Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

June 11

Edit history

An editor replaced the contents of Operation Star with another, which is really Operation Star 94, on 10 June. I would like to move the newer material to that other title and restore the much more significant World War II operation, but how can I attach the three-edit Star 94 history to the new article? Does this require an admin? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a WP:HISTSPLIT, which does need admin assistance. DMacks (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I did it:) DMacks (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Completed

How can I report malicious edit of existing Wiki Page?

A profile photo of Samdech Hun Manet, Prime Minister of Cambodia, had been replaced by a photoshopped photo. It has now been reversed to the original photo, but how can I report this so that it won't happen again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.130.126.126 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Where did you see this? The article Hun_Manet has not been edited in the past few weeks. If you do notice ongoing persistent vandalism, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP but that won't be granted for a one-time event. RudolfRed (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a help desk for the English Wikipedia. I don't know why but the poster removed their own link to the affected page https://km.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%9E%A0%E1%9F%8A%E1%9E%BB%E1%9E%93_%E1%9E%98%E1%9F%89%E1%9E%B6%E1%9E%8E%E1%9F%82%E1%9E%8F.[1] We have no authority over the Khmer Wikipedia and Wikipedia editions have different processes and policies. I don't know theirs or their language. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

signing into my wiki page

I'm trying to edit my page but I can't remember my password. I've tried resetting it but receive no instructions to my email address 49.224.233.208 (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP 49.224.233.208. Does my page mean a user page or a Wikipedia article? If you had previously created a Wikipedia account and don't remember the password, please take a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical#How do I recover a password I have forgotten? for some general information on how to reset your password. However, in order for the process to work, you will need to have registered an email address when you created your account, and you will need to be able to access that account. If you can still access your email account, try checking the accpount's spam folder to see whether any emails related to Wikipedia accidentally ended up there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

To continue what Marchjuly said: if you mean an article about you, then you should not edit it. If there are changes you think should be made, please see AUTOPROB. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Request to upload an English Wikipedia image

Request to upload an English Wikipedia image. Currently, the logo image of the Wikipedia entry (Soul (app)) is old and needs to be updated with the latest brand logo.

Wikipedia: Soul (app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_ (app);

The source file is: https://s3.amazonaws.com/i.snag.gy/f0UkRC.jpg Lihaiyue88 (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Lihaiyue88 Please go to Files For Upload. 331dot (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Lihaiyue88. You should be able to update the logo yourself by going to File:Soul App logo.jpg, scrolling to the bottom of the page and clicking on "Upload a new version of this file"; however, you'll need to download the new logo to your computer first before uploading to Wikipedia. If you're unable to do this yourself, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Files for upload. FWIW, though, there doesn't appear to be any real difference between the logo currently being used in the article and the one you want to upload; so, there might not really be a need to change things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! My account does not have permission to upload images. Can you help me upload the latest logo? The latest logo still has a significant difference from the original image. The new logo has a green border and a "Soul APP" logo, making it more representative. Lihaiyue88 (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

BUt the current is much represented. I mean File:Soul App logo.jpg. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Above, I've commented out your intended inclusion of the file File:Soul App logo.jpg, SafariScribe, because its copyright status does not license such appearances. -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Unsure whether the user is a sock or not

This user's last reply to me on their talk page said that they "edited several pages" when the account was just created today so I'm not sure if the account is a sock or not and that's why I go here instead of reporting it at WP:SPI. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 11:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius It is possible block evasion, or, more simply, that the editor no longer has access to a prior account, or that this is the first account they have created after editing anonymously. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius I have made a polite request for clarification on their talk page. Until the mist clears may I suggest you take them at face value? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is it exactly - I took some time off and used to do it anonymously. But opened a new account yesterday based on my thrill for Show 8

I have created several pages before and wrote out Plot sections that provide more details to a tv show that offers more detail than the episode summaries and synopsis while keeping with the rules. This user deleted 5 hours of my work without explanation and threatened to report me if I added it back. This is why my replies were less than cordial. DanFromHR (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright but I disagree with this line: "This user deleted 5 hours of my work without explanation and threatened to report me if I added it back." — I gave an explanation when I reverted your edits on The 8 Show and it is a warning not threatening. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 17:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The Talk page is clear. You absolutely deleted 5 hours of my work - I wrote it because the synopsis nor the episodes give a good summary of the show and I stayed within Plot guidelines. When I was editing the page, you wrote me to say you would report me to the administrator if I put it back, meanwhile your editing left a huge space game on the page that I fixed. Your whole approach was rude and unpleasant. DanFromHR (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Additionally you flagged it as one error, and then changed it to another - there was no acknowledgement or explanation until I was editing it again in which you threatened me. A warning is a threat lol. I still stand that it was not in violation of either of the rules you linked and you didn't say a thing until the second time I reposted it. It would be better if you would be honest DanFromHR (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @98Tigerius: per the sockpuppetry policy, users are allowed to use more than one account, and if they have edited logged out they are permitted (encouraged, even) to create an account and continue editing. Only certain deceptive and inappropriate uses of multiple accounts are forbidden; see WP:ILLEGIT. If you have evidence that a user is using multiple accounts in a way that is not allowed then you should report that to administrators to take action, otherwise you are generally expected to assume good faith. I hope that helps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Help moving from sandbox to wikipedia

Hello. I am attempting to move this link User:NY wikiwiki/sandbox into an open page to share. I have checked the help information and even YouTube walk throughs, with no luck. My version of wikipedia, on my computer (Safari) seems different than what the video was showing. Help please. Thank you. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons Generally, unless the sandbox has been submitted for review, we leave other people's sandboxes well alone. There are specific exceptions. Why do you believe that NY wikiwiki wishes this sandbox to become an article at this stage, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Users that are not autoconfirmed (have been active for at least a week and have made at least 10 edits) cannot move articles directly from a sandbox or draft to the main article space. You can add {{draft article}} to the top of the page, which will give you the option to submit it to Articles for Creation for review, but why would you be submitting this article on behalf of someone else? Reconrabbit 12:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

So, this started as a semester long project of research in a class. Our instructor has been asking us to submit it but my class mate (who originally typed out everything in her account) and I have both been unable to get it moved. Neither of us have submitted anything to Wikipedia before, so that is probably why this is going on. I will try the review. Thank you. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons in a few moments I will add the necessary template to allow it to be submitted for review. Please count to 50, slowly. It should be the sandbox owner who submits it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense and is good to know. I appreciate the help with this. I have read stuff on Wikipedia plenty but never submitted and edited anything. So this is a whole new experience but it is nice to see that it is still a community. Thank you. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons It is now at User:NY wikiwiki/Demetrus Coonrod whch makes more sense. It has not been submitted for review 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons and, bizarrely, I see no submit button there. {{Draft article}} is intended to show them. Perhaps another Help Desk editor might take a look, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for editing that. It does make more sense. I'm still very green. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If need be, I can try and ask the sandbox owner to join the conversation, maybe? I'm assuming I can just send her this link and she will be able to view it. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons Unless oyu can see a submit button or they can it is technical help we need. Adding their voice is not a problem but it will just make a longer thread 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I will just relay the information to her through text then. Thanks. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@DaniMotherofDragons I chose a different template, whch has worked 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Great! Thank you so much for your help. Before submitting, I will check over everything again. I appreciate all of the help and patience with this. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Quote from Draft:Demetrus Coonrod: "Her journey from prison to public office exemplifies resilience, determination, and the power of redemption. Demetrus Coonrod’s life serves as a testament to transformation, second chances, and the ability to rise above circumstances. Her advocacy and commitment inspire us all." I think that a look at WP:PEACOCK might be useful here. Also, "Our instructor has been asking us to submit it" bears all the hallmarks of WP:BOSS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. DaniMotherofDragons (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Completed

