Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The help desk is frequently semi-protected, meaning the help desk pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

There are currently 3 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

International taxation category in French

I am trying to link the French fr:Catégorie:Fiscalité internationale on wikipedia to the Category:International taxation, which has already 16 languages...but every time I try to link these categories I have an error message...How should I proceed? Thank you Adumoul (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Adumoul you can't link the categories as they have different Wikidata items. You need to merge the Wikidata items as explained at d:Help:Merge. TSventon (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adumoul You wanted to do it. I let's you do it for this reason.

If you have again a problem to do it. Say it there. Anatole-berthe (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adumoul hi, I saw you have not edited for a couple of days, so I have merged the Wikidata items. TSventon (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adumoul The problem was resolved by @TSventon.

I thanks him. Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding films

I'm working on the Wikipedia for L'Atelier Animation because it's missing some films they made, can I add every film they were involved in or only the ones that also have a Wikipedia page Kansas dude82 (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about "L'Atelier Animation" ?

If you're an employee or a former employee.

You have a "conflit of interest" about articles tied to "L'Atelier Animation".

It's better if you disclose your "Conflict of Interest" before any edit on topics tied to this company.

The page "conflit of interest" explain what you need to know. Anatole-berthe (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I've never worked for L'Atelier Animation, I don't even make films, I just saw their page in the Wikipedia Project Canada alerts Kansas dude82 (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The sentence "I'm working on the Wikipedia for L'Atelier Animation" was misinterpreted by me. Anatole-berthe (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah all good, but would you know the answer to my question? Kansas dude82 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's better if you list only films with its own article on Wikipedia.

It can be not easy to known if a film is "notable" to be added in a list if there are not an article.

I advise you to read "Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/List of films without article".

This is not a "policy or guideline" or an "essay" if I'm right.

You can read "Wikipedia:Notability (films)" about notability of movies.

This is a part of guidelines. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kansas dude82: I'd say only add those that are wikinotable and have Wikipedia pages to be on the safe side. You may wish to start a discussion at Talk:L'Atelier Animation to get further input from interested editors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

We do not generally limit a list of, say, books by an author in his/her article to only those with their own article: I see no reason why a studio's output should be treated differently, unless its output is vast and mostly trivial.

The WikiProject list linked above above is not, in my view, relevant to this situation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.194.109.80 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Major Error about the Roman Catholic Church

in all of your articles about Christianity, there is a major error. The Roman Catholic Church is not even CLOSE to being the world's oldest...continuously functioning international institution.

Judaism for one is much older.

My church (Eastern Orthodox) is also older, and is the 3rd oldest Christian denomination behind the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox churches.

It is incorrect in your articles as well as your pictoral diagrams of Christianity timelines.

The Roman Catholic Church branched off of MY church due to the filioqué, and as well as being incorrect, it is offensive to me and millions of other people.

It used to be correct on Wikipedia, but, along with the Roman Catholic Church's long history of problems, persecution, corruption, and the fact that it's the largest Christian denomination, I suspect that is the reason it was changed on here.

Once again, my church members are the most persecuted on Earth; and now on Wikipedia.

Please change this error immediately in all articles and diagrams.

Also please watch this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gKezOSBKnTA

On the hot air ballon tour lies the oldest Christian church in the world; in a cave with ancient Christian carvings and writings on the walls.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Just another persecuted Eastern Orthodox Christian ☦️ User112025 (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• The cited source (The New Shape of World Christianity by Mark Noll) directly supports the claim that the Catholic Church is the oldest continuously functioning international institution in the world. Noll is apparently a serious academic specialising in the history of Christianity; the publisher is the academic imprint of a well-established Christian publishing house. This is at least superficially a well-sourced claim. It's not clear to me that your counterexamples are in fact counterexamples: I wouldn't consider Judaism an "institution", for instance. At any rate, if you want to propose a change to an article, the best place to do so would be on its talkpage – in this instance, Talk:Christianity. Given that the current text of the article is apparently supported by a reliable source, your best chance of success would be to either be able to point to other reliable sources which dispute this, or to be able to justify why the current cited source is not reliable for this claim. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Doi-broken-date error

I found that this existing reference in an Wikipedia article was throwing up an "invisible" 'script warning' (See the top of this page). I narrowed the problem down to the 'doi-broken-date' field. When I remove this field from the 'inline citation' the 'script warning' disappears.

