Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Help Desk
  • This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.

  • New users: While this is a good place to ask questions, new users may prefer to ask for help at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation, and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
Are you in the right place?
Search Frequently Asked Questions
Search the help desk archives and other help pages

December 8[edit]

menu with fill in choices is obscured[edit]


I am having a weird problem trying to edit the tables on the page ‘’. When I try to fill in a cell by typing ‘[[‘ , the menu that comes up with the choices is right at the top of the page with the best choices (at the top of the menu) not visible. In fact several of the choices are hidden behind the menu bar with the ‘Paragraph’, ‘Italic Symbol’, etc. In other words, it is impossible to fill in the cell and hence edit the page. Can you please help me? In other Wikipedia pages that I have edited, the menu with the fill-in choices is much lower on the page and easy to use. Thanks!

Fritzgoebel (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link: List of named passenger trains of the United States (C). Maproom (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
In what context does typing [[ cause anything to appear? It sounds like you're using a special script; if so, you'll need to explain what it is. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend,

Thanks for your reply. I don't think that I am using a special script. I am using visual editor however. Let me try to be more explicit. Let's go to:

In the sixth row down in the column 'Train endpoints in a typical [year]' there is an empty cell. Suppose that I want to fill in this cell with the word 'Albany'. I highlight the cell and type '[['. Immediately a box appears named 'link' with a space where I can start typing in 'Albany'. After typing 'Al' a dropdown menu appears with lots of Wikipedia pages starting with 'Al'. The problem is that this menu is partly obscured by a toolbar and is partly off the top of the screen. The word 'Albany, which I want, might be there for me to click on, or it might be obscured (it's the luck of the draw whether Albany or some other entry that I might want shows up for me to click on). This problem started for the first time yesterday. Before then, the menu with the choices was in the middle of the screen and easy to access. Does this help? Fritzgoebel (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I find Visual Editor much less easy to use than the normal editor screen, so I don't use it and I won't be able to help; I'm sorry. All I can suggest is that you edit the normal way and keep a second tab where you can see whether we have a page on a specific title. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


I would like to add some basic information which is not available on the Spitzkoppe and would like to know how do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannaNashipae (talkcontribs) 10:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JohannaNashipae. I see you worked out how to add some information to the article Spitzkoppe . Thank you for wanting to help us improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the information you have added is unsourced, so how can a reader know how reliable it is? I would have tagged it with [citation needed]; but the whole article is very weak on sourcing, so there didn't seem to be much point in adding a tag to a specific item. If you really want to help us improve the article, and have the time, far more valuable than adding another piece of unsourced information, would be to find some reliable published sources for information in the article, and cite them inline: see refrerencing for beginners. (This is a time-consuming process, so if that's not where you want to spend your time right now, that's up to you. But it would be more valuable for Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Patient feedback on medicines[edit]

Hi. We think it would be useful to add in patient feedback on medicines. Can we do this? If so under what section would be best? Thanks, Dani — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC), wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion or experience. Such experience may only added to the article of the wikipedia by citing reputable secondary source, or even peer-reviewed article and medical research. Matthew_hk tc 10:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello. I can't connect the page Kulikov to the Russian page ru:Куликов on Wikidata. It's a page about the same surname. I don't understand why. Could anyone help? WikiArticleEditor (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

they used different wikidata item. One was classified as disambiguation page (wikidata:Q1693555) and one as surname (wikidata:Q21491121), which the EnglishRussian page was linked to disambiguation. But since the English Kulikov page had only one entry (the place) was not surname, may be merging the 2 wiki items? Matthew_hk tc 10:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Correction. The Russian-wiki article was classified as disambiguation and English one as surname. Matthew_hk tc 10:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
How do I merge them? WikiArticleEditor (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a button in wikidata, but since it is controversial, may better ask in the help desk of wikidata first, as the item as surname, it can be the parameter of wikidata:Property:P734, but an item as disambiguation page, did not. Alternatively, split ru:Куликов to a page dedicated to surname, leaving the other entries of the page for a disambiguation page, then link both pages to correct wikidata items. Matthew_hk tc 11:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is a long-standing unsolved problem with Wikidata, the "Adam and Eve" problem (I'm sure there are long discussions about it on WikiData somewhere, but I can't find them), where articles in different Wikipedias partly overlap but have different scope. The place to report it in Wikidata is D:WD:IWC. The only way I know of resolving it in particular cases at present is to use the old ILL mechanism, instead of Wikidata. --ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Access-date question[edit]

