One of these references is for the sentence "[The article subject's] son, C. Lloyd Morgan, attended Clifton College, Bristol in the 1890s alongside R.N. Middleton." Why is the reader being told which school somebody's son went to? What's significant about having had this Middleton fellow alongside you when you went to school? ("R.N. Middleton" is linked to Middleton family, but to no particular place within the latter, perhaps because it doesn't mention him.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps indeed so, TSventon. But I think my main objection stands. Depending on the meaning of "alongside", I would have had from a score to several hundred pupils "alongside" me when I was at a secondary school. I doubt that I even knew the names of more than a couple of dozen of them, and also doubt that I was influenced by, or that I influenced, more than half a dozen. If my father were the subject of an article here (he isn't), I wouldn't understand why anything about my schooling appeared in that article. (Yes, yes, of course there could be reasons: e.g. my father publicly espoused equal opportunities for all but covertly had me educated privately.) (Update: Orangemikedeleted this from the article -- whereupon 175.38.37.197 reinserted much of it.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: This is most likely Srbernadette, who is usually logged out while editing and asks at the help desk semi-frequently whenever they make the mistake of not adding |journal= when using {{cite journal}}, or when they accidentally add an extra 0 to the date and it throws an error as a result. This has been going on for years; searching for Lupton, Martineau (added 01:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)) or Middleton in the help desk archives should give you an idea of how long this has been going on (added 01:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone help me sus out if there is any established Manual of Style or guidelines for lists of "notable people" within articles? I'm specifically looking at Chinese people in Korea#Notable people. Would this fall under the scope of WP:APO/S, or does that standard strictly concern given name/surname list articles?
At present, the list looks a mess and is extremely hard to read.
If it falls under WP:APO/S I think it'll be fairly straightforward to strip out all the mess and bring it in line with that standard.
If it's not under WP:APO/S, my main questions would be:
Should entries on the list who do not have their own Wikipedia article be removed? I'd assume if they don't meet WP:NOTABILITY, they're not qualified for a "notable people" list...
What's going on with the "(Originally from)" parts? I haven't seen that in any other "notable people" list.
Specifically for the band members section, when one band has multiple members that would be included in the list, should they each have their own entry in the list? Right now everything listed per group, not per person.
@Rusted AutoParts: I hoped that Jweiss11 would be interested in doing the merge as they had written one of the articles and they were. One loose end was that the Wikidata items needed to be merged, but there were two bot translated ar Wikipedia articles. I asked an editor there and they merged the articles and Wikidata items. TSventon (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia project pages for requesting the splitting or merging of templates and modules
Usually you can go to the wikiproject that is relevant to the topic of the templates or modules. There is also WP:WPT, but from its talk page it doesn't seem to be very active. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, RfCs have to neutrally worded, unlike RM, AfD, etc. But, after you've posed the neutrally worded question, can you reply to your question with a response? Making it obvious that this is a response to the question (just by putting it in the normal format, i.e. "Support X because Y" on an indented line) </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 07:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FSlolhehe: Editors are volunteers. They are judged by what they do, not what they haven't done. WikiProject Kuwait is just a few volunteers who have added their name to the member list. It doesn't make them responsible for the state of articles about Kuwait, and anyone can edit those articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict), WP:KW is tagged as semi-active, it may actually be inactive. As suggested at WP:INACTIVEWP you could post on its talk page asking if anyone minds marking it as inactive. If there are no objections, you could then add inactive to the {{WikiProject status}} template at the top of the WikiProject page. Generally on WP, people edit articles they are interested in, so if nobody is interested, poor quality articles do not get improved. TSventon (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to grab whether a user is using dark mode or not?