Reusing of sources on an article about Glorb

Hello, I'm currently working on Draft:Glorb and I was wondering if the reusing of sources in multiple parts of an article to prove something's existence is allowed. In my case, I want to use a YouTube interview source from the "Interview with MoistCr1TiKaL" section of the draft in the article's Identity section to prove Glorb gave hints about his identity in the interview. Thanks in advance. 2pxc. ^dms 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 2pxc. Yes, you can reuse the same source multiple times in an article: see WP:NAMEDREF for how to do it.

But, "prov[ing] something's existence" is almost irrelevant to a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has articles about things that don't exist, such as unicorns and Atlantis; conversely, there are trillions of things in the universe that do exist and Wikipedia will never have article about, such as (probably) you, and me, and my left big toe.

What Wikipedia is interested in is not whether things exist, but whether reliable independent sources have written about them. (which is the case for unicorns and Atlantis - not just that there are writing about them as though they existed, but that there are scholarly investigations into them).

The kind of questions you need to be asking are not "Does Glorb exist?", or "does anybody know Glorb's identity?", but "where have people wholly unconnected with Glorb chosen to write about them at some length and been published in reliable sources?"

Unless you can find some examples of this, then your draft cannot be accepted.

As for their identity, (assuming there is enough independent material to base an article on in the first place), unless somebody independent has discussed their identity in a reliable source, you should probably not even mention the issue. It might be OK to report that they have said X and Y in an interview, but you must not do any theorising, suggesting, arguing, deducing, or concluding in the article: that would be original research, which is forbidden. Nor should you report any theorising or suggesting which has taken place on social media or other unreliable sources (unless, again, a reliable independent sources has written about such discussion). ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Mansu Hill Grand Monument

I apparently cannot link the image in the infobox to the Wikimedia Commons image, although it exists and is legally allowed. Instead, the image it takes you if you click into it directs to the Wikipedia file. Why might this be the case and how can I fix it? In fact, when I link the file, it automatically links to the Wikipedia file.

Depicted image

2003 LN6 15:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That's just the standard way image pages appear here, you are linking to the the image on Commons, you can see a notice on it that says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: When I click on the image from the infobox on the article, the bottom right corner shows a blue button that links to the Wikipedia file, not the Commons file. 2003 LN6 16:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

As a featured picture, it has a local description page, the file is transcluded from Commons on that page. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. All Commons files also have a local file page showing the Commons image and Commons description (unless there is a different local file with the same name). It varies whether image features will link to the Commons file page or the local file page. The blue button in MediaViewer normally links the Commons page and indicates that with a Commons icon on the button. But if a local file page has been created (only wikitext, no uploaded file) then it's linked instead with another icon. The local file page File:Mansudae-Monument-Bow-2014.jpg was created in 2015.[2]. It only contains {{FeaturedPicture|Mansu Hill Grand Monument}} and {{picture of the day|2017-12-03}} which is displayed above the Commons description, but misleadingly below a box saying "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." PrimeHunter (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

So is the image link currently correct on the page? 2003 LN6 18:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Completed

Track and field

Track and Field history which mention disable athletes included Paralympic Games. There was no mention of history of Deaf Olympic Games. Why is it Deaf Olympic Games not included? This is my dispute. Please advise. Thank you. Respectfully,

Duncan Payne SeniorBigDog (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We have an article: Deaflympics. As for whether it should be included in the Track and field article, I'd say most likely yes, but you'd do better to make the suggestion at Talk:Track and field. It is possible that article contributors were simply unaware of these events. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The Paralympics are much better known than the Deaflympics. Sport of athletics#Athletes with disabilities briefly mentions the Deaflympics. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wide pane/frame added on the right side

Why was another wide pane/frame added on the right side? It was annoying enough when the left pane/frame was added a while back, now the reading portions of the pages are uselessly narrow. PLEASE PUT IT BACK THE WAY IT WAS. Thank you. 32.221.117.248 (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If you see menus to the sides then they should have a "hide" link. If you already hide them and refer to blank space in a relatively wide window then it's a design feature of the current default skin. If you create an account then you can select the former skin Vector legacy at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. You can also test it out by adding ?useskin=vector to a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk?useskin=vector. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You can click the hide button to hide the bar. assuming you're talking about the Appearance menu. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Re:

Appearance [Hide] 
Text
Small
Standard
Large

With my 1366 horizontal resolution, this column is taking up 25% of the screen, and comes up for every WP page I open even after I clicked the "Hide" button on another page earlier. On some pages I can't even see the intro text without scrolling down because an infobox is taking up all the space at the top. Is the only way to get rid of this column, the enshitification step of forcing me to allow cookies from the domain, or to create an account? This column is useless because browsers handle this vastly better, is automatically remembered per domain by them, and can be done with keyboard shortcuts. 105.245.232.250 (talk)

Responded at the Teahouse. Folly Mox (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

How to generate a link that highlights a selected excerpt

Hello!
How does one create a link that highlights a selected excerpt in a Wikipedia page's body? And do there exist any tools or usersrcipts that make such link generation easier than writing it oneself? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Zanahary, are you referring to how, for example this link will take you to this section on this page if you open it in a new tab? If so, you can add a # after the article name in the link, then put the name of the section (in this case, for example, "How to generate a link that highlights a selected excerpt") after that, like Wikipedia:Help desk#How to generate a link that highlights a selected excerpt, or Rainbow#Explanation. The template {{section link}} can also do this if you don't want to change the text of the link, for example {{section link|Rainbow|Explanation}} → Rainbow § Explanation. I don't think there are any scripts which do this any faster (you'd have to provide all the information anyways so it can't really get much faster).

If you're referring to how this link (might) directly emphasize specific text, you shouldn't use this on Wikipedia. It only works on some browsers right now, and I don't think there's any way to do it that is directly supported in wikilinks. If you want to do it for you own purposes, though, and you are fully aware that it will not work for many people, you can create the link by adding #:~:text= after the full URL of the page, followed by the text on the page you want highlighted but with each space replaced with %20, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#:~:text=This%20angle%20is%20independent%20of%20the%20size%20of%20the%20drop,%20but%20does%20depend%20on%20its%20refractive%20index

If neither of these are what you're asking about, can you maybe link to a page that has an example on it so we can see what you mean? Tollens (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It was the latter—I see that it doesn't work for Firefox. Bummer! Thank you very much for your detailed helpful answer @Tollens! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

{{vanchor}} also does something related to this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

June 12

Article Deletion

Hello there!

