Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

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

    September 21

    Pi

    Good morning sir, my online data is turned off by Bikash Bank Money on 92.97.34.49 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is Wikipedia; we cannot assist in banking issues. Talk directly to your bank. win8x (talking | spying) 01:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't login to my account

    I typed the correct username and password, but when I pressed “Log in”, a message popped up saying: “There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please resubmit the form. You may receive this message if you are blocking cookies.”. What happened to my account?

    My account is JasonHo1222. 138.19.34.189 (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you blocking cookies or scripts on your browser (or maybe an overzealous antivirus)? Does it work if you use another browser? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The time allocated for running scripts has expired error after editing

    2024 PDC Pro Tour It keeps throwing this error on the Darts Pro Tour 2024 site, so it's completely useless. Maybe you can find a solution. They might need to increase their max_execution_time in their php settings. Szpity88 (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Might need to cut down on the templates being used on that page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an option. Wouldn't it be more logical to modify the previously mentioned setting so that this does not happen? Because that's pretty amateurish. Szpity88 (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    *shrugs*
    There are limitations in the software MediaWiki used; we faced similar issues when we exceeded the PEIS limit for the larger COVID-19 pages and the solution was to split them off into their own articles. Perhaps the software tinkerers will eventually be able to allow more templates to be used, but in the meantime, fewer templates on the page is the only solution. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Issue with Template:Inflation. The article 2024 PDC Pro Tour makes many calls to {{PDCFlag}}, which calls Module:DartsRankings, which in turn makes many calls to the LUA function gsub. This is one of the functions that seem to have got slower recently. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My general impression of problems with script timeouts and PEIS errors is that about 80% of them are caused by splattering hundreds of stupid flags everywhere. Wish people could just let go of the idea that the flag of a country of a person's citizenship or the flag of a country containing a specific geographic locale is in every instance relevant information. Folly Mox (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    interlinking to a bit deep part of an article

    Can you interlink a specific word in an article to another article? VihirLak007 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, VihirLak007. -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    whats the code for it? VihirLak007 (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    use the anchor template: {{anchor|string to use as label}} ... you can do an "insource:" search on "anchor" to easily find some examples. Fabrickator (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It worked and exactly what i was looking for. Thank you VihirLak007 (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MfD nominations?

    I recently requested an article to be put up for MfD on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion, as I am an unregistered user. However, I also saw that IP users should tag the article for deletion along with submitting a request on the talk page. However, if a person sees the deletion tag on top of the page, and the link to the deletion discussion doesn't exist, there's a very high chance that they won't realize I made a request on the talk page and will probably revert the edit and warn me. Should I still tag the article? 74.108.22.119 (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No. The MfD nomination that you want to make is absolutely hopeless. I reject your request to convert it into a proper MfD nomination. I have given you the needed explanation in response to your comment in which you "requested an article to be put up for MfD"; see Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#MFD request: Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? —Alalch E. 13:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Factually incorrect information on Rangers Football

    can you please update the page for Rangers Football Club. The Rangers football club has only existed since 2012. 80.43.94.129 (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It was formed in 1872. Please read History of Rangers F.C.. Perhaps you are thinking of some other club? Shantavira|feed me 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically the IP is correct: The original Rangers Football Club Plc was declared insolvent in 2012, and its assets sold to a company Sevco Scotland Ltd, subsequently renamed The Rangers Football Club Ltd. This financially new entity was refused re-admission to the Scottish Premier League, had to apply for membership of the Scottish Football League, and was admitted into Divison 3, thereafter working its way back up to the Premier League by the usual promotion ladder.
    [The above summarises information in the article linked above.]
    However, in sporting terms the current club is generally regarded as a continuation of the original Rangers, just as are several other clubs in Europe (and doubtless elswhere) that have had to be variously financially reconstituted.
    [Disclaimer: a Sassenach here, so nae dug in this fight :-).]
    {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.171.3 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Factually Incorrect Information Regarding Magazine Ownership

