December 29

How can I export an article from MediaWiki to a word processor format like MS Word, Open Office, or a Google Doc?

I want to export "v:Information is a public good: Designing experiments to improve government" to a Google Doc, which I can then revise collaboratively and then export into MS Word format and submit to Real-World Economics Review (RWER). I've done this with two other Wikiversity articles (v:Externalities, contagious diseases and news and v:Do copyrights and paywalls on academic journals violate the US Constitution?), both of which were accepted without revision and published in the March 2022 and 2023 issues of RWER.

Do I have to copy the text and manually re-enter the 129 notes in that article and all the live links one by one? I don't remember what I did roughly 16 and 30 months ago, but I think it was much less work than this.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DavidMCEddy, is your browser not able to export the Wikiversity page as HTML? You might also look into mw:Alternative parsers, most of which should be able to export a MediaWiki document to a format google docs can understand. Folly Mox (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References 18 and 20 are in red and I cannot fix. please assist if able. Thanks you 175.38.42.62 (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the error messages, they are both missing the required journal= parameter. If you add that, the error should go away. RudolfRed (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that. Neither of those sources are journals. Probably best to rewrite as {{cite web}} templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and failed - can you assist please? Thanks as always 175.38.42.62 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. GoingBatty (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{#tag:timeline| 
Define $width = 1000 # 4 pixels per year ($end - $start) × 4 
Define $warning = 880 # $width - 120 
Define $height = 400 # 43 x 20 + 160

Define $start = 1873 
Define $end = 2025 
Define $now = {{CURRENTYEAR}}

ImageSize  = width:$width height:$height 
PlotArea   = right:10 left:1 bottom:80 top:60 
Period     = from:$start till:$end 
TimeAxis   = orientation:horizontal
Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:1

Colors =
     id:bg              value:white
     id:lightline       value:rgb(0.9, 0.9, 0.9)
     id:lighttext       value:rgb(0.5, 0.5, 0.5)

MAL MALDIVE (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:MAL MALDIVE, I'm wrong: see below that looks like it might be calling the Graphs Extension, which has been disabled due to security vulnerabilities lo these past nine months. It doesn't look like a regular template. Folly Mox (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 12:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its used on many articles such as Lifespan timeline of presidents of Russia 69.94.33.233 (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The #tag at the beginning is used to call a Wikipedia extension and give it parameters (c.f. WP:MAGIC#Formatting). The extension being called here is the Timeline one. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm used to seeing #invoke for templates, but had not before seen #tag for extensions. Thanks for the correction! Folly Mox (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, some extensions add a tag of form <tagname>...</tagname>, e.g. <ref>...</ref> in mw:Extension:Cite. {{#tag:tagname|...}} is an alternative way to use a tag. It's required in some situations, especially if templates are used inside the tag. I don't know all the details but have fixed some problems by trying {{#tag:}} when it didn't work without. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here the template is badly formatted, I tried to format it correctly, but one of the two links turns strangely red. JackkBrown (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: Hello! Which template are you talking about? I don't see any red links. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deltaspace42: the template "Main discussion". No, it turns red when I try to format the template correctly. JackkBrown (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: But it's just an internal link, what's wrong with it? What do you mean by "formatting the template correctly"? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I didn't realize that there exists the {{main}} template for this purpose. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, the template you want to link to another article here is {{main}}, not {{main discussion}}. I fixed it. For the record, I know you've come under scrutiny for your Help Desk participation, and I view this question as totally legitimate and unproblematic. Folly Mox (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown: It said:

:''Main discussion: [[Marsyas#Prophecy and free speech at Rome|Marsyas, Prophecy and free speech at Rome]].''

and produced:

Main discussion: Marsyas, Prophecy and free speech at Rome.

The vertical bar '|' makes it a piped link to the article section Marsyas#Prophecy and free speech at Rome, displaying "Marsyas, Prophecy and free speech at Rome" as link text. It had nothing to do with a template which is something in {{...}}. I guess you tried to change it to something like:

{{Main|Marsyas#Prophecy and free speech at Rome|Marsyas, Prophecy and free speech at Rome}}

which would produce:

That fails because the pipe separates two parameters to {{main}} and each unnamed parameter is supposed to be a page name. There is only one page to link so Folly Mox just said:

{{Main|Marsyas#Prophecy and free speech at Rome}}

I would have used {{further}} but it's not important. When you seek help with your code, please post or link the code so we don't have to guess what you tried to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested. I would love to edit and correct number four on the reference list - there is amissing external link or what, but what?? :( I don't know how. I have tried it a dozen times. I'm still a beginner in editing wikipedia pages :/ And I would appreciate any help from you Thanks, Polgár Kincső (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the |title= of the reference was a URL. The |title= field is supposed to be human-readable. See my fix, and alter the title as appropriate for the source cited (I guessed, not being able to read Hungarian). Folly Mox (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page "List of Civil War Battles" for the table "Battles of the American Civil War Rated by CWSAC" shows two inconsistencies with the CWSAC report (for the report, see http://npshistory.com/publications/battlefield/cwsac/technical-v2.pdf):

1. The column for "Victory" sometimes says "Inconclusive." CWSAC uses "Indecisive." Should the Wikipedia page be changed to match the CWSAC report?

2. The row for the November 7, 1861, Battle of Belmont, in the "Victory" column, says "Inconclusive." However, CWSAC, page 71, identifies the battle as a "Union" victory. Should the Wikipedia page be changed?

Thanks for checking these issues and, if warranted, making changes. Jim Strickler 76.150.206.92 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jim. The best place to bring up questions about a particular article is in that article's talk page - in this case Talk:List of American Civil War battles.

