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

October 19

Geelong College

Geelong College

I cannot get the circa - "built around 1936" - meaning "around" bit right when there are some dots. Please help and please be patient with me, I ma trying. 00:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.37.197 (talk)

Template:circa might be what you're looking for. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

{{abbr|c.|circa}} gives c. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

COI

Do I need to state a COI?<br>

I am a small business owner in the US. I don't have anything online about me & I serve only one small town. I do lawn mowing and snow removal.<br>

I was not sure if it was enough to require a COI statement. At this point I have not found a article that would need me to state COI, but wanted to check before I found one. <br> Thank you if you answer! Sheriff U3 talk 08:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless you intend to edit about your business or its competitors, you don't seem to have a COI. COIs only need to be declared if relevant to your editing. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you for answering. Sheriff U3 talk 17:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia truested platform form,?

My ducoments saved from Wikipedia? Ali 8613526 (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not clear on what it is you are asking. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ali 8613526. Because anyone can edit Wikipedia it cannot be trusted. See Reliability of Wikipedia. You may not save your documents on Wikipedia. That is not the WP:Purpose of Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

New article - redirection problem

Hi, i want to create an article for the traid fair "Venus Berlin". Unfortunately there is an existing article for the award-show for this traid fair (Venus Award) and under the name "Venus Berlin" there is a redirection. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venus_Berlin&redirect=no) How can i create the article "Venus Berlin" despite the existing redirection? Bildersindtoll (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bildersindtoll: - you can work up the new article in your sandbox. When it is in a fit state to publish, copy over to the Venus Berlin redirect page (editing that page), and add a hatnote pointing to the current target. Mjroots (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The sandbox variant sounds good, but how exactly does it work with the hatnote? Bildersindtoll (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bildersindtoll: Hatnote could be something like

This page is about the trade fair. For the festival, see Venus Award.

Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Or, create and submit your Draft via the Wikipedia:Articles for creation route. When it's approved by the Assessor, it will be their job to sort out these issues (which you can flag up in the Draft's Talk page). As that linked Project page says, new or unregistered editors have to use this route, but any other editor is free to do so if they choose. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the preferred Bible translation on Wikipedia when quoting Bible verses?

I'm not sure if there are any past RfCs which established consensus on this. I can think of a few which are commonly used and the reasons which they might be used:

NIV - most popular version in the US, general-purpose translation, pretty much "the Google of Bible translations"
NRSV - popular version with scholars
KJV - iconic historical translation and public domain in most countries, thus allowing commercial use and avoiding any copyright issues, but has archaic English and based on less accurate manuscripts compared to modern translations
NASB - most literal translation
ESV - good balance between NASB and NIV

Which one am I supposed to be using when writing Wikipedia articles about biblical subjects? I personally use NIV the most in my own life, although I've used NASB a couple of times for a few essays in high school where I wanted to explain the original meaning as closely as possible while still using English, because everyone said that is the most literal translation. My English teacher in high school also occasionally used ESV. I rarely use KJV and NRSV. Félix An (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Articles about biblical subjects are supposed to be based on secondary reliable sources. If and when a quote from the Bible itself is necessary, it would generally be best to quote from the translation that the source itself references, I'd have thought. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't be making decisions as to a 'preferred translation', given how contentious that can clearly be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Félix An Just to add that the Bible is not considered a reliable source on which to base any Wikipedia content. See Wikipedia:RSPSCRIPTURE. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Félix An, there is no "established" version. See Template:Bibleverse which lets us link to online versions when used as a reference. The template has a long list of available versions. See the Jonah article for multiple examples. When it comes to meaning, however, and proper translation, then use a reliable secondary source and attribute the meaning or explanation to that. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Why wikipedia is biased

Not an issue for Help desk. Referred elsewhere

 – --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Gl 2409:40E5:7:14AA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You might be interested to read Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a faster way to cite resources?

I'd like to add references to wikipedia articles as efficiently as possible.

