Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    June 22[edit]

    Creating Page[edit]

    I want to Create 1 page with name lets just say - God Is Great. I Cant see that option to create that page. How to do this? I can only see option to create a page same as my username. Chaturvedi divya (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chaturvedi divya: Users can't create pages in mainspace until they're autoconfirmed. Please be aware that pages you create in mainspace or draftspace should be of encyclopedic value. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't search a page for "jump"[edit]

    I just noticed this (encountered in Chrome).

    • Go to any random article: Special:Random
    • Press ctrl-F to find text on the page
    • Try to find the word "jump"

    Chrome shows occurrences, but none appear on the page.

    I first noticed this with Larry Bird: 23 occurrences of the word "jump" but not a single one visible. This surprised me, because Bird had a reputation of never jumping more than a few inches.

    It seems to be searching CSS class names and "Jump to content" strings in popup text. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm getting the same in Pale Moon, so it's not limited to Chromium-based browsers. —Cryptic 03:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Larry Bird has 22 <span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up to: </span> at references which are used multiple times. It's for screen readers. cite-accessibility-label has properties which position the text outside the visible window so it doesn't distract seeing viewers (except if they search for the text and wonder what's happening). If there are visible occurrences of "Jump" then they do show up, e.g. on Jump. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see "Jump up to:" if you add this CSS:
    span .cite-accessibility-label {position: static !important;}
    It doesn't say to display the text, because it wasn't technically hidden. It just says to position it normally. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see, they're all on the citations. Thanks. I don't mind them being visible. I updated my common.css accordingly. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    more efficient watching[edit]

    Each day I download my watchlist page, filter it for the "mw-changeslist-watchedunseen" tag, open the histories for the unseen pages; I have a script for these steps. But then, on each of these history pages, I have to click by hand to get the diffs from the last "seen" version to the current version. Is there a more automatic way to get those diffs? —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You might struggle to get a technical response here. You might want to try WP:VPT. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 06:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    my account[edit]

    My account was banned for no reason My teammates was using and l report his id after some time my account got banned for no reason please fix this problem and unban my account as soon as possible My character id 55502880173 Nitin kamdi (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nitin kamdi: You asked this a few days ago; please read the answers further up this page. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nitin kamdi: It's now at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 June 19#Akauda aanlok. I still suspect your post isn't about a Wikipedia account. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding monthly payments[edit]

    I've payed apparently about $750 throughout the years but now I'm unemployed and if Wikimedia Foundation doesn't require any carpenters unfortunately I have to pause the payments. But I'll try to start contributing again soon. Thank you for all your guys hard work and voluntary labor, it's mind boggling. Andash1337 (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Andash1337 Of course, you should not donate if you are unable to. Note that we editors have nothing to do with collecting donations, that's all handled by the Foundation. If you need to contact them to suspend your recurring donation, email donate@wikimedia.org 331dot (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, I'm a very lazy person and clicked the first Contact Us I saw. I think it's all cancelled through PayPal, really just wanted to say I'm sorry for not being able to support for a while.
    Thanks for your time. Andash1337 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andash1337: See also donate:Cancel or change recurring giving. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template function[edit]

     Courtesy link: Template:Estimation

    What's a template like Estimation intended to do? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Clarityfiend: it inserts "est." inside an HTML5 <abbr> tag, indicating that it's an abbreviation, with a title attribute, which browsers may use to show a tooltip. Other templates, such as {{circa}}, {{born in}}, {{died in}} and {{floruit}} do similar things, usually for helping minimise content-length when space is at a premium. See category:Abbreviation_templates. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How can I contribute detailed content about idle tycoon games to Wikipedia?[edit]

    Hi everyone,

    I've been passionate about idle tycoon games for a while. I'm interested in contributing detailed and informative content about idle tycoon games to Wikipedia, including their mechanics, history, and popular titles.

