Wikipedia:Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 393: Line 393:
:::Please read [[Wikipedia:Article hijack]]. Your behavior has been disruptive. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
:::Please read [[Wikipedia:Article hijack]]. Your behavior has been disruptive. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
::::And you're [[WP:ARBPIA4|playing with a particularly nasty fire.]] —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Jéské Couriano]]</small></sup> 19:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
::::And you're [[WP:ARBPIA4|playing with a particularly nasty fire.]] —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^_^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Jéské Couriano]]</small></sup> 19:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

== Not sure what else is required to publish an article ==

I was very rudely insulted by one of the team members (theroadislong) and accused of being "clearly not notable," even though I am mentioned in other articles (for example, Kelela) for my music production work as well as being signed to a very highly regarded label (Stones Throw Records) and having released music for many years. I was simply looking for help on how to post information about the work I've done, with reliable sources. Please DO NOT send me a reply from that same user, I will not be insulted again.
If more information is needed about me, it can be found at and if you need more sites I can send plenty.

Revision as of 19:58, 24 January 2022

The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • For other types of questions, see Help:Contents and Are you in the right place? 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.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
  • If you need real-time help, you can join our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
  • If you are a new editor, you might prefer to ask your question at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
  • Remember to sign your post by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Alternatively, you can click on the signature icon (Wikipedia edit toolbar signature icon) on the edit toolbar.

January 21


Why are articles such as Donald Trump allowed to have over 100kB...even though Wikipedia:Article size states articles over 100,000 characters should, "Almost certainly should be divided." Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ak-eater06. As should be obvious, it is much more difficult to gain consensus for major changes at an article like Donald Trump than at less contentious and lower visibility articles. It is easier to gain agreement to add a little bit of well-referenced content than to split off a major block of well-referenced content. The day will come when Trump is no longer a factor in day-to-day politics in the U.S., and maybe a "slimming" of that article will become possible at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
If you take a look at Special:LongPages, you will see that there are currently 30 articles that are longer than Donald Trump. Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
A huge amount about Donald Trump is already split out to other articles with a summary section in the main article per Wikipedia:Summary style. The guideline about 100 kB is from 2007 when Internet connections were slower and some browsers had technical limitations. Many editors consider it obsolete, or would ignore it if they knew about it. I don't expect Donald Trump to ever go below 100 kB. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
User:PrimeHunter source for the 2007 claim? (not that I doubt you). Ak-eater06 (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Diff. See also Wikipedia talk:Article size#Documentation of the history of WP:SIZERULE. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
User:PrimeHunter Thanks. My next question is why haven't these restrictions been removed (especially with our advanced technology fifteen years later). Ak-eater06 (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
As an aside, I wouldn't say that size ruling is obsolete. We now have a lot of mobile connections. I don't know about you, but loading that article from my phone is a bit of a mission sometimes! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention that, aside from any technical limitations that may have inspired the rule, which may or may not be considerations now, there is the fact that the target audience of our articles are humans with limited attention spans. Our articles are not books, they should be able to be read in a single sitting. I think if at article is so long that it would take the average reader more than an hour to read, it's too long. Last time I read through the Donald Trump article, it took just about an hour. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If someone cites a paywall source, does it count as an eligible citation? Or should it be removed?

Ak-eater06 (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. —Wasell(T) 08:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
It's really no different than an offline citation of a book. Just because you can't access it via the internet doesn't invalidate it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair use image to other language Wikipedia

If a picture is fair-use here, what is the process of using that on other language Wikipedia? Would I need to reupload it on the other Wiki? Or, there is nothing can be done about it? Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 12:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You would have to manually upload it to another Wiki. Although first, you would need to check that language Wikipedia's rules on fair use content (some language wikis don't allow any non-free images for example), to make sure it could be used there. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 12:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Name Disputed tag?

