Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ONUnicorn (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 9 February 2021 (→‎Richard Skinner (broadcaster): Background). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    Ask a question

    February 6

    Can you Please upload the 2021 NBA All-Star Game Logo Please 68.102.42.216 (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello does anyone have the page to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto from 214-2015 before all the editing? would be grateful if you could find a way of finding this. If you find the original please email me the age at (Redacted)

    Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:B2C2:803:A300:8088:AF48:1481:A2CF (talk)

    All previous versions of the page are still available. click on the "view history" tab at the top of that page, then go back as far as you like and click on dated link. -Arch dude (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sense of humour

    Why can't I show you a sense of humour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2A07:E900:F80C:F7CE:15C5:AE41 (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as there's no crying in baseball, there's no humour in Wikipedia generally (with a few exceptions). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We are generally very humor-less in article-space. It can be ok otherwise, but the text-only environment can make it difficult for humor to come across as intendend to all who read it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Humour's pretty subjective, but there's some eyebrow-raising content on here like toilet paper orientation, where the humour (in my opinion) is that an article about this subject was made, and you'd never see something in so much detail in other encyclopedias. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And that article has versions in 15+ languages. That's funny in itself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The best reason: It would undermine Wikipedia's credibility, assuming you're talking about injecting humour in articles (aka mainspace). Clarityfiend (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia attempts to be serious and factual. Seriousness is almost by definition not humorous. Articles are backed up by reliable and often academic sources, which are generally not filled with hilarity. Facts are generally not funny. The Simpsons article is not funny, although it deals with a humorous TV series. Uncyclopedia may be what you are looking for. MinorProphet (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestions?

    Wouldn't it be great to get wikipedia music/album/artist info available and integrated through music apps (spotify, others)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon RT (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gordon RT: Wikipedia was built by unpaid volunteers. The information on Wikipedia is available for anyone to use for any purpose. The paid priofessional employees of the companies behind those apps are free to integrate the information if they choose to do so. Please make your suggestion to them. Good luck with that. -Arch dude (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some already do. Check out, for example, the online Radio Paradise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.121 (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gordon RT: There are industry databases and services like Gracenote that seem to serve that purpose better than I believe Wikipedia can. It really doesn't aim to be a reliable, exhaustive database of anything. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about tables

    Hey all, I was wondering what the guideline is for the chronological order of items in tables. I couldn't find the answer in the Help section, only that an example given was from earliest to latest: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Multi-column_sortable_standard. In most tables I've encountered it goes from earliest to latest. As in List of epidemics, List of Chinese films of 2018, List of films based on actual events, List of natural disasters by death toll. But then when I got here: List of mass shootings in the United States and World_population#Annual_population_growth it's from latest to earliest. Why? Is there a reason for this? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a common sense editorial decision that is taken as per the topic. That it. Lourdes 14:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lourdes, what do you mean by that? They do it so it's easier to edit the page? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquatic Ambiance: The term "editorial judgement" is used throughout the publishing industry. It means that an editor is responsible to see that the material meets a publication's standards and contributes to the reader's understanding or appreciation of the material. In this case, it means the editor should pick the presentation that best contributes to the reader's understanding of the topic. At Wikipedia, we usually use the term to mean "when there is no explicit guideline, then you, the editor, should act on behalf of our readers." Even when the guidelines are explicit, if the result is detrimental to the reader's understanding: See WP:IGNOREALLRULES -Arch dude (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arch dude: thanks for answering. How come there's no guideline that says all tables should always be from earliest to latest? This would avoid a lot of confusion and also meet WP:TITLECON. It's weird to see some tables upside down. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquatic Ambiance: There is no need for such a rule. Many tables in Wikipedia (including the two you are complaining about) are sortable. This allows the reader some control over how to view the data. For example, at World_population#Annual_population_growth, you can click the Year column on the table and it will go from earlier to later, and click it again, it will go back the other way. So you can see it with either 1951 first or 2020 first. RudolfRed (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquatic Ambiance et al.: MOS:FILMOGRAPHY says Ordered from oldest to newest.. WP:DATELIST says Chronological lists, such as timelines, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order.. WP:SALORDER says the same. Personally, I find newest first a more useful order, but that's clearly related to the subjects of articles I read and what I'm trying to find out. Bullet-lists aren't sortable, either. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Roxanne Russell article

    I need help. Trying to publish this [1] but cannot figure out how. --RussellRox (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RussellRox I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    subject: Heathfield Senior High School Gateshead

    on 5 Feb 2021 there was multiple deletions of notable pupils following my research. How can these be restored in a manner not to be deleted again

    thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatesheadhistorian (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Gatesheadhistorian It appears that most of your additions either did not have articles about those people, or independent reliable sources describing their alumni status. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For more information please read our policy on WP:ALUMNI.--Shantavira|feed me 14:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Generic Question - Do Wikipedia Admins "Speak for Wikipedia"?

    So my question is slightly weird, but one I have been wondering for a while. In the context of discussion (Like Afd, Rfc, ect...), when an admin closes the discussion with a message (more than like a "Consensus was delete"), does that mean that the Admin "spoke for Wikipedia"? For example, if a topic was chosen to be deleted, does that mean the closing admin just said Wikipedia believe this is true? Context in a sentence would be like "Wikipedia concluded that the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état was an important topic in the news. The Wiki foundation doesn't have any liability for topics on Wikipedia, I know that, so in that context, would the admin that closed the discussion be the one making the discussion that Wikipedia agreed or disagrees with a topic?