    Does anyone have experience with creating or editing Wikipedia articles? What are the best practices for ensuring that the content is comprehensive, well-cited, and meets Wikipedia's guidelines? Any tips on the process would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks for your help! Saad Ullah 611 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Saad Ullah 611, and welcome to Wikipedia. Anybody may create a draft and submit it for review, using the articles for creation process. But, people who try this before they have spent several weeks (at least) making edits to existing articles and becoming familiar with Wikipedia's policies, usually have a frustrating and disappointing time.
    My advice to any new editor is to work on improving existing articles and become familiar with fundamental principles such as verifiability, reliable sources, independent sources, neutral point of view, and notability before even trying to create an article. If you're not sure where to start, you could look at the task center; or you might consider joining WikiProject Videogames and getting suggestions for articles to work on there.
    When you have understood those principles, then I suggest reading your first article, and going from there.
    When you get to that point, the first thing you will need to do is to find the independent reliable sources required to establish that Idle Tycoon Games meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability; because if it does not, you will be wasting your time trying to create an article on it. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hyperlink editing[edit]

    Why can't I click on all of the article's references' popups hyperlinks when I was in the editor? I'm on Chromebook 125.0 and am on Vector 2022 skin. I have tried turning on Enable reference previews, Navigation popups, and the default Reference Tooltips alone in the Preferences, but it just won't work? I have logged out just to test it again, but it still isn't working. I have extensions, but I've tried turning all of them off too. WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Citing a foreword to a novel[edit]

    I would like to cite a foreword written by Edwidge Danticat for the novel Hadriana in All My Dreams by René Depestre. The citation would be used to source a statement about Danticat's opinion of the novel. Can forewords be cited, and if so, what is the proper formatting? (The novel is in ebook form.)Thanks, Jaguarnik (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jaguarnik A foreword is there to promote a book, so it is not WP:neutral, a key requirement of all Wikipedia references. Shantavira|feed me 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Jaguarnik. I disagree with Shantavira. Sources are not required to be neutral; but unless they are independent, they can only be used in a limited way. Citing a foreword by Danticat for Danticat's opinion is in my view a normal use of a self-published source. You can cite it using the contribution= parameter of {{cite book}} - see that link for details. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both very much.Jaguarnik (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Need an arbiter for an editing disagreement[edit]

    A short back and forth over (not) including an individual in an embedded list needs a fresh eye. There's a board for that, but I don't recall what it's called. Do you know what it's called? To be clear, I'm not asking you to weigh in, I'm simply looking for the people whose !job is to weigh in. Yappy2bhere (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yappy2bhere: You might be looking for WP:3O if only two editors are involved or WP:DR RudolfRed (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking for a binding opinion that ideally doesn't result in a wall of text. Considered WP:3O before I came here, but right now we're reading the same WP policy, we're not reading the same thing, and we're both right of course. Looking at WP:DR now; thank you. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yappy2bhere: Generally, the best place to try to resolve disputes like this is on the article's talk page per "WP:DR" before moving on the other steps in the DR process. Unlike user talk pages. article talk pages make it easier for others to know about and join the discussion since more people interested in the subject matter are likely watching the article (and by default its corresponding talk page) than are watching a particular user's user talk page. Article talk page discussion also helps discussion relevant to the article in one place and makes it easier to archive things for future reference. Finally, the WP:ONUS in a content dispute typically falls on the person wanting to add content to establish a consensus through article talk page discussion when there are disagreements about it; in other words, if you're bold in adding content, but you're reverted based on some policy or guideline, you should, in principle, then seek consensus on the article talk page. However, since Meters has now started a discussion at Talk:South Kitsap High School#Notable Alumni, that's where you should continue to try to sort this out. A consensus established through article talk page discussion is probably as close to a "binding opinion" as you're going to get when it comes to a disagreement such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the Talk page link. Was gonna want that section whichever path we followed. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    June 23[edit]

    When did WP retire automatic ISBN linkage in favour of {{ISBN}}?[edit]

    I clearly remember the time WP used to have magic syntax for ISBN links--i.e., whenever you put in something like ISBN 0-19-861186-2, the MW software automatically converted it into ISBN 0-19-861186-2. (Example given is for the Oxford English Dictionary.) Nowadays, editors must resort to using {{ISBN|0-19-861186-2}} to get the same result; that much I realised after giving my AFC commentary at User talk:JParanoid. Can anyone provide me with a backstory as to the changes/circumstances? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Slgrandson: Looks like the MediaWiki software change to disable magic links by default was in late 2016 and English Wikipedia switched in 2017. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_138#Future_of_magic_links. The magic links existing at that time were converted to templates by a bot. RudolfRed (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Picture wikipedia page in English and French[edit]

