Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 67

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Help desk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Hi all,

Ran across a bunch of pages [1] here which seem to extensively document new features in Windows. Vista seems especially prevalent, with 4 whole pages dedicated just to documenting various additions. Given WP:NOTCHANGELOG, should these pages be deleted?

Thanks for your help.

Rcfische2 (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No, these pages should not be deleted, and WP:NOCHANGELOG says that asummary of development is fine which is what these are. Maybe look at an actual changelog, the level of detail is roughly a thousand times higher. Polygnotus (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the response. Can definitely see that now, still, many of the pages read like Microsoft puffery. (And 4 pages + the main article for Vista seems unjustifiable and likely to lead to content duplication). Rcfische2 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rcfische2 Can you give specific examples of this WP:PUFFERY? I am not opposed to adding a banner to each Microsoft related article that explains how to install Linux, but some people might disagree with that. Polygnotus (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

As a representative example - Management features new to Windows Vista has lines like:

- "In addition, snap-ins present their UI in a different thread than that in which the operation runs, thus keeping the snap-in responsive, even while doing a computationally intensive task." which is not supported by a citation and seems to just document internal optimizations.

- "Windows Vista includes over 2400 options for Group Policy" followed by a detailed (and uncited) explanation of changes in the GPO architecture.

- More generally, the article cites 37 sources, 28 are Microsoft authored and 9 are independent. Of the 9 independent sources, 1 directly cites a Microsoft representative, 1 is from a Microsoft MVP, and 3 others are from books for Windows users/admins.

While I struggled a bit to find clearly promotional language, taken together, the length of the articles, their massive reliance on primary sources, and their detailed coverage of features which, from my (admittedly non-expert) perspective, seem very minor, all give the impression of undue coverage.

I do think a very aggressive trim of at least the Vista articles, with a final goal of merging their content together into Features new to Windows Vista is in order.

Per the second point, that'd definitely spark an edit war over which distro to recommend.

Rcfische2 (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rcfische2 Meh, I'd leave it be. If people decide to try out Vista then that'll encourage them to switch to *nix sooner. According to the pageview statistics basically no one reads those articles anyway. Polygnotus (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Reference number 48 is wrong - please fix - I am confused. Sorry and thanks. Srbernadette (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It is fixed. Polygnotus (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

According to our list of reliable and not so reliable sources, the Telegraph is not reliable for transgender-related issues, so I removed that bit. Polygnotus (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi. My original image "Kevin_Fegan.jpg" was taken down from the Commons, by a user, under the reasoning 'low quality, no metadata, unlikely ownership'. It appears I can't challenge this as it was a while ago and has been removed from the archive.

I have re-uploaded that image under the same name, with higher quality, and metadata. I own this image. This re-upload was recently takendown by the delinkerbot. How do I go about preventing this? I want to use this image for an article. Sorry for my lack of understanding. Whirlpuddle (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Whirlpuddle Hello! You say you own it, but are you the copyrightholder, almost always always the photographer? For a picture of a living person, we need the copyright holders permission. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes! I just don't know how to prove that? Whirlpuddle (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Whirlpuddle, the original file was deleted on Commons, following a discussion there, so I would suggest asking at their Commons:Commons:Help desk what you can do now. TSventon (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Whirlpuddle has now been given advice at Commons:Commons:Help desk#Re-uploaded Image taken down by delinkerbot. TSventon (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"It appears I can't challenge this as it was a while ago" Whatever the merits of the case may or may not be, this statement isn't true. There is no deadline for appealing deletions, here or on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned that the code in this article was rewritten by a single user, and it appears to be their original creation. While I do appreciate the fact that it is significantly simpler and easier to follow than the prior version, another user and I have raised concerns about its correctness and I've tried discussing with the author on the talk page. I think ideally the article should cite an existing source as a known correct implementation, ideally a peer-reviewed source, so it is easy to compare the code against another version for correctness (even if it isn't exactly the same). I am wondering how best to proceed here? Tombob51 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tombob51 I would recommend posting on WP:VPT. Polygnotus (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of editing in this article. Almost all data was unsourced, so I had to update most values from a sourced dataset. The problem was that, as a result, the right order of the list suffered many changes. I've reordered and renumbered it, but now I find out that the list has up to #228 item, while it previously had up to #229. Any help to find the missing item is appreciated. Thanks in advance. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Link to the previous version that included item #229. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Mystery solved: it was a numbering mistake, there was no missing item. I'll fix it. No help needed :-) MGeog2022 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I fixed a dead link by adding the correct URL. How do I remove the "dead link" notation, please? EmLoki (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I ended up creating a new line with the current link and deleted the one that had the old link and the "dead link" notation. EmLoki (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

