Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

May 7

The "Turkish cuisine" page needs a complete overhaul, it's full of all kinds of errors. 151.68.11.81 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to learn of this, but not at all surprised. Many pages need complete overhauls. If you have reliable sources (which of course may be in Turkish) for Turkish cuisine, then fix the mistakes, or as many as your reliable sources and time and energy permit. Be sure to say which reliable source you're using for which correction. If this seems too complex, then instead make specific recommendations in Talk:Turkish cuisine. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6.6 million English language Wikipedia articles and 8 billion humans on the planet. I think that it is safe to say that you are the human being on the planet most interested in improving this particular article at this time. So, go right ahead and get to work. Be sure to explain, with references to reliable sources, how Turkish cuisine differs from Levantine cuisine and Greek cuisine, and more broadly Mediterranean cuisine in general. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: and @Cullen328: I make the observation again: the page on Turkish cuisine is BADLY placed, not so much because of the text, but because of the USE OF ITALICS; italics are used badly (there are so many Turkish-only foods for which italics should be used; the problem is that I don't know which ones need italics and which do not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.171.114 (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you are both (i) certain that "italics are used badly", and (ii) unsure of "which [foods] need italics and which do not". If the problem is that you don't know which criteria to use in order to determine whether italicizing is desirable, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Foreign_terms and the other pages to which this points. If this is obscure, or if the problem is elsewhere, then feel free to ask here (within this thread). -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to bookmark pages within my wiki account and not just on my web browser? Similar to the way that logged in wiki users have a Watchlist, except that is maintains lists of changes and I just want a simple Bookmark feature. Skræling (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skræling: As far as I know the only platform that has something similar to what you're asking for is the mobile app's reading lists. You can also use your watchlist to keep track of pages you manually watch. The entire watchlist can be viewed by clicking on the "View and edit watchlist" link at the top of the watchlist. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skræling: you can also create a subpage of your user page (e.g., User:Skræling/bookmarks) and put links on it. -Arch dude (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I sometimes use watchlist as a bookmark. If you don't put many on for watching for changes, then you can just use it for bookmarks. You can go to the page that has all your watchlist items. Gah4 (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Information0007 (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC) hello, how do I add a citation[reply]

Information0007, are you asking about https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/29621189. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)? If so, you need to add title= 29/621,189 | DES000041-US-DP_D[9]: Vehicle Front Fascia. -- Hoary (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed recently that some wikilinks, such as this one Zucchini (disambiguation), now appear to me in red, even though they're to pages that exist. I've tried changing browser, I've tried changing changing skin, they're still red. Is this a known bug? Maproom (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's orange. Somewhere in your preferences (I've lost it ATM) there is a check box to show disambiguation links in orange. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". Zucchini (disambiguation) is orange for me. Zucchini (no such page) is red. They look quite different to me. The gadget code is:

a.mw-disambig { color: #f17600; }

You can pick another color by disabling the gadget and adding similar code to your CSS. See Web colors for options. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candi_CdeBaca the infobox appears as text in the article, at least in my browser. Does not look right. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone look at how 2_Hearts_(film) complies with WP:PLOT, if it does at all. Thank you. doktorb _words^deeds 13:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particularly well-written (e.g. saying "the film" does this and that) and a bit too detailed for my taste, but otherwise seems okay. What issues are you having with it? (WP:Spoilers are fine.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably been asked already, but is it acceptable to add ChatGPT output to Wikipedia? Let's assume that the content is all stuff whose truth I would verify and that I would provide reliable sources for. Nevertheless, starting my edits with ChatGPT output could significantly accelerate the writing of material which in theory I could write myself, but would otherwise take a lot longer. Are there copyright issues with such output, or any other issues I can't think of? Ar2332 (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LLM for the developing policy on usage of large language models such as ChatGPT. Art the cirrent stage of LLM's, I do not believe using ChatGPT will be significantly faster than writing encyclopedic material the old fashioned way, because a large amount of the time gained by not having to write the material yourself will be spent fixing up the AI output. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To amplify what Victor Schmidt mobil says above: be aware that ChatGTP often synthesises untrue (and even impossible) statements in amongst the correct ones it draws from the internet, and sometimes invents spurious 'references' to corroborate them. Double-checking all of its seemingly plausible output would likely be quite challenging. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when I write a program, I start with one I wrote previously. Then I modify it, such that there might not be any lines from the original left. I suspect that isn't unusual. Maybe starting with ChatGPT output isn't a good way, but maybe it could work. Gah4 (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do if I want to make an article but the naming is difficult. I am wanting to make a article about an event that led to 6 students being hospitalized. At this time it is known a unknown smell caused the event. How should I name the article? Another event would be a fight between a Russian and Ukraine deploy at. How should I name articles if I don’t know how to name them? LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I doubt that either event would meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements for an article. As for naming articles that do, see Wikipedia:Article titles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the school would meet it. It lead to 6 critically injured students being taken to the hospital and the school closes for two days. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, this is a global project. "There was a funny smell down at the high school; doctors looked at six kids and the school closed" is barely notable enough for local coverage, if your kid doesn't go there. There's no hint of an indication that this event is globally notable, unless the kids exposed start turning into lizard people or switching genders or develop superpowers or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LuxembourgLover, the source you linked to does not say that the students were critically injured. Instead, it says that they are in stable condition. Accurately summarizing sources is an essential skill for Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many sources for the event. I just grabbed that one for the question. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no well-known name for an incident, it usually means it's not notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you search old movies? Pedia115 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't see how that is relevant here. Do you have a question about how to use or edit Wikipedia? Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a journalists biography submitted Tarin7767 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't my page accept even after I submit the page with correct reference again and again? Tarin7767 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need so provide independent sources demonstrating in-depth coverage, not citations to the individual's own website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now see if everything is ok.?  If correct please make public and if wrong please let me know Tarin7767 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally NOTHING there that is not cited back to his own website. We don't care what he says about himself. We want to know what the world says about him. If there is no substantive coverage about him in the national and worldwide press, then we are forced to conclude that he's just another of the millions of journalists globally who are not notable enough to merit an article in a worldwide project. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely unlikely although not impossible that a 20 year old journalist would be notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This person is not notable for Wikipedia's purpose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarin7767 has been blocked indefiniyely. Maproom (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to force a navbox to display partially expanded?