What would be the appropriate template tag for the *name* of the person being disputed. Several IP editors have attempted to change the name of Alpha Kappa Alpha founder Ethel Hedgeman Lyle to Ethyl Hedgemon Lyle over the last week. I'm not sure they are wrong (Alpha Kappa Alpha *itself* has changed the name on their website), but would like to direct them to the talk page rather than having to protect the website. "Disputed" and "Disputed Section" both seem wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talkcontribs) 14:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

At first glance, {{Disputed inline}} would seem appropriate. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Reticon Company:

I was a R&D manufacturing engineer with GM for 40 years. I bought Reticon chips for measuring machines. We bought a machine from Diffracto (Canada) that could measure jet engine part diameters to +/- 12 microinches +/- 3 sigma. It was obvious at the time that once the big boys saw what Reticon was doing they would bury them like IBM did all those small microcomputer companies that had better machines. Reticon was a true pioneer in digital camera development. You know what a pioneer is: a guy lying face down in the dirt with arrows in his back. David Monnier Allison Div, GM 1964-2005 (lasers, holography, microcomputers, robotics, PLCs, computer vision, special machines)16:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Why are you posting this here? 331dot (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, IP user. We have an article Reticon, and you are welcome to add to it, but only information for which you have a reliable published source: personal recollection and knowledge is regarded as original research, and not acceptable as a source anywhere in Wikipedia.
I wonder if you have looked at that article, and are reacting to the notice at the top that it may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and may get deleted. That notice has been there for more than ten years (though now you have drawn people's attention to it, somebody might pay attention to it!) If that is your point, then I'm afraid that no amount of personal recollection, or assertions of the company's importance, is relevant. What is needed to bring that article up to the basic minimal requirements of Wikipedia is several citations to reliable published sources, wholly independent of the company, which cover it in some depth. It is possible that the New York Times article does so (it requires a subscription to look at it); but judging from the title, I suspect that its content is peripheral to an article about Reticon.
If you have such sources (they don't need to be online, but they must not be written or published by Reticon or its associates, or based on press releases from them) then you're welcome to add citation to them - if you're not sure how to cite a source in an article, post on the talk page Talk:Reticon, giving bibliographic information about the sources (like author, date, title, publication, page number). --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Many pages, identical error, need to correct in bulk

In 2010, 250 pages were generated on Wikipedia relating to dams in India. lines 1 to 252, less a few disambiguation pages, links them. All I have checked so far have transferred cubic volumes from referenced source material to the article incorrectly, changing units of 1000 cubic meters into cubic kilometers. The dams therefore appear in the articles to be larger than they are in fact.

Where on Wikipedia can I connect with a bulk correction team who know how to employ macros across many pages? JohnHarris (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, John. That sounds like the sort of thing one of the bots could do. Please look at WP:Bot requests. --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you @ColinFine, I'll move that way. JohnHarris (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-english growth team program mentee

Hello! I've signed up as a mentor for the "Growth Team features" and I noticed that one of my mentees is a non-english user. Their username isn't in English and their only edit so far is also not in English. I'm wondering if there's a way I can unclaim a mentee as I am only able to speak and understand English, so having a mentee that doesn't speak English doesn't work all that well. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The user in question appears to no longer be my mentee. DOn't know if someone else did something or if something I did caused it but thanks. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Move Muscogee (Creek) Nation to Muscogee Nation

New name since 2021 needs to be renamed to make it simplified and it's the new name for our tribal nation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwv (talkcontribs) 19:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't do it myself, as Muscogee Nation is "occupied" (with two edits), so I've initiated a request to move the page; it should show up at WP:Requested moves#January 22, 2022 within half an hour. You will be able to comment there. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Highest grossing tamil movies list

You people included

1.Bahubali the beginning
2.bahubali the conclusion

In highest grossing tamil movies list these three are not tamil movies they are telugu movies if you people say that it is a pan Indian movie then you should include it in other languages list as well Kindly remove these three movies from tamil movies list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharath Ramasamy (talkcontribs) 21:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Bharath Ramasamy, "we people" didn't. Probably almost all the people reading this help page, like me, have never even looked at that list article before, never mind edited it. If you want to engage with people who do take an interest in that article, the place to make your suggestion is the talk page of that article, Talk:List of highest-grossing Tamil films, or perhaps at WT:WikiProject Film. I note that the articles about the three films you mention all say that they were filmed simultaneously in Tamil and Telugu, and in the case of Saaho, in Hindi as well. If you don't think they belong in the Tamil list, it is up to you to argue the case and persuade other editors to agree with you. The three films are also in List of highest-grossing Telugu films. Saaho is not in the Hindi section of List of highest-grossing Indian films but it appears from the numbers that it does not rank in the top ten of those anyway. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Bharath Ramasamy, there are sources for both Bahubali films in the list that state they are Tamil films. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Usage of Wikipedia text in commercial game