EmLoki you needed to remove the dead link template, which is straightforward in source editor, and you seem to have found a workaround in visual editor. TSventon (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Why do I get notifications about submitting to review Fritzbring (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Fritzbring The articles for review process is often backlogged, so the idea is that editors will want to be informed once a review has occurred, whether it has been successful or not. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I need help editing Indonesian National Revolution specifically on the commanders and leader section in infobox when ever i try to add DI/TII and FDR they never appear or just break a another part of leaders section in infobox Depotadore (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you show to us the "Wikitext" you did tried to put ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

nope but you can see the leader section Depotadore (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

When you are talking about the "leader section". Is this in the infobox ?

If you show to us "Wikitext" you did tried to put. We'll maybe discover a mistake you made.

As I did already edited infoboxes on others articles. I know it's far to be easy. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Depotadore, I think that what @Anatole-berthe is trying to say is that if you make clear what you are trying to add, how you are doing, it, and what the result is, it would be easier to help you. Template:infobox military conflict is a huge template, with lots of parameters, and its use in that article is equally complicated. The only change you have recently made in that article is to add a combatant, so it's hard to see what you are saying about (presumably) the commandern arguments. ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I used to get live updates to my watchlist automatically, but now I have to referesh the page manually. Is that option no longer available? Did I turn it off by accident somehow? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you clicked on the button "Live Updates" ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Where is the button for Live Updates? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This button is on your "Watchlist".

If you use a computer to access to your watchlist.

You can use "CTRL + F" with your keyboard to find it. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

CTRL+F on the Watchlist just brings up the entries for this page on the Watchlist.No button. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You have to use "CTRL + F" and type "Live Updates".

The link to the watchlist is : Special:Watchlist Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Can someone read over the existing Gameplay section of Draft:Dorfromantik (board game) to make sure that the rules summary doesn't violate copyright? I don't know why it would as board game mechanics can't be copyrighted but maybe this infringes on the presentation (which is copyrightable)? I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to copyright, but the rulebook is publicly accessible for free (it's cited) so I'm really not sure. Thanks! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The "someone" won't be me, Chorchapu, because I'd have to compare it with the content of a PDF that I'm unable to download. (Perhaps its server is having difficulty, or perhaps the PDF is huge.) I'm guessing that by "board game mechanics" you mean "board game rules". Why would these not be copyrightable? Accessibility to the public without charge is no obstacle to copyrightability (an example is Wikipedia itself). Citing a source doesn't permit one to reproduce chunks of it. (The chunks should not be major, and should use quotation marks where appropriate.) Copyright issues aside, this article is odd. Sample: "The rules of Dorfromantik: Sakura are incredibly similar to the original" (does "incredibly similar to" mean "almost the same as those of"?). And the writer clearly prefers (or writers clearly prefer) four-syllable "Dorfromantik" to monosyllabic "it". -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The rulebook is the rules of the board game, meaning the implementation of mechanics. Mechanics are individual things (like hand management or worker placement) that board games draw from, and they can't be copyrighted individually. In the existing section of the article (I'm not done writing it), I do not quote the rulebook directly for any meaningful length, however my question is whether or not just my summary violates copyright.

