Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Automated way to nominate multiple of something at XfD

Hi, is there any automated process (like a script, gadget, etc.) that can nominate multiple of something at XfD? Or can I only do that manually? Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD works for CfD and RfD. For others I think you need manual work. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Perfect for RfD. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning is that the second sentence on the script page says, "Let me know if you want me to add any other XfD venues." So I can suggest to the creator (Qwerfjkl) the next XfD venue they should add to the script. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Weather templates redundancy?

Hi, I was wondering if there's a specific guideline regarding for when to use a Climate chart versus a Weather box, since they seem to be similar. For example, if the available data only includes Mean daily maximum, Mean daily minimum and Average precipitation data, like in this case, would it be better to change it to use a Climate chart instead? Thanks for any help! JustEMV (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You could ask at WT:WikiProject Weather. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

"Populated places" and its consequences related to categories

The term populated places when used incorrectly related to categories listing various populated places for any number of reasons, can either add too many settlements to a category page, or leave out the small, populated places that should have been listed within the category.

For instance, should a small unincorporated community like Riverview, Belmont County, Ohio be included within the Category:Ohio populated places on the Ohio River. For one, it is designated a populated place by the USGS. Second, it is located along the Ohio River. However, it is not extensively built-up, and the population is small. This question is also valid for Dilles Bottom, Ohio. Ultimately the heart of the issue is: If the USGS designates it a populated place then it should be included within the category. If not, then what is the designated something as a populated place?

What should I move forward with including or even possibly removing from the category to meet standards? TheQuietTrail (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You can never add too many entries to a category. If it becomes crowded, it can always be split up into subcategories. But to my Mark I eyeballs, both Riverview and Dilles Bottom look like they're near the Ohio River, not on it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, I will proceed forward disregarding a population number then. That being said, you brought up an interesting point about the distance between the river and the town. For instance, does a community like Costonia, Ohio fit into the list? For all intents in purposes the village looks like it was established as a river town. It based in a flat hollow along the river, yet slightly above and beyond the riverbed. It even a has bridge that directly connects to an island where work is completed. Yet, there is a highway cutting through the space between the community and river. So, it makes it an interesting discussion.

I would say a majority of these towns that are slightly beyond the riverbed are that way for two reasons: The flood plain makes it unrealistic to settle right beside the river, or farmland is owned along the river which would technically be a part of the community; thus, making the community along the river?

Some entries to the category that were already apart of the list before I started adding to it, that could be put into question would be: Rayland, Ohio, Coal Grove, Ohio, even Wheelersburg, Ohio has only several building directly settled along the river, as the main settlement is much deeper inland than something like Dilles Bottom, Ohio. TheQuietTrail (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to determine what "on" means exactly. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliable source

Can this Brazilian LGBTQIA+ website be considered a reliable source? Questionadora ávida (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Based on what I see at [1], this appears to be WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

If that's indeed the case, I think it's a real shame. The site has very comprehensive information on topics that few people bother to discuss. Questionadora ávida (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It does make sense since it sounds like it comes from the people that own the website, which is why it is not sourced. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 22:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

You need to tell us what it is you are proposing to cite the website for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Even better, move this question to WP:RSN and there do as AndyTheGrump says. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Easier way to verify cites?

Hello is SIDE or similar available for me to run on individual articles please? https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-023-00726-1 ? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Apparently there is a link to the code used at the bottom of the article. It may well not be usable by individuals without specialist knowledge. TSventon (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Forgot password

I forgot my password but my IP address is banned for 2 years. I'm trying to log in to a different browser. BadEditor93 (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@BadEditor93: Users who forget their password and haven't set an email address usually have to create a new account (note Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry). But since you are still logged in, you can try to keep it. Use {{Committed identity}} while logged in. Then try mailing ca@wikimedia.org and ask them to set an email address for your account so you can use Special:PasswordReset. Remain logged in if possible. They may ask for more, or they may say no. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't switch to the source editor.