    An unknown user has been inserting incorrect information into the page for Soldier of Fortune Magazine, regarding magazine ownership. The documentation on the magazine website and in the LLC filings correctly show the ownership. This is a malicious attempt by an unknown user to discredit the magazine and its owner, and to raise the specter of unseen governance. How can these malicious efforts be blocked? RedlineBluepencil (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy link Soldier of Fortune (magazine) Knitsey (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VNT. Information published in reliable sources that is notable and confirmed can be added to the article. Additionally, your tone implies you may have a conflict of interest with this topic, seeing as 44 of your 52 edits have been on this article. Information must be cited to reliable (and preferably non-primary) sources, so if you find one with the information to challenge their claims, feel free to re-add it. If the user's claims are not backed up by any source in the article, and you have reason to suspect their factuality, you can challenge and remove them yourself. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RedlineBluepencil appears to be right. The sources currently numbered 2 and 3 say that Susan Katz Keating bought the magazine, and make no mention of her partner being involved in the transaction as claimed by the IP editor. Maproom (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor RedlineBluepencil: If you have some personal connection with the magazine and/or the magazine's owner, please read the page pointed to by this link: Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. If you have more questions please feel free to ask them here. Also see this page for a general overview and references to more information about Wikipedia. --Slowking Man (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RedlineBluepencil, the lead section of the current version of the article devotes undue weight to a recent trivial dispute about ownership. The lead section should summarize the entire 49 year history of the publication, not a recent editing dispute. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No Stashed Content

    I am attempting to edit a draft but can not submit due to the following: No stashed content found for 0/d7ee9548-5ee6-11ef-af15-477c1614b1fc. Suggestions are welcomed. MsSalsaFish (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @MsSalsaFish This is probably the error that occurs when one leaves the editing window open too long. I often get it when writing an article over multiple days. There are two things you can do: if you are able to, you can copy the entire wikitext of your edited revision; next, open the draft in a separate tab and click "edit source", select all the wikitext there, and paste in your version it its place. Then you should be able to click "Publish Changes", and submit the draft for review if you wish. Alternatively, you can do basically the same thing with the visual editor. Cremastra (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comes up often enough that we might want to think about adding a page about it in helpspace, or a paragraph somewhere that can be transcluded onto multiple new user guides. Folly Mox (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor MsSalsaFish: I have to ask, do you have a personal connection to either the Promise Neighborhoods organization, or Hasshan Batts, the only two subjects about which you have made any content-related edits? Or are you being compensated by either? If so you need to read the page pointed to by this link: Wikipedia:Plain and simple COI guide. If you are being compensated for activity on Wikipedia you must disclose so. This FAQ page may also be useful reading.
    I note both of the drafts you have worked on have been declined at WP:AFC, one multiple times. I'm afraid my prediction is that this is not likely to change in the near future, and the least time-wasting thing to do would be, if desired, to take the contents of the drafts and copy it to a personal or organizational webhost outside Wikipedia. You are free, of course, to do whatever you decide to, but don't be too surprised if my prediction holds. If you have other questions, you are welcome to ask them here; this page will also help. Thank you and hope you are doing well. --Slowking Man (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Raid of Carpetania

