Help desk
< May 5	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 7 >

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.

May 6

St Chad's Church, Far Headingley

Ref number 6 is in red, please fix if you can! Thank you as always. And Sorry115.70.23.77 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The red error message include a link to the help page: [1] which explains what the error is. You just need to remove the special character from the title. RudolfRed (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and failed - please fix if you can, sorry! 115.70.23.77 (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Readd the "title", this time without rogue characters. 126.254.160.46 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that the only people we're told are buried in the churchyard have the surname Middleton (and don't seem notable)? 126.53.182.173 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Middleton family are notable - should we remove this? and can reference 6 be fixed up pelase. I cannot do this and I am sorry 115.70.23.77 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the ref issue with this edit. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 03:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that they're notable 126.205.243.176 (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, reference 5 is in red and, sadly, I cannot fix it up. Please repair it. I will stop attempting to edit. I am not good at it. Thank you 115.70.23.77 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit. There was a typo, with 20244 as the year instead of 2024. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 05:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need help for some content correction and linking of a wiki page to a correct person.

Hi, I need help for some content correction and linking of a wiki page to a correct person. I tried to do it earlier 2-3 times but by giving some reasons saying this is not correct way or some verifiable reason the page and edits were discarded. I tried to add a page Draft:Satish Kumar (scientist) and made a correction of a Padma awards list as it was linked to wrong person. But it was discarded. Kindly help me on this. Govne (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Govne, you are the creator and the most recent adder of material to Draft:Satish Kumar (scientist). This still has very little content; what part of it needs correction that you can't do? What do you mean here by "linking a wiki page to a correct person"? Where did you "[give] some reasons"? (You have provided no edit summaries. Back in February, you did write something on Draft talk:Satish Kumar (scientist), but I don't understand it.) And currently the draft says that this fellow is an "Indian scientist" but fails even to say whether he's a physicist, a chemist, or whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article

I wrote an article on Concordium and clicked publish and it's been 3 days nothing happens, when will there be a reply ? MrViktorgr (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that context, "Publish" means "publish this as part of Wikipedia for people who know where to find it". If you want User:MrViktorgr/sandbox published as an article, first you have to make clear your relationship to this, and I quote, privacy-centric, public and permissionless blockchain based on proof_of_stake mechanism to ensure resource-efficient operation of the network along with enhanced security among participants. (Carefully read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.) And once you've made your disclosure, you have to make considerable improvements to User:MrViktorgr/sandbox, which currently reads like corporate advertising, and has no doubt amiably intended but unfortunately incompetent referencing. Eventually, if/when it's a decent draft, you submit it for consideration for promotion to article status. But that's a long way off. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrViktorgr, the current version of your draft bears little resemblance to an actual, neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia article. It cannot possibly be accepted without a total rewrite. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Writing a Wikipedia article starts with finding several sources that meet those criteria (see WP:42 for more detail), and then, if you can find them, continues by forgetting everything that you know about the subject, and writing a neutral summary of what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Aranamanai 4 Article

Hi, In the Article Aranmanai 4 there are some wrong informations updated. mr.sb.ramdoss is not a co-writer. He is just a seco d unit director. Also The Film Aranmani 4 is a Blockbuster hit film world wide, which is not mentioned. And, negative reviews are highlighted and positive reviews are ignored. I request yoi to consider these changes in the article Aranamanai 4.

Thank You. 27.4.7.70 (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The place to make suggestions and requests for the article Aranmanai 4 is Talk:Aranmanai 4. Be sure to cite reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the Visual Editor be used in the Wikipedia namespace?