My userpage includes {{Userspace linking templates}} navbox for quick reference. My preference is to partially expand the navbox to show the four subcategories headers, but not expand the subcategories.

Is there some trick to do this with WikiText? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BillHPike: I have added state parameters without changing the defaults.[1] You can now call with |state=expanded |state1=collapsed. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: This answer is so helpful that I felt the need to award a barnstar. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created a translation of a Wikipedia article as a draft & the draft does not have a way to submit it. How do I submit it?

The Draft is Draft:Jose Mariano Calderon de San Martin and it has no option to submit the draft.

It is a Translation of The Spanish article José_Mariano_Calderón. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a header that allows you to submit the draft for review when it is ready.

However, it is not ready: Unreliable sources such as Wikipedia are not acceptable. This means that you have just one source (La Prensa Grafica: one dead link and one to the archived version). I was going to say that you can use the sources from es:Jose Mariano Calderon, but you already have. One source is not normally enough to establish notability in English Wikiepdia. ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am still working on the article & was just confused at why the header wasn't there. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PaulGamerBoy360, why is this draft titled "Jose Mariano Calderon de San Martin", and not "José Mariano Calderón y San Martín"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Have fixed that. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating a page for my deceased father who was a member of a popular singing group, as well as performing in several TV shows, movies and commercials. He's written two self-published books, but because they are self-published, I'm told they don't count. A lot of his work was done in the 70's -2000's. He has a IMDb. page with his later work, but the stuff from the 70's, I don't have proof of. I have several newspaper clippings but those newspapers are no longer in circulation. He is on Wikipedia with the other members of the band, but yet he's not "notable" and I don't know how to fix that. Alanastribling (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alanastribling, IMDB is of no use. It doesn't matter at all that a newspaper no longer exists: the New York Herald Tribune, for example, can still be cited. Please choose the three best (most informative) among the newspaper articles, and for each of these three, here (in this thread), specify the author(s) (if named), the article title, the newspaper title, the date, and the page number(s). -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alanastribling. First you need to read about editing with a conflict of interest: you are not forbidden to do so, but it makes it harder, because it is likely to be difficult for you to write neutrally, and you are also likely to put in information because you know it, rather than from the published sources.

Sources do not have to be online, or still in circulation: it is enough that a reader could obtain them, eg from a major library. As long as your clippings have the name and date of the paper, and preferably a page number and an author's name, and as long as they were published by a reputable newspaper, they will be acceptable: see WP:REFB for how to cite them.

You cannot make a subject notable: he either is or isn't, and that depends on whether those sources you have are adequate: that they were reliably published, they were independent of him (not based on interviews or press releases) and they contain significant coverage of him. ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alanastribling, as a general principle, an autobiography is of no value in establishing the notability of its author, because it is not independent of that author. Cullen328 (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

So I've been a long-time editor of the article Fredric Hobbs. You'll note that the lede of this article says "his works are part of the permanent collections of the Museum of Modern Art (New York), the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, and the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco." This quote cites one of Hobbs' obituaries, but I have otherwise been largely unable to verify this claim, as many of these museums don't have complete collection catalogs publicly available. The quote of the obituary is surely sufficient for the claim at the moment, but out of curiosity I reached out to one of the museums (the MOMA in NY) to confirm that Hobbs' work is indeed in their collection. I received the following email from the Film Studies department:

Apr 27, 2023, 12:06 PM

Dear User:mathmitch7,

We do have a 16mm acetate print of Trojan Horse. Robert Blaisdell and Ronald Bostwick are listed as Directors, with Fredric Hobbs cited as Artist. A note cites the source of information as the film credits themselves. As far as I can see, the film has never been exhibited.