    I came across the article Raid of Carpetania, and determined after a little while that Wikipedia already had plenty of information on the same topic, at Lusitanian War § Third Lusitanian Raid and the Feats of Viriathus (148 BC – 140 BC). I decided to boldly WP:BLAR the new article (which, it should be noted, is considerably shorter and less detailed than the section at Lusitanian War, though they both draw on only one source, which is Appian's Roman History, Book VI), and point the redirect to the aforementioned section. There is no point in having the topic duplicated, and the raid does not appear to be independently notable (it has little coverage in secondary sources, although the right search terms are hard to find since there seems to be no agreed upon name for the events, so I could very well be wrong). Today the page creator, Jaozinhoanaozinho reverted by BLAR with no edit summary. So I have two questions: 1) was my BLAR appropriate, and 2) how should I proceed? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You’re free to read the book or the Lusitanian War wiki and add additional information, I see no problem on leaving the page up.
    I didn’t really need a summary either, my intention was quite obvious. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Jaozinhoanaozinho: Reverting another editor's edit should generally never be done without giving an explanation in the edit summary. It's considered rude and unhelpful. Remember, there is another real human on the "other side" of the screen, who had a reason for doing what they did, even if you may disagree with them about it. (This is the case regardless of who created a page. A Wikipedia article is not "owned" by anyone.) The only real exception is obvious vandalism, which this was not. Even then it's helpful to note that's what you're doing even with something brief such as "rvv". --Slowking Man (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument for WP:BLAR is reasonable, but as the article was only created this month it is not surprising that the author thinks their article should not be redirected and that they are watching it. What to do next is up to you. You could leave it or follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and have a discussion on the article talk page. You could also post a link to the discussion at the wikiprojects mentioned on the talk page. If you still disagree you could take the article to WP:AFD and ask for it to be redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSventon (talk • contribs)
    I advise all parties involved here to read thoughtfully Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, for useful advice. Also be aware of things such as the three-revert rule. In most cases, it never hurts to discuss things first: There is no deadline. --Slowking Man (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, someone else started an AfD, so I guess it is out of my hands now. Cremastra (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    September 22

    the CAPTCHA instructions

    Okay so when I attempt to add a reference I need to solve a CAPTCHA, fair enough: the page explains I'm trying to add an external link.

    But just now I added the {{Photo requested}} template to Talk:S. R. Crown Hall. Still the same message despite no external links in sight.

    Please change the captcha-explaining message to say something along the lines of "you're trying to add an external link or a template" (my emphasis).

    Btw, there were no additional context provided at Special:Captcha/help.

    PS. If you want to reply something like "actually that template includes code that allow external links" (or something, that's just my speculation) please understand that I understand the underlying engine caught something in the template code. That is, I'm not looking so much for a reply/explanation here, I want to ask you to change what IP editors see when they're asked to solve captchas. (Unfortunately I couldn't immediately discern which special page contains this text, but I'm confident you'll figure it out)

    TL;DR: Please change the message accompanying "you must enter this captcha" to not solely discuss external links, since it apparently appears in other cases too.

    Thank you. 84.217.39.2 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to edit some articles or upload things, it's best to sign up for an account. This avoids all of the stuff with CAPTCHAs that IP editors dislike.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The message is MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl. It doesn't know whether the link was added by a template but that's probably a small minority of cases. The message is not shown to autoconfirmed users, meaning accounts which are at least four days old and have at least ten edits. Many new users probably don't know what templates are so it may just cause confusion if the message mentions templates. There are also rare scenarios where the user didn't even add a template. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. First off, I am not complaining in any way. I'm talking about a message that's shown to IP editors. Suggesting I log in is not relevant.
    What is relevant is the supplied page. Thank you for that. I have made an edit request at the link. Do feel free to phrase this in a better or more accurate way if you feel that would be appropriate. I avoided the mention of templates as you suggested. The important part, I think we agree, is for the message to not categorically claim you have added an external link when, in fact, this might not be the case. Telling IP editors they must solve a captcha because they have added external links when they haven't, that's what's confusing. Regards 84.217.39.2 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page created is not shown

