Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

Page semi-protected
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


    Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    March 18

    How do I recommend a change to Wikipedia's code

    I am reading this Press Your Luck scandal#Episode and I was thinking, why doesn't currency conversion act the same way age does on Wikipedia? With age, you put it in once and Wikipedia automatically does the math, why not this? People have to manually put it in for every new year! NotQualified (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Currency conversion is not linear (like age) and not predictable. Shantavira|feed me 09:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversions of this type are generally table driven in industry, so you would need a lot to make it granular enough to use effectively on WP. If calculated by formula it would be really rough, so its not done that way. Its not a simple problem. scope_creepTalk 10:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about "$2,500 (equivalent to $7,566 in 2024)" in that article? The wikicode used is "{{US dollar|2500|1984|long=no}}". {{US dollar}} uses a lookup table for inflation and updates itself every year. Commander Keane (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems with uploaded images

    I uploaded an image (File:Andre Roch Skiing.pdf) for an article (Draft:Krederick Kaeser), but it came out too small. I couldn't find how to modify the file, so I made a new one (File:Andre Roch Skiing pdf2.pdf), which was better (but not perfect). I looked at "Files for Deletion", but could not follow the instructions. Can I ask someone to 1) remove the unneeded file Andre Roch Skiing, 2) rename Andre Roch Skiing pdf2 as Andre Roch Skiing, 3) remove white space from the second file? Thank you. Pbergerd (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a help page about translation not from other Wikipedias?

    Someone's asking about whether literal translations should be capitalized, so I want to point them to a generic project page that covers how to provide translations of foreign text on English Wikipedia, but I can't seem to find anything about that.

    I went to Wikipedia:Translation, but that's specific to translating from foreign-language Wikipedias into English. I looked through the hatnotes and the "Are you in the right place?" box, but didn't find anything appropriate there.

    I thought there might be a Manual of Style page, but searching for "translate" didn't bring up anything quite what I'm looking for.

    BTW, if I do find exactly what I'm looking for, I'll probably edit the "Are you in the right place?" box to include it.

    Thanks — W.andrea (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC) edited 17:08[reply]

    I found a relevant template, {{Not English inline}} (will render an inline notification that a certain phrase or sentence needs equivalent translation in English, such as a direct quotation in a foreign language), but it doesn't have any links in its description, which is a bad sign :/ — W.andrea (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @W.andrea: I think the answer to "whether literal translations should be capitalized" is follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, which starts Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. As an example I checked Achilles and the text inside the template is not capitalised: Podarkes, "swift-footed" (lit. 'defending with the foot'.
    I looked for the word "foreign" in the MOS and found MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE and MOS:FOREIGN. MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE has instructions starting Quotations from non-English language sources should appear with a translation into English. It doesn't mention capitalisation so generally translated text does not need to be capitalised. MOS:FOREIGN doesn't have instructions. TSventon (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. I'll pass it on to the user who asked the original question. Myself, I was thinking of the article about the band Noir Désir which gave the translation with capitals: "Black Desire", but you've convinced me to uncapitalize it ("black desire").
    BTW, regarding "defending with the foot", I'm not sure where that came from since it's not in the cited quote and doesn't seem to make sense, so I went ahead and removed it. But by the same token, "swift-footed" is a literal translation and is not capitalized. If it helps, from what I can tell, it's glossed:

    pod-

    foot.GEN

    ark-

    swift.ADJ

    -es

    ADJZ

    pod- ark- -es

    foot.GEN swift.ADJ ADJZ

    'swift of foot'

    — W.andrea (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @W.andrea:, thank you, I did notice that "defending with the foot" didn't seem to make sense, but I didn't change it as I haven't studied ancient Greek. TSventon (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Spurious ] in rendered text

    Why this bracket?

    Why is a spurious ] rendering at the end of the external links section in this diff? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @BillHPike: Looks like it got fixed in this diff. Extraneous ] in one of the categories, apparently. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there was a spurious bracket lower down. I fixed it :) — W.andrea (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Escape sequences when searching with regex?