    Hi there, I'm uploading a picture on the French Wikipedia for the same topic I wrote on the English Wikipedia website. It is saying that this picture is already used and is a copy of a different file. What can I do to upload this picture? Nono19192 (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Nono19192. You uploaded the images to Commons (c:File:Lachaume Iconic Door Handles.jpg is one of them) so they can be used directly in any Wikimedia project: you don't need to uploadthem again. If you insert [[File:Lachaume Iconic Door Handles.jpg]] into a page in fr-wiki or any other version of Wikipedia, it will display the picture. ColinFine (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much! That makes sense Nono19192 (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nono19192,
    As ColinFine said, once an image is in Commons - it can be used by Wikipedia project, or anywhere else really (it's common like common land, anyone can use it). Although I belive the code on French wiki would be [[Image:Lachaume Iconic Door Handles.jpg]].
    I am a bit curious as to how to you took the pictures, are they flat-bed scans of prints of photos?
    Also while you're here, the language in Draft:Lachaume really needs to be toned down towards a neutral point of view if that draft is going to be accepted - have a read of MOS:PUFFERY for some idea on how to do that. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, yes they're scans, is that an issue? Does it need a reference? Let me know what you thin! Regarding the draft, noted. Is there anything else you think might need to be edited? Nono19192 (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Scans isnt an issue per se, its just that you tagged them as Own Work - but its not clear if actually took the photo or not. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're scans, what are they scans of? Are the prints you scanned protected by copyright? If not, how not? Maproom (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nono19192: Scanning someone else's work can be problem as explained in c:COM:2D copying and c:COM:Own work because a scanning in and of itself is something that is typically considered to be a "slavish" or "mechanical" reproduction that's insufficient to establish a new copyright. What this means is that the copyright of the original work itself is what matters when it comes to Commons, and you can't upload any scans of still copyright protected works that you didn't create yourself unless you're able to show the original work has been released under an acceptable license for Commons. Even if your scan somehow was creative enough to be considered a WP:Derivative work (see also c:COM:DW) because it incoporated someone else's work into your own creative work, the copyright status of the original work would still need to be OK for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, what if a reference to the book that it was scanned from was added to the scan? Is there an article where I can clearly understand what kind of photos I can upload to wikipedia and the appropriate referencing? Nono19192 (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nono19192 You have now reached the crux of the problem! If you scanned something from a book, then you are potentially infringing the copyright of the book's author/publisher or the photographer who supplied the image. Only if the book is old enough to have become public domain or if it is licensed with some valid creative commons license can it be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Citing a reference to a book doesn't give you the right to license anything from the book, in general. See Commons:Licensing for a basic introduction to what can be a minefield. Commons itself has a Help Desk where trickier questions will get answers from experts: see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-manual ways of linking to contributions with &offset= and &limit=[edit]

    Users can manually add URL parameters &offset= together with &limit= to Special:Contributions URLs to link to a more precise set of edits. Examples: Special:Diff/981725212 and Special:Diff/1230476091. Page Help:User contributions has information about &offset=, but not about &limit=. My question is: are there any semi-automatic ways of producing such URLs? I couldn't find anything relevant in Wikipedia:User scripts/List. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Andrybak: If you click "older 50" at the top or bottom of page histories or user contributions then you get a url with &offset= and a time stamp you can change manually. Ending digits can be omitted, or be ignored if the exact time is unimportant. It doesn't matter if there are more digits than you started with. If you click a number in "(20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)" then you get a url with &limit= and a number you can change. That's what I do. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not want to edit anything. I'd just like to read an article. What do I do?[edit]

    I do not want to edit anything.  I'd just like to read an article.  What do I do? LJStarry (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @LJStarry: Just go ahead and read articles? You're not obligated to edit if you have an account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Go for it. There is a search you can use if you have a topic in mind, or Special:Random to pick a random article RudolfRed (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rudolf, I don't know how to go to search. Before, there was a box, and you just typed in "Henry VIII" or whatever. Help! LJStarry (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has recently modified its default appearance or 'skin'. There is still a search box, but in a narrow display it might be reduced to a magnifying-glass symbol, which you have to click to open the box.
    (I believe logged-in account holders see Wikipedia somewhat differently to IP users like myself, and I am running an extension that (mostly) reverts the current 'skin' to an older layout, so the above is deduction from others' previous remarks. Mobile devices may also see things differently from PC users.) Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be a icon somewhere near the top of pages that can be interacted with, regardless of whichever device you're using, be it mobile or otherwise. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Search the entire site’s history?[edit]

