Hello. I am aware of the normal process for changing one's username, via WP:CHUS. What I want to know is whether one can still get one's user name changed when one has blocked sockpuppets that have been tagged as sockpuppets, which I do. The point is that the tagging process involves adding a category ("Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of FreeKnowledgeCreator", in my case) to the user pages of those accounts, and changing my user name from "FreeKnowledgeCreator" to something else could potentially obscure the connection between those blocked accounts and my current, active account. Would this be viewed as such a problem that a change of user name would not be allowed? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take this up at WP:AN or at WT:SPI? You may find more relevant responses. Thanks, Lourdes 08:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLEANSTART might also be relevant. It is not directly applicable if you want a rename rather than a new start, but its spirit might be a guide. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Lourdes, but I wouldn't take the matter up at WP:AN because I have not yet decided to actually try to change my username and posting there might therefore be unwelcome or attract unwanted attention. I wouldn't take the matter up at WT:SPI because WT:SPI simply is not the appropriate venue for asking questions of this nature, at least not so far as I know. I'd be more likely to ask for advice from an admin on my user talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Heard on Feb 4 For Super Bowl LII NBC Sports will debut a new Graphics Package I Hope it will have a new scoreboard in what most new Graphics Packages do they have a new scoreboard along with is that for sure. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your text is incoherent and does not appear to be a question. If it is a question, it should have been asked on the Entertainments Reference Desk. To reiterate the prominent instructions at the top of this page,

• "This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. If you have any factual questions, please use the search box or post them on the Reference desk."

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.128.132 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Help desk/Archives/2018 January 19#NBC New Graphics For Super Bowl LII and WP:Help desk/Archives/2017 December 30#New Graphics for NBC Sports in 2018. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm interested in translating articles from English into Irish and was wondering what the standard practise is with citations? Do you carry over the citations and do you need to translate the titles of the books/articles/etc if they're not in the language you're translating the article into? Colijoge (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, citations should be carried over. No, you don't translate titles because a source in that language was not used and the translations may differ. You don't usually change personal names (unless first name/last name convention differs). Cities in references but not in titles may need to be translated. Month names would be translated. Rmhermen (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colijoge You should also fill in the language field for references that are not in Irish, just as we do so here for non-English refs. If the title is not in a reasonably familiar language, or uses a non-Roman script, you could translate the title in brackets. I had some fun doing the foreign refs in list of Eurasian nuthatch subspecies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you check the "references" to see that they actually say what it's implied that they say. Often in Wikipedia articles, "references" are junk: they merely say something that's compatible with the assertion that immediately precedes them within the particular article. (See for example this current AfD.) ¶ That matter aside, you are, I believe, asking about Irish-language Wikipedia, where policies and guidelines may be different from those here. You should really be asking there, not here (though I imagine that you've already considered that, and have reasons for asking here). -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am wondering what are the limits of picking a new user name. For instance, I assume I cannot use a profanity in the name, but can I use a well-known name, for instance, the name of a politician, or celebrity, or even a company name? Also, if these kinds of names are not allowed, how do you control the picking of the name if someone should choose a forbidden name? Please clarify, thanks! 217.113.249.9 (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You should first go through our username policy and come back here if something is unclear (in short, no, you cannot have the name of a politician, or celebrity, or a company; and certain names come up in certain logs for us to keep a check on). Thanks, Lourdes 09:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor. No, you cannot use the name of a politician or a celebrity, because that is unacceptable impersonation. Also, you cannot use a company name, since that implies shared use by employees of that company. Unacceptable usernames are routinely noticed and reported by experienced editors, and those accounts are blocked. Please see WP:USERNAME for complete information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if social media sites are proper for citing in wikipedia articles or they are regarded as non-reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyupant (talk • contribs) 09:35, January 25, 2018 (UTC)

