Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikipedia help desk
  • This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.

  • New users: While this is a good place to ask questions, new users may prefer to ask for help at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
Are you in the right place?

April 21[edit]

Categories for navigation boxes[edit]

I seem to remember that there is a policy stating that the only categories that a navbox should have are categories for templates. Where can I find such a policy. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Would this be it Jax 0677? Wikipedia:Categorization#Template categorization: Templates should be categorized according to kind of template, but not by template content...: Bhunacat10 (talk), 19:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about arbitration enforcement logs[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019#Pseudoscience says:

  • [username] is indefinitely topic-banned from from Flood geology and related pages from 20 February 2019. 04:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • [username] is indefinitely blocked for violation of the above topic ban immediately after an unsuccessful appeal and sundry attendant disruption. 22:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

(Username redacted because this question isn't about the specific user or his ban/block. It is about what gets logged and what doesn't get logged.)

However, the block log of the user in question shows that the block was lifted on 28 March 2019. Should this be reflected in the AE log? It is easy enough to check a user's block log and discover that they had the block lifted, but how do I know that the topic ban has not been lifted as well?

Or is this just a clerical error, meaning that lifting a block or ban should be logged but somehow this wasn't done in this case? If so, where do I go to ask that the log be updated? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that arbitration enforcement blocks cannot last more than one year but concurrent blocks that aren't done as "arbitration enforcement blocks" can last as long as the blocking policy allows. Sometimes these concurrent blocks-which-are-not-arbitration-enforcement are logged in the same log, often with a provision that the first year of the block operates as AE block and the remaining as regular blocks. According to the block appeal tha topic ban was explicitly not lifted, only the block was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
But should the log reflect that? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
For clarity, we are discussing User:Sotuman who was unblocked on 28 March but remains under a topic ban from flood geology and related pages. Why not contact the *unblocking* admin, User:GoldenRing, and see if they want to update the WP:DSLOG? Since User:JzG, the blocking admin, entered his action into DSLOG he must have intended it as an arbitration enforcement. Both the AE block and the unblock would normally be logged. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support proper logging at WP:DSLOG.

    "...such need to be appropriately logged." - Dlohcierekim Sotuman (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @Guy Macon: Apologies, this was my oversight. I've now logged the unblock at DSLOG. GoldenRing (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

But confusing to use, any tools to help me understand the site[edit]

I look Around Wikipedia, but find out confusing. I would love a sitemap or other tools like a comprehensive listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 506 independent (talkcontribs) 16:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it can be confusing. There is a sitemap at Wikipedia:sitemap. There are many, many lists of topics, mostly by subject. Please ask again if you have a more specific question.--Shantavira|feed me 16:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

An editor has proposed an article I have created for deletion but the article doesn't seem to fulfil the criteria for nomination[edit]

In WP:DEL-REASON, Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.

WP:BEFORE (in WP:AFD) links to WP:DEL-REASON via the link anchor "valid grounds for deletion" ie, AFD describes deletion-reason (the list of 14 reasons) as being the "valid grounds"

Sederecarinae (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This is about Human cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries MB 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:DEL-REASON says reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following, so all that matters is whether or not the community decides to delete the article. Wikipedia does not have firm rules so reasons for deletion can be anything reasonable. Also, the article appears to be a fairly indiscriminate collection of statistics. --Danski454 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

How to add a photograph[edit]

Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredbeyondmeasure (talkcontribs) 17:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Boredbeyondmeasure: See Help:Files – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Boredbeyondmeasure: If you are the photographer, then you own the copyright and you can upload the photo to Commons. If you are not the photographer, then come back here for a deeper analysis if the copyright. To upload to commons, go to c:Wikimedia Commons and click on the button near the top right and follow the tedious instructions. After the file is available on Commons, you can use it in an article here as described above. -Arch dude (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits not showing up on user talk page[edit]