My name is Darren Walters, and I created a boardgame called OOF DAH! The Organic Farm Strategy Game. There's 600 plus hours of OOF DAH on Youtube, making it a relevant and topical subject for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of viewers. My article, containing the rules of the game, however, were hastily deleted for obscure reasons (it doesn't align with Wikipedia's goals, etc). So I'm wondering: what was the criteria that allowed other boardgames, such as Trivial Pursuit, Monopoly, and Pictionary, to receive articles? Thank you for your clarification. Waltrs1 (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Those existing articles were probably not written by the games' respective creators. —Tamfang (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The criteria is that a great deal of independent material has been published about those games in Reliable sources that are independent of their creators, vendors, etc. Please consult Wikipedia:Golden Rule. More broadly, see Wikipedia:Not, especially Section 2.

[Note that I cannot access your deleted article, so cannot discuss its details.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Waltrs1 the text was pure spam, written by an LLM (not permitted) with a fake edit summary "I removed a few typos." for an edit that added 105,648 bytes and no proper refs. I'm tempted to block you now, i definitely will if you try this again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

delete "Suerior olivary nucleus" article

I made Suerior olivary nucleus with typo and it should be deleted. The original one is Superior olivary nucleus, and I realized that it was already made by someone.(They're redirect pages.) Dollasdal (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I have tagged the page for deletion, it should be gone shortly. Tollens (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Cannot publish a page edit - limited by Wikipedia

I am making a minor edit on a page. When I publish changes, I get this error:

"As an anti-abuse measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes. If you are attempting to run a bot or semi-automated script, please read and understand our bot policy, then request approval. Users who run unauthorized bot scripts may lose their editing privileges."

I am editing by hand, not a frequent editor, and I've tried this a few times each a week apart in case it is a temporary problem. How can I save my edit? Mbseales (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:RIGHTS, new users are limited to 8 edits per minute. I don't see that many edits in your contributions, so it shouldn't restrict you so much. Could you be pressing the button more than once? Anyway, you should reach the autoconfirmed access level after 5 more edits so this is not likely to be an issue for long. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone reported a similar issue here at the Teahouse last week. HerrWaus (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

About the talk log under discussion

Is it a violation of Wikipedia policy to delete or hide discussion logs without the permission of the parties involved? 163.136.36.56 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking about this edit, archiving discussion logs is not the same thing as deleting them and is standard practice on talk pages. Deleting would have been a violation of the WP:TALK guideline. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleting or hiding ("collapsing") material may be appropriate. If there is good reason for it, this good reason will normally also be apparent to editors who are both uninvolved in the matter and experienced. It's usually better to leave the deleting or hiding to them. -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone deleted all the photo collages i made

Hello, i would like to know if it is ok for a user to delete photo collages which were there for 3-4 weeks, without discussing that on the respective talk pages first. Someone deleted my photo collages at Leipzig, Dresden, Halle (Saale), Freiburg, Frankfurt and Vienna, and even other, very long-lasting collages at Berlin and Cologne and other cities, stating that the collages consisted of "too many", and also "low quality images". However, articles like Miami show something different, and i think that the new photos are completely ugly to be honest. It is really unbelievable how ugly the collages now are, compared to my versions from before. If someone could look at my edits and tell me what i can do now, or am not allowed to do now. Or do i just have no taste and find truly beautiful things to be ugly and ugly things to be beautiful? Thank you. Tibesti1 (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's okay to make almost any edit without discussing it first. See WP:BRD for how it's usually handled. MOS:INFOBOX and WP:GALLERY have advice that applies here. I only looked at the Leipzig article, but I agree there were too many images. Including too many images causes visual clutter and increases an article's file size which may make it inaccessible for users with bad internet. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I see you are discussing this with the other editor on your talk page. FWIW I agree with the deleting editor. Please continue the discussion there. If you have an issue with other articles, then the place to discuss this is the talk pages of those articles. Incidentally, we are not concerned with whether the images are ugly or beautiful; what matters is whether they provide useful information on the topic. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I want to know if i may revert the changes that have been done by the user. The most obvious example is Dresden. Compared to the version of June 7, it is now unbelievably reduced in quality. It can not be the case that anyone can make changes as he pleases, and then the version has to stay that way no matter how it looks then. Since he is the one who changed an existing version and i disagree, he would have to start a discussion on the talk page before making changes. Tibesti1 (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You prefer a collage with eleven images, another editor prefers one with five, as at the beginning of May. You should discuss this on the talk page, rather than edit-warring. Maproom (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

What Maproom said, see WP:BRD. You made that changes that pleased you, correct? That is fine (up to a point), but if someone reverts your WP:BOLD edit, and you disagree with the revert, it's time for discussion at the article talkpage. More at WP:DR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

First, note that he also changed collages which were long-standing, and not from one month ago, like Cologne and Berlin. I know that at least those changes can be reverted for sure. Secondly, he did not revert the collages to the state in which they once were, but he changed them completely. Therefore, the question is, in which state do the collages have to stay during possible talk page discussions, and whose task is it to begin such discussions. I am not interested in them. It seems that during the discussions, the collages would have to stay like they were the past weeks and not like they are since the user's recent changes, and that the discussions would have to be initiated by the person who made the most recent changes others disagreed with, and therefore not by me. Also, the current not nice collage at Dresden also recently replaced another collage that was also from me, and which was there for a year or longer. Tibesti1 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a help desk. It is not a platform for content disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

However, i didn't get an answer. The questions are easy: if someone changes a collage which existed for months or years, am i allowed to undo the changes as long as the discussion is ongoing. Secondly, if the collages existed for three weeks only, in which state do the collages have to remain during the discussions: in the recently created state from a few days ago or in the state they were the weeks before? Tibesti1 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You've got the only answer you are going to get here. Arguing the toss over which state the article should be in while discussions are taking place isn't productive. Starting such discussions (on the article talk page, whey they are supposed to take place) is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an inappropriate answer. We all know that the collages of course can be reverted to the state before the first disagreements and discussions arose. When i once altered a collage someone else undid the change and told me to discuss on the talk page first. And now i want a confirmation that i'm allowed to undo the changes, in order to prevent an edit war. As far as i know, if someone makes a change someone else disagrees on, the change is made undone until a solution has been found. Tibesti1 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

How would insisting on your version while the discussion is going on "prevent an edit war"? It seems to me that it would be precisely edit warring. ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, if you didn't understand the logic behind it, of course i want a confirmation, in order to prevent the other user to then again undo my revert and accuse me of edit warring. To take the extreme example, Cologne. The user changed a collage which was there since ages, and now you are telling me that no one is allowed to undo these changes without being accused of edit warring? I ask again now: if someone makes changes to articles that someone else disagrees on, can the change be undone then before the discussion about it has ended, or will the disputed change stay in the article forever from then on. How can i be the one having to start discussions on all the talk pages to defend the old collages? This is against all logic. The one who wants new disputed changes be included in the article would have to discuss it. Is that so difficult to understand. Tibesti1 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm, based on many years of contributing to Wikipedia, that if you persist in trying to argue the toss here over who should start a discussion over a content dispute, rather than actually doing something useful and starting one, eventually peoples' patience will run out. You are unlikely to be satisfied with the outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so the other user changed around 10 collages, some of which were there since years, some since months, and some since weeks. So, now, what to do again now if i disagree with all these changes? I have to copy the old and the new collages on all the ten articles' talk pages and ask which one is better? Tibesti1 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to copy them, you can just link the relevant diffs.

