Wikipedia:Help desk

The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.

• For other types of questions, see Help:Contents and Are you in the right place? If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• If you need real-time help, you can join our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• If you are a new editor, you might prefer to ask your question at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
• Remember to sign your post by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Alternatively, you can click on the signature icon () on the edit toolbar.

Ask a new question

April 29

Chatbots

Can I use a chatbot to write an article as long as i clean it up, add citations, and remove untrue content? Blitzfan51 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If you do this on your own device, and do it well, then copy the result to a Wikipedia draft, I don't see how anyone would even know, and it would just be you making use of a tool. However, I would be very cautious about placing the raw result in any Wikipedia space, because it might contain policy breaches you hadn't yet noticed and eliminated. It has been well-established by experiment that chatbots often synthesize untrue and even impossible statements, and "invent" spurious references to support them.

As I last understood it, Wikipedians were still debating a formal policy regarding use of AI chatbots in article composition, but I am likely behind the curve as I don't create articles myself (so far). Perhaps someone could point us to a statement of the current position? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't create anything as a fulll sized article on any AI, yet. It does make mistakes and errors as it reflects human intelligence and after a while you start to notice it. Consensus still seems to forming on it, as the technology develops. Hand written still seems to be the preferred and predominate method. One area I have seen where folk are using it, to analyse and summarise complex document that you perhaps you don't understand. But it is important to know that you can't mass copy content from the output onto Wikipedia. Your articles will be deleted wholesale or sent to Afc if its a single article. As it makes errors and you copy across, you might miss the mistakes and they become embedded in the article and if it became a habit, it would likely be a massive and fatal mistake as youll likely be show the out door. There is so many aspects that are unknown, I would limit to analysis only and write the stuff yourself. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 07:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blitzfan51 The full discussion and evolving policy is at WP:LLM and its Talk Page. You can contribute there with your views. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blitzfan51: Getting a chatbot to write and article and then search for citations seems like another WP:BACKWARD way to write articles. It's still better to collect the sources first, and then summarize the sources into an article. GoingBatty (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking for a voluntarily programmer that can genuinely assist in social impact work with no financial incentive

Due to a 2024 general election taking place in Indonesia,I am planning to help educate people from subsidized pre working project caleed PRAKERJA,nevertheless those who could pass this selection only shortlisted candidates. I mean, those candidates with special access with. Wondering if a kind hearted programmer can pave the way for those ordinary peopleto pass teh selection. if any, plese reach me at (redacted) 203.78.118.17 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This Help Desk is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. It is not for recruiting programmers. Please do not post your personal contact information. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Online safety bill

Morning folks!! I noticed this morning that the Online Safety Bill might mean that WP is blocked in the UK, and UK contributors like myself, although they're will be an exception for encylcopeadias. Does any folk know if there is a discussion anywhere on WP or meta discussing this. I really don't want to be thrown off. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 05:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

News coverage here. I can't find any discussion of this either, it is still early days. Wikipedia is not a porn site and Think of the children is a weak argument for forcing age verification. Lord Parkinson said that "the bill would probably not include Wikipedia and that it was focused on “only services which pose the highest risk to children will use age verification technologies”".[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So it appears that the UK may adopt the stance taken by Putin or Xi. Strange for a Conservative government. If WP is blocked I can foresee that it may well become an issue in the next general election, that is unless the Socialists are in agreement so that there is no choice. The VPN providers must be rubbing their hands with glee, a nice encrypted VPN emerging somewhere in the USA would get around a lot of problems. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't solve the problem to use a VPN. You can access Wikipedia easily enough over a VPN, but you can't edit it (screenshot).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Is that only for IP users or for logged in users as well? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't edit over a VPN even when logged in. I'm not a technical expert, but many of the known VPN IP addresses cannot be used to do this. See also Block of Wikipedia in Turkey.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Can confirm editing through VPN services requires IP block exemption applied for via the Checkuser team (WP:IPECPROXY) as those are hardblocked when detected. If Wikipedia does end up being blocked in a country, I expect that would count as a need. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So there is a path out of being blocked, which will be handy nearer the time if the exception is not made for an encyclopeadia, although I can't see why WP wouldn't be excepted. That is great. scope_creep^Talk 19:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Scope creep That's probably the first correct use of "excepted" that I have ever seen! David10244 (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Question

If the only source is old newspaper articles that are collected from a local library, is this ok to create a Wikipedia page? 2603:9001:2D00:66BD:5C5:725D:FBA7:99AB (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no absolute requirement that sources be available online. Most newspapers tend to be archived online somewhere though, so links to such archives can be useful, and may help you convince people that notability requirements have been met. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

When citing a source that is not available online, it is especially important to provide full details about the source. For a newspaper article, this would include the complete article title, the author(s) if known, the name of the newspaper, the date of publication, the page number(s), and the city if not part of the newspaper name. Template: Cite news is a useful tool to standardize the presentation of the data. Cullen328 (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Obtaining images for an article

Throughout my time editing Wikipedia, one of the most confusing and difficult things to do has been to add images to an article. Uploading images tends be difficult unless it's something like a cover art, in which case a free use rationale is pretty easy to write up. Finding images that have already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for whichever subject I'm editing is extremely rare. How do editors typically go about obtaining images that can be used in their article? For instance, I've been editing Good Christian Fun recently. If I wanted a picture of the hosts of the show what would I do? Should I contact the hosts and see if they are willing to upload a photo themselves? Can I do something to upload a picture without contacting them? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant There are topics like Women in the Bible which has more images than we can use, but it's not that common. For an article like Miles O'Brien (Star Trek), you can use one fair-use WP image, but for Colm Meaney you have to take it yourself or be lucky. For dead people there is fair use, but for the living, you may stumble on something like [2] (note the licensing mark below the image), but you probably won't. Some Youtube clips are uploaded with acceptable license, that sometimes work. Commons:File requests exist.

