task force is meaningless. So, if you can motivate participation withour pestering people, that's great. The issue, in the end, is who cares other than you? Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist the taskforce and respond if anyone posts there. Participation begins with you. CMD (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating_and_maintaining_a_project may have something of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it; Thanks. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Rule not to add a message on top of a section on a talk page

Somewhere, there is a rule not to 'hijack' a discussion on a talk page by adding a contribution on top of the discussion and grabbing the attention this way. I don't remember where it is and did not find it anymore - anybody know it, please? --KnightMove (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Indentation#Indentation_examples #4 is the closest I can think of atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so far... but there is also another rule on another page. --KnightMove (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This addresses it a bit: Help:Talk_pages#Replying_to_an_existing_thread FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of guidance at WP:TPYES and sections below that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated polemics

Does english Wikipedia has any rule dealing with unsubstantiated polemics created by users that ends up hindering the development of a topic? I know this is a common problematic of the encyclopedia, when seemingly good faith actors keep producing admissible arguments that demand an exorbitant effort by other users, sometimes winning by exhaustion. I have been dealing with a situation where I dont really think that the editor has provided any substance to his arguments, based on the principles of verifiability, and nonetheless has been allowed to flag an article as NPOV issue and keep hindering to development of the content. It seems to come very close to WP:DISRUPTIVE, but I dont know if there a appropriate place to fill a notification about it. I really wish some guidance in this aspect of the policy. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Either WP:DRN or WP:ANI, depending on whether you want to focus on resolving the dispute, or whether it has gone beyond that and it is the other editor's behaviour. In either case, read the top matter on the page carefully. ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

How do I add another archive to my talk page?

Hello, I have archived my talk page once. But I want a different archive every time I want to archive my talk page. How do I add another archive? This is for future reference. Felicia (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you archive manually then you can just create User talk:Felicia777/Archive 2 next time and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Pop-up's Donation.

I already donate to Wikipedia. I'm using my labtop not my P.C. Can you please stop the pop-up's asking for money. When I have already donate every month. I use wikipedia a lot especially for football and other things. Thanks very much. 80.40.19.51 (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you make an account then you can suppress fundrasing banners when you are logged in at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

To expand: donations are actually made to The Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikipedia has no interconnection with the donating process that can tell it whether even an Account holder has donated, let alone whether an unknown person using a (likely dynamic) IP has done so. This is to preserve editorial independence, so that, for example, no subject of an article can 'buy' influence over the article about them.

When you posted your query your laptop then had the IP address of 80.---51: tomorrow it may have a different IP, and 80.---51 may have been assigned to someone else's device; or you may be using a different device; or someone else (who has not donated) may be using your laptop (hopefully with your permission).

If you have donated to a charity, do you get irritated if you see another advert for it on the side of a bus? The bus can't know that you've already donated. Nor can Wikipedia. Hope this clarifies. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.109.53 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

August 15

Forget Password

I have forgotten the password for my Wikipedia account. I also do not remember which email I used to create the account, what username I set, or what phone number I used. How can I reset it or edit this information now? 103.18.20.112 (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

See H:RP. However, if you do not know the username or email, it would be difficult. Incidentally, I don't think that Wikipedia ever asks for a phone number as a password recovery method.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. You can probably remember one or two articles you are sure you edited, and roughly when. By looking at the history tab for those articles, you may be reminded of your username and hence can follow the H:RP method. If you no longer have access to the linked email address, your only way forward is to create a new account and, if you wish, state on its userpage "previously edited as XXX". Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Help

We need to paraphrase copyrighted content (along with citations and in text attribution). But we should not add original research. Just for clarification, why is paraphrasing not considered original research since paraphrasing is changing words and creating another way to express information, and no paraphrasing is perfect, so it may change in meaning, which may be interpreted as original research. I know it isn't, but I just wanted to clarify why. Anonymous1261 (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Original research is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Paraphrasing from a reliable source is not considered original research because the basis of the text is in the reliable source. If the paraphrasing introduces new material that wasn't in the cited source, it is then considered original research. If you are paraphrasing copyrighted content, please make sure it fits the non-free content policy before inserting it into an article. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Anonymous1261 (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That is in no way original research. MallardTV (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Siegel & McGehee (redirects to)

