You didn't 'register' anything. You edited an existing article. An article which like any other is open to edits from multiple contributors. And given the largely unsourced and clearly promotional nature of your edits, the subsequent revert seems appropriate. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest you do so on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, Violet Windsor, that "official sources" are usually not what we want: they are usually primary sources, that can be used in only limited ways. Reliable, independent, secondary sources are what a wikipedia article should be based on.
I will also point out that editors who plunge into the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works often have a frustrating and disppointing time, so I always advise spending a few weeks or months learning about Wikipedia by making improvements to existing articles (especially to their sourcing and referencing before trying it. ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Violet Windsor: First, make sure you understand the Wikipedia definition of notability: See WP:N. Notability is the only absolute requirement for an article. If your subject is not notable, you will be wasting a lot of your time and some of ours, so don't skip this step. Next, find published reliable sources (WP:RS) that document this notability. Then read some of our articles that are about people more or less like your subject to get a feel for the proper tone and format. After all that, proceed to WP:YFA. -Arch dude (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou so much. The person I wish to publish has an Order of Australia Medal for services to the Country as well, I'll look into whether that meets the "Notable" criteria. Violet Windsor (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JackkBrown. If you see something in an article which you don't think is right, then be bold and edit it. I really don't understand what your purpose is in posting about it here. ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: since I cannot edit every page of every Italian food (I am one person, not a hundred thousand), I ask here so that I can find someone to help me (apparently, no one wants to help me). JackkBrown (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the dismissive tone of my original reply, and note that the title of this thread at the time was "Serious problem", but still only talked about text formatting. User:JackkBrown, sometimes we are the only active editor who cares about something enough to bother "fixing" it en masse. I've had this experience a number of times. If this is something that is really important to you, you're definitely personally capable of standardising mortadella, ricotta, etc, to either italic or non-italic depending on what you may strongly feel is correct. It will just take a long time. Wikipedia is a big project, with a lot of problems, and will never be perfect or complete.If you're able to generate consensus somewhere applicable (maybe Talk:Mortadella or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy or something, including all the terms you feel are problematic so people can discuss them each at the same place, and with neutral notifications elsewhere so that interested editors will be able to find the discussion and weigh in), you could probably submit a successful AWB request to have whatever text formatting gains consensus applied by script to all the appropriate articles.It's not that nobody wants to help you, but nobody wants to do the work that – as far as we can determine from your post here – only you think urgently requires repair. There's a bit of a misconception some editors have that the Help Desk is less about learning how to perform a particular task on Wikipedia, or learning what should be done in a particular situation, and more about recruiting editors with nothing on their own plates to do work on your behalf. Sometimes we will just fix something an editor brings up here, especially if it's a quick fix, but it's an unreasonable expectation that we'll take over your pet project instead of helping empower you to complete it yourself. With kindness, Folly Mox (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, JackkBrown, I am an anglophone in my seventh decade, and have never heard of any of those four foods before: this suggests to me that they are less than "world famous", although doubtless non-Italian chefs and gourmets know of them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the Provinces of Italy page, there are both upper and lowercase "Provinces" in the list (e.g.: "province of Arezzo", and "Province of Naples"). Could someone very kindly fix this for all the provinces of Italy? Thanks in advance. JackkBrown (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are a well-known Italian speaking editor with quite a bit of experience, JackkBrown. Why don't you just fix the problem yourself? Do you really think that more experienced Italian speaking editors are also Teahouse hosts? Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a file of the crest of the Martineau family - on a chair - (top of article). Perhaps it should be on the right hand side of the page. Please can you get a close up of the crest to replace the one I just uploaded - the crest on the seat is what is important. Thank you58.179.137.31 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So many points here.
In order to switch from the left to the right, simply replace "|left|" with "|right|" within the "File:" link.
In order to crop photos, please use GIMP. This runs on any computer, costs nothing, and (for purposes such as cropping) is easy to use.