The fact that an aspect of an article has existed in a particular state for a long time does not preclude someone deciding that it can be improved. Work through the BRD process. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

But somehow, this BRD process is on my side: it says there that someone edits an article, then if someone else disagrees he may revert it, and it is then up to the user who made the new edit to discuss it with the reverter, and then, he may attempt a new edit. This is exactly what says the BRD page. And therefore, if i revert all the collages now, the user could not accuse me of edit warring. Anything else would be illogical anyway. Otherwise i also could create new collages for several cities now, and every time someone doesn't like the collage and reverts me, i'd just say "discuss on talk page please". And therefore i'd like to know now, if the user can accuse me of edit warring if i revert the collages to the state of before. Tibesti1 (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they can. BRD is an essay (albeit one that I'd argue is pretty widely respected); it's not license for you to insist that it's the other party's obligation to start the discussion and that you're entitled to keep reverting them until they do so. If you know the next step in the process should be a discussion (and clearly you do at this point), and you're making a deliberate choice not to do so because you think it's their responsibility, not yours, then you're not editing in good-faith. DonIago (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

​(Non-administrator comment) When it comes to edit warring, there's no right and there's no wrong. So, no matter how right you know you are and how wrong you know the other person is, the two of you are likely going to end up blocked at some point if you keep reverting each other back and forth. If you end up at WP:AN3 because of this and try to argue that it was OK for you to continue reverting because the other person was the one who should've started discussing things on the talk page, an adminstrator is almost certainly going to tell you that's not how things work and you be lucky to get off with jsut a warning. So unless you're going to claim that your reverts are clearly not edit warring (i.e. one of the things listed here), you should be careful.

FWIW, one of the advantages of you being the person to start a discussion about this is that you get to make the first post; as long as your WP:CIVIL and keep your comments focused on the content of the edits being disputed and not the other person, you'll able to present you side first. The other person isn't obligated to respond, but you would've at least shown that you're the one willing to try and resolve things in accordance with WP:DR. You don't need the other person to participate in discussion per se, but if others do participate and agree with your position, it's likely that a WP:CONSENUS will be in favor of the collages. A consensus isn't something that the other person can't really ignore; they either have to accept it and move on or use the article's talk page to try and change it. If they continue reverting once a clear consensus has been established, they will be the one edit warring against consensus, and they will be the one that ends up blocked. If article talk page discussion between the two of you doesn't lead to compromise or other solution, you can move to another stage of the dispute resolution process as explained in WP:SEEKHELP. If even then, things still aren't resolved to your satisfaction, your best option might simply be to move on to something else.

There are, after all, more than six million Wikipedia articles and pretty much all of them are in need of some improvement. Of course, you're free to continue focusing all of your time and energy on this one particular dispute, but others aren't obliged to do the same. At some point, some administrator might decide that the who thing has become too much of a time sink, decide enough is enough, and block the two of you. At some point, you're going to need to ask yourself whether you want this to be your hill to die on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this answer. One question, how can i copy collages on talk pages so that they are directly viewable there. Somehow, it doesn't work. Aside from that..... at Vienna, which still has a comparable beautiful collage because most of my photos remained, the following happened: someone copied a discussion i had with them on their talk page, onto the Vienna talk page. I don't even know if that is permitted because now it looks like as if i wrote something on the Vienna talk page although i never have done so. And there, no one answered for weeks. And Vienna is comparably important, and not even there was someone interested in such a discussion. It is foreseeable that the same thing will happen on the other talk pages. I'm not interested in opening ten different discussions where no one is going to answer. What is also foreseeable is that this one person will want to talk through with me every single new photo he included, and tell me why his choices are better than mine. The beginning of that is viewable on my talk page. And therefore, there must be a way to prevent people from "destroying" collages without the defender of the original state being obliged to be drawn into discussions with the potential of never coming to an end. There were perfect collages at Frankfurt (until June 8) and Leipzig (until June 11) that i created and now look what they have become. During the process of discussion, it should be normal that the original state remains until the discussion is concluded. Otherwise it would mean that if someone would exchange a collage with a single photo, this single photo would have to remain on the page until a discussion about whether a single photo or a collage is better, has ended, and this can definitely not be the case. Tibesti1 (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

If you keep using words like "destroying collages" when you try to discuss this, any discussion regarding them is unlikely going to get very far. If from the very start you frame a discussion as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, others are likely going to repond accordingly. Everytime you click the "Publish changes" button, you're agreeing to allow others to take your edits and modify or revert them as they seem fit. It's hope they do so in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy and guideline, and edits which are clearly WP:VANDALISM or otherwise a serious policy violation can be reverted asap. It's content disputes where two editors who believe they're making improvements in good faith disagree that WP:DR is intended to help resolve. The idea isn't for one side to come away the winner and another to walk away the loser; the idea is for both sides to see whether any compromise can be reached in which Wikipedia ends up being the winner. So, if you don't at least try to WP:AGF at the beginning of a discussion, you can't really expect others to respond to you in good faith.

The collages you created are also not destroyed because they can be found within the article's page history. You can link to older versions of an article for reference in talk page discussion much in the same way you would add an external link to any Wikipedia page. You can go to the article's page history and scroll down until you find the version that you want, and then on the time stamp for the entry to display the article version that was current at that time and date. If you copy and paste the url from the top of the page into the take page discussion, others will know which version you're referring to, This might actually be a better approach then trying to format images onto the talk page for comparison purposes.

Some article are more heavily watched then others; so, responses you receive to article talk page post may come quickly, slowly, or never at all. There's no way to work around that. If you post something and are hoping for a quick response, you can try adding a {{Please see}} template to the talk pages of any WikiProjects listed at the top of the talk page to let others know about the discussion. As long as you avoid WP:INAPPNOTE, doing so should be OK. If nobody responds even after posting at the WikiProject level, then perhaps nobody's interested and you're then going need to decide whether pursuing the matter is worth any more of your time and energy.

If all of the collage disagreements are related to one another, you can probably one of the article talk pages or one WikiProject talk page as the venue for discussing things, and then just add links to the other talk pages to let others know about the discussion. You don't need to try to simultaneously manage multiple discussions about essentially the same thing on multiple talk page; in fact, you should probably avoid this because doing so almost always leads to a fractured discussion, redundant comments and confusion.