I hope this information is helpful to you in your research. Please let me know if I can assist in anything else.

Best,

The Film Study Center

The Celeste Bartos International Film Study Center

Department of Film

The Museum of Modern Art

11 West 53 Street

New York, NY 10019

This appears to at least partially confirm the obituary's claim, and strengthens the article's notability. However, I have no idea how to cite the information that Hobbs' film is in the MOMA, especially because the Film Study Center's collection catalogue is not available to the public, as per their website. The only text I can cite for this fact, at this time, is this email. Is there any way I can cite this? Is this information even worth adding? Does anybody have thoughts? - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 23:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mathmitch7, you say This quote cites one of Hobbs' obituaries, but I have otherwise been largely unable to verify this claim, as many of these museums don't have complete collection catalogs publicly available. The quote of the obituary is surely sufficient for the claim at the moment [...]. I disagree. If the obituary were printed in, say, the NYT, then I might agree; but the cited obituary is this, published via "everloved.com", unsigned, and in no way suggesting to me that it was written by an artist, filmmaker, art/film critic/historian, gallerist, curator, or whatever. (The other sources cited in the article also look more or less dubious.) And private communications can't be cited. -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:RS. Personal correspondence has not been published in a reliable source. It should not be used as a reference. --Jayron32 14:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

I am going to add an infobox to Ubehebe Crater, but it is a volcanic crater, not an impact crater, meaning I probably shouldn't use {{Template:Infobox terrestrial impact site}}. DarkNight0917 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nearby craters, such as the Amboy Crater use Template:Infobox mountain. If you don't think that is suitable, then I suggest you omit any infobox. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your other choice would be to create Template:Infobox volcanic crater if you really think it is needed. Use {{Infobox mountain}} and {{Infobox terrestrial impact site}} as worked examples. -Arch dude (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across an citation that claims its source was published by a certain faculty of a certain university, but without any other information at all. When I followed the link, I found it was a blog site written by a collection of writers with zero background on the writers, and zero publishing details for the website as a whole. In other words, the only thing we know about the website is its title, and the info contained in the citation appears to have been invented. What is the best way to deal with this type of citation? Should it be deleted, or if not what is the best maintenance template to add to it?  Junglenut |Talk  05:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Junglenut, certain aspects of your description above permit two interpretations, so a conscientious response would have to be verbose. Therefore please point to the specific dud citation. -- Hoary (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry about that. The article in question is Polytrichum juniperinum, the citation is #7, the last in the list, which simply states "Thunder Bay, ON, Lakehead University, Faculty of forestry and the forest environment (Producer)", i.e. there is no author name, no publication details. Going to the external link in the citation, we find a page with a small amount of information on the WP article's topic, but there is nothing to say that this is a reliable source. There is no bio for the author, and no publication or bio for the website. The website has a lot of pages on a variety of subjects, written by a lot of different authors with no background information.

Additionally, since posting this question, I've realised that the cited page does not support (at least some of) the statements in the WP article.  Junglenut |Talk  06:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! borealforest.org looks to me like a congeries of mildly interesting stuff lifted from elsewhere, and advertorials. At the foot of the page, we read "Conctact us / Email: marketing[at]shantelllc.com". I opened a "private window" to take a look at shantelllc.com, half expecting to be confronted by (illustrated!) products for erectile dysfunction or whatever. Nothing (to my relief). I guessed that the domain name referred to "Shantel llc", and gurgled Shantel, but nothing obvious came up. Oh, but yes, it did after all. Conclusion: Junk source; delete. -- Hoary (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Junglenut? Fixed. -- Hoary (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I have recently gained extended-confirmed protection and am now able to use the Content Translation Tool (I am also fluent in French). Is there a template of sorts that I can put on my userpage to show other editors that I can do this? I'd rather just do translations and leave the work of determining notability to other editors. Alternatively, is there a way I can either see a category of pages that were poorly machine-translated or pages that have already been determined to need an article in English? Thanks so much! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody fluent in French, JuxtaposedJacob, you'll be unusually well qualified to judge the reliability of the sources identified by the particular French-language article you're thinking of translating. Why "leave the work of determining notability to other editors", when determination (one way or another) is likely to be harder for them than for you, and determination of lack of notability will mean that the work you'd done will be wasted? (And probably wasted in a way that will generate yet more waste, as it may well have to go through the tiresome AfD process, with comments, arguments, misunderstandings of French, corrections to misunderstandings, etc etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JuxtaposedJacob You might want to consider looking through Category:Articles needing translation from French Wikipedia. These are articles which already exist here, but where the French language equivalent contains a significant amount of extra information that could be translated. 192.76.8.90 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Dream SMP has an insanely detailed description of the plot. However, the article on Hypixel has no description at all of gameplay. How are we allowed to give excruciating detail on the Dream SMP and not allowed to give a few sentences on Hypixel's gameplay? When Sataybfaridi ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypixel&diff=prev&oldid=1126220208 ) and SpaceByte ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypixel&diff=prev&oldid=1141196397 ) added more detail they got reverted. superMinecraftL (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@hello world 6: because every statement on wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. sportskeeda and wikihow are not reliable, see this and this. lettherebedarklight晚安 07:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello world 6 (for this your username), editors mustn't add unsourced material and mustn't cite unreliable sources. One of these reversions cited a lack of a source; the other the unreliability of sources. This is clearly stated in the respective edit summaries. (I haven't looked at the accuracy of these summaries.) I can't judge whether the detail in Dream SMP is insane or excruciating -- I find any game description soporific, I regret to say -- but if you do then you are free to argue on Talk:Dream SMP for abridgement or compression. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, could someone correct the title of the amarcord (ensemble) page by changing it to "Amarcord (ensemble)" (uppercase)? JackkBrown (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown all you need to do is remove the {{lowercase|amarcord (ensemble)}} template from the page 192.76.8.90 (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much IP address, done! JackkBrown (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

missing search box 78.150.0.44 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The search box is at top left. Depending on your browser width and zoom level, it may simply appear as a magnifying glass icon. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oversteps redirects to Oversteps (album) even though there is no other article named Oversteps on Wikipedia, nor a disambiguation page, so there is no room for confusion. Other language Wikipedias just use Oversteps as the title with no (album) disambiguator. Why is this? Why not just use Oversteps as the article name? — theki (hit me up) 15:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the article histories. It appears that the article was originally titled just "Oversteps", before it was WP:BOLDly moved to "Oversteps (album)" in 2014. The reason given by the mover was that overstep plural is the basic meaning of oversteps - i.e., a claim that the album isn't the primary topic for the title. As a consequence of this move, the old page title (Oversteps) was left as a redirect to Oversteps (album), and the mover apparently opted not to retarget the redirect to either Overstep or Overstep (disambiguation).

I would recommend doing either of two things at this point. (1) If you agree with the move, I would recommend retargeting the redirect at Oversteps so it points to Overstep (disambiguation) instead. (2) If you feel that the album's article should return to the plain title Oversteps, I would recommend opening a Requested Move discussion on its talk page. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was quite conflicted but I went with the former suggestion of retargeting it to the disambig page. I'll see how it turns out as it doesn't seem like any article uses Oversteps to link to Overstep (with the only use of the plural redirect being used in user pages). Fortunately if someone comes around and disagrees they can always change it. — theki (hit me up) 13:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Je cherche à retrouver la page que j'ai commencé mais hélas impossible de la retrouver ! je ne suis pas assez douée pour créer mon wikipédia ... BebeRoseEvane (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BebeRoseEvane Bonjour. I think you may be looking for fr:Utilisateur:BebeRoseEvane/Brouillon. You have not created a page on the English language Wikipedia.

Je pense que vous cherchez peut-être fr:Utilisateur:BebeRoseEvane/Brouillon. Vous n'avez pas créé de page sur Wikipédia en anglais. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Si vous cherchez la version de ce brouillon du 1. mai, celle que vous avez supprimé, voir https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:BebeRoseEvane/Brouillon&oldid=203873200 . ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that these 3 articles do not follow a NPOV and that they lack reliable secondary sources: Charles Upton (poet) [2], Ziauddin Sardar [3] and Evgeny Mechkasov [4]. As English is not my mother tongue and as, furthermore, I am rather new on WP, would someone be kind enough to intervene in these 3 pages since I can't do it? Thank you, Manamaris (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Charles Upton (poet) for deletion. It does not appear to be about a person for which enough source text exists to support an article. The Ziauddin Sardar article could use some cleanup, but it appears that person is likely notable enough for an article. Many of the sources for Evgeny Nechkasov appear to be in Russian, a language I don't speak, so I have a hard time judging that one. I'll leave it for someone who does to make an assessment. --Jayron32 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manamaris: In the future, you may add {{POV}} or {{primary sources}} to the top of an article and/or detail your concerns on the article's talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GoingBatty. --Manamaris (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When we talk about political parties and politicians it is usually needed for context to define their ideology or political position. Should we use their self-identification when available (interviews, Party platforms, etc), or third party's categorizations?

Self-identification may sound like a primary source, but a man saying "I'm a firm believer of Movementarianism" or a party officially stating "This party endorses the principles and ideas of Movementarianism" would sound like clear-cut things to reference. And besides, this is not info that exists out there like the color of the sky, it's info that originates on that man or party.

And let's say that sources "say" something else. If there is a dispute we should of course mention all sides and their arguments, but if a source is merely adding an adjetive in passing (e.g.: "John Doe is a Xist politician") instead of a full argument over it (e.g.: "John Doe claims to be an Xist, but he's actually a Yist, and those are the reasons..."), is that even a dispute, are such references worth anything? Cambalachero (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Por qué no los dos? Why not write "The party describes itself as X, Y and Z. While they do not describe themselves as such, sources such as A, B, and C describe them as P, Q, and R". There's no reason to not do both. --Jayron32 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we only use their self-identification, we'd lose any distinction between conservative and far-right; and I think there is a distinction to be made. But people don't (generally) identify as far-right, and when a politician is described as such in Wikivoice it's often a matter of contention, however if reliable sources describe them as such, I think it's appropriate for us to do the same. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photos that I have added to support specific topics on a page do not stay with that topic but show up with other topics depending on the screen size that I am viewing. How do I attach a photo so it stays with the appropriate topic? Thanks! Stardust39 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stardust39: Please provide the specific article name, and provide information on which photo should be associated with which section. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stardust39: I just fixed the MOS:SANDWICH problem on Radio-controlled car. As I mentioned in my edit summary, there are far too many images on that article. Keep the ones that show key points and bin the ones that are there for decoration or because they look nice. After that has been done your problem of images not staying near the associated text will miraculously disappear. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the wiki article on Crosswell Glacier, Horace A Crosswell's name is highlighted in red, indicating no article associated with his name. We, his son and daughter, have relevant factual information about his background and role in establishing the scientific station at the South Pole in 1956–57. We would happily draft a brief, factual article if that would be useful. Please advise Suzjohns (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Suzjohns, who is operating this account - the son or the daughter? Only one person should have access to it. That said, you should review our notability standard for people: WP:NPERSON, and also our guideline about editing with a conflict of interest: WP:COI. There's a lot of reading on those two pages, take your time. If you decide that our notability standard is met, I recommend proceeding to read Help:Your first article and following the directions. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Suzjohns. In addition to what 199. told you, please note that information from your own knowledge or from unpublished documents may not be used at all, (unless it is also in published works, of course), and sources written, edited, or published by Crosswell or his associates may only be used in limited ways (see PRIMARY). The bulk of the information in an article should come from reliable sources unconnected with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redlink. Based on what I've found (or rather not found), it appears he does not cross the notability threshold as a soldier. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

I am trying to retrieve my biography that i started uploading as a book long time ago. How can i find it and upload files to complete the work. Fbaqir (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no record of you uploading anything to Wikipedia. Why would such a document have been uploaded to this encyclopedia? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I write programs to make it easier to edit a page. For example, I have a program to make a Wikitable from an iaea.org table. It would seem useful to put them close to the page that they were used on in case I, or someone else, wanted to use them later. Is there a convention on where such should go? Gah4 (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gah4: Hi there! You could add a post on the article's talk page describing how you made the table. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the question yesterday, it is a small program, so that is probably fine. The ones for table generation from iaea.org are bigger, though. Maybe a subpage of the talk page would work. Gah4 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Wikipedia for introducing the Toggle View button. Great Job! 194.56.49.82 (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but it's likely that the people who made the change do not read this page, as this is for help with editing, not programming the software. I'm not sure where the best place is to pass those thanks to: some of the implementors probably read WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello, how do I go back to the old wikipedia layout, the new one does not look good and is not comfortable to use. regards 46.17.162.105 (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way is to create an account and choose the old layout in your account preferences. As I understand it there are some workarounds for non-account users that are a tiny bit more complicated, that I hope someone tells you about as I don't know what they are. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Vector 2022#Without an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Skin#Skin selection bookmarklet. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want a job description of Human Resource Executive HR PressFit (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a general Help Desk for the internet, sorry. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking this, here, maybe you're not qualified for the job... --Jayron32 11:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HR PressFit Maybe you just need to read Human resources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested. kindly fix the referencing errors. Thanks, JogiAsad (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of weeks ago, I created an article for Michael Felts, who was the most notable deaf gay activist during the AIDS crisis. Seven days ago, an editor tagged it with a notability template. I reached out to this editor for advice, and following their tips I improved the article. I replied to them again and asked for more feedback, but did not receive any. Today, the article was moved to draft space by the same editor.

I would like to find out if someone else can review the article. My primary concern is that the marginalized nature of the subject, archival silences mean the record is not as strong as it could be. Considering that he was a deaf gay man living with AIDS, there are actually *many* sources demonstrating his notability. Over 20 years after his death he was selected as an "AIDS Hero" by the oldest LGBTQ newspaper in the US, the Washington Blade.

Michael Felts WAS notable. His work was essential to the deaf community in the late 1980s and early 1990s. What records there are of him demonstrate this importance. I would appreciate it if someone other than the initial editor could review this. Thank you.

Etoile ✩ (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see a problem with the article as it was written. It has several independent sources, while none individually has a huge amount of text about the person, in total they amount to what I think is enough information to pass the standards at WP:GNG. But I've only been working actively at Wikipedia for 17 years, so I may not have enough experience here to tell what a notable subject is. --Jayron32 11:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing for Draft:Michael Felts could be a bit better, but it is a serious attempt at writing an article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a solid article, it's not promotional, I don't see the imminent need to keep it out of the main space, really. If I were reviewing the draft, I'd pass it on as-is. --Jayron32 12:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated. What should I do in this situation? Etoile ✩ (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on feedback from here and on the draft page itself, I have submitted it for review. Thanks! Etoile ✩ (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this message finds you well. Years ago, a page on me was created, but when I found it, I realized it contained several errors. It was also too long. The page is Damiano_Brigo. For context, and apologies for making this so long, I am a well known name in the quantitative finance area (industry) and in stochastic analysis / probability/ statistics applied to signal processing and finance (academia), I have worked in the board of several financial institutions, I have been the most cited author in risk magazine for ten years, my articles have been referenced by mainstream press (the Banker, Il Mondo), my filtering/signal processing articles have an increasing number of citations (as a secondary source the Swedish Defence Agency wrote a report on them, for example) and there are many other points that came up later and are not on the page currently. A while back, as soon as I discovered the page, I reduced the page substantially in size and corrected several errors myself, it's in the page history. Later on, I updated it further, but then a conflict of interest was raised with a flag. I explained the situation to the editors, and the flag was removed because I was simply doing minimal edits to correct out of date information. Since then, quite a few things have changed and the page would have to be updated again, perhaps more substantially, but I realize I cannot edit a page on myself easily, as this raises a lot of conflicts of interest. What can I do? I wouldn't want a flag saying the page was maintained by me or any "conflict of interest" flag, I only want it to have accurate information. Is there anything I can do, like working with an editor, providing verifiable information, primary and secondary sources and asking them to update it, perhaps discussing what is worth adding and what not? I apologize if this question has an obvious answer, I looked around a few Wikipedia articles on conflict of interest and notability but I am not sure how to proceed. The only hint I found was that I could pay a contributor to write the page for me, but then a flag would appear to specify that it is a kind of sponsored page, which I don't feel appropriate. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Damiano Brigo DamianoBrigo2 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DamianoBrigo2 You are welcome to make formal edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page(Talk:Damiano Brigo) detailing changes you feel are needed. If marked as an edit request, other editors will see it and evaluate it. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this, 331dot. DamianoBrigo2 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok so i reuploaded an article, and "acronymed" it. 199.216.94.240 (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions don't appear to make a lot of sense. Is English not your first language? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened an external link on the English page about the artist Pablo Palazuelo and it redirects to a horrible pornography page. How can one report and remove this? We need to be able to protect children from seeing this. 2A01:CB1C:E8:600:EDD0:4302:B1D:A78A (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored for any reason- and you are speaking to an external link. Note that not every image of nudity is "pornographic". If you want to discuss whether such an external link is appropriate in terms of value to the encyclopedia, please use the article talk page, Talk:Pablo Palazuelo. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The website had been ursurped by spammers. Genericusername57 has fixed it with an archive link. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there might have been a problem. Someone just edited one of the links, with the notation that the old site had been "usurped by spammers." Uporządnicki (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The old link on Pablo Palazuelo was [5] where I only see some innocent text and no images. The bottom of https://elpais.com/diario/1999/12/11/cultura/944866803_850215.html has illustrated links to recent stories. One of them is currently [6] for me. There is a photo I suppose could be called pornographic by some. We are not going to remove a link to a valid source just because the page may sometimes happen to include an image with partial nudity. The rest of the links are currently completely harmless for me but one of them has targeted ads and may be very different for others. Please always be specific when you report something. Otherwise you are wasting other people's time. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried clicking on the ArteSeleccion link several times; most of the time, as you said, it produces an innocuous parked-domain page; but twice it has given me a "Please wait while we check your browser" popup, then redirected to a spam site. gnu57 20:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I had some questions from translating articles and whether or not they're appropriate. Yesterday I did a translation of an article from the Russian Wikipedia into here, but that article was moved to a draft because it wasn't suitable to stay in the mainspace (I needed more sources even though everything that was in the article was largely brought over from the Russian Wiki). However, I saw the draft was deleted because it was a "cross-name redirect from the mainspace" (as described by @Liz). So my question is how to translate articles without them being deleted for this reason or if it just isn't possible. Any help/explanation would be appreciated. Thanks. Losipov (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Losipov, do you mean Draft:Konfuz? It has not been deleted. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft wasn't deleted. It's still at Draft:Konfuz. What was deleted was the redirect. As far as it being moved to draft, the English Wikipedia probably has stricter sourcing requirements than the Russian one. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn thank you and the other user for the replies. So it wouldn't be a problem to do the translations the same way as I did Konfuz (apart from making sure the sources are ok)? I should probably mention that this was my first translation, so I knew it wouldn't be completely perfect. Thanks again! Losipov (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, making sure the article has sufficient sources is key. Other than that, you did nothing wrong. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why do you cancel my edits [7] Jtayl132? СтасС (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible, don't Notable person?--СтасС (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering that she isn't included on Wikipedia as a notable person, I don't think the article is suitable. Jayson Taylor (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your reply! I see.--СтасС (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through a bit of the questions and answers listed, and reviewing the "Notability" page, I could not find a clear resolve for this circumstance or understanding of Wikipedia's position on it. Lets say for instance I am a small business owner (including musician or artists) that seek to display a Wikipedia page that discusses the history, purpose and mission of work. Also, allowing it to serve as once authoritative source to be used that people could go to to receive information and appropriate linking of social accounts or other relevant information.

It seems from what I read that this would not be allowed by WIkipedia, in part confirmed by the statements relating to the Akon example on the Notability page. The further discussion also seems to convey that other then a personal judgment by WIkepedia Editors and such as to what determines "Notability" there is no criteria established as to notability from a local, national or global perspective. It seems to me that there are a vast amount of listings that would not have meet criteria to be included in print version - long before the days of the internet.

I do not believe this to be an intent of the criteria in place, but rather an attempt to ensure that articles and information of the projects site does warrant and provide credibility in the information being expressed to it's readers. AN important need as the demands of reliable information become more and more in demand as web use goes, and further supports the stated mission of Wikipedia. It also seems that while the benchmarks of "naotability" may be met for inclusion it only means that those entities may be listed in an article of write up regardless of its fact - meaning more that often the backstories or other information presented about them are just that, made up stories by them or their team as works of fiction; which then seems to be considered more of a "character" page associated with an artist or group then rather a legitimacy of the person responsible for the creation and stylishness of the same (an issue that I am certain will only grow as AI and Avatars become more prominent in online use)

So the question at hand, although the comments spark several for discussion, is if there is a "Wiki" project for these type of listings or displays or is there an option in Wikipedia itself?

LuvPOGL (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Notability standards are definitely more than a "personal judgment"; they are established guidelines that the entire wiki goes by.

I apologize that I am not entirely sure of what you're saying; I assume English isn't your first language. What do you mean by this: "there is no criteria established as to notability from a local, national or global perspective." ?

If I understand correctly, I think it may be helpful for you to also review the standards of WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY. We don't allow edits that are "made up stories by them or their team as works of fiction", but if a reliable source states something relevant, that can be included. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 19:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly are, they may be adopted standards by a group of people on the internet working with Wikipedia, but the criteria itself seems subjective. For instance the example referring to the artist Akon in the example on the Notability page states directly that in 2001 Akon would not have met the "notability" criteria of Wikipedia, but by 2004 he would have. Taking that a step farther, in 2001 at a global scale were there no other notable people named "Akon" on the globe? And in further response to your questions that were not even close to the topic or point of discussion in my question, am I to believe that 1: Akon is his real name? Or just a made up name for a character? Some artists highlight it as a "stage" or character name and others don't. As well as background biographies seems to often only use unreliable media (which are in step with Hollywood itself most times) as reference instead of confirmed sources of record to give credibility to their background. In fact its in part the privacy and other concerns taken into account that many of those, as I mentioned earlier, would have not made it into traditional books of Encyclopedias.

As such, if Wikipedia is going to claim that its intended goal is to bring the world knowledge into one source, shouldn't there be in fact a better and more thorough editing process? I believe Wikipedia itself can not ignore the fact that schools and a vast majority of students look to it as an authoritative voice, much like Encyclopedias of printed days, that being said I believe the rest of my post noted ideas of thought and discussion for people involved with the project to offer real discussion in resolve, not attack someone about the language they speak.

Now, I admit, that I am fairly slower than most in the English language and not as smart as people like yourself and so I'm sorry if there is confusion as to the point of purpose or question I asked in the last line of the the post; but please make no mistake that English is my first and only language with which I have to speak and write. LuvPOGL (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LuvPOGL It is subjective on purpose as there are always execeptions. Akon became notable when he released Trouble (Akon album). Notability can change over time as someone gets more and more achievements.

Your purpose to edit Wikipedia seems to be to promote your own business. This is fairly common, but it is often in vain. One important rule is to maintain a neutral point of view, which is hard to do when you have a conflict of interest. Read WP:YFA for a somewhat simplified tutorial of how to create a new article. If it meets our high standards, your draft will be accepted and will become a Wikipedia article. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I am able to understand better now.

It is true that there is some subjectivity involved in the notability standards; this is why there is a community review process when someone thinks an article or fact is not notable.

And in further response to your questions that were not even close to the topic or point of discussion in my question,

Your attitude there is not needed.

am I to believe that 1: Akon is his real name? Or just a made up name for a character? Some artists highlight it as a "stage" or character name and others don't.

Whether it is his real name is not important; what matters is the name under which he is most notable, though real names are always included in such articles as often as possible.

As such, if Wikipedia is going to claim that its intended goal is to bring the world knowledge into one source, shouldn't there be in fact a better and more thorough editing process?

Wikipedia will never be perfect, though we as a community try to do the best job we can. Although it is true that students frequently use WP as a go-to source of information, schools or teachers that ban its use as a primary source are right to do so. Students that wish to use Wikipedia as a resource should instead use the sources we link to as primary, as long as they are indeed reliable. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 20:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does machine learning differ from traditional programming, and what are some practical applications of machine learning in the field of artificial intelligence? Alexromeo111 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is intended for questions about using Wikipedia - consider asking at the reference desk instead. Tollens (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexromeo111:The help desk volunteers will not do your homework for you. You can use ChatGPT for that. -Arch dude (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I submitted a page for Richard Sandfield (ventriloquist). Can you please review the bio and publish it.

Thank you Willie1937 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Willie1937, you have attempted to write an article on your user page, which is not the correct place for it. You have cited no sources and therefore have not demonstrated that the subject is notable. I recommend carefully reading Help:Your first article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most days I inspect 6 or 10 new lines on my watchlist. This entails loading the article then clicking on View history, usually without reading the article. Is there any way to go straight to the history? Doug butler (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several watchlist preferences but I see a "hist" or "history" link with all of them. I rarely use it but click "diff" or "prev" in the watchlist to see the edit right away. Are you referring to something other than viewing Special:Watchlist in a browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How long have I been doing this without looking at the far left of the line? Thanks PH. Doug butler (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

Could someone better able to work with new users who are single purpose accounts please take a look at this user's contributions and try to help them understand why creating articles that read like advertisements/resumes (and reverting tags identifying that issue) is frowned upon? They have now reverted multiple editors on this issue. Kevin ^{Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk)} 00:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to cite a journal which comes out weekly using {{tl:cite journal}}. The issue is dated "31 May–4 June 2021", but when I use that, it produces an error message "Check date values in: |date=". Is there a way to make the template accept the given dates, or do I have to simplify it to just "31 May 2021" and live with the inaccuracy (as small as it is)? Gronk Oz (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual with "cite journal" to just put the year in the date and let the volume and issue number indicate the issue. For some fields in citation templates you can use Help:Citation Style 1#Accept-this-as-written_markup, but the date field is not one of them. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer 31 May 2021 or its equivalent, since it narrows things down. I see no need to include 4 June 2021, because it implies that the publication "expires" on that date, which is far from the truth. Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in citations should reflect as closely as possible the dates given in the source. Truncating the date as has been suggested here is not correct. If the journal issue is dated 31 May–4 June 2021, {{cite journal}} will accept that date so long as you format the date according to the rules at MOS:DATERANGE (linked from the error message's help text). This example tweaks your date to comply with MOS:

{{cite journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |date=31 May – 4 June 2021}}

"Title". Journal. 31 May – 4 June 2021.

One last observation. Is what you are citing really a weekly academic or scholarly journal? If neither of those, {{cite magazine}} or its redirect {{cite periodical}} (with |magazine= or |periodical=) is more appropriate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the fourth AWB rule states Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further similar edits., so I was wondering is it okay to only make general fixes on specific pages? Do you object or concur? Dancing Dollar ^{(let's talk)} 05:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dancing Dollar: Hi there! It depends on which general fixes you're referring to. For example, if it's only changing {{cn}} to {{citation needed}}, then no, because it doesn't have a noticeable effect on the rendered page. However, if it's adding/removing a template or fixing a citation error, then yes. GoingBatty (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Deposition of and further comments by Trump (October 2022) section of E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald J. Trump there are two images that have confusing layout and descriptions. The descriptions are easy to fix, but I think they would be more cohesive if they were next to each other for context and comparison. However, I can't figure out a way to get both next to each other as each are a crop so don't seem to respond to <gallery> or other attempts to align them next to each other. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Template:Multiple image to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching an episode of the Waltons and regis Cordic was in it. I remember him from hosting the Sunday afternoon movies when I was a kid in the 60's or 70's. His voice and commentary were great - as I child I thought he was so composed and interesting. I did not see it in his Wiki write up. I may have missed it and i apologize if it was in there, he always told such great comments and as a child i remember I always looked forward to the Sunday Afternoon Movie 96.235.34.37 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The large notice at the top of this page states that "the Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia." Your question is not about using or editing Wikipedia so will not be answered here. You could try again at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Bazza (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ive been around for a year or so, and over that period i have accumulated a ton of talk page messages that no longer serve any purpose to me (like the 4 messages about archived threads, and the deletion of my ancient draft), am i allowed to remove them? -I.R.B.A.T^{(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files)} 12:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]