But unless the changes you are suggesting are controversial, you're welcome to make them yourself. (The worst that can happen is that somebody disagrees and reverts your changes, in which case you can then go on to discuss on the talk page: see WP:BRD). ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get help unblocking my editorial rights and privileges?

I have tried following guidelines but am not getting very far or very fast.

David Hocken Yourmrbumbles (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot help you here. Especially if you are using multiple accounts to evade blocks. Remsense留 15:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yourmrbumbles The account you used here was created in 2013, so I assume it was a WP:VALIDSOCK for your main (now blocked) account. However, blocking applies to people, not just individual accounts and the only way to appeal your block is via the Talk Page of the account which was blocked, where there will be instructions how to do so. Do not continue to use the Yourmrbumbles account, as that will only make it even less likely that an admin will unblock you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This Wikipedia page Russian Holiday is about a film that I can't find and its one source doesn't seem to be on topic. is it reliable? Anyways could someone please help me. Thank you. Chacabangaso (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chacabangaso: Hello! I couldn't find anything either, so I nominated it for deletion. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Chacabangaso (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be odd. The iMDB entry is titled Russian Holiday, and has posters titled both "Russian Holiday" and "Russian Roulette", with the same picture.

Unless some reliable sources can be found, the article should be deleted anyway, as non-notable. ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes films are released under more than one title, this is quite common.[1] But this film is struggling to get anywhere near WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The existing Wikipedia entry for "St. Louis Globe-Democrat" is quite brief and sketchy. I greatly expanded the information, with a primary reference bring a scholarly history written in 1961 by a University of Missouri professor (Jim Allee Hart) for the period 1852 to 1960 and impeccable references for the period 1960 to the close of the paper in 1986. I am a Harvard graduate, a journalist for almost a half-century with knowledge of the subject, and am greatly concerned with accuracy. I cannot understand why my expanded history, with much specific new and important information, has been summarily rejected. Please be my editor and take a look at the existing ("old") version and the expanded version I have proposed with 161 references and footnotes. I am new to this whole process. Thank you very much. Globeralways Globeralways (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: St. Louis Globe-Democrat Remsense留 23:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Globeralways: Hello! The bot was probably triggered because you removed all reference templates and generally broke the wikitext mark up. It would be a good idea to make small incremental edits to each paragraph rather than publishing huge content in one go, breaking the wikitext structure in the process. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, while citations are not required to be in any particular format, some methods of working with citations are much easier to work with than others, and it would likely be very helpful for you to familiarize yourself with the methods on the page I've just linked. cheers! Remsense留 23:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. The problem of incremental changes is that it would be hard to maintain any flow and continuity without basically ripping out almost all existing content, changing reference numbers (footnotes), etc. I guess it can be done if absolutely necessary, but couldn't a live editor look at the two, side by side if necessary, and see if the new version is (or is not) the "way to go"? I'll abide by whatever a human editor tells me I musty do. Thank you. Globeralways Globeralways (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Globeralways, please be aware that when your references are properly formatted with reference templates, the software will automatically number them and display them properly in a reference section at the end of the article. If future edits to the article remove, add or rearrange references, then the software will instantly sort that out and renumber all the references. Proper formatting is important. As a journalist with a half century of experience, you must certainly know that serious publications have their own house style. So too does Wikipedia, the #7 website worldwide, with many billions of pageviews each month. Your well-intentioned edit which I am sure has lots of useful information, unintentionally wrecked the standardized structure of the article. So, you will need to spend some time learning about the "skeleton structure" of a Wikipedia article, and how the content interacts with the software. I highly recommend that you spend some time studying the wikicoding of St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I cannot vouch for the accuracy or comprehensiveness of that article, but the coding and formatting is proper. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Globeralways. Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your edit has lost most of the formatting - most importantly, of all the references, but also headers, and you have attempted to replace the infobox by a Wikitable. ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Also, looks like there is a conflict of interest: diff of the message which this user left on someone's talk page: I wish to greatly enhance the Wikipedia listing of the "St. Louis Globe-Democrat," where I worked for 13 years. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was me (Globeralways). I worked there for 13 years. Does this make me a conflict of interest? Globeralways (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working somewhere for a long time certainly constitutes a conflict of interest, as the topic is very close to you. While it is generally discouraged, editors are allowed to edit articles on topics with which they have a conflict of interest, but they must maintain an encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view in their edits as with any other article. It sounds like you no longer work there, but if someone has a paid conflict of interest (which would be automatic if they were editing about their present employer), it is required to explicitly disclose on one's userpage, which you can learn how to do here. Remsense留 23:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I have not worked there for decades. The paper closed in 1986. I wasn't there at the end and believe what I wrote has been neutral and in an encyclopedic tone. I'm open to doing whatever you and./r other Wikipedia editors want. I spent many, many hours and days researching and writing, doing so after looking at the existing entry and finding it so incomplete. The St. Louis Globe-Democrat was a major newspaper. I acknowledge that my knowledge of Wikipedia procedures is quite weak. I have been hoping that an editor could do the hyperlinks or other technical steps where I am deficient. What do you suggest I do? Thank you for any help. Globerwalways Globeralways (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can be very overwhelming! I appreciate the work you are doing and I hope I can answer the important questions to make editing easier for you:

• You can link to other pages by putting the relevant text in square brackets, [[like this]]. We write articles with what we call Wikitext, check that page for plenty of tips, tricks, and help with it.
• In general, it's worth taking a look at our Manual of Style and guidelines for the layout of a typical article also, it certainly made me more comfortable editing because I knew I was doing things inline with site norms.
• Generally, one shouldn't worry too much, there's always a learning process and others are often happy to contribute and improve each others' work, but with things like references like I've said above, it can save you and others a lot of time.