    I’m wondering if there’s any method to search the entire project, including history, for a phrase (a name). Zanahary 18:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, you can search "all" at [1], but that doesn't search history. Wikipedia:WikiBlame seems to be one article at a time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Clicking red links[edit]

    Anyone know how I can make it so that clicking on a red-link does not make "&action=edit&redlink=1" be at the end of the URL? Maybe I'd have to use some kind of custom-javascript thing? Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cocobb8: User:Awesome Aasim/noeditredlinks removes &action=edit but keeps &redlink=1. I guess this works for your unstated purpose. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @PrimeHunter! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    June 24[edit]

    Reference numbers 42 and 43 are both from the UK Daily telegraph and should be "archived" with a little padlock emblem - I cannot do this. Please assist if possible. Thanks. (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This can be done with the "url-access" parameter, but I am not sure which one to use or if it is even needed. I am able to view the content without signing up. RudolfRed (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "padlocks" for archived UK Daily Telegraph articles (as references) has been done correctly in the article Catherine, Princess of Wales. Is there any editor that knows how to do it? All the very best and thanks in advance for trying. (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Padlocks are only for references that are viewable if one is a subscriber (in which case, "url-access=subscription"). References 42 and 43 are viewable by anyone. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And in fact the references in Catherine, Princess of Wales are wrongly padlocked (which I will fix). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, a few Telegraph references are correctly blocked, which means I have to check all gazillion of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please get the UK Daily Telegraph articles on this Peter Phillips article to be "Archived" - not padlocked? I hope you are not annoyed with my request. Thank you (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll need to get somebody else to do that. It's a fair amount of work to fix the princess's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider also what it's for. Namely, this: By June 2024, Phillips [the subject of the article] had introduced his partner, paediatric nurse and freelance writer Harriet Sperling (née Sanders) to King Charles and Queen Camilla. Sperling's father, solicitor Rupert Sanders (1946-2023), was invited to the 1969 wedding of his first cousin Timothy de Zoete at St Margaret's Church - next to Westminster Abbey - to Moyra Dawney, granddaughter of the 7th Duke of Buccleuch and a first cousin of Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Sperling's great-grandmother, Dorothy de Zeote (née Courage (1877-1972), was the sister of Raymond Courage, Lord of the Manor of Edgcote. The siblings were members of the Courage brewing dynasty. Utter trivia, I'd say. -- Hoary (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative language word count[edit]

    Some entries are very brief. On such occasions it may be helpful to the reader to indicate the word counts of alternate language entries so that the reader can select the longest and presumably most detailed entry for translation. (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That may or may not have to do with clashing policies and guidelines across different language Wikipedias. The English Wikipedia is one of the ones that have the strictest policies, so information cited to sources considered unreliable isn't going to make it over here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    regarding money[edit]

    how to earn money in my home by online Attaullahsafety (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not by anything to do with editing Wikipedia, which is the only topic which this Wikipedia Help Desk deals with. ColinFine (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Attaullahsafety I suggest you start by learning to use a search engine. Shantavira|feed me 15:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been vandalism by a user to Greenfields School claiming a source does not state what it states, namely:

    "Greenfields, a small independent school perched on the corner of the Ashdown Forest, where some of the future leaders of Scientology are being educated"

    Given the subject of this page some advice would be welcomed as to how to stave off this vandalism. Nofoolie (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nofoolie You are in a content dispute with User:Chartinboy. The correct procedure, following our standard process is to discuss your opposing views on the Talk Page of the article, which neither of you have done. If necessary, you can seek a third opinion or move towards dispute resolution. Please do not just edit war as that helps no-one. We seek consensus for all article content. WP:ONUS is also relevant to any dispute. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response. I wondered if there was the option, given the subject of the page, that edit-protection would be warranted. I do not see their claims being valid, and I see some funny business happening prior to their edits.
    I will initiate a discussion on the talk-page with @Chartinboy but I suspect that despite the words being clear in the articles cited their intention is to remove that assertion from the page. Nofoolie (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very happy to discuss - if there is a source backing up your claim I see no issue with it being included in the article, I've no interest in baselessly defending or attacking them, but the source you listed didn't support the claim you made. Chartinboy (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Michael D. Turnbull Hi, I'd appreciate some assistance on the talk page of the article in question, if that's OK. It's just personal accusations rather than any helpful discussion and I'm not sure how to proceed. Chartinboy (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Nofoolie. Please do not use the word "vandalism" unless it is clearly that according to Wikipedia's definition: Vandalism. It seems to me that you and Chartinboy have strongly differing views about the subject, but neither of you is attempting to damage Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Marking jstor access[edit]