    When searching for articles using regex with "insource:" or "intitle:", it seems like escape sequences like \n, \b, \d, and so on get treated as simply the characters "n", "b", "d", etc. Is there a way to... actually use them? Revolutionary girl euclid (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Revolutionary girl euclid: Sadly, no. The help page Help:Searching/Regex describes the supported regular expression features. There are some workarounds at the bottom of that page. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Revolutionary girl euclid:, no, and that's not all you can't do, alternation (OR) being the elephant in the room. There are some weird workarounds that are almost like alternation, e.g., PCRE (blue|green) can be done as [bg][lr][ue][ee]n? but it's not really the same thing, cuz that also matches glee, but if you know your possible inputs in advance and what can be excluded as a possibility, then sometimes this workaround can be useful (albeit rather opaque). Btw, for \d just do [0-9]. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    March 19

    about citation

    Hi, I have some trouble in inserting singles' ciatations on an album article. If album's singles articles exist, and their citations are already inserted on singles articles, then when we write "Single" paragraph on an album article, should we use 'same citation' that are inserted in individual singles articles? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 01:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I report that an editor is censoring my addition?

    I provided a source that is reliable and an editor deleted my addition for no reason at all. My understanding is that as long as I source something with a link from a good source that is sufficient to add a fact. I do not know how to report moderator for inappropriate removals. Photolarry (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Photolarry, without trying to figure out which of your edits was undone (called "reverted" sometimes) the general advice is to discuss on the talk page of the article, or ask the user on their talk page. Was there an edit summsry? Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may apply. Calling it "censoring" is not the best way to approach the issue in my opinion, try to assume good faith - it may have been a mistake or vandalism. Commander Keane (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, @Photolarry. Wikipedia is developed collaboratively, and as far as possible, disputes are settled by discussion and negotiation, not by appeal to some "moderator" or other authority (there are no moderators in Wikipedia). See WP:BRD and then WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit was adding this entry to March 18 date page. [1] which is a significant event. Why does this moderator think it ISNT an event? @Kiwipete seems to think I violated some WP event rule but after reading it, makes no sense. This is literally the definition of a significant event on a date. He wants me to petition on a talk page which I find futile for such a minor thing. Why he is wasting all of my time on this is rather silly. I think it is an abuse of power. And yes youve said censorship might not be best word. Regardless. Either add this properly or dont. I am done caring. I keep my own blog of history and just wanted to add something significant. I did not expect to be arguing for days about something so minor. Photolarry (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the actual code that was removed by @Kiwipete
    Photolarry (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Photolarry, if this is so minor, then why does it belong in an encyclopedia? And if Schick began marketing his electric razor on that particular day, how can it reasonably described as successfully on the very first day? What reliable source says it was successful the first day it was sold? Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it should read "Began selling the first practical electric razor in New York City" without the word successful. Is that a good compromise? Britannica just says 1931 but according to a few other sources the date of March 18 is mentioned.[2]https://www.onthisday.com/date/1931/march/18 Photolarry (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a celebrity oriented gossipy "fun fact" site that does not devote significant coverage to the history of Schick razors. It says nothing about success and is not even a full sentence. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Photolarry please don't get disheartened about Wikipedia it can be brutal! I think these date pages like March 18 require a definitive, important date. In this case May 13 may be better with the line

    1930 - Jacob Schick successfully patented the first electric shaver

    The articles Jacob Schick and Electric shaver don't explicitly mention May 13 1930 but they link to sources (including the patent history filing) that do. So, if it appropriate to get the exact date in Jacob Schick, you can suggest the factoid for May 13. The good news is that there is still time to get this done for readers of "On this day" this year :-). I haven't looked at the inclusion guidelines for date articles, but you can always suggest it on Talk:May 13. I have used Schick disposable razors, but didn't realise the founder was the father of the modern electric version. So it is an interesting fact for me at least. Commander Keane (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Schick markets first electric razor".

    Redacting personal information posted by a minor

    Is there an established process for redacting personal information posted by a minor? I won't post the link here simply becayuse it draws more attention to it. I can initiate a Rev/Del for Copyvio via Twinkle but I can't see a good option for a simple redaction. Admin noticeboard seems too heavy handed. Any help appreciated.  Velella  Velella Talk   02:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:Oversight. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I guess that may be an over-the-top process for a dealing with a teenager revealing the names of her parents and siblings, and some private family issues, especially when one parent has a Wikipedia article and is easily identifiable. A simple admin suppression, as for attack edits, would probably do the trick. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   03:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it wouldn't. This is the sort of thing an administrator shouldn't view any longer than necessary, especially given WP:Protecting children's privacy explicitly says it should be elevated to Oversight ASAP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   06:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Undeletion of my file in Wikimedia Commons.