    That might have not made sense at all, so if you are confused, let me know and I will try to state the question better. (P.S. I couldn't find a good place to ask this, so I asked in on the Help desk, which I know is for how to edit Wikipedia, but the reference desk isn't for this question.) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins have no more strength of opinion than any other editor. Generally admins close discussions as they have the technical ability to delete pages, but any editor in good standing can close them.
    The closing of the discussion is just a summary of the discussion. It's worth mentioning that no one speaks for Wikipedia, it's just a website (well a series of websites), and consensus can change. The only thing that someone might speak on behalf of might be the Wikimedia Foundation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When an admin makes a statement like that, they are stating their conclusion: that the Wikipedians who participated in this discussion came to a consensus. This does not make the admin infallible, merely a person stating their perception of what the portion of the community involved in the discussion thinks. I would never ever write, "Wikipedia concluded that"; I would say, "[this discussion] led to a consensus that", with the brackets containing a link to the record of that particular discussion.--Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just back up both of the above comments. No one individual speaks for Wikipedia, that is sort of the whole idea of how this works. Content decisions that require discussion are discussed by interested community members, then an admin or other experienced user will close that discussion if that is what is needed, and their closing statement, whatever it may be, is intended to reflect the consensus arrived at. Conduct issues are dealt with in roughly the same way, although in many cases it is more desirable that an actual admin close those discussions as it may require the use of admin tools to enact the consensus, but even arbcom does not "speak for Wikipedia". Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with the above, I think. I would say "the English Wikipedia community decided in 2021 that..." if the discussion had sufficiently many participants that it seemed representative, but not "Wikipedia decided that..." Otherwise, "a group of volunteers", "a group of contributors", "some Wikipedians" etc.
    If the sentence you give as an example is about WP:ITN then definitely the latter (ITN participants are a sub-community, not representative of the opinions of the wider community). Maybe "volunteers at Wikipedia's 'In the news' homepage section..." The admin has no more power to "speak for" Wikipedia than a non-admin. They're just taking a content or policy action, which is no more "in the name of Wikipedia" than an unregistered user uncontroversially redirecting a page or boldly adding text to a policy. — Bilorv (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    two mountains with same name

    Hi in Greenland there are two mountains who have the name Alanngorsuaq. What would be the name for the second mountain (there's the wikilink it:Alanngorsuaq (monte))?--Ḥdiddān 21:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hdiddan: In the English Wikipedia, you could use something that helps further disabiguate it such as "Alanngorsuaq (northern)" if the second one is further north. That is assuming that each one is notable enough to have its own article. For the other language Wikipedia, you will need to ask there, since each Wikipedia has its own rules/guidelines for naming. RudolfRed (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Huh, interesting, we have an article on Alanngorsuaq, which shows it substantially to the northwest of the mountain identified in the Italian article. The reference[2] used to cite the Italian article does indeed show two mountains with the exact same name. So for the second one some sort of disambiguator is needed, I would suggest maybe Alanngorsuaq (Kujalleq) as that specifies where it is. Given that there is also a fjord by this name, if such an article is created a bisambiguation page may be in order to help users navigate the three separate topics. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the one near Kujalleq notable? Here is a source that states: "Alanngorsuaq is a hill and is located in Kujalleq, Greenland. The estimate terrain elevation above seal [sic] level is 1 metres." Another source, accessible (at the moment?) only through Google's cache, has this: "Alanngorsuaq, Kujalleq, Greenland [...] Type: Island - a tract of land, smaller than a continent, surrounded by water at high water". Are there other sources besides the Gazetteer of Greenland compilation that make a mountain out of this hill? Also note that this compilation has several nearby mountains that are significantly higher (e.g. Valhaltinde (1690m), Illerfissalik (1662m), Sulussugutaasaa (1660m)) but that, as far as I can see, are also not notable.  --Lambiam 08:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lambiam I think yes, the mountain near Kujalleq seems to me encyclopedic, instead that hill does not seem absolutely encyclopedic, moreover on itwiki is a simple redirect. For sources I couldn't find anything though.--Ḥdiddān 08:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS geoview makes a lot of stupid errors like <mountain name> is -9999 meters.--Ḥdiddān 08:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    February 7

    Cleanup after promoting to mainspace

    I have just promoted someone else's article to mainspace, after cleaning up and copyediting. I am not an official page reviewer, but have created quite a lot of pages myself, so have a reasonably good feel for what is acceptable by now, but am unfamiliar with the processes so need to ask this question. There are a number of project pages linking to the article, including AfC sorting ones, and I am not sure what to do about those - is there a bot which cleans them up? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Laterthanyouthink, the instructions for AfC reviewers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 4: Accepting a submission don't mention cleaning up bot links, so that shouldn't be a problem. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation if you are still concerned. TSventon (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for getting back to me, TSventon. Hmmm, I didn't actually follow that process, so not sure it will follow... But hopefully if there's any cleanup to be done it will eventually be discovered and fixed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Super Bowl Handoff

    On Monday Morning They will have a Super Bowl Handoff from the Tampa Bay Super Bowl Host Committee to the Los Angeles Super Bowl Host Committee if that is true. 68.102.42.216 (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    and...?? S Philbrick(Talk) 18:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Should I mention Google blunder mistakes in Ravi Shastri page?

    Primefac Lambiam Google shows former cricketer Ravi Shastri age as 120. Should I mention Google blunder mistakes in Ravi Shastri page? Source Rizosome (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk about trivia. Must have been a slow news day. I vote no. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Yell at Google. We're not responsible for how they (ab)use their Knowledge Graph. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 07:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jéské Couriano But some movie wiki pages contains trivia information. Rizosome (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The argument "What about article x?" should be avoided in deletion discussions, and, for the same reasons, in prospective-inclusion discussions. This does not look notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; we record only notable information. Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. If this is still a news item a year or so from now, we can reconsider.  --Lambiam 07:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Response to previous kelp me answer.

    FYI
     – Turned into heading by Tenryuu.

    I am not paid at all for the service I provide to the Aerodrome. I simply oversee their safety as they are farmers and have no idea what is required to meet aviation standards. I simply want to improve safety by promoting correct information about the aerodrome, particularly as it has a conflicted aerodrome identifier as stated in the article. I am not financially bettered by this post in any way. You may consider contacting the game reserve to verify this if that would make you more comfortable.

    I work for an airline called Swift Flite, and that is where I am employed and earn my remuneration. I am not hiding anything and thus do not need to make any other disclosures. However, as stated before, just delete the post as you obviously see no value to aviation safety in it and that is ALL I was promoting — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatchStickPilot (talk • contribs) 11:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MatchStickPilot: I think you meant to reply over at User talk:MatchStickPilot#Help me!? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editcountit