Content

However, I do not want to do this as the doi is broken and therefore the 'doi-broken-date' 'script-warning' would seem to be appropriate. Would should I do? Thanks in advance for any effort put into answering this query.

References

SMargan (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any error with your copy of it here, just a properly displaying reference that includes (inactive 1 November 2024) after the DOI. Which article is it in? Musiconeologist • talk • contribs 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

With maintenance messages display enabled, there is a maintenance message:

{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought I had that turned on. So, I went to check just now and can't find where the setting is, even by searching every section of Special:preferences for the word maintenance. Where is the setting? Is it a line of user CSS or something?
EDIT: Yes it is and I've found it. But had to re-create the CSS page (which I thought I'd previously done years ago and used it.) Musiconeologist • talk • contribs 14:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

At the end of the 'Script warning' is this:

messages may be hidden (help).

If you follow the help link, you will find instructions that will tell you how to show hidden maintenance messages. When maintenance messages are visible, they always end with a link to the associated maintenance category which collects all articles with the same issue. At the top of the category, there is descriptive text that explains the message and offers suggestions about how to 'fix' the cs1|2 template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk & Musiconeologist - So does that mean the problem was fixed? The error message, the one I was making enquiries about fixing has now vanished, so I am assuming I have one of you to thank for that, and that the coding was something to do with a part of the Wikipedia server that I never venture into. Therefore, I guess I should thank you, and assume that I will have no more trouble with this issue in future. Thank you for both of your efforts.SMargan (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You never named the article that was throwing up an "invisible" 'script warning'. If the reference you found was indeed the one you provided in your OP, then the url in that reference exists in two places on en.wiki: here and Boardgame. Both show the same maintenance message. When describing something that you don't understand or think is wrong, always name the article or page where the issue exists. If you saw the problem someplace other than the Boardgame article, you should name it so that someone can answer the question of why the maintenance message has vanished.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page

Hello,

I want to know if you guys have referrals or know the best referrals to start/create a Wikipedia page. If you have experts within Wikipedia I would like to gain that information first. This message is priority as I am in need of information for my boss ASAP to get a project started. Thank you. 66.196.230.10 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I would first suggest that you read WP:BOSS, and then show it to your boss and have them read it, too. You will need to declare as a paid editor per the Terms of Use, and also review conflict of interest. It's easier to disclose if you create an account, but even if you choose not to, you must disclose.

Wikipedia has no deadlines, and we are not concerned with deadlines imposed on editors by third parties.

Creating a new Wikipedia article(not just a "page") is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and new users who dive right in quite often end up frustrated and angry as things happen to their work that they spent hours on that they don't understand. It is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles, to get a feel for how things work here. If you create an account, you can use the new user tutorial as well. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Can the Content translation tool properly translate species articles including infoboxes?

Hi all

I'm not sure where is best to ask this question, hopefully someone here can help. I'm looking at translating some species articles, specifically the species articles for Tsetse fly eg Glossina longipennis into French and maybe Italian. However when I start to translate the article into French there are gaps where the infobox should be and I think also the authority control box at the bottom of the page that links out to external sources for the species. Does anyone know if these are missing because they are broken/not working, or are they just automagically converted including images so they don't need input from me?

I could just translate the article and then publish it, but I don't have enough of an understand of French Wikipedia to be able to fix any issues that come out the other end.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

If you haven't already, refer to Wikipedia:Translate us for detailed instructions. Be aware that different language Wikipedias may use different templates, etc., so ones that work here may not there, as that page's Handmade section, Point 6 mentions.

I am presuming you are fluent in (written) French – if you were not, you would not be able to spot and correct the mistakes that the Wikipedia:Content translation tool (or any other machine translator) will almost certainly make. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.194.109.80 (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)?