    For the article Hadriana in All My Dreams, a few articles from JSTOR are referenced. A preview is available but they're only available for full through institutional access (like through Wikipedia library) or registration. I understand that all online sources should be marked with access levels, how should the JSTOR access be indicated? Jaguarnik (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jstor (|jstor-access=) and DOI (|doi-access=) are presumed subscription only, and will only accept the value free. Folly Mox (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Template:Cite journal#Access indicator for named identifiers. DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Collins House And Granary[edit]

    I can see that there was a previous article (280 words) along the the photo but won't let me access the article. How can I access the article? KarottGrossman (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure where you're seeing that information. If an article has been deleted from Wikipedia, then you can't see it, unless you're an admin. But it is possible that an admin will be willing to restore it for you to work on. See WP:REFUND. ColinFine (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which photo is it that you're talking about? I can't find any evidence that there has ever been an article about that house. ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Publishing a Page[edit]

    Hello! I created a wikipedia page and need assistance in publishing it. If someone can assist, that would be greatly appreciated Hemanthtdpli (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Courtesy link: Draft:Ethan Baker. Deor (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    how to make this page public: Draft:Ethan Baker Hemanthtdpli (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The draft will not be accepted as an article. It is almost entirely unsourced, and is clearly promotional. Read Help:Your first article, and then, if you can find the necessary sources, revise the draft to meet our policies and guidelines, adding the necessary citations, removing the promotional language etc, and then add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft to submit it, as instructed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this information. I will follow that and submit. Thanks! Hemanthtdpli (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    June 25[edit]

    Search box[edit]

    Why was the search box removed from the top of pages so that only a magnifying glass remains. Please bring back the search box! Having a search box make it much easier to find the page you want when using a mouse! Disguy (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Disguy: This may be an issue with the default skin called Vector 2022. In your account preferences you can switch to a different skin, such as legacy vector. That's what I am using and I see the searchbox. RudolfRed (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References 1, 3 and 9 are all in red. Please fix, I cannot. Sorry! (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As the error message says, you need to fill in the "journal=" parameter any time you use {{Cite journal}} RudolfRed (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I have roughly a hundred mainspace edits, and WP:ROLL says I need over two hundred to be a rollbacker, which I really want. Some of the time I have mistaken good-faith edits for vandalism, and the article says I need to demonstrate good judgement. How would be a good way to determine accurately what is vandalism, what should I categorize it as for a user warning, and how to be ready to ask for rollbacker status. Additionally, would I need to be extended-confirmed? Apollogetticax|talk 03:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's an idea, Apollogetticax. Rather than amassing merit points so that you can acquire (humdrum) superpowers, just improve articles. While doing this, you will of course help the encyclopedia. You'll also read something of accusations (justified or unjustified) of vandalism, and denials (ditto) of vandalism, and from these will gradually get a pretty solid understanding of what is and isn't vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a fairly good record of undoing unconstructive edits. Feel free to make a request for the right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Bear in mind that you should continue reverting as before when an expanation is required. Rollback is to be used only in specific cases, like obvious vandalism. I don't use rollback much myself, because most of the time when I revert, it requires an explanation in the edit summary. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How to nominate this fair-use image for deletion properly? There is the free replacement uploaded under the same name: c:File:Mira Redina.jpg. Quick1984 (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Quick1984. There are two possibilities: (1) remove the file from wherever it's being used and tag it with Template:di-orphaned non-free use per WP:F5, or (2) leave the file in place wherever it's being used and tag it with Template:di-replaceable non-free use per WP:F7. Regardless of which approach you follow, you should notify the uploader of the file as a courtesy. Moreover, if someone disagrees with your assessment of the non-free file, deleting it is considered contentious and you should start a discussion about it at WP:FFD.
    If you follow approach (1), make sure you leave an edit summary clearly explaining why you've removed the image. If you follow approach (2), in addition to leaving an edit summary, it's also a good idea to use Template:Deletable file-caption and possibly post something on the article's talk page briefly explaining why you feel the non-free image is no longer policy compliant for future reference. Before you do either (1) or (2),though, you should be pretty sure (at least as sure as you can be) that the Commons file is something that's actually OK for Commons per c:COM:L. Lots of people upload files to Commons that ultimately end up being deleted (sometimes very quickly). You can ask about the Commons file at c:COM:VPC if you want other opinions on its copyright status.
    Finally, since the local non-free file is shadowing the Commons file, you're either going to need to request a rename one of the two files or wait until the local non-free is deleted per F5 before adding the Commons file (the software will keep using the local file over the Commons file if you try to replace the former with the latter because the file name is the same). If you follow approach (2), you don't need to do anything regarding the file's syntax; the software will automatically replace the non-free with the Commons file after the former has been deleted. You should, however, make sure to remove the "deletable file-caption template" if you used one and also update the caption if necessary once the non-free has been deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The two images look like different scans of the same source photo. —Cryptic 08:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Quick1984: If the two files are bascially the same as pointed out above by Cryptic, then there's really no need for the local file to be deleted because only the copyright status of the original source (i.e. the film) matters. Since creating a screenshot or cropping an image are pretty much never considered sufficiently creative enough acts to generate a new copyright, you can simply convert the local file's licensing to the same one used on Commons and replace the non-free use rationale with Template:Information. However, you'll still need to deal with the file name issue if you either want to move the local file to Commons or want to use the Commons file instead of the local file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not scans but movie stills probably made closely in time to each other. Quick1984 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:William Boleyn Archdeacon of Winchester d.1582[edit]