    I am sick of editcountit. Are there any software on Wikipedia that allows you to increase the number of contributions? Dr Salvus (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe. Have a look at Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol#Tools--Shantavira|feed me 17:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your post is a bit confusing to me. It doesn't sound like you're sick of it, but rather leaning into it; avoiding editcountitis would be to stop being concerned with your quantity of edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr Salvus: Perhaps you can clarify your meaning? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlanM1: There is a way to make more edits on Wikipedia? I would like to increase my contributions Dr Salvus (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr Salvus, color me confused. If you want to make more edits, make more edits. What am I missing? S Philbrick(Talk) 18:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shilbrick I opened this thread because I would like to know if there are software that allows you to make many changes in a short time. There are users who manage to make 1000 changes in 10 minutes and I would like to know if it is the skill of the user or the presence of semi-automatic software that allows this. Dr Salvus (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr Salvus: There is software, yes. There are bots that are written and run to automate important Wikipedia maintenance tasks. There are also user-run tools, like AWB, that can make some repetitive tasks faster and easier, which it appears you have found and to which you requested access before posting here. However, you need to have (and provide) a better reason than you just want to make a bunch of edits in a short time, which is what WP:EDITCOUNTITIS and respondents here and at the (declined) AWB access request are trying to communicate. I.e., what are these edits you want to make, and how do they benefit the encyclopedia and it's readers (not just yourself)?
    (BTW, I see you've solved the signature problem.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hiding Wikidata from watchlist

    Hi all. Is there a way for me to hide new data claims from my watchlist? I am finding I almost never interact with them and somewhat regularly now the mass gnoming (while appreciated!) deluges my watchlist to the point of being unusable. I’d rather not hide minor edits. Thanks in advance if someone can point me toward an option I’m overlooking. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait I just found it. Thank you. Whew! Innisfree987 (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could use help after all. I removed it from active filters and it works, but if I navigate away and then back to the watchlist, Wikidata claims are there again. So I do need help making that stick. Thank you very much. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Innisfree987: The defaults for your watchlist filters are set in your preferences, at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. In particular there's a checkbox "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist". -- John of Reading (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much John of Reading. I have no idea why I kept overlooking that option, but now I see it! Much appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    English

    Uses Of Article "The" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.5.130.227 (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I'm not clear on what it is that you are asking. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has an article about The.--Shantavira|feed me 19:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Possible relevant: a variety of Wikipedia style guidelines related to the use of "the" are at MOS:THE.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Notifications not working

    I've been having issues with other editors not receiving notifications from me. The past two weeks, I've noticed that whenever I contact another editor via their talk page or by using the "ping" or "reply to" templates, I haven't been getting any responses from them. I don't know if other editors just aren't receiving notifications from me, or if I'm just being ignored. I don't believe that I've been muted from the editors that I did contact recently. Yowashi (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Yowashi. When something is broken that would affect many users–especially if it persists for a while—there will often be a few (or even a flood) of reports at the village pump technical. Since I didn't find the word "notification" there just now (nor anything related on a quick scan of the TOC), my (circumstantial evidence-based) guess is it's not broken, but let's try it out. Did you get the ping I am leaving on this post? If you ping me back on your reply, I will report back on whether I got it.

    I have no idea if this might be involved, but please note that any post where you don't sign properly in the same edit of your save (e.g., accidentally typing five tildes), or the reverse, sign but don't link a user's name properly will result in a failed ping, and fixing it in a subsequent edit will only work if you do it right (see Help:Fixing failed pings). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks for the response. I don't usually type the tildes in manually. Instead I use the option where you can insert the tildes instead. I'll type it in this time to see if it solves the issue. Yowashi (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yowashi Got your ping, for what it's worth. (I can't see any way that typing four tildes, verses placing them by a tool that inserts the same text characters, could possibly result in any difference.) Maybe you're just facing the brunt of a statistical streak: a bunch of users just happens to have not responded to you, despite getting your pings, where it seems to you that a response is warranted and often would be provided under similar circumstances.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fuhghettaboutit: Weird. Perhaps I was just doing something incorrectly as you stated in your first response, or I just haven't been lucky in getting responses. Thanks. Yowashi (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate articles

    2021 Uttarakhand glacial outburst flood and 2021 Uttarakhand glacier burst both cover more or less the same event. They should be merged. Already proposed this on the talk page of the former. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Aquatic Ambiance:  Done Thanks for pointing out. They've since been merged. CX Zoom (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism help request from 71.238.67.218

    I have noticed some vandalism at Azealia_Banks. Namely, In the "background information" box in the top right of the page, the website link azeliabanks.com, goes to a random gambling website. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, 71.238.67.218 (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think someone vandalized Wikipedia by intentionally adding an incorrect URL. Instead, the azealiabanks.com URL used to be her official website but is no longer active, and someone else took over the URL to redirect to an unrelated website. I removed the URL from the infobox and added an archived version of her website in the External links section. Thanks for the report! GoingBatty (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it looks like she didn't pay to renew the domain registration. For a while the site displayed "azealiabanks.com is for sale on GoDaddy Auctions. Click here for more details." It seems from the end of Azealia Banks#Personal life that she has some issues. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How to add a request for new feature

    Hello, I want to request the Wikipedia volunteers to add a new feature for editing Wikitables. I went to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical), but it says that new features have to be requested at Phabricator. I'm unaware of how to use Phabricator. How do I add a request? Thanks! CX Zoom (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @CX Zoom: Which feature? Maybe it's already possible or there is already a request for it. See Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. Our MediaWiki software is used by thousands of wikis so MediaWiki features are not requested or implemented here at the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: Thanks a lot for the link you've provided. It helped me a lot. I went through the instructions and did not find an existing request that addresses the same concerns as mine. So, I added a new request here [3]. I believe that I did not mess things up but I am not really sure about it. So, it would be very helpful if someone can review the request I have added there. Thanks again! CX Zoom (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @CX Zoom: There are some fundamental problems with it. You don't distinguish between wikitext size and HTML size. The editors write the wikitext, e.g. {{party shading/Republican}}. MediaWiki processes the wikitext and produces HTML which is sent to the readers, e.g. style="background-color:#FFB6B6". The vast majority of users are readers, and the wikitext size is irrelevant to them. HTML does not have conditional cell formatting so some formatting code has to be sent to the readers. Wikipedia:TemplateStyles makes it possible to introduce local classes like republican and send class="republican" to readers instead of style="background-color:#FFB6B6", but you cannot send only R. For the wikitext, there are ways to reduce repetition if the table is built with templates. See Help:Table#Row template. Your suggestion would require the formatting code to be stored somewhere and specify which cells it applies to. Wikitables don't come with named cells like A1, A2, ..., B1, B2, ... in a spreadsheet, so it would be harder to use than a spreadsheet. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Timestamp ahead 5 hours

    My signature and edit timestamps have been consistently ahead 5 hours; how do I change that? henrysz ▪ 💬 ▪ 👀 23:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Your timestamp is in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Presuming you're on the East Coast of North America, that time zone is five hours behind UTC. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Henrysz: At the top right of your screen, click on Preferences > Appearances, and you go to the Time offset section to have Wikipedia display in your local time. GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    However, that setting does not affect the timestamp in signatures. For that, enable "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Do not change the time that is actually saved in the signature. We want it to be UTC. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: You're right (of course), but it does change how those timestamps appear in your watchlist, user contributions, and page histories. GoingBatty (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    February 8

    Best place to escalate an issue

    Lately I'm seeing widespread violations of MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, particularly on COVID pandemic articles. This seems to have started around January 8 of this year -- a month ago tomorrow. The behavior of community members is baffling in this instance: though there was evidently a strong enough consensus to put MOS:PRECOLLAPSE into the accessibility guidelines, there seems to be immense apathy regarding actually adhering to it. It is beyond my own capabilities to run around fixing up all of the affected articles, especially since some of them are not editable by me and the violations are all in sections of complicated markup I'm not very familiar with.

