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 19

Bot is marking images for deletion because of non-use, but isn't following the full chain, and there's not a great way to chat about it

A bot is marking images for deletion. On the whole, I think the bot does great work, but it needs an update to account for templates. It marked an image for deletion which I'd uploaded, then sent me a message about it. The only problem is the image is used in a template (so the same image can be used on a main page and also in a summation page), and the bot is apparently just checking the "what links here" and isn't then going to the same "what links here" page for templates which use the image.

The bot talk page specifically asks people not to try to reply there: "Hi, I'm a bot, therefore I cannot respond to your questions. , if you leave a note on my owner, B's talk page, I'm sure he will be able to help you. ..." However, the user talk page states, "I'm largely inactive / 99% retired. There are more important things in life. ..." I am fully in support of that, as I think even a cursory review of my own talk page makes clear. However, I'm not running a bot.

Again, I think the bot is doing great work overall, but it needs to account for templates which use images and then follow that chain through to see why the template exists, or at least what else uses the template. Banaticus (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Banaticus if you read the bot user page it indicates clearly that Please note that under WP:NFCC#9, images used under a claim of fair use are NOT permitted outside of article space. If an image is used only in user space, on a template, in a draft, etc, it is still considered "orphaned".

The bot operations is right. The non-free file cannot be utilised in Template space. – robertsky (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Banaticus. Thinking more broadly (beyond the technical detail Robertsky mentions), I'm concerned that a non-free image in a template is at high risk for use in violation of the NFCC: it is prone to using the template more widely than fair-use allows and makes it hard to keep the image-use rationale tags in sync. For example, fair-use images must not be purely decorative or used in galleries, and therefore virtually never in navboxes either. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Banaticus, non-free images are allowed only in articles, not templates, and only when the image fully complies with WP:NFCI. Please use only freely licensed or public domain images in templates. Cullen328 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Banaticus: Which template is this about? Please always identify pages you refer to. The image is not used anywhere currently and I haven't found signs it was used when B-bot nominated it for deletion and notified you 18 August. It was previously used in {{Adventure West Council Infobox}} but another bot removed it 16 August with the correct edit summary "Non-free files are only permitted in articles".[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the "Adventure West Council" Boy Scout Council (or whatever we call the Boy Scouts nowadays) has territory in both Nebraska and Colorado. And so an infobox template for this council was added to both Scouting in Nebraska and Scouting in Colorado. So there needs to be an image= parameter in the infobox template and then the image name put only in the page itself, rather than hardcoding the image in the template. (I'm not offering an opinion on whether it's appropriate to have council shoulder patches in an infobox for each council within a state article - I'm just saying that this is the method that would not run afoul of WP:NFCC#9. If an image is embedded in a template, bots will - correctly - continue to remove it and tag it as orphaned.) --B (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Following from thst B said, I find it hard to believe that this use meets the criterion 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" from the WP:NFCC. ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Question about non-traditional sources

I want to edit the page for DuPage County, Illinois to reference how it has been officially referred to as Du Page county (two words), specifically on the NCEI Storm Events database. This is an official US government website, but the alternative spelling isn't given any particular weight and both spellings are used when selecting the county zone, which tells me this isn't a mistake. Does this work as a reliable source as is, or should I keep looking for another source? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t use that source to say it has “officially” been referred to with two words, but you could add (and cite) and note to the lede: “also spelled Du Page…” BhamBoi (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism help request from Aubrey.eliza

I have noticed some vandalism at Park Street Church. Namely, individuals are updating language on a present controversy with untrue or biased facts. They are using posts from a blog as a reference. At this moment, it claims "public sharing of internal documents describing spiritual abuse" (the "internal document" in question was a memo from the fired associate minister, and after three rounds of both internal and external investigation, no abuse has been found) and uses biased language such as "only" 2/3 members. Additionally, convoluted language claiming "a majority of congregants rejecting the assertion that Mark Booker is not disqualified from ministry" is confusing. A simple sentence would be that a majority of congregants assert that Mark Booker is disqualified from ministry, and this is untrue.

( Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Aubrey.eliza (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

People at the Help Desk will not normally get involved in a content dispute. Please follow the procedure in disute resolution, which begins with opening open a discussion with the other editors on the article's talk page. ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That was supposed to be dispute resolution. ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Linkspam

An editor (not an IP user) is adding a link to the "See also" section in a rather low-profile article, Racetrack (game), about a certain pen-and-paper game. It's a link to a sourceforge project (and, in the present version, a few other links too); I suppose it's possible to download and install a computer-playable version of the game via the link. However, the sourceforge project has no information relevant to the subject that adds anything to the article. I believe policy is that we do not have this sort of links in "See also" (or elsewhere). In Chess, we have link to e.g. ChessBase, but I believe that is because

1. the article covers chess technology as well as the physical board game itself;
2. ChessBase does in fact have load of info that adds to the wikipedia article.

The editor has added the link a total of 17 times over 4 months, and has been reverted as many times (mostly, but not exclusively, by me). The user has essentially made no other edits on Wikipedia. I am aware that this regrettably has taken on the character of edit warring (but afaik the 3rr rule applies to muliple changes over a much shorter timespan). I have not succeeded in engaging the user on the talk page, user talk page, or through edit summaries.

So, am I wrong that the link shouldn't be there, and if not, what can I do? Should I request some sort of page protection, or an edit ban on the user? How does one do that sort of thing? (I have made about 7500 edits to en.wikipedia.org over a 20-year period, but I have never considered that sort of action before.) Nø (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS stipulates that the user repeatedly adding the disputed content must generate consensus for inclusion, but at absolute minimum the sourceforge link would belong in subheading External links, not See also, which is exclusively for internal links to mainspace. A pblock would probably be the route to technical enforcement if the user cannot be persuaded to stop and no one else agrees the link is appropriate to include. Folly Mox (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! The link has actually at various points been added to either "See also" or "External links". I've now created a block request to the best of my ability. Nø (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

My utube video views is not increase please help

my utube video views is not increase please help Nighatomer (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nighatomer, this has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. You will have to contact YouTube. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

mdkawshar1

Kawshardowanekawshar mdkawshar1 01615031192 2404:1C40:BB:794B:1:0:5F6D:AC73 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? Are you perhaps user @Mdkawshar1, not logged in? ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Citing multiple chapters

Is there a policy for citing several chapters in one book where each chapter has a different author? Currently, I'm working on a page and found an excellent source with one editor and each chapter has an expert address the topic at length. I will be citing the book several times, but I'm uncertain how best to handle the References section. Right now I'm doing the following, but I have absolutely no idea if this follows policy appropriately:

• {{cite book}} – Editor only entered here, link to full book (open access through publisher)
  • {{cite book}} again – Author entered here, editor entered again, probably just linking chapter again
  • {{cite book}} again – Author 2, ibid, ibid.

Is this appropriate? Is there a better way of doing that? Should I just cite the editor only and let the reader actually go to the book? Any help appreciated! ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

{{harvc}} is intended for this purpose as a stepping stone between {{sfn}} and {{cite book}}. Perhaps it will serve for you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you so much! ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@ThaesOfereode you may be interested in giving feedback about new sub-reference feature at Meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing which can handle complex cases like this better. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I'll give it a look. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

USS Kidd (DD-661) page

I made some edits concerning her current location and how she is at dock currently, and I was wondering if Y'all could just make it look better. 2600:8807:3C01:6900:7106:76C6:2ACE:6CB (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you be more clear on what you think is wrong? One thing I notice is no citation for what you added. See WP:REFB Also, the lede should be a summary of what is in the main part of the article. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Just add citations and sources, as idk how to do that, and make it sound more professional if it doesnt already. heavily appreciated 2600:8807:3C01:6900:7106:76C6:2ACE:6CB (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, IP user: if you want to add information to an article, it is your responsibility to find the sources. That is the part of editing that takes the work, and it is unreasonable to expect somebody else to go looking. Note that if you cannot find a reliably published source for the information, then the information does not belong in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

