:::I'm afraid I haven't quite as much time to devote to Wikipedia as I once did; I won't be able to lead the charge on this. It is concerning that PJ Geest has shown little willingness to engage with other editors about his campaign to add videos - mostly from a single publisher? - to a large number of articles. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 11:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm afraid I haven't quite as much time to devote to Wikipedia as I once did; I won't be able to lead the charge on this. It is concerning that PJ Geest has shown little willingness to engage with other editors about his campaign to add videos - mostly from a single publisher? - to a large number of articles. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 11:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
::::Quite understood - I'm trying to manage my own wiki-time and attention, and you've helped a lot already. I'll see how discussion on an article talk page goes. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 11:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
::::Quite understood - I'm trying to manage my own wiki-time and attention, and you've helped a lot already. I'll see how discussion on an article talk page goes. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 11:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::I am really sorry I did not follow [[WP:BRD]] 3 times, really sorry. I will not do this again. Off course I am available to talk about this. The videos are funded by the Dutch governement, so there is no problem like Osmosis that the videos come from an outside company. --[[User:PJ Geest|PJ Geest]] ([[User talk:PJ Geest|talk]]) 11:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::I am really sorry I did not follow [[WP:BRD]] 3 times, really sorry. I will not do this again. Off course I am available to talk about this. The videos are funded by the Dutch governement, so there is no problem like Osmosis that the videos come from an outside company. n extra argument for keeping the videos is that commercial websites like YouTube become more and more attractive and users increasingly expect answers to their search queries in rich content (e.g., image, video, and audio formats), see following post [https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/28/what-does-the-world-need-from-us-now-external-trends-to-watch/ What does the world need from us now? External Trends to Watch]. So Wikipedia cannot stay behind, it should stay attractive. --[[User:PJ Geest|PJ Geest]] ([[User talk:PJ Geest|talk]]) 12:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
On my user page, I have created a "button" that when pressed takes the user to a subsidiary table of contents ("subsidiary" because the TOC relates to notes on copyright -- it isn't the main table of contents). I have formatted the button as a one-cell table, and I'm happy with that. My problem is that the table is on the left-hand side of the page; I want it to be on the right. I haven't been able to incorporate information from the Table:Help page; advice would be greatly appreciated. It's here. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺💬 at 03:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SCHolar44: Use can use class="floatright" after {| at the very start of the table. The table would become right-aligned. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 06:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CX Zoom: Many thanks! Amazing how simple it is when you know how! ;-) SCHolar44 (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WIKIPEDIA EBOOK
Hi is it illegal to create an ebook with all the references included and sell it? The ebook will contain everything that is on wikipedia and nothing at all will be altered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.80.112.42 (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I purchase an ebook of Wikipedia when I can access the actual Wikipedia for free? 331dot (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the answer to your question is probably no, because not all of the images in Wikipedia are free to reuse (though many of them are). The intention of the project is that all material is free for reuse, and if we achieved that, then you could do what you're suggesting - see WP:REUSE. But because that would mean a lot of articles had no images, English Wikipedia relaxes that requirement to a degree (see NFCC - some other Wikipedias do not relax it). This means that if the material you want to copy contains any images, you need to check the copyright status of each image, and if any of them are not free, either omit them or ask their copyright holders for permission to reuse them. ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting point/question about "will contain everything that is on wikipedia and nothing at all will be altered" is: everything that is on Wikipedia--at what particular moment in time? Or more likely, unless someone can somehow capture the whole thing in a moment--at what vast collection of moments?? This person's proposed snapshot of Wikipedia (I guess one could describe it that way) would be frozen in that moment, or myriad moments, while the genuine article is being constantly altered. And we hope, of course that overall, at least, the constant alterations are improving the product. Uporządnicki (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a prank. It’s clear that ‘nothing will be altered’ is a spoof on perpetual edits. Printing some seven million articles (counting English only, and clearly still counting) is clearly absurd (and clearly impossible). Thou art clearly the poster child for why IP-only editing is so unclear, and should clearly be banned. Hope this clarifies your questionable question: it’s clearly not illegal but clearly should be — if only to prevent the clearcuts needed for the paper stock. Clear enough?? Left Central (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Gotta clear something up. You, #14.8.etc., said ‘e-book’ - which I clearly missed. I should’ve said ‘preventing the cyber clearcuts needed for the imaginary paper stock.’ I am clearly embarrassed.😱 Oh well: enjoy your project! Left Central (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move advice?