No, they're not proper for citing and are considered unreliable sources. More details at WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Come back if anything is unclear. Thanks, Lourdes 09:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite tweet exists for use under certain conditions and caveats. I have found it useful when a football club announces, via their official Twitter a/c, (say) the death of a, not very well known, former player and there is no other source available. Eagleash (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is notable enough to have an article but their death isn't notable enough to have been mentioned in reliable sources then they should be treated as still alive on Wikipedia per WP:UNDEAD. nagualdesign 13:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For years there was an article about me. I'm a minor-league author of seven books, two movies, and hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles, plus a retired federal agent. Recently, the article disappeared. I feel like I'm being erased Orwellian style, becoming an unperson.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.64.19.98 (talk • contribs) 25 January 2018 16:20 (UTC)

Please provide a link to, or the name of, the page referred to. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. Unfortunately, because of the popularity of Wikipedia (and the way its articles tend to get ranked by search tools) a lot of people think either that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to publicise themselves, or that "having a Wikipedia page" is some sort of badge of honour. Neither of these is true. A Wikipedia page about a subject is supposed to summarise what reliably published wholly independent of the subject have said about the subject. If there are not enough such sources, then no article on the subject will be accepted: the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the subject is not notable. Note that this criterion has nothing necessarily to do with fame, popularity, prolificness, importance, or influence: it is simply a matter of whether there is enough material to base an article on, given that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that a subject says about themselves, or that their associates say about them. If there was an article about you, and it has been deleted, this usually means either that the article in question was so promotional that in the opinion of those who proposed it for deletion and did the deletion that it could not be saved; or that somebody looked and couldn't find enough reliably published sources, independent of you that talked in depth about you to ground an article. Either way, this is nothing personal: I have done some noteworthy things in my time (see for example Bradford Playhouse, but there is not enough material published about me to ground and article about me, so I would not expect anybody to write an article about me. --ColinFine (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@174.64.19.98: Colin is spot on here. Having said that I would be very surprised if an author of seven books, two movies, and hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles would not have been mentioned in third-party sources. Please provide us with more information so that someone can look into that for you. Of course it may turn out that Big Brother has indeed deemed you to be an unperson, in which case this section will also be rectified. nagualdesign 02:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I understand. I'm not sure how to provide you with more information. Or what kind of information would be useful. I think I'd best just relegate myself to the unperson status.

Lenneke Reiten is a Dutch Soprano with worldwide reputation. When I first tried to find her page in Wikipedia I ran into a problem described here "Jauchzet_Gott_in_allen_Landen",_BWV_51_(1730). The problem was corrected by Lindert. My thanks to him.

When I opened the page he created, I found a stub[1]. In the reference section he posted a link to Bach Cantatas website[2]. I got information about this website from a different source, checked the copyright notice and emailed to the copyright owner (Mr. Arieh Oron) asking his permission to copy significant portions of his website to Wikipedia.org. The permission email came back the same day. I can copy even the whole article under the usual condition of acknowledgement. Then I noticed the reference link in Wikipedia pointing to the Bach Cantatas Website.

My question is: shall I do it? There is a reference link at the bottom of the article, therefore that information is available. On the other hand the Wikipedia article is just a stub, so it makes sense to copy that information here.

I would appreciate is somebody will give me a definitive answer. AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AboutFace 22, would Arieh be ready to share the text under the CC-BY-SA license and mention the same somewhere on his website? Thanks, Lourdes 00:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A. Films generate more interesting interpretative discussions than what Critical Response sections are currently structured to reflect. B. Always starting these sections with the bottom-line ratings / "consensus" from review aggregator websites creates a formula, and there should be a discussion on whether this formula benefits public understanding or reduces it. C. This formula, whatever it is, is overwhelmingly PR friendly. As a result, it reads like a PR statement. D. Aggregating reviews, and suggesting that a range of opinions can be summarized into an "Average Opinion" or "Consensus", is false. There is no such thing as an average opinion - and certainly not in this case. E. Knowledge is not a compromise - when you have legitimate dissenting views, you don't create knowledge by a cultural tug war that arrives at a middle point where everyone is supposedly happy, or as compromise goes - no one is happy. Film criticism is a cultural field, and if you can't explain it well, leave it alone. Review aggregators are convenient, but a lazy way to go and don't belong in an encyclopedia. F. Films are not trivia, they are extremely important cultural objects. G. This format basically relies on a third party for its content. What happens when the person whose actual job it is to write these so-called consensus reviews goofs off? When these websites changes ownership and direction? And if we're going there, have they been verified as sources? Will anyone check who owns and controls these websites? if they're commercially affiliated with film studios?