     Courtesy link: Commons:User talk:Warriorglance § File source is not properly indicated: File:DZJfc-global-distribution-of-syriac-orthodox-christians.png

    Hi! Recently, the work I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons got deleted. File is File:DZJfc-global-distribution-of-syriac-orthodox-christians.png. This is map displaying the global distribution of Syriac Orthodox Christians. It was deleted because it "did not have a valid source". The data to create the map was obtained from this source which is archived in archive.org. I had also clearly given the source in the description page of that file. So, my doubt is, Is it allowed to take data from a book that is available for the public in an archive and convert into a visual representation(i.e map)? Is it against the copyright laws? Should I request for undeletion of that file? Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, in the first instance I would request undeletion and explain what your source is to the deletion admin. The first edition of the book is published in 1998. The version you used is published in 2022. It is not a public domain source. Wikipedia commons is extremely rigorous on this. I would look for public domain sources and reformat the map to use these, not from this book. scope_creepTalk 08:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok well, does Wikipedia articles count as public domain sources? The article Syriac Orthodox Church has data similar to this. Warriorglance(talk to me) 09:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left the deletion editor a note to find out if there is more to it. scope_creepTalk 08:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you click on Commons:File:DZJfc-global-distribution-of-syriac-orthodox-christians.png the reason for deletion is "No license since 10 March 2025". When uploading a file on Commons you need to confirm that its copyright licence is appropriate for Commons, so probably you didn't do that correctly. You could also read Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, which says Facts cannot be copyrighted, but the way they are presented can be. TSventon (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Warriorglance: it would probably be better if you asked your questions at Commons:Commons:Help desk as suggested on your Commons talk page. The talk page message says If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. I understand you have prepared a map using numbers from a 1998 book. When you upload the file you need to confirm where you got the original map from, where you got the numbers from and that you are releasing the file with a licence that is suitable for Commons. The Commons help desk should be able to advise you on how to do all that correctly. TSventon (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I never knew it existed. Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    PROOF READ BEFORE PUBLICATION

    Is it possible to share an updated Wikipedia page before it is actually published? JusticeforAll (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to create a draft and submit it for a review by another editor before it is formally a part of the encyclopedia, you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft.
    If you want to edit an existing article, but want other editors to examine your proposed addition first, you may use the article talk page to share your proposed addition first, or even make an edit request(click for instructions) to formally ask another editor to examine your proposal, and if valid, add it. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One way to do this is to write your updated version (or copy the article with your proposed changes) in a sandbox, such as User:JusticeforAll/sandbox, publish the update at that page, and then share a link to it on the article talk page (as 331dot said just above me). Reconrabbit 13:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Fair Review of Edit Request