I am planning to move a page (El Dorado Jane Doe) to "Kelly (murder victim)". This is my first move I plan on performing, and in light of that, I would like to ask two questions:
Q1. Is this page move a good idea? I am still not 100% familiar with page moves.
Q2. I do know that moving a page might cause problems with redirects, called "double redirects". Is there a place or page where I could check the redirects to an article so I could clean up after move?
Any advice and assistance with this question or move would be appreciated.
@L'Mainer: Uncontroversial moves can be done by yourself. No need to worry about double redirects, they're handled by bots. But in this case, it doesn't look to be uncontroversial. The current title is in place ever since the article was created, and name was only recently reported. I'll suggest you to follow the steps at WP:RSPM. This will initiate a community discussion. When the discussion is over, a closer will move (or not move) the page as per the outcome of the discussion. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 21:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, all incoming links can be checked via Special:WhatLinksHere/El Dorado Jane Doe. You can switch between links, redirects & transclusions using the show/hide options. This feature can be found on all pages using left sidebar > "Tools" section > "What links here". —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 21:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"it doesn't look to be uncontroversial.". Did you mean the move done by myself would be not controversial? The way you phrased your response looks to me as a double negative, and an unintended meaning to your response, may I have clarity? Also thank you very much for the response.
@L'Mainer: My guess is that CX Zoom meant the page move would likely be seen as controversial and thus should be discussed first. The "not" and "un" combination is a double negative, but they cancel each other out; so, the sentence reads (at least to me) "It does look to be controversial". -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly I did not feel like the move would be seen as controversial, so I just did the move myself. I followed my natural instinct. L'Mainer (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@L'Mainer: It's OK to be WP:BOLD when editing, but bold page moves can be boldly reverted per WP:RMUM. If that happens, you'll be expected to establish a consensus for the move. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly I will keep that in mind, and if my move is reverted, I will go to the proper and appropriate channels to seek consensus.
Hey @L'Mainer: I'm sorry for whatever confusion my reply had caused and that I wasn't around to reply. It appears Marchjuly has cleared any confusion I caused. Thanks Marchjuly! —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 08:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to wiki pages in other languages
I couldn't figure out how to add a link to the same page in another language while editing Lacinato_kale. I tried both the source editor and the visual editor, but couldn't find out how to do it. I've done this in the past, so I guess something changed in the interface? bernie (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean how to link the entire article to other languages, this can be done via wikidata. The article is already linked, wikidata:Q2048275 in this case. The links to non-English Wikipedias can be found in the top right in the WP:New Vector (rather than in the left menu).
If you want you to add a normal wikilink, use the {{ill}} template (interlanguage link). That displays the non-English language link if no English Wikipedia article exists. Femke (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bernie74. If you're using the source editor, you should see a section called "Languages" in the left sidebar. If you then click on "Edit links", another window should open for the Wikidata page for that subject matter. On that page, you see a box called "Wikipedia" near the upper right which contains nine entries (one for English and eight for other languages) for the various language Wikipedia articles about the subject. Make sure you're logged into Wikidata (it should automatically do this for you but refresh the page if you're not), and then click on "edit" for that box. You should see some information about licensing as well as a way to edit the links. At the very bottom (below the last link entry) of the box, you'll see the word "wiki": click on it and enter the language code for the other language Wikipedia. Once you've done that, click on "page" (in the same line) and enter the name of the other language Wikipedia article. For things to work correctly, you're going to need to make sure the name and the language code for the other article is correct. Once everything is done, go back to the top of the box and click "Publish". I believe that should take care of things. You may need to refresh the English Wikipedia article once or twice for the new link to appear, but that should do it. If you make a mistake, you can always repeat the process, but only delete the link you created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Femkemilene and Marchjuly. Now I found the editor to link pages between languages.