I have a few times, successfully, suggested to COI-people on WP that they can contribute an image, sometimes they even ask. I think there are editors who have tried to "reach out" to subject-people, perhaps sometimes with success. You could, for example, ask something like

"Hello, I'm a Wikipedia-editor, and I'd like to improve the WP-article Good Christian Fun with images of your hosts. If you think this is a good idea, please add a couple of images on your website marked with one of the "OK" licenses here [3] and I'll add it to the article." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

These may be of interest to you:

WP:Requesting_copyright_permission

WP:Example_requests_for_permission

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Sword of the Spirit

I am a longtime editor but really feel that I am out of my depth here. Can someone glance over the edit history of Sword of the Spirit and suggest how we might attract more attention to this page? For the past month User:LinnCDoyle2 and I have disagreed about most edits each other has made; before I got involved, the same was happening between User:Linn C Doyle and User:Sudonymous. I think that most of the issues would be resolved if only some more editors would get involved. Or should I just keep going to WP:3O for every disagreement, line-by-line, such that every line generates a huge discussion on the talk page? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You can see WP:DR for this. And no, please do not spam 3O requests. 3O does not have to be every line, you can just use it on a summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

New Wikipedia

How do you add a new music artist to Wikipedia? Jennifercipriotti (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

First check that they will pass the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Then look at Help: Your first article. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jennifercipriotti It's hard to add new music artists to Wikipedia, because artists need to be established enough that multiple reliable, independent sources have written about them in depth (not just passing mentions) and that info has been published. Those are the sources on which to base an article. David10244 (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Vandal

I will learn how to use AIV, but in the meantime, can someone please warn User:SussyTheRealOne? They have three vandalism edits so far, which I fixed (I used ths red "vandalism" thing from their history for two of them). David10244 (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

AIV is not a warning tool, it's a tool for blocking a user when they have offended after their 4th/final warning. You can see WP:WARN for how to warn people. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu Thanks, I'll read about WARN. David10244 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Now blocked. David10244 (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Publishing a Page

On Wikipedia to publish a page on a living person. The first draft has 15 citations so I believe it fits Wikipedia's objectives. Working hard to edit existing pages; I have completed edits on seven pages thus far. I am in a hurry to become qualified and then publish a page as I have commitments on other writing for this person. When I have completed edits on 10 pages, what are the next steps to be allowed to publish a complete page. Thank you, John JohnOren (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You will need to use the WP:AFC process, but what is the hurry? Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, JohnOren. I see no such draft in your edit history. If you are working on it off-Wikipedia, you should move it to your draft space or your sandbox space, so that other editors can review your work. If this person is compensating you for your writing, then you must make the mandatory Paid-contribution disclosure. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for guidance. Will put it in draft space so others may review. I will not have a need for paid-contribution disclosure as I am not being compensated. In contrast, I have spent my money to collect info. JohnOren (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Then what do you mean by, I have commitments on other writing for this person? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@JohnOren And you can use the AFC process without having made 10 edits first. David10244 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, JohnOren. If you are here for the purpose of "publish[ing] a page on a [particular] person", then you probably have a conflict of interest, because that purpose might not be aligned with Wikipedia's purposes. If the person does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then no article about them is possible, and your purpose is directly contrary to Wikipedia's. If your purpose is to celebrate the person, or to conversely to warn people about the person, then your purpose is not consistent with Wikipedia. And whatever your "commitments on other writing for this person" are, they are irrelevant to Wikipedia.

Having said all this, it doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't write an article about them. But it does mean that you should check your purpose in writing about them in Wikipedia, to make sure that you write from a neutral point of view, and that you take into account any reliable published sources about them, whether positive, negative, or neutral.

Part of the reason that new accounts cannot create articles directly is to encourage people to take the alternative approach of using the articles for creation process, which involves submitting a draft for review. Personally I would advise any new editor against trying to create an article directly until they've successfully created several by AFC - and actually, I'd advise against trying to create an article in any way before having a few weeks' or months' experience making improvements to existing articles and thereby learning some of Wikipedia's requirements for sourcing and neutrality. People who try to create articles before they have learnt enough about Wikipedia often have a miserable and frustrating time. ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

JohnOren, you have not yet answered the reasonable question that Orangemike asked. Specifically, Then what do you mean by, I have commitments on other writing for this person?. When you answer this question, please do so at length, telling all the truth, and avoiding any evasion or errors by omission. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Editors of Wikipedia:Your concerns are well-founded. I am aware of much non-neutral content on the site and I share your concerns. Non-neutral content easily noticed due to so much truly neutral content. In retirement, I am using Wikipedia even more to learn about people, molecular biology, and other topics. Conflict of interest document quite comprehensive, but I have experience with legal docs, so is not daunting. I offer compliments on it. Separate from Wikipedia page, I am writing a summary of news source citations of my subject, however that may not reach a comprehensive level as the quantity of citations exceed 300. I will not be paid for that, either. My draft article has 15 citations, final may have two to four more. Article and citations I have written conform to Wikipedia standards. Confident review will be favorable. Will post draft article in a day or so. JohnOren (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

JohnOren I'm kind of surprised nobody has mentioned this. You say, "The first draft has 15 citations so I believe it fits Wikipedia's objectives." I'm not sure how 15 citations fit Wikipedia's objectives, so I wonder if you meant Wikipedia's criteria for publication--specifically, the criterion of notability. But then, 15 citations won't necessarily establish notability. If they are 15 citations that mention the person's name in passing, that won't do it. If they are 15 citations from that persons blogs or CV or resume, that won't do it, either. Uporządnicki (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

What to do with this redirect?