For example, today I added the first reference to this page: Secure multi-party computation the whole process took about 15 minutes, with most of that being typesetting and correct errors in my data in the reference template.

Are there any guides on inserting reference rapidly? (of course I will still be copy-editing whatever a tool would generate!) Yoderj (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yoderj, from your contributions it looks like you are using the 2010 source editor, where Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0 is available to you. You could also switch to WP:VisualEditor for adding references (see Help:VisualEditor § Adding a new reference), then switch back again, or try your luck with WP:reFill. Rummskartoffel 17:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I really enjoyed the Visual Editor when it came out some time back, but forgot about it. It's nice to be using it again. And it's great for adding Arxiv citations with the automatic feature of the new editor! Yoderj (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I use Visual Editor it for references and links, but then switch to the Source Editor for everything else. Sheriff U3 talk 04:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

[C]opy-editing whatever a tool would generate is a great start, but automated references must also be checked for errors and completeness. Publishers with structured metadata (like those of academic journals) typically end up with correct and complete citations, but most websites will contain errors or omissions due to how the citation tools scrape the source pages. Even sites like google books, worldcat, and Internet Archive will often have errors like duplicated authors, editors attributed as authors, book digitizer attributed as publisher, etc.

That said, switching in and out of the Visual Editor to generate a citation to edit is a great way to get started without typing all the syntax every time, and will not often produce template errors. Folly Mox (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh right also see Help:Citation tools Folly Mox (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes! There are some great tools on that page. I find that Citer specifically allows for decently speedy citing of certain kinds of references and has sped up my work creating citations quite a lot. Jessamyn (my talk page) 22:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is autoconfirmed displayed differently than extended confirmed at Special:ListUsers?

At Special:ListUsers it says The automatically assigned autoconfirmed user right is not displayed here [...] But it does show the extended confirmed. Both rights are automatically assigned after some number of edits and account age. Why is autoconfirmed excluded from the ListUsers page but ExtendedConfirmed it not? RudolfRed (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Autoconfirmed is not a fixed property. It's not stored with the account but checked each time it's required. Somebody who was autoconfirmed at a past action may not always be. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM. A wiki can also change the current requirements for autoconfirmation. wgAutoConfirmAge and wgAutoConfirmCount are set for Wikimedia wikis in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

October 20

Photo Stretching

Quick question. I recently cropped the photo of Dan Hurley for his article. It appears to be stretched vertically on the infobox, but it is not stretched according to the Wikipedia Commons page (see [1]). Why is this? - RockinJack18 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

RockinJack18, I see no stretching on an Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G smartphone using the desktop site. The photo looks normal to me. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it was updated, thanks for checking! - RockinJack18 05:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@RockinJack18: You asked why it happened so here is the technical explanation. When an Internet page contains an image, the page can optionally specify a display height and width of the image, even if it's the same as the actual image file. It helps the browser reserve the right space for the image so other content isn't shuffled around when the image is read later and the browser discovers the size. MediaWiki automatically does this. If a new version of an image is uploaded, the height-width ratio may change. MediaWiki sometimes has a delay in updating the specified size in pages using the image (or a page version with the old size may be cached by your browser). Then the browser will stretch the image to satisfy the specified size. It's possible (not sure) that purging the page will help. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, thank you for the explanation! - RockinJack18 22:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk page: manual archiving

Is it allowed to manual archive a talk page without using a bot? 14.0.158.69 (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. See Help:Archiving a talk page#Manual archiving for details. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Your question isn't actually germaine to what it is you are trying to do. If you feel the archiving for the One Direction talk page should be changed in some way, please discuss that first. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw the WP:TP On talk pages that generate significant amounts of discussion, old discussions are often archived to keep the size of the talk page at a manageable level. This may be done either manually or with the help of a bot. An archive box with links to the discussion archives is normally placed at the top of the current talk page.

but people keeps undo my manual archive even the talk page has a unmanageable level of old discussions. what should i do? 14.0.158.69 (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said, you need to discuss it, especially when others seem to disagree. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Talk:One Direction § Other content removal. Folly Mox (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong link

Hello in this wikipedia page Carnatic music

there is an incorrect link - List of Carnatic music festivals. It is a circular link i.e., it brings you back to the main page Carnatic music.