If you have more questions at some point, you can ask me on my talk page! Like we've said, it's worthwhile doing your edit in digestible chunks so they can be integrated and checked more easily, and I'd be happy to look at your edits when you do them. Cheers. Remsense留 00:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's very helpful and I will do it, which may take some time due to other obligations. I especially appreciate your willingness to be a resource. When I first thought about doing this, I was assigned to an editor, but never received any responses from him (or her) to inquiries so I was flying blind. Now there seems to be a path ahead to reach a yes or no result based on human judges and not just an automated response! Thanks again. Globeralways Globeralways (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our software automatically assigns and renumbers reference numbers; so don't give that a thought, and above all don't try to re-number them manually! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC) (cut his teeth on a slug of Linotype at the Anniston Star)[reply]

Thanks so much! globeralways Globeralways (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Hi, User:P Aculeius claims that the word "cognomen" doesn't go in italics, but it's established (100% sure) that it goes in italics (even his page, cognomen (always) writes this word in italics). Obviously I will not reverse his edit so as not to violate the edit war rule, but I'm right and cannot intervene because I would violate this rule. JackkBrown (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried discussing this issue with the editor on their talk page or the pages talk page? Paulpat99 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulpat99: I try, but I feel it will be completely useless. JackkBrown (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WORDSASWORDS; 'cognomen' at Cognomen is about the word so italics is correct. MOS:FOREIGN does not apply because 'cognomen' is commonly used in English (I find it in my 1987 Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary on page 256).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Trappist: although adopted from Latin, 'cognomen' has been used in English for over 200 years, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

I can see why italicising it in the Gens article might seem like a good idea, since the article refers to Ancient Roman concepts (note; not Roman concepts that are ancient, but concepts in Ancient Rome, hence my capitalisation, but I digress) and uses other similar Latin terms that have not become adopted into English and which therefore are correctly in italics.

This is admittedly a difficult area since, historically, well-educated English persons were by definition taught Classical Latin and therefore were wont to use Latin words in English which sometimes are, and sometimes are not, considered to have fully entered the English language. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't know if this is the right place to ask, so if you have a more relevant area to ask this, please direct me there. Anyways, I've been editing articles, mostly about Missouri politics (such as Mel Carnahan). In editing them, I have used Newspapers.com for sources not through Wikipedia, but through the State Historical Society of Missouri. When I click on the links when I'm not logged in to Wiki, or on a different browser, it says "Unauthorized Access". I have no idea why this is, and I want to know if I'm doing something wrong and if so, how I would fix it. Since this issue probably appears in a few articles, I want to know how to fix the specific issue, hence why I asked here instead of on any article's talk page. Any help with this matter would be greatly appreciated, and again, do redirect me to where I may be better equipped to receive an answer if need be. Thank you. All the best. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are using the url https://shsmo.newspapers.com/... which requires a State Historical Society login. Don't use those urls. I think that you can simply delete the shsmo. portion of the url to make a url that anyone can use. If not, you'll have to get the proper url from newspapers.com directly.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried removing the shsmo and that seemed to work. Thanks for your help! All the best. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's the makings of a Yiddish joke there, but I will forbear spelling it out. {The poster formerly knowna s 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit on The Saint (radio program), someone changed "syndicates" in the infobox to "networks" with the accompanying edit summary "NBC, CBS, and Mutual were networks, not syndicates."

The statement in the summary is correct, but the problem is that the edit prevents the networks' names from appearing in the infobox. As I read Template:Infobox radio show, "networks" is not a valid parameter; "syndicates" seems to be the best-available parameter for listing networks. Should I change the parameter back to "syndicates" so that the value will appear in the infobox?

(I should add that I initially thought to post this on Template talk:Infobox radio show. However, the last two posts on that page are from August 2020 and May 2021, so I doubt that it would get a response there with such limited activity.) Eddie Blick (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Teblick: Hi there! Feel free to revert the edit stating that you're doing so because you want the info to appear in the infobox, and then discuss on the article's talk page. Just because no one has posted a question recently on the template's talk page doesn't mean that there aren't some editors watching the page who could answer your question. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @GoingBatty. I will do that. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor on Wikipedia with 25 edits or contributions. I want to motivate myself on this Wikipedia journey but I am unable to understand What kind of User Access and other Perks/benefits will I get on different numbers of edits like 100 edits, 500 edits, 1000 edits etc. ?

Can you please help me understand in simple way? Thank you and Happy New Year 2024. Yashrajkarthike (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you make 10 edits (and have had an account for four days), you become autoconfirmed and can create new articles and move pages. When you make 500 edits (and have had an account for a month), you become extended-confirmed and can, among other things, edit pages in contentions topics. There's nothing beyond that.