Is it too much to give each discussion thread a distinctive title, or should other people here retitle your threads?
In your earlier thread with this title, you seemed to be complaining about your "device". What device is it, and what trouble are you having with it?
I cannot do the GIMP activity - I was able to change the top image from left to right.
Please help with an enlargement / closeup of the Martineau coat of arms on the seat of the chair as seen in the top image of the article
Use GIMP which I failed to understand. Thank you in advance175.38.42.62 (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please help with an enlargement / closeup of the Martineau coat of arms on the seat of the chair as seen in the top image of the article Use GIMP which I failed to understand. Thank you in advanc.
Click on the rectangle icon (the first among a lot of icons; it has a tooltip [pop-up description], "Rectangle Select Tool").
Imagine a rectangle that contains what you want, and excludes what you don't want. Choose any one of its four corners. Press down the mouse button there, move the cursor to the opposite corner, and release the mouse button. You'll see a rectangle.
Menu: "Image | Crop to selection".
Menu: "File | Export as". "Select File Type (by Extension)": choose "JPEG image". Specify the quality (86 should be enough).
Upload the file to Commons (with a new filename, of course). Describe the file informatively, put it in relevant categories, and do all the other necessary administrative stuff. (Of course, do not pretend that the file is your own work. Instead, it's in the public domain.)
Sorry, please help with an enlargement / closeup of the Martineau coat of arms on the seat of the chair (and rotated so that it is straight please if possible) as seen in the top image of the article. I cannot use GIMP which I failed to understand. Thank you in advance and sorry. 08:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.42.62 (talk)
For rotation and cropping in GIMP, first do the rotation, and only then do the cropping. Cropping is explained above. For rotation, "Tools | Transform tools | Rotate" brings up a little menu saying (among other stuff that you can safely ignore) "Angle 0.00" with a little up and a little down triangle. Play with these triangles; don't worry if you overshoot (you won't damage anything). When you're happy with the angle, click "Rotate". -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can download the file but I cannot "Open the file with GIMP" - I dont know how to do that - I can go to the GIMP website but then I loose the original file of the chair. Im so sorry 175.38.42.62 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are unlikely to achieve what I suspect you are aiming for, which is a presentation of the family arms, similar to this one. Because the picture of a chair was not taken directly above the seat, you need to not only rotate the image, but also skew it.
I suggest you instead aim for a simple close-up of the chair seat; you can do this using an image editor such as GIMP (see Hoary's comments above), or with the {{CSS image crop}} template. I am happy to help on the latter if needed.
GIMP will let you correct skew. In practice, it's very difficult to do this convincingly. (I long ago gave up trying.) Better to say that GIMP will let you ameliorate skew. This isn't at all hard to do: "Tools | Transform Tools | Perspective". -- Hoary (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Excel, and so forth, GIMP is software that has to be installed on your computer before you can use it. Download it from either a source that you know is trustworthy, or from gimp.org. (You may be asked if you also want any of a list of add-ons; you won't need any of these.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be truly appreciative of your efforts to do this - as long as the image is not blurred. I simply don't have the skills for this at all. Thanks in advance175.38.42.62 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have cropped it as requested. There is no mechanism within Wikipedia to rotate an image; in any case, it would look strange because, as I noted above, the image needs skewing as well in order to appear "straight". Bazza (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Search
Is it possible search the intersection of categories?
Such as: Category:CNN people AND Category:Daily Mail journalists AND Category:The Apprentice (franchise) winners = ?