Yes, Dorfromantik: Sakura is almost identical to Dorfromantik, with only stylistic changes and modifications to the campaign.

I could change the wording up a bit to "it" if that would make it clearer to read.

Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Chorchapu, are you perhaps confusing different areas of intellectual property–related law? Consider the cotton gin, an idea that's now centuries old. If I create (or even sell) either a sedulous copy or my own interpretation of a centuries-old version, I can't be violating anybody's patent (because any patent would have expired). If I copy (and then publish) a 19th-century description of a cotton gin, I can't be violating anybody's copyright (because any copyright would have expired). If I copy and then publish a 21st-century description of an 18th-century cotton gin, I very likely am violating the writer's copyright. (Indeed, I should assume that the description is conventionally copyright -- "all rights reserved" -- unless I can point to clear evidence to the contrary.) ¶ As for questions around plagiarism, does Wikipedia:Plagiarism help explain? -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

All I'm trying to figure out if the paraphrasing and summary in the article I'm currently writing is a violating of copyright (or something similar) by summarising the rules of the board game so closely. I'm not directly copying anything, but I'm just wondering if my summary is detailed enough to count as copying the rules. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• As you've said, game mechanics are not subject to copyright. The specific expression of those rules can of course be copyrighted (ie. we still can't copy-paste the exact wording in the rulebook, outside of the limited protections of fair use), but a summary of game rules in our own wording isn't a copyright issue, even if it's precise enough for someone to completely reproduce the gameplay on its own just from our article. Of course, there's still the question of whether it is WP:DUE and encyclopedic, but it's not a copyright issue. --Aquillion (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  Alright then, thanks. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

If an editor forgets or doesn't have access to the email address they used to create their account, is there still a way of changing their password? Emmentalist (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

In my knowledge this is not possible to change a password if you don't have access to the address used to create the account.

First , try to change the e-mail address used in your account if this is possible. Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

If you can find a browser on which you are currently logged in to Wikipedia, it should be possible to solve this problem. However, if you cannot access the email address or the password, access to the account is lost and you will have to create a new one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Emmentalist: Is this about you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser?wpTarget=Emmentalist says you haven't specified a valid email address at Special:Preferences. If you know the current password then you don't need an email address to change it. If it's you and you are still logged in but don't know your password then see Help:Logging in#What if I forget my password? for an option you could try with a committed identity and a request by email. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. @PrimeHunter Yes, it's me! I haven't verified the email address because the automatic verification email was sent when I created the account to the address I no longer have access to. Sadly. It looks like I might have to start all over again with a new account. Emmentalist (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ianmacm I have the password. I no longer have access to the email address to which the email verification email was sent so I don't seem to be able to change that email address to a new one although I'm using the account. Emmentalist (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Cancel my last. I was being stupid (no change)! I changed it as per the link @PrimeHunter gave me. Thank you very much, both! Emmentalist (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I wanna submit my draft: Draft: A Dog's Courage but for some reason it didn't work, do I just have to move it? Henihhi28 (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have edited the page and moved the draft to use a straight apostrophe, as I think the curly apostrophe may have been a problem.

Before submitting the draft I would suggest looking at Help:Your first article. In particular the subject of an article needs to be Wikipedia:notable, which generally means having substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. None of the sources are independent and reliable: e.g. Good Reads is user generated so it is not regarded as reliable by Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you and I removed the goodreads source. I do think the rest of the sources are fine though, maybe I'll remove google books since I see why that isn't reliable. User:Henihhi28 (talk)

Google books shows the book exists, but the description is provided by the publisher. Then you have the publisher's and author's websites and an interview with the author. The publisher and author want to sell the book, so they are not independent. You usually want three or more independent sources, for example I looked at A Dog's Way Home (novel) and it had Kirkus Reviews, PETA and the New York Times. TSventon (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'll work on it another time. Henihhi28 (talk)

@Henihhi28: generally it is best to find the sources before writing the article, as if you write it first and then can't find sources, you are stuck. TSventon (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Charles Frederic Moberly Bell

Please help with this url which is a PDF: file:///Users/m.reed/Downloads/GB0085%20DD-761%20(3).pdf

it is from here: Hammersmith and Fulham Archives and Local History Centre

The National Archives https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk › down... PDF See also:DP/193 correspondence from A M Lupton,Hon Sec FHA, 1928;. F331.83 BAR Report on Housing Conditions in the Metropolitan Borough of Fulharn, Barclay and ...