I would like to have tooltips in a commercial video game that use text from various Wikipedia pages. There is no space for attribution and no ability for hyperlinks. I can include attribution in a dedicated credits page but I still can't include hyperlinks. I would need about 500 unique tooltips. Do I have any options here or is this unreasonable?JohnWik99 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JohnWIk99. Thank you for taking the trouble to check how to attribute. It seems to me that a credits page with the URL would be adequate, even if that URL is not a clickable link. WP:Reusing Wikipedia content says To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

January 22

Changing password or email

If i change my password or email, will my contributions reset to 0 and all the rights that i have will dissapear? Vitaium (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vitaium: No, nothing will change. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Vitaium: If you never want to use your account again, you can change your password to something you can't remember. After that, you can start a brand new account, and start building a new contribution history and gaining user rights. OR you can change the user name of your account, if you want to retain your contribution history and rights. To change your user name, see Wikipedia:Changing username.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How to use wikipedia

I don't know how to use wikipedia and search some information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:B:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! To use Wikipedia for find some information, you can use the search bar at the top right of any page. Or go to and use the big search bar there. For more information, see Help:Contents. Enjoy! GoingBatty (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
With the skin changes the search field may either be at the centre top of a page or on the left-hand side of the sticky header. Just click on the OOjs UI icon search.svg icon and start typing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How can you add a portlet menu like Twinkle's?

RT. I can't find anything on Help:Customizing_toolbars. Thanks. --魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@魔琴: Yes, although it requires some complex skin-dependent javascript code. See MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js#L-250 and following for how twinkle does this. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Is the script dependent on something? I got a "too many errors" warning when I tried to fork it. --魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@魔琴: that particular function (Twinkle.addPortlet()) is only dependant on jQuery, though the overal Gadget-Twinle is dependant upon a ton of other stuff as visible on MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, some of which are the menu entry submodules. Amongst others:
Note that in particular the subgadgets might have dependencies too. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The whole thing is also visible (slightly improved) on Special:Gadgets, though that one includes all submodules. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Oh thanks, I didn't see the (window, document, jQuery). Can I ask one more question? Where was Twinkle.defaultConfig.portletArea defined? --魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Its literally defined in the exact spot your link goes to (well for the vector skin atleast), the others are in the like 20 next lines of code. If you mean Twinkle.defaultConfig thats defined further up the page in the same module. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still working on it. Thank you so much! --a js-0 user, 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


Reproduction system — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear IP editor, this is the Help desk where you can ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia articles. Did you have a question?--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Reproductive system may be what the OP is looking for. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

replacing an article with a fuller, longer one

Is one permitted to delete an existing article and replace it with another fuller article, written by someone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:44F1:4A00:9CE3:68AA:7E2A:69C (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to say without specifics, but it doesn't sound like a good idea. One obvious problem would be copyright, as all text on Wikipedia has to be free to redistribute. The other problem is WP:CONSENSUS. This is built up over a period of time and should not be overridden. If you want to propose major changes to an article, it is best to discuss them on the article's talk page first.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It would help us to give a better answer if we knew the article involved; there are circumstances where that might be okay and ones where it might be not okay. I assume with "replace it by another, fuller article written by someone else" you mean that you would be the author. 10:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 331dot (talkcontribs)
I suggest that in most circumstances it is better to modify the existing article incrementally with (well-referenced) additions, corrections and rearrangements. Consensus can then be established for each step change, rather than making one giant leap which might be hard for other interested editors to swallow in one gulp. Rome was not rebuilt in a day. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
2A02:C7F:44F1:4A00:9CE3:68AA:7E2A:69C, assuming you mean that you want to entirely rewrite a Wikipedia article, you will want to bring it up on the article's Talk page. Be sure to state the deficiencies of the article, as well as the sources, or types of sources, you intend to base your new article on. It is polite to ask if any other editors might want to pitch in with suggestions for the new article. If anyone becomes upset at your offer, and no other editors come to your defense, bring the situation up at the Teahouse before proceeding. --Quisqualis (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC closing question

Hello I have a question about RFC procedure at Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory. An RFC is currently running about a passage in the article here: Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#RfC:_Original_research_issue? opened by RaiderAspect.