    Where is the best place to get attention to this issue from someone with the ability and/or authority to put their foot down regarding adherence to MOS:PRECOLLAPSE?

    I should note I've gotten either a big yawn or active pushback so far in all of the following places: the talk page of one affected article; Wikiproject:Accessibility; and the policy village pump. The active pushback is especially baffling, as it suggests that some editors are actively and intentionally undermining MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, behavior that would seem to go directly against policy. On one occasion when I marshalled evidence to substantiate one of my claims someone actually tried to simply delete that evidence and pretend it had never been posted, which I considered to be a remarkably immature reaction. Someone also apparently flagged me in some way because I started to get prompted with a CAPTCHA after each edit. This points to active efforts to silence people who raise a fuss about MOS:PRECOLLAPSE.

    The MOS:PRECOLLAPSE section exists for a reason. It should not simply be ignored, and the various shoot-the-messenger type reactions I've seen when I've pointed it out also seem inappropriate here. I have the feeling there may be some kind of site politics involved, based on the irrational behavior and weeks-long saga that grew from what should have been a very quick five-minutes-and-done semi-protected edit request on one single article talk page back in mid-January.

    So: Where should I go next with this? Where are the defenders and enforcers of MOS:PRECOLLAPSE likely to be hanging out around here? 70.52.144.5 (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The MOS is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule, so there is nothing to defend or enforce. The note at the top of the MOS page says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Thus, you should raise the issue on the article's talk page. If others do not agree with you, then there is no consensus to change what is already in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't mention any example or name the talk page with an edit request. Special:Contributions/70.52.144.5 shows other edits but only since 30 January. I scanned through all 14 kB your current IP address has posted about this issue and as far as I can tell, you never identified any occurrence of the problem. You did say it seems to have started around January 8. A January 8 post at phab:T242855 says "Drop ability to attempt server-side rendering with Graphoid". This means that many or all graphs made with mw:Extension:Graph require JavaScript in your browser. Your unidentified edit request was probably about a graph which stopped displaying for you due to this change made outside Wikipedia by the developers. Changing it to display for you would probably require that the entire graph is completely remade with another method. mw:Extension:Graph#User defined fallback says: "When using client side rendering, it is possible to use Wikimedia Commons to provide a static fallback image to noscript users. This is a temporary solution until a new service is put in place to provide server side rendering to replace the soon to be decomissioned Graphoid service." phab:T249419 discusses what to do. Maybe the graphs will start displaying again at some time for users without JavaScript. If we stop using mw:Extension:Graph now and rewrite or delete numerous graphs then we risk wasting a lot of effort and make content worse for the huge majority of users who do have JavaScript. Your CAPTCHA statement sounds a little paranoid. I don't think anyone has the ability to do that. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: The mainspace issue sparking this appears to be the graphs in COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, with the originating post being Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario#Viewing the graphs in the article should not require Javascript to be enabled. 70.52.178.195 is blocked from editing Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility for 1 month, essentially for not dropping the stick and WP:IDHT on this issue. All indications are that this thread is [more] forum shopping.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all of the graphs on COVID, or other, pages are affected. Since some of them aren't, the method used to produce them should be used for all of the broken ones, in order to maintain compliance with MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. The question is, how to make that happen? Someone with a higher level of access AND a higher level of technical expertise with wikipedia markup would need to make the changes in question. The self-appointed curators of the articles in question, who made and in many cases regularly update those graphs, are surely eminently qualified to perform the conversion, but apparently just can't be bothered to do so, despite the fact that their not doing so violates MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. This is the apathy I mentioned previously. And "Fuhghettaboutit" represents an example of the pushback I mentioned previously, whereby some users actively try to prevent the MOS:PRECOLLAPSE issue receiving attention. One of their tactics is stalking pro-MOS:PRECOLLAPSE users to accuse them anywhere the issue gets raised of "forum shopping" or similarly.
    As for "The MOS is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule", the subset in MOS:ACCESS, which includes MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, should probably be treated more seriously than the rest of the Manual of Style. As things stand, important information on many of the COVID articles is unreadable to about 7% of the Wikipedia user base, with no justification and indeed against a guideline agreed upon previously by popular consensus. It is a moral imperative that this be fixed, and since I am for multiple concurrent reasons incapable to do that myself someone else will have to do it. If that means escalating this all the way to getting it attention from the Foundation itself so they can actually hire and pay someone to fix this, then so be it, but it MUST be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.144.5 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    CERTIFIED COPY

    Good Afternoon, I have done executive MBA in Fall semester 2005 and my roll number was 32363 (Usman Rathore). I need my Certified copy of certificate to show to my work place . Can you please provide me with one.

    Regards Usman Rathore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.9 (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is Wikipedia, so we can't help you with this, unfortunately. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Why Rachel Roxxx page deleted?

    I find Rachel Roxxx is informative and not vandalized. But now it is removed, why so? Rizosome (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rizosome: Not notable, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Roxxx_(3rd_nomination) RudolfRed (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    David Andrew Polkinghorne

    How can I delete an entry for the above person that the information is not correct about him so want to completely delete all info on him — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanKean64 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Kindly remove the information for above person as it is the incorrect profile photo as well as part of the information, he was born on 20.04.1964 and it has born in Durban in 1966 etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanKean64 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SusanKean64, if the info about David Polkinghorne (cricketer) seems totally wrong, do you perhaps have an unrelated David Andrew Polkinghorne in mind? If no, this is the right Polkinghorne but what's said in the article is mistaken, the best place to bring this up is probably Talk:David Polkinghorne (cricketer); if you get no response, then also bring up the matter at WP:BLPN. And yes, it is possible to have an article deleted; however, this needs a solid reason. If you just want to change the date of birth, then where is the published evidence for this date of birth? -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SusanKean64: The conflicting 1966 claim has been removed from David Polkinghorne (cricketer) but the article has no photo.
    Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Are my comments in this discussion considered a WP:WALLOFTEXT?