It is citation number 7 on the above page. Please assist if you can.

Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Srbernadette, luckily for whoever m.reed may be, most of us don't have access to their filesystem on whichever server this may be. (Certainly I don't.) Additionally, and as has already been pointed out, such values as "1927-1968" are not going to work for "date" in a Cite template. But look, none of this matters, as the article you're editing is ostensibly about one Moberly Bell, not about a daughter of his. So all you need do is remove this superfluous material about the daughter. -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It's quite common to include material about children (also siblings, spouses, etc.) who don't have their own article, in that manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

file:///Users/ indicates that the file is sitting on your local machine or network. You can either include a URL where you originally obtained the file online, or you can omit it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I uploaded c:File:Treatment_for_Pediatric_Gender_Dysphoria.pdf (a 4MB PDF document) to Commons in the hopes of using its generated thumbnail as the lede image for the article about it (Trump administration HHS gender dysphoria report). The preview works fine on Commons, but visiting the file's page on English Wikipedia does not include a preview, and my attempt at embedding it following the advice at Help:Pictures § DjVu and PDF files failed. [[File:Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria.pdf|thumb|left]] Any advice? Is this a known issue or have I missed a step? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 16:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

RoxySaunders, your file is there at Commons, at File:Treatment_for_Pediatric_Gender_Dysphoria.pdf. But it's a pdf, not an image; treating it as if it were a jpg, png or svg file won't work. Maproom (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Maproom: This appears to work fine for files like c:File:Cinderella (1865).pdf. A thumbnail of the first page of that document is now embedded to the right. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Speak of the devil, it works now. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk

So it does! It didn't earlier. Maproom (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to revert an apparently disruptive edit to Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump. I've never done a revert before so I had two questions: Is this an appropriate situation to do a revert? If so, what's the best way to do this kind of revert?

I tried restoring a previous version but the option to publish was disabled.

Also, I'm now realizing I should probably have asked this at the Teahouse instead? Apfelmaische (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Apfelmaische Regarding reverting, it's best to compare two versions, and using Twinkle (or related tools), I think the best way is to "restore" to a previous version, but you should try around in a Draft/Sandbox and see the ones that have a confirm screen, and one where you can input your edit summary. I've done this revert for you. ^_^ tynjee 19:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll give Twinkle a try, and play around in a sandbox until I get the hang of it. Apfelmaische (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi How do I add an external link to a school's archive. This is an official site, but open to the public. DBlez (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Please see Wikipedia:External links#How to link and feel free to ask further if something is unclear. A common mistake is to put an external link in the body of an article – make sure to put it in the external links section. Perception312 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

You want to put an external link on which article of Wikipedia ?

EDIT : Is this "Rugby School" ?

Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I had a conflict with another editor, so he opened a discussion. And I shared my opinion there, but the user hasn't responded yet, and still continues to edit the article according to his own view.

In this situation, what should I do? I just pinged the user, but I think it't unfair for his version to remain in article until an agreement is reached. If he ignores the discussion, it seems like his edits could stay indefinitely. Doesn't that seem problematic? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions: Does this relate to Talk:Something Beautiful (Miley Cyrus album): that looks like a discussion between two editors, who are unable to agree on a question. I would suggest posting neutral notices at relevant wikiprojects to get more editors involved. There are other alternatives at Wikipedia:Consensus#By soliciting outside opinions.