The pedias of different languages do use different templates. fr:Modèle:Automatic taxobox (if this is how it's translated) simply doesn't exist; and even if it did exist, viewing it after automated translation of its content would probably be a hideous experience as the names for the attributes/fields (and probably not just their names) within the template would differ. The "automagic" isn't always so bright. -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be sensible to ask about this on French Wikipedia too—that's where the people will be who have experience of articles translated into French, what infoboxes they have and so on.

Maybe I should also note in passing that the standard practice among professional translators used to be that one should only translate into one's own language. I'm not sure if this is still the case, and of course Wikipedia is a different situation from being paid to produce professional-quality work, but it does hint at translation in the other direction being significantly more difficult. Musiconeologist • talk • contribs 14:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Policy allowing reverting unexplained content removal

Is there a policy page stating one can undo unexplained content removal? I haven't found one stating the obvious. Editors will remove content without an edit summary and it is not readily obvious why. I will undo their edit and get a complaint that I should analyze their edit. I would like to reply with a link to a policy page. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Not policy, an essay Wikipedia:Content removal and the guide Help:Reverting talk about content removal. The fact that there are warning templates also means it is legitimate to revert unexplained removal. As you know, that's what edit summaries are there for. If someone chooses not to use an edit summary, the onus is on them to explain why. WP:BRD is also applicable...that's my interpretation. I could be wrong. I often am. Knitsey (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

If you are looking for a policy that says that a lack of explanation for content removal is always sufficient grounds to restore it, you won't find one. Certainly, the lack of an edit summary is suboptimal and should be discouraged, but you do need to make some effort to see whether the removal might otherwise be legitimate. Is the material sourced? Is it promotional? Is it on topic? Does it violate e.g. WP:BLP policy? Etc, etc. By restoring content, you are taking responsibility for it. Which requires analysis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I do make an effort to determine the reason, but often (RCP), I have no idea where to start, sources are 404, subscription, etc. Adakiko (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The closest thing would be WP:NOBLANK, which classifies removing encyclopedic content without any reason as a type of vandalism (which can be reverted). Of course, there may be a reason for the removal that the editor failed to communicate, so I would only revert removals that seem unjustified, and after reverting the removal I would leave them a warning asking them to explain future edits. Perception312 (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Error on a page

Hi, How do I suggest a correction to an apparent error that I discovered on a page? Thanks, Jason 69.123.161.181 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Jason. It depends on what kind of page you are talking about. Assuming you mean an article, each article has a talk page where editors can suggest changes. If you cannot edit the article yourself because it is protected or you have a conflict of interest, you might consider submitting an edit request. Perception312 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Conflict of interest - how do I get edits made?

Hi all,

I've noticed some errors on the Canadian Medical Association Journal page (Canadian Medical Association Journal - Wikipedia) but I cannot make any edits because of a conflict of interest. Is it possible for me to provide the required updates (with sources) and have someone else edit the page? Thanks. Izzy in Ottawa (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Izzy in Ottawa, I appreciate your honesty! The best thing you can do is go to the talk page, and make a "requested edit" there. Make sure you provide what exactly you want changed, as well as the sources to back it up. Hope this helps! (Any other editor who wishes to correct me can do so here.) Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 19:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yoshi gives good advice- you may wish to use the edit request wizard to facilitate making a formal edit request. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

IP edit

[Moving this into its own section. It was posted in the thread above, but seems entirely unrelated. Musiconeologist. ]

can't seem to get programs on this station all it says is audio program or vidio not supported, why so much troble with this station... 2600:1011:B302:E2F3:0:3A:36FC:1E01 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@2600:1011:B302:E2F3:0:3A:36FC:1E01 You've asked this at the Wikipedia Help Desk, which is for questions about editing Wikipedia. But I can at least tell you that we're not a radio station. Musiconeologist • talk • contribs 22:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Pages blocked by arbitration

I am trying to propose edits to a page that is a "Contentious Topic". My understanding was that Edits to the talk page could be requested and discussions on the talk page could be made. When I proposed an edit, the proposal was removed citing the need for consensus. When I opened a talk discussion thread the thread was reverted citing that this was behind arbitration and thus not allowed.

