Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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?

May 23[edit]

Creating a WikiProject[edit]


I was requested to take the initiative of creating a WikiProject on digitisation in the frame of the IMPACT Centre of Competence and the DATeCH Conference community as an output of the last edition of this conference. This project is intended to keep updated information on tools, resources and initiatives in digitisation and related fields, so I created the WikiProject named IMPACT-DATeCH. However, as I am Manager of the IMPACT Centre of Competence, the project has been removed for Conflict of Interest reasons, what should I do in order to create such project? Should I ask anyone else to create the group?


Isabel— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsempere (talkcontribs)

Hello Imsempere. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject so that you understand what a WikiProject is and what it is for. Basically, a WikiProject is a group of people who want to coordinate with one another to improve Wikipedia articles in a specific topic area. So, for example, WikiProject Haiti works to improve articles about Haiti. WikiProject Film works to improve articles about movies. What you were doing was not creating a WikiProject - you weren't gathering together a group of people interested in improving articles about a common topic and building a space for them to collaborate. Please take the time to understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not, and what WikiProjects are and what they are for before attempting to create one. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Imsempere: Perhaps whoever made that request wants a dedicated Wiki, a project structured like Wikipedia but not part of it. (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
If that is the case, then I would recommend looking at mw:Hosting services. Eman235/talk 21:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Factual Information on People[edit]

Someone is deleting people's factual information of their lives. Apparently someone is not doing their homework prior to committing these acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, if this is regarding your addition[1] to Seminole High School, those additions were unsourced and on people who didn't have Wikipedia articles. You can see Wikipedia:Write the article first. – Þjarkur (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi IP User. You have only made contributions to Seminole High School (Pinellas County, Florida) prior to posting here, so I am assuming this is regarding that article. You have added information regarding Jim Fitzpatrick and Tony Fitzpatrick, however these are WP:DAB pages, so should link to articles on the specific articles. It doesn't really equate to deleting factual information, as this information should be sourced, that the player is a notable alumni of the school. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Information about living people must be deleted unless it is cited to a reliable source. See WP:BLP. This is more stringent than the general rule for other unsourced information, which may be deleted if contested. -Arch dude (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

uss new York lpd-21,,,,[edit]

USS New York is NOT named after new York state,,, LPD's were named after cities,,, USS Denver LPD-9,, USS san Antonio,, USS Green Bay,, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Our article USS New York (LPD-21) cites two official US Navy sources for the name's source. Wikipedia cannot fix problems with the Navy's sources. If you can find sources that support your contention (which is perfectly reasonable) then make a suggestion on the article's talk page to add a new section to the article about the naming confusion, and cite your sources. -Arch dude (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, the assertion that it was named after the state is not well-supported by the two sources. [2] says named for the state of New York [sic], and [3] says the naming was made to honor the state, the city and the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. We might want to change to something less committed than "named after the state". TigraanClick here to contact me 15:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This ship was explicitly named after the state, not the city ("Governor George E. Pataki wrote a letter to Secretary England requesting that the Navy revive the name USS New York in honor of September 11's victims and to give it to a surface warship involved in the war on terror. In his letter, the Governor said he understood state names presently are reserved for submarines but asked for special consideration so the name could be given to a surface ship."). USS New York City is the only US Navy vessel named after the city, rather than the state or one of the individual boroughs (there have been three USS Brooklyns, a USS Bronx, USS Queens and USCGC Staten Island, and way back in the distant past a USS Manhattan during the Civil War. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
(adding) LPD's were named after cities is flat-out incorrect; some are named after cities, but by no means all. Yes, there's Denver and San Antonio; there's also Mesa Verde (a national park), Somerset (for the county in PA where United 93 crashed), John P. Murtha and the yet-to-be-launched Richard M. McCool Jr. ‑ Iridescent 16:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I am planning to start an "Agile Lean" Page on Wiki[edit]