There is more general advice at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. TSventon (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC

Millicent Fawcett

The number 21 has been altered and is all wrong. Please fix if able, thanks Srbernadette (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Srbernadette Findmypast is considered a generally unreliable primary source (see table at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) so I think you need to remove that cite altogether or find a better source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello ! I want to fusion two elements of "Wikidata".

The element about the article "The National Cybersecurity Institute (INCIBE)" and the element "INCIBE [Wikidata]".

The problem is the next. I didn't found the corresponding element about "The National Cybersecurity Institute (INCIBE)" in Wikidata.
I suppose this is because this is not the original title of the page.
How to find the successive titles of a page ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I read logs like "move log" and "merge log".
No result. I get "No matching items in log." Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe: Some articles have no Wikidata item. The National Cybersecurity Institute (INCIBE) was created today and has no "Wikidata item" under Tools so there is nothing to merge at Wikidata. You can just add the article to the existing Wikidata item. See Wikipedia:Wikidata#New articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I did resolved the problem. I didn't knew that some articles in Wikipedia aren't tied to a Wikidata item.

Thanks ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I'm undecided about a style manual rule, specifically, italics. I'm a little in the fog. MOS:BADITALICS says: Some proper names—including personal names, place names, and the names of organizations—are usually not italicized as non-English vocabulary.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understood all these words as place names: autobahn, U-Bahn, Oktoberfest, and Volksfest.

Should I consider these as organisations? Deutscher Wetterdienst, Münchner Verkehrsgesellschaft, and Bayerischen Journalisten-Verbands (Bavarian Journalists Association).

I also don't know how to consider these: Polizeipräsidium München, Einsatzhundertschaft (an emergency division), and Reiterstaffel (mounted police). I think that Beamte employees might be italicised, but in doubt, I prefer to ask. Thanks in advance. Oroborvs (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

My general advice would be that this is a question of judgement and if you are unsure you can leave tweaking italics to other editors. Also don't go through the entire encyclopedia changing the italics for every German word as other editors might disagree with your judgements. My thoughts are

• autobahn is used in English, U-Bahn in Rapid transit in Germany can be italicised, Oktoberfest is a proper noun, and Volksfest can be italicised.
• Deutscher Wetterdienst, Münchner Verkehrsgesellschaft, and Bayerischer Journalisten-Verband are organisations.
• Polizeipräsidium München is an organisation. Beamte employee can be italicised. Units like Spezialeinsatzkommando, Einsatzhundertschaften, Hundestaffel, Reiterstaffel and Kriminalfachdezernate could be regarded as proper nouns or could be italicised. TSventon (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: Thanks for the reply and the help, it helps me see things more clearly. Oroborvs (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at the article Huck's Defeat. It used to have a single source tag based on almost exclusive use of a book by Scoggins. The tag was removed, claiming a "new" source. However, that book is just a rehash of the same information.

The article still has only one point of view. Scoggins, Pell, and Edgar are all reading from the same prayer book. So to me, single source still applies even if a technical argument says it doesn't. So how can the bias inherent in the article be indicated? Should it be indicated at all, when only one side of the story is available? Would the unbalanced tag apply, instead, even when only one side of a story is available?

The guide says "An unbalanced article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources." The primary sources about this American revolutionary war event are all from the Whig side. The secondary sources, as a result, only cover one side of the battle. Added to that, the secondary sources are all of the same lineage; that is, all written by South Carolina historians who say this was the turning point of the war. The article ignores primary reports which show the Whigs negatively. In other words, "our" side won so it isn't labelled "a massacre".

Someone with unlimited time might be able to rewrite the article to make it more neutral, but I don't have that luxury. My intention is simply to alert other editors to tackle it when they can.

Humpster (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

You can put a {{PoV}} tag on the article, and then describe the problem (as you did here) on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Good suggestion. You can also post at WP:NPOVN. If you're correct about "The secondary sources, as a result, only cover one side of the battle", then you might want to prepare yourself for the possibility that the article should stay as it is. Our role is to summarize reliable secondary sources, so we will by design often echo the bias of such sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both. I will try your suggestions. I will be satisfied if the article covers the subject in a balanced way based on the sources which are available. It probably depends on the choice of words and the details which are included. In the absence of information from the other side, a statement to that effect provides a little perspective.