I created a new page about filmmaking duo Siegel & McGehee to replace two sub-standard stub pages about the two filmmakers as individuals. The idea was to change the two individual pages to redirects to one "duo" page, but now I realize I can't change an existing page to a redirect. Can anyone help? WikiWonka888! (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@WikiWonka888! Technically, the article on Scott Siegel could be turned into a redirect but I think that is a bad idea. The article on Siegel & McGehee is wikilinked in the WP:LEAD of his biography, which should be sufficient. After all, a fuller individual biography might include material about his early life or family that would not be relevant to his work with McGehee. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks, Mike! It's actually David Siegel (screenwriter), not Scott Siegel, who is the Siegel & McGehee co-director, and his work has been exclusively collaborative with McGehee for 30 years. I'm following the lead of other film co-directors, such as Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, or The Daniels, or the Coen Brothers, whose careers are described on a single page without individual pages. I can't figure out, technically, how to redirect from an existing page, though. Is it possible? WikiWonka888! (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. You edit the source of the article, and replace the entire content with

#REDIRECT [[destination]]

Whether you should do this is another matter, and you should probably discuss it on the article's talk page first.

See WP:Redirect. ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

My edit was removed for no reason

My edit was deemed 'not constructive' by a bot and it was removed, but it was a paragraph of well-researched information which added to the article. It was on the page Henny Penny - I added the Chinese story of 'the man of Qi worries about the sky', which is completely relevant in the 'related stories' section... I undid the undo but slightly worry that it's just going to get deleted again for no reason. I'm trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, I'm not committing vandalism. Not sure why my contribution was auto-deleted. Confuro (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You weren't reverted by a bot. You were reverted by an experienced Wikipedia contributor. If you want to contribute positively, I suggest you discuss the matter on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the history of Henny Penny, you'll see that the second (also human) editor who reverted you, @Jimfbleak. said "good faith addition with no independent verifiable sources".

All information in a Wikipedia article, without exception, should be verifiable from a reliable published source; and while there is not a formal requirement that everything actually be cited, editors nowadays tend to insist on a citation when information is added. ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Confuro Just to clarify a little. You say your addition was "well-researched" but Wikipedia does not allow the inclusion of original unpublished research. We want editors to include their sources, so that readers can verify that what our articles say is backed up by reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox template

Hello! I am trying to create an infobox for artist collectives, and have been writing it here, however when I try to test it over here it isn't working how I want it - it is meant to have headings for "membership" and "art" but for some reason is just putting everything under the "art" heading. Can anyone tell me what the issue is? Thank you very much. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox § Usage and note the enumeration of the various parameters in the example.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And in general, the order of named parameters don't matter in template calls so any positioning of header1, header2 and header3 would give the same result. It isn't possible to make a coding of {{Infobox}} which would behave as you expected so the more cumbersome parameter numbering is necessary. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both, I completely missed that the header was numbered between the data - I appreciate the help very much!! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review of Re-Submitted Article

Hello, I received feedback regarding citations on the article I submitted a few months back. I've worked on improving the article based on the feedback and have resubmitted it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could review it again. The article is now properly sourced, and I’m hopeful the content meets Wikipedia's standards. If it does not, I would greatly appreciate any guidance on how to further meet those standards. Thank you for your time and support. BDOklahoma24 (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

BDOklahoma24 You have submitted it for review and it is pending. As noted on your draft, this could take some time, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

BDOklahoma24, please remove the inappropriate external link in the first paragraph. External links do not belong in the body of an article. Please read Wikipedia:External links for more details. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and guidance. I read through the page you linked. I want to make sure you are referring to the Brewster and De Angelis external link? I will remove it now, if so. Thank you again. BDOklahoma24 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

BDOklahoma24, that I'd correct and I see that the link has been removed. Cullen328 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

i want to delete my account

im planning to abandon this account, goodbye

how do i delete it ZacharyFDS/Memphis1525 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

For attribution purposes, accounts cannot be deleted. But you can request to vanish yourself by having your username be renamed to a random text. – robertsky (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Enemy bot action

Hi,

About 13 years ago I added details of a new Fredric Brown collection to Wikipedia to match existing entries - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Proofreaders%27_Page_and_Other_Uncollected_Items

Some time back the page was allegedly removed because it did not "cite any sources" although for some reason I (as author) author was never notified of the deletion (which is discourteous at least).