Is it better to have an accessdate with just a year or month/year and have the "Check date values in: |access-date= " error message, rather than not have any accessdate at all? Example this page - Greg J. Bamber Thanks. Nat965 (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

To me, either check the page history to add back day and month (assume the user who add the url had accessed the page on the same day he edit), or replace with current date, AFTER checking each link still live. Matthew_hk tc 11:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
A whole date is required because web sources are ephemeral – they can change day-to-day so date precision is important. Before replacing the access date with a new date, it is not just that checking that the link is still live but more importantly, that the source still supports the Wikipedia article text.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
To me i would check the page history. For the new date and checking the current version of the citation, either the webpage did not change, it just {{failed verification}} already at the time of insertion (people sometimes inserted url as citation, that nothing to do with the content they want to support), or the page changed dramatically that require additional check for the archived version in Wayback Machine. Matthew_hk tc 12:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, what? I am having a difficult time deciphering what you just wrote. How does the {{failed verification}} template come into this equation? Why would you assume that a bare url as a reference would have nothing to do with the content they want to support? I agree, first step is the page history when attempting to provide a correct date for |access-date=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
several editor was blocked for inserting random url as citation, for example User:Zombie433. So, checking the current version or archived version of the citation was rather a thing of proof reading, than digging out the access date. Matthew_hk tc 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The original question was about |access-date=. Bare urls as references will not be likely to have an associated |access-date=. Vandals exist. Vandals will do as you described. What has that got to do with Editor Nat965's question about |access-date=?
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, just insert the date by inspecting page history or inserting the new date with all other parameters, but for the latter it is rather a re-inspection of the source and proofread/verify. For the example Greg J. Bamber, it is neither a bare url or a full citation, as parameters were missing/filled incorrectly/incomplete, so the question would be preserving the original access-date or update it when someone verify it. As it was stated, either it was {{not in source}}, or the url had updated and failed to archive in the wayback machine, it is hard to say WHEN the source was accessed and added by user to the article, it was related and did verified/support the content at that time, or not. It should be case by case to update to a new date, or using the date of insertion. To save time and assume good faith of most of the user, should use the original date that the url that was inserted, but sometimes better to use the new date. Matthew_hk tc 13:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Clearly, we are not communicating.
I do not think that simply replacing the value assigned to |access-date= with the insert date from article history is necessarily the best and most correct action to take. The best and most correct action is to inspect the linked source. Does the source support the text in the Wikipedia article?
yes – replace the value assigned to |access-date= with today's date because, today, the source supported the article
no – inspect article history to locate an insert date; see if you can find an archive of the source from on or before the insert date that supports the article; if an archive is found, add that to the cs1|2 template and use insert date as the value for |access-date=; if there is no archive, either: remove the cs1|2 template and add {{citation needed}}, or find a new source.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
For the case of bare url, how could you assume the other parameters such as title, author were the same as the time when the bare url was inserted to the wikipedia article (in a rare case, i even seen an archive from wayback machine, archived date was earlier than the apparently publish date of that webpage, what the newspaper webpage can't be wrong, but the apparent archive date went wrong) The access-date parameters should be case by case basis. Matthew_hk tc 13:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The question at hand is not about bare urls. If all you have is a bare url inside <ref>...</ref> tags, then there is no |access-date= and no Check date values in: |access-date= error message. All that you can do is inspect the source. Does the source support the Wikipedia article?