    Hello i am a new Wiki Creator, i have recently created a page and have had it published, its been like almost 2 weeks but still there is no sign of it shown when searched for, what do i have to do for this, is there any errors on my side ? Do i have to rectify something? Please let me know soon asap.. Thank You, Eagerly awating your reply !!!1 HarmonyHubber (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @HarmonyHubber: Your page is in your sandbox, which isn't indexed by search engines like Google. I strongly suggest you get it reviewed by an AfC reviewer, which you can do by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HarmonyHubber, you were given good (but optimistic) advice by Tenryuu. Instead of following it, you moved it direct to main space. It's not fit for mainspace:
    • It cites no sources (though it does list some).
    • The sources it lists are just URLs, with no bibliographic information (name of author, name of publication, date of publication, etc.)
    • I doubt that the sources listed are enough to establish that Mishra is notable in Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense, even once they're cited properly. The first one listed doesn't even mention him.
    I have moved it to draft space at Draft:Rahul Mishra (musician), to allow you to improve it until it's good enough to be accepted as an article. Maproom (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor had already created Draft:Rahul Mishra and submitted it to AFC so I made this page a redirect to the other draft page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Should I Create Article About : Vivek Verma

    I have many references like his personal portfolio, social media accounts. mrvivekverma.com MrVivekVerma (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, unless this individual (who appears to be you) has significant coverage from secondary sources (i.e. not related to the subject) under WP:Notability (people), they don't need an article. Even if they do, you in particular still really shouldn't under our conflict of interest guidelines, as either the subject, or someone working on their behalf. Social media isn't a reliable source for generating notability for Wikipedia's purposes. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    but he is popular through his startup Zianaka. Zianaka is a Software Development company based in Lucknow, India MrVivekVerma (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed you created the page as your user page, implying that you are this individual. You should, under no circumstance, create a page about yourself in this manner (user pages should be primarily about Wikipedia activities, not promoting yourself). You also had no sources, and the article was deleted under WP:CSD.
    If you would like to have your own article on Wikipedia, you can request it to be made, however first you really should establish what makes you notable. Being "popular" means nothing if you haven't done anything or aren't a social phenomenon; if you'd use the page to promote your business, it's a conflict of interest. A quick web query for "Zianaka" in search of news coverage results in nothing, so the company is simply not notable as it is.
    Don't let this discourage you from editing Wikipedia otherwise, though! We welcome most constructive contributions cited to reliable sources. Just remember that Wikipedia is not a web host, it's an encyclopedia that should cover encyclopedic material, not a business directory or place to promote products or services. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How I can request for my own articles MrVivekVerma (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your best bet is to go on about your life and career as if Wikipedia did not exist. If you truly merit a Wikipedia article, someone will eventually write about you. Also be aware that having a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The brief answer is you cannot: Wikipedia is not a "webhost", and does not exist to host whatever thing any person may decide they would like to make available on the Internet. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. I see you already have a website of your own, and that's great! Write about yourself on there. You may wish to look into using CMS software, for creating and maintaining a more complex personal website. (You can even if you want install and run your very own copy of the software Wikipedia uses, though it is complex and targeted at use for large projects such as Wikipedia itself; I would personally recommend other, less-complex software for a personal site.) --Slowking Man (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    September 23