What is the process for establishing consensus in this situation so that I can propose the edit? Or am I correct that I can open a discussion on the talk discussion and therefore my change to the talk page should not have been reverted? Wikitekt (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Until you are extended-confirmed (account 30 days old and with 500 edits) you cannot take part in discussions to establish consensus in the Arab/Israel conflict topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikitekt, please be aware that you are at very high risk of being blocked and you are simply not permitted at this time to make any substantive talk page comments about the Israel-Palestine conflict, broadly construed. You can make utterly uncontroversial formal edit requests, such as "Change the incorrect spelling Mayer to Meyer in the fourth paragraph" or "'were' is more gramatically correct than 'was' in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph". But you are not allowed to debate changing the content substantively until you are extended confirmed, which means an account at least 30 days old with at least 500 edits. So, please stop now for your own good. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Article editing technical issue - moving between Visual editor and Source editor not possible

Hi. I normally flick back and forth between visual editor and source editor a lot while editing pages. Today the ability to do that has disappeared. I can get from visual editor to source editor fine, but at the top right of the source editing edit box, where there used to be a button to go back to visual editor, it now just says Preview (which shows - surprise- a preview of the page, but does not get you back to visual editing). What changed and how do I change it back, because this is a very annoying alteration! DrThneed (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@DrThneed: Is it on the current version of an article and not an old revision? Please link an example. On Example I see a pencil button to switch to the right of "Preview". Does it work here in safemode? Does it work if you log out? Try to bypass your cache in a source edit window where it fails. Use Ctrl+F5 in Windows browsers and not F5 or a reload button alone. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter thanks for the suggestions! Yes, it happens on current articles. This one for instance (but any article I try to edit): Larissa Bieler I use the pencil icon to switch from visual editor to source and then...no pencil icon to get back (just a 'preview' button where it should be). It happens on the Example you linked too. When I clicked your safemode link it showed me the source editor with the pencil icon....but if I use that to switch to visual editor and back, the pencil icon is gone again.

If I try logging out, and then edit, I can see the pencil in source mode if I go straight into source mode, but if I switch to visual editor and back, no pencil.

I'm on a Mac, so no ctrl+F5. I tried Cmd-R, which I think is the equivalent? That refreshed the page but still didn't show a pencil. I have tried editing in Firefox and Chrome, and on two different machines, and get the same problem. DrThneed (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@DrThneed: It appears you have to use the "Show preview" button below the edit area before you can switch back to VisualEditor. Does that work for you? It may be intentional. It's easy to make invalid source code which messes with VisualEditor so maybe it wants you to at least check the source code with preview before switching back. The preview button to the top right of the source editor is a recent addition and works differently from the normal show preview. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh you're right - the preview button underneath does something different than the preview button on the right, and when you use it the pencil icon appears again.

If this was a deliberate change by someone, it really sucks. Hiding the method of switching back and forth made me have to publish my edits in order to get back to visual editor, which was frustrating and slow and made me *more* likely to publish the page with an error (e.g. I often go into source mode to change a website citation to a cite news template, because citoid messed up, but I don't always know all the field names for all the citation templates, so want to go back to the visual editor to complete the citation before I publish).

Anyway - thanks so much for figuring it out! DrThneed (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@DrThneed: It appears to be an unintented effect of phab:T390801 which wanted to prevent switching in another situation. phab:T391498 has a proposed fix. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh excellent! I look forward to the fix. Thanks for explaining @PrimeHunter DrThneed (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it ok if i add things that are funny, still relevant, but funny?