RaiderAspect has removed the passage in question saying that "consensus has been reached" despite the RFC having not been formally closed. I reinstaded the contested text because the RFC is still ongoing (and Raider has reverted me again). What is the correct way forward here? I was under the impression that while an RFC is running, it should not be enforced (and certainly not by the person who opened the RFC). Thanks Mvbaron (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, my understanding is that this is a procedural dispute rather than a content dispute; all of the RfC participants, including Mvbaron, have agreed that the text in question fails verification. I would not have made these edits if anyone had defended the passage, or if the RfC hadn't already been fairly well-attended. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree it is procedural, but isn't the correct way to wait for an (uninvolved) closer of the RFC? or at least propose a close at the RFC and then proceed to close? Right now, the RFC is still ongoing but the text in question is already removed. Mvbaron (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The content in question, and any other attempt to suggest that Feldman is making an 'argument' about etymology, does not have a SNOWball's chance in Hell of surviving the RfC.  Tewdar (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
RfC is now closed.  Tewdar (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
omg, you can't close it either. You're involved. Mvbaron (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I proposed a move to close at the RFC per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs: "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the rfc template."--Mvbaron (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Comment - RFC has been closed by an uninvolved editor. and the policy-discussion has been moved here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_involved_closures --Mvbaron (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are you being bought by big pharma ?

I will not donate another cent and now consider you useless source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

[citation needed] What are your sources for this extraordinary assertion? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
We are not being bought by big pharma, we don't allow advertising, and editors are volunteers who couldn't be controlled if the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia was paid off by big pharma. In case you think we are unfair to alternative medicine, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
We're being bought by Big Pharma? Then where is my payment? I've always wanted a Lamborghini, and maybe I can buy one when my money from Big Pharma comes in!--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Do not respond to posts that are intentionally worded to seek a reaction instead of a dialogue. Just revert it off. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello anonymous editor. Wikipedia's content standards do not take the Wikimedia Foundation's financial needs into consideration. At all. And thank you for your previous generosity.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC with no concensus

About 30 days ago, I opened a RfC but no one has answered it. What can I do to find a consensus? Dr Salvus 15:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dr Salvus It would help if you linked to the discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
331dot, Here's the discussion. Dr Salvus 16:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Dr Salvus You started a talk page discussion, but it is not marked as a formal Request for Comment(RFC, which is a specific thing). This is why no one else has replied. Please read the instructions at that link for information on how to start a formal RFC. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias on Wikipedia

I would like to be directed to the correct page on where to go if I have concerns that the bias on Wikipedia leans towards a liberal side rather than addressing both liberal and conservative. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: this comes up a lot, but the short answer is content is based on the sources that are used. Perhaps start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Systemic bias. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Interstellarity (ec) Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. Wikipedia does not provide equal time to all sides of an issue irrespective of how sources cover it- coverage of an issue depends on the sources. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.
Wikipedia does claim to have a neutral point of view in terms of how information is presented- but again, this is different than claiming to be unbiased. If you have a concern that a partcular article does not present the given sources neutrally, or that the sources are not accurately summarized, please discuss that on the associated talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. That helps a lot. Interstellarity (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
It has been observed (in a satirical context) that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: another point: the English Wikipedia has editors from all English-speaking countries and from other countries. Many non-US people consider the US to be fairly far to the right, Even US "liberal" positions seem to be to the right of center. US liberals are still fighting for "progressive" things that are taken for granted in many other places, such as universal health care, free education, paid maternity/paternity leave, and free child care. -Arch dude (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What happens if one is proposing a merger but doesn't get any reply?

Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06: Hi there! In general, I suggest reviewing the guidance at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. If you provide the articles in question, we can provide more detailed suggestions. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
User:GoingBatty I'm talking about this: Talk:Domestic policy of the Stephen Harper government#Merger proposal. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ak-eater06: That's helpful - thank you! It's been less than 24 hours. Responses may take several days. Looking at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers#How to propose a merger, you've done step 1. Next, you could do step 2 and determine if step 3 is needed. GoingBatty (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This has no banned symbol but is tagged as such

this file claims it contains nazi imagery, this is not corret. can i simply remove the category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindestriche (talkcontribs) 19:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bindestriche: I don't understand why the "Summary" description has 30+ other images, some of which contain the Nazi swastika. I suggest you ask at the Commons help desk: commons:Commons:Help desk. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thank you --Bindestriche (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation template for a patent

I'm trying to cite a patent (it's something I have never tried before), and, while my citation looks OK, it is sitting within the text of the article, rather than in the references section. I followed the example here. What went wrong?--Quisqualis (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: It was missing the <ref>...</ref> tags, which I added in this edit. Hope this is what you were looking for, and thanks for improving the article! GoingBatty (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, GoingBatty. After spending some time on the intricacies, I forgot the basic format!--Quisqualis (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Usage of "he" rather than "his government" in politician articles