    I have diligently followed Wikipedia guidelines by replacing unreliable references, adding credible sources, and addressing concerns raised. Despite these efforts, my edit request regarding the Gangwar (surname) page has been repeatedly dismissed without valid justification. The cited sources are from reputable authors and publishers, and I have provided detailed author credentials as requested. Rejecting these references solely because the authors lack a Ph.D. in history is unfair, especially since this is a surname article, not a historical dissertation. I respectfully request a fair review of my proposed changes. If there are concerns, I encourage editors to provide evidence rather than dismissing my contributions without cause. I remain committed to improving the page and cooperating with editors. 4rju9 (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    4rju9 That you don't like the answer doesn't mean the review was unfair or biased.
    The issue is not that the sources are in a particular language, it's that the sources are not reliable sources. If they are, please show where they have a history of fact checking and editorial control. You were notified of the restrictions when editing about the topic you've chosen(you removed them from your talk page); the rules are enforced more strictly in such topic areas.
    And we don't disagree with the Supreme Court of India in the respect you mention on the article talk page- we know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see the Wikipedia:General disclaimer. It's also not valid to use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article, see Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    331dot Just because you dislike the edit request doesn't mean the changes or sources are unreliable or invalid. Please stop asking repetitive and frustrating questions like "show me this," "show me that," or "tell me this." I'm not an experienced editor, but I'm genuinely trying to gather accurate information. You can't reject edit requests solely because you disagree with them.
    Previously, I faced similar criticism, so I paused editing to focus on research and sourcing. Now that I've gathered credible sources, I'm still facing biased treatment. If you have a valid objection, provide your own evidence to disprove my sources instead of raising baseless concerns.
    You mentioned my responses, yet ignored how editors have repeatedly rejected my efforts unfairly. Also, how many Wikipedia sources are exclusively from historians with Ph.D. degrees? Editors are unnecessarily adding obstacles by citing rules that don't even apply to my request — most were optional and irrelevant in this case. Furthermore, why did he even mention that No Hindi source in his first response and you did not mentioned it there nor here. this is called being biased.
    I respect Wikipedia and its editors, but instead of creating unnecessary barriers, bring your research and evidence if you believe my sources are invalid. It's disheartening to see no one contributing to that page, yet when someone outside the community tries to help, editors gather to reject their efforts with baseless objections. 4rju9 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    4rju9 I don't have a particular interest in your dispute; I merely looked at it to be able to respond to you.
    It's not up to others to disprove your claims, it's up to you to prove your claims. If you believe the denial of one of your requests violates a Wikipedia policy, please start a discussion at WP:AN. Disagreement with your requests is not the reason they are being declined.
    This is a collaborative project, you need to work with the community; not attempt to impose your will on an article because you think you are correct. Attitudes like that in certain topic areas are precisely why those topic areas have stricter rules. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You managed to give a biased response without looking carefully in the matter. When i have provided sources and answers all the questions that were asked still they marked it not done without any fair reason without taking the matter seriously. Thats called being biased and miss use of the powers over new editors. You're telling me (who was answering to all the questions asked with proper research) to co-operate and work with the community and not attempt to impose will, how am i imposing it with proper 4 sources. It's them who are not cooperating and using their will to reject. About the attitude thing i could blame the same sentance on you and others. Why should allow myself to tolerate to such behaviour. Everything was biased. And that thing can't be denied anymore as it is in the talk page now. 4rju9 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You use the word "bias" but it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Again, that you did not get the result you want does not mean that the process was unfair or that policy was violated. If you feel a policy has been violated, please go to WP:AN. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I did "look carefully into the matter" and it's offensive of you to claim I didn't. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry i didn't mean to offend you. And thanks for guiding me regarding this matter. 4rju9 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AN is to describe a policy violation. If you just want others to look at your content dispute, go to WP:DR. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a disambiguation page. I'm not really sure, even if those were completely reliable sources, that the text would be suitable. Whilst some surname dab pages can have some history of where the name came from, I'm not sure something that seems to suggest it is completely owned by a family is all that helpful. I second what 331dot says, it is very much your responsibility to prove why your sources are reliable and posting here could be construed as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Best practice in article naming for a UK show

    Hi, I have just created an article for a UK TV series that differs (entirely) from a U.S. series of the same name; I called it Hullabaloo (UK TV series), to distinguish it from the (later, American) Hullabaloo (TV series). However now I am wondering whether "UK" in the title should be changed to "U.K.", or even "British". I note a reference used elsewhere which seems ambivalent regarding the abbreviation, namely: United Kingdom Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (May 2017). "Toponymic guidelines for the United Kingdom". GOV.UK. 10.2 Definitions. usually shortened to United Kingdom ... The abbreviation is UK or U.K. I also note from the Wikipedia Category British television episodes by series the term "British" is used, no "UK" at all; should I perhaps rename the new page to that? All advice appreciated. Regards, Tony Rees, Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    British seems to be correct, per UFO (British TV series), Heartbeat (British TV series), Survivor (British TV series). TSventon (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I confirm what said @TSventon. I found "As If (British TV series)". Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And As If (UK TV series) is a redirect. TSventon (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon The redirect confirm I think we had to write "British". What do you think ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anatole-berthe I agree. TSventon (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Finding a few examples is fine, although I would be happier to see a statement of official policy somewhere. As a matter of interest I note a discrepancy, "British TV series" seems to be favoured on Wikipedia, however the equivalent items on Wikidata use "UK TV series", see e.g. Life on Mars (British TV series) has an entry at the bottom that reads: Wikimedia Commons has media related to Life on Mars (UK TV series). Nonetheless I will move my article to have "British" rather than "UK" in its title, leaving the latter as a redirect. Thanks. Tony 1212 (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tony 1212 Personally , I think you asked a good question because of the discrepancy between "Wikipedia in English" , "Wikidata" and "Wikimedia Commons".