Wikipedia is not a game and has no firm hierarchy - you should not try to boost your edit count for the sake of doing so or earning new rights - just edit when you feel something needs editing and all will work out nicely. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful reply, I will certainly honor the Wikipedia guidelines. Yashrajkarthike (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in addition, even if you don't have the required amount of edits, you may request edits on protected pages. the protection is there to prevent the page from being vandalized or edited disruptively, it isn't there to strictly prevent everyone below a certain threshold from editing the page. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again and happy new year 2024 to all my friends of Wikipedia community. Happy editing to everyone!! Yashrajkarthike (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashrajkarthike It may be worth pointing out that long-term editors become entitled to sign up for The Wikipedia Library provided they have 500+ edits, 6+ months editing, 10+ edits in the last 30 days and no active blocks. This is not a perk but a useful way to access sources that would otherwise be difficult or expensive to reach and use these to further improve the encyclopaedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you for this great information. Yashrajkarthike (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashrajkarthike: Some editors use Wikipedia:Service awards and {{Service award progress}}. It's optional and doesn't give benefits but it may be a motivator for some. We have some elections with voter requirements. See e.g. Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections#Voting process. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PrimeHunter thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for. Truly grateful to you. Happy new year 2024!! 202.142.104.8 (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing beyond that. Further privileges do exist, but are not automatic. I have been active since 2006 (I rank somewhere around #1955 in number of edits) and never sought administrator status, the big one; but twice now admins have seen fit to endow me with lesser privileges, one of which I have never used. —Tamfang (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have been making my way through David Campese's dense, over-linked, heavily quoted and generally overdone article for a while. I am now looking at the extensive reading list (print and online) and wondering - does it need to be there at all? I would appreciate an experienced opinion on this. It seems to me to be unnecessarily large - what should guide any cropping of it, please? BJCHK (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BJCHK, I'll make a working assumption that the article is referenced properly via the "Notes". Then every one of the "References" -- whether "Printed", "Online", or "Other" -- should, I think, be pointed to by one or more of those "Notes". I'd idly guess that somebody much brighter and more energetic than I am has produced a little utility to check just this, but I don't know. (If nobody here pipes up to say that yes one exists or no it doesn't, I'd ask about it at Help talk:Citation Style 1.) Those that are pointed to need to be there. Any that aren't pointed to by one or more notes need not, and I'd delete them. (No comment on whether the body of the article, which I haven't even started to read, is dense, over-linked, heavily quoted or generally overdone.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed unusual for an athlete's article to go into so much detail about his matches. —Tamfang (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I setup my draftify userspace log? If I remember right, I clicked on 'not to create a log' initially when a prompt asked me to create one. Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira: Maybe you are thinking of a Twinkle option for deletion nomination logs. You use User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft to draftify. User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft#Draftify log mentions a log. Can you see your log at Special:Draftify log/Jeraxmoira? The link only works if MoveToDraft is installed. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, I don't think my log is configured yet, but I've been using the MoveToDraft tool for a while now. Initially, I remember ticking an option to not create a log while draftifying. I will try reinstalling the tool to check if that prompt appears again to create the logs. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira: At Special:Draftify log/Jeraxmoira I see a log with 16 entries from 30 November to 30 December 2023 when I load the script in my browser console. Don't you see it or do you think there should be more entries? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the logs on Special:Draftify log/Jeraxmoira too. I believe it should automatically log in my user space here -> User:Jeraxmoira/Draftify log. However, when I use the tool, an error (API Error?) occurs while logging the entry. I will try to replicate it now in my sandbox Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought I could use the tool to move my userspace sandbox to draftspace but I guess the tool only works for mainspace articles. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter, I've just moved Minky (fabric) to draft. The initial browser popup asks, "Log draftification (at User:Jeraxmoira/Draftify_log) ?" When I press okay, it shows this error Jeraxmoira (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a bug in the JSON object at User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft/core.js#L-947 together with the send logic starting at line 956. I have made no attempt to debug, but AFAICS it should get fixed if one renames the "text" property at line 948 to "prependtext". Courtesy ping MPGuy2824. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use the script and didn't know it has two places to show your logs. It's working for many others.[2] Maybe the page has to already exist for the current version of the script. mw:API:Edit#Possible errors says for redirect-appendonly: "You have attempted to edit using the redirect-following mode, which must be used in conjunction with section=new, prependtext, or appendtext." PrimeHunter (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see/understand, should I try to create the page with some text and see happens when I move to draft another article? I also notice there is a '(first draftification)' in the edit summary during their first move, for all users who use this tool. Does this have anything to do with my situation? Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Looking into the JS again, it seems like that is the case. If the log page already exists different code paths are used which either have appendtext or section=new. Therefore, Jeraxmoira , that seems like a good idea. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping and for the debugging. I think you're right. I'll test it and report back here. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Your recommended change worked for a draftification i did on the test wikipedia. I've now updated the enwiki's version as well. Jeraxmoira since you've already seeded your draftify log page, you can continue as-is. But if you want to test the change then you'll have to tag the Draftify_log page with a WP:U1 and then wait for it to be deleted before trying another draftification. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works fine, Thank you <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HP is falsely described as British, when in fact, it is produced in the Netherlands and uses British icons in its marketing. How do I edit this so as not to be too "critical"? Robosks (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robosks The best place to discuss this is at the article talk page, Talk:HP Sauce. What usually matters is what independent reliable sources describe something as. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robosks, HP sauce is produced by Heinz, an "American" company with worldwide investors. Is HP American, Dutch or British? Its history and marketing say British. I recently bought a new Toyota built in the US state of Georgia, that arrived here in California by transcontinental railroad rather than transoceanic ship. Is Toyota an American company or a Japanese company? Consider fish and chips. Potatoes originated in Peru. So, is fish and chips a British dish or a Peruvian dish? What the first sentence says about such matters is rarely worth quibbling about. It is more important that the body of the article accurately describes the history of the product, company or food. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robosks, restart the moribund discussion at Talk:HP_Sauce#Originally_British_but_no_longer. As 331dot suggests, cite reliable sources. In order to increase participation in the discussion, write a little advert for it at the foot of the talk page(s) of one or both of the WikiProjects whose templates appear at the top of Talk:HP_Sauce. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter, Visnu92, and Bennv123:

This is about Peranakans.