For example, on Franklin D. Roosevelt, there are many parts that say, "he did this, he did that" (like, "He also instituted major regulatory reforms related to finance, communications, and labor, and presided over the end of Prohibition."). But isn't it supposed to be "his government" as it's realistally impossible for him to have done this alone. Or is there some rule on Wiki I'm not aware about? Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ak-eater06, it's standard practice nearly everywhere, including on Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ak-eater06: Standard practice by politicians, press, and people in general to credit the politicians for all the good things that happened, and criticize the politicians for all the bad things that happened, regardless of how the politicians themselves actually influenced the outcome. GoingBatty (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ak-eater06:To clarify, if you are concerned that, due to such language, a certain article on Wikipedia isn't neutral, you can compare it to similar articles on WP and note whether it preferentially and excessively uses the style you describe. Note that,,as an encyclopedia striving for brevity, WP may use such language as a sort of shorthand, particularly in the lead sections of biographies, which summarize the rest of the article.
Roosevelt, for example, was a popular president; many sources give him credit for the accomplishments of his administration. The sources used for the article may take a similar approach. Wikipedia aims for stylistic consistency among articles, provided the consistency doesn't come at the expense of accurately restating what the sources say.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert Hugh Miller

Yesterday I edited the page on Robert Hugh Miller (my great-grandfather). His year of birth was previously shown as 1826, which may have been based on some biographical encyclopedias. However, there is a photograph of his tombstone on Find-a-Grave, showing his year of birth as 1828. That seems to me a more certain datum. My question has to do with how to properly show the reference source on this. Wm. J Pease.William J. Pease (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@William J. Pease: Hi there! Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing articles about people related to you. I reverted your edit to Robert Hugh Miller based on the date mentioned in reference #2. (You also didn't change the year everywhere in the article.) I suggest you post on the article's talk page Talk:Robert Hugh Miller with the {{edit request}} template, a link to the Find a Grave page, and any other reliable published sources you have about his birth year. Or, you may use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@William J. Pease: Note that according to WP:RSP, Find-a-Grave contains user-generated content and is therefore considered unreliable on Wikipedia. You should find a better source for the change that you wish to propose. CodeTalker (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@CodeTalker: Well, I don't know how much difference it makes, but he actually said it was a photograph of a tombstone ON Find a Grave. So in this case, the "user generated content" is a reproduction of what might be seen as a primary source. (Although, I think a tombstone, surprisingly, might not be the most reliable of primary sources.) Uporządnicki (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, a photograph of a tombstone is certainly a primary source, but not a particularly strong one, because there's no guarantee that the grave is actually of the subject person and not another with the same name. "Robert Hugh Miller" is not an uncommon name -- a quick Google search reveals a number of different people, some living and some deceased, with that name. CodeTalker (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, my own thought was this: My father marked his own father's grave with the date of birth my father had been told. But for years, my father suspected that his father was a few years older than my father had been led to believe. His father was born in Poland (as my own father was), years before two world wars marched back and forth through that country. The point, of course, is that people who don't die tragically young are typically buried by survivors who weren't around when they were born. So unless they have the official documents, they're going on what they personally have been told. Uporządnicki (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good point. There are a number of reasons why information inscribed on a tombstone might not be accurate, especially something as long before the inscription is made as the birth date. CodeTalker (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It also strikes me that 1826/8 is a surprisingly early date (though not of course impossible) for the birth of a great-grandfather of someone active today. It would apply, for example, if the OP's grandparent, parent and himself were all born when their parents were on average about 40 (an unusual sequence), and he himself were 74. One hopes that the OP has other corroboration, such as preserved family records, for this being the correct Robert Hugh Miller. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

January 23

Any way to see an article that's been deleted?