    I can say. In my knowledge , there are not any official policy.
    When there are not any official policy or guidelines.

    We follow non-written usages on Wikipedia if the thing is about Wikipedia.

    Each projects is independent of each others.
    For example , "Wikidata" isnt "Wikipedia in English".
    Another example. Wikipedia in English language is not "Wikipedia in French". Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon Concerning your message from "MARCH/19/2025" at "19:53 UTC".
    I note you agree with me. Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tony 1212:, you probably want Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), which recommends "(British TV series)", following a 2019 discussion. I found it by checking the history of As If (British TV series).
    As @Anatole-berthe: says en Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons all have their own policies for naming pages. commons:Category:Life_on_Mars_(UK_TV_series) was created in 2015 so it is possible that Commons are following the en Wikipedia naming policy from before 2019. d:Q1071501 has an English label "Life on Mars" and English description "British television series", rather than English label "Life on Mars (British TV series)". I believe that is standard, but I am less familiar with Wikidata than with en Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon: Thanks you for the page about naming conventions for television.
    Now , I know it does exist a guideline about that. Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    removing a redirect

    I want to start a page for a musical artist under that artist's name, but it currently redirects to a band's page that happens to have that musicians name as part of the band they were in. Now, that artist has enough to warrant their own page under that artist's own name as a solo artist. How do you manage this? Ravin9976 (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Before starting a page, consider using the WP:AFC process to develop the article and have a human reviewer take a look at it first. You could write the article directly over the redirect, but, as I'm assuming this is your first article I'd recommend going through the aforementioned AFC process. Departure– (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't my first article. I've written many. But haven't encountered this situation. Ravin9976 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always (not that I reccomend this before asking around) just remove the redirect template from the page and put the article there. I've expanded an article from a redirect before.
    MallardTV Talk to me! 23:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the correct infobox to use for a Youtube channel which isn't created by a single person?

    Hi all

    I'm writing an article for a popular Youtube channel which certainly reaches notability requirements. I don't know which infobox to use, I know about Template:Infobox YouTube personality but I don't think this really fits because it has writing staff and a lot of regular contributors, its not so much centred on one person. Is there another infobox I could use instead?

    Thanks

    John Cummings (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You can use Template:Infobox YouTube personality! You don't need to use every blank. Smaller youtubers usually don't.
    MallardTV Talk to me! 23:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    John Cummings, the template documentation specifically says The template may be used for individual YouTube personalities or collective YouTube channels run by more than one person. Cullen328 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    March 20

    Notability musings

    I consider myself a relative old-timer so this question is not about getting the usual links but a general feeling from others.

    When I actually added content back in 2006 "notability" wasn't a strict guideline, more of a concept. When I wrote an article, I looked for significant coverage in secondary reliable sources and if there was enough I created the article using the content I found. If no books or journals applied to the subject I used newspaper databases (this was when journalism was somewhat more credible than today in my opinion). That is where I stopped, I didn't then scour the internet for official or industry websites to fill in any gaps.

    Move on to today, WP:N exists and in the nutshell says the notability guideline does not determine the content of articles and below links to the usual NPOV, V, NOR for content rules.

    This codification change became apparent when I discovered Christopher J. Einolf, a Wikipedia biography with no biographical details from secondary reliable sources. I had an involved discussion on the talk page with the article creator and became of aware of "notability" for academics but I assumed the intent was that since this writer was mentioned in books a lot that biographical details would emerge in the future (or that as notability was established I wasn't looking hard enough). Fine.