Very odd. I added a thread at User talk:Lithopsian, and it doesn't show up. It's there in the code if I go to edit again, but my signature is still four tildes. It was never converted to name and date. The same is true of the preceding thread by another user - it doesn't display, and their signature is still four tildes as well. Anyone have any idea what's going on? — kwami (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: An HTML comment had been damaged, so that the software thought that the rest of the page was all part of the comment. I've fixed the comment and have done by best to fix the missing signatures. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Pertinent addition to the "Dick Van Dyke Show" article[edit]

This is what I received: Information icon Hello, I'm Stellarnebula. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Dick Van Dyke Show have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Stellarnebula (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This is my answer: My addition "did not appear to be constructive?" The addition I made is directly from the book "The Dick Van Dyke Show" to include the production company that made the show, and the unique way the show producers' names were incorporated into the name of said production company. My addition is as pertinent to the dialogue as the rest of the information in the article, hence the placing of it at the top. I realize that you Wikipedia editors do not like to let people contribute (keeping that privilege for your doctorate-level contributors), but when someone contributes interesting items to articles that can be verified, they should be allowed to do so.

Calvin Sneed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4790:3D70:D965:FF27:86E7:970 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Stellarnebula for comments.
As for 2600:1702:4790:3D70:D965:FF27:86E7:970: I'll wait for Stellarnebula before saying anything further, but in the meantime: Cite your sources. While it's certainly not done as often as it should be, it gives you far more credibility and is helpful to everyone. If you're not sure how, let me know. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
2600:1702:4790:3D70:D965:FF27:86E7:970, Hi! Thank you for bringing it up! It looks like I did revert your edits in error, and a citation needed tag would have been more appropriate. I was doing a quick recent changes patrol for vandalism, and, in the diff, I saw the first letters of words being capitalized, leading me to believe it was vandalism of the article. I will say, in the future, please cite your sources, as it does lend you some credibility. Sorry about that! Also, thank you LittlePuppers for the ping! Stellarnebula (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Update: I've restored the edits and struck through the warning on your talk page. Happy editing! Stellarnebula (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this the right question to a copyright venue[edit]

I had a past concern at this archive. Which concerns to an episode listing, with the same user. But on Joshi Kausei the "plot" section was copied from a link / url. By this edit. And is that under the same rule/ guideline umbrella? (If I sound slow, I'm re-reading the rules from the various MoS.) Tainted-wingsz (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Tainted-wingsz, your removal of it was the right course of action. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, yes. But since this is a second time they added copied info. In the last two months. Do I refer to else where. Or wait around, if some info was added a third time? And request the {{copyvio-revdel}} or other similar help? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Tainted-wingsz As the editor is aware and has posted on your talk page, I've replied there to put them in the picture and hope you don't mind: Bhunacat10 (talk), 10:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

April 22[edit]

Requesting Move for AfC Draft?[edit]

I'm creating a new article right now, and realized too late that the proper name of the article should be something else. Should I put in a request to move the article now, before it is accepted through AfC review, or is there another avenue that is more appropriate?

This is for the page Draft:Dropout_TV, and the title ought to just be Dropout.

Thanks in advance! ChunyangD (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

ChunyangD, The title Dropout is already taken by a disambiguation page, so I suggest not using that title because you wouldn't be able to anyway when it's accepted. Your account isn't completely new, so you should be allowed to use the Special:MovePage feature to move pages yourself, and as far as I know, there's no rule against moving pages marked for review, there should be no problems just doing it. I've gone ahead and moved the draft to for now though. Alpha3031 (tc) 04:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @ChunyangD: It can be moved now; Otherwise, articles can (and often are) also be renamed when they're accepted at AfC. However, Dropout is a disambiguation page (a page listing articles that could be referred to by the term "dropout"), so you can't move it there (as it isn't the overwhelmingly primary topic for that word). You could leave it be, or I could move it to something like "Dropout (media service provider)" or "Dropout (video network)" if you want. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for the quick responses! Ah yes, @Alpha3031 I didn't realize I had access to the MovePage feature... my editing has been sporadic over the past years. And thank you for the initial move to I still need to figure out what the preferred stylization of the service should be. I might end up taking @LittlePuppers advice and use Dropout (media service provider) as that seems closest to how the service brands itself. ChunyangD (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

How drafts works?[edit]

Hi, I'am a Spanish Wikipedia user, and I try to create an article here, in English Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how to make it. The article (Draft:Indira Murillo) is just a "draft", in Spanish Wikipedia we don't have such thing, so I'm confused. Need some help, please. Thanks!!