Hi Team, I am planning to start an "Agile Lean" Page on Wiki. I did do some research on this topic with the help of my Professors and felt that it might help if it is there on Wiki. Can someone please let me the process to create a new Wiki page and any approvals that I need to get for the same.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to improve it. Start by reading WP:YFA, it will explain the process. There is also a wizard there to help you create a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Bear in mind that we already have a lengthy (albeit fairly poor quality) article on this topic at Lean software development. ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

legend for colors of text[edit]

when reading a article some of the text is in different colors, why? is there a readily available legend explaining the text colors and uses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If the text is blue, like this then that is a link to another page. Click it (go ahead with the example I put to the left), and it'll take you to a page with more information about whatever it's about (in that case, links). If the text is red like this, that means there is no article about that topic, but someone thought it was a suitable topic for an article and wants the red link to entice people to write one (see WP:REDLINK). If the text is a dark purple, it's usually a link to a page you've already visited. If you are seeing other colors, please tell us what page they are on and we can try to decipher it for you. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

mistakenly to use them as a Greek language affects the Greek language[edit]

«Ýmnos eis tin Eleftherían » These are not Greek. In Greek it is «Υμνος εις την ελευθερια» Why you and google also used this letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:A306:8700:D5CF:1272:8263:E1E8 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

We use romanization to make articles accessible to readers who do not know the Greek alphabet. We then give the original spelling in the article Hymn to Liberty in parenthesis. We do the same with other non-Latin scripts such as Russian and Chinese. – Þjarkur (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Barbra Streisand - Wrong Number of Awards on Page[edit]

Hi there,

I work with Barbra Streisand and I noticed that her page has some inaccuracies. Her page should include: Three Peabody Awards (not four) Eleven Golden Globes (not nine) And, the National Medal of Arts.

I would love to get these edits made as soon as possible. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyssamarquardt (talkcontribs)

First, thank you for posting instead of just editing the article. It's best for people closely associated with the article subject to post their corrections on the Talk Page for the article in question. In this case, that would be Talk:Barbra Streisand.
That said, the reference for the figure of four Peabody awards is the Peabody web site itself. The direct quote from their web site is "The other, with an amazing four claims to Peabodys as well as her other trophies, is Barbra Streisand."
--†dismas†|(talk) 18:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Pinging user: Alyssamarquardt -- †dismas†|(talk) 18:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I did post on Barbra's Talk page and have not recieved anything from anyone and no edits have been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyssamarquardt (talkcontribs) 18:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Alyssamarquardt: If you add {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) to any request on the Talk page, that will add the request to a list of requests waiting, so it will be more likely to be seen. It is also helpful if you cite a reliable published source for any information you are seeking to change, because if the reviewing editor cannot find one, they will not add the information. --ColinFine (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Permablocked account (best if IP) for test purposes?[edit]

Is there a block on a test account, or even better, an IP, on which I can rely 100% to stay blocked forever?

Context for those who want it: I need that for Muninnbot's tests. Before each batch run, the bot runs a (limited) test suite and stops if any test fails (the idea being that if the API changed in a way that breaks the bot, I would rather stop it entirely that do uncontrolled stuff with write access to user talk pages). Turns out that the test for the "is this user notifiable?" function involved a hard-coded IP of a formerly Tor-blocked node, so the test broke when Zzuuzz unblocked it. Don't tell me it was a stupid way to write the test. I realize it now. TigraanClick here to contact me 19:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked user seems like a good candidate, but please give other suggestions (especially if IP). TigraanClick here to contact me 19:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems unlikely that you can count on any particular IP being blocked forever. I could easily think of dozens of accounts that are basically never going to be unblocked. Anybody on this list has as close to zero as possible chance of being unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
In fact, literally zero; per m:WMF global ban policy, Foundation global bans are final; they are not appealable, not negotiable and not reversible.. * Pppery * survives 22:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Joey Pedraza[edit]

Hello, My name is Joey Pedraza.

I am looking for someone that can help me create a Wiki Page as an Athlete. If you can or know someone that can help me, please be kind to get back to me as soon as you can.

thank you, Joey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypedraza (talkcontribs) 20:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joey. We can accept an article on any subject that is notable by our definition, not yours: see WP:N (and specifically, Wikipedia:Notability (sports)). We will help make that article better if it is not good enough. We will delete any article on a subject that is not notable, no matter how wonderful the article is in all other respects. Please read WP:YFA to see what is needed. Please be aware that there are people who claim to be able to help you, but who have no special abilities or authority. They will write an article for you and take your money, and then we will delete it. -Arch dude (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
A quick look on Google suggests that you're a college level swimmer, and therefore not likely to have enough coverage about you to meet our notability guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