    Jump to today I found Quintessential (company). Several mentions in newspapers, basically they bought this or that building for $200M. So probably "notable", but the rest of the article is just regurgitating their website or refers to industry websites. The websites are published, the article seems balanced (as yet I haven't been able to dig up any dirt or anything particularly interesting). If I removed everything not from a reliable secondary sources there wouldn't be much left. So is it up to me (a Wikipedia editor) to decide how much content, and from which websites, to include? Commander Keane (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That article has a problematic history. It was declined several times at AfC and then REJECTED by @Robert McClenon on 27 Nov 2024. Then on 12 Dec, the article creator @User:Commercialindustrial made a few changes then moved it to mainspace. On 3 Jan 2025, @लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक moved it back to draft, noting "Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace". Then today, Commercialindustrial made a couple of very minor changes and moved it back to mainspace again. This editor's contributions appear mostly promotional. CodeTalker (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As indicated by User:CodeTalker, that page has issues. In this scenario, (at least from the information you've given), I'd recommend putting it up for deletion through WP:AFD mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Middleton family

    I cannot work out what I have done wrong with ref number 126 which I have just added. please fix. It is a from a journal from which I am citing. I am so sorry Srbernadette (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Srbernadette I don't know how to fix it but it looks like you used the wrong citation template; according to the reference you used the Journal template but did not fill in the "journal" parameter. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed the error. TSventon (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered working with a specific mentor that might be able to help you detect these errors before you make them? 331dot (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Archive disconnected

    Suspicious Russia-related deaths since 2022 has several times changed names. I was at the Talk page, looking for older discussions and could only find them by using History. Eventually I found Talk:Suspicious_deaths_of_notable_Russians_in_2022–2024/Archive_1 but there is no link to this Archive on Talk:Suspicious Russia-related deaths since 2022. My question is: how to create a link to the archive on the talk page? Lova Falk (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lova Falk I checked Help:Archiving a talk page and added {{Archives}} to the article talk page. Archive 1 was redlinked so I moved Talk:Suspicious_deaths_of_notable_Russians_in_2022–2024/Archive_1 to match the current page title. That seems to have solved the problem. TSventon (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    TSventon Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit requests

    If the talk page for an edit request gets archived, should me mark the edit request as answered? I see many in the pending edit requests lists that have been archived TNM101 (chat) 14:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably depends on if it's suitable to do the edit request. Archival doesn't mean that the text isn't suitable for inclusion, rather that no one has made an edit to that part of the talk page. I'd recommend evaluating the edit request when it's been seen the same as any other.
    If someone has edited it and it went stale, then maybe. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! TNM101 (chat) 14:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TNM101 and Lee Vilenski: the information page section Wikipedia:Edit requests#Archived edit requests says If the article talk page has archiving enabled, edit requests may occasionally be archived before being answered. If the request might still be considered, move the edit request back to the Talk page. Otherwise, if you believe the archiving shows there was no consensus, simply close the request by changing the |answered= parameter to "yes". The section was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests/Archive 2#Archived edit requests. TSventon (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How to reach en-checkusers

    Hello. I have tried contacting en-wiki checkusers for over a month now to be given the local ip-block exempt user group. I have tried to get through the offical route (checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org) and tried messaging the checkusers directly. No response. I won't be able to tell more about my situation publicly, but without it, I really can't edit in this wiki. I have the global IP exempt group to allow to work in Commons and Wikidata. Are my options to just wait or just message a steward I happen to be in contact with? Thanks. --Osmo Lundell (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Osmo Lundell If you are editing this page, you are not affected by a block. We can't force the checkusers to talk to you. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Thanks for your reply, even though it wasn't very useful. Obviously I'm using another, tempotary way to send this message, normally I couldn't do that. Would you happen to know one of your checkusers that has been active recently and ping them here? --Osmo Lundell (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Osmo Lundell According to the global log here you already have the right since 5 February. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They have global IP block exempt, which does not help with local blocks. Presumably they are having issues with a local block. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 15:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, I'm asking for the local user group. --Osmo Lundell (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've made 15 edits in the last two days(and one a few days before); were these all by this "temporary method"? Is it not something that you have access to long term? 331dot (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not. Is there an active checkuser around? --Osmo Lundell (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Osmo Lundell apologies, your email was indeed send to the correct place but no one replied. Taking a look now. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much! --Osmo Lundell (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A "403 Forbidden" domain, down since 2016