Ritz-Epps Fitness Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) What should be done with this redirect? It currently points to Fort Bragg, which contains the centre. The article was merged into Fort Bragg, but the merged content was removed shortly after it was added. I'm not quite sure if I should:

A. Restore the merged content;

B. Send the redirect to RfD;

or C. Do something else entirely.

Any ideas on how I should proceed? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, now that this very minor issue is out in the open, Mako001, I suppose one shouldn't just deal with it summarily, but should instead bring it up at RfD. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: That makes sense, I will probably do so shortly. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

April 30

Edit request to a blocked page

Could someone please take care of this: User talk:slakr #Was speaking with SineBot but I needed to talk to you personally ?

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you're looking for this? DonIago (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

hi @Steue and welcome to Wikipedia! you may want to try posting an edit request over at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Template to tag a reference to user-generated content?

Is there an inline template for tagging a reference to indicate it is to user generated content, like twitter, and should be replaced with a better reference? RJFJR (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

{{user-generated source}}/{{user-generated inline}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry

someone removed all of my files regarding my families history. How do I get it restored? 2603:7000:8803:BBD2:A827:FCAC:FE77:6649 (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

What 'files' are you referring to? Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, not a file-hosting service. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Length of category pages

Is there a way to change the limit to how many entries are displayed on a category page?

The "What links here" function has a "limit" parameter that you can use to show more or less items on each page. I could not find any information about a similar feature for category pages. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: It cannot be changed by users. A whole wiki can change its fixed number with mw:Manual:$wgCategoryPagingLimit. User:PrimeHunter/Sortkeys.js shows sort keys for a category and lists the first 5000 category members but they are unlinked in an ugly API format designed for programs and not people. On Category:Living people it produces Sort keys. Removing sortkeyprefix from the url gives [4]. It gives no easy way to get the next 5000. The search incategory:"Living people" can use the search feature to change the number of results. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Link in the history to a deleted contribution

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Gnostics&target=Gnostics&offset=&limit=500 ,
down at the bottom, there is a link to a section ( Talk:Saint Titus #Titus and Tyre ), but this whole section was removed.

It can only be found in the old version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saint_Titus&oldid=169756455#Titus_and_Tyre

Is there a way to fix this so that the link in the history leads directly to the old version of this talk page, even down to the section?

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You can use a WP:permanent link, but this is an unusual case: it is not normally appropriate to remove material from a talk page, unless into an archive. ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Steue: If you mean the link on "→‎Titus and Tyre" in the edit summary of [5] then there is no way to change it. Edit summaries cannot be changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine

So far I have found two such cases: both:

• are the very first two contributions of user "Gnostics" ( now blocked indefinitely for such gnostic contributions) and
• are done/deleted by User:Michaelbusch ( now retired from wp. )

I fear "Michaelbusch" has rigorously deleted all such "insider"/gnostic contribs from user:Gnostics on/from talk pages.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter

Yes, this I mean.

But my intention is not to change the edit summary of the original editor (user:Gnostics) but to link the link in the history to the old version,

at least like a link to a diff, or directly to the old version, like with "old id ...".

What has the edit summary to do with the links in the history?

I mean: I suppose the history links to sections, not to edit summaries.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Steue: Please describe precisely where you see the link you want to change. I thought it was the link on the grey text with an arrow "→‎Titus and Tyre" at the start of the edit summary. Such links are made automatically for section edits where the prefilled edit summary starts with /* Titus and Tyre */. The text can be edited before saving the edit and is just the first part of the edit summary.[6]. It is converted to a section link when MediaWiki displays the edit summary but the link always goes to the current version of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@ PrimeHunter
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Gnostics&target=Gnostics&offset=&limit=500 .

2: Scroll down to the very bottom,

3: there is the link Titus and Tyre.

Steue (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Steue: The only "Titus and Tyre" link I see there is the one I described. For me it's grey text with an arrow "→‎Titus and Tyre". It's made with /* Titus and Tyre */ at start of the edit summary. I said the text could be changed before saving but that only applies to existing sections. The edit was adding a new section and in that case, MediaWiki automatically makes the whole edit summary: /* Titus and Tyre */ new section. Regarding [7], blank lines between indented replies is against WP:TALKGAP. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@ PrimeHunter

Sorry for the gap, it wasn't intentional.

We mean the same link.

I understand the problem as follows:

• At the beginning this link, which appears in the history, linked to the appropriate section,
• then "User:Michaelbusch" deleted the target,
• now this link only can lead to the top of the current version of this talk page and
• this link can not be changed.

Solution:

How about entering a new topic (in the talk page) (with the same title) which then only contains a perma link to the old version of this section? The user would simply have to click on this link.