If someone copied something you posted on one talk page onto another talk page, then they probably did so in good faith. It would've simply been better for them to post a link to the original discussion instead, but they either didn't know how to do that or didn't think to do that. (In additon, the original source page is required to be properly attributed per WP:CWW, but many users just don't make the effort to do that. So, you could post a comment below theirs to clarify that you originally posted the content in question on some other talk page. You could also try to modify the quoted part of their post using a template like {{talk quote block}} to show that it's quoted text originally posted on some other page. Whatever you decide to do, you should make sure to leave a clear byt civil edit summary that explains the reasons for your edit to others. If you do decide to "edit" someone else's talk page post, you should only do what is absolutely necessary per WP:TPO; you shouldn't modify any of their original words in anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hm ok thank you for the detailed answer. Am i right in assuming that all this is also valid conversely too. So if i create new collages now for some cities, my new collage can not be deleted and reverted with the comment: "discuss on talk page first" or "long-standing collage reinstated", but as soon as someone doesn't like my collage, they would also have to open discussions on talk pages, and my collages would stay. And why is it not possible to show collages on talk pages by just copying them from the history pages, somehow it doesn't work. Thank you Tibesti1 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

My advice to you is to stop wikilawyering. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and our joint purpose is to get as close as we can to consensus. If you have reason to believe that an edit you want to make will be controversial, then it is going to end up in discussion anyway. You are permitted to make the edit and wait for somebody to revert it before you start discussing, but why would you want to waste everybody's time in that way? And if you are doing that in order to get your version in while the discussion goes on, that sounds like tendentious editing to me. (Note: I am not arguing for or against the changes you want to me: I have not looked at any of them. I'm focusing on how you are approaching collaboration.) ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Number of years on Petersen Automotive Museum

I was reviewing the Petersen Automotive Museum article and noticed that, although the infobox indicates it was founded on June 11, 1994 (and today is June 12, 2024), it shows it has been in existence 29 years instead of 30 years. Why might that be? Bahooka (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bahooka, ages and other auto-updating figures, remain unaltered until the article is edited. I have added a space to that article, and saved it, and the figure has updated to 30 years. - Arjayay (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I had no idea. I will try to remember that and do the same if I see that in the future. Bahooka (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bahooka: A purge is enough to force an update and articles are sometimes updated automatically but it's unpredictable how long it will take. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bahooka; strictly speaking, I have confused a Help:Dummy edit with a WP:NULLEDIT - I described it as a null edit, but adding a space is actually a dummy edit, so I was the Dummy making the edit ! - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking for guidance on using the term "best known for" in the lede

As an editor, I really dislike seeing uncited superlatives. They are often just thrown in, without adding any needed clarification. Largest as of when? Oldest according to whom? And little consideration of the maintenance aspects added to the article.

"best known for" is a very common occurrence that drives me nuts, because the claim is almost never cited. In those cases, I assume that it is mainly the opinion of the editor(s) of the lede, hopefully based upon cited facts presented in the rest of the article. But even this seems a clear case of SYNTH (where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources). I think to include that statement, we would really need to provide a reputable secondary source that specifically states that this person is "best known for" whatever.

Doing a search for "best known for her role" provides a snapshot of many uncited cases. And another problem is that claims of this sort can be very generational. Actors in a well known role in the 1980's and again in the 2010's are going to be "best known for" different things. Which begs the question "best known" to whom?

So back to my original thought that superlatives are often not encyclopedic and become stale over time. I think we should state what roles the actor (for example) was in, their history, awards, reviews, etc. and stick to the facts. Let the reader decide for themselves what is "most significant" in the article.

Any thoughts on this, or directions to an applicable WP consensus? Many thanks!  • Bobsd •  (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. If it isn't attributed to a source that directly says someone or something is "best known" for something then it's WP:SYNTH. Popcornfud (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Popcornfud Thanks for the response. Would you say that the cite for the "best known" should follow the phrase directly in the lede? Because I know that the lede is considered a summary of the article, so somewhere else in the article there may be a citation for that "best know" although hidden in the cited article. That would take a lot of research to untangle. Or put another way, should those uncited (in the lede) claims be removed? Don't worry, I'm not going to start nuking all the articles ... I need a lot of feedback, and some consensus is agreed upon.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the article, and plenty of folks prefer to keep citations out of the lede since they should ideally already exist later on in the article, but in cases where there's an extraordinary claim there shouldn't be an issue with sticking the citation for one specific statement in the lead as well as later on. Ex.: In James John Joicey, the description of his contributions to entymology is cited in the lede, but the size of his collection is not. It is really a matter of preference and depends on the article. If the information exists later on in the article though, like if a reputable source describes a person by what they are "best known for" directly or there are multiple sources just describing one thing that they achieved or did, then why remove it in the lede and make it less clear what the article is going to describe?

If I can clarify this, though - there are many cases where, if it is not specifically stated in a source that a specific role or accomplishment is what a person is "best known for", in my opinion, there is no harm in simply removing "best known for" and replacing it with a neutral statement of fact ("She is best known for her role as..." -> "She played the role of...") Reconrabbit 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit that is certainly the direction in which I would like see changes made. Thank you.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Not really relevant but I found Curtis Brown (agency)#Clients which has 39 "best known for", all unsourced. Wow. PrimeHunter (talk)

You made my day!!!  • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that a persistent IP user ended up blocked after trying to do something about this WP:PUFFERY shouldn't deter others from trying. It's non-neutral and unencyclopaedic in almost every case, and is almost invariably unsourced. Removing it is a service to the project. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, and thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure that any removals are clearly WP:SYNTH and/or WP:PUFFERY before removing. And personally, I don't think it's worth a fight for what is basically a common catch phrase. When I get reverted, I hit the article or user talk page, and unless it's a factual error, I let it lie. Especially due to the fact that nothing is ever locked down, so the same thing can happen next week. Life is too short.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert wars and 3rv rule?

Hey, I use the Spanish wiki a lot so rules may be a bit different here.

It seems that general policies like edit warring and 3rv rules are present in both wikies. Now where would be an appropriate place to report such incidents? I think there would need to be 2 places, one to seek a neutral third party for dispute resolution, (ideally before the 3rv rule is broken)and another to actually report violations of such rules (when other resources are extinguished).

Thank you for the info.--TZubiri (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@TZubiri: To seek a third party for dispute resolution, your best bets are Wikipedia:Third opinion (WP:3O for short) or the dispute resolution noticeboard (WP:DRN for short). (I'd suggest trying 3O first, as it's a more lightweight process and thus likely to be faster.) If there's active edit warring that needs to be addressed, you can report it at the Administrators' Noticeboard for edit warring (WP:ANEW for short). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks!

Another informative alternative is also involving editors from other articles, more eyes are more points of view and attention to the problem, and it can give cohesion to the wiki as a whole too. TZubiri (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Line breaks

In some situations I use <br> to force a line break, but I often see that some use <br />. Which is the proper method? What's the real difference? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

<br> is HTML, whereas <br/> is XHTLM, which is the HTML subset of XML. I always use <br> which the WP parser seems to handle well.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: <br /> is generally preferred but they currently and maybe forever have the same effect in wikitext since Help:Line-break handling#<br> says <br> is automatically converted to <br />. Such fixes aren't always made forever when our software is updated but I guess <br> will never be allowed to fail. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the help. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if MediaWiki stopped converting <br> to <br/> and just left it unchanged, it'd still be valid HTML either way. The HTML standard states that br is a void element, that "void elements only have a start tag", and that you may (but need not) put a forward slash in a void element's start tag. Rummskartoffel 09:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I need a number to donate

I need a number to donate some money 2600:100C:B025:D41A:515E:579F:566E:50D2 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know which type of number you want but maybe donate::Problems donating will be of help. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia finances before doing so. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

What's up with the maps in New York?