August 20

The previous Wikipedia

Wikiwand has taken over my laptop so that I can no longer access the Wikipedia "Did you know" and the other three sections on the Main Page. What has happened? How can I get to view those four sections, please? Garrymo (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Garrymo: Wikiwand is not affiliated with Wikipedia as far as I can tell. You will need to ask that company for help. RudolfRed (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This also sounds like it might be a malware related issue. You could try various antivirus and antispyware tools to see if this fixed the problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikiwand is notorious for taking over. I suggest you get rid of it and all its cookies. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps something about that should be added to our article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Subheading not being recognised

Hello. I just uploaded Susan Stevens.

Can someone help me make the first subheading Guiding Songs under the section "Select compositions" appear as the rest, rather than plain text? I have used {{columns-list|colwidth=20em| which I suspect has made it go wonky, but I don't know how to correct it. Thank you! 01:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC) BJCHK (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@BJCHK: Stuffing whole sections into a template parameter can cause different problems. I used {{div col}} instead.[2] There is a little whitespace at the start now but it's a minor issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter thank you! I am still on a steep learning curve with the more technical aspects of Wiki. The column-list is one of my newer additions. BJCHK (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Caret in article title

There's an article I want to make and it have caret, so is it within the scope of WP:TSC and WP:FORBIDDEN. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 07:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In that case, go ahead. I'm not sure what your question or issue is. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The article title is "Ar^c". Should the special character be part of the article title or use a hatnote for it? 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 10:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject but if that is the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME used in reliable sources, I don't see why it shouldn't be the article title. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah almost all reliable sources uses that title. Thank you @Shantavira. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 11:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not considered a special character in page names and we for example have ^txt2regex$. I would add an entry at Arc or ARC. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes noted and thank you @PrimeHunter. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 14:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The caret falls under MOS:TMRULES serving no purposes other than purely for decoration. This shouldn't be confused on whether special characters is or not allowed for article titling. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It's about the debut album AR^C by the band ARrC. It released yesterday and there are still few sources but all sources I have found say AR^C. MOS:TMRULES says:

• Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words or letters (e.g., ♥ for "love", ! for i) or for normal punctuation, unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently include the special character in the subject's name.

It looks like there is justification for AR^C or Ar^c. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I find the usage rather mixed uses in Korean sources from majority WP:KO/RS#R, with some omitting the caret completely, some changing the caret to interpunct, and some retaining the caret. Hence, skeptical on being used by a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 19:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree as majority of Korean sources uses caret rather than mixed as you stated, you can see it from oldest to latest search results in Naver and it will have same outcome with Daum and Nate, and also the only English reliable source I could found which is Korea JoongAng Daily uses caret. Here's why I said it is majority is because I search the keyword "AR^C" in the "Find in page" of the browser there are 720 results in the first link page I provided above while 176 results for the keyword "AR·C" and 0 results for the keyword "ARC". So like what PrimeHunter said there is justification for including caret for the EP's article title. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 10:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy to "agree to disagree" on restoration on the grounds that pronunciation is included for the first mention as a distinct/unique count (not based on 720 results as count is not distinct/unique) of Korean sources that uses caret and also variations of interpunct included it in their reporting where both symbols (caret or variations of interpunct) are pronounced. Hence this should justify not meeting avoid using special characters that are not pronounced when pronunciation are included. For transparency, I remains skeptical on being used by a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject regardless I believe that the compromise is sufficient regardless of my scepticism. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Deleted contributions

Where have deleted contributions gone? Definite editors of a deleted page appear in its history, but the page isn't now showing in their deleted contributions. I've seen this problem on several pages now, but one example is that Draft:World on the Brink shows User:Fractal Figment as the main editor, but deleted contributions shows nothing. It's the same on other pages, and a least one other admin has noticed this recent development Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: It's a bug. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Deleted contributions invisible has some discussion and workarounds. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