Then yesterday I got a message to say that the cover scan of the book that I had uploaded would be deleted because it was an "orphaned non-free image".

I reinstated the page (so that the image was no longer orphaned) and attempted to add a source only to find the source has now been deleted by the same bot for reasons I don't pretend to understand.

I tried to contact the author of the bot (b_bot) but apparently he has retired from Wikipedia editing and has just left his bot running to do random damage in his absence.

Frankly I don't really care if the page is there or not - it's Wikipedia's loss, not mine - but I confess I am getting rather sick and tired of the degree to which Wikipedia attempts to prevent anybody other than an "expert" from creating or modifying content and am inclined to give up on attempting to help out.

If somebody can explain to me quite what a "non-free image" means when related to a scan I took myself and made freely available, and quite what "sources" are needed to list the contents of a collection that I have in front of me, then I'd be happy to attempt to fix whatever these imagined "problems are". Philsp (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading the edit history correctly, the text you added was deemed to be a copyright violation and was removed by The4lines (talk · contribs), not by a bot. There's information at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Supplying evidence of non-infringement as to how you can contest this if you feel the claim was made in error. Also, the bot that tagged your image was created by B (talk · contribs), who last edited two days ago. In any event, as the image is currently in use, I've deleted the template on the page for the image as per the instructions included with that template, but the article itself still needs at least one source added. DonIago (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply. I looked at B's talk page and it said he was effectively retired and not interested in other than a small range of requests from other editors.

Thanks for deleting the template on the page, but I still don't know what sort of source is required or how to add it. The text I added was the "advertising blurb" I wrote for the book when I added it to lulu back in 2011 and which has been used (without my permission) by sites such as Google and Amazon and I have no idea how I can be violating copyright on something I wrote nor how I can prove that I wrote it.

Which brings me back to the main point. This is a book that I created and published and, as such, the ultimate source for information on the book will always be me. Demanding some other form of source is sheer nonsense, to put it politely. Philsp (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Philsp: The Proofreaders' Page and Other Uncollected Items was converted to a redirect in [5]. BLAR refers to WP:BLAR. We don't call it deletion when the page history is still visible and ordinary users can restore the former content as you did. Many articles have contributions from hundreds of users. The creator is usually not notified of conversions to a redirect. If a page is nominated for deletion where only administrators can undelete it then the creator is usually notified. You can use your watchlist to help keep track of edits to pages of interest. Articles about books should generally satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books) by having independent sources about the book. We are not a book catalogue but an encyclopedia with articles on selected topics which are deemed notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Philsp, the article that you wrote about your own book is completely unreferenced which is a violation of the core content policy Verifiability, and therefore the article is in imminent danger of being deleted. When you write This is a book that I created and published and, as such, the ultimate source for information on the book will always be me, that indicates that you have a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia actually operates. You are actually the last person who should be editing that article, because you have an obvious conflict of interest, and that guideline says COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Your book is self-published on Lulu.com and self-published books are very rarely notable books. The most common way that a book becomes notable is if it has received multiple reviews by reliable sources. If you cannot provide references to significant coverage of your book in multiple reliable, independent sources, then a Wikipedia article about your book is not viable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Let'd dial this one down a bit.

The Wikipedia entry for Fred Brown contains a number of pages listing contents of his books. A random example I looked at was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeymoon_in_Hell which has NO references at all to the book, simply a reference to an adaptation of one of the stories in the book and an external link to the ISFDb entry for it. Thirteen years ago, when I added the contents of TPP, I was simply following existing practice. As I have said, I have no particular personal interest in whether it is listed or not - I was simply trying to contribute to Wikipedia - but I would love clarification on why the entry for HONEYMOON IN HELL (and 1001 other similar entries) is OK when the entry for THE PROOFREADERS' PAGE is not. The contents can be "verified" by checking in the usual place - i.e. http://www.philsp.com/homeville/FMI/ZZPERMLINK.ASP?NAME=%27A_BROWN$_FREDRIC%27 - but it's hard to see how this adds credibility to the item.