JohnnyStar (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi JohnnyStar. If you put {{subst:submit}} at the top of your article, it'll put your draft into the review queue, and an AfC reviewer will be around to either make it into a regular article (by moving it) or tell you what you need to do to meet our criteria for inclusion (mostly WP:Notability). This might take up to a few months because there are many drafts in the queue right now (~3000), but usually drafts are reviewed within a few days. Good luck! Alpha3031 (tc) 06:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks!!! JohnnyStar (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi JohnnyStar, I have reviewed and accepted it, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Dodger67, many thanks!! I will try to continue contributing. JohnnyStar (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia via a VPN[edit]


In three days I will be going to Turkey for two weeks. I know that Wikipedia is banned there but I do have a VPN (Windscribe) to bypass the ban. However, last time I was there I used Windscribe to access Wikipedia and I got an IP ban that I had to appeal to overturn. I am wondering that if I access Wikipedia via a VPN will I get another IP ban? And if so, is there any other way to access the site?

Thank you, Central Data Bank (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If you were given an IP block exemption it should still be in effect; if not you can request one following the instructions at that link. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Central Data Bank, before someone granted you temporary IP block exemption. I have reinstated that for you. It will expire in 3 weeks. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrectly indexed data[edit]

Query "all people in 1972 presidential election" (or various forms thereof) - Wiki will never reply with the list of the names of all persons who attempted to become president. No, altering query or subject to "nomination" or "primaries" doesn't present the list as a result either.

In the common vernacular the phrasing "all people who ran for president in YEAR" should give this list -- ONLY if you add the word "election" should one receive the final contenders, the persons who received their party's nomination. But whoever set it up now & whoever has entered data now has all queries regarding CAMPAIGN to be answered to ELECTION.

CAMPAIGN or RACE and all things "1972 presidential" sans word "ELECTION" should list all things related up to the general election, and then reference the election. Should start with a list of all candidates - not 1 name here, another 3 lines later, another 4 paragraphs after that. They are all in the same elections, same race, same campaign -- someone was a nutter to set it up as it is now!

To make a single question: How many people were in each of the races in the 70s after Watergate? - it took over 2 hours to find the answer on your so-called "encyclopedia."

On Britannica? 1 query for each election.

You try it. Find out when the 1st woman ran a campaign for president. Now the 1st black woman.

See if you can do it in under an hour (and no cheating using Google or a book!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, according to List of elections in 1972 there were arond sixty elections that year - which one are you referring to? Secondly, if you have spotted an article that you think needs to be written - then go ahead and write it. That is how a volunteer project like Wikipedia works.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Parsing a string as English language and producing an accurate answer is extremely difficult for a computer program. Wikipedia's search box does not attempt to do it. It just searches our articles for the words unless certain parameters are used. If there is a navigation template listing the subjects and you know the template name like Template:1972 United States presidential election then you can say hastemplate:"1972 United States presidential election". incategory: or linksto: can also sometimes help. See more at Help:Searching. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
There are several issues here. 1) Most fundamentally, the title of this tirade is not valid as to does not discuss "incorrect" indexing all. The OP did not get an incorrect result. 2) Britannica is a lot smaller than Wikipedia, so it's easier for them to search. 3) We do not consider this to be part of our mission. There no reason not to use Google or some other entity that specializes in search. Since Wikipedia is completely open to allow these searches (as Britannica is not) we don't need an organic search capability. 4) We have a sister project, Wikidata, for structured data. It has very powerful generalized search capability. -Arch dude (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
If, as PrimeHunter suggests, the election in question is the 1972 United States presidential election then that article contains lists of all people who officially nominated as candidates. The list is split into three - Democrats, Republicans, and Other. I am not clear whether that satisfies the original question about "all persons who attempted to become president" is not clear - I expect many people tried but did not it make it as far as nominating. If the reader is looking for those, the question would need to be clarified.
For the second part of the question, you will find related information at Women_in_government#Historic_firsts_for_women_in_government. It does not mention women nominating for election, but it does mention the first woman who became president - Isabel Perón, of Argentina (1974–1976).--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits Not Displayed[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Team,