    Seen here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent. Appreciate the feedback.--Prisencolin (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Prisencolin, I don't think WP:WALLOFTEXT applies, but you have replied to all the delete votes, which is discouraged by WP:BLUDGEON. Both are essays so they don't have the force of a policy or guideline. TSventon (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve been warned about WP:BLUDGEON before... but my question then is how do you even address an argument which contains erroneous information/assumptions? So far there are only four other participants, besides the nom I have replied to the three !votes.—Prisencolin (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are three consecutive sentences of what you write: So.. does that mean Category:American people of European descent should be eliminated because it included it’s too common to be worth categorizing by as European Americans are 70% of the population? Additionally, at one time the Chinese were perhaps only a fraction of their overall population during the colonial era. Also, are you aware of the relatively vast corpus of literature on this subject. I can't even parse the the first sentence, but it seems to be trying to be a question. The third too is a question. Minimize questions, appeal to policy, copyedit what you write before clicking "Publish changes", and when in doubt, don't write. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hoary:I was replying to an equally confusing statement by another editor who said “For the record I think Category:Hong Kong people of Chinese descent is too common to be worth categorizing by,” I believe what he means is that A) Chinese in Hong Kong consist of an extremely large proportion of the population therefore B) this Category is not WO:DEFINING because there is a high degree of overlap between the category and the parent category.—Prisencolin (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prisencolin in addition to the above, WP:BLUDGEON suggests "Wait a few days and perhaps add one comment at the bottom of the discussion that may address any or all of the concerns expressed by others." TSventon (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I become an admin?

    . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seansrobloxvideosandmore2 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Seansrobloxvideosandmore2 You spend years developing a good edit history with thousands of edits, showing that you understand Wikipedia guidelines, have a good temperament, and have a need for the administrator toolset, which will show the community that you merit being given the toolset in a community discussion. Administrators have no more authority than any other editor, they just have extra tools that would be irresponsible for everyone to have. You can do 95% of things here without having the administrator tools. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seansrobloxvideosandmore2, I second that advice. "admin" is not the same function as in other online groups, and that fact is often misunderstood. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Non professional footballers

    I would like to create the page of a football player, who has never played in professional football. This is not possible according to WP:FOOTY. Can I create a page in the form of a Draft and then move into the mainspace when the player makes his debut in professional football? Dr Salvus (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr Salvus, that sounds WP:TOOSOON. The essay recommends creating a draft in draftspace, but depending on how often you're checking in (i.e., editing at least once every six months), you may also want to consider starting it in one of your user subpages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenryuu

    I wish I had the "honor" of creating the page. So is it advisable to use in the draftspace? I believe this player will make his professional debut shortly Dr Salvus (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr Salvus, it's perfectly fine to start it in draftspace. I only suggested userspace if you were going to edit it extremely infrequently (due to draftspace procedural deletion for inactivity). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr Salvus, I personally think that "honor" is a little misplaced but I am very aware that credit for creating an article is something important to some editors. One thing you might do is track down the wiki project associated with the sport, open up a conversation on the wikiprojects talk page explaining a plan to create an article in preparation for this individual's debut, point them to your music page invite them to help, and that might forestall some other editor noticing their debut and beating you to the punch. No guarantees, but it would be a little rude if you made it clear you are working on a draft and only waiting for the debut to move it to article space.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Disero

    Hello I have a good Friend Matt Disero.

    He is a Magician, whom is well known, but not super famous. He had a Wikipedia Page that he monitored himself and helped to link to other small magicians. I would love to help him return to monitoring his Wikipage.

    Can this be done?

    (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.37.168 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed your Email from this post. Please do not share your email in publicitely readable places. Regarding your question, Matt Disero doesn't appear to have ever existed. Perhaps it was a different spelling or on a different project? Here on the english Wikipedia, I am afraid, we cannot perform such a request, see WP:OWN and WP:COI. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Thank you!!

    the name was once under this Matthew DiSero

    https://web.archive.org/web/20150608105731/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_DiSero

    here is a wayback link to it

    and an imgur post of a screen shot form the old page

    https://imgur.com/a/7Ro4ags

    thank you! it would be great to get his page back up, Russell Peters and Him used to tour together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.37.168 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Matthew DiSero was deleted in 2017 as the result of an expired unchallenged Proposed Deletion. You would need to show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that Mr. DiSero meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. That he associates with other notable people is insufficient as notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to be pedantic 331dot, let's at least be correct. Wikipedia very much does have pages, and articles are one type of page. Take a look at your Watchlist, which has a filter for "Page creations" and "Page edits". There's nothing at all wrong with using the term "page". -- Fyrael (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyrael It isn't a matter of pedantry. It's a mindset. Many new users come here to create a new page without knowing that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles. The mindset associated with the broader meaning of page often results in a different attitude and editing style than what is actually desired when we are trying to write articles. As you quite correctly note, Wikipedia has many types of pages, but this is a project to build an encyclopedia of articles. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, it's "who is well known", not "whom is well known". JIP | Talk 22:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniels College of Business page edits

    I have tried to make changes to the Daniels College of Business page , but they were immediately reversed by another editor. I am a student worker for DCB and I know that there are factual inaccuracies on the page that should be corrected. I'm not sure why the edits are not going through. I have made sure that there is not bias in my edits. Please help me make these necessary edits to the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awalker2020 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Awalker2020 As you are a worker for the College, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to formally declare that status, please review the paid editing policy for more information about the declaration and how to make it. You should also review conflict of interest and how to make formal edit requests as you should avoid making direct edits about your college. According to the edit history, there were various stylistic issues with your edits. Once you have made the required declaration, you may make an edit request on the article talk page, Talk:Daniels College of Business, detailing changes you feel are needed. Those changes should preferably be sourced to independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with an Unproductive Moderator

    Since Wikipedia has no staff to communicate with when dealing with issues, I guess this is where I have to go to. For the last two years I've contributed many photos to Wikipedia. I've done this with the intention of adding relevant information to pages to improve the Wikipedia experience.