This wouldn't make the downloads of the talk page much slower, however the title would appear in the table of contents.

Question:

If a section got archived, is it possible to get the link of/in the history to link to the archive?

If I understand your explanations right, this would not be possible. Which would mean that all users, following a link to a section which got archived would have to manually search in the archive.

If this is so, the wiki software should be improved re. links to sections which later get archived.

Steue (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Steue: You can enable "find-archived-section: navigate easily to an archived section after following its broken link" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Your idea to make a new section with a link to the old revision would work but I oppose it. If the removed section is worth giving access to then restore the actual section. Otherwise ignore it and let the link remain broken. The content can still be found by clicking the time stamp or a "diff" or "prev" link. Section links also break whenever a section is renamed, unless an {{anchor}} with the old name is added. There have been attempts to make new discussion software but the implementations are not popular. Wikipedia:LiquidThreads was abandoned. Wikipedia:Flow is enabled in some wikis but the English Wikipedia doesn't want it. There is no simple, good, general solution to the problem with broken links to old sections. There is a bot which sometimes updates broken links in wiki pages to point to an archived section. It cannot change links in edit summaries. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@ PrimeHunter

Thanks for the gadget.

That's what the time stamp, as a link, is for, in the history. I rember having seen it, being a link, but I seldom cared to try or use it; and I wasn't really aware of it's purpose.

These contribs from user:Gnostics are "insider" informations, and I see no way to find them in a 'reliable source', so they can't be used in the wp., but still are interesting -- to me. So I will use the time stamp, and leave them deleted. Plus: It seems that most readers mis-understand/mis-interpret them as trolling.

My idea was a kind of invisible redirect, invisible like this <!-- ... --> or an anchor.

That the 'edit summaries' aren't editable is a weak point I've come across several times alredy. I wish this would be improved. I'm sure it's possible. Almost everything is possible -- in software; hackers are demonstrating it every day :) .

As for incomplete 'edit summaries', which get created because I un-intentionally hit the [Enter] button, my solution is to revert and redo the edit, and also to prepare everything in my computer, before I load it up, although time consuming. This has the advantage that I have a copy, no matter what happens outside, plus it saves me waiting time and the wp-server traffic.

Steue (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@ ColinFine
"Permanent link" is what I just meant with the old version, like with "old id ...".
Problem: I don't make the history. The history is created automatically. So I don't see a place where I could place such a perma link.
Steue (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Letter æ

Is this letter allowed in users' nicknames? Dr Salvus 14:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. WP:NONLATIN.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

But it is Latin... —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but if the CJK logograms, and Hebrew, Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, etc, characters are allowed, it must follow that the Latin ligatures are also allowed. I did not create the MOS section title nor its shortcut, but the content of the MOS section still applies. The only prohibited characters are those explicitly listed at WP:NONLATIN.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Are usernames containing the word "Wikipedia" or "Wikipediæ" allowed? Dr Salvus 09:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they don't try to pass themselves off as being official or having special privileges e.g Wikipedia Admin. They are also - like all accounts - only to be used by a single user. - X201 (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Tifo

Is the word "tifo" common in English? I wrote it in italics, because outside Italy I don't think it's common; if I've made a mistake, I can correct it. JackkBrown (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I had never heard the word, and hadn't a clue what it meant; but then I don't follow football. The NoW corpus (17.2 billion words from 20 English-speaking countries) has only 527 instances of it. ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@ColinFine: then I'm sure it's correct to write this word in italics. JackkBrown (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: Or, even better, use the {{lang}} template: so {{lang|it|tifo}} gives tifo. Bazza (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Publish draft from Sandbox to Wikipedia

Hi, I have a new page I created about a person in my Sandbox.

I would like to kno:

1. How to publosh it to Wikipedia?
2. How to change the name of the page instead of "My Sandbox"?

I am a new user, Thank you all. BnayaMeir (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

BnayaMeir, before the contents of your sandbox can be accepted in article space, you'll need to bring it up to the standards required of an article. In particular, you'll need to establish that Paldor is notable by citing several reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of him, and to remove all statements that aren't supported by any cited source. Maproom (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, like almost all new editors who try to create an encyclopaedia article in Wikipedia, you have gone about it backwards: you need to start by finding the reliable, independent, published sources about Paldo (remembering that nothing said, written, or published by Paldo or his associates will contribute) and write the article based on what those sources say, not on what you know. ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Mystery template

Can someone tell me what the template {{-}} means? I encountered it while editing this stub; it's at the bottom of the page, below the references and above the categories. It doesn't seem to have any visible effect, and a search for it in MOS pages, help pages, and template pages turns up no result. I left it in place since I didn't want to be the guy who thoughtlessly removed it and thereby caused the WMF servers to burst into flame, but I'd still like to know what it does. Thanks, Choliamb (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

See Template:Clear for documentation of what it does. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Choliamb: You can look up a template by placing template: before the name in the search box. template:- redirects to Template:Clear. Not all templates have documentation but this one does. In Arikhankharer it's placed before the stub templates so they always display below the infobox. In a wide screen or small font they might otherwise be displayed to the left of the infobox. I don't know wether this use of {{clear}} is recommended. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I had encountered {{clear}} before, but not {{-}}, and I think I forgot to drop the brackets when I searched for Template:-, probably because it just looks so weird. I see from the talk pages of both templates that I am not the first person to ask about this redirect, and that some of the supporters of {{-}} were not happy when it was merged with {{clear}}, which just goes to show that there is no invisible HTML formatting trick so small that it cannot inspire strong tribal allegiance — like whether to crack your eggs at the big end or the small end, or whether to put on your footwear sock-sock-shoe-shoe or sock-shoe-sock-shoe :). Choliamb (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Ultras

Within the sub-paragraph "United Arab Emirates" of the paragraph "United Arab Emirates", on the page "Ultras", the captions have been formatted in a very strange way. JackkBrown (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I have removed some odd stuff from that section. Maybe someone smarter than me can work out what it was meant to be. Maproom (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

How can you change a template title?