    I recently (last week) created an article in Article Wizard entitled William Boleyn Archdeacon of Winchester d.1552. I then tried to SUBMIT it but there was no SUBMIT button. After some difficulty I discovered that I could MOVE it out but it would not allow me to do so unless I changed the title (which I did not want to do). I didn't know what I should change it for but I gave it some new name and the MOVE was successful but there was no mention of a review. Since then I have received 2 incomprehensible and unreadable emails from your HELP desk and I have no idea where my article is or under what title. Can you find it for me? If you can please let me know whether or when it will be reviewed. Please don't send me loads of gobbledygook. I am NOT a computer man, just a user. Thank you, Andrewcliftonpayne Andrewcliftonpayne (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrewcliftonpayne, your draft is at Draft:William Boleyn Archdeacon of Winchester d.1582. You should be able to submit the draft for review by tapping the blue button at the bottom of the header, just above your text. Folly Mox (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please add Welles Crowther to the list of notable alumni of Belmont High School, Belmont, MA[edit]

    Dear Sir or Madame: I have noticed today that the list of the notable alumni of the Belmont High School (Massachusetts) does not have the name of Welles Crowther who was a hero of September 11, 2001 and was an alumni of this school. The article should absolutely include his name as well. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Irina Matveeva Author of several Wikipedia articles 2601:19B:F00:AE0:E1FA:F42:50BB:2443 (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In order to add Welles Crowther's name to the list of alumni, we would need published evidence that he attended that school. Shantavira|feed me 15:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, multiple sources say he grew up in Nyack. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to his obituary, Welles Crowther attended Nyack High School and is listed as an alumni in that article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Best method for using {{sic}} template inside Reference tags?[edit]

    I am sorry to ask what is probably a dumb question, but I've read the MOS/SIC material over multiple times and studied the SIC template enough to understand how to apply the SIC tag in the normal text of an article, but when I try to use it within a Reference tag, it does not display as I would expect, and I've grown frustrated with trial and error testing to get something that renders the SIC tag "properly" in the References section and adheres to WP best practice.

    So, I'm humbly asking for help.

    What is the best way to indicate that a typo exists in the source material within the Reference tag so that it shows up "properly" in the References section at the end of the page?