Few days ago, I updated the Wikipedia page of an organisation, Association for Democratic Reforms, where I work. Upon visiting the page today, I could not find those edits. Please take this into your consideration and update the content as per my edits.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by NandiniRaj1994 (talkcontribs) 11:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi NandiniRaj1994. Your edits (you can see this on the "view history tab" on the article-page) was reverted by a "bot", probably because you added WP:EXTERNAL LINKS to several social media in the article text, and this is generally a no-no on WP. Text like "To receive our press releases, join our google groups" is not fitting for a WP-article, nor are your phonenumbers etc. Take the time to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] @NandiniRaj1994:, please also read carefully the following sets of guidelines: WP:PAID, WP:RS and WP:CITE. Having done so, you may understand why your edits were reverted and why you should not be seeking to edit the article directly, but rather providing cites to Reliable sources in the articles Talk page and requesting other disinterested editors to evaluate them. Please note in particular that WP:COI and WP:PAID require that you place appropriate declarations on your User page (which you can create simply by clicking on that red link and typing something): non-compliance with this requirement could result in your being blocked or banned from EnWikipedia. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Moving Categories[edit]

Are extendedconfirmed users not allowed to move categories anymore? SportsFan007 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)SportsFan007

Only administrators and page movers have the move-categorypages right at Special:ListGroupRights. I don't know whether extendedconfirmed users ever did. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I think Users used to have move-categorypages, at least according to my project (I'm sure I didn't adjust that). - FlightTime (open channel) 15:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Something has changed. On 2 November 2018 I moved Category:Censuses in Trasnistria, even though I've never been an administrator or page mover. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
It changed at phab:T219261 after Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#RfC: Restrict technical ability to move categories. Before that autoconfirmed users could move category pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

atheist church[edit]

Currently a search on these terms redirects to the Sunday Assembly, which doesn't even really like to use the term "atheist" and the NYC community actually split over this issue. PLUS there are several other atheist churches. I don't know how to fix this. It should be fixed as a google search on atheist church returns over 28 million hits and most are not the Sunday Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenomed (talkcontribs) 13:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Xenomed. I took a quick look, and see no obvious "solution". Per WP-philosophy, atheist church should lead to an article with that title, or, like in this case, somewhere the reader is probably looking for. If there are several "atheist churches" with articles one can create a "disambiguation page" like Apostle (disambiguation). What the org itself wants to be called matters less in WP-land than what independent sources calls it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Ideally someone should make an article about the broader topic, rather than just redirecting it to one congregation. I remember a few years ago reading an article (maybe in Newsweek, back when it was a real news magazine?) about atheist churches in general being a new movement.  It would be a good source to start an article. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I've nominated this for a broader discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 22#Atheist church. MB 15:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • On a point of order: notice that redirect titles do not necessarily need to be neutral. Hence, the fact that members of the community feel it does not adequately describe them is not relevant if a large fraction of the public designate them by that term, and it is not too outrageous. Of course, whether the redirect is actually to a subtopic (when a larger article should be written) is another debate (see RfD discussion). TigraanClick here to contact me 13:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source?[edit]

Hi, an editor added to the article on Albert Camus that Camus lived in Lourmarin, Vaucluse, France and cited as a source "Michelin Green Guide 2017: Provence (English Version), page 346". Is a tourist guide a reliable source? Can Michelin be trusted for biographical facts of Camus' life? - Epinoia (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Epinoia. I'd say a Michelin_Guide#Green_Guides could be an RS on this, it seems reasonably uncontroversial. If sources conflict, something like a good biography would be a better source, but this one doesn't seem awful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång - ok, thanks for the response - Epinoia (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this a COI, or appropriate use of a draft article?[edit]

Just noticed this, after an edit was reverted on Line of Duty. The editor in question seems to be the actor himself, or at least somebody representing the actor - they've set up a draft that is pretty much a CV: User:ChrisWilsonxx1x/Chris Wilson (actor).