I still couldn't link the English page to it:Brassica_oleracea_gruppo_acephala because it's already been used in wikidata:Q4673093. It seems the English and Italian Wikipedia disagree on the taxonomy of Tuscan Kale aka Cavolo Nero, and I have no idea which one is correct. I asked in the talk page of the Italian article: it:Discussione/Brassica_oleracea_gruppo_acephala. bernie (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I use sfn to cite webpages?
Hi people, I have been helping to cite books on the Nazi racial theories article and in the References section there are still plenty of websites. Could I add 'online' as a sub-section in the Bibliography section to cite online articles? I've tried looking at Manual of Style for citations, but I couldn't find any information about it.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sfn template is really great for sources you want to reuse with different page numbers. There isn't much of an advantage for citing newspapers that way though (imo). The standard use of sfn is to use authors, but some newspaper articles or other websites do not have a byline. You can choose to cite by publication instead, but it may want to consider to just leave it be. Femke (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: Is there a tool I can use to check that all of the situations are correct? Or, do I have to do it manually?--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke: I want to keep all of the references as sfns. Is there a Wikipedia article about it? How can I go about it? I can add a few more references, but they are websites and not books.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FriendlyFerret9854: You should keep WP:CITEVAR in mind when making any changes to the citation style of an article, unless you're doing something that has little chance of being seen as contentious. While it might technically be possible to convert everything to sfns per WP:SRF, it might not be the consensus style established over the years. So, you might want to propose such a thing on the article talk page first to see what others think first. If you're bold and just go ahead and do this, you'll need to discuss things if reverted. As for a tool to look for fixing bad citations, try Help:Cite errors#Tools. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
June 12
How to interpret WP:BIASED (on the topic of religion)
Hello, I'm wondering about identifying bias in sources. I'm aware of the guidance at WP:BIASED and at WP:NPOV#Bias in sources but neither is very clear about when things cross the line into being "biased". In particular, I'm wondering when the religious affiliation (or absence of religious affiliation) of the author of a reliable source is grounds to consider the source biased, when it's a Wikipedia article on religion. I realize that sources should not be excluded because of bias, but I'm wondering whether it should be noted in the text (e.g., Hindu cosmologist XYZ argues that ZYX, rather than just cosmologist XYZ argues that ZYX). Is there some more specific guidance on this? For example, to say a source is biased would we have to show it has been criticized by another reliable source, or is it adequate just to show the potential for bias on the topic of religion given their religious views?
I know that this is not the place for dispute resolution, so I wrote the whole question above in general terms. However, in case more context is helpful, I'm having a disagreement with another editor at Talk:Baháʼí views on science#Baha'i status. My view was that since most of the reliable sources on the topic are by adherents of the religion in question, we should note their religion when discussing their opinions (though not when discussing uncontroversial facts). He feels that if they've published their views about the Baháʼí Faith and science in academic sources, their religion isn't relevant and shouldn't be stated. Again, not asking for dispute resolution but just if there is general guidance on this sort of case. If this isn't the best place to ask about this, let me know. Best, Gazelle55 (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Visual editor, you can add images by clicking Insert -> images and media.
In Source editor, you can add [[File:Ethiopia–United Kingdom Locator.svg|thumb|Ethiopia–United Kingdom Locator]] in the appropriate location. Femke (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did that for you! If you need help, check the wikitext for other "relations pages", this helped me. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I used this:
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are asking about. Is this about editing Wikipedia? If so, which article. If it's not about Wikipedia, then you've come to the wrong place. ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One use of "stadium" is as a specialised term for a stage in insect metamorphosis. My guess is that the OP wants to metamorphose a draft into a mainspace article. Maproom (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to use this wikipedia?