    Note, I have read and understand the preference to silently correct trivial typos. This particular use-case is called into question when the typo is in the title of a referenced work, posing a risk to a researcher's ability to locate the source without making the typo part of their query. ShoneBrooks (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason that doesn't work is that |title= in {{cite web}} becomes part of a link, but {{sic}} also makes a link. You can't have a link inside another link, so it breaks. I changed it to {{sic|nolink=y}}, which suppresses the inner link. Rummskartoffel 17:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Thank you! ShoneBrooks (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing username[edit]

    What is the best procedure to usurp an existent username (of an inactive user) and set it as my global user account name? — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 16:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:UNC. However, it doesn't seem like a good idea to request someone else's username as it might lead to confusion.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the last time the guy was active was in 2006... — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 16:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But why is it important to have his username? This would only lead to confusion.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    aighty then, will look up another name, thanks! — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 16:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:USURPNAME would be the exat policy on this, but you can't usurp a username that was ever active here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't true. I started out on Wikipedia as User:Amatulic, but my username in most other places on the internet is Anachronist. The name 'Anachronist' was already taken on Wikipedia, and it had one edit and hadn't been active for several years. Eventually that username was changed to something random because the account was abandoned (sort of like what happens with WP:VANISH) and the username became available. Now it's mine. You can usurp a username from an abandoned account that has edited. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In your case the old account (Special:CentralAuth/Anachronist-retired) was apparently controlled by you, so of course you could have it renamed. More generally, the renamers are willing to ignore accounts with a de minimis number of edits. If the number of edits isn't de minimis then how long ago they are is irrelevant. There's no exact definition of "de minimis", though. But I've been thinking about renaming my account to just "Perry", which I probably can't do since Special:CentralAuth/Perry has 70 edits on German Wikipedia in 2006. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Plot present tense[edit]

    The Eternaut is a comic with a narrator character that introduced himself in the begining and then procees to narrate his story, from first-person perspective. Except for the prologue and epilogue (the character showing up to narrate his story, and his actions after doing so), everything in the story happens in the past. Should the plot be described in present tense anyway? Cambalachero (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:FICTENSE said on the matter: "Conversely, discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well." So the answer to your question is no, for events that took place in the fictional world's past, it should be written in the past tense. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:PLOT, the guidance on plot summaries recommends narrative present and quotes Citizen Kane as an example where non-linear storytelling elements have to be explained in out of universe perspective.. WP:FICTENSE is part of an essay and recommends historical present tense, but makes an exception when talking about fictional history. TSventon (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What to do if I disagree with notability reason for rejection[edit]

    My biography article was rejected due to notability, but I do include a ton of secondary sources, also this person I am writing about is quite well known in the Buddhist world. I believe the rejection was done in error, because the reviewer did not see the many references that are secondary sources. It's possible the reviewer did not see those because they are interspersed among other sources that are primary (the biography person's own writings) but the reviewer may have missed the secondary sources in the references (there are 53 references there).

    Most of the references in the "Chronology" section of my article are valid secondary sources.

    These may have been confused with primary sources as follows: some of these sources are the audio talk or article of the person being written about. However, these are well known websites (such as dharmaseed.org) and I include those links because they contain an introductory paragraph about the author whose biography this article is about. If the DharmaSeed website writes the biography of Santikaro - isn't that a good enough secondary source? I include many such secondary sources but as I explained about the reviewer may not have followed them and may have thought they are primary sources.

    I am not sure what to do - this person is hugely well known lay teachers of Buddhism in the West. How am I supposed to enhance or fix this article if I thought I already found all secondary sources out there that I could find. There are at least 10 in my list of 53 references. I am extremely dissapointed with this verdict because I believe it is super unfair. There are so many other teachers who do the same as Santikaro but have accomplished much less, yet they have a page on here.

    Please advise on what I can do to find better secondary sources. Or if I could just resubmit this as-is, hoping for a more reasonable reviewer to do their job.

    Thanks for any consideration! Peaceful-D (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you begin a discussion with the reviewer who declined it. I suggest you point to your three best sources - if the reviewer was not impressed with the quality (reliability and independence) of many of the sources, then more sources would not improve things. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Peaceful-D. Your draft was declined not rejected. Those are very different outcomes. Your draft is over-reliant on primary and non-independent sources. The backbone of an acceptable Wikipedia article is the list of references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic and that are entirely independent of the topic. I recommend that you rewrite Draft:Santikaro to summarize what the highest quality independent sources say about him. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]