Cessaune, I feel like I read somewhere that no there's no way to see another editor's preferences, but I can't remember where I read it, when, or what the context would have been. A naive search of VPT's archives came up useless.It does seem to me that if this were possible, we probably would have had pallette switching templates for two and a half years already – when the community Dark mode gadget was first deployed – and not be all amess about fixing background colours now that an official extension is available. Folly Mox (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's clearly a way for the software to retrieve a user's preferences, since they usually work, and are displayed in Special:Preferences when logged in (specifically, this seems to be :mw:ResourceLoader/Core modules § user.options).But very few of these are open to read access by other users. Gender is one, which is accessed by user templates such as {{their}} via the magic word {{GENDER}}. Whether or not you're accessing the website via the mobile frontend isn't really a preference per se, but {{if mobile}} works via <span> tags with class=mobile or class=nomobile attributes that the software interprets, rather than surfacing the user's browser type directly.I see people asking each other which skin they're using all the time on VPT, and I'm aware that there's no way to check whether a user has enabled Special:Homepage, per this recent thread. It seems that preferences are mostly inaccessible except through specific developer-implemented endpoints.That said, the 2022 community dark mode gadget functions by inverting the colour palette, and the class .mw-no-invert will prevent this to ensure intended colour contrast. The 2024 dark mode extension uses a separate pallette (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 213 § Dark mode for logged-out users coming soon!).mw:Recommendations for night mode compatibility on Wikimedia wikis might have a solution for your template's use case. Folly Mox (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need someone to find me a source cus i cant find any
Im need someone to get a source about the civil parish abolishment of Eastcotts because im trying to update the cardington page because it still says the raf is in eastcotts 94.194.31.200 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have better luck asking at the Talk page for the article that you're hoping to edit. At least, you'll have better odds of finding other editors who are specifically interested in that topic. Other editors might chime in here with different suggestions. Good luck! DonIago (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone. The d9-Caffeine article that I submitted through AFC was accepted about a month. Another editor created the infobox, As I didn't know how to. The issue is as follows
There are a few things I have spotted in the infobox, that are either not working or wrong. As a new editor I don't know how can I change them, I tried but errors keep popping up. Hence, the cry for help.
2. The formula in the infobox is also something to look into... the formula should contain "D", instead of "H", as its a deuterium based compound. I read at Chemspider (https://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.23935581.html) that the formula is C8HD9N4O2, it contain 1 Hydrogen and 9 deuterium.
I did mention the above issues on the Talk:D9-Caffeine a while ago, however, I haven't got any reply. If someone could change them, and teach me how to do it for the future, I will be very grateful. Thank you! Look2cool (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have left the CAS number as is (I assume a page may be created in the future?), and manually entered the formula and molar mass, as it was done on Heavy water
I'm not experienced with the CAS registry but it appears that the "CAS Common Chemistry" website only contains a fraction of the substances actually registered (0.5 of 165 million). The CAS number is probably correct, I don't know if it's useful to leave it in the infobox though BloubDeFontenilles (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Look2cool Yes, 72238-85-9 is the correct CAS number. As others have said, the Common Chemistry database only a selection of CAS numbers. I'm a member of WP:CHEM (the Wikipedia chemistry Project) and will answer any other questions you have on the Talk Page of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for your comments. I know the CAS number is correct, the issue is/was just the website it is hyperlinked with doesn't have it. In the above comment, I provided an alternate link, and was asking, if the CAS number could be linked to that instead. Remaining issues has been solved. Thank you guys a lot. Look2cool (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia editor, I am Txitxa Leo a local musician in central Mozambqiue. Wikipedia is undoubtebly one of the most visited platfoms on earth, therefore, I would like to publish my article which contains my biography in order to make my brand widely known. I am looking to seeing your reaction in order to be satisfied with you appreciable work. TXITXA LEO (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That purpose is exactly the wrong reason to write an article. Using Wikipedia for promotional purposes is not permitted. Furthermore, while not forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word, such as a notable musician. I suggest you go on about your life and career as if Wikipedia did not exist; if you truly merit a Wikipedia article, someone will eventually write about you.
So they do exist. Although the list is smaller, it seems even 20 or so notable Democrats supporting Donald Trump is worth a standalone list, ironically maybe even more notable for its small size compared to the list of Republicans who endorse Harris.
It should exist somewhere, but I am not finding it, and I am hesitant to start such a list article without knowing for sure whether I'm duplicating an effort. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do, however, have a list of Republicans who oppose Trump's campaign, and that list also mentions who each Republican endorses (many but not all endorse Harris), so in effect we have both topics in one list. But I couldn't find an article about either subject about Democrats: no list of Democrats who oppose Kamala Harris' campaign, and no list of Democrats who endorse Trump. I figured someone would have written one of them by now, so I thought I'd ask here. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that is a whole other idea. Opposing its own partys campaign is seldom good. Endorsement of the other partys campaign will occur more often, because if that campaign is especially bad, it will help the own party win. And fans of a party tend to see the own campaign tendencially better than it is, and the other partys campaign tendencially worse than it is. Therefore it's more probable to endorse the other partys campaign than to oppose its own. 176.0.164.155 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP editor. This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia, do you have a question about editing wikipedia? -- D'n'B-t -- 18:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this is the Help desk asking about problems with editing Wikipedia. You probably need to ask on one of Wikipedia's eight subject-grouped Reference desks.