2Qs: (1) Policies regarding removal of sourced information (2) Any offenses more serious than others?[edit]

(1) What are all the various Wikipedia policies related to removal of sourced information? If an editor wants to remove information from an article which is properly sourced and relevant (because they dont like seeing that information on a page), are there no consequences for that? Is it all left out to constant edit wars? I would think that removal of sourced information would be a serious offense when it is obvious that the removal is highly invalid for example the content is relevant, the sources are valid and academic. I have looked at Wikipedia:List of policies. In my opinion this would fall under Wikipedia:Vandalism but an editor can easily claim Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as an excuse for removing sourced content. Right? (2) Are there offenses that are more serious than others? For example (a) removal of sourced information, or (b) intentionally misstating what sources say should be a more serious offense compared to slightly changing the balance of NPOV. --Smtree (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the use of the word "offences". Can we please lose any blame culture. Sometimes editors will disagree over what is a reliable source, in which case either take it to WP:RS or else accept that your source is not RS. Some editors will regard sources as reliable in some contexts, but as unreliable ina another. For instance NOAA and UKHO are unreliable when the conflict with BIPA, but at other times are world class authorities. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Smtree: when people ask general procedural questions here without mentioning particular articles, I (and I think others) tend to suspect that they are wikilawyering, or at least trying to do BURO. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Smtree:Yes, it's all left to "constant edit wars", which are themselves controlled using our methods of dispute resolution. See WP:DISPUTE. Basically, you are supposed to try to reach consensus on the talk page before using other methods. -Arch dude (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

May 24[edit]

list of orphaned pages with incoming links[edit]

I am actually interested in helping de-orphaning the orphaned articles and I understand why AWB is not used to auto de-orphan to catch possible articles that should be deleted / merged or otherwise. Hence I just like a list of such pages so I can work on individual articles manually, reading and fixing it. So in short, a list of orphaned articles (tagged with category:orphan) with incoming list. appreciate if the list can be placed on my sandbox! Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Xaiver0510: Wikipedia uses the term "orphan" is a special sense: see Wikipedia:Orphan. It means "an article without incoming links", the articles you are asking for do not exist. Alternatively, I don't understand what you are asking. -Arch dude (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Arch dude:Perhaps I was not very clear. I am looking for a way to generate a list of articles wrongly tagged as orphan (aka in Category:All orphaned articles) but actually have incoming links. There are articles which are tagged orphans but actually have incoming links (aka not orphans, example Alan Beaumont (footballer)). So specifically, I am asking for help to generate a list which fulfills such conditions. Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

using photos[edit]

Hello, I run a small (bimonthly)railway paper in the uk. I would like to use a photo from your Union Pacific Big Boy article in my next issue. Are there any restrictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingads1 (talkcontribs) 02:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Short answer: Almost certainly but you must attribute the image. Long answer: Images here are under various copyrights. All can be used by you, but each is under its own type of license with its own rules. IF you click on the Image, you will see a bigger version of it ans a "details" button. Click on that button to see the copyright situation. In most cases, it's CC-BY-SA. If so, and if your paper is in electronic form, just add "from Wikipedia" with a link to the URL fo the image. If your paper is physical paper, also add "from Wikipedia" and the URL in printed form. Some of our images are here under a "free use" justification, and are therefore NOT under the CC-BY-SA. We feel that these are legal for us to use and maintain on our computers in the US, but you would need to ask your own lawyers about use in the UK or use in a newsletter. -Arch dude (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
For the complete story, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. We did not make the copyright laws, which have become a real mess. We do however, try as hard as we can to comply with them. -Arch dude (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this the picture? [5]? Wow, that's a big locomotive. It IS under a license (CC-BY 2.0) you can use merely by attributing the photographer via a link as above. Note that it's stored at a higher resolution than we use to display in the Union Pacific Big Boy article, so you probably want to download the high-res version if you intend to print to paper, or an appropriate-sized version for your specific e-pub. -Arch dude (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kingads1: The only restrictions on this image are that you must give appropriate credit to the author, link to the image license, and indicate if changes were made. You could use this text: "Image by Aaron Pedersen ( Released under CC BY 2.0 (".Þjarkur (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Anglican Catholic Church.[edit]

Missionary Diocese of Australia and New Zealand.

Please delete Bp Denis Hodge who has now retired, insert Bp Ian Woodman.