I'm not sure if i should and i don't want to get banned. Erterer (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

If the only level of detail you're going to provide is this, then the simple answer is "No". Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Without know the context. We can't help. Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages gives you considerable freedom in user pages like User:Ertererer. For articles, if you wouldn't have added it if you didn't find it funny then you probably shouldn't add it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

As in on the demon core page, would be ok to add a joke like 'this is what is know known as a bruh moment' Erterer (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You would definitely get reverted and warned for that, since this is an encyclopedia and articles are intended to be serious. Thanks for checking. Perception312 (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ertererer: That would be very inappropriate unless reliable sources systematically refer to a specific incident as a bruh moment, and then there should be an inline reference. The demon core killed people and it would be bad taste for an encyclopedia to joke about it, apart from jokes in general not belonging here. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

External links inline

How do I add external links inline? I'm working on Draft:Tornadoes in Chicago and I want to add a link to the city's official tornado preparedness resource in a section explicitly about that, instead of having it be at the very bottom of the page where casual readers are less likely to look to find this resource. I know [example.com this markup], but I want to know if there was a template I could use for this type of situation. Departure– (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: There is no template for this. It would encourage something we don't want except in rare circumstances like certain lists and tables with systematic linking. It's not a valid reason that the link is considered important. You can make an inline reference after suitable text like "The city has published a tornado preparedness guide.<ref>Full citation with link</ref>" PrimeHunter (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

In that case, should I have prose cited to the safety guide in the way you mentioned, or should I leave it as-is in the external link section at the bottom of the page? Departure– (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: The external links section is usually for pages which haven't been cited but we do sometimes allow both. I think that would be OK here if the article prose at the citation says more than merely that the page exists. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You seem to me to be saying that it's relevant in the body of the article, and the fact that they've done this certainly sounds relavant to the subject, so I think you should mention it in the article body then link to it via a reference. Musiconeologist • talk • contribs 22:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

How to add capitols in talk pages?

When I try to make a comment on a talk page, sometimes the shift key moves my cursor to the beginning of the text box. As a result, I can't always add capitol letters, quotation marks, or parentheses. This might be a "me" problem, but I've never seen this on any other website, which makes me think it's a bug on Wikipedia's end. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Arctic.gnome I've never experienced this and I cannot immediately find any discussion of it elsewhere, but you might get better answers at WP:VPT. If you do ask there, though, it would be helpful for you to give more details about your environment: are you editing with the source editor, the visual editor, or using the reply tool? What browser and operating system do you use? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I have seen such reports where it may have been wikEd, maybe in certain circumstances. Is wikEd enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets? If it's enabled there then you should have a pencil-on-paper icon at the top right of edit pages to quickly disable/enable it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Arctic.gnome Also for future reference you might be interested in the difference between capitol and capital. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Archived archived archived archives

I'm not entirely sure if it's appropriate for me to be asking this since it's about another user's talk page, but I've recently be getting repeated notifications about a message I posted on User talk:ElijahPepe a long time ago being archived or removed. Upon clicking on the notifications I found that the message was archived from the original talk page, but then the archived message was again archived from the archives, and so on... I think there are currently four nested archives at the moment. Is this supposed to happen and, if not, how can I stop receiving notifications about this message being archived?

TypoEater (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@TypoEater: A named section had archiving instructions causing itself to repeatedly be archived to a new subpage. A user has removed the instructions [1] which should only be in the lead before the first section heading. Come back if it happens again. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced italicism?

The displayed title for the article on DeStorm Power is italicized. As DeStorm Power is a person rather than a boat, novel, or film, I believe this title should not be in italics. However, as I can‘t find any DISPLAYTITLE or italictitle in the lead section, I am unsure what is causing the italicism. Yyannako (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Yyannako: It can be anywhere. Fixed in infoboxes in later sections.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this article (Political aspects of Islam) too long?

197,941 bytes. Have been trying to improve it and adding to it. But now .... --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

My personal impression only: it's long, well-written, and has a lot of interesting content. But it lacks an overall "theme". For instance, why does it have an image from the Sanaa manuscript, which is not mentioned in the text? My impression is that editors with something interesting (and balanced, and referenced) to say about Islam have added it without considering whether it's really a "political aspect". Maproom (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Its part of the questioning of the traditional narrative of Islamic history. Very interesting subject, but like you say, what does it have to do with politics and Islam. (I didn't put it there but obviously haven't deleted it.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: you could have a look at Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline and use the Wikipedia:Prosesize gadget. The article is over 10,000 words, so according to the guideline it Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. Also, the size does not include several block quotes, which should possibly be replaced replaced with summaries of their content. TSventon (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: thanks. I'll check these. -Louis P. Boog (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Graph showing a user's past activity

I used to be able to find a graph showing my past activity on Wikipedia (I think on en:Wikipedia, but it would have been much the same across all Wikipedia projects). It was colourful, showing mainspace edits, talkpage edits, and a few other things in different colours. It went back for more than ten years. It was I think weekly or monthly. If it wasn't actually provided by Wikipedia, it was linked to from here.