Secondly, your query is impossibly vague: it could apply to almost any commercial contract situation, from renting a TV to signing with a professional football club. You will need to give fairly exact details short of naming actual companies, etc. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the reviewers in general just not civil and welcoming?
Anyone coming to Wikipedia for the purpose of using it as a publicity platform isn't going to be treated in a welcoming manner. Wikipedia is over two decades old, and by now the entire world knows that it cannot be used that way, so the regulars here don't view being new as a valid excuse.
If you're actually here to build an encyclopedia, then welcome! We need more good editors.
RandomTron, see "When a word or phrase may be an encyclopedic subject", and take "word or phrase" to mean "word, phrase or sentence". (NB "Wikipedia's notability criteria" aren't mine [which are of no importance to Wikipedia] and they're unlikely to be yours [ditto].) Words, phrases and sentences that aren't "encyclopedic subjects" don't merit articles here. Drafts about them will not become articles. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomTron: Further to the above, the wording used by Drmies is in Template:uw-disruptive3, and is a standard boilerplate used by many editors. There is community consensus that that template and the rest in the set are appropriate for such circumstances.
If a user or IP has a particularly egregious instance of vandalism, but is already warned with uw-vand1, is it fair to go to uw-vand4im? The context is a user blanking a majority of the page and adding typical hoax / obvious vandalistic text in its place. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @GeorgeMemulous. Normally, users should warn the disruptive editor from Level 1 to 4 and then report them to the WP:AIV if they still continue. However, if their edits are very offensive or disruptive, the usage of the uw-vand4im is normally allowed, even if they haven't been warned all the way. If the IP address's edits seems that offensive, you can give them their "Only warning".
I understand that part. I was just wondering whether the "only warning" had to indeed be their only one, whether uw-vand1 or uw-vand2 could force them to go to uw-vand3 instead. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that people who issue an only warning, either multiple times or in addition to other warnings, look like they shouldn't be taken seriously. I really don't recommend it. And thank you for actually reading what the warnings say. As for your options, any increase will normally be sufficient. A v2 warning says that a user may be blocked, and I interpret that as a warning that the user may be blocked (of course no warning at all may sometimes be appropriate). -- zzuuzz(talk)21:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I can't use VisualEditor (VE) to edit articles despite having the option "Enable the visual editor" activated in my settings. Can someone help? Sabelöga (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabelöga We'll see if we can find the problem step-by-step. Go to an article – this one, say – and click "edit". Do you a little pencil in the top right of the editing box that allows you to switch to the visual editor? It should like the picture to the right. Cremastra (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra Oh, I see now, the VisualEditor tool is only available with one of the options "Enable the editing toolbar" or "Use the wikitext mode inside the visual editor, instead of a different wikitext editor" activated. Otherwise, the "Visual editing" button isn't visible/available. Maybe I could have activated it somehow anyway, but I didn't get that far. Thanks! Sabelöga (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia article is being used by Google when people search for Kamala Harris and her campaign. I never thought that Wikipedia would be used for politics. Lets see every quote some people did not approve of from President Biden or VP Harris. Please search your encyclopedia and rid it of anything being used by a political party and beware of items someone added for that purpose please. TooMuchTroble (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TooMuchTroble: I don't know which Google search you made but given Trump's statements about Kamala Harris, it's natural that she is mentioned in Racial views of Donald Trump. That means the article may be in some search results for Kamala Harris. She is also mentioned in 2875 other articles. We have six million articles and don't decide their content based on how it might be used by various other websites. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Page Previews" feature (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Page_Previews) is excellent. I was experimenting with its configuration (as a Logged-out user) and I turned it off via the cog-icon displayed at the bottom of each preview. I would like to turn it back on. The mediawiki page mentioned above says: '... Page Previews ... can be enabled via the "Edit preview settings" link available at the bottom of any wiki page'. I cannot find such a link anywhere. Does anybody know how to re-enables this feature?