There seems to be an archiving glitch at Talk:Bog. One discussion, unhelpfully called Untitled, seems to be out of place, being from 2002 but near the bottom of the talk page. Meanwhile, the current talk page has three discussions from 2006-7 which have somehow escaped the notice of the archiving bot. Can these errors be rectified, please? Many thanks. --Viennese Waltz07:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted write article on a particular subject how to rite it. Also on 20/10/2023 wrote an article on "BLUE BIRD let's play a game" a toys and games manufacturing company from Bengaluru, India. What is the status of that. Kindly do the needful. Vijay Dhwaja (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article you wrote in your userpage was deleted per WP:G11 - in other words, it was blatant advertising. There is a message on your talkpage explaining this. Before going any further, you need to read WP:PAID, which discusses the steps that people who are writing as a part of their job need to go through before editing; you also need to read WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO. If you try to publish another advert about this company, your account will likely be blocked from editing. GirthSummit (blether)08:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't, just don't add things to Wikipedia because you have been WP:PAID to do it. As Girth Summit said, this will get the account blocked. Even if you are not getting paid, you should not create articles about things that you are involved with, because this creates a conflict of interest. Also, if "BLUE BIRD let's play a game" does not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (it doesn't appear to) then it would not be suitable for a standalone article. There is a Facebook page about the company here, that is literally all I could find in a web search.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vijay Dhwaja: Let's start over. We have ways to help you recover from "paid" and "promo", but we have no way to help you recover from a lack of what we call "notability". Therefore the first thing for you to do is to determine if the subject is notable by our definition. See WP:NCORP, then look at WP:AMOUNT. It is unlikely that your subject is notable. There is no way to fix this, so you will get extremely frustrated if you try and will waste your time and ours. -Arch dude (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A photo on Commons has been deleted
On Commons a file has been deleted because of copyright violation of the sculptor. That file is also here on EN-WP, see the talk page of File:Sculpture exhibition, NWU Botanical Garden.jpg. See my requests there (adjusting this file + perhaps delete it here too). I have no idea how that works here (I am mainly a Commons volunteer). Can you please address these requests? JopkeB (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JopkeB I am afraid this is a bit confusing. File:Sculpture exhibition, NWU Botanical Garden.jpg is on Commons, see the message "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." You have now created a talk page for it on Wikipedia. The deleted file was File:Sculpture in the NWU Botanical Garden.jpg, which does not exist on en Wikipedia, if you click on the link you will see that it was deleted on en Wikipedia after it had been up loaded to Commons. You could request deletion of the remaining image on Commons there if necessary. TSventon (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this is confusing. I guess there were two files on Commons, with nearly the same name. The deleted one probably had the sculpture in the foreground of the photo, and this one has it less prominent (and then it can stay because of "De minimis"). I am sorry.
Can you refer me to information on since when Criticism/Controversy sections are discouraged
I'm seeing users deleting Controversy sections from at least 2 universities, but I can't understand exactly when and why it was decided to delete this sections, as there are lots of information being deleted, and apparently to me this sections are following the proper guidelines stated in Criticism, properly cited and neutral, but are tagged indiscriminately as WP:NotAdvocacy or WP:Indiscriminate. Antiinterference (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, I'm asking because I'm seeing at least 1 very active users, deleting this section making this statements "no, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and because "controversy" sections are discouraged. Those are all well-accepted guidelines, and weigh more heavily than some individual's opinion" and deleting whole sections, so again, this seems serious, and before getting into an actual discussion I need to understand if there is some true to this statement that controversy is discouraged or are just power users making some kind of abuse of power... Antiinterference (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Antiinterference, you mentioned WP:CRITICISM. That essay says In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources, whether positive or negative. Segregation of text or other content into different subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. This is not a matter of policy, but I think it is fair to say that many experienced editors agree with the essay on this point. Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suddenly deleting criticism from multiple wikipedia pages, on similar dates, seems like a policy.
But yeah not my issue I guess, and there is probably no one monitoring that.
Or if you, or a group, suddenly decide to delete criticism that was there for years, information that was a very useful source for many people using Wikipedia for years, and suddenly there is a change in attitude from multiple super users, and maybe admins, a new editor will not have much to do, as there is no proper way to denounce arbitrary citations of "What Wikipedia is not", and you have to expend extra effort in trying to defend your case of why that criticism should be there, while someone just arbitrarily labeling criticism as not welcomed is accepted by default.