    There are over 100 references to a website called Relationship Science. When currently trying to reach this domain, my browser tells me it's a dangerous site, and the Wayback Machine (Archive.org) seems to indicate that 2016 was the final year that this domain actually worked. Is the protocol on Wikipedia to find suitable permanent links from Archive.org to enhance each of these references, or would it be more helpful to readers to remove them? Without having done any research, I'm not sure if this Relationship Science platform is (or ever was) a truly reliable source. It seems like it was some kind of "semantic web" network for business people's names, like LinkedIn, but begging for paid usage. - Whole milch (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that making archive links is the standard, assuming that "Relationship Science" is a reliable site. Wayback Machine is what I personally use for archives.
    MallardTV Talk to me! 18:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You could ask whether Relationship Science is reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard and give a couple of archived examples, e.g. Inderpreet Wadhwa and Nikolay Banev. TSventon (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Relationship Science. TSventon (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If your research indicates that prior to 2016 it was a reliable source, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests to have all of the links marked as "usurped", but still use the references in the article with safe archive links. Reconrabbit 13:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How to close a requested move discussion?

    Second Trump tariffs has had a discussion going for nearly two weeks. Everyone agrees with a name change but but consensus is a little unclear, partly because new alts were offered throughout the discussion.

    How do we decide when to end it? Also, WP:RMCI says we need an uninvolved editor to close it but not where to ask for one. Where do I find one? satkara❈talk 23:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello satkara, good to see you here!
    To close a Requested Move (RM) discussion, follow these steps:
    1. Is It Ready to Close?
    RM discussions usually last seven days, but can go longer if needed.
    If most people agree on a name, it’s ready to close.
    If there’s no clear agreement, more discussion may help.
    2. Who Can Close It?
    You can’t close it yourself if you're involved in the discussion.
    You need an uninvolved editor to close it.
    3. Where to Find Someone to Close It?
    Ask for a closer at:
    Wikipedia talk:Requested moves – The best place to request help.
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard – If the move is controversial.
    WikiProject talk pages – If the topic has a related WikiProject.
    WP:ANRFC (Requests for Closure) – If the discussion has gone on too long and needs a decision.
    4. What Happens Next?
    If the move is approved, the page will be renamed.
    If it’s unclear, the closer will explain why and may suggest further discussion.


    If you think i failed somewhere feel encouraged to ask question i would be happy to answer. Sys64wiki (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I looked out at the same discussion page and found out that the actual consensus about the article have not taken place since alts are still being discussed. I advise you to wait a little and perform the closure of discussion page when majority reaches consensus? Sys64wiki (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    March 21

    "The topic seems to be likely notable, but poorly sourced"

    How do I source it properly? Can someone help me with this, all the information is public on the internet and I have added the links I used under the "reference" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rheinmetall_Nordic 

    OleBj (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, OleBj. Please read the guideline Notability (organizations and companies). A company is eligible for a Wikipedia article when it is the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are entirely independent of the company. Your draft has six references. Five are published by Rheinmetall itself, are not independent, and are therefore of no value in establishing the notability of the company. The remaining reference (#2 currently) is about a predecessor company and is also of no value in establishing the notability of the successor company. We already have an article about the parent company Rheinmetall, so perhaps describing this subsidiary can take place there, unless you can come up with references to multiple sources that actually establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the citation includes Wikipedia itself which seems funny way to use reliable sources. This is the reason the article is failing to be published. I would advice to use sources that are both trusted and outside wikipedia such as journals, other articles or books. Please note that blogs are not reliable sources because wikipedia think them as promotion. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not English

    Template {{Not English}} is not allowed to be used in drafts?

