Help desk
< February 17	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

February 18

Creating stub template pages

Hello, Wikipedians! I'm trying to create a page for a stub template using {{asbox}}. Looking at other pages, it says that the data and writing is autogenerated. However, when I put in the same code, nothing happens besides showing the templates. Could someone tell me what I'm doing wrong? 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, please always provide a link to what you are talking about. Presumably you mean, {{Canadian-navy-tugboat-stub}}. I notice that you have unpaired noinclude tags there, so you might want to fix that first. I don't know what you mean by "nothing happens"; I can see the output of the template. The stub system is organized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, and I'm not all that familiar with it, but I believe there are some standards for what stubs ought to be created, and what not, and how to organize them. I would suggest asking your question there, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. Mathglot (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what do you mean by "you can see the output"? Can you see the template, or does it show additional writing? 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Mathglot (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@8UB3RG1N3 As it currently exists, the template renders like this

This article about a specific military ship or boat of Canada is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Is that what you wanted? If so, it is ready to be used, assuming it meets the standards for the Stub sorting project you have already been directed to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, help!

Hi all. My article was accepted, but is now tagged with notability. Dear participants, I ask you to check the article and make a decision!

Egov.Press Zzremin (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, your recently created article was not too sufficient and not notable, just in one perspective, Egov.Press is not adequately supplied by sources. It appears that those sources cited are well written in Russian, which causes confusion to non-Russian readers. And also the website, [1] is not noteworthy, ~~reliable (checking at the website, it is classified a non-governmental online newspaper)~~ and renown to be listed. Anyway, someone will investigate and deal with your concern later. Regards, 2001:EE0:4BE2:6F90:2923:8EBD:8993:C44A (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I revised again, there was a moderate set of sources, but most of them seem to be in Russian, thus most people won't understand if they want to read the sources. 2001:EE0:4BE2:6F90:2923:8EBD:8993:C44A (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not require sources to be written in English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing Yes, that's I'm aware of when moderating my approach. But most people will (perhaps or not, ~~wonder~~) as it does not support the array of views, just by looking through the article. 2001:EE0:4BE2:6F90:2923:8EBD:8993:C44A (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzremin The tag was placed by User:Star Mississippi, who is an experienced admin, pointing out the notability guidelines for websites. My suggestion for improving your sourcing would be to use the parameters |trans-title= |quote= and |trans-quote= in some of your Russian-language citations so that English-speaking readers would be more informed. This is especially important for the sources which support notability, i.e. the ones meeting all these criteria. Your article has not been nominated for deletion, just tagged for improvement. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take care of it. Zzremin (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Michael D. Turnbull. This user has asked this question on three help desks and several user talk pages. I hope they take you up on the translation suggestions to help readers and editors evaluate the sourcing for depth. Star Mississippi 14:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed

Excuse me, may you take a while instructing me on how can I use the Ultraviolet on mobile? I don't find any option to enable it. Definitely, I will create an account to proceed only after you give me some advice. 2001:EE0:4BE2:6F90:2923:8EBD:8993:C44A (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. It looks like Ultraviolent is not yet available on mobile devices, sorry. Qcne (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. Could you tell me how to install the extension by adding a script to my talk page? 2001:EE0:4BE2:6F90:2923:8EBD:8993:C44A (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can follow the installation instructions here: WP:UV/GET. Can I ask why an editor with only four edits wants to instal a fairly powerful anti-vandalism script? You must understand policies and guidelines and use this tool within its bounds. Abuse of any semi-automated tool can risk your account being blocked from editing. If you're new to counter-vandalism, you may want to consider joining the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy first. Qcne (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne, I do know about it before. I only commit to use it as a test on the sandbox than do anything else! But as always, a kind word for helping me out on the struck. 2001:EE0:4BE2:6F90:2923:8EBD:8993:C44A (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where you go after WP:NPOV/N

I'm looking for the correct dispute resolution procedure.

I'm in the middle of a dispute which has been listed on WP:NPOV/N for almost four weeks. There has been input there from people on both sides, and no new edits have been made to the listing there in a fortnight.

Yesterday I returned to making edits on the subject, which another user from the original dispute reverted today (with the edit summary "fact").