Sorry but this is weird, somehow after a conversation with someone in reddit saying wikipedia is not reliable, few hours later I go check what I had just cited and it was deleted, in my opinion arbitrarily, and somehow it coincides with the deletion of the criticism section of several universities of the united states...
Antiinterference, discouragement of article sections devoted to controversy or criticism is not the same as discouragement of controversy or criticism. Article sections devoted to controversy or criticism are discouraged; however, coverage of controversy or criticism is not discouraged. (This doesn't mean that such coverage is always acceptable: policies about neutrality, sourcing, etc also come into play.) It's sometimes pretty obvious that the content of an article about this or that university is monitored by one or more persons who are intent on presenting the university in the best possible light, and perhaps you are seeing this. If you do see it, avoid charging the other editor with being a censor, a PR flack or whatever and avoid speculating openly about motives; instead, simply ask for the reason(s) for the deletion of well-referenced facts about the university. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question about splitting an article
What do I do when I propose an article be split, but I cannot perform the split myself (assuming that the split is accepted by consensus)? Is there somewhere I can ask for someone to perform the split for me? If yes, how and where do I ask? – Treetoes023 (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago I created a page for the former business Bullwinkles (gentlemen's club) and thought I'd finished it for publish, but have not seen it nor a hyperlink appear anytime during Google searches. Could you look into this for me please? I wasn't a huge article, roughly one full paragraph. But I don't wish to feel that I wasted all that time, for it to get lost in cyberspace.
"Publish changes" realy means "save changes", it doesn't mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". The reason the button was labeled this way is because every edit on Wikipedia is publicitely viewable, assuming one knows where to look. User:Cugrad16/sandbox has a long way ahead before it can be promoted to an article, amongst other things its lacking sources. Pleasee see your first article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I'm having trouble with Wikipedia in general, but particularly because I tried posting an article about a person, and when I went back to see if it was published, it seemed to be removed from my account. I can't find it anywhere. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Isabelleresnick (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways the formatting is indeed very strange, Isabelleresnick. But more importantly, you'll have to demonstrate notability. (For a subject who makes a living off "astrology-based products and services", this is likely to be a tall order.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How to request comments without an RfC
I forget how to ask draw attention to a question that's not a dispute. I'd like the article Kenneth Chesebro to be rated as more important than "Low," and posted that on talk, but don't know how to get eyes on it. YoPienso (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yopienso, you could post a neutral notification to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump, but I'm not sure to what extent (if any) the WikiProject "importance" ratings are used for anything or by anyone. It seems like they're mostly a relic of a bygone era when WikiProjects were well staffed and had lots of missing content to create or substandard content that they felt core to their topic area. What outcome are you hoping to achieve by increasing the "importance" assessment of this article? Whatever it is, there's almost certainly a more effective and more direct approach than twiddling a parameter that no one pays attention to. Folly Mox (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yopienso, I changed to mid-importance for the Trump project. Give that Chesebro has pled guilty and probably will be testifying against Trump and his co-defendants, that seems reasonable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328:What do you think of bumping it up to B class for content? A great deal of editing has been done in the past couple of days. The article is quite substantial and organized. YoPienso (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bunch of Venezuelan census data on the official government website and I'm trying to update some pages to reflect that (namely of the states) since, except for one page, they don't have any historical population info. I created a template to facilitate adding this information.
I keep encountering two errors:
1. I keep having to do CAPTCHAs for all the http://www.ine.gob.ve URLs I cite as I always get this:
Your edit includes new external links. These may be much welcomed links to references. Please note that the nofollow HTML attribute is applied to external links in Wikipedia, instructing search engines to ignore these links when computing page ranks. For information on our standards for adding links, please see our External links Guideline.