Apart from the usual COI template, what would be the best way of dealing with this? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens it's a copyright violation, now tagged for deletion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
And the username has been sent to WP:UAA. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I remove a biographic article, as requested by the person in question?[edit]

Hi, I have an acquaintance who does not want to have a biographic article of his on Wikipedia, especially a WP in a certain language. Is it possible to request its removal to an administrator? What are the requirements? Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Iñaki LL. On English Wikipedia, an article can be deleted only if it meets the criteria for Deletion: principally, that there are not adequate published sources to base an article on. The wishes of the subject are almost irrelevant, because an article will only be possible if sufficient material about them has already been published elsewhere. For other language Wikipedias, I'm afraid that you would have to ask at the relevant Wikipedia: each is a separate project, with different rules, and possibly different criteria for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Iñaki LL. On en-WP, the "rule" is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Basically, if your friend is not very well known (in the opinion of the WP-editors who wish to comment), an article can be deleted. To attempt this, start a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion with something like "Hi, I am X, this article is about me and I would like it deleted, please."On other language WP:s, similar or different rules may apply, you'll have to ask there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both for your replies! Iñaki LL (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Marital status[edit]

Hi, i am divorced and engaged to a new partner.

How can I change this on my wiki profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, the articles are not referred to as profiles but instead as articles. The information in those articles should be referenced to reliable sources for that information. If there is some reliable source saying that the subject of an article is divorced, then we can put that information (with the reference) into the article. Which article are you referring to? †dismas†|(talk) 21:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Suggest it on the talkpage of the article. You need a source, but in this particular case (WP:ABOUTSELF), something like your own blog, facebook or twitter can be an acceptable source. Of course, an article about it in the Washington Post is better. Wikipedia:Edit requests may be of help to speed things up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

IP problems[edit]

Hello, I've made edits before making a wikipedia account. Now my IP address is open to the world, is there a way to connect my account to my old ip edits or anything else that could help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmeedP (talkcontribs) 22:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello OmeedP. If you want to, you can write something like "Between date1 and date2 I edited with IP X" on your userpage, just click the redlinked OmeedP and type away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Oversight if you want the IP address hidden for privacy reasons. But IP edits cannot be reassigned to your account in page histories or Special:Contributions/OmeedP. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Church of Saint-Sulpice, Jumet - disambug page[edit]

Currently, this article links to a disambug page about Saint-Sulpice, but I think there's enough churches to warrant a a page just about the churches themselves. There already is one on the French Wikipedia, [1] and it lists 48 articles of churches named Saint-Sulpice in France. Would this be a good reason to create a disambugation page? Clovermoss (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Rather than copy a large chunk into a content fork, where the info is duplicated, I would just add a churches section to the Saint-Sulpice dab page, with the places that are churches, and separate alphabetically by country, like the current places section is separated. Then create a redirect called Saint-Sulpice Church, sending readers to your new church section on that dab page. Then the info won't have to be maintained in two places. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Timtempleton Okay, that's a great idea! Thank you. Clovermoss (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Timtempleton I've ran into some problems with this approach.

  1. It seems that there's only two Church articles written in English; so there's 46 churches that would be red links if I listed them. I could put all the work into translating and creating these articles (if they meet English Wikipedia guidelines), but 46 articles about churches is a lot of work to do without thinking about whether that's a good idea. I'm also currently working on my own drafts - I don't think I'm quite ready to handle something like that yet, especially since this draft of mine has taken a few months to get to its current state.
  2. The suggested redirect of Saint-Sulpice Church is already a redirect to Church of Saint-Sulpice, Paris.