yes – wrap the bare url with the appropriate cs1|2 template and fill in the relevant parameters; set |access-date= to today's date
no – inspect article history to locate an insert date; see if you can find an archive of the source from on or before the insert date that supports the article; if an archive is found, wrap the bare url with the appropriate cs1|2 template and fill in the relevant parameters including the archive and use insert date as the value for |access-date=; if there is no archive, either: remove the bare url and add {{citation needed}}, or find a new source.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Trappist the monk, The original question was about just day and month missing and just you to start talk about bare url. If there is no page archive and current version was not supporting the content, either it was {{failed verification}} or permanent dead link. For the latter the bare url may slanted to remove it, but generally if just missing one or two parameters, it should not be removed. For live link, if other parameters such as title, author and date were the same as the live webpage, it is no different to use the date from page history of the wikipedia article or the current (today) when refilling the parameters. Matthew_hk tc 14:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You see? We are not communicating. Your second post in this topic contains: people sometimes inserted url as citation which I interpret to mean 'bare url'. I asked you about that: Why would you assume that a bare url as a reference .... Your answer discussed vandalism and did not dispute my use of the term.
You are correct that it is sometimes not possible to find an archive so such references should be marked appropriately and if possible replaced with a new source. In those cases, |access-date= errors might be corrected by using the cs1|2 template insert date as an indicator of the approximate time that the now dead source is alleged to have supported the article. When attempting to 'repair' |access-date= errors, as I described above, it is a good plan to proofread the source; you're there anyway, might as well make sure that the source still supports the Wikipedia article because you do not know if the real 'access-date' matches the insert date (cs1|2 template might have been copied from another article written at another time). When the source supports the Wikipedia article, use today's date for |access-date=.
I do not think that you can or should rely on other template parameters as an indication that the source still supports the Wikipedia articles. Without looking for actual support, you do not know that it exists.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I never mean url as bare url, some people just insert url with seem legit title parameter that end up as fake, or it was meant for trans-title. For most of the good faith editor, digging out the insert date is enough. But if have time to read each citation and verify, insert a new date should be a good practice, but it would be another kind of practice that already out of the scope of filling date and month to fix the CS1 error. Matthew_hk tc 15:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
You've gone back to vandalism again. The question isn't about vandalism. Such edits should be reverted or discarded. |trans-title= never holds a url; how is that pertinent to this discussion? How is verification out of scope? Were we to invent a bot to 'fix' this kind of |access-date= error, we would require it to do the right thing not just accept that the template's insert date is identical to the actual date that the source was accessed (and so determined to support the Wikipedia article text). The bot cannot know and neither can a human. A bot can't be relied on to verify that the currently linked source, or any archive of that source, supports the article so a bot cannot make that evaluation and set |access-date= to a meaningful date. A human editor can do these things. By setting |access-date=, the editor is affirming that on that date, the source identified in the cs1|2 template supported text in the Wikipedia article. For ephemeral sources, this is the Raison d'être for |access-date=. See also Template:Cite web#csdoc_accessdate.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
People can use {{cite web}} for Japanese/Chinese source with English in |title=, without trigger the CS error by actual data for |title= was missing which was misplaced from |trans-title=, or a url and the template with meaningless data in |title= (such as "web site", 1, 2). I would just say, if have time to recheck the citation to fix the CS1 error, just do it, instead of leaving the checking and fact check task to other, but assuming good faith on other editor by inserting the date (to fill the missing date and month with the present of year) of the template and url was added to wikipedia, seem find to me. Matthew_hk tc 00:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
-Thanks Trappist the monk and Matthew_hk ! Nat965 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Third Rutte cabinet[edit]