I'm involved (both in its "something I am participating in at the moment" and "something I must not use my admin permissions in") and have looked all over the place and haven't been able to find an explanation/definition of what a "cut and paste move" actually is, only how to fix them.

Could someone possibly locate that explanation?

Thank you! Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58: this is when one removes the whole content of one article (blanking it or replacing it with a redirect) and pasting the whole content to another name, thus creating a new article with the same content. This "move" breaks the page history (which stays at the old location) and is, strictly speaking, a copyright violation. Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can find is Help:How to move a page. WP:BEFOREMOVING goes into some more detail, but it's stuck in the middle of a section that's mostly off-topic. —Cryptic 09:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The example with regards to Peranakans imo, is when an editor copied the contents of the existing article over to a new title and then redirected the existing article to that new title. Bennv123 (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58: {{Uw-c&pmove}} explains the problem concisely. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Писал много раз так и не дождался разблокировки так как заблокировали по IP адерсу... даже уже не знаю что написать чтобы мне разблокировали мою учетную запись и сняли блокировку IP :( Большая просьба меня услышать и помочь мне в этой ситуации впредь обещаю больше такого не повторится я все осознал я не знаю как мне дальше быть... Mr Kloniks (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user is banned on Russian Wikipedia and came here to ask for unblock. To @Mr Kloniks: (Это английская Википедия, во-первых, здесь надо писать на английском, во-вторых, о разблокировке проси на русской Википедии, а не тут). Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: translation of OP:

At ru-wiki, this editor is ru:Mr Kloniks (talk · contribs). Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new account. I want to edit an article, read that there should be an edit button at the top of an article's page, but I cannot find it. I also read that I need permission; if yes, how do I get it? Genesch1 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Genesch1 If the article is protected, it depends on the level of WP:PROTECTION. Depending on what article you're talking about, WP:AUTOCONFIRM may be enough. Some articles, like those about the current Gaza-war need WP:XC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Genesch1: Your current user contributions show only one edit made, so there will be many articles that you cannot edit until you have acquired a more extensive track record on Wikipedia. See WP:RIGHTS for more detail on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to edit an article directly owing to its protection level, you should still be able to suggest edits via its Talk Page, where other editors watching the article should help. There is even a wizard to assist making this sort of request. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Genesch1: Please give the exact title or URL of any page you want help with. Then we wouldn't have to speculate whether it's protected. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a raw page list for my Watchlist but not for User contributions - is there such a thing and how can I access it? Sometimes I see the need to narrow down a list of my past contributions with search terms and use that in tools like AWB, but there's no apparent straightforward way to generate a flat list of those pages. Someone just asked in the AWB discussion if they could use it to work on pages they created, and I thought if a raw page list could be generated from a User contributions search that showed only such pages, that would be the workaround they could proceed with. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/StefenTower/0, which may time out attempting to retrieve 53,317 rows. Folly Mox (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Must have been my connection, per Executed in 6.115 seconds 19:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but I'm basically looking for a filtered, raw list. The link you gave me shows everything I've contributed (sorted by activity but not filtered) and not in a raw format (see "Edit raw watchlist" in the Watchlist to see what I mean). Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies. Something like https://xtools.wmcloud.org/api/user/automated_edits/en.wikipedia/StefenTower/0?tool=AutoWikiBrowser might be closer to what you're looking for (filters for AWB edits), but it still returns a JSON object rather than a flat list of page titles. I'm not sure if there is any other tool that outputs just a list of page titles the way Special:EditWatchlist/raw does. JSON is easy enough to parse with regexes, and you could probably import it into a spreadsheet app and then create a new sheet using only the full_page_title column, but I think the exact thing you're looking for is going to require some postprocessing of output. Some of our more expert technical editors may have better information. Folly Mox (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not interested in edits made only with AWB, per se, but for this case edits one can make with AWB later. It's really about building a raw list of pages one has created or otherwise edited before, using AWB or any other means. Anyway, what you've produced here is interesting and potentially useful, although I don't know how to import JSON to a spreadsheet. I could likely whittle it down with regex and text editing functions, though. For the time-being, I and another Wikipedian came up with two workarounds (so far) in AWB talk. I just wish this could be a lot easier. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-Arch dude (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a faint image of some sort of a cat girl on my talk page? RemotelyInterested (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is empty and has had no images previously as well. Jeraxmoira (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:RemotelyInterested, is there a non-faint image of some sort of cat girl in any of your other tabs, apps, or device wallpaper? I know that on my device, when a screen is empty or almost empty, other things I have open are sometimes faintly visible, as if burned into the device display. I think this is a function of app opacity, but I haven't been able to find an option to configure it. For the record, I don't see any cat girls of any sort or transparency, when I load User talk:RemotelyInterested. Folly Mox (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble signing in. My name is Joel Reaser. My user name is Drj1940. I have two email addresses - a gmail.com and msn.com. I don't know which I used for Wikipedia and don't remember my password. Can you help get me back on. BTW I have a small monthly contribution to you. Thanks. 2600:1700:326D:6010:144C:DDED:DB5E:5199 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can request password reset for both emails, if you used one of them, then one of them should receive the link to reset the password. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's optional to give an email address and User:Drj1940 hasn't done it. Special:Contributions/Drj1940 only shows four test edits in 2010. If you don't know the password then just create another account. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remove a page at the request of the named person. Infomelonygriffith (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Infomelonygriffith: You'd have to submit a request at Articles for Deletion, but that's not likely to happen if reliable sources have been used to provide information. Please be aware that subjects do not own articles about them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infomelonygriffith I gather that you represent Melony G. Griffith. Please read conflict of interest and paid editing As Sen. Griffith was a public official, the article about her will almost certainly not be removed as she is clearly a notable politician. If you have specific concerns about the article, please discuss them here, or on the article talk page. While your(and her) input is welcome, she has no more say than any other editor as to if the article about her exists, just as she could not prevent CNN or the New York Times from writing about her. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