Should WP:NPOV/N discussions get closed somehow? If so, how? If not, where may I escalate this to? Marnanel (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard § Founding_of_the_Church_of_England

See WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency found at X

Just one minor request, no need to discuss at its talk page, change the last sentence, which declares: Its name in English is "ex" to Its name in English is ex. It highlights the change from "''[[wikt:ex#English|ex]]''" to ''[[wikt:English alphabet#Letter names|ex]]''. 2001:EE0:4BE2:6F90:2923:8EBD:8993:C44A (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, for consistency with other letter articles (no need for both quotes and ital). Deor (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how do i add an image to a page?

how do i add an image to a page? I am trying to add a photo of Jared Wayne to his page. I have been trying to import a downloaded image onto the edit source page and it doesn't work Cm The King (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cm The King You are not yet autoconfirmed so you cannot upload images. If you personally took the image or it is otherwise free of copyright(you can't assume, it must be explicitly stated), you may go to Wikimedia Commons to upload the image. Otherwise, please go to Files for Upload. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cm The King The rule of thumb is that any random image you find online is under some sort of copyright and can't be used on WP/Commons. For example, this page [2] says "Copyright © 2023 Houston Texans." Case closed for that pic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No original research

There is a country called Taiwan. The official name of this country is the Republic of China, but it is generally called Taiwan more often in the world. However, there is a rule in Wikipedia that there is no original research. Is it okay not to have sources on the Talk pages to support the fact that "the Republic of China is generally called Taiwan all over the world"? Should these obvious facts also be left with sources? Mamiamauwy (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamiamauwy: Hi there! This has been discussed many times at Talk:Taiwan. Please see that page and its archives. GoingBatty (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty I checked. But this doesn't seem to have much to do with what I'm saying. I'm talking about the Wikipedia rule of "no original research." I wonder if we need materials to support that, even for natural facts like "the Republic of China is more commonly referred to as Taiwan in the world." If not, does this also break the rule of no original research? Mamiamauwy (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be looking for WP:BLUE. "Commonly known as Taiwan" is fine. "Commonly referred to as Taiwan all over the world" needs a source and is an unnecessarily strong claim anyway. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was looking for. Thank you for letting me know. But does the rule of no original research apply to the Talk pages? Do the Talk pages have to offer an ingredient for "commonly called Taiwan all over the world"?

"This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."

This is what the document Wikipedia:No original research says. Mamiamauwy (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamiamauwy The primary purpose of talk pages is to discuss how to improve articles. When providing text on talk pages with the intent of adding/changing an article, the text should be accompanied by independent reliable published sources. I don't know why editors would be discussing the name "Taiwan" vs. "Republic of China" otherwise. GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read our policy on preferring to use WP:Common names. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a personal picture of myself by accident (a few months back) and I wanna delete it.

Title.

I still have the account, I'm just unsure what to do. It came back to bite me unfortunately. I don't think the picture is used in any wikipedia page either, if that's important.

Thank you guys! Ijtihed Kilani (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the photo on your user page, you are free to delete it. Are you having difficulty doing that? Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ijtihed Kilani It is easy to remove the photo from your userpage but somewhat more difficult to have it expunged from Wikimedia Commons where the file is now hosted. You uploaded it over 7 days ago, so to be deleted there it has to go through a process explained at c:Commons:Deletion policy. Follow the instructions carefully and the request is likely to be accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews not working

Hi, the Pageviews tool does not seem to be working for yesterday 17 February as views are zero, even for cat and dog. Any ideas what is happening. TSventon (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's up and running for me as I write this:[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So page views for cat on 17 February are not zero for you? They are zero for me. I am using Chrome on an old laptop. TSventon (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon Sorry, I misread you. 17 is empty for me too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that User:TSventon means that there is no data in the column for yesterday, February 17, which I agree is missing from the provided link. I'm not sure when yesterday's data is supposed to appear.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, data is normally available by 9.00 UTC the following day, sometimes a bit later. 17.00 is unusually late. Hopefully it will turn up tomorrow. TSventon (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the FAQ, it can sometimes take longer than 24 hours. Rummskartoffel 17:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two missing days of data, February 17 and 18. The FAQ says that this can happen. TSventon (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's reported at phab:T357910. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It now seems to be catching up, I can see that dog is up to date for 18 February, cat to 17 February. TSventon (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would a page about an individual YouTube video constitute significant coverage of its channel?

On the talk page of WP:BFDI the other day, an editor pondered the possibility of the YouTube channel Abacaba having an article of its own on account of there being "multiple reliable sources" covering it. In response, I created a small source assessment table that currently lists only three sources—Snopes, The Daily Dot and Gizmodo. However, the table's Significant coverage? column is entirely blue at the moment and, even though each source appears to focus on just one of Abacaba's videos, WP:SIGCOV states that the subject does not need to be the main topic of the source material, hence my inquiry.

Even if all these sources mentioned here do count towards GNG, I don't think they would be enough to merit an agreeable article unless additional, sustained coverage is found. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These articles don't contain much about the channel itself, so most of the hypothetical Wikipedia article would have to be based on sources that don't count for GNG purposes. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several questions

I hope it’s okay to ask several Qs at the same time … if not, please alert me and I’ll slice and dice.