I tried editing a section for some film once, years ago, thinking the result is a meaningless expression, and I challenged the format, arguing there is no such thing as aggregate opinion - and there was a very short dispute process, I was basically blown off.

Having sections on wikipedia that are PR convenient, make these sections the place where PR people come to work. Anyone care to venture what is the monetary value of a positive leaning page? my guess is high level involvement, with well paid jobs looking into what we're writing. This isn't conspiracy, it's economy.

Personally. I see a lot of films I think are plain bad - apart from trying to understand where they come from and why now (i.e cultural objects) - get overall positive reviews, and favorable ratings. I acknowledge that other people might feel the same about films I like. So both me and them in a way don't fit in this scheme, we're alienated.

I'm not saying all views need to be represented, that's unmanageable. But somehow this needs to work, and it might be to leave it as (I believe) was intended - that a page will not be worth more than the interest people have in it, enough to contribute. and if a scathing or praising review is not worthy - it should be edited out, and not left in just for the sake of fair representation. If someone makes a valid point that the film is shit, it should be left in, and if someone else says the same film is great, and makes a valid point - it should also be in. This is community respect, and there's not need for a formula to mediate it.

Another way to look at it - if commercial money goes into maintaining positive image on wikipedia, then it's our role as contributors to at least make sure they don't get away with it on the cheap.

I really hope this creates a discussion that elevates the knowledge, which is why I originally started contributing here - it can be very satisfying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeav (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joeav. I have not read your post above, because it is not appropriate for this page, which is about assistance with editing Wikipedia. Please take it to WT:WikiProject Film --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't know the best place for my request, so I decided to post it here. The article above is about a war in Kisangani, so the name could be Six-Day War (Kisangani). Is this a good idea?--Support Wikipedia, support free sharing of knowledge 19:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:MILNAME military conflicts are disambiguated by year or years in parentheses. Ruslik_Zero 20:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would like to add a organization infobox in French and links to portail (Associations, Saskatchewan and Francophonie) to the page I created : Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Assembl%C3%A9e_communautaire_fransaskoise

Could you please help me?

I cannot succeed in doing that

Thank you Clémence

This is English-language Wikipedia. If you want to create an article written in French, you should do so at French-language Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same person or is there a mixup : the names are pretty similar, and they have a lot of common points, but... I'm not sure.

One sure thing : they have the same IMDb name ID : nm3422689

So, are they truly the same person or not ? and if not, whose IMDb is wrong ? Thanks for helping me on this. I discovered it while adding IMDB to wikidata. --Hsarrazin (talk on wd) 21:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first person to ask this: see Talk:Kollam G. K. Pillai. Although it probably merits discussion, this isn't the right place for such discussion. Perhaps bring the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force? -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please fix this title? It should be fully italic as in the body of the article. Thanks! Spicemix (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it Spicemix. The tricky bit is the "italic command" in the info box conflicted with the "display title" template. So this edit allowed them to work together. If I am incorrect in this another editor will set us straight but the page title is working at the moment. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are great. I learned something. Spicemix (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help Spicemix. I was taught about taught about this little trick a year or two ago so I am glad to have passed it on. Group learning is one of the nice things about editing here at WikiP. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 00:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? @Spicemix and MarnetteD: Fully italic, as in the parentheses being italic as well? Right now the parentheses are not italic. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are on my browser ((u|Anon126}}. I use firefox. You could try clearing your cache otherwise someone else may be able to tell you why they aren't on yours. MarnetteD|Talk 00:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rats messed up my ping so here it is again Anon126. MarnetteD|Talk 00:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]