    Photos of living people

    Hello. How does one go about uploading photos of living people to their infobox? I have started creating articles of the living and would like to add their photo, but the rules are different to the deceased. For example Juliet Harbutt or Paul Shearer - any suggestions gratefully received. BJCHK (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just like photos of people who've since died, except that you cannot cite "fair use" for the use in any article of any photo that is neither in the public domain (as this term is understood in the context of copyright law) nor copyleft according to one or other of the licenses that are acceptable for en:Wikipedia. Suggestion: Meet these people and take photos of them. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Hoary - will try that (the meeting thing would be tricky. I live in Hong Kong and these two people are in the UK and NZ!) BJCHK (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry about those geographical hurdles, BJCHK. The cheese lady says that in the past she was an "IT nerd"; this being so, perhaps you could persuade her to upload a selfie to Commons, as (truthfully!) her "own work". Google suggests that Shearer has a LinkedIn page. I'm not a member so can't see it, but perhaps you could persuade him to announce there that one of his photos of himself is copyleft (NB strictly according to Commons' requirements), or of course you could persuade him too to upload a selfie. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BJCHK WP:A picture of you may have something helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång this is such a helpful link - I will send it to them and see if it works. Thanks! BJCHK (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BJCHK: You uploaded File:Peter Phillips (conductor).jpg a few weeks ago, and Peter Phillips (conductor) is living. You've also uploaded File:Peter Phillips and Steve Smith, co-founders of Gimell Records.jpg, File:Mark Isaac-Williams.jpg, File:Dustin Nicholls aka Astra Zero.jpg, File:Lindsey McAlister, theatre director.png and File:Graeme Mitcheson, sculptor.jpg, who are all living people; so, it's not clear why you're suddenly asking the above question. Did you take all of these photos yourself? Some of your other uploads like File:A gemel (or gymel) from the Eton Choirbook.jpg, File:Portrait of Mrs Claud Mullins.png, File:Bauhinia blakeana, watercolour painting by Mark Isaac-Williams.jpg and File:William Cobbett (1763-1835) bust.jpg seem to have questionable licensing. Are you aware that the term "own work" has a special meaning when it comes to image copyright, and that photographing someone else's creative work can be a case of c:COM:2D copying or c:COM:Derivative work? Did you, for example, take File:Amelia Behren-Furniss in standard diving gear.png back in 1921? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Marchjuly In answer to your many questions:
    • I contacted Peter Phillips, Mark Isaac-Williams, Dustin Nicholls, Lindsey McAlister and Graeme Mitcheson and asked them, as I had a point of contact for them. They all gave me images to upload with their permission.
    • I took the photo of Mark Isaac-Williams' work with his express permission.
    • I took the photo of William Cobbett's bust myself.
    • Peter Phillips photographed the gymel directly from the Eton Choirboy and sent it to me to upload.
    • I have tried contacting other people in the past with whom I have no link and have had very limited success. I didn't know if there was a way of doing this without this step, that's all.
    Of course I didn't take a photo of Amelia Behren-Furniss in 1921 - I am still learning this and obviously made a mistake when I listed that image. I find this aspect of Wikipedia very tricky to navigate and can only try my best. I honestly found your reply rather unhelpful and not in the spirit of my question. I will continue to ask questions and take friendly help from those willing to offer it.
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and @Hoary thank you for your suggestions.
    BJCHK (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BJCHK To take just one of your examples. File:Peter Phillips (conductor).jpg will be deleted on Commons later today in 7 days because although you say it was provided to you by Phillips with permission to upload it, you have not provided evidence of this to Commons Volunteers. To do that, you need to get Phillips to email them to say he did give such permission. The process is described at c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team. Similarly for all the other files you personally did not take. Don't worry if the files are deleted before the emails from the subjects arrive: Commons admins can undelete files. Make sure the emails state the file names you used and your username. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Michael D. Turnbull I will contact Peter and ask him to fill in the form. BJCHK (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BJCHK: My apologies if my first post seemed a bit harsh, but image copyright can be tricky and it's easy to make mistakes. My suggestion to you is to maybe refrain from uploading any more images (particularly to Commons) until you've had a chance to read through c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. Mistakes are understandable, and most Commons administrators are willing to help people sort them out; however, Commons administrators may be less inclined to be lenient with those who've made so many mistakes and might feel stronger action needs to be taken. One important thing to understand about image copyright is the person taking the photo, not the subject of the photo, is considered to be the copyright holder and it's that person's permission Michael D. Turnbull is referring to. So, even if the subjects of these photos have told you its OK to use them, their consent would be meaningless if they didn't take the photos themselves or didn't somehow formally acquire the photos' copyrights from those who did. This is what Hoary was implying when he suggested Meet these people and take photos of them since that would make you the copyright holder and then you could license the photos as you see fit. Of course, things aren't always that simple in each and every case, but it tends to apply when it comes to taking photos of identifiable living people. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How to find all my edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ subpages

    I recall leaving several comments at an AfD nomination last year but I don't think I !voted so I haven't been able to find that specific AfD page using AfD Stats. Is there a tool/way to look up all my edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ subpages so I can find the lost page? Thanks in advance. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nythar: Assuming you signed the comments, a search like this one should list all the AFD pages that you edited in 2023. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found it. Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How to deal with awful articles?