Someone deleted on Commons all the Third Rutte cabinet pictures; can someone re-upload them please?

Thanks WhatsUpWorld (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What is possible is either to use new, Commons-free-license-compliant pictures (either from the existing stock at Commons or by uploading new ones), or to use pictures uploaded locally (i.e. to en-Wikipedia, not to Commons) under the non-free content criteria. However, it must be noted that criteria #1 is usually interpreted to forbid using pictures of living people (since someone could always go and take a picture of that person and release it under a free license, barring special cases). TigraanClick here to contact me 12:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Sample image from this collection. The files were marked as CC0, because CC0 is prominently stated at However, it turns out that the smaller text ("Voor foto's is...") translates to "The CC0 does not apply to photographs." So I'd say that it was a good-faith mistake by the uploader, who does a lot of portrait uploading. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
So there is no way we can re-upload them? WhatsUpWorld (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope, not until release the images in a way that we can use them. I've restored the old images. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Creation[edit]

I have just created an account and tried to create a page. But it is declined. I have to know why it is declined and how to create a page in Wikipedia, so that I dont make mistake in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelJayakarOffl (talkcontribs) 13:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey JoelJayakarOffl. As the decline rationale provided indicates, your draft is not adequately supported by sources that meet our standards for reliability, and in fact, includes no sources at all. All content on Wikipedia needs to be supported by sources so that it is verifiable for readers, and to help demonstrate that the subject meets our standards for notability, which is what determines in large part whether a subject is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. You may want to read through our tutorial on writing your first article, which can help explain Wikipedia's policies in more depth. GMGtalk 13:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
You also need to be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to publicise your own website. As explained above, you will need to wait until your database has been written about elsewhere in independent WP:Reliable sources before you can have an article here. Dbfirs 13:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
JoelJayakarOffl, as you stated in your own sandbox, you are the founder of the website. Even the website have independent reliable source to mention and in-depth reporting it, per WP:COI, the wikipedia article about the website should not be created by you. Matthew_hk tc 14:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

December 9[edit]

I would like helping creating articles for 2 actresses who play roles on the tv series Star_(TV_series)[edit]

The 2 actress who play roles on Star named Brittany O'Grady and Amiyah Scott don't cureently have articles. Would these articles make good reliable sources: Callistoxena (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

None of those looks like anything near a reliable source, especially when we're talking about biographies of living persons. If these women are notable enough to call for an article here, there should be more substantial coverage of them, in more substantial publications. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

How do I upload an article onto Main Space[edit]

I have recently created an article in my sandbox that I want to upload onto main space however whenever I go to search for it, my article does not show up. I have tried so many things but can't get it to where there is accessible to the public. I hope you can help me figure out how to do this! Hope to hear from you soon! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitchell3 (talkcontribs) 05:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have solved the problem by editing an existing article, but ask again if there is still a problem. Draft articles in draft space or in sandboxes are not indexed by Google, but can be read and edited by any editor who knows about them. Dbfirs 08:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have lost my original Account??????????[edit]

I have been a member for quite a couple of years, and tonight apparently I do not exist!!!!!!!

Doesn't seem to have record on my account, which is odd, Why: Because I just gave them a donation a couple of weeks ago, so tell me where did my money go if not in the pockets of Wikipédia, which is scary and not very reassuring for my safety and ease of mind

I have tried high and low to get to a specific place to write all this down, nothing except here?????????

Thats not right cause I am sure not to give my e-mail here and how can someone who is NOT in the Administration correct the bug in your files?????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myself33 (talkcontribs) 05:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What was your other account? Without that we can't even look it up. Meters (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Myself33: This is a good place to ask for help but it's impossible to help without the account name. It seems unlikely to be a bug in our files. Don't give your email address. We don't need it and this is a public page. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Myself33: When was your account from? If from before the unified login for Wikimedia projects then it might have had ~enwiki or something similar added onto it. I also don't think that a Wikipedia account is needed to donate, so that might be some other account you are thinking of. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Myself33: Apart from the user account name, we could also start if you can tell us the names of some articles you edited. Every change is logged, so we can look at the history of those articles.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Citing a PDF source[edit]

Usually in a pdf file with multiple pages there are two series of page numbers:

  • actual "page number" in the file, as shown by the pdf-reader;
  • "page number" in the document itself, as written on the top/bottom of the page.