Thank you and regards.

Bp Ian Woodman — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This, I presume, refers to Anglican Catholic Church#Leadership. The source for Denis Hodge still lists him, while this site calls Woodman the "Episcopal Vicar". I'm not familiar with the Anglican Church hierarchy/titles, so I'll leave it for someone else to resolve. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Seminole High School Notable People[edit]

To whom it may concern,

I work for Producer/Director James Fitzpatrick. For some reason, James and his brother Tony, whom both played Professional Football, was deleted from the Seminole High School page. Can you explain this mistake?

James Fitzpatrick's Wiki page connection to his last team:


Julienne Ford-Hammond Five Star Studios PR — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You must comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy; the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable. They were removed from the list because they do not seem to have articles of their own(the links went to disambiguation pages, not articles, as there are other people with those names that do merit articles). If they merit articles, you should not be the one to write them. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
James is Jim Fitzpatrick (actor). This contains unsourced claims that he attended the school and played in both the CFL and NFL. He was not removed form the school article (Seminole High School (Pinellas County, Florida) but the attendance claim and the professional football claim all need to be sourced. There is no article for.Tony Fitzpatrick,but the claim that he played in the USFL is sufficient for notability as a pro athlete. Again, his attendance and his playing career would have to be reliably sourced. Meters (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability of books within an author's article[edit]

I'd like to know more about Wikipedia's policy on something. I recently edited an article to include a bibliography of an academics's works with ISBNs/OCLC links. These edits were reverted and I was told they needed reviews to demonstrate they were notable enough (my wording, but it was something like that). I also edit self-help and self-published author articles; there are sometimes titles listed that only link to where someone can buy it at Audible or to the author's website. This seems to be a bit promotional to me and they don't demonstrate the notability that I gathered is required.
My questions:
1. Is this true across Wikipedia biography articles, or only in academia?
2. Should all listed creative works have a review? Or just most? Or what?
3. If so, how good of a reviewing body does it need to be? I imagine Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Booklist, and academic or trade journals are good. If not available, do blogs suffice, or not?
4. How many reviews is ideal?
5. If I can't find reviews, does a link to a bestseller list suffice to show notability?
6. Should titles that have no quality reviews on the open internet, JSTOR, etc., be removed from a list of an author's works?
Please point to the policy/policies on this.
Thank you!--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you'd tell us what the article was, DiamondRemley39. In any case, "notability within an article" is a bit of a misnomer; notability is only about whether or not a topic merits a standalone article and does not affect content in other articles. However, in the case of lists, some sort of non-arbitrary criteria is often needed. Authors can have dozens or hundreds of works, and sections in biographies are only supposed to list the most important ones, not necessarily all of them. Sometimes notability of individual items is a good criteria, sometimes not. See some guidance at MOS:BIB. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Finnusertop, for your reply and for including the link. You are right in it being a misnomer. I didn't like using "notability" but that was the best word I could come up with.
Mel Robbins is one article I mean. I intend to cite reviews for her works and create a separate "Books" section, but her "Audible Originals" don't have any reviews from typical reviewing sources (like Library Journal, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly) that I've searched; the works are not very book-like (they seem to be more like a paid podcast) and I'm thinking they should perhaps not be listed there as they seem to only be covered in user reviews. Ilaria Ramelli is the article on which my edits were reverted; I then added reviews to verify the... worthiness? of including the list and all is now well there.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb, you don't need to cite reviews or the sort for a selected works list, unless someone asks for them. As always, if someone disagrees with your addition, it's always good to ask them what they think the problem is and what would rectify it. I see you started a discussion at Talk:Ilaria Ramelli. Others have since replied. You should continue to talk to them. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Finnusertop. I don't know that any more discussion at Talk:Ilaria Ramelli is required at this time, as I have done what is asked and my edits were accepted. I mentioned the Ilaria Ramelli article because that is where I got the (apparently mis-)-conception that reviews are recommended. My current dilemma is more about the Mel Robbins page and whether those items are worthy of inclusion on selected works. I will review MOS:BIB before making changes and will discuss on Talk:Mel Robbins. Thank you again. -- DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The Manual of Style section on Lists of Works (MOS:WORKS) says "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship, are encouraged..." --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Gronk Oz! That's what I needed!DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