FYI

 – Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

How can you change a template title? Bjoh249 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bjoh249: You could move it, just like moving an article to change the title. Which template did you want to rename? GoingBatty (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

May 1

Regarding an apparent ambiguity in the way a Category name is worded at "Category:American journalists by ethnic or national origin"

This question is about the Category:American journalists by ethnic or national origin.
That Category may need an explanatory header to define what it is for, specifically who it is for?

At the root of the apparent problem is the ambiguity represented in this question,
What is this category for,
for people born in the U.S. (or, of course, born abroad but to American parents) who are not of anglo-saxons origin but who practice journalism in the US ("America"),
OR
is it for people born anywhere in the world to parents other than American anglo parents but who practice journalism in the US ("America")?

That is, how is "American" (in "American journalists" in the title), being used there, it is intended to define the nationality of the journalist listed or the job they are performing? Specifically, is "American" being used to group people who are American citizens or is it being used to group people practicing journalism in America (i.e., in the US)?

For example, José Díaz-Balart is on the list, so it can be assumed he is on the list because he is of Latino descent (i.e., ethnicity) but born in the US, which would make him an American by birth (thus, he is an "American journalist" based on being born in America), but Jorge Ramos is also on this list so it can (confusingly) be assumed he is in the list because although he is a Latino not born in the US, his practicing journalism in America makes him an "American journalist".

Mercy11 (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Jorge Ramos is a citizen of the United States, Mercy11, so I have no idea why you are talking about him that way. Who cares where he was born? What's confusing about an immigrant becoming a U.S. citizen? Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 Because, as Mercy11 says, the category might be seen as ambiguous with regard to its scope. Wikipedia deals in facts. Places of birth, citizenship at birth, naturalization--these are some of the facts that Wikipedia might deal with. It's not "talking about [anybody] that way." It seems to me, you've grasped the wrong end of his or her question, and then your own wording in your comment seems to suggest some sort of bias or chauvinism in the question. I'm suddenly reminded of that poor woman in England recently, who asked someone a reasonable and perfectly harmless question, and simply worded it in a clumsy way; now she's fired, and must forever be regarded as a racist--with no evidence that she really is, but in the "walking on eggs" climate of our times, we must put her out to pasture for the sake of promoting "woke." Uporządnicki (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Mercy11, I've taken the liberty of editing--JUST FORMATTING--your original post to accomplish the link I think you were trying to make. I hope I haven't committed a breach of etiquette. I'm guessing that you were trying to insert a Wikilink to the category in question, and found that you'd categorized the whole page instead--so you did a nowiki. To put in a link to a category, what you do is, after the initial pair of square brackets, you put a colon just before the word "Category." Uporządnicki (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

NP -- I always forget about the colon (2 dots), and your formatting edit did exactly what I was trying to accomplish with that link! thx! And, yes, your interpretation of my question is accurate. Mercy11 (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is another example of the problem as I see it, but this time using categories (not just individuals as I did above with José Díaz-Balart and Jorge Ramos). This presents the problem further. This time I will use an ethnic group, Puerto Ricans. Here I will contrast the category in question, that is, Category:American journalists with a similar category Category:American educators, and "drill up" to those two categories using this ethnic group (Puerto Ricans) as the common ethnic group in both cases:

Category:Puerto Rican educators >>> Category:Educators from insular areas of the United States >>> Category:American educators.

COMPARE WITH

Category:Puerto Rican journalists >>> Category:Journalists of insular areas of the United States >>> Category:American journalists

In both of these examples, it is clear that the two Puerto Rican groups (Puerto Rican educators and Puerto Rican journalists) refers to people born in Puerto Rico (rationale: if this wasn't the case, then they wouldn't be located under "insular areas of the United States", right?) Though, granted, there is , perhaps, the remote possibility it could include educator or journalists not born there, but just practicing education or journalism there. However, at a minimum, by categorizing under "insular areas" first, we have removed the possibility that it would include Puerto Rican practicing education or journalism in a location other than PR.

However, following a similar rationale for the Category:American journalists by ethnic or national origin pathway, the meaning of "American" in "American journalists" appears to be lost or, at best, to be defined on the basis of citizenship, as follows:

Category:Puerto Rican journalists >>> Category:Hispanic and Latino American journalists >>> Category:American journalists by ethnic or national origin‎ >>> Category:American journalists.

That is, in this last example, Puerto Rican journalists are, ultimately, being placed under American journalists not because they are practicing journalism in the US (as there are many in the group that never practiced journalism outside PR) but, ambiguously, either on the basis of being US citizens or on the basis of practicing in the US.

If, as in the case of José Díaz-Balart, Category:American journalists is for journalist who are American citizens whose job is journalism, then the category can include US-born journalists who never practice journalism in the US but practice it only in, say, China, because the cat is based on citizenship, not on country of practice.