John of Reading thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Need to change our editors of and make multiple edits to a university Wikipedia page

HELP! The person who set up our Wikipedia page is no longer working here. I need to make a lot of changes to a small university Wikipedia page. Can someone please help us through the spider web that is editing a Wikipedia page? Catherine Wetzel at SU (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Catherine Wetzel at SU Wikipedia doesn't want employees of universities (or any other organisation) editing the articles directly owing to their conflict of interest. We have specific procedures for you to follow. First, you must declare yourself as a paid editor. See that link for how to do this. Then make an edit request on the Talk Page of the relevant article. This is easiest to do with the edit request wizard, which then alerts neutral editors to consider your suggestions. Make sure you include reliable sources which for some things can be the university website: see WP:ABOUTSELF. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: That's not what our COI policy says. For example, it says "Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits" which means that User:Catherine Wetzel at SU is at liberty to make such changes, subject, of course, to our usual polices on matters such as referencing and NPOV, as well as on paid editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing While that is true, the OP is a paid editor, so I emphasised the strongly discouraged part of the "paid" guideline. In some cases I point people to WP:ASFAQ which has a number of examples of things it is OK to do. That didn't seem to be appropriate here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither ASFAQ nor the section I cited have exclusions for paid editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making. The restrictions on paid editors are stronger than on editors who are not paid, so to avoid answers here that would be WP:TLDR I tend to link to what I consider to be the most important policy/guidance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to what Mike Turnbull says, please bear in mind that 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) 16:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody else has brought this up, but your initial question suggests a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. You talk about "our Wikipedia page" (the small university). Your university will never have a Wikipedia page, because no university--and no anything or anyone else--has a Wikipedia page. There might be an article about your university, and ideally, it will be written by people with no connection to your university. And that article might not be what you would like, but if things in it are relevant and well-sourced, there won't be much you can do about it. Wikipedia is not a place to maintain a web page to tell the world what you would like them to know about yourself or your company or organization. Uporządnicki (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page has disappeared?

Hello, We had a Wikipedia page and now it seems like it has disappeared. We did not receive any email or warning and not sure what must have caused Wikipedia to take this decision. Can someone please help us get our page back? Thank you. Padra clinic Canada (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Padra_(clinic). Please see WP:OWN as to why this is a wikipedia page about something *not* owned by the organization. In addition, it appears that your username is already marked as inappropriate since it indicates that you are talking for a group of people/organization rather than it being for a single individual.Naraht (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am writing to formally appeal the decision to delete the Wikipedia page for PADRA Clinic.

[snip lengthy advertorial]

I am committed to ensuring that the content about PADRA Clinic on Wikipedia is factual, neutral, and adheres to Wikipedia’s standards. I would appreciate the opportunity to work with the Wikipedia community to restore the page and address any concerns that led to its deletion.Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your positive response and am willing to collaborate on any necessary improvements to ensure the page meets Wikipedia’s guidelines. Padra clinic Canada (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is AI-generated puffery. We're not impressed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In using "we" it seems that there is also immense conflict of interest as the pronoun implies the author as being affiliated with PADRA Clinic. MallardTV (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the WP:ORGNAME username does that a little too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Unless there are enough such independent sources to base an article on, there is literally nothing that can be written in the article, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft declined, wondering why.

My draft List of L'Officiel (Paris) cover models was declined. I don't want to sound stupid, but I am genuinely confused. It was tagged as failing WP:NLIST and lacking reliable sources.

Reliable sources

The moderator said that it "lacks any independent reliable secondary sources" which I mean it does. I'm not denying it the magazine issues themselves are the sources and that is not secondary. However are they really needed List of Vogue (US) cover models simply lists external links.

This is the same for most other lists of Vogue cover models (excluding Czechoslovakia with 2 references, India with 23 references, Philippines with 24 references, Scandinavia with 5 references and Teen Vogue with 55 references).