And now I can't find it. Can anyone help? Maproom (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Maproom First, go to your ordinary contributions page. Scroll to the very bottom. There, there's a tiny link (just after User rights) that says Edit statistics. Click that, then scroll down to the colourful bit.
Edit: Here is where you should end up. Musiconeologist • talk • contribs 22:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

That's it! Thank you. Maproom (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The only reason I knew is that I spent ages trying to find it myself a few weeks ago! It's pretty well hidden, if you ask me. Musiconeologist • talk • contribs 00:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

You can find these pages more easily if you enable the gadget "XTools: dynamically show statistics about a page's history under the page heading" in your Special:Preferences at the bottom of the Appearance section. There you'll see at the top of every page some statistics and links. -- Reconrabbit 14:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Are video games, movies, TV shows citation themselves?

I looked at Hulk Hogan. Both Filmography and Video games tables do not use citations. Looking for the guideline about video games/movies/TV shows do not need to be sourced and they are citation themselves; e.g. linking to their WP article is enough. Thanks. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless they went uncredited or took an (unfamiliar) Alan Smithee credit, sources are not needed for appearances in video games, TV shows, or movies as the credits themselves would verify it, making it uncontroversial and pointless to cite the work. If they did Alan Smithee or go uncredited, you will need a source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Make the Lists Collapsed

Hello, can someone please make the lists in this template collapsed? Each list should be collapsed by default. Then the user can click on a + icon or "Show" to see the full list. For example like this template. -Artanisen (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I took the liberty to apply the necessary tweaks for collapsed lists directly to your page. Use diff in the version history to see the changes. Hope this helps. Erukx (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

This is good, thanks Erukx. Artanisen (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Citation error

In the article False humility, reference number 4 shows an error. I tried but could not fix the error. Please help. Arbabi second (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

اربابی دوم Wikipedia checks ISBN numbers and flagged the ISBN in reference 4 as invalid. I have fixed the error by taking the ISBN from the Hachette website. TSventon (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon The source problem has been resolved. Thank you for your help. Arbabi second (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Articles for deletion process

Hello, I am wondering where would be a good venue to have an open discussion on the suitability of the current AfD process. An editor has recently posted 52 AfDs on a tight subject, posting these in around an hour. [I actually think they have a point and many of them don't and likely won't ever meet the criteria for standalone articles, but that's neither here nor there, IMHO; a flawed system that chances upon the right result sometimes is still a flawed system.]

Considering the new article approvers do such a great job filtering out the bulk of pages that have zero notability at the point of creation it seems to me that the facility to delete pages that have existed for 20~ years needs to be a little more involved. Just being able to drop a quick template in with minor alterations and move onto the next nomination in 60-90 seconds seems like a very easy trigger to pull, one that can cause a much larger amount of work for anyone researching the article, and for closing admins who have to evaluate sources and come up with a decision. It seems very lopsided in favour of making it easy to delete and hard to save articles, especially as a flood of nominations like that result in voter fatigue.

Deletion is an extreme action for many pages, it feels like if someone wants an article actually scrapped outright they should be willing to put more than a minute into stating so. Is there not some sort of mechanism that could be used to make starting an AfD a little more involved? Even if it's just a series of checkboxes say "This article requires deletion as it has no suitable content to be merged to another page", "I have checked GNews for sources", "I have checked GBooks for sources", "I have checked the references already in the article"... Just something that puts a bit more onus on the nominator to do a little bit more of the legwork.