Is there any way to see an article that was deleted in 2010? I wouldn't expect to be able to find something that slandered a person or gave out information that should be private, nor would I expect to find something that was a flagrant violation of Copyright. But this was none of those. It was "lines of equal latitude and longitude," that is, places where the latitude and longitude happen to be numerically equal. It was deleted as useless. I suspect that it probably was, but I find myself incredibly curious to read it. This is all the more so because, while the article itself was deleted, there are quite a few articles on very obscure places (articles that probably very few people would ever read) that state that one or the other such line passes through or near the place.
"So is there an "articles deemed useless" Purgatory or Limbo? Uporządnicki (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK: Hi there! See the #Accessing a deleted article section above, where we're discussing the same thing. GoingBatty (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@AzseicsoK: The usual way is to ask the deleting admin, in this case Courcelles, to provide you with a copy. Courtesy links for other editors, the page was Lines of equal latitude and longitude and the deletion discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lines of equal latitude and longitude. I'll let Courcelles know that they have been mentioned here. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: Please don't go to any trouble--or put this Courcelles to any trouble. It's idle curiosity--nothing more. There's also the point that Commons actually has two maps of those lines. I found those when I tried Googling the subject; those and some of the Wikipedia articles (as well as a few things that obviously copied those articles) are all I can find. The lines form a kind of figure-eight from the North Pole to the South Pole--meeting, of course, at the fictional Null Island, which does have an article. Uporządnicki (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
AzseicsoK wayback machine has one copy stored, from 2010. Naraht (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

question re category key, for a category for templates

I'm trying to change the category key used for template:Start tab, as it appears in Category:WikiProject tab header templates. The reason for this is that, since this category is used to compile specific tab headers as customized and utilized by individual Wikiprojects, I feel that the generic forms for these templates should be grouped together, at the beginning of this category.

I tried to change the category key by using the following text to set the category:

[[Category:WikiProject tab header templates|*]]

However when you visit the category Category:WikiProject tab header templates, it appears that this category key has not had any actual visible effect. I don't know why it has not had the usual effect. could you please assist? Please ping me if you reply. thanks. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 03:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The category is added via a transcluded page Template:Start tab/doc. This often causes a long delay when a category is changed, or a sort key like here. I have made a null edit of Template:Start tab to force an immediate update. A purge would not be enough. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
that's good to know. I appreciate your help with that. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 04:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The search box issue

Clicking on the search box isnti responding,why?l — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:16:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! It's hard to troubleshoot such an issue when you haven't mentioned any technical details about how you're accessing Wikipedia (e.g. mobile app, mobile view or desktop view, brand of hardware & software). When weird things like that happen to me, I can usually fix them by either purging my local browser cache, restarting the browser, or restarting my phone/computer. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Titling glitch in Billy Bishop

I find myself unable to make third level subtitles under "World War I" show in title box.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: It says {{TOC limit|limit=2}}. Just remove it if you don't want it. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I did not think to look to the problem up there.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to make a new article what is the best way to do this

I want to make a new article how. Quiet2 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Quiet2 First gather the sources that meets the demands of WP:GNG. If you can't find such sources, pick something else to write about. Then learn how to use those sources as references in the article, see WP:TUTORIAL. If you can't source it, don't add it to the article. Then move on to WP:YFA. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Quiet2: Hi there! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you have limited experience editing articles. In addition to WP:TUTORIAL, you may enjoy learning how to edit by going on The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills before tackling a new article. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Pregnancy but without sex

How to do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:30FF:16:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a place to ask questions about Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article on In vitro fertilisation.--Shantavira|feed me 09:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
And there is also
--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Also Artificial insemination. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Scotts Fork, Virginia

[1]<--What exactly is the current status (and unavoidable immediate future) of this article, and what are the options for seeking a stay of execution? Scotts Fork is admittedly not exactly a newsmaking metropolis (probably much to the relief of local residents), but it's a lot more than just a placeholder in the GNIS. There's not a road map of Amelia County produced in the last 50 years, print or otherwise, on which the name doesn't show up; and the Virginia Dept of Transportation considers it noteworthy enough to list on mileage signs approaching it (one example is shown here):,-77.8865709,3a,75y,182.82h,88.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJgx5aeNmXTCxtV6_VNptzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Noteworthiness is contextual. Nome, Alaska, pop. 3,699, wouldn't show up on world maps if it were within 300 miles of New York City. Scotts Fork is in the middle of a vast rural expanse dominated by logging and farming. The landscape is dotted with quaint, unsophisticated little communities where not much happens. A crossroads with Civil War history, a universally recognized name, a working Exxon station, and houses nearby is quite significant.

Surely being small, quiet, and unobtrusive is not a capital crime...I object most vociferously to the sentence that was passed on this village's Wiki presence in my absence.

The moderator who closed the deletion discussion (User talk:Daniel) suggested I leave a comment with the person who nominated this article for deletion (User talk:Wizzito), but it's semi-locked, and so I have no way to get in touch.