    In my time on Wikipedia I've come across a few (not many) truly horrible articles. Most of which should not be deleted, just very heavily altered. How do I go about doing this? Is there a way I can request help or draw attention to certain articles? Dr. Carrotflower (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dr. Carrotflower I don't think there is a general answer. If you don't want to nominate an article for deletion, perhaps because you recognise it is on a notable topic, then your first step should be to boldly edit it with improvements. If you find some sources it does not yet include but don't want to incorporate them yourself, it is helpful to add them to the associated Talk Page. That's also where you'll find any related projects that have stated an interest in the article. Each Project should have its own Talk Page with centralised discussion for interested editors: although some Projects are defunct. There is a process of WP:TAGGING pages to indicate problems but I'd advise you not to do that unless you are also prepared to work on the article before you tag it for any remaining problems. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr. Carrotflower:The most direct thing you can do is to make the change yourself. Articles aren't going to improve themselves, they're only going to get fixed if editors make the necessary changes.
    Understandably, you might not want to make that commitment. One alternative is to identify the problem and suggest specific changes on the article's talk page. However, don't hold your breath. But you can still feel that you've made your contribution, it's not your fault if nobody acts on your suggestion. Note that many articles have talk page archives, and if there's no activity regarding your comment on the talk page for some period of time, the concerns you express may fall into obscurity when your suggestions are moved to the talk page archive for that article.
    You can also add the article to WP:Articles for improvement/Nominations. Note that this should be restricted to articles of some significance, as this is a comparatively elite list and your everyday "run of the mill" articles are perhaps not the best candidates for this list. Fabrickator (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An article that is too far gone to be able to be salvaged may be nominated for deletion and deleted, even if it was agreed that Wikipedia should have an article on that (just not that article). After doing so, a new article may be started from scratch. See WP:TNT. Cambalachero (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little skeptical on the idea that an article is "too far gone", unless there have been changes to "reality" that made it "out-of-date". Just reset to some version before it was "too far gone" and voila, your articles is no longer as bad as it used to be. Fabrickator (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpret "too far gone" as meaning "in too dire a state to be rescued", not as implying that it was once better. It's very unusual for an acceptable article to become unsalvageable - even becoming out of date does not usually do that. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr. Carrotflower, often the best way to solve this kind of thing is to remove the unsatisfactory content or to do a WP:BLAR to a related target. But I don't recommend that you, personally, do this yet. Leave it for when you have more experience with wikipedia editing, for two main reasons: one, you'll have a better sense for what other editors broadly agree is "too unsatisfactory to keep", and two, your removals will be much less likely to be contested or reverted without comment by people who think you're just out to vandalize the encyclopedia if you wait to do this until you're extended confirmed. Focus on building the encyclopedia for now. Save the major renovations for later. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's just badly written or organized, slap on a Template:Cleanup tag. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr. Carrotflower:
    1. Check the article's Talk page.
    2. Start small, on a topic you are especially interested in improving.
    3. Look for good secondary references.
    4. Always, always add references for changes you make.
    5. Freely delete any unsourced content.
    6. Alway annotate each edit with an edit summary.
    7. If you really believe content that is sourced should be deleted, add a short analysis paragraph to the corresponding Talk page.
    8. Encourage other editors with polite and cheerful discussion!
    9. Repeat steps until you have fixed everything ;-)
    Johnjbarton (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why does the heading of this table overlap the first data row?

    Miss World Philippines#Titleholders has two tables, formatted the same way but with different numbers of columns.

    In my browser, the first table's header rows are shifted down to obscure the first data row. It should look like the second table.