Clovermoss (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: I moved the discussion to your talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Article on Yogi Narayana[edit]

I had written an article on Yogi Narayana for the benefit of users of Wikipedia. It has been rejected on the grounds of lack of references. However, in the uploaded article, I had included the reference section at the bottom of the page in running matter. I would like the help desk to guide me as to how I can further edit the page and include photographs to authenticate the write-up of the article.

Regards, Dr. HariPrasad. S Chemistry Department, Central College Campus, Bangalore University, Bangalore - 560001, INDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariprasad sure (talkcontribs) 00:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hariprasad sure: Your best bet is to put references about the poet in the article. This may help Help:Referencing for beginners. Here's one I found but my ad blocker blocks it so I can't read it. [[2]] Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so we know who you are. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Hariprasad sure. The references in User:Hariprasad sure/sandbox are (apart from the last one, which is useless as a reference, because a reader has no way to find it to check what it says) to works by Narayana. Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of an article has said or published: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them. Almost all the content of an article should come from such independent sources - and if such sources do not exist, then it is not possible to write an acceptable article on the subject. Please see the link Timtempleton gave you, and also Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In the error message, the words "help page" are in blue, indicating that they are a wikilink, in this case to Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref which explains your problem. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed Curiously, two editors added the same unsourced info in two different places and each partly removed an adjacent ref tag in doing do. Eagleash (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

WP links[edit]

Hi, Usually WP links would be shown in blue highlighted texts. However, I noticed today, they have appeared in green highlighted texts instate. Has anything been changed or something happens on my user setting? cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • What is your mediawiki skin? (Preferences -> Appearance -> Skin) The default (which I use) is "Vector" and it did not change recently (and has blue links).
Assuming you are on Vector, and since User:CASSIOPEIA/common.css does not contain anything funky, it has something to do with your browser. What is its version? Did you install any add-ons recently? TigraanClick here to contact me 12:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, is it only redirects that are green? You have User:BrandonXLF/GreenRedirects in your common.js. Eman235/talk 12:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tigraan and Eman235: Thank for the reply. My skin is Vector (default). Using the same browser for a few years, nothing added. The only thing I installed was User:BrandonXLF/GreenRedirects todayl. Example - see my talk page This message, (multiple independent; reliable sources ; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST and WP:NCORP) links are all in green but "Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything" link is in blue. Any clues? Thanks. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That would be because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST and WP:NCORP are redirects while Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything isn't. ‑ Iridescent 13:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent Thank you and now it makes sense. Thank you for all you guys talking the time on answering my question. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Help with categories?[edit]

Hi! I'm trying to find or add a category to Yongfeng chili sauce, which is a Geographical Indication Product in China. I saw that there are many categories for countries in Category:Products_with_protected_designation_of_origin and was going to add a category Chinese products with protected designation of origin there, but the page seems to indicate it's for EU only, although Mexico has been added at some point and none of the parent categories seem to offer a spot for China either. I'm afraid I'm causing someone more work by my fumbling around trying to figure this out on my own, so I thought I'd better instead try to figure out what talk page I should be asking about this on. Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks! --valereee (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The category:Products with protected designation of origin should not be restricted to the EU. I'm going to remove those criteria, so Mexico and China can breathe a sigh of relief. You can then create Category:Chinese products with protected designation of origin, ungrammatical as that is (or is "Chinese" not quite right because of the Republic of China?). Clarityfiend (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Clarityfiend, thank you! --valereee (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Edite and remove tag in page[edit]

Hi, My page had been tagged time ago to be fix issues, but still waiting for a editor. If you can take a look, I'll appreciate. Thanks

