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 16

    I have a feeling someone is following me watching my every edit, and it's making me uncomfortable

    I have a feeling that someone (who I will not name) is WP:HOUNDING me across Wikipedia. They once even showed up on my talk page for an unrelated matter. How can I prevent this? It makes me uncomfortable. Félix An (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the good thing is to ignore, but if you're feeling uncomfortable, it might be best to email an admin and let them know who is hounding you and they will see if it needs a warning or a block. I don't think going to the ArbCom is required right now, unless there has been any off-wiki harassment or there is confidential information. I will let you know that some editors might be tracking your edits as you were recently unblocked, and this kind of following around is not usually considered harassment as it helps them to see if you have done any violations of your unblocking criteria TNM101 (chat) 07:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing an article name before closing discussion?

     Courtesy link: Nia (charity)

    Hi, An editor moved an article I wrote to a new name without doing WP:Beforemoving. I moved it back because the name they moved it to was not appropriate for the geographic region the article refers to. I told them to be mindful and to please do some research before moving a page.

    In response, they put a name change discussion tag on the page to move it a second name. I responded with an objection.

    After the discussion was up for a few days, this editor then adjusted the name under discussion to a 3rd name.

    This was done without changing the name discussion template and without closing the prior discussion. They just adapted the tagged name. Is this ok to do? Some of the points in the prior discussion refer to the initial name (the 2nd one) that the discussion was posted about.

    This editor also accused me if having a conflict of interest with the subject of the page. I do not have any relationship to the subject of the page. This is a personal attack.

    At this point it feels the drive to change the name on the article is not based on any benefit to the article, rather it's a personal grievance against me because I reverted their first name change. What should be the best course of action here? There's not much discussion on the talk page as it's not a controversial page. I don't think the behavior is appropriate and I'm not sure what to do here. Nayyn (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a note at MPian's talk page to find out why the name change took place. scope_creepTalk 09:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article clearly states that its in British English so the name shouldn't have been changed. Its known as a charity, been in existance for 50 years so that is likely the common name. I've not done an archival search but its known as Nia (charity). The website refers to it as Nia. Its one of these names that are easy to remember, you can attach to it easily. The editor who changed it is fairly new, 3 months I think, so its inexperience. I see what the note says, when they come in. scope_creepTalk 10:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why the article was moved to Nia (organization), but the official name is "the nia project", which means that Wikipedia policies on capitalisation and names beginning with "the" are relevant. Based on the first five references, it is reasonable to argue that the "Nia Project" is the common name of the organisation. TSventon (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon: Where did you find that. scope_creepTalk 10:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it.That is the official name. All their docs refer to it as Nia. Even the recent website redesign. scope_creepTalk 11:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:COMMONNAME, en Wikipedia looks at what independent reliable sources call a subject, not what the subject calls itself. TSventon (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, but your not confusing it with this Project NIA or this Emory School of Medicine Nia Project? scope_creepTalk 12:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, that's what I was going off when the article was first written, also to keep it succinct. Nayyn (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the article was moved to Nia (organization) by the editor who later submitted the name change discussion. I reverted it because it was inaccurate, and then they submitted a name change discussion under The Nia Project.
    After I pointed out it should not use "The" in front of the name, they edited the name discussion to Nia Project without indicating this and suggested that I had a conflict of interest.
    I didn't want to link to the article in my original query as I didnt want it to feel like I was canvassing. I appreciate the help here. Nayyn (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you all for chiming in here and on the talk page of the article, I really appreciate it. Nayyn (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources

    Another WP:CITEVAR question, if I may. I'm doing some work on The Tempest and I see two differing footnote styles. If you look at its References section you'll see what I mean. References 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 (etc.) take a different form from most others. The majority of footnotes use the {sfn} template and link through to something in the Sources section - whereas these and many others use a {cite book} or {cite web} template. I acknowledge that achieving perfection might be a lot of work - but would the perfect solution be to create all the sources in the Sources section, and then to turn all footnotes in the text into {sfn}s. It would then all be consistent. AndyJones (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you intend to take it to GA? scope_creepTalk 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article was going GA, they would like sfn tags as its nice and clean and easy to review. But it looks as though as its under some development. There is a lot of cn tags. The majority are in sfn, so I would convert the rest to sfn tags. Its a quite a small number. That article needs a wee bit of love and care. I've copyedited somewhat to fix a couple of problems with references. scope_creepTalk 10:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The Tempest is already a GA, so I checked the approved version and all the sources were in the sources section there. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that. Its been horsed a wee bit. I'll give you a hand. Answer to question. Yes. scope_creepTalk 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a GA but it is undergoing quite an overhaul at the moment. Look for my name in the edit history for all the gory details. A lot of the {cn} tags were recently added by me but I am in the process of killing them all off. Thanks everyone for your help so far. AndyJones (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyJones: I intend to do more. I noticed that some may be refering to the whole possibly, as a version of The Tempest. I posted a list to the talk page on what I find. scope_creepTalk 12:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant, thank you @Scope creep:. As you can see I'm working my way through the major sources of the page, gradually, so do feel free to post anything you consider problematic on the talk page (where you'll see there's already the discussion GA concerns) and I will fix/delete/replace as appropriate. Thank you to @TSventon: also. AndyJones (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notifications for WP:Peer review requests