2. Due to the efficiency of the template and knowing exactly where to get the numbers, the pace of my edits keeps running into this:
It appears you are adding external links to many different Wikipedia pages in rapid succession. This is often a sign of people spamming Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites. Before you continue you may wish to review Wikipedia's guidelines about external links and spam as these may help you decide whether these links are appropriate for Wikipedia. Please feel free to ask at the Help Desk if you have any questions.
So my questions are,
1. Is there a way to avoid the CAPTCHAs? http://www.ine.gob.ve/ is the official Venezuelan government site of statistics. Plenty of the pages I've edited have direct links to pages from it as well.
2. Any way to get around the pace limit? The edits are pretty trivial. I'm literally just copying numbers from a PDF published by the government.
I'm unsure. I'd recommend waiting a few days until your account is autoconfirmed, which already solves most of the issues you're describing. Manual confirmation exists but is relatively unlikely to happen, I think. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Many of those quotations appear to be from online source that are not behind paywalls so the quotations are not really necessary. If the quotations are important to the article, put them in the article body and cite them. Quotations require citations; citations do not require quotations.
How do I update the profile picture on a biography page I'm working on? Is there a guide somewhere specifically about the correct procedure? Heideana (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a photograph of Martin Burckhardt (if it is he) yourself, so that you, indisputably, are the copyright holder. Upload it to Wikipedia Commons, copylefting it (or, if you prefer, waiving all rights to it). Categorize it, etc. If you upload it there under some filename (say, Martin Burckhardt 2023.jpg), then in Wikipedia you can invoke it with the same filename (you don't have to say that it's at Commons).
But I don't think you need to worry about the image. Rather, the text. The "About" section contains some Deep Thought, involving, inter alia, "our sequential great Universal Machines with their outsourced historical unconscious Psychotopes" [Come again?], and it's completely unreferenced. -- Hoary (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft also needs proper citations for almost the entire content. Or at least, all that remains after the postmodernist gobbledygook is removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox
A subpage I made to experiment with Infobox country was deleted for using Wikipedia as a web host.
If I put a disclaimer that it is experimentation along with various family trees and infoboxes relating to a personal project on my sandbox, will it be deleted for the same reason?
I wanted to make sure about things this time.
Doctor Alex (talk · contributions · sandbox) 04:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of Wikipedia should be for the benefit of Wikipedia, Blocky44 ("Doctor Alex"), not for "a personal project". For the personal project, well, Mediawiki is free software, so you'd be free to install it on your own webserver and use it there. -- Hoary (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it would be placed on my sandbox and with a disclaimer. Also I do not have a webserver and did not realize I still had Doctor Alex in my signature. The sandbox is for experimentation, isn't it?
A Fellow claiming to be a Wikipedia Moderator emailed me this evening and offered to create a Wikipedia page. While I am aware some of this is BS I'd like to refere to email - and the headers - to the appropriate notice board. Any suggestions? Or should I ignore. Whiteguru (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I request for deletion of all of my edits on a specific article? Plus looking for policy/guideline about deleted edits. Thanks. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it says at the bottom of every edit page By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. Having articles written by multiple contributors subject to later arbitrary deletion by a single contributor would very likely be damaging to such articles, even if it were possible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spoilers in biographical articles
I posted a comment about this on one of the help or policy pages. I do not know where -- I can't find it "Spoilers" again. It's on one of the FAQ pages, perhaps; it took me an hour to find an appropriate place the first time. I never got any response.
My position was that spoilers are all right in an article about media, such as the solution to the murder mystery in an article about a "Columbo" show, a "Perry Mason" show or any number of other shows. I think that is established in the "Spoiler" policy; it's part fo the plot. However, it is not appropriate to say in a biographical article about an actor that the actor played the murderer. This came about because I am watching old Perry Mason shows (the shows do not have individual articles, where the spoiler would be part of the "Plot" section) and when I look up an actor, sometimes the article says he was the murderer on the show. That "spoiled" the show for me. I have been editing these spoilers out.