It is also the same with listing only external links for Lists of Elle cover models (excluding Elle India, which is sporadically referenced also Elle Girl has 1 reference).

The Lists of Harper's Bazaar cover models all only mention external links.

In my draft about L'Officel cover models external links are given only, same as the majority of lists of cover models on Wikipedia.

Along with this WP:NLIST mentions The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. which should be covered by the external links. To pass into the main space, should external links be renamed to references?

Notability

I believe the draft passes notability as the overall group of cover models is notable, WP:NLIST states that Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable.

Being on the cover of L'Officiel is notable for numerous reasons. Being on the cover of the magazine can be an entryway into becoming a prominent model with many models having their first cover be for L'Officiel (notably Linda Evangelista and Wilhelmina Cooper). Across the Internet (I admit many are less reliable sites) L'Officiel is regularly noted as one of the most prominent French fashion magazines, so being on the cover has to be notable? Along with this less onto the notability of the magazine but I do not see how being on the cover of L'Officiel is less notable than the cover of Harper's Bazaar Chile or Elle Kazakhstan.

Anyways, I'm not trying to come off as brash but I am simply confused on why the draft was declined, and I hope these reasons can be pointed out to me (or ways to improve the article). Jayediting (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Notability is demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Find sources which discuss the topic of L'Officiel cover models in depth, and you will have something to convince people that the topic is notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Help with Harvnb refs (Again)

I asked for help before: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 August 15#Help with Harvnb refs

I now have the exact same issue at a different article, when I click on the ref I added, the source in bibliography is not targeted.

I did what they said at the previous discussion. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is about Katzrin ancient village and synagogue? Always include the article name where the problem exists; don't make help desk volunteers hunt for it.

Macoz & Killebrew 2022 is a different publication from Macoz & Killebrew 1988. Be sure that you are linking the correct publication(s).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, messed up with the year. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

St Anne's College, Oxford

Reference 18 has a "red alert". Please fix if able. Thank you in advance. 115.70.23.77 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It took a while to find the error but I think I fixed it. There seemed to have been a problem with the spaces in between the words. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 03:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Midori No Sora, what did you do? The message referred to a dash, was the problem a hidden character next to a dash?

IP editor, reference 18 is to "Daily Mail, August 8th, 2004" (diff), so according to WP:DAILYMAIL it should not be used as a Wikipedia article. More generally, as I have argued on the talk page, information about members of the Middleton family, who did or did not study at St Anne's, is not relevant to the history of the college. TSventon (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

August 21

When it says "the code is incorrect" what do I do?

Like, I'm trying to long in (make an account) and it doesn't let me cuz the code is supossedly "incorrect", I don't know what to do :(( 2800:810:492:13C:59EB:46F2:EA0B:7032 (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If you don't already have an account then start at Special:CreateAccount. I suggest giving an email address so you can get a password reset if you forget the password. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Requesting authorization to update the Lally School Wikipedia page

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I am assistant professor at the RPI Lally School (Sebastian Souyris, https://faculty.rpi.edu/sebastian-souyris) and want to do a big update the Lally Wikipedia page (Lally School of Management). Much of the existing information is old. Can you allow me please to do it? S124816 (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

S124816, I understand that you want to edit Lally School of Management. Thank you for complying with the Paid contributions disclosure. That is a great first step. I also see that you only have 24 edits to Wikipedia. How confident are you that you fully and deeply understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you understand the deep opposition that many, many volunteer editors feel about paid editors who defy those policies and guidelines? Have you thoroughly studied and absorbed our guideline about editing with a conflict of interest? Do you understand that your best course of action is to submit neutrally written, well-refenced formal edit requests at Talk: Lally School of Management? I advise you to proceed with great caution and care with your plan to make a big update to this article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, thank you for pointing out to the policies and guidelines, conflict of interest, and edit requests references. I understand and appreciate enormously the neutrality of Wikipedia and your efforts to keep it that way. I will follow the policies and guidelines to proceed with the big update update.