    Hi, I volunteer to do peer reviews and am subscribed to Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_unanswered_reviews#Philosophy_and_religion, but for some reason I don't get notifications when new requests are listed. Could anyone advise? I'm open to helping out in other areas as well, but it's only this one for which I would like to receive some kind ping or notification.

    Many thanks, Patrick (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Patrick Welsh When I navigate to the link you supplied, I see the possibility to click on "subscribe" to that section. Have you done that? It should trigger a notification when someone adds new content there. You can check what you are subscribed to at Special:TopicSubscriptions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've clicked that, and my subscription is recognized (the only option presented to me is to "unsubscribe"). This has been an ongoing issue. I previously thought something might have been thrown off with a change to header titles or the like, but unsubscribing and resubscribing has not corrected the issue.
    I was not previously aware of Special:TopicSubscriptions, but the subscription does show up there with the "Latest notification" field reading "never"—even though there have definitely been new requests listed. Patrick (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the problem is that topic subscriptions is a feature designed for talk pages and the page in question is a project page, not a talk page. You might raise the issue at WP:VPT, as I suspect the "subscribe" option shouldn't be there at all. Or wait for User:PrimeHunter to show up here, as I'm sure he'll have the definitive answer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ... scrub that. This Help Desk page is also a Project page and subscribing here works fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks! I'll wait to see if PrimeHunter anyone else chimes in. (I'm subscribed to this query without following the whole page and get notifications just fine.) Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Patrick Welsh: The page Wikipedia:Peer review/List of unanswered reviews hasn't been edited since 2022. The only content of Wikipedia:Peer review/List of unanswered reviews#Philosophy and religion is a transclusion of User:AnomieBOT/C/Philosophy and religion peer reviews which transcludes something from other pages. You don't get notified if a transcluded page is edited. You can add User:AnomieBOT/C/Philosophy and religion peer reviews to your watchlist but not subscribe to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, not intuitive. But thank you! I now follow that user/bot page.
    Cheers, Patrick (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone look something up for me in the Wikipedia Library?

    I've not got my 10 edits this month, so I can't check it myself, and the suggested IRC on that page gives me a "does not exist" error. Ousman Miangoto has been suggested for deletion and I thought I'd have a look for any potential sources, especially as he appears to have been a flag-bearer. Using the google books search, I get a hit for this "N'Djaména hebdo, Issues 7–68, 1989" but it's behind a paywall. Is there anything on TWL? Red Fiona (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You have to make literally one more edit to hit the threshold ... that's probably easier than asking others to dig for sources. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good point - I think when I posted this I was further away and didn't think I'd be making so many edits tonight. (My apologies) Red Fiona (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Apparently Newspapers.com has 113 matches for Ousmane Miangoto, but I haven't signed up. If no one here can help you could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. N'Djaména hebdo in Google books says something like "II git de Ousmane Miangoto qui it fait équipe avec Alladoum lo , NDoubadoum Raïngar et doum ." It looks like a single sentence and the lines seem to have been truncated. TSventon (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the Resource Request link. Red Fiona (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redfiona99 I've looked at some of the newspapers.com hits and they are not very promising, I'm afraid. Most are listings of events he ran in and a couple are about free haircuts he obtained! I don't see any WP:SIGCOV but it would take some effort to go through every hit to be sure. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ... I've now gone through all 100+ hits and they are the same repetitions. It is surprising how many local newspapers covered the haircut but that hardly helps WP:NBIO. A search in the top level search bar of TWL generates no hits at all. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike Turnbull Thank you for satisfying my curiosity. Were any of the hits from Chad, or even France? It is possible that a more specialist database would give better results. TSventon (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they were all US newspapers. I don't know where one might find archives for French-language material. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for looking. At least it's promising that there might be something, even if the decision is to redirect his article for the time being. Red Fiona (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking to visible anchors