I want to know if I doing the right thing, or should I not bother. I can give up any time. We can have spoilers in biographical articles, viz. In the article about Orson Welles, we can say he played the crooked cop and murderer in "Touch of Evil" as well as directing the movie. I don't think that's a good idea, but if someone boldly does it, would it be right to edit it out? Wastrel Way (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Eric[reply]
As usual, Wastrel Way, it comes down to what the sources say. If the sources identify the character played by this actor as the murderer, then the WP article may say so. If they don't, then that's probably original research, and shouldn't be in an article. (I suppose it's really synthesis, because the identity of the character as the murderer is presumably explicit in the show, which is an acceptable source for itself. But that's still a sort of OR). ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Spoiler. Basically, it is irrelevant for Wikipedia whether information is a spoiler, and so spoilers can occur anywhere, and indeed should occur everywhere where they serve an encyclopaedic purpose. That a character played by an actor is a murderer sounds like encyclopaedically relevant information. Please do not remove spoilers from articles unless they need to be removed for reasons unrelated to being a spoiler. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My edits were later reverted by the author with the reasoning that i "wasn't an admin and i didn't had the authors permission to edit his draft" and that the edits were apparently "ruining his workflow"
Appala.baipilli, if WP were everyone's place to search for any kind of content, then it would be (for example) the porn-fiend's place to search for porn -- whereupon parents (or many of them) would not feel safe. That's just one contradiction. Your idea has plenty of other problems too. But if you want to pursue it, then the place to do so is Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Appala.baipilli: Wikipedia is crowdsourced by volunteers who each do whatever they choose. Good videos are a lot of work. If you personally wish to make videos, please feel free to do so. If you personally wish to create a project to do this systematically, please go ahead. You will probably attract others to help you if you have a plan and have produced a good first example. -Arch dude (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: Ok, so if I understand you correctly using the Wikidata thing just creates a bunch of busywork and we should stop using it (for example see GimPhoto and slrn). Asking a reference URL for every single version of a piece of software is nonsensical. It shows an error, does not even explain what the actual error is, and people have to read a bunch of stuff and then use the wikidata interface to solve the error. I actually tried to understand it but it turns out it is just wasting my time and making Wikipedia inaccessible to anyone who values their time on this planet. How do we get rid of wikidata? 2A02:A46E:9885:0:8998:4211:DCCE:3A82 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Module:Wd/doc#References starts with: "When either the reference or the references command is used and a reference is encountered (in Wikidata), the module attempts to display it using the {{Cite web}} template." So the current calls explicitly ask for making a reference. If you omit |reference in the call then the reference and any associated error message will disappear. Suggestions for Module:Wd and its error messages can be posted to Module talk:Wd. The first section is currently about reference errors but has no posts since August. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at GimPhoto (and GIMPshop), where the error is still present, the error was introduced by an IP editor on 30 August 2022, so presumably they are responsible for introducing the error and not asking for help to fix it at the time. TSventon (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a stupid question, but is this fixable by bot? There are ~1300 pages in this category. I could not find a tutorial on how to fix those errors. Did I not use the correct search terms? Looking at for example ACE (editor) and AbsoluteTelnet and the joke software called .NET the red errors are very prominently displayed despite being quite unimportant (e.g. no URL for a version of a program). 2A02:A46E:9885:0:8998:4211:DCCE:3A82 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That still gives a clickable reference and the red message is less prominent and doesn't call it an "error". But this dicussion belongs at Module talk:Wd if you want attention from editors of the module who can actually change it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help in article submission Review
The rules say that articles in AFC will be reviewed at random. Is it possible to ask other people for help? For example if I write articles about military subjects, would a request in corresponding Wikiproject be lawful and people will review submission ahead of time? F.Alexsandr (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "at random", exactly; it's according to what the volunteer reviewers choose to work on. You may certainly request assistance on your draft from a relevant WikiProject. Whether that will get the draft reviewed any sooner is not predictable - there may not happen to be any reviewers who watch that project, and even if they are, that does not necessarily mean that they will get to your draft any sooner.