When I'm able I will refine my question and post it along with the tags.

This post can be marked resolved.

Humpster (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, can an admin please help delete the redirect from Qasim Shesho to Haydar Shesho? They are two different people: Qasim Shesho is the Uncle of Haydar Shesho

The current redirect is incorrect and blocks my article. Thanks! Kuripenjwen (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Kuripenjwen, it looks like you've already created the draft page. This draft would go through the AfC draft approval process before being moved to replace the existing mainspace redirect. Once the draft is accepted for mainspace, the existing redirect would be tagged for deletion and it would be replaced with the approved draft (at that point in mainspace). I did add Template:R with Possibilities to the redirect page per WP:Drafts Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 23:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jiltedsquirrel, thanks for the info! I wanted to manually move it to mainspace, The current redirect link stops me from doing so and deleting it won’t cause issues Kuripenjwen (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah! There are instructions present for this situation on WP:Drafts as well, but you may need to make a request at WP:RMTR if you're unable to complete the move yourself. Instructions for how to make a request there are present at the top of the page. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 23:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Kuripenjwen, why not simply submit Draft:Qasim Shesho for review? -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Because that takes way longer than me just manually moving it now if the redirect link gets deleted. Of course these are two different people it should be removed please. Kuripenjwen (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

But Kuripenjwen, drafts that already are obviously good enough to become articles are, from what I observe, typically accepted pretty quickly. Now that I look at this draft, I wonder. It cites just two sources, and one of these is Vice. "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." So why not first improve the draft and then submit it? -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright Hoary but the current redirect Qasim Shesho → Haydar Shesho is factually incorrect (they are uncle/nephew). This needs correction regardless of the draft status. I've requested deletion at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests. And i will take your advice and improve the draft Kuripenjwen (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Kuripenjwen, for future reference, you can request deletion of a redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. There is some guidance on the page you should read before making a nomination. The current redirect Qasim Shesho → Haydar Shesho doesn't imply they are the same person, it just means that you can find some information about QS on HS's page. TSventon (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Kuripenjwen, putting aside questions about the reliability of Vice in general, the Vice page you cite is based on one or more discussions with the subject of the article. The Rudaw page you cite is an interview with him -- or so it seems (I haven't listened to it). An article would also need to cite disinterested sources about him. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kuripenjwen The existing redirect is not "factually incorrect." If there is no existing article for a person, it is common to have a redirect to a target page that mentions the person. Although he is not mentioned by name, there is a reference to "his uncle" in the article Haydar Shesho. Madam Fatal (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I can passably translate the 21st century section for this: LGBTQ literature in Brazil but I'm not sure if there's a way to bring over the citations as well Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Sock-the-guy you should check that the references support any text you add to en Wikipedia. If you copy the code of the references from es to en Wikipedia, a bot should convert them, see Help:Translation#Citation templates, but do check afterwards. TSventon (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That does make sense, should've thought of that. I'll go through. Would it be better to revert and toss that in the sandbox since I don't have the time today/right now? Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, also you need to acknowledge the source with an edit summary, like Content in this edit is translated from the existing Spanish Wikipedia article at [[:es:Exact name of Spanish article]]; see its history for attribution. TSventon (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Translate for additional tips. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. How comes sometimes this isn't appearing on user talk pages next to the L2 header? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi Can you wikilink an example please? Is the "sometimes" in relation to a time-dependent problem or a "on some user talk pages" issue? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't wasnt to personalize it though, if you know what I mean! Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

It's unlikely anyone can answer your question, without an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to identify if a section name in one article is used as a # link by other articles? OvertAnalyzer (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You can do a regex search. For example, the section Paganism § Ethnic religions of pre-Christian Europe is linked from two other articles as shown by this search: Middle Ages and Religion in the European Union.