For example, in articles like Empire State Building, the map shows misspelled names such as "tudor siti" (tudor city) and "hadson jards" (hudson yards). What's up with that? (I can't seem to find the same misspellings on openstreetmap.org.) Weeklyd3 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Weeklyd3: It was reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 212#Serbian place names displayed on Manhattan maps. gerrit:1030307 may be a fix on the way. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, "Vašington Skver" is not a mis-spelling, it's Serbian some Slavic language (but not Serbian, which is written in Cyrillic). Maproom (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Serbian language has both a Cyrillic and Latin writing system and I think that's the cause of the problem. The Serbian in this case is marked as using the Latin script while English has no script variations and is not marked with Latin. The map software currently prefers scripts marked as Latin over unmarked scripts, or something like that. It's being worked on. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

"Hudson jards" and "Tudor siti" seem to be romanization of their Russian names, both of which are recorded on OpenStreetMap. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Weeklyd3, PrimeHunter, Maproom, and Tutwakhamoe: It is Serbian (sr-Latn), see phab:T195318. More exactly "Hadson jards" is coming from here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5706568334/history. Cheers, VIGNERON * ^discut. 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

June 13

Content is in Draft Since long

Dear All, We have created content three months back for education university and waiting for live content for user information, please suggest anyone and help us to get it live. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mangalayatan_University_Jabalpur

Regards, Rajesh Kumar Rajesh Kumar Noida (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rajesh Kumar Noida the draft was never submitted. I've added the submission template for you, please be patient, as there are over 3000 drafts pending review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Draft has been reviewed and declined for failing to establish wikinotability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Where to post about Internet Archive takedowns?

Hi everyone. It has come to my attention that over half a million books were recently made unavailable for borrowing from the Internet Archive's lending library. I wanted to ask if there's some way we can find out which Wikipedia articles were affected by this (i.e. in which articles we link to now-unavailable books), but I'm not sure which noticeboard to raise this. Could someone here direct me to the best place I can ask about this? Cheers. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, we are citing the actual book, not the IA version of that book. If the link is dead, it should be marked as such, but it doesn't make the ref invalid. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but that's not what I was asking about. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe WP:ELN? DMacks (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Sortable table now unsortable

Hey all, if it's possible could someone have a quick peek here and see if they can spot why the tables that used to be sortable in both columns are now only sortable in one? I've spent a while tweaking headers, etc, and checking for hanging braces, etc., but nothing jumps out. Any help would be appreciated! ——Serial Number 54129 09:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

can you actually sort by icon? You might need to define what the sorting means in the cell. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Please clarify which columns you mean and what you mean by not sortable. I see sort buttons in all columns. The first table has two columns and the second has three. Images are ignored in sorting so all cells in the icon columns sort as blank cells, meaning they sort identically so sorting has no effect. Same for the empty Date column in the second table. You can use Help:Sortable tables#Specifying a sort key for a cell if you want the icon column to sort differently. I think images once sorted by file name but that's long ago. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski and PrimeHunter: Thanks both. It's shame; a while ago I was able to sort so the icons grouped together (nice and easy to identify what needed/didn't need work), but somehow that stopped—I assumed I broke something!—like I said, and now it only treats them as empty cells? I'm afraid the Help link was a bit opaque for me  :( ——Serial Number 54129 11:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

What you could do is do a search and replace and put something like |data-sort-value="Good article"|{{icon|GA}} or similar. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have used regex to use the first icon parameter as data-sort-value.[3]. Just revert if you don't like it. If you want sorting by the second icon when the first icon is the same then you have to include that in data-sort-value. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Fantastic, that seems to have done the job. Thanks for going to that trouble. The cool thing is, is that it does what it did (mainly distinguish at a glance between f&g); the odd thing is all that code it now needs. *scratchchin* anyways, not complaining! Thanks both again! Great work! ——Serial Number 54129 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I can understand why the change was made. An image is often followed by text, e.g. a flag icon followed by a country name. It makes sense to ignore the file name in such cases. I used regex but it can be hard to learn. The source editor has a search and replace feature which allows regex. I replaced (\|)( *\{\{icon\|)(\w*)(\}\}) with $1data-sort-value="$3" |$2$3$4. I realize that's complete gibberish if you don't know regex. It took a few tries to get right but then everything was replaced at once. Maybe we should have a help page where users can request help to make systematic regex changes to wikitext. We do have Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks which often involves regex changes but it's for help with editing multiple pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been trying to pick up regex for years and always just end up going back to the online tip sheets. A board that helped with that sort of stuff would be good, although arguably that is WP:VPT. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:VPT is sometimes used by posters who know some regex and need the right details. I imagined a page where you can also go with no regex knowledge and get somebody to just make a large edit for you without posting or explaining the regex. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:HD is a pretty good place for one-off "I'm trying to make this complex edit to a table, someone help!" requests. DMacks (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Best practice for creating disambiguation page

I'd like to create a disambiguation page for Alliance University. Alliance University currently links to a college in India but there is a Alliance University (New York City) as well. What's the least disruptive way to create this new disambiguation page? ChaosAkita (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Technically, Alliance University is the college in India (not just "links to..."). My original thought is just to add a hatnote to that article ({{This}} or {{For}}), following WP:TWODAB. But there is also Allianze University College of Medical Sciences that is sound-alike even though different spelling, so a real disambiguation page makes more sense. The easiest way to start is by creating it at Alliance University (disambiguation) (see MOS:DAB for how to format it), and add a hatnote to [Alliance University]] about it. Then, if you like, start a discussion about moving the DAB page to the main name and moving the India college article to Alliance University (India) or a similar name. I am not sure that is necessary, since only the one in India currently exists, so it is probably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. DMacks (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Great points! I added a hat note. ChaosAkita (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Glad to help! You can ignore the weird notes in the edit-history of your edit here...they are for an issue unrelated to you. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I delete "Otago Univesity" redirect page?

Otago Univesity is just a typo of Otago University. Dollasdal (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Typo redirect are allowed to exist, see Template:R from misspelling. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

But IMO it should be deleted under WP:R3. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hijack of a redirect

The long standing redirect Almost Legal was converted into an article about a wholly different topic on 10 June. I reverted and it was reverted back by its new author. It has subsequenytly been draftified by User:Rosguill as not ready for manispace and Rosguill has recreated a new redirect to match the original. My issues are that the new redirect has lost of of its history and attributionof vcontent and the original hijack seemed aimed at avoiding AFC or review. I feel that the whole situation should be reset back to the state on 9 June to preserve the history but would welcome comments . Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me like the history was split between the two pages, I can see the redirect's history going back to 2011, while the draft only shows history from the last ten days. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

My perspective is that the film is due to release next month, and there is a fair chance that this will generate further coverage. Rather than having a premature AfD that would likely become moot soon (or at least need to be reevaluated), draftification seemed more appropriate. As for the history, it seems that the Wikipedia software was smart enough (or lucky enough?) to split the prior redirect history back onto the redirect and to keep only the history of the new article on the draft. As far as motive, I don't see a reason to assume bad faith behind the original "hijacking"--Almost Legal is the title of the film, and if found to be notable Almost Legal is where it should go, and it would be fine to overwrite a redirect to a non-notable film by the same name in order to create the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I was clearly on the wrong page and thanks to Rosguill for fixing that appropiately. However, my other concern was how we deal with apparent, intentional or unintenional, redirect hijacks that seem to circumvent review. I couldn't find any policy on this. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Already answered in an edit conflict. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, they don't really circumvent review: new articles added by creating a page at a pre-existing redirect get added to the new new pages queue for review, which is in fact how I found the page in the first place. They do circumvent the software lock that prevents non-autoconfirmed editors from creating a new page in mainspace, but this causes relatively minimal disruption in the grand scheme of things. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I merged the history back, in any event. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

So...how do I get rid of an undesirable notification?