How do we find out if we’re “registered users”? I thought I was one long ago. But when I wasn’t allowed to edit one of the AfD pages — it would have been just proofreading fixes — it seemed to be saying that I wasn’t.
How long, more or less, are articles with notices like “citation needed” allowed to stay up — or perhaps stay up but with the questionable material removed?
When I edit on my mobile phone, I seem to always be taken into the source code — which I don’t want, if I can avoid it. Can I? This doesn’t happen when I edit on my computer.
I see some articles that give ISBN numbers of publications in the Reference section. Is this a preferred practice?
I also see a lot of Wiki discussion about barring editors for certain ”sins. Can barred editors ever “repent” and do anything to get back into the good graces of Wikipedia?

Augnablik (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Augnablik

Yes, you are a registered user. Otherwise, your IP addess would display instead of your user name.
Articles with maintenance tags will stay indefinitely, unless they go through a formal deletion process.
You can use either mode of editing on your phone. I prefer the fully functional source editor, so I cannot give you much help with the alternatives.
Yes, ISBN numbers are preferred for contemporary books. They provide a host of information to readers, including the location of the nearest libraries holding the book.
Yes, there are appeal processes available to blocked editors. The difficulty of returning to editing correlates with the severity of the misconduct. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cullen328. Most helpful.

I'll try to find some editor who seems particularly involved with technical questions to help me figure out the answer to Q 3 above. Augnablik (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Augnablik, you can edit Wikipedia on your phone either in the Wikipedia app or in the browser. When editing in the browser, there should be a pencil symbol near the top of the editor with which you can switch to visual editing. The Wikipedia app does not support visual editing. Rummskartoffel 20:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rummskartoffel, thank you for demystifying what was going on. But now I'm again mystified: this time because it doesn't make sense that something I can apparently do in a browser, I can't do in the Wikipedia app! Augnablik (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Augnablik; it may not make sense, but it is true. There are facilities in the web interface which are not available in the app, and vice versa. However, AFAIK any device which can install the app can also let you edit in a browser. Please see User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Augnablik, a further note, on your mention of "barring editors" and "barred editors". The verb "bar" isn't usually used here, and using it may obscure the (somewhat complex) distinction between "banning" an editor and "blocking" an editor. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "specialists" for hire

There are scammers online who pretend to be Wikipedia "specialists" and charge outrageous fees. What if anything is being done to contact the platforms to stop them from offering this "service"/scam? I am talking about platforms like upwork and fiverr, e.g.:

https://www.upwork.com/hire/wikipedia-freelancers/ Polygnotus (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SCAM. These people are routinely blocked from editing Wikipedia when discovered. Unfortunately there isn't a lot more than can be done. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira: I am asking about another thing that can be done, contacting the platforms. Polygnotus (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that most of these people are scammers, there are a few who follow the relevant policies and guidelines. If two parties mutually agree to a fee, how can it then be called "outrageous"? Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Some idiot paid 44 billion for Twatter. Both parties agreed to it, does that make it no longer outrageous? But thats all offtopic. Should we contact those platforms and ask them to stop their users offering this "service"/scam. Polygnotus (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people at https://www.upwork.com/hire/wikipedia-freelancers/ are charging $100 an hour. Wish I got paid that 😢.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ianmacm, before I semi-retired, I routinely charged $150.00 per hour, and people were happy to pay it. I still charge $150.00 per hour for my son's labor. He still works for my small business. Cullen328 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, if I agree to a certain rate for exchanging my unneeded piastres for needed lire, the rate may later outrage me when I realize how much better were the rates that would have been available elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I recommend that you complete your due diligence, whether engaging in a foreign currency exchange or hiring a countertop repair specialist in Northern California or hiring a paid Wikipedia editor. Cullen328 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get back to topic please? What if anything is being done to contact the platforms to stop them from offering this "service"/scam? Polygnotus (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polygnotus, since you are asking in bold, I will answer in bold: Nothing. Properly disclosed paid editing in compliance with policies and guidelines is permitted. Advertising paid editing services violates no policy. Undisclosed paid editing and many of the common business practices that these unethical creeps use is the problem. As an administrator, I have indefinitely blocked hundreds of these people, and will continue to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Do you think it would be a good idea to ask those platforms to stop allowing their users to offer that "service"/scam? (e.g. by not allowing ads that contain the word "Wikipedia"). Polygnotus (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you could try... i doubt they'd listen ltb d l (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polygnotus, I think that it would be a very bad idea to attempt to force either of these private businesses to stop accepting advertising for a category of service that inherently violates no Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If specific paid editing firms are engaging in fraud, then deal with those specific firms. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a member of the countertop repair mafia

so to me there is a difference between a polite request and an attempt to force a company to do something. Polygnotus (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polygnotus, do you really think that it is a good idea to accuse me of being a member of the mafia? Cullen328 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Polygnotus (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A maddening discovery

I've been editing an article on John Masefield, an English poet, for the past hour or so. My first edits were accepted and published. But my latest ones — which were just like my earlier ones, fixing some proofreading and formatting issues — brought me an alert message that I was editing an older version of the Masefield article and that if I published them, they'd simply revert.