    I have been adding visible anchors to the Swinefleet Warping Drain article for the Acts of Parliament obtained to carry out work on the drain. So on List of acts of the Parliament of Great Britain from 1793 there is an entry for Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793 which links to a <Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793> redirect page, containing #REDIRECT [[Swinefleet Warping Drain#Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793]]. I can click on the entry in the List page, and it jumps to the visible anchor in the Swinefleet Warping Drain article. However, if I click on the Redirect page, the anchor in the article is highlighted with a blue background, but if I click on the List page, the highlighting does not appear. Is this how it is supposed to work, and is there any way to get the highlighting to appear in both cases? Thanks. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bob1960evens I don't quite understand what blue background you're referring to, but your usage of redirects is correct here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bob1960evens: At Swinefleet Warping Drain#Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793 I see blue background for "Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793". I also see it both when clicking the Whitgift entry on List of acts of the Parliament of Great Britain from 1793, the redirect Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793, and on the redirect page Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793. What is your browser? What is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? Does it work if you log out? Is JavaScript enabled in the browser with no script-blocking extensions? What is the url in the address bar after clicking Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793? For me it's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinefleet_Warping_Drain#Whitgift,_Yorkshire_(Drainage)_Act_1793. If your browser blocks some JavaScript then it may be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitgift,_Yorkshire_(Drainage)_Act_1793 for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: I see (on Chrome for Windows Desktop Version 134.0.6998.89 (Official Build) (64-bit)) a blue background for the anchor when I visit the page directly, but not when via a redirect.
    The anchor text has a class of "vanchor-text", set by {{visible anchor}}; that same template includes
    <templatestyles src="Template:Visible anchor/styles.css" />
    to fetch the stylesheet required by {{visible anchor}}.
    When the page is displayed directly (not via a redirect page), that text is styled using rule
    .mw-parser-output .vanchor>:target~.vanchor-text { background-color: #b1d2ff;}.
    The rule is defined in an in-line <style> element as
    <style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1238216509"> :::.mw-parser-output .vanchor>:target~.vanchor-text{background-color:#b1d2ff}...</style>.
    When linked to indirectly (via a redirect page, for example), that style element is replaced with a link:
    <link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1238216509">,
    so the required CSS rule is not present and the text not highlighted.
    @Bob1960evens: See above for a dissection of the pages being displayed. You may need to refer this to a technical help desk.
    That aside, I do not understand why text with an unexplained blue background is required. It is confusing, as apparent from this discussion; I would not have known what the background meant if I had not participated in this discussion. As the text is the title of a redirect page, it is already bolded to show it's the title of a redirected page (as allowed by MOS:BOLD). Bazza 7 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all for the info. I put the text in bold so that it is easier to spot where the subject matter is, because the blue highlighting only works when there is no redirect involved (on my system, and as explained above). I can carry on making the titles of Acts of Parliament bold where they are linked from elsewhere. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It works for me in the same Chrome version as Bazza 7 when clicking the redirect Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793. @Bob1960evens and Bazza 7: Is the url in the address bar rewritten from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitgift,_Yorkshire_(Drainage)_Act_1793 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinefleet_Warping_Drain#Whitgift,_Yorkshire_(Drainage)_Act_1793 when you click the link? It is for me. The feature requires the url to be rewritten. MediaWiki redirects do this with JavaScript after loading the original url and not by actually loading the page from the new url like normal url redirection. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: Like you, I have the same URL in the address bar regardless of whether I got to the article directly (from a clicked link) or via a redirection. I am currently using Chrome for Android desktop which exhibits same behaviour as Chrome for Windows desktop I described earlier. Bazza 7 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    March 17

    I am making reference to a law in Australia. I have the details of the legislation (a repealed act) and the link for the act in Austlii [1]. I am currently using the 'web cite' for creating an 'inline citation' to evidence this law. However, I was wondering whether there is a specific 'cite' for legislation in general that I am unaware of, or perhaps a specific legislation coding element / tag in Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for the time taken to deal with this. SMargan (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @SMargan I think you want {{Cite Legislation AU}} for Australia. I found it by searching for template:cite law—I suggest trying that search yourself and seeing what's there. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMargan The general one seems to be {{Cite act}}. But there are huge numbers of national ones, by the look of it. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Musiconeologist (talk) - Thanks for your assistance. That information was exactly what I needed to know. SMargan (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "File:Hip Hop Movementpng.png

    Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I am writing to contest the proposed deletion of the file "File:Hip Hop Movementpng.png" from Wikipedia. The concerns raised about the logo being unused and the company not being notable are unfounded, and I believe this proposal for deletion constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's policies on fair representation and the inclusion of relevant content. I respectfully request that the logo be reinstated on Wikipedia immediately, and I will provide a detailed rationale for this request. ### Notability and Usage of the Hip Hop Movement Logo The Hip Hop Movement logo is far from being an "unused logo." In fact, it is the official emblem of a significant cultural brand that has a widespread presence across various platforms and media. The logo serves as a visual representation of the Hip Hop Movement, which is deeply rooted in the global hip-hop culture. Its usage extends beyond a mere corporate symbol; it represents a cultural phenomenon that has had a profound impact on music, art, and society. 1. **Social Media Presence**: The Hip Hop Movement logo is consistently used across major social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn. This widespread digital presence demonstrates the logo's active use in representing the brand and engaging with a global audience. 2. **Official Website**: The official website, https://hiphopmovement.us, prominently displays the logo, reinforcing its status as the authentic visual identifier of the Hip Hop Movement. This website serves as the primary platform for disseminating information about the movement and showcasing its various initiatives. 3. **Brand Consistency**: The logo is used consistently across various media types, including merchandise, promotional materials, and digital content. This consistency in branding is crucial for maintaining the movement's identity and recognition. 4. **Global Recognition**: The logo's use extends beyond digital platforms. It is recognized and utilized in various contexts worldwide, reflecting the global reach and influence of the Hip Hop Movement. ### Trademark Status and Legal Recognition The Hip Hop Movement is not merely a casual organization but a legally recognized entity with trademark protection. This legal status further underscores its notability and the importance of its logo: 1. **Registered Trademark**: The Hip Hop Movement brand is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This official recognition grants the organization exclusive rights to use its name and logo, and provides legal protection against unauthorized use. 2. **Exclusive Rights**: As a registered trademark, the Hip Hop Movement has the exclusive right to determine how its brand and logo are represented. This includes the authority to designate https://hiphopmovement.us as the official source of information about the movement. ### Academic and Cultural Significance The Hip Hop Movement is not just a commercial entity but a cultural phenomenon that has garnered significant academic and scholarly attention: 1. **Academic Research**: Scholarly journals such as the "Journal of Hip Hop Studies" and "Popular Music and Society" have published numerous articles examining various aspects of hip-hop culture, including movements within it. This academic interest demonstrates the cultural and societal importance of hip-hop movements. 2. **Cultural Impact**: The Hip Hop Movement is part of a larger cultural narrative that has been the subject of extensive study and analysis. For instance, research on media representation of rap music and hip-hop culture, as discussed in academic theses, highlights the significance of movements within this cultural sphere. 3. **Historical Context**: Academic papers exploring the historical and cultural evolution of hip-hop provide a broader context for understanding the importance of movements like the Hip Hop Movement in shaping contemporary culture. ### Wikipedia's Policies and Fair Representation The proposed deletion of the Hip Hop Movement logo appears to be in conflict with Wikipedia's own policies on fair representation and the inclusion of relevant content: 1. **Non-Free Content Policy**: Wikipedia's policy allows for the use of non-free content, including logos, under certain conditions. The Hip Hop Movement logo clearly meets these criteria as it serves an important encyclopedic purpose in illustrating a notable cultural brand. 2. **Notability Guidelines**: The Hip Hop Movement, as evidenced by its trademark status, global presence, and academic recognition, meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. 3. **Encyclopedic Value**: The logo provides valuable visual information about the Hip Hop Movement, enhancing the encyclopedic content of related articles on Wikipedia. ### Request for Reinstatement Given the evidence presented above, I strongly urge the Wikipedia administration to reconsider the proposed deletion of the Hip Hop Movement logo. Its removal would be a disservice to Wikipedia users seeking comprehensive information about hip-hop culture and its various movements. I request that: 1. The file "File:Hip Hop Movementpng.png" be immediately reinstated on Wikipedia. 2. A thorough review of the deletion proposal be conducted, taking into account the evidence of the logo's notability and usage. 3. Appropriate measures be taken to ensure fair representation of cultural movements like the Hip Hop Movement on Wikipedia. In conclusion, the proposed deletion of the Hip Hop Movement logo appears to be based on incomplete information and does not align with Wikipedia's commitment to providing comprehensive and accurate knowledge. The reinstatement of this logo is not only justified but necessary to maintain the integrity and completeness of Wikipedia's coverage of hip-hop culture and its significant movements. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to a positive resolution that upholds Wikipedia's standards of fairness and accuracy. Sincerely, Street sting (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Street sting: "unused" in the deletion log at File:Hip Hop Movementpng.png means unused here in the English Wikipedia. Hip Hop Movement was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip Hop Movement. https://hiphopmovement.us displays a not found message for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: Is that possibly because the wall of text above seems like it's been exposed to only the lightest of human touches? Bazza 7 (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be human-written but copied from another format where it didn't display as a wall of text. The domain https://hiphopmovement.us does exist. The Internet Archive shows content with the deleted logo in January.[2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems more like a roundabout effort to undo the deletion of the blatantly promotional article Hip Hop Movement, four years after its deletion. Bazza, I suspect it's a competency thing on Street sting's part, rather than the use of AI. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading the AfD debate from four years ago, I agree with Orangemike's assessment. This is a person who constently writes dozens of baffling, meandering sentences when two or three clearly written sentences would be far more productive. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the information provided, can we reverse the deletion of the globally recognized Hip Hop Movement Logo? My extensive research confirms its existence. Street sting (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. As a matter of policy, we do not keep unused non-free images. Cullen328 (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue with widely-used Template:Gloss