    Yesterday, I added a photo of a river otter to the Puget Sound page, and was given this message by Magnolia677, "Please stop adding low-quality photos. I see I already asked you two years ago. Please take a moment to read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Thank you. Magnolia677"

    I had already read the page about image relevance. Magnolia667 was referring to the photo I added to the Puget Sound page, which I can agree wasn't a high quality photo, so I won't add photos like that in the future. However, I saw that my high quality photos recently added to pages had all been deleted. I figured Magnolia667 had been taking them off of all the pages and I was correct. I tried to put the photos back on the pages a while later, and got this message from Magnolia667 on my talk page,

    "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Washington (state). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

    If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop edit warring and discuss the addition of your personal photo album on the talk page. Magnolia677"

    I talked to Magnolia677 about this on their talk page. I explained how I understand they thought one of my images was low quality and got rid of it, but asked them why they were taking away all my other photos. This was the response I got,

    "Just because you visited a place, and took some pictures there, does not mean every one of your photos can be added to a Wikipedia article. I urge you to read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. For example, adding a photo of a river to an article about a different river, is probably going to be reverted. Adding a close up picture of a water tower to an article about a US state is probably going to be reverted. Adding a photo of a canyon to an article where there is already a picture of the same canyon, and that picture is better than yours, is probably going to be reverted. Adding a photo of some place in darkness is probably going to be revered. Adding a picture of a fish in a stream to an article about a waterfall is probably going to be revered. Adding a picture of bird in a tree to an article about a river is probably going to be reverted. This is just from memory. Please stop adding your personal photo album to Wikipedia!"

    I then explained how these photos were relevant to the pages. The photo of a Coho salmon in Multnomah Creek was relevant for the Multnomah Falls page because the salmon was spotted just below the waterfall in Lower Multnomah Creek. The photo of bald eagles I put on the Snake River page was taken directly above the Snake River, and I added the photo to the section of the Wikipedia page that is about the birds that inhabit the Snake River. Magnolia667 clearly went on an emotionally-driven rant and continued deleting my photos from Wikipedia pages.

    If I'm to continue contributing to Wikipedia, I do not want the user Magnolia677 to have the privilege to delete photos I contribute to Wikipedia. For two years I've contributed to Wikipedia, and the most of a thank you I get is Manolia677 threatening to ban me from Wikipedia. Magnolia677 insulted the photos I've added to pages, saying they are "low-quality photos" and that other photos on the pages I contribute to are better than mine. I can no longer contribute to Wikipedia if Magnolia677 continues to hunt down any photo I contribute only to delete it, and threaten to ban me from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Richardmouser Administrator behavior is better addressed at the administrator's noticeboard- including if you are asking for an interaction ban. Be advised of WP:BOOMERANG, though. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These don't appear to be admin actions, just normal editor actions. Any editor can add or remove images from an article, or issue talk page warnings, and conflict should be resolved by discussion (getting more editors involved in the conversation if it becomes intractable between just the participants). An admin has an "editor cap" on when they edit a page normally and this has nothing to do with their technical capabilities. To which end, the noticeboard you've been pointed to above and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents can be used as a forum to discuss anyone with an "editor cap" on whose behavior is supposedly in need of curtailing. But neither forum will look kindly on someone who has been doing the same thing over and over again without sufficient discussion, and neither is used to decide whether or not an image should be included (the place for that is at talk pages, like Talk:Washington (state)). — Bilorv (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Struck as Magnolia677 is not an admin.) — Bilorv (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Philosophy of WP

    Sunday evening, where I am. Who, or what, is an "ordinary reader"? What is our intended audience? Can we hope to serve all comers? Where do we leave it to the genuine, full-time, expert professionals? (Yes, in the refs.) How much would we expect an "average reader" to know? Are we writing for an audience ranging from those who know almost nothing, to those experts who know considerable amounts about any particular subject? Would we hope to leave the experts confident that any particular article is "not too bad, considering?" And the newcomers confident that they have learned at least something? This discussion might be better redirected somewhere else. MinorProphet (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MinorProphet: create a user sub-page for yourself, copy this posting into it, and capture your thoughts there. If you eventually decide it is useful for a wider audience, turn it into a Wikipedia essay. First, read WP:NOT. -Arch dude (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arch dude: thanks for your swift reply. Perhaps WP:IS ought to be the opposite of WP:NOT, but it isn't. Otoh, WP:About will keep me going for a while, though. Also, it's actually Monday evening, must have missed 24 hrs somewhere... Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you ask three different Wikipedians you'll get four different answers. There is and isn't a deadline (and also is one but differently so), we're writing to laypeople but it's also not our place to provide education to non-experts, truth is both the only thing that counts and irrelevant over verifiability, and our articles both should and shouldn't be as complete as possible, as detailed as possible and as concise as possible. We have a very long "not" but no "is" because if there are four major competing ideas over a topic then three-quarters of people will agree what we're not (and that's consensus), but no-one can agree on what we are. — Bilorv (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As suggested by the dude, I have created Philosophy of WP as a sub-page. Please feel free to contribute. If that's OK, I might copy people's thoughts there as your starter for 10. @Bilorv: You may have touched on the essential psychosis which informs WP. We know what we aren't, but what are we? Why aren't there authoritative sub-editors in charge of various groups of articles, who can bring together the obvious discrepancies in individual articles, and create a satisfying and internally consistent reflection of "what is known"? I know, it's like herding cats. MinorProphet (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can copy/adapt any of my text that you like. As for the lack of authority, despite the fact that we are not an anarchy, my opinion is that we are an anarchy, in the political theory sense which refers to the rejection of hierarchy wherever reasonably possible (wherever "unjust" or "coercive"). I don't think authoritative sub-editors would actually address the cause of any of our issues, which relate to editor motivation, recruitment and retention. I think sufficiently many good volunteers can address discrepancies in a decentralized fashion more feasibly than someone or some group assigned the responsibility of doing so. The Essjay controversy was an early pragmatic reason to eschew assigning authority to editors, given that almost all of us are anonymous. — Bilorv (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and I agree. Sadly, it is now painfully obvious that there aren't, and never will be again, "sufficiently many good volunteers": the likely ones were hounded out many years ago by trolls, imbeciles who couldn't cope with the idea that their pet ideas were wrong, patriotic fuckwits and vindictive assholes who got to be admins, and other assorted twats who remain behind the screens of various committees, privileges of this and that, able to delete WP history at will as if it never happened, etc. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE. MinorProphet (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that WP is neither anarchy nor its opposite, certainly not a democracy. I would go for a certain leaning towards despotism, perhaps, or even a gathering of petty warlords in the snow, unable to agree on anything except that they don't like each other. MinorProphet (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MinorProphet: With regard to some of your questions, you might find this old reference-desk thread interesting. Deor (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    updating company profile to show new ownership..