If, on the other hand, as in the case of Jorge Ramos, Category:American journalists is for people who perform journalism in America regardless of their citizenship, then the category can include non-US born journalists such as those from BBC, Al Jazeera, CBC, etc., because the cat is based on country of practice, not on citizenship. (obviously, I am assuming that journalists from foreign networks work in the US as, at most, residents, not as dual-citizens).

Regardless, my question here isn't why Category:American journalists is grouping on the basis of citizenship or country of practice (or, for that matter, location -- mainland vs insular). My question stems from the fact that, judging by the category name alone, the cat name lends itself to ambiguity and, thus, IMO, there should be a header line somewhere inside the category defining exactly what is the basis for inclusion. Thx! Mercy11 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Digital Downloads

How to create a secure digital downloads ecommerce platform that accepts secure p2p payments?108.216.174.8 (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not a question about how to edit or use Wikipedia. It might be appropriate for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing; at least they could give some pointers. (Haven't such platforms already been created? Nevermind; please try the reference desk.) David10244 (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Middleton family

Could the file/photo - of John William Middleton in this section of the article - Family law and woollen manufacturing firms - please be made smaller please. I cannot do this, thanks. 115.70.23.77 (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I have reduced the size. If you want a different size now, just change "upright=" to a different number. Here's the relevant help page: Help:Pictures#Thumbnail_sizes -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Can I add a link to a non-English Wikipedia page?

I am updating Mocca (band) - they are an Indonesian band. I would like to know if it is possible to link to a page on the Indonesian version, regarding films where they appeared on the OST? There aren't English versions of these pages.

https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh,_My_God!
https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_(film_2019)

Thank you BJCHK (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi BJCHK. The recommended way to do this is to use the interlanguage link template, for example {{interlanguage link|Oh, My God|id}} would become Oh, My God and {{ILL|Senior (film 2019)|id}} would become Senior (film 2019) (ill is just the short form). This has the advantage of letting readers know that the article is from another language version, so they are not surprised, and the red link is intended to encourage people to also create the article on our end if they feel they are able to (and the subject meets our inclusion criteria). For more infromation, you can see the help page at Help:Interlanguage links, and more specifically the H:FOREIGNLINK section. Happy editing! Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(of course, for the second link you'd probably want to get rid of the disambiguator in the brackets with {{ill|Senior (film 2019)|id|lt=Senior}} which would show as Senior) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated! BJCHK (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Bertha Benz

The following sentence appears twice: once in the "Honours" paragraph and once in the "In popular culture" paragraph: "In 2011, a television movie about the life of Carl and Bertha Benz was made, titled Carl & Bertha [de], which premiered on 11 May[23] and was aired by Das Erste on 23 May.[24][25] A trailer of the movie[26] and a "making of" special were released on YouTube.[27]". Which one can I remove? Page: Bertha Benz. JackkBrown (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I would remove the one in Honours. It doesn't really make sense there and it definitely belongs in the other section. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Quasicristals

In the article on Quasicristals I found this perplexing sentence:

It was demonstrated that these units can be both organic and organic. 2600:1009:B045:C2B9:0:50:5548:DC01 (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error. I have fixed it now. In the future you can fix it yourself. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It says there is an article already named this.

I am trying to publish a page for my cousin who is an accomplished country artist named "Eli Mosley". This is his given birth name. When I try to move the article from draft to (Article), it says there is already an article by this name. When I search Wikipedia for "Eli Mosley", it only comes up with as article named "Elliot Kline". When reading the Elliot Kline article, it says "Elliot Kline (born 1991), also known as Eli Mosley". Is this what is kicking the Eli Mosley title back to me? How do I remedy this? Awoodfin (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What we can do is delete the redirect and that should allow you to move the draft article to the main article space. Then, you would need to add a Wikipedia:Hatnote to your article, indicating that some people may be looking for the other person. I think that may work well. If you want to pursue that route, I am an admin and have the technical ability to help you with that; however be aware that once moved to the article space, the draft could be nominated for deletion if someone thinks it is not appropriate, usually this is because the subject of the article doesn't pass Wikipedia's notability standards. --Jayron32 15:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Awoodfin (ec) As you have a conflict of interest, you should run the draft through Articles for Creation so experienced editors can look at it and offer suggestions before the draft is placed in the encyclopedia. The review process can also handle the placement of the article at the proper title(currently occupied by a redirect as you have found). 331dot (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! I may go that route depending on what the admin says. Awoodfin (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

As this is my first article, I would feel more comfortable if you believe this is the best course of action and I could definitely use the help. Do you think I should go through the Articles for Creation because of a conflict of interest as 331dot replied just after you? I have 43 or 44 citations in the article so I thought this might get past the conflict of interest. Awoodfin (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Awoodfin. The first thing I would say is that I would advise any new editor, COI or not, to use the AFC mechanism for their first few articles. The problem is that, until you have amassed some experience, you won't understand what Wikipedia requires of an article. This means that it is likely that the first few times you submit, your draft will be declined, but you will get feedback on what needs to be improved. If you move it to mainspace yourself, then it is likely to get moved back to Draft anyway, or deleted if the new page patroller thinks it's unsalvageable.

Looking at your Draft:Eli Mosley, your 43 or 44 citations are far fewer than that because some are repeated (see WP:NAMEDREF). More seriously, many of them are obviously not reliable (eg Facebook, blogs), not independent (eg the Ervin interview) or do not contain significant coverage of Mosley. Almost all information in an article needs to come from sources which meet all three of those criteria (see golden rule) so most references that do not meet the criteria should be removed, together with any information derived only from them.