Mind the punctuation in the search string: must begin and end with / and the octothorpe must be escaped: \#; do not use underscores in place of space characters.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I get it wrong. Reference/citation number 5 is in the red - please fix. Sorry Srbernadette (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done, year was listed as 20244. Cmr08 (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

This feels like a bit of a silly question to have to ask, but I had a look in Preferences and couldn't find any relevant settings so I thought I'd ask here just to make sure. Is there a way to stop edits from automatically being published if you press the return key while typing in the edit summary box? I keep accidentally publishing edits when I was just trying to press the right square bracket key, so end up publishing incomplete edit summaries and having to make dummy edits to clarify. Is there any way to prevent this? (Other than just improving my fine motor skills, of course.) Thank you! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pineapple Storage, as far as I know there's no built-in way to do so. I had had the same problem and didn't search for solutions and so write the bit of JS that's at the top of User:Skynxnex/common.js. You're welcome to copy that to your own common.js and I saw there is a script listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List which does it as well: m:User:Dragoniez/SuppressEnterInForm. (With mine at least, you can still publish using only the keyboard by hitting tab from the edit summary box and then pressing "space" to activate the publish button.) Skynxnex (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Skynxnex This is perfect, exactly what I was looking for! Thank you so much! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

What is the name of the newspaper repository that we have access too?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this what you were looking for? Knitsey (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

This is what I've used in the past. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The latter. Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! If it would be possible, I'd like to speak in a private channel with a wikipedia administrator(s) to request assistance in a certain matter. If anyone could provide any info on how to go about this, it would be appreciated.

CSGinger14 (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Most(probably all) admins have email enabled via the "email this user" link on user talk pages. I'm not aware of private discussion forums for your desired purpose. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If it requires discretion, I would look at info-en@wikimedia.org (WP:VRT) or contacting the Arbitration Committee via email. This will require you to have email enabled on your account, mind. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello all,
I'm getting a citation error on a page I was editing earlier, specifically SS Dixie Arrow, for references 66, 67, and 69 (all located in the second paragraph of the sinking subsection. The error states "Cite error: The named reference :(number) was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Going to the help page is useless to me; I rarely edit in source mode and only know one or two things so I can add stuff to infoboxes. I am absolutely useless with references in source mode. Could I get some help? Thanks, PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be okay when I look at it. Were you by any chance editing a specific section at the time? If so, you'd get that error because the reference wasn't defined within that section. The confusion is understandable! DonIago (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PhoenixCaelestis, the problem is that you have changed the names of some references here which had been named earlier in the page, e.g. changing <ref name=":0" /> to <ref name=":02" />. I presume that was an error so I have reversed those changes. TSventon (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I created this article The Green Tie on the Little Yellow Dog some months ago. It has never been reviewed/approved, and I wonder how I could ask for this to be done? Thanks! Bosmeor (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Bosmeor, none of the articles I've created has ever had its existence reviewed or approved (aside from what I can infer from the lack of any attempt I noticed to have it deleted). But this hasn't worried me. Drafts are (eventually) reviewed; articles don't have to be. -- Hoary (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC) Written while caffeine-deprived (or just senile). -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Unreviewed articles don't get picked up by Google etc, that's the catch Bosmeor (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, OK. It's now reviewed. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Bosmeor Google picks up articles when they are ninety days old, see WP:INDEXING, so your article was nearly old enough to be picked up without a review. TSventon (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

i didn't know this Cinaroot (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! Bosmeor (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently working on some articles where they should have a different name when in different categories, may I ask how to do this? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac: The category cannot show a different name but the page can be sorted like it had another name. See Help:Category#Sorting category pages. A redirect to the page will sort as the name of the redirect but redirects should usually not have article categories, and the category will not be displayed on the article. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages. Can you give an example article, category and wanted name? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok. Turns out maybe a different name is not needed. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)