@Gvvannucci: When logged out I see the link in the desktop version ("Desktop" at the bottom of mobile pages) but not in mobile. If I enable it in desktop then it's still disabled in mobile. I don't know how to enable it in mobile when logged out. It may work to delete browser cookies for wikipedia.org. Logged in users have "Enable page previews" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello I am a ***** and is wondering how to make an article specifically about the other side (the greatest showman song) If anyone has answers pls help, thank you. 180.195.198.48 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Get plenty of practice in making constructive edits, welcomed (not reverted) by other editors, to articles that already exist. (ii) Check that the subject of your proposed new article is notable (as defined by and for Wikipedia). (iii) Construct a draft that adheres to Wikipedia's principles. (iv) Submit the draft for review. (For more, click on "Learn to edit", a link you'll see on most if not all pages here.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the instructions at WP:REFUND. I'm assuming you deleted the article under G7 (user requests deletion)? Otherwise, if somebody else deleted it for some other reason, it's unlikely to be recovered. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you work on said article on a registered account? If so, you can log in and check your contributions (Alt+Y if you're on a Windows device) and see if you can find it there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that if the article wasn't published in any form, i.e. you had typed it in the editor but did not hit Publish, there is no way to recover it. That was stored entirely locally and (to my understanding) had no interaction with Wikimedia servers. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
corrections to imformation on the first special olympic games 1968
You have listed the founders where the Joseph P Kennedy foundation and the Chicago Park district, but you have left out the most IMPORTANT person who also made this happen. This person takes very little credit but deserves to be remember as someone who help get Special Olympic going in Chicago on July 20, 1968. The person is JUDGE ANNE BURKE, without her wisdom and fore site to get this going, there would have never been a Special Olympics. Ask Judge Anne Burke but please add her to the mix. She contacted the Park District not the Kennedy Family. 2601:243:1781:1970:858:55FF:DFCC:9AC2 (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it appears Anne Burke is already mentioned in the first sentence of the Planning section of the article. On Wikipedia, people are typically referred to by their name at the time of the event in question, but here it is noted in the article that Anne McGlone changed their surname to Burke later on. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For biographical articles, it seems Infoboxes generally utilize a simple one- or two-word designation relating to the individual's career, or their reason for being notable. Example for, say, "Franky Mozart": Infobox rock musician.
I want to create an article about a person who had several personal roles, a variegated career. Should I choose one common, pre-existing designation (such as author)? Or can I use several designation words — or even devise a single-world designation that might encompass several of this person's career roles? Thanks. Joel Russ (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biographical article on Qian Xuesen is somewhat controversial. In short: he did pioneering rocketry work first in the United States and later in China. One fundamental aspect of that is his return to China in 1955 under strained circumstances. Related to that is how, long after the fact, the importance of his work was acknowledged by rocketry experts in the United States.
That acknowledgement is now widespread and undisputed, and is wonderfully exemplified by his being selected as the 2007 Aviation Week & Space Technology person of the year. It would greatly improve the article if we could include a thumbnail of the cover art for the January 07, 2008 edition of AW&ST. It appears here: https://aviationweek.com/cover-245 and it seems like at that size it meets all the criteria for fair use in the context of the biographical article. The award is mentioned in the text of the article, and there are no available alternate images of him at the time in his life depicted by this image. Would someone with more experience in fair use of sketches that are historically important please shepherd me through the steps required to do this without adding fair-use controversy to an already somewhat controversial article? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 20:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sdsds, policy and precedent are pretty clear on this per WP:NFCI. We cannot use non-free images of a person when a freely licensed or public domain image is available, as is the case here. Countless notable people have appeared on magazine covers but we can use those images only if the copyright has expired. In most cases in the United States, this appplies to images published before 1929. There are exceptions, though. Copyright renewal used to be required although it no longer is. Time magazine failed to renew their copyrights on a timely basis, and as a result, most of their covers before 1936 are in the public domain. Barring dramatic changes in copyright law, that image will remain under copyright until the year 2103. Cullen328 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good idea, thanks! I also sent email to the artist credited with the portrait, asking for explicit permission to use it, i.e. put the small-size version into the public domain. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and yet we do not have (nor can we plausibly obtain) an image of him during this important phase of his life, i.e. when he was in PLA uniform. This ties the image to the controversy discussed in the article. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sdsds, the credit for the illustration says Scott Marshall of the AW&ST Art Dept. That means that the illustration is almost certainly a Work for hire. If so, then Aviation Week and Space Technology is almost certainly the copyright holder instead of Marshall, according to U.S. copyright law. Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going through articles on the Singapore Infopedia (example: this and this) for research and I noticed that at the bottom of the page, there's a statement that says "The information on this page and any images that appear here may be used for private research and study purposes only. They may not be copied, altered or amended in any way without first gaining the permission of the copyright holder". I'm assuming it means that I'm not allowed to use it because it would violate copyright laws unless if I get permission from the NLB? Most articles on Singapore that I've seen cite the Infopedia. Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imbluey2, citing a reliable source, and then summarizing it your own words is not a copyright violation. Avoid close paraphrasing. I do not know whether or not Infopedia is a reliable source. That is another matter. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you are right (and yes, the Infopedia is a reliable source, it cites information from other sources in its article and it was made for educational purposes). Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 23:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imbluey2, "Singapore Infopedia" is perhaps a reliable source. I don't know; I haven't investigated. But neither citing info from other sources nor being made for educational purposes nor the combination of these two makes it a reliable source. (Consider "Conservapedia". This cites info from other sources and claims to be made for educational purposes; but, to put it mildly, it's not a reliable source.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Imbluey2 I looked at the two examples you linked and both have extensive sets of references at the foot of their pages. I'd do the same as I would if I saw something in a Wikipedia article, bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not a reliable source: I would evaluate the sources used for myself and use them rather than Infopedia as citations. As Cullen328 said, recasting information from sources into your own words doesn't violate copyright. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on DECA (organization) and have been trying to track down when the Collegiate Division of DECA stopped being referred to as Delta Epsilon Chi. I walked my way through archive.org until I found https://web.archive.org/web/20100708034614/http://deca.org/news/14/ . Clearly a press release, I thought the title of the reference should be the header of the Press Release, shown on the page as DECA ANNOUNCES EXPANDED FOCUS AND PROGRAMS; NEW MISSION. However, when I did a copy/paste, it pasted as DECA announces expanded focus and programs; new mission . When I went to the source of the web page, it appears to be in all capital letters because it is in an <h1></h1> pairing. So should the title for the reference be in ALL CAPS or not? (And I'm coming to the help desk because I have *no* idea where else makes sense to ask?)Naraht (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht there's normally no reason to look at the HTML of a web page that's a putative source for an article. Whatever the means by which the browser shows (shouts) "DECA ANNOUNCES EXPANDED FOCUS AND PROGRAMS; NEW MISSION", please ignore the shouty caps --just as you'd ignore the color if this weren't black, the typeface, centring, etc. Render it as either "DECA Announces Expanded Focus and Programs; New Mission" or (my preference by far) "DECA announces expanded focus and programs; new mission". Incidentally, the H1 tag does not capitalize in any browser I've encountered, though CSS may cause it to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to disambiguate links to Flag of Amazonas, but in the two pages that have the DAB links, I cannot work out how the link is made. The pages are: Amazonas Province (Brazil) and Amazonas (Venezuelan state). In both cases, the link is in the caption ("Flag") for the flag image in the infobox. Is the link coming from metadata in the flag images used somehow? Or in the infobox template? Or something completely different? Any advice appreciated. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@John of Reading: I just spotted it incognito and wrote a draft that it had been fixed, then your reply popped up here in my logged in window after I clicked edit source ;) The issue didn't come from the userbox I thought it was, but one I edited a couple of hours earlier. But I didn't see that hidden category about duplicate arguments until after my edit on Template:User Firefox and Waterfox, so I thought the issue came from my latest edit. Perhaps it took some hours before it was registered and showed up. Or I just didn't notice. I saw the duplicate arguments just now, and it all makes perfect sense. Also cool to learn that it is possible to wikilink to a diff. Thank you. --Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we have TurnItIn credits? I think that's the next best option, but no idea how to use it. I think there was a discussion a few months back about how AI requests are using up all of Earwig's API calls by the middle of the month, but I don't remember where, or if any action resulted. Folly Mox (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Assuming the content comes from a website that is not Wikipedia, you can use {{cc-notice}} on the references section: {{Cc-notice|cc=[insert license here (0/by4/bysa4/...)]|url=[insert URL here]}} Try making sure the URL is a permanent link to a version of the page if it is part of an editable wiki. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to translate an article about the company where I work from the Spanish Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia. However, I receive the following message: "On the English Wikipedia this tool is limited to extended confirmed editors, and the machine translation component is disabled for all users." I have a registered account that is over 4 days old and has more than 10 edits, but I'm still unable to use the translation tool. Could someone please assist me in understanding how to gain the necessary permissions or suggest alternative methods for translating and creating the article? Thanks you. Sabilla27 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sabilla27 as explained at WP:EXTENDED "A registered editor becomes extendedconfirmed automatically on edit after the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits" although your account was created over 10 years ago, you only have 42 edits, far short of the 500 required. As for alternate methods, firstly, I suggest you check your company meets the English Wikipedia requirements for companies, at WP:NCORP as these are more onerous than those on most other language Wikipedias. If you think your employer meets these then you need to make a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure as you were advised in 2021. I dislike most "auto-translate" methods, but you could copypaste into Word + translate that, correcting all the templates and references, and crediting the source as Spanish WP. - Arjayay (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sabilla27. One of the reasons that the translation tool is often not useful for English Wikipedia, is that (as Arjayay said), English Wikipedia often has stricter requirements about notability and sourcing than other language versions. While I haven't looked at them closely (and my Spanish is limited), in my opinion the sources in es:Metricool are nowhere near adequate for an article in English Wikipedia - and if the sources are inadequate, any article will be inadequate, and therefore any translation of the Spanish article in its present form will be unacceptable.