To get knowledge about to become smart class expert teacher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uday1975 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have policy or guidelines on whether vidoes should be added to articles? Uploading, copyright and licensing are dealt with clearly, but is there anything from a content point of view? When I saw some video lectures on various article subjects added just below the infoboxes (one per article), my first thought was that WP:EL might help, but these are Commons files. Do we have anything specific on whether such videos should be included at all, selection criteria or positioning? More broadly, is it more common on en.wiki than I realise? NebY (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mere lectures do not add to articles, in my arrogant opinion, not least because of accessibility issues; but there is long-standing consensus that videos can be very useful for articles on things like dances, martial arts moves, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like those examples; I'd only thought of animations of machinery or orbital mechanic and suchlike, likewise coming under the general principle of adding something that couldn't be in the body of the article - much like ELs. I don't think about accessibility enough so a good corrective there. Thanks. NebY (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some examples of articles where this has been happening? As User:Orangemike notes, videos that simply recap an article's topic or deliver a lecture tend to be problematic for a number of reasons. The essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube is germane.
I remember we ran into a serious problem a few years ago with Wikipedia:Osmosis, where an outside company generated (hundreds of!) videos about a wide assortment of medical topics, which were then inserted prominently into Wikipedia articles with a minimum of discussion.
At the time, a number of issues were identified with this sort of content. Videos are difficult or impossible to edit, so minor errors are virtually uncorrectable by third parties. Sourcing, to Wikipedia's usual standards, is essentially impossible to incorporate. There are accessibility concerns, as well. Near the end of that kerfuffle, in an attempt to summarize some of the major outstanding issues and lessons learned, I wrote:
Long-form video presents unique challenges with respect to editability. For anyone without access to the original narrator, for instance, correcting something as a small as a single word of narration often means re-recording the entire voice-over. Videos aren't susceptible to the same easy discussion and revision that text is; we're much closer to a binary take-it-or-leave-it situation.
Long-form video presents particular challenges with respect to WP:V and sourcing. Do we require inline notes at the bottom of the screen? Endnotes at the end of the video? Footnoted scripts? Throw up our hands in despair?
Long-form video often has accessibility issues, unless great care is taken to ensure consistent and complete captioning.
For long-form video summaries, how do we decide which articles get them, and who decides if they stay or go, and where do they appear in the article? Who signs off on the script and storyboard?
Is it appropriate or viable to present many of our topics in a long-form video format at all?
Though it's been a few years, it strikes me as unlikely that those issues have all been satisfactorily resolved. Videos that attempt to mirror all (or a portion) of a Wikipedia article will struggle to remain aligned with the much-more-easily updated, expanded, and corrected Wikipedia text, even under the best of circumstances. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you TenOfAllTrades; that's deeper and more comprehensive than I dared hope. I've found 28 examples by looking for edit summaries mentioning "video" of an editor[1] whose addition came up on my watchlist, upon which I found more they'd added that day. These might be all or we might find more if we could eg identify which files in the Commons category are in use on en.wiki. Starting with the most recent we have University of the Netherlands lectures uploaded to Commons from Youtube and used in:
I've checked a couple on Youtube and found "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)".