😱

Augnablik (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: You were likely looking at an old version of the page when you clicked the edit button. The message doesn't say that your edits will be reverted, but rather everyone's edits which were made after the version you were looking at (because the newer edits aren't included in the version you were editing, so if you published those changes they would be undone). Try clicking the "Article" button near the top left, then clicking edit again, and the issue should go away. Tollens (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are editing a page and taking a while between commits, then consider using {{In use}} to "lock" the page. IMHO, if an editor is daft enough to ignore an in use warning, then they deserve to have their edits lost. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin of Sheffield, wow, I don't recall learning about the need to lock a page that I'm editing. In all my edits, this is the first time I've ever heard of such a thing or run into trouble because of it. Augnablik (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note: you don't "need" to use this template most of the time – generally it is only helpful if you are going to have the edit window open for an extended period of time without saving frequently. If you make the edit fairly quickly, or if you publish your changes often, this should very rarely be an issue. Tollens (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, hence "taking a while between commits". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens: but if I was working on an older version of the article and yet succeeded in making several edits before I got the alert that the edits I was now trying to publish could not be published because I was on an older version of the article, that just does not compute. Why wouldn't I have received that alert for my earlier edits?

Even more importantly, why would older versions even come up at all for editors? Augnablik (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that you are talking about John Masefield (BTW please ALWAYS give a link, it helps others to understand you) then the sequence seems to have been:

Existing version: 23:12, 24 January 2024‎
You edited then saved: 19:53, 18 February 2024‎
You continued to work on version: 19:53, 18 February 2024‎
JackofOz edited version 19:53, 18 February 2024 to create version: 20:23, 18 February 2024‎
You then attempted to save the work you were doing, but the system warned you that the version you were using as a basis (19:53, 18 February 2024) wa no longer the latest.

The system only checks the version details as you publish, not as you edit. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin of Sheffield; thanks; you've clarified something that hadn't occurred to me at the time all this was going on: that another editor might have published an edit while I was working on my edits. All I could think of that might account for the older-version alert was a glitch in the Wiki software.

I think that if I'd been interviewed as a brand new editor about how I thought Wiki editing worked as far as what might happen if more than one editor tries to work on the same article at the same time, I'd probably have said I'd assume the editor who started first had "first dibs" ... so that the other editors would be prevented from even starting to work on edits of their own till the first editor published.

As an instructional designer, I'm really amused looking at this in retrospect. It's the sort of thing that often comes up in teaching or training when things don't go as expected for the learners and we have to figure out why. Even if I myself am in the student role, as I am here, it's sort of fun. Augnablik (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing is a major issue in computers, both writes to memory and to filesystems. Imagine a large cluster where each node is independently updating files on the shared filesystem! there are ways to do it, but it adds a significant overhead which is something WP doesn't need for the odd edit conflict. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it linked so far. This is a technical issue called an WP:EDIT CONFLICT, and a limitation of the Wikipedia software. There is advice at that blue-linked "how to" page about how to resolve the issue. Again, just a technical limitation; no one is doing anything wrong or being punished when an edit conflict notice pops up. VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@::VQuakr, thanks in turn for your clarification that Wiki software is in fact involved — just not in the way I'd suspected, since I thought it wasn't doing what it was supposed to.

I'll go to the WP:EDIT CONFLICT you mentioned in hopes of gearing up for when there's a "next time" of multiple editors trying to edit the same article simultaneously. Augnablik (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center aligned labels on location maps

Hi all, I have just asked a question about labels on location maps at Module talk:Location map. I am adding it here to increase the possibility that someone with knowledge on this issue will notice my question. Thank you very much. — RAGentry (talk) (contributions) 22:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing newspaper supplements

How do other editors go about citing newspaper supplements? As an example, the source I'm citing was published by the newspaper El Deber but appeared in the supplemental magazine Extra. In such a case, would the work cited by El Deber or Extra? When citing online sources, the difference is probably trivial because everything is hosted on the same site with few differences in layout. However, I prefer to cite the e-paper version of a source where possible, making the difference between the main broadsheet and the supplemental magazine more apparent. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krisgabwoosh, the first step is to evaluate the reliability of the specific supplement. Many supplements have lower editorial standards than the main publication, and may be directly influenced by advertisers. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no strict citation style. You can just write El Deber, Extra supplement or whatever you think would make the most sense. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm testing out some different forms on a sandbox now. Most citation templates have a "type" parameter, so I might go with something along the lines of "Extra (suppl. of El Deber)" or, alternatively, "El Deber (Extra suppl.)". We'll see. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]