But if members of the WikiProject are interested in your draft, they may help you improve it and improve your chances of its being accepted when it is reviewed. ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify one point: it's not like an exam where you have to stop writing when the invigilator calls "time"/you submit the draft. You (and others) can continue to improve the draft until a reviewer(s) get round to it. Also, you can collaborate with others at any point, before submission, awaiting review, and after review. (The draft's Talk page is there for discussion and co-ordination of such collaboration.)
Basically, submitted drafts go into a 'pool' and each (volunteer) reviewer chooses what they want to review next. They often go for "low-hanging fruit" where a draft is obviously inadequate (e.g. no citations at all) or obviously well-composed – drafts that look borderline are sometimes avoided for a while because they will likely take more effort to examine and critique. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The search box
What happened to the "search box" which was at the top of every page? Wikipedia cannot always read a user's mind, but a user can tell Wikipedia what specific page (such as the name of a town or a person) they are looking for. With the search box the user can go to the page they are looking for directly. 90.254.174.146 (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me, nothing has happened to it. It's where it used to be. And if I take a look while logged out, I see that it's still where it used to be when logged out. Ditto if I look while logged out and in the "mobile view". -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit Conflict] It's still there (and more central), but with the new default 'skin' is often reduced to just the magnifying-glass logo, which you need to click to expand the actual box. (Or so I understand; I myself apply an automatic url extension [if that's the right term] that retains elements of the old skin.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Writing new articles for Wikipedia is always something I've had a passive interest in, but it's also something I've never done before. I realize that if I wanted to create an article I would be able to from the get go, as I have the user rights to do so; however, realizing that articles require a certain level of quality, and that I'm not going to meet the criteria flawlessly on my first attempt, I'm hesitant to just go ahead and make an article. I'm aware of the existence of WP:AfC, but from what I've seen there's a large backlog of articles waiting for review and I don't know if I want to wait that long for something that seems tailored to editors who do not have the sufficient permissions to create articles on their own in the first place.
My question, then, is this: say I want to create my first article, but I want it to be checked for quality before I'm confident enough to actually put it into mainspace. How should I go about this? Is there some sort of peer review system in place for draft articles (as I assume I can just prop up a draft in the Draft: namespace or in my sandbox) that I could use to get the opinion of other editors on my draft, without the lengthy waiting period that comes with AfC? I might be answering my own question here, but I don't know where I would find such a thing or a reasonable alternative to it in the event that that is the case. Cheers — theki(hit me up)17:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If your draft at WP:AFC is clearly notable it is likely to be accepted within minutes, if not then it can take longer, it isn't a queue, reviewers pick and choose, and obvious passes are easily reviewed. Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's primarily my issue. I don't really mind a wait that long if it's what I have to do to wait for some sort of peer review, but I'm just curious if there are any alternatives— I don't have any Wikipedia editor friends who could look over it, so asking someone personally to informally review a draft is not an option for me. — theki(hit me up)12:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm not too experienced with infoboxes and I'm trying to use This one. Is it possible to use it in a way that will show multiple members (like if a single district sends 1 senator and 2 representatives), or will a different infobox template need to be used? If so, does the different template exist yet?
Hi there! On your user talk page, you should see information on why you were blocked and how to appeal your block. If you don't, please provide us your blocked username. GoingBatty (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
October 24
Page move and resulting template questions
I moved Aphra to Aphra (moth) to create a dab page. However, I'm not sure how to adjust the Automatic_taxobox template in the moved article and the speciesbox templates of the four species in the Aphra genus, nor whether I should boldly change the Template:Taxonomy/Aphra Link field (probably, but just to make sure). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