-- 2603:6081:8004:DD5:51C:8F86:ED2F:527E (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The deleted "article" consisted of a single sentence saying that Scotts Fork is an unincorporated community in Amelia County (sourced to GNIS). If you can find sources of information about a "Civil War history", and about anything else of interest about the place, other than its mere existence, creation of an expanded and referenced article would almost certainly meet with no objection. Deor (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! You can still see the previous article at,_Virginia&oldid=1053867756 if you like. You can recreate an expanded article at,_Virginia&redirect=no if you like. User talk:Wizzito states "If you wish to contact this user, please do so via an email message", so you could click the link there to get in touch. You can also comment here with {{ping|Wizzito}} like this: @Wizzito: to notify Wizzito that you would like them to take part in the conversation here. GoingBatty (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scotts Fork, Virginia and WP:GNIS for the deletion rationale. wizzito | say hello! 16:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
FYI my talk page is closed due to long-term harassment by other users. wizzito | say hello! 16:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Also pinging @FOARP: and @JPxG: as contributors to the old deletion discussion wizzito | say hello! 16:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

In need of help to have a title with a "/"

Hello. The article Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible should be Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible. However, I cannot manage to do it without creating bugs (I have already attempted this page move in October 2020‎, before moving everythig at the current title to synchronise the talk page with the main space). I remember having read somewhere that such a title could be done, but I do not remember how. Could someone help me? Veverve (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this at WP:NC-SLASH, which says it should work in the main namespace but can cause some problems - I suggest reading that section carefully (it's only short) and make sure you understand the limitations.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Of course, you won't be able to move it at the moment, because Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible already exists, albeit as a redirect to the other article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I have some ideas to make wikipedia better

I have some ideas to make wikipedia better. My idea would be who can edit or rewrite or change - everyone already does that, what if we had verified profiles?

This would increase the chance that the pages are authentic and real. Nowadays people still don't see that wikipedia is a great system of articles for research. Some people think that if you say you read wikipedia, that's a joke. they laugh at you

My idea of verified profiles is to say that the page was edited by someone who has credibility and also honesty and reputation to do so.

People can still edit but it would be nice to include this verified profile feature on wikipedia

Another thing we can do is allow scientists or public figures to also edit through what I call the usual content references, which is to associate the article with the facts.

For example, we have bibliographic references that is something interesting. Another way we can do it is to associate content, for example we can have this symbol @ that requires the person to refer someone to rewrite that article, something that twitter does when you want to make hashtags

Another thing that I find interesting is to put as public statistics of the article, how many people read it, how many people edited it and as well as how people can see how the article is relevant or not

Another thing that I think is relevant is having a democratic system of knowledge, putting the most recent posts, least recent by vote levels

Another system that I think is interesting to include is a comment system on the facts, so that everyone can evaluate what is missing in the article to be edited.

Another thing we can do is include a star system, so we can rate the articles that people like the most.

Another idea is to have better marketing with universities around the world, so that they encourage people to edit wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:658C:4219:C488:7919:1EE1:A8B (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Literally all of this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's mission:
Do your research, please. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
"Page information" under "Tools" in the left pane of the desktop site shows the number of page watchers (example). If it's below 30 then only administrators can see the precise number. Others see "Fewer than 30 watchers". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  1. mw-pageinfo-watchers

January 24

First time split

I bodly split an over-long episode list: Ancient AliensList of Ancient Aliens episodes. This would be a first for me. Other than adjusting the box and line colors, I am not confident I applied all other bells and whistles a list article of this kind would require. Is there a guide for such a split, and what other changes should I apply? Thosbsamsgom (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Thosbsamsgom: Congratulations; that looks great.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
There is one problem I found, sorry. In Ancient Aliens, the season number in the table of episodes is meant to be a Wikilink to the relevant season. That link has been broken now; they need to be changed to something like List_of_Ancient_Aliens_episodes#Season_1_(2010).--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Including the underscores? Thosbsamsgom (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Used the includeonly tag. Seems to be working. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Upload: cannot answer questions

I am trying to upload a picture that cannot go to Commons because it is in copyright in Ireland. (It is PD in US.) I filled in the form but there were two questions that had no space provided to answer. The Upload button remained gray and I am stymied.Roryjohnston (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the form you tried to use? Maproom (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Invisible maintenance messages on cite templates

For the past three days, it seems that just about every time I preview a change, the following message appears at the top:

Script warning: One or more {{cite book}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).