I'm seeing examples with all-caps (e.g. "The Tortoise And The Hare") and normal capitalization. It doesn't say anything about it in the documentation, but I'm guessing that it should be all-caps? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: All caps would be "THE TORTOISE AND THE HARE" (don't do that). Sorting is case-insensitive so it doesn't matter whether the first letter of a word is capitalized. Many old DEFAULTSORT were made before it became case-insensitive. Back then it was common to capitalize all words. Some old editors still do that but I suggest to use casing like in article titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from the example what I meant. But good to know it's case insensitive. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, you could check MOS:CAPS if you want detailed guidance on capitalisation in general. TSventon (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref number 8 is in red - I cannot fix it - please repair if you can. Thanks 175.38.42.62 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't fixed because the reference style - cite journal - was in error. The pdf is not from a journal or a magazine, it is simply an online publication of the school so I amended the past cite journal to be a cite web and that took care of the red linking issue. Shearonink (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a biography by name. I know there is a Wikipedia bio, but it does not appear under the name 98.183.53.24 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would help anyone answer your question if you spelled the name out... Shearonink (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that people are become contributors on Wikipedia just to link back to their websites and they don't have any intention of contributing to the Wikipedia and its community. How can we prevent people from stuffing commercial content and links on Wikipedia? How do we identify a commercially motivation citation or commercially motivated page creation or editing ? As I am new to this, I am unable to figure this out, need help from the community. Yashrajkarthike (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashrajkarthike: This has been going on for about 20 years. We have mechanisms to resist and largely eliminate the results of such activity. This includes some active editor communities. See WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSPAM as examples. This garbage does not remain on Wikipedia very long.-Arch dude (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yashrajkarthike, Wikipedia administrators routinely block editors who are here to promote or advertise or spam. I am an administrator and I have blocked 9346 accounts, and roughly 2/3 were blocked for spam/promotion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashrajkarthike: Link spammers are often more interested in better PageRank at Google than in getting clicks from the actual link. For many years we have automatically added nofollow to all external links so spammers get no PageRank here. We also have various tools to deal with the spam links people still try to add. Some of them are blocked by filters so the spammer isn't even able to save the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how to add a archive search on a user talk MAL MALDIVE (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

answer?? MAL MALDIVE (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MAL MALDIVE. Please read Help:Archiving a talk page. As for expecting a rapid answer, you are dealing with volunteers during a holiday weekend. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it is the middle of the night in areas where most Teahouse hosts Help Desk volunteers live. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the Teahouse. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks MAL MALDIVE (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CAN SOMEONE FIX MY USER PAGE DISPLAY TITLE ITS NOT SHOWING UP MAL MALDIVE (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MAL MALDIVE: Please turn off caps lock, it is generally considered shouting. The Displaytitle of User:MAL MALDIVE is invalid as it does not canonalizes to "User:MAL MALDIVE". Possible alternatives would be {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="color:#AAA9AD; font-weight:bold; font-family:Brush Script MT;">User:MAL MALDIVE</span>}} (User:MAL MALDIVE) or {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:<span style="color:#AAA9AD; font-weight:bold; font-family:Brush Script MT;">MAL MALDIVE</span>}} (User:MAL MALDIVE). Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MAtharraza92 (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Atharraza92: Hello! Please read Wikipedia:Your first article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Atharraza92. If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.

I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about reliable sources and verifiability) by making improvements to existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you're learning church bell ringing, every practice night is a public performance – half a city can hear powerful bells. :-o Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I can’t log in and I click forgot password and enter my email address, I get no email from Wikipedia. Tried several times. 217.155.11.48 (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If your email is not working to recover your password, your access to the account is unfortunately lost and you will need to create a new account. You can identify it as a successor to your old account("I'm User5678, I was previously User1234 but lost access"). 331dot (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check your junk mail folder, though. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say for sure, but it would have to be the right email address. If you have more than one email address, try the others.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed some vandalism at A9 road (Scotland). Namely, the latest addition by "Tedermeatballs" seems implausible on its face ("the freemasons" do not, I think, have a reputation as civil engineers). Although obviously I can't say for sure that this is false, their previous four edits (to the page on Leon King, reverted by themselves) seem to indicate a tendency to insert nonsense for the fun of it so I think just a "citation needed" isn't enough. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, iay (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Young: Hello! I've just reverted their edit and warned them on the talk page about addition of unsourced statements. When you come across edits like this (dubious, unsourced and without an adequate explanation), just be bold, revert them and write to the editor on their talk page. At worst case, they will just revert it back and explain why they did that change. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently recorded the last broadcast of DR Langbølge wanted to upload it onto commons either as Public Domain or CC-BY (just want attribution).
This was the last longwave transmitter that was commercial in Scandinavia.
When I tried to upload it, it threw this warning saying it's not allowed to upload .mp3 to commons. This is a historical recording, recorded on own equipment in Norway.
Is it okay to post it on commons I can just remove the music, by trimming it to 30mins and until the last interval signal is broadcast.
Cheers and a happy New Year Koltinn (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to ask at c:COM:Village pump. But unless you have a positive reason to assert that it is either WP:PD or WP:CC-BY-SA, Commons won't accept it. Also, C:COM:File types#MP3 says Commons currently only accepts MP3 uploads by users with Autopatrol or higher rights, due to concerns about the capacity of the community to monitor for copyright violations. ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll go and ask over there, thanks. Koltinn (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem like the audio would be free for you to upload based on what you've said so far. Just because its previous vendor is defunct does not put it into the public domain—though of course I am unfamiliar with the particulars of IP law in Denmark. Remsense留 18:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Koltinn. The content of a radio broadcast is normally considered to be protected by copyright. What leads you to believe that this particular radio show is not protected by copyright? If the broadcast is in the public domain, then you have no right to attribution. If it has been freely licensed, then only the copyright holder has the right to attribution. Please clarify. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could also ask them (DR) too if they think it's okay. Koltinn (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would be required to do so. All else being equal, they are the owners of the copyright for the broadcast, and would have to sign off on freely licensing it for upload to Commons, which would irrevocably allow for its further use under a free license. Remsense留 19:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I hire someone to write my page for me? I really need to get one done asap. Is there a list of people I can choose from? Thank you for any help you can provide.  :-) MrMarkSamuels (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MrMarkSamuels. You do not have a "page": any article about you would not be owned by you. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.