In several cases, these two numbers don't match: the same "physical" page could have two different numbers - because the "file numbering" counts also the cover, and maybe also an introductory section (e.g. an index), hence the first one is hgher than the latter; or becuse the file contains only a part of the original document (e.g a chapter), hence the first one is lower than the latter. In such cases, which number should we put in the page= parameter when we cite the document as a reference using a cite template? (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Document page number(s) if it's a book-type ref, Document article page range if it's a journal article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jimfbleak, I'm not sure I correctly understood your explaination: in the second example (book-type sources), your reference is referred to this page (the one marked as number four) or to this page (the fourth one)? (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It's the page with "4" printed on it, the one with a map Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I would dispute the general notion that all journal cites must use the article's entire page range. In Editor Jimfbleak's journal example the page range is 305–315. That usage is fine for a bibliographic listing and where short citations are used ({{sfn}} and the {{harv}}-family templates, for example – because individual page numbering is part of that style) but for inline use, cite the page that supports the Wikipedia article text. Don't make extra work for the reader by requiring them to search through an entire journal article to find the supporting text. If the supporting text is on journal article page 310, use that in the citation.
Use the document's own pagination, not the pagination of the pdf file.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Does that (Bleak) entirely answer his question? Normally, always prefer the numbering visible on the pages. It may be easier if you don't use the cite templates. Then you can explain if you think it necessary. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Johnbod, it's up to you whether you use templates, I nearly always do because it makes it less likely that I'll make formatting errors. With regard to journal page ranges, it's what is universally done outside Wikipedia, and I don't think we should make up our own personal styles on this. I suppose that additionally adding a specific page number in parentheses might be OK if it's a very long article, but I don't do that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Not "universally" - actually that's more of a convention in scientific subjects, and in my experience especially medicine, where references are generally expected to pick up only what is in the abstract, and picking up points from the middle of articles is not considered quite the thing. In arts subjects the convention is entirely different, and while page ranges may be quoted in the main biblio entry, references to specific pages within are expected where appropriate. Quite where railway studies (which seem to be the topic here) come, I wouldn't know. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Our own rules have this to say: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)" (WP:V), and "[pages= specifies] A range of pages in the source that supports the content ... do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source." (Template:Cite journal) – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The cs1|2 citation templates are our own 'made up' styles so using that to argue against identifying specific pages in the source doesn't hold much water. We should not be making the task of verification more difficult for readers but rather, we should make it as easy as is possible. Editors know (or damn-well should know) exactly where in the source the supporting text is when they write a cs1|2 template. It is a trivial matter for them to use that knowledge for the in-source location parameters.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage poll[edit]


I left a message on User:Ron 1987's talk page to underline the fact that on the Template:Same-sex marriage opinion polls worldwide and Template:Same-sex marriage opinion polls Europe, there is a reference to a poll indicating that 64 % of the Dutch people agree with same-sex marriage. However, there is another poll (done by Eurobarometer, an official instrument of the European Commission), saying that 91 % of the Dutch agree. Since he has been reverting my edits on the excuse that the first poll is a few points more recent, I would like someone else to step in. The Eurobarometer relies on thousands of face-to-face interviews and since there is that significant difference between the two polls, I conclude that the first one must be wrong. Can someone else (other than me) tell him to stop reverting my edits on both pages to install the Eurobarometer poll (that is used on the same list for countries like Sweden or Denmark)? Thanks.

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Both Ron 1987 and WhatsUpWorld need to stop Edit warring, and follow the Dispute resolution procedure, which starts by discussing the issue on the (Template's) talk page, and at no point includes an appeal to the Help Desk. I see that you have at least opened a discussion on Ron 1987's talk page, WhatsUpWorld, but a demand to bow to your view is not a good way of starting a discussion. (I am not saying anything about the relative merits of the two views: I haven't even looked at them). --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New tags[edit]

Hello to the editors at the Help Desk!

I have noticed a bunch of new tags have been added to Wikipedia within the past week, most notably the "rollback" tag that is added to every edit made using the rollback tool. Similar tags have been added to all the different language editions of Wikimedia sites (not just Wikipedia), and so I would like to know more about how this came about.