I'd hoped to discuss with the editor per WP:BRD when they'd picked one article talk page – I suggested that when they posted to my talk page at User talk:NebY#Educational/explainer videos – but they reinstated some anyway. Now that I've found all those examples, I'm wondering whether an article talk page really is best. Suggestions welcome, and if you'd like to take the lead, having thought about it much more than I have, that would be absolutely fine! NebY (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I haven't quite as much time to devote to Wikipedia as I once did; I won't be able to lead the charge on this. It is concerning that PJ Geest has shown little willingness to engage with other editors about his campaign to add videos - mostly from a single publisher? - to a large number of articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite understood - I'm trying to manage my own wiki-time and attention, and you've helped a lot already. I'll see how discussion on an article talk page goes. NebY (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry I did not follow WP:BRD 3 times, really sorry. I will not do this again. Off course I am available to talk about this. The videos are funded by the Dutch governement, so there is no problem like Osmosis that the videos come from an outside company. n extra argument for keeping the videos is that commercial websites like YouTube become more and more attractive and users increasingly expect answers to their search queries in rich content (e.g., image, video, and audio formats), see following post What does the world need from us now? External Trends to Watch. So Wikipedia cannot stay behind, it should stay attractive. --PJ Geest (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
June 13
My edits are never saved
I am trying to edit this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viber, and I am adding words/sections that are updated and relevant about the company, including sources, and it's still always reverted back to the way it was and not saved. Why it is not saved despite the fact that I am always providing the reasons and links? Who can I speak to in order to solve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CKWiki1818 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An edit will not save if it has an external link on the spam blacklist. However, could you give some more detail or a screenshot showing what is happening here?--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 07:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not ask for help in multiple places. Look for a response at the WP:TEAHOUSEMB 07:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism help request from Tbeut
I have noticed some vandalism at [[2]]. Namely, the link to the Calf Creek Texas History website http://www.calfcreek.net/calfcreek.html. goes to a pornographic website. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Tbeut (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tbeut! The link you have copied here does not do that for me, not does the one in the article (which has not been edited in the last 4 months). Perhaps there is malware on your own device?.
Edited to add – now the destination page is showing up blank. I suspect that the website itself is undergoing some kind of attack and/or maintenance issue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.131.154 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KwaZulu Natal Floods
In April 2022, days of heavy rain across KwaZulu natal in Southeastern South Africa led to deadly floods.
Particularly hard-hit were areas in and around Durban.At least 435 people died across the province with an unknown number of people missing as April 22.
Several thousand homes were damaged and destroyed.
Critical infrastructure, including major roads, transportation, and electrical systems were also impacted by the flooding, and this damage greatly hampered recovery and relief efforts.
It is one of the deadliest natural disasters in the country in the 21st century.
The floods have caused more than R17 billion in infrastructure damage.
Rescuers are in search of dozens of people who are still missing in floods.
After floods and mudslides friggered by heavy rains recent days killing more than 500 people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.116.242.160 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you copypasting the lede of our article 2022 KwaZulu-Natal floods to this editing helpdesk? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.131.154 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Images
How could i add images to my articles while editing by source please tell me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrbigdog1 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rrbigdog1:: For an image that is not already uploded to Wikipedia or Commons, the single most important step is to ensure the image copyright is acceptable. If it is not, then we will delete the image.
find or create an appropriate image on your computer. If you did not create the image yourself, make sure the copyright holder has provided an acceptable license.
use the upload wizard to upload the image to Commons.
Add the correct "file" syntax to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch dude (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't view images
For some reason I am unable to see images on either wikipedia or at Commons, but can see pictures everywhere else I go. This is after 15 years (or whatever) of being able to see them. Is there a setting or something I can do to change this. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit of a long shot, Carptrash but have you accidentally blocked the images within the settings on your browser? MS Edge and Chrome (I think) have a "Cookies and site permissions" entry which you can deliberately single out a particular site/domain and block things like its ability to geolocate you or to activate your camera (for example). It would be possible to block images entirely using these settings. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help on citing