Wikipedia does not offer paid-editing services. We are all volunteers. There are private companies out there who do offer this service, but they are absolutely not endorsed by Wikipedia and often scam clients out of their money. I would not recommend this.

Please note there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Why do you think you need an article about yourself written as soon as possible? Qcne (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user had already asked similar question here: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2021_August_27#Creating_a_new_page. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in fact notable (more notable, for example, than the recently-deceased British horror writer Mark Samuels, an article about whom was deleted), somebody without being bribed or suborned will decide to create an article about you, over which you will of course have no control. There are no circumstances under which such an article needs to be done ASAP. Can you give us a hint as to why you believe you, Mr. Mark Samuels, are notable, in context of a planet of almost eight billion living human beings and billions more already departed? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MrMarkSamuels, please be aware that a very large percentage of paid "Wikipedia editors" who advertise online are con artists. Be very cautious and do not get scammed. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot read those capchas(sic). Therefore, I am unable to correct an error.

Someone posted; "The James L. Key Elementary School was named for the late mayor in 1963." That's incorrect. The children in my family attended this school in the 1940s and the early 1950s.

 "By 1923, the Atlanta Consitution reported that the new cornerstone was laid for the construction of the new Fraser Street school; the new school would be named as James L. Key school.  By 1962, James L. Key would be converted into a school for Negro children." Rachal Grizzle (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: James L. Key ayakanaa ( t · c ) 21:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of the passage you have quoted above? It's important to know whether or not it is what Wikipedia regards as a reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, replied to the wrong editor. Rachal Grizzle, what is the source? --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: I searched Google for "construction of the new Fraser Street school;" and found the source below. GoingBatty (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Rachal Grizzle: It seems the James L. Key article does not have a source for the 1963 claim (unless it's buried in the William Breman Jewish Heritage Museum source). It seems the quote you provided was from this source, which doesn't make it clear when the school was named. The best place to discuss this is the article's talk page - Talk:James L. Key - along with the source you've found.

Also, you can edit without logging in, thus avoiding the captchas. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliable linked source's source appears to have been "Fraser Street School Cornerstone Laying Exercises Postponed". The Atlanta Constitution (1881–1945). 13 April 1923. I'll see if we have TWL access. Folly Mox (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Page 6, no byline. Folly Mox (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: I think you meant something like "Also, you can request an account and after four days and 10 edits that don't require a chapta you'll never see a chapta on the english Wikipedia again (provided that you always log in)"? I think I missed something when you can avoid chaptas by logging out. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Schmidt: No, I meant you won't have to fill out a CAPTCHA if you're not logged in, but I was wrong. Special:Captcha lists three instances when you might have to complete a CAPTCHA - two of which are related to having an account. I'm surprised Wikipedia:Why create an account? doesn't mention CAPTCHAs. GoingBatty (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Maybe I dreamed it, but I remember some page in the WP namesapce that reviews scripts which are posted to its subpages. I remember it having about 3 reviews. Any idea where it is? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu: Hello! What do you mean by scripts? Userscripts like HotCat or templates? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 23:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, userscripts. I could've sworn I put that in my topic... Aaron Liu (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Happy everyone!!! New Year has coming than ever to be! Wishing volunteers on Wikipedia have a good start on the new year!!! Must say that 2023 had experienced some important events for the volunteer staff to clear vandalism, reformatting some red links and anti-disrupting on the platform! Brilliant work, Wikipedians! Keep up your appreciated job as a volunteer, appearing a administrator or just newcomers! Cheers from Vietnam 🇻🇳!!!

2001:EE0:4BC2:E9E0:5DB:6154:E8B8:7AD3 (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

aye, just shutting down for the night after welcoming in 2024. Best wishes to all for a happy and prosperous 2024. Good grief, it's nearly a quarter century since the millennium, where has the time gone? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hope you a prosperous, cheerful 2024 too! Appreciate your best wish! 2001:EE0:4BC2:E9E0:5DB:6154:E8B8:7AD3 (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must have to say that everything has gone farther and farther and... time flies 🕊. 2001:EE0:4BC2:E9E0:5DB:6154:E8B8:7AD3 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 – combined with second post about same page ayakanaa ( t · c ) 05:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References number 1 and 10 are the same and need to be fixed up - I have failed in my attempts to do this. please repair if you are able. Thanks you. 175.38.42.62 (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed with named references - Please study this edit, and then fix the other error in reference #1. GoingBatty (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. number 1 which is used twice - is still in the red. Can you help please. Very difficult. Thanks 175.38.42.62 (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. number 1