This must be changed. It is fine to point it to "List of Indian classical music festivals".

Can you please do it ?

thanks Raman Ramanp75 (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ramanp75, fixed. Folly Mox (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No untuk buka spam

Help me to open wasap and call 27.125.249.77 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This Help Desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. We can't help you with anything else. RudolfRed (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Admin Help

I am needing a Admin to join in a topic.
There is a person that has reverted a edit, and I am wanting a Admin to join due to:

1. This person has a history of Edit Wars.
2. This person has a history of reverting Edits.
3. This person has not given a reason for reverting the edit.
4. This person has a history of not giving a reason for the revert.

With this in mind I would like a second opinion from a Admin.
The topic is Postage Paid Thank you. Sheriff U3 talk 21:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sheriff U3: This is the wrong venue to ask for admin help. Use one of the appropriate administrator noticeboards like WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you for informing me. I will post this there then. Sheriff U3 talk 22:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

After the edits were made, Postage Paid was converted to a redirect to Mail#Payment.   Maproom (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how to edit Alan_Alda

In the page for Alan Alda, immediately after where it says "The following is a list of M*A*S*H episodes written and/or directed by Alda." there appears to be just a blank space on the page, the actual list is not visible (at least not to me). There is some information that is visible when I edit that section -- I have no idea what to do to make it appear.

PS: I have not edited this article at all, I just happened to have noticed this issue as I was reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpearl (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

22:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Morris (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you not see a "[show]" button? —Tamfang (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mpearl: I see a box with "Season | Episode | Credit [show]" at Alan Alda#Writing and directing credits. "show" is below "H" in M*A*S*H for me. Do you see it at [2] or if you log out? Clicking "show" expands a table. Can you click below "H"? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mpearl: The table contents are hidden by default, contrary to MOS:DONTHIDE. I've fixed that (and the minor MOS:SLASH in the preceding paragraph). Bazza 7 (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

October 21

Alex Breingan

Hello there. I am wondering if any editors can help assist. I think I wrote this in the wrong forum before. I am very familiar with this story due to the coverage here in New Zealand. An editor who is closely linked to the subject has shared a fair statement on the emotional stress that this Alex Breingan has brought to the subject here [3].

Upon looking at the article itself, every single note about the financial issues and legal issues are cited from just one reporter. This is not giving it a neutral POV at all as per the rules with Wikipedia. The only other reporter out of the section talked about a website that was setup and questioned here [4] and about the recievership issues [5] but every single else source is from a single reporter under the Media Insider section of the NZ Herald. This needs to be adjusted and fixed so it's neutral. It's not fair on the subject with a single reporter writing these articles which the subject hasn't even talked back about them being true or not. It's a horrible way of writing without any balance.

The comment earlier claims that they aren't true, alot of the facts. Thank you. Can any experienced editors go and take a look at this? The friend of the subject has asked if the article can be deleted. If this is an option, can this happen? Thank you. It's just very unbalanced, the entire article and shouldn't be mostly cited from one single reporter. The New Zealand Investigation section should be cited from the source of the people doing the investigation, not from a reporter who is reporting everything about the subject. And the furniture purchases is completely a civil issue, not related to his company.

Another editor replied to where I posted this earlier [Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alex Breingan] and said:

It's definitely a crappy article (which are legion on Wkipedia), with the financial/legal issues over-emphasized, overly-detailed (WP:VNOTSUFF) and written in pedantic Wikipedia:Proseline, as if every single news article warrants a new paragraph. The section should be consolidated into a couple paragraphs, to summarize without being so tedious, although some will probably scream "whitewashing!!!". --Animalparty!

Can any admins go through please and clean up this article? This is not good faith at all for the subject. Seems more of an attack page on the subject. Thank you.