As a separate issue (though easily fixed) Wikipedia articles don't refer to their subjects by firstname. ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on the comments of others who looked at your draft closer, Awoodfin, I would recommend that you go the AFC route to get some more feedback before we move it to the mainspace. There seems to be some concerns about the amount of reliable source material the subject may have written about them. If the AFC process sends it to the mainspace, someone can take care of the technical aspects of fixing the multiple pages with the same name issue. --Jayron32 17:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Policy question

Is there a policy or guideline concerning the practice of reverting talk page edits? I'm sure there is, but I can't find one. Cessaune [talk] 15:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune Could you be more specific about your situation? I gather you aren't talking about vandalism. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

More specifically, is there a policy or guideline concerning silent reversion of talk page edits, especially ones concerning political articles such as January 6 United States Capitol attack? When you go to the talk page history, a lot of bad faith rants such as this one are reverted (this is the nicest bad faith rant I could find) but a few good faith stuff such as this are also reverted. I was wondering if there was a policy that deals with the latter situation. Cessaune [talk] 16:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune Most angry rants are removed as WP:NOTAFORUM or just for the anger. I think the "good" comment was removed because it does not seem obviously pertinent(and the editor cited not a forum). If you feel that this policy was improperly applied, please first bring it up with that editor(though the comment was over a month ago, may be best to let it go). 331dot (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. (bold mine) Also Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal. (bold mine) It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article). (bold mine). I hope that helps. --Jayron32 17:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Restore my page

Good Morning, Could you please restore my page that got deleted? I need to work on it and it was deleted with the name/topic: "Karl Hargesetam". Samnicolebauer (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Samnicolebauer I can find no deleted draft or article titled "Karl Hargesetam". Your account has no edits other than the above, did you create it without an account? 331dot (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Was it on this version of Wikipedia? We can only help you with the English Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There used to be articles about Karl Hargestam and Karl Härgestam. They have been deleted repeatedly over the years. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 17:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• The page was deleted back in March by Seraphimblade. Perhaps they could comment more on the matter. --Jayron32 17:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Provided that the reference is to Karl Hargestam, then the answer to that, Samnicolebauer, is that the article was deleted since it was promotional. Promotional material is not permitted on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  If the article is changed so it would not be promotional, how would I restore the information or the Wikipedia page so it could fit the guidelines? Samnicolebauer (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Samnicolebauer Do you have a connection to Karl Hargestam? Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Do you have at least three independent sources with significant coverage of him, that are not interviews, press releases, or basic announcements of his activities?

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is usually recommended to first spend time editing existing articles, to learn more about how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Caste organizations are spreading false information

You are helping a large community of caste people who are using their platform to spread false information to people to degrade the dominant caste from the 10th century to the 20th century. And, as they attempted to highlight and change the clause in the article, they refused to empower it to do anything else. velayudhapataiyachi.s 17:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samathanaprabu (talk • contribs)

I am unsure which article you are having a problem with, but I can assure you, I have done nothing of the sort. You should probably assume good faith, and take this up at the talk page of the article in question, noting your concerns along with some actionable changes you'd like to see made. --Jayron32 17:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Samathanaprabu, Wikipedia is not about "empowering" (or disempowering) anybody. It is about summarizing what reliable sources say about a topic. That is all. As Jayron says, if you have a problem with a particular article, discuss it on the talk page of that article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"vanniya" is low cast in tamilnadu at india, velayudhapataiyachi.s 23:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samathanaprabu (talk • contribs)

If you have an issue with the article Vanniyar, you may discuss how to improve the article at Talk:Vanniyar. I see you have created Draft:VANNIYAR, which will not be published as an article because Vanniyar already exists. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Copy of license in Albania

Copy of license in Albania ArtaTopalli (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, is there a question we can help answer for you about using Wikipedia? --Jayron32 17:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Alathurpadi Dars

Reference help requested. What's the error? is it still existing? Thanks, 103.179.196.104 (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You defined named reference ":0" twice. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

how can I ask a question

how can I get information from Wikipedia? Maxinky (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Maxinky If you mean how can you locate a particular article about a topic, you may use the search bar at the top left of the screen. For example, if you type in "Joe Biden" it will take you to the article about Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Image modification

Resolved

Hi, I won't be long. If an image of a person or group of people has a drop shadow on it (as in, baked into the image) is it safe to remove it and modify it without the drop shadow if it is licensed under CC-BY-SA 1.0-3.0? I feel like I should be asking this question on Commons but I don't know how to navigate that site. — theki (hit me up) 21:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Theki: Hi there! The Commons Help desk operates the same way this one does - see c:Commons:Help desk. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Going to go ahead and mark as resolved while I ask my question there. Cheers. — theki (hit me up) 03:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Is dangerous content allowed?

In other words: Does Wikipedia remove infohazards such as information on how to build a bomb?