Sorry - still a problem - Ref. number 1 which is used twice - is still in the red - it says in red "last generic name". Can you help please. Very difficult. Thanks 175.38.42.62 (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with this edit. Sometimes the auto-generated citations do that, so it's best to check over those. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 05:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 – combined with two other posts about the same page ayakanaa ( t · c ) 05:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref numbers 74 and 75 are both in red - I have failed to fix them up. Please fix if you have the time. Sorry 175.38.42.62 (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed - Please study these diffs to see what was done, so you can do the same in the future. GoingBatty (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding page number to citation

ref number 79 - I have discovered the page number - it is 120. - Can you put that in the citation please, I cannot. Thanks and that's all for tonight!175.38.42.62 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ayakanaa ( t · c ) 04:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "page number needed"

Can you please get rid of the "page number needed" sign beside ref number 79 if that's the right thing to do ?(we now have the correct page number)175.38.42.62 (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with this edit. (I suggest you be bold and do it yourself next time) Happy New Year, ayakanaa ( t · c ) 05:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo size reduction - lease make the photographs in the "Charity work" section of this article smaller so that they all fit neatly into the section. Please do this if you are able - we cannot. Thank you 175.38.42.62 (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the source code for the first photo includes |190px. You can change "190" to a smaller number to make the photo smaller. Add a similar parameter to the second photo to control the size as well. GoingBatty (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I am so pleased that I did it myself. 175.38.42.62 (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix up refs. numbers 2 and 3 thanks 175.38.42.62 (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done – the CS1 errors on those references were caused by the "|website=" parameter being specified for the {{cite book}} template. I went ahead and removed those parameters to resolve the errors. We use "|publisher=" on book citations to specify who published the book. "|website=" is not a valid parameter for that template. If you click on the link in the error, it'll provide you with a help page of the possible causes for that error. Happy New Year, and kind regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want some quick clarification, regarding the difference between Village Pump: Idea Lab and Village Pump: Proposals.

They both seem to be discussion pages for putting out new things to implement on Wikipedia. My interpretation of them is that the idea lab is for informally putting out ideas and developing them, getting feedback, making it into a final "prototype" that represents consensus among the community. Proposals is for formally requesting additions or significant changes to Wikipedia as-is, i.e. what has been posted will very much be like what gets implemented. The final product in the end won't be much different than the proposed idea.

Is this correct? — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm a student of BA last year and poet and author.i published 2 books in 2023 and new 5 book is my target in 2024 so I wanna create my wikipedia page ,can I? My question seems rude but it's not true. Skindiawale (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, you cannot. ltbdl (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you provide some reason? Skindiawale (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skindiawale WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skindiawale Your question does not seem rude. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about notable topics which is composed of articles typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, who take note of coverage of a subject in independent reliable sources and choose to write about it. There is criteria for inclusion, which we term notability- such as the definition of a notable creative professional. As anyone can publish a book through self-publishing, merely publishing books does not meet this criteria. If others review your work and write about it, describing what makes you important as an author or more broadly a notable person, someone will eventually write an article about you. Be advised that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i agree then start following me sir on insta and one day you will create page for me. Thanks❤

My insta handle is <redacted>. Skindiawale (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No fault of any editors here, save for one sock who is blocked and me for not raising this sooner. This is purely an attribution question/issue. Courtesy pings to involved (in a good sense) editors: @P J Chatterjee, Number 57, AS Sayyad, and Fram:. Questions are:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance candidates in the 2024 Indian general election closed as draftify, which is at Draft:(November AfD) List of Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance candidates in the 2024 Indian general election. There was already Draft:List of Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance candidates in the 2024 Indian general election from September and I probably should have requested this be resolved then.

• Do these and the new mainspace version (List of Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance candidates for the 2024 Indian general election) need a history merge or other resolution for attribution? They were predominantly created by AS Sayyad but edited by others. Thanks in advance for any assistance and apologies for the mess.

Star Mississippi 16:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my contribs, you'll see that what I thought was the simple act of moving my talk page to become this year's archive page has resulted in a major screwup, apparently compounding problems that I've been causing to myself for the last few years. There are 3 or 4 pages of this stuff in my contribs list. There's a chain of links for each one, and what I want is for the last name in the chain to be directly attached to my user talk page rather than being in a chain. (I will also have to remember to do something different next year - like maybe not moving sub-pages!) Can anyone offer some advice and/or fix it somehow? Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: You have the page mover right so the move form has a field "Move subpages (up to 100)". As you have apparently guessed, it was enabled when you moved User talk:Baseball Bugs to User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive028. That meant many archives in subpages were also moved. They were still subpages at the new name so MediaWiki decided to move them multiple times (seems like a bug). I will clean it up and delete a bunch of redirects with help from Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:Baseball Bugs/. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery is already working on it so I will stop to prevent confusion. You have made the same mistake in previous years without cleaning up fully, contributing to confusion. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Wow, that was a mess. Ironically the 2023 move didn't do anything other than create ~100 useless redirects, since everything was sufficiently messed up by the 2019 move that it reached the 100-subpage limit moving only redirects. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest revoking WP:Page mover rights from Baseball Bugs, since they have only ever use of the rights once other than to cause this mess and that would prevent this mistake from ever being made again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: You became page mover "without your consent" at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 March 22#Help with move. Do you want the right removed? It will remove all rights except the normal "Move pages (move)" at Special:ListGroupRights#extendedmover. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all so very much, for fixing this disaster. No, please do not revoke page-mover rights at this time. Next year I'll do it correctly. (And if I don't, I'll probably then ask you to remove the right!) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]