In reference to a recent incomplete thread starter on my talk page, which 1) came from an IP; 2) went absolutely nowhere beyond one word; and 3) I was rightfully obliged to remove minutes ago. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You already reverted it, which I don't think anyone would disagree with. You should be able to click "mark as read" in your notification settings, or click on the actual notification. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but how do I remove it from Special:Notifications entirely? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can do that, unless maybe you disabled talk page notifications in your preferences. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleting user subpage

I created a CSS subpage under my user page. How can I delete it? Tsavage (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Tag it with /*{{db-u1}}*/. Even though the template doesn't render the admins can still see it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. I wasn't sure about the rendering/code error part. Thanks. Tsavage (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Customizing when Table of Contents sidebar is auto-hidden

Is there a way to adjust when the ToC sidebar is automatically hidden, ie no longer fixed, instead a floating dropdown menu from a hamburger-type icon? Thanks! Tsavage (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There should be a button that says "hide" next to "Contents", assuming your interface is the same as mine after the apparent changes today. Perception312 (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, apparent changes. The sidebar disappeared earlier today, only an icon and pulldown menu with no "hide" or "move to sidebar" buttons. But now they're back, and I didn't even restart my browser. All's well that ends well. Thanks! -Tsavage (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

June 14

Embedded maps are showing place names in Serbian

Why are the maps here showing place names in Manhattan in the Serbian language? I am in the United States and have zero connection to Serbia. I believe the problem is not on my end. Every browser on every device connected to different ISPs I've checked this on exhibit the same behavior. Here is a screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/UqRqbzl.png Themetron (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This question has been asked repeatedly; most recently above. And congratulations: now you (and many others) do have a connection to Serbia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

How do I get rid of those spectacles??

I really do not like the new spectacles / size. Previously, I customised my Wiki pages to exactly what I needed with my eyesight, using the ctl + / ctrl - keys. Those gave me considerable flexibility.

Now, with the spectacles, I have 3 and only 3 choices, because if I try to use ctl + or ctrl -, the spectacles revert the change or format the page incorrectly (eg expanding it so that I have to move the page back and forth, left to right, to get the whole page.

If the spectacles were meant to improve accessibility, they failed miserably, by forcing 3 and only 3 choices on us. I want to turn them off. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean here by "spectacles", but imagine that it's some icon thereof. I don't see them. Ctrl + and Ctrl - in Firefox on my computer increase and decrease font size respectively, exactly as they did a day, a week, a year ago. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They're at the top of every page I open. There's the top row: the search box, my user name, the spectacles, and then the alert bell. Click on the spectacles and I get a drop down menu with 3 and only 3 sizes. Since it was installed, I can't get the size of the display the way I want it, with the page too wide for my screen so I have to move it back and forth. The "small", "standard" and "large" options don't respond to my needs. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It's specific to Vector 2022 and was just added recently, if that helps. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to get rid of it? What is Vector 2022? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Vector 2022 is the new layout for Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be a way to turn it off in User Preference, so you might need to switch to other configure skin in "Appearance" part of your User Preference. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. What is “configure skin”, please? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The skin selection is at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Vector legacy is the previous default. The appearance menu on the spectacles in Vector 2022 doesn't interfere with Ctrl++ and Ctrl+- for me in Firefox. What is your browser? You can hide the spectacles icon from display with this in your CSS:

.vector-appearance-landmark {display:none;}

However, the code is still sent to your browser and I don't know whether it will stop the interference you mention. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I find that leaving the options from the dropdown menu under as small text size and standard width gets it pretty close to what it was before. Haven't noticed any infoboxes or side elements breaking yet. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Ctrl + and Ctrl - (zoom in, zoom out) are a function of the browser, not part of Wikipedia. I use Vector 2022 and have the spectacles, and the browser zoom still works the same way. (I use Chrome, but Edge and other browsers have similar functionality). -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox changes?

What's with the infobox format changes? The {{infobox}} on my sandbox has reduced to minimum width, and {{Infobox locomotive}} is showing a blank margin to the left (eg GWR 2900 Class). Other infoboxes seem unchanged, though I've only checked a few. (I'm running Chrome on Linux, in case that's an issue.) Noticed yesterday. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 10:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just seen Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Thursday 13 June style changes. Thursday, of course. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 10:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Just pick one

After reading MOS:NATIONALITY and the article Miki Yamanaka, do you think the lead sentence of that article should describe her as

1. Japanese (status quo)
2. Japanese and American
3. American

Cheers, Mach61 11:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I would stick with 1. The article (or any other source I've found in a brief websearch) says nothing about her adopting US citizenship, and implies (confirmed by this source) that she moved to the US as an adult. Most sources found in a cursory search refer to her as 'Japanese-borne' / 'from Japan' and 'based in New York' or similar; none that she is (or considers herself) American or Japanese-American. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Cannoli

On the cannoli page, the singulars and plurals aren't always written in English (e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannoli&diff=prev&oldid=1229017430; it was written "are"); I'm not a native English speaker (in Italy "cannoli" is plural). JacktheBrown (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

When referring to the dish in the abstract, singular 'is' etc. is appropriate; if referring to multiple examples, 'are' is appropriate: the article uses both because it is using both senses. I agree this can look odd, but English is not constructed by logic.

Pluralising all mentions to plural (e.g. changing "Cannoli is . . . a Sicilian pastry" to "Cannoli are . . . Sicilian pastries") would remove the anomaly acceptably. So would replacing all instances of "They . . . are" to "Cannoli . . . is".

Because of its hybrid origins (several semi-creolised Germanic languages modified by heavy Norman-French and Latin influences and a subtle Celtic substrate), English often has many different ways, with different implications, of saying broadly the same thing, and is rich with technically ungrammatical idioms that sound correct to a native ear, and grammatical constructs that are 'correct' but sound wrong: achieving stylistic consistency is perhaps the greatest challenge of writing it well. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

navbox display

Hi there!

I've been working on the postmodernism article, and I'm having a hard time getting the navbox to display properly at the bottom of the page. It used to be off to the side near the top—but it's not actually very useful or informative, so I want to preserve it just at the bottom for readers who seek these things out.

I'm afraid to edit the template,[4] however, lest I mess up other articles where it is placed on the side.

Any advice on how to fix this or where to look for an explainer?