    For some reason on pages where this template is used the contents of the definition/translation doesn't appear in the link preview pop-up. Examples include Albedo, Malum in se, and really any page where it is used. I have no idea how to fix this though, so hopefully someone else can take a look. I did post on the template talk page, but it doesn't seem like it's watched much, and since this template is used on more than 18k articles it feels like it should get some attention. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @MyNameWasTaken As far as I can tell from the explanation at {{Gloss}}, all that template does is add single quote marks round a definition. Hence {{gloss|wrong}} gives 'wrong'. There is no link created by the template, although it is often used in combination with other linked words, as seen on its documentation page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's correct. But what happens is that for whatever reason, if you hover over a link to a page that uses it in the lede (which is very common), the text and the single quotes doesn't show up. For instance, the lede for Albedo starts "Albedo (/ælˈbiːdoʊ/ al-BEE-doh; from Latin albedo 'whiteness') is the fraction..." but if you go to the disambiguation page and hover over that page link the preview shows as "Albedo ( ; ) is the fraction...". I don't know what would cause that behavior. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't either! However, I get the same truncated version using WP:Navigation popups, so maybe it is intentional. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may be right. I actually realized that I'm using that feature as well (forgot, turned it on so long ago). In the standard reader preview it actually does seem to skip them purposefully and gracefully: "Albedo is the fraction...". So, I'd call it resolved. Thanks for your replies and helping me figure it out. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin assist needed

    Ellen Elgin, an unintentional doublet of Ellen Eglin was created a few years ago by moving a user sandbox (and talk page). Both had history. Can someone move the pre-Ellen Elgin revisions back. I'll take care of the merge over the next few days, I've done significant research on the subject, and can probably do it more easily than someone coming to it fresh. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    @Rich Farmbrough: I'm not used to the procedure and needed some extra steps to get it right but the old revisions of Ellen Elgin have now been moved back to User:Brown.wa/sandbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: I saw you were working on it! Many thanks! Merge is now complete but it reminded me of some research I had done and not incorporated. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    How to cite a concert programme book

    While Wiki guidelines suggest that the published programme of a music festival is an acceptable source of information, to be inserted under the cite book template, this does not format properly. Advice please. Hunaniaeth (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hunaniaeth: it would help if you included a link to the article you're working on so we can see the problem. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 23:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you could post your attempt at using cite book here if you haven't added it to the article. TSventon (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for replying to my query.
    These are the details that I want to include, but they do not then appear in the correct footnote format:
    Metcalf, John (1999). Introduction to Vale of Glamorgan Festival programme. Cowbridge, Glamorgan: Vale of Glamorgan festival. Hunaniaeth (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hunaniaeth: what is the problem with the format? You need to add <ref>...</ref> round the template to get a footnote, i.e. [1]

    References

    1. ^ Metcalf, John (1999). Introduction to Vale of Glamorgan Festival programme. Cowbridge, Glamorgan: Vale of Glamorgan festival.
    TSventon (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks Hunaniaeth (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    screwed up a transclusion again?

    Can anyone help me make this transclude where it's supposed to go? Valereee (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Valereee:, sorry I have no idea, but I have pinged a couple of editors at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall. TSventon (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    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]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1281340118"