MonkeyMonkeyHere (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Looks like it's being resolved through a deletion nomination and the other help desk. Thank you! MonkeyMonkeyHere (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing a presentation

Would it be acceptable to cite a presentation to back up an extraordinary claim? The presentation can't be found in its original form online however was created by a reliable source, likely still exists on their servers, and the claim can be backed up by a Twitter post, which contains a still from the presentation. It's a lot of additional clauses, I know. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Wikipedia content must be published. The presentation can't be found in its original form online [so, nope] however was created by a reliable source [sez who?], likely still exists on their servers ["likely" doesn't count], and the claim can be backed up by a Twitter post, which contains a still from the presentation [a Twitter post is again not gonna cut it]. Nope, nope, nope, no way. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Queen Mary of Denmark

I have just added a "Commons" file - all wrong. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Domain_House_Hobart_20171119-013.jpg#%7B%7Bint%3Afiledesc%7D%7D

Sorry. Please add the caption: "Queen Mary graduated from the University of Tasmania in 1995"

Thanks 115.70.23.77 (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Srbernadette: Please read Help:Pictures. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I delete an authorized amin and set mine

How do I delete an authorized amin and set mine 6mile722 (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

What is 'an unauthorised amin'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Which amin do you wish to delete and why? Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Page move headers

I started a Page Move discussion here. Another editor who strongly opposes my suggested title has now added his/her own preferred title to the move header as a second "alternative" suggestion. Tinkering with a move header like this seems WP:POINTY to me, but I can't find anything in WP policy that specifically addresses this. Muzilon (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding a direct link to the page move discussion for Larnoch Road murders for improved blind accessibility. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect deleted category?

Category:Pages with accessibility problems was recently deleted as overlapping Category:Accessibility issue tracking categories but no redirect was created. I was thinking to add such a redirect, since it might help anyone who might have bookmarked the deleted category get to the kept one. I'm guessing the fact that one wasn't created implies that might not be a good idea.

Is there a good reason not to create such a redirect for a deleted category? Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 13 § Category:Pages with accessibility problems.

Thisisnotatest, guidance is at WP:CATRED, with a user essay at Wikipedia:Category redirects that should be kept. Category redirects are Soft redirects, and watchlisting redirects doesn't show changes to the redirect target (also watchlisting a category doesn't show changes in membership).

My phone somehow ate the second half of this reply, but a redirect is not needed. Per Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Pages with accessibility problems, three projectspace pages associated with WikiProject Disability may need to be updated to link the surviving category, but that's the last step I think. Folly Mox (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Folly Mox, thank you. After checking those pages, it appears no further action is needed. Anyway, glad I asked. Thisisnotatest (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

geography

where was DIAL SQUARE IN THE UK? 2A02:C7C:36B2:8400:4CD3:B10D:FD13:5BEB (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

See Dial Square F.C.. PS: wrong venue; you want the Reference Desk. SerialNumber54129 12:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

But to complete the trail of breadcrumbs, the original Dial Square was an area of workshops within the Royal Arsenal. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid foul language... SerialNumber54129 12:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As a Leyton Orient supporter, I feel your pain. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge archives?

Hi, is it possible to merge the archives of two articles? SerialNumber54129 12:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:Histmerges are possible in any namespace, but the method I've seen in the past is leaving the merged articles' talkpage archives at separate subpage titles. In this case Talk:Cheese dream has no content, so can be redirected without histmerge. Folly Mox (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: Ah, right; although it has no content is because I already archived it? SerialNumber54129 12:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see: Talk:Cheese dream/Archive 1 was not listed in an {{archives}} on Talk:Cheese dream, so I didn't see it. Also, I was wrong about the talkpage anyway: it transcludes {{DYK talk}}.

For my somewhat recent experience with this type of thing, you can see how it was handled at Help talk:Your first article/Archive 4. The upside to this is that talkpage threads referring to a specific article title are sequestered from one another; the downside is that users' contribs will appear to have been made directly to the archive (since it is a move target rather than copypasted by an archive bot).