Most of the sources (and all the sources that are to be used to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria on notability) must meet all three of the conditions of being reliable, independent, and having significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42 for more detail). Only two of the references there (nos. 2 and 7) even might be acceptable - the rest are either not independent of Metricool, or are blogs.
Note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Also, the article has external links, which are hardly ever allowed inside the text in English Wikipedia, except in citations.
I recommend you treat this as creating a new article - which is difficult for an inexperienced user, and much more difficult for a user with a conflict of interest such as yourself.
In summary:
first of all , please read about paid editing, and make the mandatory formal declaration of your status as a paid editor.
Then please read translation and your first article, and start a completely new draft by finding the sources you need. (They don't have to be in English, or online, but they have to be reliable, totally independent of Metricool, and having significant coverage of the company).
I need help. I uploaded an image for the Dexter episode Love American Style and the caption and image section just isn't working and I've tried so many different things but neither is showing and it is making me very irritated. Could you please tell me what is wrong or correct the situation? Thanks. 1zdoqnrh5 (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 1zdoqnrh5 - as it clearly states when you preview your edit (you do preview your edits, don't you?) "Warning: Love American Style (Dexter) (edit) is calling Template:Infobox television episode with more than one value for the "image" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help)" - so as it explained you needed to delete the second "image" parameter - which I have done, so it works. - Arjayay (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s this yellow and brown spider I took a picture of it and it told me too look up American grass spider but it came up in the search a a rabid spider 🕷️ @Aerol Leason I just don’t know how too add the picture please and sorry and please and thank you Diamonds 0666 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently been looking at Wikipedia pages about areas in the electoral ward of Eastcotts and I am disappointed about the pages of Cardington and the second paragraph of Harrowden and more. These pages need to be updated. They still say that they are in the civil parish of eastcotts, which is not true because the parish abolishment of eastcotts was in 2019. I am struggling to find sources to tell the truth about them. We need to join together to stop this. 94.194.31.200 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. It's great that you want to make sure Wikipedia is up to date, but no, it is not a major emergency, and we do not need to "join together and stop this". Also, much as we would sometimes like it to be about truth, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.
We are all volunteers, and work on what we want to work on. Wikipedia is riddled with out-of-date information and outright mistakes, and many of us will correct them when we come across them. But, as you've found, doing so often involves searching for sources, which can be difficult and time consuming.
The link at the bottom of the page which should be Frances Kesselbein's Leadership Forum seems to link to something else entirely. I'm not sure who can/should check or fix that. Thanks 96.255.127.16 (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, thank you, it seems the website moved to a new .pitt.edu website and the old site has been used for advertising, so I have updated the link. TSventon (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request that the article on the Pawn programming language be reconsidered
I am writing to request that the article on the Pawn programming language be reconsidered for a featured article nomination. I believe that this topic is worthy of a more in-depth exploration, particularly given its significant role in game development for embedded systems. The history of Pawn and the reasons behind its popularity among developers would make for a fascinating and informative read.
Featured articles are the very best of Wikipedia articles and they pass through rigorous review processes. Your userspace draft would not be considered because it is a draft. You would have to move it to mainspace, but frankly it is definitely not featured article quality.
You say you want the draft to be "reconsidered" which implies you nominated it for featured article status in the past and it failed. This, as far as I can tell, is not the case.
Search result images can be turned off by altering the respective common.css for the skin being used and adding a rule to not display background images for spans of the class .wvui-typeahead-suggestion__thumbnail. For example:
