Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    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? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    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. Just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

    User talk:40.79.46.64
    User talk:Alexsoyoye
    User talk:Maramapa

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think if you gave a specific example it would help. The synthesis policy says you can't state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If you combined population data in a chart from an 1880-1927 source and a different 1928-2024 source I am not sure that would imply a conclusion. Or a map with 1980s shipping routes and 2010s shipping routes. You should cite your sources regardless. Commander Keane (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm specifically thinking of making a map of cities within the Chicago metropolitan area and neighborhoods of Chicago that have been struck by a tornado (Draft:Tornadoes in Chicago). Such media doesn't exist currently anywhere but can be sourced to official records in the body of the article which is what I was planning on doing. Departure– (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Departure–: I am rather liberal with these things, so I don't see a huge problem. If it gets rejected from the article, it can still live on Wikimedia Commons. If you are just showing the F4s and F5 clearly labelled it may better than dotting a map with every occurrence recorded. I am not sure if you have exact coordinates of stikes or you are going to shade neighbourhoods. It may get into the realm of original research if you are making too many decisions for the viewer, so a second opinion would be good if you are going to lose a lot of time doing it. Windy city hey? Who knew. Commander Keane (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Touchdown points, termination coordinates, and places explicitly sourced in the article, that's what I plan. Making the map itself might be a bit harder. Departure– (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Departure–, I always include the sources for data similar to that of your context in the image file itself -- often in a box below. That way, the sources are unambiguously external and secondary (i.e. I'm just gathering them together in a visual form, fully citing them). They won't be amended or deleted in error by others, and I don't need to divert the reader's attention in the body text by writing narrative intended only to hang the citation footnotes on. See here, for example, used in this article. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 12:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SCHolar44 Your example is contrary to the manual of style for images, which says that textual information should always be transmitted as text, rather than in an image. True text can be easily searched, selected, copied, and manipulated by readers...: see MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment. I should have mentioned that caveat. In the example I gave, the textual information related only to the sources of data that informed the preparation of the diagram. As such, they will not change, nor should they be changed; and they do not need to be searched. I suspect that when editors decided on the wording of MOS:TEXTASIMAGES they may not have envisaged this particular narrow context. But "Rules are for the guidance of the wise ...", no? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 10:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How to apply CSS styling for dark mode users only?

    I am writing Wikipedia scripts, and I’m struggling to find a clean, simple way to apply specific CSS rules only for users viewing the page in dark mode—whether as a result of their Wikipedia appearance preference being explicitly set to "Dark", or because their OS is in dark mode while their appearance preference is set to "Automatic".

    The only working "solution" I’ve managed to implement so far is this: 

    @media screen and (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    html.skin-theme-clientpref-os {
        /* Styles defined here will apply only to dark mode users. */
    }
}

html.skin-theme-clientpref-night {
    /* Styles defined here will also apply only to dark mode users. */
    /* These must be EXACTLY the same styles as above, leading to messy duplication! */
}

    As you can see, this is not a practical solution, as it forces me to duplicate every single dark-mode-only CSS rule for two distinct scenarios:

    1. The user’s OS is set to dark mode, and their Wikipedia appearance preference is set to "Automatic";
    2. The user’s Wikipedia appearance preference is explicitly set to "Dark".

    Since the same CSS rules should apply in both cases, manually duplicating them across separate selectors is highly inefficient, especially given the large number of dark-mode-only rules.

    I couldn’t find a simple solution, such as a common "dark-mode" class that applies to the <html> or <body> element for all dark mode users (and only for them).

    Any help would be greatly appreciated! :) Guycn2 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a direct answer to your question sadly, but the folks at WP:Village pump (technical) will probably be your best shot at answering it. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 13:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Random Book Cite Errors for ISBN Date Incompatibility

    Discussion continues, at length, at Help talk:Citation Style 1#ISBN / Date incompatibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The following "ISBN / Date incompatibility" editor error messages just appeared in the article I was planning to make edits to (see top of this article). From my knowledge, this part of the article was not touched. Previously, a similar problem arose from an unrelated page related to server-side coding with the tag itself. Can someone look through these two book references and see what went wrong? I do not know enough about ISBNs to know why an ISBN date incompatibility would arise. Alternatively, let me know if this is another server-side problem. The references were as follows:

    ERRONEOUS CODE REMOVED

    I am keen to resolve this problem, as I am just to make a major change to the article, and it would be nice to have this current problem remedied as well in the same edit. Thank in advance for the time taken to look at this problem.SMargan (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The publication dates given, 1961 and 1913, are before the first version of the ISBN standard. However, it is possible to obtain an ISBN for an older work if the publisher wishes to do so. Maybe the editors who added these read books that were printed and sold near the publication dates, and didn't have ISBNs; some later editor added them. If so, I would remove the ISBNs.
    It's also possible that the editor who added the citations read later printings of the books, that did have ISBNs. Since reprintings have the same contents and same page numbering as the first printing, the publication dates would be correct, as would including the ISBNs. If this is what happened, just ignore the messages, they are false alarms.

    You may be able to figure out which scenario is true by looking at the edit history, and perhaps asking the editor who originally added the citations.

    This message is being discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc3s5h (talk) - So what should I do to make the "ISBN - Date Incompatability" error message go away? ... Should I remove the ISBN for those works, or just leave the error messages in the article? They were no there last week, and no one has altered those particular references since last week, so it cannot be due to the original editor that added those book references. Thanks in advance for the time taken to give further advice on the way forward.SMargan (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just leave the error message. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find the date of the printing that has the ISBN, then use that in |date= and put the original date/year in |orig-date=. -- Verbarson  talkedits 22:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's wrong, and that's polluting the citation with false information. In the case of the citation to Falkener, the publication date is 1961 and the original date is 1892. The orig-date is for more substantial differences than just reprinting by the same publisher. For example, if the original was written 1000 years ago and has been copied by a succession of scribes until a modern printed version was produced. The parameter could have been used in our article "The Reckoning of Time", but that article does not use citation templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    -- Verbarson  (talk) & Jc3s5h (talk) - Thanks for the assistance I was given. That, combined with my own research, means that I know much more about ISBN, ISBN-10, and ISBN-13, than I did before. By way of closure, by fixing an error in the date in one (original date was erroneously used instead of the reprint), and exchanging the editions for more current editions, I eventually did get the editor's error warnings removed, whilst still retaining the ISBN numbers. Thanks once again for you time in helping find a solution to this problem! You guys have been a great help.SMargan (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here was this finished product. [Note: I have removed the prior version so that you can see that this new version does not produce the prior editor's wanring error.]
    • Falkener, Edward (2020) [1892]. Games Ancient and Oriental and How to Play Them. Dover Publications Inc. ISBN 978-93-5415-754-7. Archived from the original on 1 December 2015. Retrieved 21 July 2017.
    • Murray, Harold James Ruthven (2007) [1913]. A History of Chess (Reissued ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-827403-2.
    • Murray, Harold James Ruthven (1978). A History of Board-Games other than Chess (Reissued ed.). Hacker Art Books Inc. ISBN 978-0-87817-211-5.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMargan (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Falkner citation appears wrong because copies in reliable archives such as Google Books and Internet Archive are cited the same way the original would be cited. Optionally, the |via parameter may be used to indicate an electronic source. SMargan, please state what version you read to add information to a Wikipedia article; that is the version you should be citing.

    The accuracy of the second citation, for Murray, can't be assessed without knowing what version the editor who added the citation read, and whether the reissue by Oxford University Press changed anything or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jc3s5h (talk) - Thanks also for these words of caution. I will examine these references again and fine tune them before readding them into the article. These references were in the general reference section, not correlated to any specific content. I believe that the article itself had previously received a prior warning of too many general references. Since that time a large number of specific 'inline citations' were added to evidence the content. Indeed, the edits I am soon to publish will increase this Wikipedia article's reliance on specific 'inline citation' references to evidence each fact. Due to this article's current, and future, heavy reliance of specific 'inline citations', the exact editions of these generic texts on the topic might have less import. I will make sure that I get your advice on the resultant Wikipedia article once my edits are published, which should be quite soon.SMargan (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Suppress red cite error message "Help:CS1_errors#invalid_isbn_date

    Some citation bot is adding error messages into the Featured article Margaret Sanger . The two cite error messages are: cite book: ISBN / Date incompatibility The help link for that error is: Help:CS1_errors#invalid_isbn_date.

    The existing cites that produce that error are are actually pretty accurate: the book was published in 1917, but it was reprinted around 1980 (with an ISBN). The 1980 reprint is NOT a new edition. So there is no way to "fix" the cite and make the error go away. Is there a way to disable that red error message for the entire article? or for a single citation? Noleander (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See the section above this one. It isn't a bot. It's some sort of change to the citation template apparatus, although I don't know exactly which change is causing this. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Newby

    Writing an article on The Comic Book Makers. TCBMs is an eyewitness account of the Golden and Silver Age of comics by one of its creators. It's in Draft waiting to be reviewed. Is there anything I can do to speed up the review so it can go into mainspace? I think it needs a category under books about comics. Interested in hearing advice. Thanks. HarvResearch (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For Draft:The Comic Book Makers, cite actual reviews of the work, or perhaps articles about it that treat it in some depth and aren't based on interviews. As for categorization, Category:Books about comics is already specified for it; why would the book need a category under this? -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. HarvResearch (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    RE your comment: "For Draft:The Comic Book Makers, cite actual reviews of the work, or perhaps articles about it that treat it in some depth and aren't based on interviews." In fact, I have been sourcing for "articles that treat it in some depth." What I have found, and suspected in my research on comic writers and espec writers on the history of comics, is there is little "depth" coverage of this subject, esp regarding books or writings on history of comics. Further, I've found this book is one of the first and few books on the subject as an eyewitness account of the history of comics. It was published quite a bit of time ago which makes it harder to research. But it is an important book on the subject of someone who lived and worked in the gold and silver age of comics so it is important to comic history. HarvResearch (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "little "depth" coverage of this subject" is a clear indication that the topic is not notable in Wikipedia terms, we need to see significant coverage of the topic in reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    HarvResearch, I'm pretty much a comics ignoramus, but a bit of web-searching shows me rather a lot of books about "comics" (which usually seems to mean comics from the US). I notice that Rutgers UP has even put out Comics Studies: A Guidebook; perhaps other publishers too have put out guides to studying comics. I imagine that there are academic journals about comics, and certainly there's The (non-academic) Comics Journal. No good coverage, or pointers to good coverage, in any of these? -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your follow up and I will check out the resource you noted. HarvResearch (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found references to the book in a thesis paper published by MSU Libraries Digital Collections. Is something like this an acceptable source? HarvResearch (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean a dissertation made available via Michigan/Montana/Moscow State U's "Digital Collections", please see "Dissertations", under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship. -- Hoary (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit did not appear constructive

    Hi, I wanted to ask question about one of my edits being reverted due to not being constructive. The question I wanted to ask is why specifically was it reverted, and what should be changed for it to be constructive edit. Thanks :) Xrup69 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You could ask the person who reverted it, [1]? I am sure they wouldn't mind you asking on their talk page, Catalyzzt (talk · contribs). Knitsey (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked on my talk page where they left me a message, but then I saw that they mentioned this page. Gonna need to wait a bit I guess. Xrup69 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would guess that it was reverted because you changed chronological order to an unexplained and unsourced "most influential" ranking; that is pretty definitive as an example of non-constructive editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    well the reverted change was a different one so idk Xrup69 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But yes, I agree that the change in chronological order was unsourced and not constructive, so I have no problem with it being reverted. My problem is other edits that are sourced were reverted. Xrup69 (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If a single edit contains a set of several different changes, some of which are problematic, it might be too difficult for someone else to undo just one part of the change. If a single edit makes a total change of formatting or organization, it might be too difficult to even recognize that there are also small content-changes that might be ok. It's easy to look at a major problem and say "there is a major problem, go back and try again", which gives you the opportunity to focus on one type of change at a time. DMacks (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit that changed chronological order changed just that, they reverted changes before that that had nothing to do with the order. Xrup69 (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, looking at every part of the history of the edits here, I suspect the other editor saw an edit with which they disagreed (for whatever reason) and possibly used the tool that undoes the whole set of recent edits by the editor who made that one (rather than just the most recent edit). Or they looked at the whole set of those recent edits together (in case each one was a confusing step towards an overall result they liked) and did not realize that only the last step was a problem. Or they really disagreed with all the edits. There's no way to know until they respond. DMacks (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They still did not revert it or write the reason. I assume they made a mistake and I would like to work on the page a bit so I wanted to ask if someone could revert it to the state it was before I changed the chronological order. Xrup69 (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    CCI revdel

    At CCI, at what point to I need to request a revdel? For example, this diff is a copyvio, but fairly small. Does it qualify for revdel or should is it not worth the bother? Thanks. Cremastra talk 20:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tropes

    A Trope (literature) is a narrative event that happens in several works of fiction, in similar ways. For example, the happy ending, the damsel in distress, the team-up, etc. There are also political tropes, basic ideas that politicians usually make mention to.

    Should Category:Political tropes be a subcategory of Category:Tropes by type, or are they unrelated concepts despite the similar names? I'm asking here and not the articles' talk pages because they are both obscure articles that very few view or edit, and the question would surely go unnoticed. Cambalachero (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cambalachero: Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Killing of Austin Metcalf

    The name of the minor accused of the Killing of Austin Metcalf keeps getting added to multiple locations on Wikpedia. It has been reported at WP:BLPN, but keeps getting added. Is there a way in which we can escalate this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jax 0677: Ask for page protection at WP:RfPP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Defunct work groups on WikiProject talk page templates

    Back in January 2025, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball was marked as defunct. However, the note about an article being supported by said work group still appears in the {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} banners on relevant Dragon Ball-related talk pages such as Talk:Dragon Ball Z and Talk:List of Dragon Ball Z Kai episodes.

    Given that, where can I discuss the matter on obtaining a consensus to remove any defunct task force/work group pages on talk page banners, including the work group I mentioned above? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga..... As it seems to be recently active. Moxy🍁 02:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started up a discussion there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#What to do with defunct anime projects?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pie chart percentages

    How do we change the pie charts values on Religion in the United Kingdom to only show the percentages? Currently the same values are stated twice unnecessarily, which I'm afraid may confuse readers. On Template:Pie chart it shows an example for "Religion in the Czech Republic in 2001." in the section "More examples". I'm looking for the pie charts in Religion in the United Kingdom to replicate that pie chart, showing only the percentages but I can't work out the difference between that one and the ones on Religion in the United Kingdom. Any help would be very much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Helper201: The numbers in Religion in the United Kingdom add up to 100.1. It's common to miss 100.0 if the source just rounds each number individually and doesn't make a final adjustment to hit 100.0. ValueN at Template:Pie chart#Enumerated values says: "Values that add up to more than 100 will be scaled down automatically." This can apparently not be disabled. Notice how some numbers are slightly different like "Not stated 6 (5.99%)". The scaling still misses 100.0 as sum so it also lacks a final adjustment. I suggest to quietly reduce one of the numbers by 0.1, e.g. "No religion" which is a large number where it makes little difference, and it doesn't mess with actual religions which may be more controversial. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC) .[reply]
    @PrimeHunter: thank you for the response and the explanation. I think changing the statistics, even if it’s in a very minor way would still be a violation of WP:SYNTH, so I'll leave it alone. It’s better that the information looks messy but be factually correct than any editor changing information to something the source does not say and is factually inaccurate. Helper201 (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Helper201: I see you point but think "6 (5.99%)" is worse. It doesn't even say that 6 is a percentage. It could have been a count like 6 people from a survey or 6 million from a whole census. I have posted a suggestion at Template talk:Pie chart#Allow percentage sum slightly above 100. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    What's up with Section level 4 text formatting?

    Why does ====Section title==== completely reformat the following section's font, font size, background color and add a surrounding box? Causing people to manually format such fourth level sections to overcome that (bizarre IMHO) mandatory formatting. - Dough34 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My hypothesis is that the folks designing the interface don't approve of formatting which is that deeply nested, like ({[(this many nested parentheses)}]). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing that. I just created a fourth level heading in my sandbox, and the formatting is normal. ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! As Primehunter suggested a leading space was the problem. It never entered my mind that a single space would make such a major formatting change. - Dough34 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does a leading space do this? I frequently see it causing problems in articles by new editors, and almost never see it serving a useful function. Cremastra talk 20:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cremastra: A leading space is an alternative syntax in MediaWiki for the HTML <pre> tag. Considering how easily it can be made by mistake and how rarely you actually want it, I think it's a poor syntax choice. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dough34: I don't see it. Please always give a link or example when you report something. I guess you looked at a specific page where the special formatting is caused by something unrelated, maybe a leading space like my reply here. PrimeHunter (talk)

    Fourth-level header

    just so we can see an example. Maproom (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Level 5 header

    Maproom's level 4 header looks just as it should to me. This text is under a level 5 header. Note that at some point, the font stops getting smaller or less bold the deeper you go, because you wouldn't be able to see it anymore. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Naming conventions for television?

    See for example

    Which do you prefer for naming? WP:NCTV has been cited but it doesn't say directly. RanDom 404 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, @RanDom 404
    I suggest the best place to reach consensus on this is WT:NCTV, perhaps putting a note in WT:TV pointing to the discussion. ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disable suggest bot

    Resolved
     – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 06:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello all! It's been a while since most of you have last seen me do any editing, however I am pretty much fully retired from Wikipedia at this point (not 100% retired as I will occasionally still do editing here and there). Since I do still use Wikipedia like most people would (just browsing) it gets annoying when I get this banner and notification that someone has said something on my talk page and it's simply just suggest bot or The Signpost. I've already taken myself off the mailing list for The Signpost, but I don't quite know how to get suggestbot to stop posting to my talk page. Could someone please help me in doing so? ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 02:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove the User:SuggestBot/config block from your user-talkpage. DMacks (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Subsection compliant with sources?

    Hey everyone, I recently restored a subsection which I deemed compliant with WP:PRIMARY and NPOV by using in-text attribution, but I am still unsure regarding several aspects. My first concern is the aforementioned concern about compliance with the policy on primary sources and neutral point of view, but I am also concerned the name subsection disproportionately big against the Musical style and lyrics subsection. Any advice would be highly appreciated, thanks! —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 04:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Isabella Ford

    Resolved

    Please fix the "date" issue in reference number 13 - I cannot. Sorry and thanks Srbernadette (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done by IP editor here. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 06:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC) Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 06:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cropping borders out of images?

    Hi all,
    Something I've noticed with old photos is that they usually have some sort of border around them, and I was curious if it's permitted to crop them out and only have the main image. The MOS page for images says that cropping is allowed, but only "to focus on the relevant portion". Could I get some insight here?
    Thanks, PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 19:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You can enable the crop tool under preferences on Commons, which makes this really easy. But yes, I've cropped old-timey borders out of a lot of images. GMGtalk 19:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the speedy reply! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 19:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any specific images you would like cropped? If you can not access the tool, I can assist. GGOTCC 21:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How can I tag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voice_Squad as 'no newcomer tasks'?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voice_Squad is just a short article, but it's receiving a disproportionate amount of 'newcomer task' tinkering, and I'd like it to get a rest for a while by tagging it as 'no newcomer tasks', but I don't know how to do that. I'd be grateful if someone could point me to where to learn how to do that, or simply do it themselves if they were in agreement with the idea. Thanks. Iaineditor (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You can use {{no newcomer task}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks! Done. Iaineditor (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iaineditor The newcomer tasks were being driven by the tags still at the top of the article, which have been in place for 12 years. If you are familiar with the topic, perhaps you could review whether the article still needs them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    De facto criteria for adminship

    The only formal requirement to become an administrator is to be extended-confirmed. However, what do most reasonable candidates usually have (edit count, years of experience, article creation, blocks/sanctions, etc.)? Mast303 (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates has some information, including some commentary on the three specific topics you mention. DMacks (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mast303: You can use the tools in {{RfA toolbox}} to get current stats and plug in the user name of recent candidates to get an idea. The block log you will have to look up separately. Usernames Goldsztajn, Giraffer and Sennecaster will get you started. I imagine DMacks' link will be more helpful than stats though. Commander Keane (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Locked out of newspapers.com

    In February of 2024 I lost access to newspapers.com when they made a change. I reported it on Phabricator last April and was told it might not ever get fixed. In November I realized it was, applied, and was given access that should have extended to this November 17. However, I've lost access right around the anniversary of when I reported on Phabricator. This page shows my application to renew access. I've heard NOTHING in the interim and I don't know what to do or where to go. I'm trying to translate an article from a foreign language into English and I need access to newspapers.com to find sources in English. Half a million articles here are flagged as lacking sources, and I RELY on newspapers.com for sources. I'd be so grateful for help... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Oona Wikiwalker: you could ask at meta:Talk:The Wikipedia Library, like you did in November. TSventon (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestions on good article status

    Any suggestions on how I could bring this article to good article status? I want to try and bump this article to a furtherer level. Thanks! Bollardant (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just from a spotcheck, I'll point to MOS:LEDE - remove citations to the body and make sure claims are verified there, changing a few odd sentences such as This event marked Saudi Arabia's first civil aviation history - and adding citations to the section on units stationed at the airport. Departure– (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bollardant Assessment as a good article is a formal process which you have not yet started for Jiddah International Airport (1981), so you need to follow the instructions at WP:GAN and be aware that success can take considerable effort. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1286862621"