I am a new wikipedia user who made a user only yesterday. That being said, today someone left a question on my talk board. How do you leave a question on someone else's talk board or respond to a comment or question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian1088 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

First off, you need to read Wikipedia:Signatures and comply with it, as you haven't done with this post – no blame, you're new and it takes some time to learn all this stuff, but as it says at the top of this page, "Finally, please sign any statement you post here by placing ~~~~ at the end of your post."
If you had signed your post with the four tildes, you'd have seen that your signature (and a time stamp) was thereby immediately created. Your signature consists of your user name which is wikilinked to your user page, and (usually *) "(Talk)" which is wikilinked to your Talk page.
(* Some people customise their signatures to display different wordings, but hovering on them should reveal where the links really go.)
As you've seen, other users can go to your Talk page and leave messages and queries – if they do you can reply to their query there (just type on the next line, starting with one colon more than their query has to follow our standard indenting format). Since they've posted on your Talk page, they will likely check it to see if you reply. To get their attention, you can include in your reply "{{ping|Theirname}}" which will send them a notification, but only if you sign your post before saving ("Publishing") it.
Alternatively, you can go to their Talk page by clicking on the wikilinked "(Talk)" of their signature and leave a message (or reply) there, but note that it's easiest to keep the whole conversation on the page where it started.
Hope this helps. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it all with practice :-) .{The poster formerly known as} (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Al Jazeera[edit]

Please note that the byline when you Google Al Jazeera says: "Al Jazeera also known as JSC (Jazeera Satellite Channel), is a state-funded holocaust denial broadcaster in Doha, Qatar, owned by the Al Jazeera Media ..." - This does not appear on the main page but somehow on the Google description. Is this fixable as not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it's fixable, but only by someone at Google. They copy Wikipedia content, which is fine by us, and "enhance" it with other content, which we here at Wikipedia have no control over. Though most of the material they display is from here, almost all the mistakes in it are from other sources. Maproom (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the OP is seeing an extract from our own article Al Jazeera, under a link to it, which (the extract on Google) really does contain the words "holocaust denial". These were added by an IP at 12:58, 22 May 2019 and reverted by User @Zombles: 3 minutes later. I'm still seeing it as of this moment, but hopefully Google's webcrawlers will pick up the revised version soon. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The crawlers have revisited and the words "holocaust denier" no longer appear in Google. Dbfirs 20:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, the vandalism was reverted very speedily. Looks like it's all fixed now. Any ideas on how the crawlers work? Google already posts live extracts from articles when linking the article. Might be worth having some more information at a different location Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you,, for your correction. BTW that's a great IP address! I understand why you'd use it instead of registering an account. Maproom (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, 87 etc was my fixed home IP for a long time, but then my ISP was taken over by one using dynamic IPs that change every time I have occasion to reboot my router. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk: Daniel Sidney Warner[edit]

I have provided source references for this article; however, I believe Section 3 ("Movement that Followed") should not be part of Warner's biographical article. It describes the Church of God (Anderson), which is covered in greater detail by a separate Wikipedia article.

It's an issue because Warner staunchly denied that he was beginning a new religious movement, and in fact the writer of the biographical article aptly refers to him as an "initiator" of the Church of God. Also be aware that Warner's immediate successors differed from his teachings at several points. The present narrative doesn't cite them by name, which implies that these where his beliefs.

I see a couple of possible solutions:

1) Disambiguate Section 3 from the rest of the Warner article and incorporate it into the Church of God article. 2) Leave Section 3 with the Warner article, but expand it a bit to cite his successors by name and quote Warner's disagreement with them.

What would be Wikipedia's preferred way of resolving this?

Hoosierwriter131 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Hoosierwriter131

@Hoosierwriter131:This is an editorial decision and you are the editor: do what seems right to you. We try to avoid having too many rules. But since you asked: I would move the material and incorporate appropriately into the Church of God (Anderson) article, and then add a discussion of the issue in the Warner article. -Arch dude (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


What is wikipedia. What does it do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmccain (talkcontribs) 19:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please click on this blue link and read the article:Wikipedia.-Arch dude (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:About might be a more suitable page for new users. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May 25[edit]

Unable to locate article Old Main (The University of Texas at Austin)[edit]