I appreciate Wikipedia is not a book "catalogue" but it is very useful as a book "index" and the contents of books are, for many of us, "notable articles". When I am researching an author I frequently turn to Wikipedia first to see if there is a bibliography there and, frequently, there is. If "you" really don't like pages listing contents of books then there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages that "you" need to delete.

I am also puzzled by the comment that "The creator is usually not notified of conversions to a redirect" - why on earth not? It only takes a second and would seem the courteous thing to do. The whole notion of people writing bots to go round hacking other peoples' contributions strikes me as the height of arrogance.

Anyway, I'll say no more. The book is indexed in the most reliable place for such listings and if "Wikipedia" decides it doesn't want the information then it is your loss, not mine. I don't know what hoops I need to jump through and, frankly, have more important things to do with my time than worry about petty Wikipedia squabbles. Philsp (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Help with Harvnb refs

I added Harvnb refs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Za%27ura%2C_Syria&diff=1240521081&oldid=1240515422

But when I click on them it doesn't target the source in Bibliography, not sure what I did wrong. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You have to list all of the authors' surnames (4 authors max). Sulimani isn't the only author; don't leave Kletter out.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: I have just now fixed it for you.Davidbena (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Phone IP blocked

Noticed, when I accidentally hit an edit icon, that my phone, not logged in, has been blocked, with the note: "disruptive editing". I don't usually log in or edit on my phone, and I don't think I've ever edited anonymously from it. And noone has had access to it. Logged in, it seems fine -- I'm logged in on it now to post this.

How do I find out what that block is about? Thanks! Tsavage (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably someone who has the same IP address as you was responsible for the disruptive edits, and the entire IP address was blocked as a result. Typically there will be a warning on the talk page of the IP address, and it will include a reason for the block. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

August 16

Who can add an important consensus information to an article?

So we have the consensus[6] about the important information from the academic source (Academic Studies Press). I cannot add it because I will be immediately banned. (Personal attack removed) (Personal attack removed) So who can do it? Пинча (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for any specific edit. The only "proposed text" was reasonably objected on plagiarism grounds, so it will require further discussion and rewriting before it can be considered. I removed two personal attacks from the above comment, but am leaving this overall for now as part of an ongoing ANI discussion. DMacks (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The conversation on the talk page does not read like any consensus has been reached, if anything it starts to get personal. I recommend you go through a dispute resolution with the other party first, use WP:DRN or at least WP:RFC. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Problem with Mount Everst article

I tried to edit a smaller section of Timeline of Mount Everest expeditions, but somehow ended up replacing the whole article with the small section. It will not let me undo as the previous version contains blacklisted sources. Can someone help me? - Nidator ^{T / C} 06:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've undone this slip and removed the offending link for now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Garland Case

I don’t see any information on the Garland Case in District Court of Columbia Case 1:24 cv 00479 RC with other defenders Justice John Roberts Jr; Secretary General of a United Nations and ICJ

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/52408377/CLEMENT_v_GARLAND 2601:C6:D701:8A0F:55FE:5BB3:19D9:4979 (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Across the planet many thousands of court cases happen daily. Only extremely rarely does even one of them warrant a mention in Wikipedia. You would need to establish (or at least demonstrate) notability for it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Gamessport

The template includes the pictogram of a sport, but always the current one. Up until the Paris 2024 Summer Olympics, the Modern Pentathlon included Equestrian. It has since been replaced by an Obstacle Race instead. Therefore the current pictogram shows the "Obstacle Race", but for the past the Equestrian should be shown. In my point of view there must be two templates:Gamessport for Modern Pentathlon, but how can this be done? Can you help me in regard of this problem? Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the best solution is to parametrise the template so that the current one is the default, but the historic one can be selected. How best to do it will depend on whether this is a rare instance of a change, or whether it has happened a number of times. ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)