I don't really feel like doing a thorough examination of Talk:Cheese dream/Archive 1 to see whether it would make sense to histmerge the talkpage archives, but I note after a brief naive search that as of eight years ago, the vibe seems to have been talkpages of merged articles usually don't get merged. Folly Mox (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Folly Mox, I'll leave it then. Gotta feeling I've messed something up somewhere, so probably best to leave well alone  :) Cheers! SerialNumber54129 12:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Save Page Now on Wayback Machine

Twitter postings from Internet Archive state that Wayback Machine is now up and running. However, I still cannot Save Page Now. Is it still down after the cyberattack? Thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tfhentz: It's in read-only mode. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

why are you letting everyone to edit?

wikipedia was about collecting moderate information but how is it legal to let anyone edit sources and history without knowing the intention of the edit? such as erasing a group's people history, culture and dehumanize them with biased or no-moderate information from extreme people. I have seen this happening since the BDS movement, when cancel colture has been spreading lies about israelis and jews. I've seen this been manipulated to try and brainwash the world that "palestine was created a million years ago" when you search in google for "when palestine was created" (you won't see it anymore but surely sen it in tiktok and such but if you were smart you would see there was a manipulation of an article saying that "there was a find of homosapian body in a 'palesinian territory'" to monopolize the google search) I've seen endless erasing and changes of jewish history just to try and erasing jew's connection to their home for YEARS and its happening with Oct 7th and Zionism as well. you can also see the difference when you change the language.

this manipulation is part of a destruction and the rise of antisemitism is the results. (no, if you think zionism is not part of jews and you "don't hate jews" for critisizing ONLY israel and not terrorist groups, then you are brainwashed already) seeing how many kids who don't have the ability for a critical mind use thise site for their "H.W.",perhaps you need to stop allowing everyone to monopolize the information like that? Grisimmm (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We have two articles: History of Palestine (the geographical entity), and History of the State of Palestine (20th century partition plan) - X201 (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Grisimmm Please read the information I will post on your user talk page. You are not permitted to edit about this topic. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

publish an article that is in my sandbox

Hello, I want to publish an article that is currently in my sandbox, how can I do it? Pauletta Sofia (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia. Articles are written in English. Your sandbox contains an article in Spanish, and thus will not be accepted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

And now you have moved your Spanish article to mainspace in English Wikipedia, where it does not belong. There is no mechanism for moving pages between different Wikipedias, so you should create es:Roberto Garzón Jiménez and then (assuming that your draft satisfies Spanish Wikipedia's policies), copy the source from Roberto Garzón Jiménez into it.

I note that you have uploaded c:Notario Roberto Garzón Jímenez.jpg as "own work", without giving any copyright permission, so the image will get deleted in a few days unless you do so.

I also note that if the photo (and the previous version) are indeed your own work, then you would appear to be associated with Jimenez, and as far as English Wikipedia is concerned you have a conflict of interest. (I don't know what Spanish Wikipedia's policies on this are). ColinFine (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There actually is a mechanism for moving pages between wikis, see WP:IMPORT, but it requires advanced permisssions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

New article on WordPress Vs WPEngine or editing the main WordPress page?

Hi, the recent controversy surrounding WordPress and WPEngine has strong impact on the entire ecosystem and has already started changing the way people use WordPress. This is why I am thinking of creating a separate article on the issue.

I want to know whether - as far as Wikipedia rules are concerned - creating a new page on this topic is legit or not.

