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)

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)

@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)

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)

The edit was adding this entry to March 18 date page. [1] which is a significant event. Why does this moderator think it ISNT an event? @Kiwipete seems to think I violated some WP event rule but after reading it, makes no sense. This is literally the definition of a significant event on a date. He wants me to petition on a talk page which I find futile for such a minor thing. Why he is wasting all of my time on this is rather silly. I think it is an abuse of power. And yes youve said censorship might not be best word. Regardless. Either add this properly or dont. I am done caring. I keep my own blog of history and just wanted to add something significant. I did not expect to be arguing for days about something so minor. Photolarry (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is the actual code that was removed by @Kiwipete

• 1935 – Jacob Schick successfully marketed the first practical electric razor.

Photolarry (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Photolarry, if this isso minor, then why does it belong in an encyclopedia? And if Schick began marketing his electric razor on that particular day, how can it reasonably described assuccessfully on the very first day? What reliable source says it was successful the first day it was sold? Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it should read "Began selling the first practical electric razor in New York City" without the word successful. Is that a good compromise? Britannica just says 1931 but according to a few other sources the date of March 18 is mentioned.[2]https://www.onthisday.com/date/1931/march/18 Photolarry (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a celebrity oriented gossipy "fun fact" site that does not devote significant coverage to the history of Schick razors. It says nothing about success and is not even a full sentence. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I gave you a link to Britannica as well. and a simple google search should give you many other links. I am so frustrated with how bureaucratic this site has become. I used to add simple facts without any issues and now it is like I have to provide ten links just for a simple historic fact. I give up. I will not try any longer to add things to date pages that I see are missing. Wikipedia is not the end all source of anything. I am done expending my energy for days just to add one simple fact verifiable with a simple web search. I am done. Forgot I even asked. Minor edits are very often added mister Cullen. That is why there is a switch for it. Have a nice day. Idiotic that I even have to argue something so simple. Photolarry (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Photolarry please don't get disheartened about Wikipedia it can be brutal! I think these date pages like March 18 require a definitive, important date. In this case May 13 may be better with the lineThe articles Jacob Schick and Electric shaver don't explicitly mention May 13 1930 but they link to sources (including the patent history filing) that do. So, if it appropriate to get the exact date in Jacob Schick, you can suggest the factoid for May 13. The good news is that there is still time to get this done for readers of "On this day" this year :-). I haven't looked at the inclusion guidelines for date articles, but you can always suggest it on Talk:May 13. I have used Schick disposable razors, but didn't realise the founder was the father of the modern electric version. So it is an interesting fact for me at least. Commander Keane (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

See WP:Oversight. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Done. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   06:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 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)

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_creep^Talk 08:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

I've left the deletion editor a note to find out if there is more to it. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

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 saysFacts cannot be copyrighted, but the way they are presented can be. TSventon (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@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 saysIf 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)

Thank you! I never knew it existed. Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• @Warriorglance: The issue seems to be the rights for the image that the data is overlapped upon. There are free images of all variety of maps available on Commons that can be used for this purpose. See c:Category:Blank maps of the world. GMG^talk 12:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Oh ok, so one should not use third party applications to create maps? I created the map in the platform Datawrapper. So, only wikimedia commons allowed? Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Only public domain or freely licensed maps are allowed. OpenStreetMap is an example of a map source which is explicitly released under a free licence. Google maps is an example of a map source which is explicitly subject to copyright. I don't know about Datawrapper, but since it seems to be a commercial organisation, I doubt that it licenses its maps in a way that Commons would accept (I may be wrong). ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry i didn't mean to offend you. And thanks for guiding me regarding this matter. 4rju9 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I confirm what said @TSventon. I found "As If (British TV series)". Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

And As If (UK TV series) is a redirect. TSventon (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon The redirect confirm I think we had to write "British". What do you think ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Anatole-berthe I agree. TSventon (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Finding a few examples is fine, although I would be happier to see a statement of official policy somewhere. As a matter of interest I note a discrepancy, "British TV series" seems to be favoured on Wikipedia, however the equivalent items on Wikidata use "UK TV series", see e.g. Life on Mars (British TV series) has an entry at the bottom that reads: Wikimedia Commons has media related to Life on Mars (UK TV series). Nonetheless I will move my article to have "British" rather than "UK" in its title, leaving the latter as a redirect. Thanks. Tony 1212 (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tony 1212 Personally , I think you asked a good question because of the discrepancy between "Wikipedia in English" , "Wikidata" and "Wikimedia Commons".

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

When there are not any official policy or guidelines.

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

Each projects is independent of each others.

For example , "Wikidata" isnt "Wikipedia in English".

Another example. Wikipedia in English language is not "Wikipedia in French". Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon Concerning your message from "MARCH/19/2025" at "19:53 UTC".

I note you agree with me. Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tony 1212:, you probably want Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), which recommends "(British TV series)", following a 2019 discussion. I found it by checking the history of As If (British TV series).

As @Anatole-berthe: says en Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons all have their own policies for naming pages. commons:Category:Life_on_Mars_(UK_TV_series) was created in 2015 so it is possible that Commons are following the en Wikipedia naming policy from before 2019. d:Q1071501 has an English label "Life on Mars" and English description "British television series", rather than English label "Life on Mars (British TV series)". I believe that is standard, but I am less familiar with Wikidata than with en Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: Thanks you for the page about naming conventions for television.

Now , I know it does exist a guideline about that. Anatole-berthe (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all. From the above, I note now that the official recommendation is contained at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Additional_disambiguation Tony 1212 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Before starting a page, consider using the WP:AFC process to develop the article and have a human reviewer take a look at it first. You could write the article directly over the redirect, but, as I'm assuming this is your first article I'd recommend going through the aforementioned AFC process. Departure– (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it isn't my first article. I've written many. But haven't encountered this situation. Ravin9976 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You can always (not that I reccomend this before asking around) just remove the redirect template from the page and put the article there. I've expanded an article from a redirect before.

MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 23:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @MallardTV. The article redirect says it is R from member, and R wit possibilities. Does this mean it is ok to remove the redirect and replace with a new article. Thank you.

Ravin9976 (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

There ae instructions at Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article. It is difficult to say if converting a particular redirect is a good idea without knowing which redirect. I noticed that your template had a warning about being a semi protected page, then realised that that was because the helpdesk is semi protected. TSventon (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

You can also write a draft article then request publication through WP:Requested moves/Technical requests, which should be quicker than AfC. TSventon (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by “R”?

MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 19:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

R=redirect. TSventon (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi all

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

Thanks

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

You can use Template:Infobox YouTube personality! You don't need to use every blank. Smaller youtubers usually don't.

MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 23:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

John Cummings, the template documentation specifically saysThe template may be used for individual YouTube personalities or collective YouTube channels run by more than one person. Cullen328 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)