In the article Lakeside, Ohio, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakeside,_Ohio, I saw the error message in my citing, problem = External link in |<param>=, and I went to the help page, but when I looked through and went back to the original article, the parameter that I was using to hold the URL wasn't on the list of non-URL-holding parameters on the Help: page (I think!). So currently I am stuck on what to do! Am I wrong? I'm definitely not a tech person, so if this could be explained that would be great, Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozart12345678910 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mozart12345678910 - Eagleash has fixed the error with this edit. The error is that the "website=" parameter is not supposed to contain a URL, but rather the name of the website hosting the content (see here for more information about what that parameter is asking for). That said, I don't think Kiddle meets Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source as the disclaimer at the bottom of the website notes that, "Kiddle encyclopedia articles are based on selected content and facts from Wikipedia, edited or rewritten for children." In other words, using this as a source for a Wikipedia article presents circular referencing problems. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ONUnicorn: Thanks for spotting that (I didn't!) I replied to the OP here but they deleted their first post while I was doing so. Hence I got an EC. (!) Eagleash (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious whether moving/accepting Draft:Blind Landing to Blind landing would cause issues. I've never come across a draft with a pre-existing redirect in mainspace. Based on WP:MOR, I think it would be fine, but I'm not sure how the AFC helper script differs from just moving the draft. I'm also not sure whether to move or accept the draft. I found it after it had been rejected and made improvements to it, which is okay to do before accepting a draft. However, I was also the one who resubmitted it to AFC. I just don't see the point of waiting any longer for another AfC reviewer to accept it when the backlog is so long and I am confident it should be published to mainspace. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TipsyElephant There is a speedy deletion criteria just for that situation, CSD G6. Tag the redirect with {{Db-move}}, include in your reason that it is holding up an accepted AFC submission, and wait for an admin to come along. You should do everything else that needs to be done for it to be mainspace ready, including removing the AFC templates, etc., so all the admin has to do is delete the redirect and move the page. You should also make sure there is no history behind the redirect that needs to be preserved (in this case I already checked and their isn't, but if it was ever merged and the history needs to be retained the process is more complicated). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help, some editors are against my edits and I am being threatened with being blocked with what I think are best to edit to keep on Wikipedia. It's my definitions against theirs and I don't want to go into this fighting, but rather, I actually want my edits published. The old edits were cruel and mean. 118.208.233.159 (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP 118.208.233.159. Another editor has opened a discussion about this at WP:DR/N#List of Vietnamese Americans and you're welcome to participate in it. If, on the other hand, you continue to try and force the changes you think should be made into the article despite the objections of others, your account is likely going to end up being blocked for edit warring by an administrator. When there are disagreements over content, users are expected to try and resolve them per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; moreover, the WP:ONUS generally falls upon the user wanting to make a certain change to establish a WP:CONSENSUS that it should be made, particularly when others are in disagreement and the change has been reverted multiple times. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My Saved articles
Hi,
I have several hundred saved articles and I would access them with a saved icon at
The bottom of the page. This icon does not appear on my new device. Help please, how do I find
Saved articles?
@Naughton1237: What was your old device and what software (browser or app) were you using? What is your new device and what browser or app does it use? I have always used a browser, and Wikipedia has no "saved articles" in the brower, so I suspect this list was saved locally on your old device. -Arch dude (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many contested speedy deletions are actually successful?
I've seen quite a few pages up for speedy deletion. Some of them have 'Contest this speedy deletion' buttons on their speedy deletion tags. However, when I go to the talk page, some of the contested speedy deletions don't address the reasons for deletion. Even if they do, most people who tag pages for speedy deletion understand the criteria. Most pages up for speedy deletion eventually get deleted, despite the existence of contested speedy deletion sections. So how often does a contested speedy deletion save the page from deletion? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 02:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience: occasionally, but not often. When I evaluate a speedy I typically make my own decision about if the content matches the criteria. It's rare that anyone has contested it. Most of the time when they have, although I do read it, it doesn't change my mind. Only in borderline cases does it normally make a difference. That said, sometimes it can be used to highlight things the admin may not notice on their own. For example, one time there were a bunch of photos of Queen Elizabeth tagged as redundant duplicates. I would have deleted them because, at first glance they did seem like duplicates. However the talk page contestation pointed out that they weren't the same photo, but rather a series of stills from a video, and there were subtle differences between them. I would not have noticed that on my own. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to make article in my sandbox live
Hi,
I have created article/content (with proper sources & references) which is in my sandbox. How to make it live on Wikipedia ?
The article "Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing, New Delhi" is about a public funded Nursing College established in 1946.
There exit a wikipedia Blue link 'Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing' but if you click it you get re-directed to the page of University of Delhi.