S124816. I'd suggest using template:Edit COI on the talk page of Lally School of Management. I've added it to my watchlist. In general, it is designed for replacements. (ex Dean: Michael Smith should actually be Dean:David Brown and include the references.) this will allow another editor to evaluate your proposed changes and take action. Again, than you for being willing to work through the Paid contributor rules. (And yes, I know you aren't being paid to specifically edit wikipedia, it is somewhat more broad than that.Naraht (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks, @Naraht. S124816 (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

How do I link a section of an article into a category page?

I have tried looking at the various help pages about categorization, but I cannot seem to figure it out.

I was looking at Category:Lists of tallest buildings in New Jersey page and noticed that you can link sections of an article into a category, which had been done three times on this page. There is one section of a page that is notably missing, New Brunswick, New Jersey#Tallest buildings, but I cannot figure out how to add it to the category. I have tried looking at the source code for the other three pages that are linked to the sections of their articles, but it seems it doesn't even exist in the code. I know I cannot just directly add it to the category page either, as that is not what was done on the category page. Honestly I wouldn't mind if someone did this for me, but I just cannot figure it out myself. Thanks! Hij802 (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You add the category to the redirect to the section (creating the redirect if it doesn't already exist). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hij802: Those three entries in Category:Lists of tallest buildings in New Jersey are in italics which means they are redirects. There is also a redirect at List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick but it's not currently in the category. See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible to get info into box by name of wikidata item?

Hello helpful helpers,

I have written several articles about particular power stations and I normally just pick up the infobox info from wikidata automatically by simply writing “Infobox power station” inside curly brackets - for example see Atlas power station.

However occasionally one article covers more than one power station, for example Afşin-Elbistan power stations. As the A and B power stations have so much in common I don’t want to split the article.

I would like an infobox for the A section and another for the B section. Is there any way I can say something like “Infobox power station - get the info from wikidata item Q6101862”? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Chidgk1, you can use |qid= like so: {{Infobox power station |qid=Q6101862 |name=Afşin-Elbistan B}}. It seems the name is taken from the page name, that's why I'm setting it manually. Rummskartoffel 09:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Perfect - thank you very much Chidgk1 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to get WSOP free chips from websites that provides links?

As a passionate player of the World Series of Poker (WSOP), I’ve always enjoyed the thrill of the game and the challenge it presents. The excitement of competing against skilled players from around the world is unmatched. Recently, I discovered a way to get free chips through a website called <redacted spamlink>, which has allowed me to keep playing without spending real money. However, I’m curious—are these free chips obtained from such websites legal and safe to use in accordance with WSOP’s terms and conditions? Hafiz Chand ali (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Why ask us? Ask the WSOP organizers. (But remember, there's no such thing as a free lunch.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I should ask the WSOP organizers directly. Initially, I didn't think of this. Hafiz Chand ali (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Can I create a wikipedia for my company

Hi everyone,

I would like to create a page for my company which was incorporated in 2021. We are a training provider (private) registered under Malaysia's Ministry of Human Resources to conduct trainings for all companies incorporated in Malaysia. We will be listing down our history, core business and divisions similar to this company (The Italian Baker).

Thanks in advance, Dinesh. DineshVijayan (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@DineshVijayan Welcome! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing seven million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing!

You have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and MUST declare your association on your user page at User:DineshVijayan. In order to create an article about a company, it needs to satify Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Please Correct Tim Walz's Page

Greetings. Please update Gov. Tim Walz's main page. He is not an Afghanistan War veteran and never deployed to Afghanistan. The insignificant link to Operation Enduring Freedom has nothing to do with him deploying to or serving in Afghanistan. One cannot be an Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam War veteran unless they actually physically went and served there. ScottAvant (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this on the article talk page - there are plenty of people watching it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems to have been dealt with at Talk:Tim_Walz#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_21_August_2024_(2). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Donald S. Rugoff | Film producer

Donald S. Rugoff Film producer

I could not find Wiki entry for Film Producer Donald S. Rugoff. Please see following links and update.