Again, if this is the wrong place for such a discussion I apologise, and would be grateful if someone could point me towards the right place. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for Deletion for AfD in particular would be the best bet, though I will point out WP:BEFORE to you since that seems to address the crux of your complaint. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't realise there was a talk page actually on there, not a shining moment for me. Ta =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Uploading British Blind Sport logo for article infobox

I'd like to upload the British Blind Sport logo so it can be added to the British Blind Sport article's infobox, but I'm unsure if I need to upload it here or commons. The logo is on their website which can be found here. [3] KaraLG84 (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @KaraLG84. The website says "© British Blind Sport 2025", so unless you can find a statement that the logo is licensed differently, you must assume that it is copyright, and so it may not be uploaded to Commons. It is probably appropriate to upload it to Wikipedia as non-free content and use it in that article - see WP:LOGOS for more information.

However, this is like painting the windows on a house which is about to fall down. Logos - and infoboxes - are not essential parts of an article: citations to reliable sources are. ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@KaraLG84 I uploaded it and added it to the article, hope you don't mind. Possibly this would be accepted on Commons, see "Licensing" at File:Enhanced Games logo.jpg for an example, but I'd ask there first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That's no problem. Thanks a lot for doing that. KaraLG84 (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Original research in graphics

If I make a graphic that uses sources that are inside of an article and perhaps also cite them inside of the media description itself, does that count as original research for the compilation of data not done in other sources? I'm specifically talking about map images and graphs, charts, etc. I'm guessing the answer is "no" but I want a better source than my own analysis for this. Departure– (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

As long as you cite your sources I don't think that counts as original research, but I'm not an expert on this sort of thing. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 17:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Departure–. It seems to me that if you're presenting information from a single source in a new way, that's fine, but if you're collecting information from more than one source, that would be synthesis. ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

How to temp vanish

i can’t take much more and i want to hide because this person is harassing me and writing weird stories about me. I don’t know what to do. I’m sad anxious angry. I need to vanish for a bit as they will find a way to harass me more and link to my profile in more articles i am losing my mind i am barred from taking this to an/I I’ve been told to leave it be. I have no defense much here. I don’t feel safe I’m disgusted and miserable •Cyberwolf•. talk? 18:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Just log out, or close the tab you have WP in. Or register a new account. You can start a new account for privacy reasons. There's no prohibition on making a new account as long as you're not using it to evade sanctions or scrutiny. GMG^talk 18:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

ok •Cyberwolf•. talk? 18:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

More information: Wikipedia:Clean start

Unless you are under actual policy-based scrutiny you're under no obligation to keep using your current account to edit, especially in a case like this. Departure– (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

But i have a block on my account? It says I can’t clean start cuz i have sanctions •Cyberwolf•. talk? 18:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

To my knowledge you're just locked out of ANI for three months - any clean start must reflect this. Anyway, from my understanding, the harassment you're facing is just petty trolling. The user is already banned so Wikipedia is already doing their thing, now just on the hunt for sockpuppets. Your talk page is protected so you won't get notified there. At Special:Preferences, you can turn off notifications at Special:Preferences, perhaps change your signature to ask anyone who needs to get through to you to see your talk page.

From there, don't feed the trolls. Don't acknowledge them any more than you would a spider in your house; if you see it, you kill it (or, in this case, report it to SPI if one exists), clean up any damage they've done, and go on with your day. Either way, there's nothing stopping you from just taking a WikiBreak for an unspecified amount of time and coming back when the heat dies down.

I've been harassed before, and not feeding their trolling by giving them attention is a very useful tool in getting them to stop. Departure– (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah… •Cyberwolf•. talk? 19:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, don't linger on any specific things someone says about you like this. They're just words coming out of an account recognized by Wikipedia's higher-ups as a disruptive editor. Letting disruptors disrupt is... well, not in Wikipedia's best interests. Any form of acknowledgement beyond a simple revert if you see it is feeding the troll, so don't go out of your way to find any instances of trolling. Disruption from an SPI is usually dealt with by the community within minutes, meaning it might as well not be happening at all from your point of view, as long as you don't go out of your way to find it, especially given your talk page protection. Departure– (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Well I certainly wouldn't recommend using an alternate account to circumvent active sanctions. But in all honestly, you should sod off from ANI anyway. Forgetting that ANI exists is probably the best advice on the whole project. GMG^talk 19:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)