Thanks. ParallelDimension (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The dispute is covered by reliable sources. My suggestion is to create a neutral well-referenced section about it at WordPress. If that section grows too long, that would be the time to create a spin-off article. Frankly, since you are a new editor, it would be very difficult for you to successfully create a freestanding article about a dispute between two tech companies. Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

To add to Cullen's answer: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Initial volunteer editor review not received

 Courtesy link: Draft:Jeremiah Abraham Barondess

I submitted a draft article on "Jeremiah A. Barondess, MD" in late May 2024 and was told that it would be reviewed by one of your volunteer reviewers. I was not expecting a response before four months, but it is now five months later. Could someone check on this matter? Dr. Barondess turned age 100 on June 6th, 2024 and we would like for his article to appear sometime soon. Thanks so much. Gordon DeFriese GHDeFriese (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you created it on your user page here User:GHDeFriese but you have not submitted it for review so nobody will have seen it. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to draft space as this post makes it clear they do want it reviewed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It's submitted for review now, but while we're waiting I'd strongly suggest attaching reliable sources to the text or there is very little chance it will be approved. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@GHDeFriese, please read BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

About extended confirmed

What is the quickest way to obtain WP:XCON status without having to wait for 500 edits? 49.205.80.150 (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no way for a new account to gain extended confirmed status without making 500 productive, useful edits over the course of a month or more. Why are you in a hurry? Cullen328 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There's also no way for an IP user to get it at all, so if this in reference to an account, please sign before continuing this discussion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume you're asking because you want to edit a page that is extended-confirmed protected, so I'll take this moment to warn you that if it looks like you were making a lot of edits simply to get extended confirmed status, that status can and will be revoked. -- asilvering (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to merge versions of an article?

I've recently been dealing with an issue on the article List of string instruments. Basically, an IP user (45.186.112.244) made an edit to a section of the article that introduced a lot of problems, and involved deleting a lot of entries and breaking a lot of links (I'll spare you the details but suffice to say there were a lot of redlinks afterward). A few other users then gradually changed back parts of the section (each edit only fixed a few links at a time), and I cleaned up what remained.

But that still leaves the problem of the deleted entries. I'd love to just revert it, but a lot of those edits afterward also added information (mostly countries of origin) that would be lost if I reverted it back to the version right before the bad edit, and would be cumbersome to add back manually. I'm wondering if there is perhaps a way to merge that version with the current version of the article to fix all the problems that edit caused without sacrificing the info other people added afterwards. I know similar things are possible, like when two people edit an article at the same time, but I don't know if it's possible to do it manually and I don't know if it would even produce the right result. Any other information on how to potentially solve this problem is also welcome.

Best regards, TypoEater (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think what you are proposing would be possible by first doing a history split then doing a selective history merge but I might be wrong about that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

October 22

Secondary sourcing where primary sourcing may be more relevant

If I don't have access to a source to back up a claim, but a reliable source backs up the same claim while citing the original, can that source be used to attribute a fact?

The context is: "[Researcher A] stated that "claim to be attributed here" ([Researcher B])". I don't have access to the source by Researcher B. Both sources are what I'd consider reliable scholarly material and Wikipedia is built on secondary sources, but I'd rather be sure that this claim could be used. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

GeorgeMemulous, I find your question pretty vague but I will try my best to answer. Although use of primary sources is not forbidden, reliable secondary sources are preferred. They are one step removed from the original observation, and can analyze, compare and fact check primary sources. Such secondary sources provide the best source material for Wikipedia editors to summarize. When using a secondary source that discusses and analyzes a primary source, you need to read the secondary source, but it is not necessary that you read the primary source mentioned, although you can do so if you wish. As it were, the author of the secondary source has done that reading for you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

possible article on list of suppressed views/ideas in the past

hi, do we have an entry on list of suppressed views of the past, or list of suppressed contemporary views. In regards to views that were suppressed historically, , A favorite example is how opposition to germ theory lead to refusals to accept or properly test the ideas of Semmelweis. I can't find any entry for the kind of list that I am describing here. Kaveinthran (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

So you're looking for a list of ideas that were once generally rejected, and are now generally accepted? Like continental drift and the Big Bang? If so, I wouldn't use the word "suppressed". Maproom (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. "suppressed" is a very loaded term. One layperson's "suppressed idea" is a subject-matter expert's "widely ignored and long-refuted disinformation". --Orange Mike | Talk 06:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for that added context, I agree with you. Kaveinthran (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's an area that could easily led to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, so it would be tricky to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)