I couldn't find any content policy about this. C. Scheler (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi C. Scheler. Wikipedia articles aren't really intended to be a guidebook on how to do something regardless of whether its considered dangerous; so, any article that simply lists the steps needed to create anything or do anything is probably going to be seen as a violation of WP:NOT. However, an encyclopedic article which can be reliably sourced on "homemade" stuff might be acceptable depending on whether it's considered to be Wikipedia:Notable. Moreover, any type of DIY content which is completely unrelated to Wikipedia that someone adds to their user page is also likely going to be seen as a violation of WP:UPNO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding photos with the permission of owner

Hello. I have been updating Mocca (band) and was hoping to add a couple of images to the article, specifically the cover of their 2012 documentary Life Keeps on Turning (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2127326/). As the image would appear in the Film and TV section, rather than the infobox, I was wondering if it is possible to add the image as fair use? (I've only been writing about deceased people so far, so this is new territory for me...) In case it helps, I have been in touch with the band's manager and know I could get permission. Thank you in advance BJCHK (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BJCHK. Non-free film covers can only be used in an article about the film. On the other hand, if the copyright holder is willing to freely license the image in an acceptable fashion, then the image can be used anywhere for any purpose. Have the copyright holder follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi BJCHK A couple of things about WP:CONSENT: (1) only a copyright holder can give their consent and (2) consent can't be limited to Wikipedia (i.e. educational or non-commercial) use only. The band and its representatives can only give consent to works that are 100% the intellectual property of the band. If there are other copyright holders involved, then you will need to get their consent as well. So, if the filmmaker who created the documentary about the band has retained some copyright ownership over it, you will need to get the filmmaker's consent as well.

As for fair use, "non-free content use" is sort of Wikipedia's way of incorporating copyrighted content into its articles; Wikipedia's non-free content policy, however, has been set up to be intentionally more restrictive than fair use and it's this policy that matters. When it comes to things like copyrighted album covers, film posters, publicity photos, etc., Wikipedia could almost certainly use them under a claim of fair use, but further requires that each use satisfy its non-free content use policy. For non-free film posters, for example, using it in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the film the poster represents is most likely not going to be a problem; using it on other articles or other ways, on the other hand, is trickier and typically requires a very strong justification for non-free use. So, simply adding the documentary's cover art to a sub-section in an article about the band is probably not going to be allowed unless there's quite a bit of sourced critical commentary about the cover art itself (not the documentary, but the cover art itself) found in that particular sub-section to justify the reader needing to see it. If there's no significant loss in reader understanding of what's written in that section caused by omitting the cover art, then it's non-free use is most likely going to be considered decorative and won't be allowed.

Since copyrighted content that has been released by its copyright holder under an acceptable free license is not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, it's much easier to use and is always preferred to non-free content. Copyright holder consent is not necessary to use something as non-free content, but there are lots of restrictions that need to be met for such content to be considered OK to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Marchjuly much appreciated - that really helped me get a handle on matters. BJCHK (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2

Shortcomings of a policy prohibiting original research

I was recently reading the List of railway electrification systems article, when I noticed an unexpected entry for a railway shortline that I live nearby. As far as I knew from seeing it in-person, this railway is not electrified. I dug into the citations and discovered that, at least at one point, the railway was, in fact, electrified. Working through Google Street View imagery, I was able to determine that it was de-electrified some time between 2008 and 2013.

So, in my mind, there is no doubt that while this line was once electrified, it no longer is. So, I removed the entry from the article (this was about two months ago). Another editor reverted my edit, asking me to source it, which was totally fair! However, further research brought me to the realization that there were no reliable sources noting the de-electrification of the line, even though it occured over a decade ago. In fact, the only decent source online about this railway at all is the one cited by the article, published in 1999! (at which time the line would've been electrified).

Thus, have I found a flaw in a policy prohibiting original research? It is obviously incorrect to include the line on an list of electrified railways, as it is not an electrified railway. However, there is a wiki-worthy source stating it is an electrified railway which was published when that was true, and no more recent source claiming to the contrary. The evidence I have to indicate it has been de-electrified is original research, and therefore not acceptable on Wikipedia. I'm not arguing in opposition of such a policy, in 99% of cases I think it is a positive one, but is this the cost of such a policy? Or am I just missing something somewhere? P1^{(talk / contributions)} 05:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It might help us to answer if we knew which article is under discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

See the first sentence of my question. P1^{(talk / contributions)} 06:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I realize you probably mean which entry on the list. I'm referring to the TXU Martin Lake line, under the 25 kV AC, 60 Hz subsection. So sorry about that! P1^{(talk / contributions)} 06:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

P1, the first sentence of that article reads This is a list of the power supply systems that are, or have been, used for railway electrification. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, this listing should remain. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I did miss that before; thanks for pointing that out! My fundamental question about the original research policy stands, however, at the Martin Lake Line article, where the uncited claim that the line has been de-electrified is made. I wasn't the one to add that claim, but it appears that whatever editor did based it off original research. The articles two sources are the 1999 source used in the list article, and a database of locomotive photos. Other issues with the article and its lack of inline citations aside, wouldn't it face the same problem, that it must, inaccurately, claim that it is an electrified rail line because no reliable source exists (or likely will ever exist) to the contrary?

Or, is the problem that the article does not meet notability standards since there aren't enough reliable secondary sources to provide an accurate picture of its subject's nature? P1^{(talk / contributions)} 07:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Good faith and bad faith edits

Good faith edits are not colored, however, bad faith edits are colored red. How does Wikipedia knows whether an edit is good faith or bad faith? Vitaium (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The reverting editor makes the decision. For rollbackers there is a menu of "[rollback (AGF)] | [rollback] | [vandalism]" at the top of the difference display. "rollback (AGF)" is "assume good faith". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)