    Hi I'd like find out how to update some of the very basic information to the South Jersey Industries wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Jersey_Industries

    This is not an attempt to manipulate or self-promote but there are some glaring omissions such as the fact SJI owns two of New Jersey's largest gas utilities and only one is mentioned (South Jersey Gas is mentioned, but Elizabethtown Gas is not mentioned which became part of SJI in 2018)

    There is mention on the Wikipedia page of the former owner Southern Company about the sale, so easily verifiable things like this should be an easy fix.

    (from Southern Company page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Company_Gas ) Elizabethtown Gas Elizabethtown Gas was founded in 1855 and is headquartered in Union, New Jersey. It delivers service to more than 277,000 residential, business and industrial natural gas customers in New Jersey, making it he state's smallest energy provider.[11] The utility serves Union, Middlesex, Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Morris and Mercer counties. In 2004, Elizabethtown Gas was purchased by AGL Resources. Additional services include:

    Maintaining the gas pipeline infrastructure Responding to and repairing leaks Elizabethtown Gas was sold to South Jersey Industries in July 2018.

    We'd like a Wikipedia editor to take a look and make updates. Information can be found at www.sjindustries.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.126.110 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    On the article's talk page, describe what changes you are asking for along with {{edit request}} and an unconnected editor will look at it. There is a large request backlog currently, so it may take some time for it to be acted on. RudolfRed (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Template for found sources

    I know I've seen somewhere before a template for talk pages that lets you list additional sources you've found that could provide additional info for the article, but I cannot for the life of me find it by searching today. Any help is appreciated. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fyrael: Try {{refideas}}. GoingBatty (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that's the one. Thanks! -- Fyrael (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    February 9

    article about a company didnt get approval

    Hi,

    I have uploaded an article regarding a shipping company based in Singapore which was established way back 1963. My last edit was last year and I want to revisit it again and try to upload it. Kindly assist me on how to get it approved.

    Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechaicruz (talk • contribs) 01:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thechaicruz A Wikipedia article must only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your draft only has two sources- and those sources only describe announcements of routine business transactions, which, along with staff interviews, brief mentions, and press releases, do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article for more information. If there are few or no independent reliable sources with significant coverage, your company would not merit an article at this time. Not every company does, even within the same field. 331dot (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Thechaicruz: Looks like you created Draft:Thome and Vixaquay created Draft:Thome Group. You need more independent reliable sources to show how this company meets WP:NCORP. The {{UserboxCOI}} template should be on your user page. GoingBatty (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    citations

    how to I site a source which is a picture as opposed to a url? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosenberg.suzanne (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Citing a graphics file is rarely appropriate, Rosenberg.suzanne. If you identify the file here and say how you hope to use it, somebody here will give you advice. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Images are rarely, if ever, acceptable sources, as they provide no context to be usable as sources. If you're trying to cite a newspaper clipping, cite the paper itself instead. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 07:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    carl weather's death.

    Carl weathers died October 21 2020. His wicki needs updating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.52.177 (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Source? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 03:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoax. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 05:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Article Creation

    How come when an article is created through a redlink, it doesn't get submitted to Afc and simply becomes an article? And if it does go to Afc, how come it doesn't say "Draft:" when it's made? Microwavedfork (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Because that implies the creator thinks it's a notable subject and creates an article, not a draft. Afc is for when you're not sure or you have a conflict of interest. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would give a rather different asnwer from Clarityfiend, Microwavedfork. I would say it's because that possibility was around long before Drafts were invented, and has never been updated. I think there's a case for saying that the dialogue you get when you click on a redlink should by default create it as a draft, and give you a button to say "Yes, I want to create it directly in main space, and I'm confident that I can do a good enough job first time". --ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Colin. The current state of things is a historical hangover. Maproom (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That clears things up. Microwavedfork (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing assistance requested for article about non-profit

    Hey there,

    I'm not feeling confident about creating an article for a non profit org that I work for...my head is still spinning from all the info about article creation/editing. How do I find that ethical someone to write the article for that org? Cheers Eb--Envirobabe (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Envirobabe: You might mention the name of the org so someone can at least comment on whether they appear to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. This is the primary thing that needs to be determined (the foundation, if you will), since without that, an article cannot be created (and wouldn't be able to have any significant content anyway, since there will not exist the reliable sources on which to base the article). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How to sort porn actors articles according to their first edit?

    How to sort porn actors articles according to their first edit?

    I find these list but I want list according to first edit Rizosome (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rizosome: I assume you mean you want a list of articles about pornographic actors sorted by page creation date, not by the actors' own edits (which we have no way of knowing). Try this PetScan for Category:Pornographic film actors ordered by page ID (which should be issued approximately in time sequence) descending (i.e., newest first).
    BTW, it's helpful to other editors if, when posting a link to a Wikipedia article on a discussion page, you use wikilinks (e.g., [[List of pornographic performers by decade]], not external links to the mobile pages (as you did above), so they get the appropriate color link, go to the desktop site for non-mobile users, show up in Special:WhatLinksHere, survive page moves, etc. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How to use PET Scan ? I am beginner. Please elaborate on this. Rizosome (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How to edit a page that is locked?

    Dear users,

    i'm stumbled upon a page that is locked but includes fake information. How do i unlock and undue this page from false information?

    Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:A400:B000:586:48B3:937F:394A (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You may make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page of the relevant article. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; we don't deal in truth, but in what can be verified, see WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Logo appears without image code

    I'm perplexed by the article Wellendorff, where the company appears in the infobox...without any code to include it: "logo = " is blank. I went so far as to remove all of the infobox code while in preview mode,and the image is still there. The image's file name does not appear anywhere in the wikicode. Any ideas? Possibly (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Possibly: Since 2019, {{Infobox company}} has been coded to pick up the logo name from Wikidata if the fields are blank in the infobox. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @John of Reading: thanks! I thought that might be the case, but did not see it mentioned in template:infobox company. Possibly (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Possibly: I've updated the documentation. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're a star, thanks. Possibly (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandbox draft

    Hi i have published my article and i am waiting for any message from wikipedia's side. How long will it take for my page to appear on wikipedia? can anyone help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mivida2021 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    hi sir/mam, I have published my article titled - "Canadian Chamber of Commerce Egypt"in sandbox and waiting for a response. How can i submit my draft for a review. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mivida2021/sandbox&oldid=1005800169 kindly help. Thanks. Mivida2021 Mivida2021 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mivida2021, there is a review backlog, so it can take anywhere from three days to three months. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mivida2021: The draft has not yet been submitted for review as far as I can see. You can dop this by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the 'markup'. This will produce a submission notice and it will be reviewed in due course. As noted above, there can be a delay before this takes place. Eagleash (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mivida2021. It's likely that when the page is reviewed, after you submit through the AfC submission template Eagleash has advised of above, it will be declined for being (mostly) unsourced. At Wikipedia, we don't properly record what we know in our heads, but mostly summarize what reliable, secondary, independentTemplate:Z21 sources say about a subject, citing as we write the sources where we get our information (without copying the exact words). Doing so verifies the information content, and demonstrates the notability of the subject. Where did you get the information that you wrote in the draft?

    By the way, the draft reads to me like it might have been translated from a foreign Wikipedia article. I don't know if that's correct, but if it is, it's missing copyright attribution. This is easily fixed. If relevant, please see Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate (shortcut: WP:HOWTRANS) and then Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution (shortcut: WP:RIA). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving a draft to a name that currently exists as a redirect

    Is there an easy way to move a draft page to an article that is currently a redirect? I've submitted a technical request, but I feel there is an easier way to do this. Courtesy link: Draft:Paper Mario (series). Panini🥪 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Panini!. Can't think of any. Another way to do this, but that doesn't seem easier, is to use {{db-move}}. But WP:RMTR is a dedicated place for such a request, monitored mostly by people who know how to take care of relevant issues on moves and will see your request; you copy the {{rmassist}} template, plug in three parameters; save; usually within a few minutes it's taken care of; here within about ten minutes. Easy-peasy. By contrast, db-move is much more likely to possibly sit around for a few hours or more. Also, it appears a history swap was in order and done. If a move requires knowledge and tools that aren't in your own wheelhouse, then it becomes much more complicated to request the steps be taken care of than a single RMTR request. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    translating my article in English into French and Italian

    dear all, I have translated my article about San Michele in Teverina from English to French fr.wikipedia and Italian it.wikipedia and would like to have your review many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbelloni (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Serbelloni. It would make much more sense for you to ask at fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux and it:Aiuto:Sportello informazioni. Even if people here can read French and Italian, they are unlikely to be familiar with the specific requirements of fr-wiki and it-wiki. --ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal Life Update

    I am no longer married to Deran Sarafian and would like Wiki to reflect my divorce. Here is a link to the public records which reflect this.

    https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la2-laurie-fortier-vs-deran-sarafian-890649

    Please tell me if this will suffice e or if there is something else you need?

    Sincerely, Laurie Fortier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegas4026 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be better to have an independent reliable source with this information; court documents are considered primary sources. Is there a court log in a newspaper, or legal notices website in your jurisdiction with this information? 331dot (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia addressable?

    Dear Wikipedia,

    I use Wikipedia regularly and sometimes "react" using the Talk page. But many times I must conclude that the writer is not addressable for conversation but, in the reverse of that, dictates.

    Is that your way of doing?

    Regards.

    PS. I am not afraid to point myself with my IP address. Paranoia has its spread all enough.

    145.129.136.48 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of the talk page is to provide space for people to discuss changes to the article. This is different from a space for people to "react". So, perhaps you found something in the article confusing, it would be appropriate to point out on the talk page that "the section of the article that talks about X is confusing." Or if there was important information you felt was missing from the article, that would be an appropriate thing to put on the talk page, or conversely, if you thought the article was too detailed you could mention on the talk page what you think needs to be trimmed. On the other hand, comments like "You can live with an Agnostic attitude but that is not a philosophy nor an ideology," on Talk:Agnosticism are not about the article, they are about the subject and thus are not appropriate.
    Also, you mentioned that you conclude that "the writer" (of the Wikipedia article) "is not addressable for conversation". Most Wikipedia articles don't have any one particular writer. They are a communal effort. Some people closely follow developments on articles they have contributed a lot to, others don't. Comments on the talk page are addressed to anyone who is interested in improving the article, though if there is a particular person you want to address them to, you can use a ping to send them a notification encouraging them to look at the talk page.
    I hope this helps you understand talk pages and their function in Wikipedia. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk pages are not for general discussion with the "the author" about the content of the article. They are for discussing how to improve the article. Furthermore, the original creator of an article has no more (or less) control over an article's contents that does any other editor, including you, and most articles therefore are the result of collaboration among multiple editors. If you think the article needs to be changed to improve it, you should suggest changes on the talk page, but you will be ignored unless you cite reliable sources. -Arch dude (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Skinner (broadcaster)

    I keep having to correct inaccurate edits to the page regarding my life and career - a problem that has continued for some years - for instance my date of birth has been repeatedly changed to 1954 when I was born on December 26 1951. I keep correcting the errors - most recently today (February 9th 2021) but they keep being reinstated. Please stop these inaccuracies! The page as it stands - at 21:17 on Feb 9 2021 - is accurate. Although I would add an entry that explains that I have worked for - and still do - In Flight Broadcasting (now Global Eagle) presenting shows for airplane entertainment from 1973 to the present day. Thank you. Richard Skinner 90.201.7.227 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone from this IP address made a series of unreferenced changes to Richard Skinner (broadcaster) and did not explain them using edit summaries. They were reverted because this pattern of editing is usually vandalism. Even if your edits priovided the correct infrmation, you should not be directly editing this article at all (see WP:COI), but instead making recommendation on its talk page, tagged with {{edit request}}. Make sure you cite sources,or the edits will not be done. -Arch dude (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the article has never cited any source for Richard Skinner's date of birth, but the first version of the article puts it at 1951. It looks like the problems started in November when Arbor to SJ removed the birthdate because it was unsourced. He then engaged in what appears to be original research, noting in an edit summary that "Skinner was 19 in 1973, making his birth year approx. 1954," and adding the 1954 date, also without a source. It looks like over the past few months there has been a cycle of IPs attempting to fix the birthdate, without citing sources, and editors assuming their efforts are vandalism and reverting to the 1954 date, which is also unsourced. The best option at this point would be for anyone interested in the matter to locate a reliable source for his date of birth and cite it. In the mean time, I will remove the unsourced date of birth. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1005887488"