--Wiki-marshall (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Delmi. I'm guessing you mean Delmi Álvarez. It is a long article (far too long, in my opinion), with most of its references not in English (that is acceptable, but makes it hard for English speakers who don't have Galician, Spanish, or Latvian), so it would require an editor who is willing to spend a lot of time on it to improve it. It also has large chunks of unreferenced text, much of which is not in an encyclopaedic style. Bear in mind that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of any article says or wishes to say: it is only in interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject: much of the article reads very much as if this is what you wish to share about yourself and your career, but unless somebody unconnected with you has reported on that, most of it is not acceptable.
We are all volunteers, and we choose what we want to work on, so I'm afraid you might have a hard time finding somebody willing to work on Wikipedia's article about you (which is absolutely not "your page", by the way). You might have more luck asking at WT:WikiProject Galicia (though that appears to be inactive) or WT:WikiProject Journalism. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
ColinFine this question also asked/answered at Teahouse. Delmi, please ask for help only in one place so that other editors don't end up duplicating effort on your behalf. --valereee (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I want to report a Wikipedia page[edit]

Hi, I was researching about something. I came across this on Wikipedia: This page is highly skewed and biased. Although properly cited, this portrays one side as the bad guy and other party, who is a bad guy in this case, as the good buy. I am a student and have exams soon. So, I can't edit the page myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm afraid that Wikipedia does not have the concept of "reporting a page": if there is something wrong with an article, then the talk page of the article is the place to discuss it. What you could do is to add the template {{neutrality disputed}} at the top of the article - if you do so, please also post on Talk:Sahara India Pariwar investor fraud case to explain why you think it is not neutral. --ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Phantom British English tagging[edit]

When I open the 21 Savage article for editing, a banner shows up that says "This article is written in British English, …". I belive that normally, this would be caused by a {{Use British English}} template, but I found no such template in the article. What could be causing that? It is obviously inappropriate, as is discussed on the Talk page at Talk:21 Savage. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Answered on article talk page - X201 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

In search of information pertaining to a Beatles album with title . Suetone Records Beatles Live In Hamburg Germany1961?[edit]

Copied to Reference Desk
I have in my possession a album from 1961 with a record label that does not exist? and then even more compelling to the mystery record co is the fact that its a BEATLES LP?. This lost Beatle albm predates any known recording with there name title set.. could and would anybody,anyone please assist in discovery of said album..thank you very much..{P.S good luck..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C00:17BF:4C6B:ABDC:A35E:91DB (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC) 
Hello, IP user. I have copied your question to the Entertainment section of the Reference Desk, where it is a better fit. Please look for answers there. --ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


User:Jabrona just made a personal attack on me saying that I am an idiot after reverting my edit on A Nightmare on Elm Street. I made my edit per the Talk:A Nightmare on Elm Street discussion. From his talk page, I see that he was blocked for disruptive editing and name calling before. This is what he wrote to me "Hey idiot, he's not called "Freddy" in this movie, so leave my edit alone". I am really hurt by this name calling.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

NeoBatfreak, I will warn the user. If you want someone to be blocked, please go to WP:AIV. MrClog (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I just did, after he made more personal attacks on my talk page, calling me "hard-headed ass", "cluts, a retard, a curse, a failed mistake of life, and a whimpering dog tail", and "hopefully die by being deported". I do not feel safe of editing if there is one editor who would resort to rude name callings.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
NeoBatfreak, I'm posting on WP:AN/I for you. Hopefully we'll get it resolved. His behavior is unacceptable. Rockstonetalk to me! 23:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wenner update needed[edit]

Just looked at your JANN WENNER entry, discovered it's outdated. Most significantly, Wenner no longer owns RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AAF0:49F0:59C6:C419:26DF:CF4F (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Jann Wenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Convenience link. †dismas†|(talk) 22:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

I need more eyes to have a look at an article.[edit]

How can I do it? I 've asked 3rd Opinion, but a user (who is very friendly to the other one I was discussing, commented minutes after I asked for 3rd Opinion. Cinadon36 (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Cinadon36, according to the guide, what you want to do next, if you don't know of a specific noticeboard, is either to file an RfC or an request at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The former is for when you have short specific proposals, and the latter is for general content disputes. Alpha3031 (tc) 05:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I 'll go step by step and file a RfC. Thank you for your time. :) Cinadon36 (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)