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/29/obituaries/donald-rugoff-62-presided-over-chain-of-movie-theaters.html https://mrrugoff.com/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11233002/ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4178145/ https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mij/15031809.0004.104/--donald-rugoff-cinema-v-and-commercial-strategies?rgn=main;view=fulltext 23.128.56.81 (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, first off, he doesn't seem too notable. We can't cite his own website nor can we cite IMDb. I also don't think the help desk is any kind of place to request article be written. Thanks and goodbye. MallardTV (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has fairly strict rules about the requirements for an article: the subject must meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which mostly comes down to "Has there been enough independent reliably published material about this subject to base an article on?", remembering that 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.

There is a place where you can request an article be written - requested articles, but in all honesty, the take-up from there is very low.

If you can find suitable source, and you are not Rugoff, then you may try to create an article yourself. But creating an article is hard, and people who try it before they have spent several weeks (at least) learning how Wikipedia works often have a frustrating experience. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is 2FA only enableable on your account through making a special request?

Having my account recently hacked (via a data breach or something), this is understandably something I want to enable, but for some reason, this is not a default thing you can enable in your account options like most of the websites on the internet or something. This should ABSOLUTELY be an option for every user to activate if they want to and not something that requires special permission. Jtrainor (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

To avoid situation when many thousands users lose their authentication devices and then bombard this board and developers with requests to somehow reset their accounts. Ruslik_Zero 19:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Questions about the Wikimedia software or the user interface are best asked at one of the sections of the Village pump - perhaps WP:VPR. ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Help Needed with Vaibhav Palhade Draft Article

Hello, I am working on a draft article about Draft:Vaibhav Palhade, an Indian filmmaker and author. The article has been declined multiple times, primarily due to concerns about notability and sourcing. I would appreciate it if experienced editors could review the draft and provide suggestions or edits to help meet Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly in improving notability and finding reliable sources. Thank you in advance for your assistance!

Ballal2003 Ballal2003 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ballal2003. You can't "improve notability" - he either is notable or he isn't; and you establish that he is by finding sources that meet the triple criterion of reliability, independence, and significant coverage - see WP:42.

It is unlikely that anybody here will be willing to do the work of looking for the sources (which is the major work that goes into writing an article) - not impossible, but unlikely. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"In addition to his work in film and literature, Palhade has contributed to education through various initiatives." All that means is "he's done some teaching". Well, so have I. That's not evidence of notability; it's not even worth mentioning. Maproom (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

August 22

Two queries

1. Since 2014, Nikhilanand Panigrahy has been edited by the coincidentally-named User:Nikhilanand.panigrahy, the equally-coincidentally-named User:Ramakanta Panigrahy, and a couple of IP addresses until it has become a 3900+-byte CV. (Unsourced claims of having written 1500 papers, etc.) Given the two user accounts are clearly self-promotional SPAs (neither has ever edited any other article), would any admins be able to hand down a few blocks so they stop reverting the attempts at pruning the CV?
2. Also in 2014, User:Padmacharan123 created the article Bibhuprasad Mohapatra, which was sent to AFD and deleted for being "essentially an unsources [sic] BLP with some links to articles written by the subject in one particular blog site." Padmacharan then seems to have waited 12 months, then recreated the article again, meaning it now sits today as an... unsourced BLP with some links to articles written by the subject in one particular blog site. Since I can't see deleted articles, would any admins be able to see if the newer article is similar enough to the previous one for wp:G4 to apply?