    1. Why not?
    2. The documentation does not provide an alternative, so what should I use instead?

    Polygnotus (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no point in adding templates, illustrations, categories etc to any draft article as they do not contribute towards notability. Most draft articles never get to be an article. Focus on getting the article to the point where it meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Shantavira|feed me 09:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't start the draft. And it contains text in a language other than English. Which is why I want to tag it so that someone who speaks that language can translate it. Polygnotus (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they actually submitted a non-English draft, it would get declined as a non-English draft. It's also possible that they have the non-English text there so they can then translate it themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Article Name Change

    I was about to make some major edits to a current Wikipedia article. One of the edits I had envisioned was to change the name of the article. The article is currently under the French title of the island, "Île Sainte-Marguerite". However, since this is the English Wikipedia server, I can see no reason why this Wikipedia article cannot be under a commonly used English title for the island, i.e. such as the direct translation "Saint Margaret Island (France)" or at least "Sainte-Marguerite Island". Can someone let me know the procedure or protocol for changing the title of an existing Wikipedia article? SMargan (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    SMargan Please see WP:COMMONNAME first; as you seem to suspect, an article title should be that which is most commonly used in English-language reliable sources. If you believe that "Saint Margaret Island" is the most common, you may want to first post on the article talk page to see what other editors think. If you get a consensus agreeing with you, or if no one objects, you can then request a page move at Requested Moves. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot (talk) - In particular "Île" ("Island") is not a word used in English at all that I am aware. Based on what you have said, I think that the "Sainte-Marguerite Island" option is probably more appropriate. I have a thread for the talk page already. Therefore, I will make the major changes I have already been working on and then post a discussion on the name change to the talk page, and then I will make that request to Requested Moves as you have suggested. SMargan (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As 331dot says, it's more about what we most commonly call the subject in English language sources. There's nothing wrong with a foreign title, even if there is an English version available if it's the one that is mostly used for the subject. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Policy

    Hi, I recall there was a policy or guideline relating to excessive US focus on articles. Does anyone recall what this is? I was not able to google it and find it. Specifically I was referring to this edit I made, in which an editor wants to include US SEC lawsuits in the LEAD of an article largely unrelated to the lawsuit. The policy I recall was about excessive focus on US policy in wikipedia articles, as essentially a weight issue. Maybe someone knows what I am looking for, maybe it was an essay? As I get older I cant remember all this stuff :-) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For a start there is an explanatory essay with a section Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus. TSventon (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Making a Bibliography

    I am in a college class and have to make a bibliography as an assignment. After going to the page sent to our class and clicking on edit, the only thing it will allow me to do is add an undocumented parameter. And after doing that I cant find it. MacKJMm13 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's very hard for us to help when we don't even know what page you were directed to. Wikipedia has no control over what tasks your teacher assigns. Maproom (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected sock puppets?

    Hi, I have a suspicion of a suspected sock puppet account operating. Can someone please direct me to where I can forward it to someone with Wikipedia:CheckUser permissions to have a look? Many thanks Nayyn (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nayyn There are several options at Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting a checkuser. TSventon (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you, I saw this, but was a bit confused as there are a few different methods. Should I reach out to a checkuser individually before proceeding to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations ? Not sure what the right procedure is to do here. Many thanks Nayyn (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nayyn Probably best to go straight to WP:SPI, as there will be several people watching that. Be sure to read the instructions carefully. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    many thanks @Michael D. Turnbull Nayyn (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nayyn could you check the date of the first edit of the newer account? TSventon (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    hi @User:TSventon I did, the second account was made when the previous account was under an indefinite ban. The ban was later lifted I guess but both accounts are still active. User:Nayyn (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nayyn New account 16 April 2024, ban 19 April 2024 to 22 April 2024, or am I confused? TSventon (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not sure how long the ban was active, but the user did not use the banned account again until late May 2024 the 2nd account was made in on May 11 2024. It was scary to submit it because it seems like a serious action but I was suspicious so just went ahead. Nayyn (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page Archives

    Hello everyone out there, I'm starting to feel like my talk page is starting to get full. How can I archive? Gnu779 ( talk) 14:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gnu779: Help:Archiving a talk page has some options. I am using cut and paste. TSventon (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I tell bots to do it for me? Gnu779 ( talk) 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnu779 Help:Archiving (plain and simple) usually works well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There's a few ways. You can manually move the items to User talk:Gnu779/archive1, or use a bot, instructions are at WP:AUTOARCHIVE, although it can be a bit complicated. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Hi Gnu779 Please see User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo which includes quick instruction and more detailed explanations. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx Gnu779 ( talk) 15:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1281657435"