    I'm looking at the wiki-markup and I cannot figure out why one table displays incorrectly and the other one doesn't. The markup for both looks correct to me. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, they look fine in an incognito window. Must be my user preferences. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind. It was the sticky table header setting in my preferences. Disabling that fixed the problem. I don't know why it affected only the first table, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anachronist: The tables are in a div with overflow:auto. It's the issue at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-StickyTableHeaders.css#Not working at The Economist Democracy Index#List by region. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I wondering why that auto-overflow div is even needed. If the table is too big for the container, I get scroll bars, and whether the scroll bar is for my browser window or for a css container, both are equally bad. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is There A Way To Mark That A Reference Is Region Blocked?

    I've seen icons for PDFs and paywalled articles and so forth that visually mark articles in reference lists but I was reading an article now and wanted to go to one of the references and discovered it's region locked and I can't access it in my country. Is there a way to indicate this in a reference/citation? Watman (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be interested in the answer to this. There have been a couple of times when news sites in US say not available in your region (UK). Knitsey (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - some distinguishing text would be useful - several US sites are continuing to impose EC restrictions on UK readers - although the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 - Arjayay (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the citation is using a H:CS1 type of template (e.g. {{cite web}}), the use of the |url-status=, |url-access= or |others= parameter might work as a way of letting readers know that access to the site has been regionally restricted. I believe those parameters work in most CS1 template and there's usually some general description on how to use them on a template's documentation page; for example, WP:URLACCESS could be set as |url-access=limited and then H:CS1#Others might be able to be modified as |others=Source cannot be accessed in country ABC or something similar. If adding such information within the template doesn't work too well, then adding some relevant text (perhaps as a parenthetical) after the template's syntax but before the closing WP:Reftag (e.g.<ref>{{CS1 template}} (text) </ ref>) probably would work. Same goes for citations added without using a template, relevant text should be OK to add to the template after the citation itself but before the closing ref tag. Trying to create a specific parameter for this kind of thing, though, probably should be discussed at WP:VPT given that such templates are widely used and even a minor mistake could cause tons of articles to be suddenly flagged for Help:CS1 errors. You'd also need to be sure that this is an issue not affecting just a single user or a few users, but everyone in the region. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    |others=Source cannot be accessed in country ABC Don't do that. It is a misuse of |others= which is intended to be used to name 'other' contributors to the cited work.
    This topic has been raised before at Help talk:Citation Style 1 with never a consensus to implement. You can trawl that page's archives for the appropriate discussions.
    The correct place to discuss changes/fixes/enhancements to the cs1|2 citation templates is at Help talk:Citation Style 1, not WP:VPT.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Trappist the monk for clarifying. For what it's worth, my suggestion was off the cuff and I'd a feeling that it might not work too well. In addition, thanks for pointing out the best place to discuss this. For those who might be interested, one of the discussions you mentioned above can be found at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 94#Request url-status 'regional' for geographic IP restrictions. That discussion seems to indicate there are more similar discussions buried in that talk page's archives. Perhaps adding this type of query might be worth adding to WP:PERENNIAL if it's something that comes up a lot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Showing the table of contents on the left for desktop UI

    Hi. I've been using Wikipedia quite a lot but suddenly sometimes the table of contents (TOC) on the left is gone. The UI shows a small floating square in the upper left corner and if I click it the TOC shows. Also, on pages with the TOC, there is a small button next to "Contents" which says "Hide". I guess if I click the TOC will go away into the square. How can I unhide the TOC?? Thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Johnjbarton: If you click the square to display the TOC then there should be a "move to sidebar" button. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter Thanks, I expected as much, however sadly there is no such button. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnjbarton: I made some tests and the option disappears in narrow windows. I guess it's deliberate. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter Bingo! I guess I set my browser zoom to +125% so I could read the print and that made the software go haywire. Once I reset the zoom the TOC came back and the "move to sidebar" reappeared. Thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New Article problem

    Hello,

    I have created several new pages for books in the past. I am attempting to create a page entitled "Unthinkable: An Extraordinary Journey Through the World’s Strangest Brains", but I keep getting an error stating the following:

    This page is on the title blacklist, so only administrators, template editors, and page movers can create it.