2603:8001:4542:28FB:FD6E:8061:B945:3A49 (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC) (Actual talk)

Nikhilanand Panigrahy is a mess. Most of it is completely unsourced. Of the parts that are sourced. there are five refs in total: four are dead and the fifth fails verification. It's possible that that ref was only there to source the claim that the school had changed names, since it is unlikely that a university home page ever confirmed that a given person was an alumnus. Article tagged, editor pointed to COI. If sources are not found this will likely be an AFD candidate. Meters (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest going directly to AfD, no reason to wait. There is nothing in that page that comes close to satisfying WP:NPROF, particularly as Google Scholar only finds one publication. No proof of any publications. The claim that Ph.D. thesis was about theoretical Solid State Physics is very, very dubious without publications. My experience with AfD of physicists is that this one is a no-brainer delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for using wrong username

Hi My name is Tom Henderson (TomH300). I quite innocently made an error when I wrote my article on Vectar Project, by using the name Vectar project. I was asked to login as a new user (tomH300) and I now find that the page is still blocked. Can you please help TomH300 (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I have already answered this (with happy news for you) at WP:TH. In future, please post a question/request to either one of these two pages. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"my article"

how i know my article is published ? Mohdfuad585 (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Which article is your article, Mohdfuad585?

User:Mohdfuad585 is going to be deleted, because it is not what user pages are for, and contains a stream of peacock language.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Help with maintenance message

I'm currently getting a CS1 maintenance message on this particular use of {{Cite web}}:

<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wagner |first1=Richard |title=Lansdowne 2.0 — some key questions remain unanswered |url=https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/wagner-lansdowne-2-0-some-key-questions-remain-unanswered |website=[[Ottawa Citizen]] |access-date=16 August 2024 |date=9 August 2023 |quote=...the City of Ottawa is being asked by OSEG to invest at least $332.6 million into Lansdowne 2.0, which is in addition to the $136 million invested by the city in Lansdowne in 2014. |url-status=live |url-access=limited}}</ref>

Maintenance messages don't specify the problem like error messages do, but I'd like to know what the problem is here, and how to fix it, so I can avoid it in the future. Thanks in advance! — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The warning is "CS1 maint: url-status". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That said, I'm not sure why you are getting it. Have you tried running the article (with the ref included) through cite-bot? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@AFC Vixen The problem is that you have used the |url-status= parameter but have not supplied an archive-url. According to {{cite web}} the latter is a prerequisite for using the former. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit embarrassed that I somehow missed the |url-status= I accidentally orphaned when I got rid of an |archive-url=, but thank you two heaps for pointing this out! — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Changing template text

This might not be the right place for this, but I will start here. I had previously tagged a couple of articles with {{sources exist}} because I knew that there were sources in both for numerous unsourced paragraphs. I was told that it was for "articles with insufficient references to prove WP:GNG" which is not what the actual text of the template says. It was suggested that I use {{refideas}}, but that is also not right, in the end the compromise is {{more sources needed}}. That is still not right as the sources definitely exist. (If don't want to tag every sentence with {{citation needed}} as that would be too much work.) Is there a better tag, and/or probably the text of {{sources exist}} should be changed if it is supposed to be a notability tag. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"Start a discussion" on Talk Pages

A new feature appeared today on Talk pages for both articles and users. It is part of mediawiki software since the banner appears without any code being visible in the source. On most editor's Talk Page (at the bottom) it shows "Start a discussion with X" and ".... What you say here will be public for others to see." along with the now-familiar flower icon and a big blue button for starting a new section. Two questions:

1) Why does it use the word "say" rather than "write"? (Maybe because we call them Talk Pages, not Write Pages!)

2) Why does the banner on my Talk Page show a different message, namely, "Welcome to your talk page" and "People on Wikipedia can use this talk page to post a public message for you, and you will be notified when they do." but no big blue button? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Registered users only see it if "Enable quick topic adding" is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. "say" can include writing as wiktionary:say#Verb says. I think "say" is a good fit for a two-person discussion. An administrator can change it by creating MediaWiki:Discussiontools-emptystate-desc-user which currently shows a default message, but a good reason would be needed. If it's created then a later modification of the default message would not be reflected. You are not supposed to start discussions on your own talk page so it makes sense that the "Start a discussion" button is omitted there. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah! So when others look at my Talk Page, they get the standard message: that makes sense. Thanks. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)