However, there are no maintenance messages to tell me what the actual problem is. I looked at the Help and it talks about putting special code somewhere to hide messages, but by default they should show - I have never done such coding. So where are the messages? What is the problem? I took a good look for obvious problems and I can't see them, but some of these articles have lots of refs so I really need some sort of hint where to look. Are other people getting these messages, and what do they mean? Any help gratefully received.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, other people are seeing the same messages. A question was asked at Help talk:Citation Style 1#templates have maintenance messages, but there is still confusion. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
It appears to only happen when previewing an edit. I have noticed the previewing your edit has been a bit buggy lately as when I previewed my edit of adding {{clear}} to KING WIKIPEDIAN DCCLXIV's user page some of the userboxes showed up as broken code, but not when the edit was actually published. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Proof of the right of the photographer

Hi friends, I took a photo of a public figure in our small town, and that person posted his photo in most of the cyberspace, and now I am writing for that public figure. How can I prove the photo I took to Wikipedia?--Nazanin1376 (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

For further context, see User talk:Nazanin1376#photographBlaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Nazanin1376 According to the exif data alongside the photo on Commons here, it was taken on a ILCE-7M3 camera, which has a 24 megapixel (6000 x 4000 pixel) sensor. The upload looks like a crop of that, to 3673 × 3961 pixels. I, too, would have cropped the image to make a decent picture. However, if you still have the original at full resolution, you could upload that and this would surely convince anyone that you were the original photographer. Alternatively, you should ask the subject, Zahra Meygoli, to email to confirm that the uploader of the photo was entitled to do so as its copyright holder. Such an email would be confidential. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
If Nazanin took the picture, they would be the copyright holder. Meygoli would have nothing whatsoever to do with it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What No Logo for the 2022 Pro Bowl Why Didin't You Upload it for. (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

We're all volunteers. Why don't you upload it, if it is something you are interested in? You can use WP:FFU if you need help. RudolfRed (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing the Stjephan HAUSER page


I am contacting the Help desk regarding my recent edit to the Stjephan HAUSER page. I am working for HAUSER and these edits were specifically requested by him, because the current page is filled with false information and needs to be updated to the version that I attempted to create (a few times now). I am wondering why the changes are seen as "not constructive" when the current version of the page is completely false, and the information that I have attempted to provide to Wikipedia is coming directly from the source. I would like to know how to edit this page so that the current Wikipedia page of Stjephan HAUSER can be changed to the new version that I have tried to edit it to.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Sheen1013 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to read about conflict of interest, and you must make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Sheen101e (ec) You are required by the Terms of Use to declare as a paid editor, please see WP:PAID. Please also read WP:COI. You should avoid direct edits to the article on your client, but you may propose formal edit requests(click for instructions) detailing changes you feel are needed. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, not necessarily what the subject might want it to say. However, if those sources are not being accurately summarized, please say how on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Sheen101e Wikipedia does not want and will not accept "information directly from the source" because we have no mechanism to verify it and no desire to establish such a mechanism, and our volunteer editors are not required to identify themselves. Instead, we insist on attributing our information to "reliable sources" that do have such verification mechanisms and who are not anonymous. We apply this rule to all statements in all articles: any editor may remove any unsourced information at any time, often after reaching consensus. We try to be especially rigorous for information about living persons (see WP:BLP): editors are not merely permitted, but urged, to immediately remove unsourced assertions in this case and reach consensus only after that removal. -Arch dude (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The term Israelism

The term Israelism is not some stupid song, as is shown on Wikipedia (someone's advertisement). Israelism is a Biblical religion, with a specific definition. I need help to add the correct definiton of "Israelism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you call the song stupid? It was a big hit. We have articles on British Israelism and the Black Hebrew Israelites. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
In order to add content to Wikipedia, you need to provide a reference to a reliable published source that verifies the information. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Article hijack. Your behavior has been disruptive. Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
And you're playing with a particularly nasty fire.A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what else is required to publish an article

I was very rudely insulted by one of the team members (theroadislong) and accused of being "clearly not notable," even though I am mentioned in other articles (for example, Kelela) for my music production work as well as being signed to a very highly regarded label (Stones Throw Records) and having released music for many years. I was simply looking for help on how to post information about the work I've done, with reliable sources. Please DO NOT send me a reply from that same user, I will not be insulted again. If more information is needed about me, it can be found at and if you need more sites I can send plenty.