Many thanks! Patrick (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The template in question, {{Postmodernism}}, is not a navbox template but a sidebar template, so it's not designed to fit where you want to put it. I'm not seeing any navbox templates for that topic currently, so if you wanted one you'd have to create it. I'd recomend using a similar existing navbox, like {{Modernism}} as a reference, and you can read WP:NAV for more information on when and how to use them. WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense then. Glad I didn't try to "fix" the existing template.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for Assistance with Creating a Wikipedia Page for our main President

Dear Wikipedia Support Team,

I hope this message finds you well, I am an agent working in an gov administration. I am writing to seek your assistance regarding the creation of a Wikipedia page for our president.

Following instructions from our main president, I attempted to integrate a Wikipedia page using information that is readily available on our official website. However, the page was deleted shortly after its creation. I would like to understand the reasons for the deletion and how to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines so that we can successfully create and maintain this page.

Here is informations we intend to include in the biography:

- **Name** - **Personal Information** - **Professional Experience** - **Academic and Professional Qualifications** - **Publications and Contributions**

I believe that the president extensive career and contributions to the judicial and administrative fields establish his notability, and we aim to present this information in a neutral and verifiable manner.

Could you please provide guidance on the following:

1. The specific reasons for the previous deletion. 2. Any additional steps we need to take to meet Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards. 3. Best practices for drafting and submitting the page to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s content policies.

Thank you for your time and assistance. We are eager to contribute valuable information to Wikipedia and look forward to your guidance on how to proceed correctly.

Best regards, Institution du Médiateur du Royaume du Maroc (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

I'm afraid that, like many people, you (and your organisation) have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

It is not for anybody to tell the world about themselves. It is an encyclopaedia, where articles consist of summaries of what independent sources have published about a subject: Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Please read WP:BOSS, which answers several of your questions.

Please note that you must change your user name (or abandon that one and create a new one): Wikipedia user accounts are for individuals, and may not be shared, or have names which suggest that they are being shared; also, names which suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation are forbidden.

You must also make a formal declaration (preferably on the user page of that account) of your status as a paid editor. ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick note: There is an article on French Wikipedia relating to the Institution du médiateur du Royaume. It would need significant rewriting to be acceptable here however. Reconrabbit 18:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

1. The mostly likely reason for the article's deletion is copyright violation, as articles on Wikipedia should not be copied from elsewhere. It might also be deleted for being promotional, as your organization's website is incentivized to present your president in a favorable light, which runs counter to the purpose of Wikipedia.

2. The relevant guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Essentially, you should make sure that there are several indepth coverage about your president from sources that are reliable and independent from them. Note that these cited sources shouldn't be routine coverage, so things like announcements about product launches or personnel change are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.

3. The first and only step for you to draft an article about your organization's president is: Don't. Wikipedia articles are expected to be objective, and it's difficult to remain neutral when you are writing about your own boss. The best practice would be to gather enough sources that proves your president passes the aforementioned guidelines, and make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies/Political figures or Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By nationality#France. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything visible to non-admins which indicates that any article on the president of this organization (Mohamed Benalilou) has been attempted on en-wiki, but it appears that there have been at least six speedy deletions on French Wikipedia, the most recent being today for reasons being generally equivalent to an A7 here. --Finngall ^talk 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Ideas about article name

I'd like to start a draft about Brunel University London's lecture theatre, as I've found multiple sources about it, but I'm not sure what to title the article. The building listing at Historic England calls it "Lecture Theatre Block, Brunel University", this article calls it "Brunel University Lecture Theatre", this article calls it "Lecture theatre, Brunel University", and this article calls it "Brunel University Lecture centre". My first instinct was to call the article "Brunel University Lecture Theatre", but I'm not sure if "lecture theatre" should be capitalised or not. Any ideas? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If "lecture theatre" is capitalized in the cited sources, it should be capitalized in the article name as well. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem - some do, some don't. The latter two links don't capitalise the full name (I'm pretty sure the capital L on the last one is a typo), while the first two do. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS advises us to only capitalize terms that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of RS, so if sources are divided on whether to capitalize "lecture theatre" or not, it's probably best to default to lowercase. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Unclaimed Bank Accounts

I wanted to see if Wikipedia could help me find monies my Father left me some 69 years ago, I only know the Dates of my Fathers Birth/Death, (1904/1955) I am dismayed by the Banks cannot find his Account. The records of 1955 should show his Bank Account numbers, but they seem reluctant to search for his account. They offer no advice to seek the funds. with Interest add over some 800 odd months it should be worth seeking. Jamiesonandy (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jamiesonandy: We can only help with editing or otherwise using the site as an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I asked a question

where is your answer Jamiesonandy (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This is totally beyond the scope of the Help desk, it relates only to Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

There is really no need for the rude tone, or to duplicate questions across the Helpdesk and Teahouse. I'd like to if you're here to help build an encylopedia, or just to ask questions about dormant bank accounts? If it's the latter then you're in the wrong place. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have contributed to Wikipedia for a number of years

Now I want to post a situation that i need help with, how do I post a question for the wikipedia readers Jamiesonandy (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jamiesonandy: As I and others have stated above, this goes beyond the scope of any help desk on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Your account is one month old, and all of your edits are just questions on Teahouse or Help Desk about things irrelevant to Wikipedia. Please stop, or your editing privilege might get suspended. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding Infobox

Hi! Sorry this might be a weird question, but I noticed the Infobox design for films/tv looked different last night, but now looks the same. Will the design be coming back? Interestingedits (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Friday message from the Web team (and all its preceding sections). Basically, a big Ooops! -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_Green

All I want to do is flag some vandalism but I can't log in, I can't set up a new account, I can't request a password, it's abysmal. 2003:C7:774C:C54E:959C:3BA8:E6A2:F1C1 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to the edit that called the area Pakistani, I've reverted it. As for the questions about your account, Wikipedia can't send you your password, you can only reset password with the email address associated with your account. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Accepted AoC article still not indexed by google after 90 days

Hello,

I constructed and submitted a new article to Wikipedia in early March 2024 via the Articles of Creation process. The page is "Joseph Mougous" and has the url Joseph Mougous. The article was apparently accepted as an mainspace article on March 9th by Wikipedia user Ldm1954 with the following revision note: Ldm1954 moved page Draft:Joseph Mougous to Joseph Mougous: Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH). I am inquiring about why this page has not yet been indexed by Google, as I cannot determine a reason that the page should not yet be indexed at this point. There does not appear to be a NOINDEX tag in the article and the typical 90-day indexing waiting period should have had the page indexed 1 week ago on June 7th. Can someone please check on this issue and help me understand 1) why the article is not yet indexed and discoverable via Google, and 2) what, if any, remaining tasks need to be completed in order for the article to be indexed and discoverable by Google search?

i sincerely appreciate your time and efforts,

Adiantumprime Adiantumprime (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adiantumprime: The article allows indexing now. We don't control when Google or other external search engines actually index it. As far as I know, we don't contact Google to say that noindex has been removed from a page. They have to revisit the page on their own to discover it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

June 15

Nine number ISBN

Hello. I'm trying to cite the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (vol. 1, pub. 1973) using the cite book template. The ISBN, as given in the book, is 3-11-00489-7. As this is only nine numbers long, the template won't accept it. What do I do? Zacwill (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)