I find it easier to use compared to the source editor, and I use it almost everywhere, but why can't it be used in the Wikipedia namespace? Félix An (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix An: Many pages in the Wikipedia namespace are used for discussions and VisualEditor is not well suited for that. You can still use it. It's only the normal interface links which have been removed. You can start a source edit and manually change action=edit to veaction=edit in the url, or install User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/VisualEditorEverywhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St George's Church, Leeds

In the "Key dates" section - in 2021 - please put italics on the newspaper "Rothwelll Times". I cannot work out how to do this on my old device. Thank you. Srbernadette (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srbernadette. To put text in italics, you can put two apostrophes either side of the text, i.e. ''Rothwell Times''. I'll leave that for you to do. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What D'n'B says. Note that although a pair of apostrophes '' looks like a single double quotation mark ", the latter will not work for this purpose. Also, do not use a word processor for editing, as "curly" (also called "typographic") apostrophes won't work either. Incidentally, Srbernadette, this "old device" of yours fascinates me. What is it? -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My device is a "Macbook Air". I have fixed up the italics issue - thank you again. Srbernadette (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Srbernadette. You seem to continually have issues editing Wikipedia, such as regularly formatting dates as 20244 instead of 2024. Is this a case of you not being careful enough when making edits? It has happened so often I find it hard to understand how you keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again.

How can we help you get better at editing Wikipedia, as it is becoming somewhat tiresome when you continually make these basic errors and then come to the Help Desk and expect us volunteers to fix it for you.

Perhaps you need to print out a cheatsheet or affix a post it note to your computer?

Do you have suggestions on how you can improve your editing skills? Qcne (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srbernadette, the oldest Macbook Airs are now 16, and computers that old can be iffy. If the key that should work for the single quotation mark doesn't work well, you might look into replacing the keyboard. The "E" key (of course a particularly important key for various languages) of a Lenovo ThinkPad of mine suddenly came to require repeated pounding in order to work at all; and I briefly had nightmares about the need to pay out for and properly set up a replacement computer. But a replacement keyboard was easy to find, cost much less than I'd imagined, and was no problem to install. I got three or four more years of carefree use out of that computer, before its internal power supply expired and I had to replace it with the computer at which I am now typing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred method to link to foreign language WP

I am expanding an English article about a French actress, including a list of appearances in French films with French directors, for most of which there are articles in French WP but not in English. I'd like to include links to the French articles. Which option is preferred for linking a list to French WP:

(1) {{ill|Article title|fr}} template. This gives a list with a lot of red links, e.g. Les Moyens du bord [fr]

(2) [[:fr:Article title]], which shows blue links, e.g. fr:Les Moyens du bord

The second is more aesthetically pleasing, giving more blue and less red, but H:FOREIGNLINK says the first is best practice. Masato.harada (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your aesthetic judgment is your own, but the reason the first is the best practice is that it is less of a surprise to the user what they are clicking on. It is poor practice to link easter egg terms where it is not clear what they are going to link to. So, to answer your question of "what is the preferred method": it is in fact what the help page has stated to be the preferred method. Remsense诉 09:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{ill|Article title|fr}} is also preferred because it automatically omits the fr link if an English article is created. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interlanguage link is the right choice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect definition

I want to let you be aware that when someone searches the word lewd, it goes to lascivious behavior...the correct definition lewd (adj) is inappropriate behavior....there is nothing sexual or sexual in nature to the word lewd. When you look into n most dictionaries there is an antonym used to show an example of something that is considered to be lewd, and they use the word LASCIVIOUS. This is only an example of something that may be considered inappropriate behavior. Please address and correct this as it is completely MIS-EDUCATING society, thank you 192.198.31.98 (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like many words in the English Language, 'lewd' can have a range of meanings, and which is most common has changed over time. Currently it is most often used in meanings related to lascivious behavior, so in Wikipedia that is what a search on it redirects to. For example, the fairly extensive (1,690-page) Collins English Dictionary (1979) has the following entry (in full):

"lewd (lu:d) adj. 1. characterised by or intended to excite crude sexual desire; obscene. 2. Obsolete. a. wicked b. ignorant. [C14 from Old English lǣwde lay, ignorant; see LAY³] — 'lewd+ly adv. — 'lewd+ness n."

Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. For a more comprehensive reference to any word's past and present meanings, a dictionary is more appropriate: if you want to use an online one akin to Wikipedia, try Wiktionary, whose entry for 'lewd' is here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.175.176 (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a "correct definition" isn't really considered by Wikipedia which prefers common useage, Wikitionary (which prefers attestation) or as far as I'm aware, most profesional lexicographers who wouldn't consider it to be a meaningful concept. -- D'n'B-t -- 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publication request

Hello, I would like to publish my company's page on wikipedia. What is the method for doing this? Thanks Matteone17 (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not do this - see WP:PAID and WP:COI. If your company is notable, a volunteer will get around to writing the page. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to promote your company on. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matteone17 Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. Qcne (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox coach

Is someone assigned by default as a sandbox coach for me? I would like a capable person to clean up some edits I am preparing for the USAF Thunderbirds Diamond Crash page so I can just upload one change from my sandbox and it will look near perfect in one shot Cresterest (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really have the concept of a "sandbox coach". I suggest you post on the article's talk page, saying that you are proposing an edit that you have prepared in your sandbox, and wikilinking your sandbox. ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say look near perfect in one shot. If you mean "one big edit covering five separate sub-topics", please don't. Instead use five small edits each covering just one sub-topic. Editing is a co-operative venture, best done in small, well-focussed edits, with the content of one sub-topic not being confused and burdened with unrelated edits about a different sub-topic. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to report pornographic links edited into articles?

Search on lyrics to Charlie Brown song "Why's Everybody Always Pickin' on Me?" Hover over links like "Beaver" and "Ivana Getchuharde" to see pornographic material not appropriate to the subject. (Adult genitalia in state of arousal.) Note: Good to know that Wikipedia covers porn appropriately, Kudos and thank you. But the above site is appropriate for children and has probably been maliciously edited. Posted here because no information how to report this. 76.53.131.250 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from this edit 1 January 2008.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop receiving "Your edit was published" notification

Ahoy! Anyone know if it's possible to stop receiving the "Your edit was published" notification? Cheers, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I find it irksome, too, since a lot of my edits are adding coordinates to articles and that damn thing pops up to obscure the coordinates when I save the edit. I have to wait for it to go away to make sure that I haven't committed some stupid error. Deor (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe that's something to propose at Village Pump, is it not? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 10:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8 and Deor: See WP:Your edit was published. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch @PrimeHunter. Thoughts on proposing this to be added as an option under settings? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8: I don't think it's significant enough for settings. Maybe Wikipedia:User scripts/List. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor You can can click it to make it go away NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 13:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Cormier and primary sources

I recently noticed that Claude Cormier is marked as relying too much on primary sources, so I replaced a citation of an interview with him and a page from his company's website with an obituary about Cormier from Canadian Architect. However, after reading WP:PRIMARY, I am starting to wonder if I actually if did reduce the article's reliance on primary sources. Would an obituary count as a primary source with regards to Cormier's life? Still-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Still-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter. A staff written obituary published in a reliable source is an independent, secondary source. Your edit was an improvement. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Looking back at it, I think I just overthought it; I assumed the various obituaries counted as breaking news and were thus considered primary sources. Your response is much appreciated in this regard. Still-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Hanley

I recently added numerous updates to my father's page. They are no longer visible. This was a large amount of work by his family,. How can we have it returned? Joburley (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First you need to formally declare your conflict of interest. Please click the link for instructions.

The edits were removed as a copyright violation. You cannot simply use content from elsewhere. It must be summarized and cited. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Joburley, an editor must not "editorialize". If some "reliable source" has termed a book a "classic", then this opinion may be attributed to that source ("called a 'classic' in the review in The Listener", etc; of course with a reference); but just because you or I happen to think it's a classic, neither of us may write this. And indeed you should not be adding anything to the article, instead making suggestions and requests in Talk:Cliff Hanley. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]