Please let me know
regards
Rathish — Preceding unsigned comment added by RathishN (talk • contribs) 04:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RathishN. Unfortunately, your sandbox isn't ready (at least in my opinion) to be upgraded to article status. There are quite a number of formatting issues and style issues that probably need to be fixed first before it will even be ready for review. What I suggest you do is go to WP:AFC and click on Click here to start a new article. Since you've already been practicing in your sandbox, keep clicking on Next (make sure to carefully read through the information on each page) until you reach the "Common mistakes" page. This is an important page so make sure you carefully read through the information it contains and then click on whichever button applies to you. When you get to the "Draft creation" page, make sure you enter the name of the subject you want to create an article about where it says "Enter your draft name here". This will be, at least for the time being, the name of your draft; it can be changed later if needed. Once you've created the draft, it will be found at [[Draft:The name of your draft]]. You can then copy-and-paste the content in your user sandbox into the new draft. After you've done that, I suggest you take a look at Help:Your first article, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and Help:Referencing for beginners for some general information that should help you understand (1) why certain subjects are OK to write Wikipedia articles about and (2) how articles are expected to be written and formatted. When you've straightened out the formatting and other issues of the draft and feel it's ready for review, just click on Submit the draft for review! and it will be reviewed. If the draft is accepted by a reviewer, they will take care of the redirect page issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect from misspelling
Hi, what is the policy on the English Wikipedia for redirects from misspellings? Is that done on purpose or did this happen by accident? --217.239.4.204 (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP 217.239.4.204. In some cases, a redirect may have been created if the misspelling is quite common as explained in the 12th bullet point of WP:RPURPOSE. My guess is that's what was done in the case of Mount McKinely, but perhaps such a redirect is no longer necessary since Mount McKinley now redirects to Denali. If you believe that to be the case, you can start a discussion about the redirect at WP:RFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a mountaineer, it is clear to me that Denali is now the accepted name of the highest mountain peak in North America, located in Central Alaska. That being said, redirects of plausible misspellings should be maintained as a convenience to our readers. The existence of a redirect to the proper article title is in no way an endorsement of the incorrect name or spelling. It is an aid to readers. Cullen328 (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor. You may be interested to look at the history page of the misspelling, here. It was created in 2009 to assist readers searching using the wrong spelling and then in 2015 a bot came along to remove what are called double-redirects (i.e. it would be inefficient to go from "Mount McKinely" -> "Mount McKinley" -> "Denali"). Mount McKinley is itself now a redirect, of course. Redirects are cheap and tend to proliferate even when arguably obsolete, as in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help clearing "check URL value" error
I can't figure out how to clear the "check URL value" error in reference number 6 in the article Kevin Van Winkle. It's a (valid) cite of a tweet. Can you help? Thanks and best wishes, Jeffrey Beall(talk) 10:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@Jeffrey Beall The "user" parameter in the cite tweet needs to match the twitter account's username. In citation 6 it should be "ColoSenGOP" not "Colorado Senate Republicans". If you want to use the full name of the organisation as well this needs to go in the "author" parameter. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much indeed. This fix resolved the error. Jeffrey Beall(talk) 11:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Specific policy or guideline about peacock links?
I'm sure I've read a guideline or policy many moons ago that basically said don't do 'fame by association' linking like in this example "Fred Bloggs was the camera operator on Wikipedia: The Movie starring Johnny Depp, Daniel Day-Lewis, Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Tom Hanks and Directed by...etc" any ideas what I'm thinking of? - X201 (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it falls under WP:CONTEXT as even if Bloggs did operate the camera and it was relevant to his article to mention those he photographed, it would be over-linking and distracting to the reader to link all the names. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CREATING A WIKI BOOK
Hi. my brother has created over 1000 wiki pages, I know you can create a wiki book based on various subjects = how do I create on just based on who was the creator of the page? (basically -create an encyclopedia just of his pages
thanks
david — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.98.140 (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