    I have never seen this error before. Can someone help me in clearing the blacklist so that I can create the page? (A draft is now visible in my sandbox, which you can use to verify that it is well-sourced and reliable). Thank you! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Methinks it's because of your apostrophe (the shameless, curved hussy). I get the message with it, but not if I use the Wikipedia-approved straight one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's it. The red link Unthinkable: An Extraordinary Journey Through the World’s Strangest Brains makes an edit link with redlink=yes. This redirects to a non-edit page which doesn't explain it. If you click the "Create source" tab there then you get an edit link without redlink=yes and should see a detailed explanation. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense! I have noticed before that all of my apostrophes get corrected by a bot later. Do you know how I can type the straight apostrophe directly? On my screen / keyboard, the apostrophe to the right of ";" appears as a straight apostrophe, but Wikipedia seems to think differently. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Michelangelo1992: I guess the keyboard makes a straight apostrophe but some of your software may convert it to curly, especially if you use a word processor to prepare edits. If you copy-paste text from somewhere then you may also get curly apostrophes without noticing it. There are different tools to edit Wikipedia but below the edit box you may have a menu where you can select "Insert" or "Wiki markup" and click a button to produce a straight apostrophe. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never noticed that "insert" button before. I will be sure to use that going forward. Thank you! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Michelangelo1992, one minor comment. I quote: "A review in the Washington Post [...] addresses directly the reader." No, this isn't what you meant to say, but there it is. ("The way the book addresses the reader directly"? NB I haven't read the review. Or indeed the book.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea why I typed that - I have fixed it. Thank you! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    September 24

    CentralAuth Inquiry

    Hey there! I'm inquiring about CentralAuth. Recently, I searched up my account on it, and it had the 'new account' tag next to my name. Is there a specific timeframe (e.g. one year), and after that it expires, or is it just going to be there forever? Henry (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Henry Herrmann-Friedrich I think your account on en Wikipedia is marked "new account" because it was set up as a new account, while your accounts on other Wikimedia projects are marked "created on login" because they were set up automatically through Wikipedia:Unified login, so your account on en Wikipedia will always be marked "new account". Hopefully that is written down somewhere. TSventon (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right. CentralAuth is the unified login system for Wikimedia wikis. It's from 2008. Special:CentralAuth/Henry Herrmann-Friedrich has a green plus icon at en.wikipedia.org saying "new account" on hover. MediaWiki:Centralauth-merge-method-new-desc says "Indicates that the global account was created automatically when that local account was created." The text "new account" is probably permanent but an administrator like me could change it at MediaWiki:Centralauth-merge-method-new. My alternative account Special:CentralAuth/PrimeHunter2 has said "New account" at en.wikipedia.org since it was created in 2008. My main account Special:CentralAuth/PrimeHunter has a nice house icon instead at en.wikipedia.org and says "home wiki". The account was originally created in 2005 so it predates CentralAuth. Each Wikimedia wiki had separate accounts at the time. In 2009 my enwiki account was merged into the CentralAuth system and designated "home wiki" (MediaWiki:Centralauth-merge-method-primary). There are other possible values from the CentralAuth merge process at [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I really appreciate the insight! Henry (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user comment

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dronebogus/Basement&oldid=1217044646 -- Ooligan (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing label output name of a parameter in Speciesbox

    In the Speciesbox of the Sinhala wikipedia, Its needed to change the parameter "clade's" output name to "ක්ලේඩය"; the native word for it. I cant seem to find the place to edit it. (i have changed other label names for genus and species but can't find the place to edit clade) VihirLak007 (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1247442597"