On April 21, 2019, I edited List of Old Main buildings to include Old Main (The University of Texas at Austin), which now shows as a red link, and I can't find it in the deletion logs. I'm pretty certain the article for UT's Old Main building existed at the time or I don't think I would have added it to the List article. Am I losing my mind, or not searching the right way? Here is my edit. Thanks, Lardofdorkness (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

try Main Building (University of Texas at Austin)‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, El Cid. That will be simple to fix, but I still think I'm losing my mind: Is there a way to tell if the red link article used to exist as a redirect page to Main Building (University of Texas at Austin)? I'm inclined to believe it did and that's what I was linking to, but I've slept too many times since making the edit to remember. Possibly just carelessness on my part -- thanks for indulging my curiosity. Lardofdorkness (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding media[edit]

Attempting to add a scanned postcard (approx 115 years old) to a page, but comment tells me that it must have been photographed by me.

So why should I have to photograph the postcard and then add it - why can't I just add a scan?

R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pc1894 (talkcontribs) 09:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pc1894: There is no legal difference between a photo and a scan of this postcard. The "photograph" referred to in the message is the photograph on the postcard itself, taken more than 115 years ago by an unknown photographer. In this case, you need to pick the correct copyright, which is not "I own the copyright" but instead is "Photograph is in the Public domain due to its age." -Arch dude (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Enabling auto information update[edit]

Is there a way to program Wikipedia to pull information from a specific website and post it here? To clarify, in the infobox the Employees entry contains only numbers. The reference link is right next to it and the actual number is in a specific field in the table. Is it possible to link these two? Regards, LukeA1 (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It's possible, but the main issue is probably whether that automation is needed in the first place. For instance, how frequent the number changes is vital on deciding that. If you believe it's worth it, you should ask at WP:BOTREQ. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a bad idea. Software running on WMF servers should not be in the business of interpreting the syntax of other random web sites. This would untimately lead to a maintanence nightmare. We probably have several hundred thousand organization infoboxes. Should we write a separate script to auto-maintain each one? I say no. But each interested organization might choose to write a script that runs on their computer to maintain their info in a single place, namely on Wikidata. Infoboxes would then pull from Wikidata. Centralizing structured info on Wikidata is a good idea since that data can be used across all Wikipedias, not just the English Wikipedia.-Arch dude (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Zig-Zag Rolling Papers[edit]

Hello i came to your page to see if i could get info on rolling papers but the packs i have are not mentioned Gary— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Mckerracher (talkcontribs) 12:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Gary Mckerracher: there is a general article about Rolling paper, but it does not describe individual brands. But there is also List of rolling papers which does include Zig Zag, thought it has only very limited information. There is a lot more information about the company, and a little about its products including the papers, at Zig-Zag (company). If that is still not sufficient, at the bottom of that latter article is a link to the company's own official Web site. I hope this helps.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Gary Mckerracher: Hello, not every product or manufacturing company can have a page on Wikipedia. There are fairly stringent notability guidelines which have to be satisfied first. The best known brand of rolling paper is probably Rizla and there is a Wikipedia page here. More information on Zig Zag can be found at List of rolling papers#Rolling papers. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.). Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Mediawiki namespace redirect[edit]

Can anybody look at WP:AFC/Redirects#Redirect request: MediaWiki:Title blacklist. I don't know what to do with this redirect request. I am asking an admin's opinion on the matter as they are the ones who can edit Mediawiki pages. Thanks. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|Scsbot}} to your message, and signing it. Sincerely, Masum Reza📞 17:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Which picture is suitable?[edit]

Hi! I thought of uploading a better picture of British sailor and Titanic survivor Harold Bride and uploaded two pics to Commons but don't know which is more suitable for the article. Can anybody help me choose? Bride 1 Bride2. Thank you and kind regards!. --LLcentury (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe that Bride1 is best because it shows his uniform. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, Perfect I added that one, if there's another opinion feel free to give your opinion. Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Dynamic IP[edit]

An anonymous user with a dynamic IP address is removing reliably-sourced height & the relevant sources, along with replacing them with the height which is supported by UGC & other poor sources, thereby creating BLP-related issues. I have opened a relevant thread – see Talk:Manushi Chhillar#Height – and asked them to discuss it on the talk page. But their IP address changes each time, and I am forced to repeat the whole process again. The article will most probably not get protected as the disruption is low. So, is there any way to make the IP user discuss their concerns at the talk page? - NitinMlk (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May 26[edit]