Thank you in advance! ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Implemented in referring to phab:T73236 and phab:T167656. See also mw:Manual:$wgSoftwareTags. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

How come no one answered my question about the 2 actresses from tv series Star[edit]

I've been waiting for an answer. Callistoxena (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callistoxena: We're all volunteers here, so please be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
You only asked this today. That is hardly a long wait. Please be patient. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

2018 MAC Football season — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

December 10[edit]

Khalid (singer) image[edit]

Can anyone get an image for Khalid (singer) article please? Theo (edits) 06:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Please see here for a list of templates which can be used to make a request, and which should be placed on the article talk page. Eagleash (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Any image of the singer would do really, if anyone has taken pictures of him performing on tour and could upload them to the article or a PR image, thanks. Theo (edits) 08:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

History of my IP[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

I have discussed many articles with my IP address but now I must see that my history has been wiped out???


J.P. Clifford (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You have contributions from the IP used today going back to June 2016 here. IP addresses are subject to change from time to time (sometimes quite frequently). You can find contributions from an earlier address by going to an article you recall editing, finding your edit in the history and clicking on 'contribs'. It is unlikely that your history has been 'wiped out'... unless you were some sort of serial vandal / BLP violator / copyright violator! Eagleash (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Is RSS on wikis always delayed?[edit]

It seems like it is by at least thirty minutes. -- Mentifisto 16:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding a template - how?[edit]

Losing the will to live here ;) Hello lovely helpful pelple, I would like to add the template "Plays by Patrick Marber" ( to Patrick Marber's Wikipedia page ( as that would seem like a great place to put it, but have no idea what magic code to add to make it appear. I've tried opening up the editing page of the "Plays by" template to see what it might be called but adding that name made no difference. The help pages for using Templates don't seem to cover actually inserting templates into pages... thanks for any light you can shed. Why must it be so difficult to do such simple tasks, I've been a low-level editor for 10+ years and have to mentally steel myself every time I tweak a page. Hats off to those of you who've worked out what you're doing. JoBrodie (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi JoBrodie - Category:Plays by Patrick Marber is not a template, it is a category, A template, like, say Template:Plays by Athol Fugard, can be added at the bottom of an artists page, and to the article on each of his plays, to link to his other plays. The category just includes those articles to which Category:Plays by Patrick Marber has been added at the bottom. - You could link to the category, but, as all the plays are already in his list of works, that appears unnecessary. You could create a template Template:Plays by Patrick Marber - if you wish to do that, then I suggest you copy another template to get the syntax correct. - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Arjayay, I've taken off the category and added a template which a friend helped me find (or create). I got myself in a muddle but I knew the community would unmuddle me, thanks :) JoBrodie (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I have corrected the "name" parameter in Template:Plays by Patrick Marber, as the VTE functions weren't working. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

December 11[edit]

Deleted article[edit]

The article in Question is Liberty Street Protest and I can not find out why this article was totally deleted, can someone please help? thank you -SFJ Search&dastroy (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It was moved to Liberty Street protest and then deleted due to an expired WP:PROD due to a lack of proven notability. --Majora (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is there missing information regarding a particular actress taraji t Henson ?[edit]

She played in person if Interest!! Which was one of the most watch tv series — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Taraji P. Henson. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
There is also an article Person of Interest (TV series). Bus stop (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
What information is missing? The articles linked above seem to cover that person, or are you referring to someone different? Dbfirs 08:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The series is listed in her TV credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Publishing issue[edit]


This is my sandbox but i can't publish the page.

Can you help me please ?

Thank you,

Mat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mubide (talkcontribs) 08:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

When you are ready to submit it for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. When you want to link to a Wikipedia page in a question, it is cleaner to give a wikilink, such as User:Mubide/sandbox, rather than a URL. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
One thing which you can usefully do while waiting for your draft to be reviewed is to remove the misplaced external links from the body text. Where appropriate you can turn them into references. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

subheading in other languages mobile wikipedias[edit]

I've noticed it's not present in English lang. It's a sort of summary and it seems not visible in desktop version and not editable either, am I wrong? Thanks (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The summaries in the mobile version are taken from the database at WP:Wikidata, and are meant to be brief summaries. Which article's summary are you trying to change? - Arjayay (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing#How do I edit mobile subtitles? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

thanks. I was just curious about those strange charcteristics I've mentioned (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The editors of the English Wikipedia disliked it and got it removed from articles but it's still displayed in mobile search results. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)



THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIR FRANCIS CORNWALL (talkcontribs) 14:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Getting permission to edit Tom Segura's Page[edit]

Hello, I'm trying to appropriately update Tom Segura's page. He has a new special coming out. I also wanted to update the outdated links. I've done edits before, but only two. Should I continue editing so that I'm allowed to get the appropriate access. His fanbase loves to put in tidbits from his podcast, I realize, but I want to do update his page within the Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidinginahoodie (talkcontribs) 15:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Hidinginahoodie. Your account is old enough, and your edits numerous enough, that you should be WP:autoconfirmed, and be able to edit Tom Segura]. Are you not able to? --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you guys help my English please![edit]

I'm bad at English, can you guys help me checking this article? Thank you! Beyoncetan (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've corrected a few very minor grammatical details, but the translation (I assume it's a translation) is excellent English apart from a few unusual turns of phrase. I did wonder what article was the source of the translation. If I'm wrong and the text was your original creation, then please accept my apology for my error. Dbfirs 23:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Changing Languages and Sandbox Issue[edit]

Hello, I have created a draft of an article that I would like to have approved. My current account that I am using was originally made in German. Why does my sandbox only appear when I change wikipedia settings to English even though it's originally in German? Also, the draft has been rejected due to the fact that it is not in English. I am unable to transfer the draft to be submitted to the German Wikipedia website. Please help me figure out what I am doing wrong, and how to fix this issue. I have researched why the Sandbox keeps on disappearing and nothing has come up. Is it an issue others have as well? Also, I have tried multiple times to change the accounts language to German but it does not stay in German. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanula berdanopulou (talkcontribs) 16:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Fanula berdanopulou: There are separate Wikipedia version for each language, including and I assume that the sandbox you refer to is , at German Wikipedia, but written in English. What you need to do is not "change the accounts language", but log into the right Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Unable to add language links to newly-created article[edit]

I recently created the Machir Bay article, which I roughly translated from the German version. The article also exists in a couple of other languages. I figured out that you have this new (to me) process to tie articles in different languages together via Wikidata, where Machir Bay has ID Q1882686 -- and I was able to add the English article to that. The EN link now appears in the DE, CEB and SV articles that were already tied together. However the Languages section of the EN article remains empty.

I was reading Help:Interlanguage_links to try and figure this out. If I click on "Add links" under "Languages" in the EN article, and then fill in e.g. "dewiki" and "Machir Bay" to tie it to the DE article, I get this error: "The page you wanted to link with is already attached to an item on the central data repository which links to Machir Bay on this site. Items can only have one page per site attached. Please choose a different page to link with." That makes sense to me, as I understand the German article is already tied to a Wikidata ID. I would have thought adding the EN article to Wikidata would take care of the linking and the non-English links would automagically appear under Languages on the EN article, but that has unfortunately not happened.

This led me to read d:Help:Merge, thinking that the EN article I created was perhaps given a new/different ID on Wikidata when I created the EN article, and I could then merge the two, but I cannot find a "Machir Bay" entry on Wikidata with a different ID.

Having said all that... I just looked at and found that it is tied to the correct ID on Wikidata, apparently.

So then... why do the language links not appear? Thanks! F. Delpierre (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The languages appear now. Sometimes you have to purge or edit a page to update the languages. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think they appeared immediately after I made an edit, minutes after posting my question above, but I wasn't sure if maybe someone had done it and was going to post here, or if it had happened as a result of my edit. I'll keep this in mind for next time. Thanks! F. Delpierre (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The inter-language links are there now. Perhaps it took a while for the cache to be cleared to implement the update? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I think they appeared immediately after I made an edit, minutes after posting my question above, but I wasn't sure if maybe someone had done it and was going to post here, or if it had happened as a result of my edit. Thanks! F. Delpierre (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi, just a quick question about ISBot. An edit I recently performed was reverted with the argument that it wasn't needed since the links aren't dead yet. That seems very strange to me. Surely we don't have to wait till the links are dead to use it, do we? This is Paul (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)