I tried to switch to the source editor after editing an article, and I got a message telling me the edit has expired and I need to copy my work and refresh the page. how do I do that? I couldn't find any information whatsoever on the editing guides. גירית דבש שחורה (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Assuming you're using Windows, make sure your cursor is somewhere in the text, not somewhere else on the screen. Then ctrl-A should highlight the text, followed by ctrl-C to copy it. Exit the page, reopen it, make sure the cursor is in the right place, and type ctr-A, then ctrl-V to paste it back. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

(Missed a couple of steps there. Should be good now.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Ctrl-A that first time, Clarityfiend, yes; but I think not also needed just before Ctrl-V. (On the other digit, I rarely use Windows, so I dunno.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@גירית דבש שחורה and Hoary: The second Ctrl-A marks everything and causes the following Ctrl-V to replace the existing content. It's possible to omit Ctrl-A. That will insert the copied content into the existing content. In VisualEditor, you may be in a position where inserting it gives a poor result or fails. If I was copying from the source editor (which is not possible in the described scenario), I would omit the second Ctrl-A to avoid possible accidents. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

WP: LOGOUT

I found that there was an editor who always edited the article soon after I edited it. Some of their editions were so meaningless that I had to undo it. They seem to be obsessed with "making sure the last edit is made by themselves." What's worse is that they actually has an account but in the past 10 days they made all editions without logged in (I can identify their account). I would like to ask, does their behavior violate Wikipedia policies? How should I respond? Thanks. 特磨 (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

特磨 logging out before editing an article certainly does not violate Wikipedia policies. But "hounding" an article might, if it becomes harmful. You should probably respond by starting a conversation on their user talk page before escalating it to something like dispute resolution. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Academia.edu is not dead

I have recently updated several articles (example) wherein a cite to Academia.edu was marked as a {{dead link}} or similar, when the link was still accessible provided the reader has an account (free registration) with Academia. My solution was to remove the dead link flag, and add (chapter-)url-access=registration as appropriate. (Actually, the example given should have used chapter-url.) With a view to identifying and fixing such cases quickly:

1. Do all Academia articles require free registration, or do they allow open access to some? or require paid access to others?
2. Is it possible for a bot to identify (and count, and list) cites where url=academia.edu is marked as a dead or permanently dead link?
3. If there are more than a handful (as I suspect) could a bot fix such cases?

-- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 10:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that I've ever seen anything at academia.edu that required registration to read. I am able to read your Hartley example without registering. Sure, I can't read the pdf version, but do I need to? I was able to read all academia.edu sources from a random sampling of articles listed in this search result.

Answers:

1. 'open access' has a specific definition that allows reuse of a source; that reuse must be agreed between the reuser and the source's publisher (which publisher is not academia.edu). If you mean 'free-to-read' then my experience is that documents at academia.edu are free-to-read; if there are exceptions, I've not encountered them.
2. yes; if such a bot exists, I don't know of it; a relatively simple awb script should be able to create such a list
3. yes; if such a bot exists, I don't know of it

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I can see now how I have misunderstood the interface. When not logged in, I see the summary of the paper (Title - Abstract - Figures), followed by a long list of related paper abstracts. Below that is the body of the paper. I had not looked far enough down. When I am logged in, the body of the paper appears at the start. What does need registration, I still think, is downloading the PDF.

I acknowledge that I used Open access carelessly, when I should have said 'free-to-read'.

I will now correct my edits that say Academia.edu requires registration; though I am still curious as to why so many were inaccurately labelled 'dead'. Perhaps other people had similar problems understanding the interface. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, the problem is a little more convoluted. Example: our article Architecture in Middle-earth cites a chapter from a book that is held on Academia.edu. The chapter can be linked as https://www.academia.edu/29679706/From_Middle_Earth_to_Westeros_Medievalism_Proliferation_and_Paratextuality_2016_, and, as observed above, is accessible to all-comers.

However, the link actually used in the article is directly to the PDF, https://www.academia.edu/download/64215972/Ken%20Gelder,%20ed.%20New%20Directions%20in%20Popular%20Fiction%20Genre,%20Distribution,%20Reproduction%202016.pdf#page=207, and if I use that link when I am not logged in, it goes to Academia's 404 page, with no obvious route to search for the entry or otherwise resolve the problem. It was probably this result that led to the 'dead link' flag.

The solution is to convert the (restricted to registered users) PDF link to the (free-to-read) web page. There is no obvious relation between the two that would allow a bot to do this, so it will be a manual task to search for the alternative link in each case. (Articles that link to the free-to-read page will presumably not get flagged as dead links - I hope). -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

If we are to believe this search, there are about 465 articles with a cs1|2 template linking to academia.edu followed directly by {{dead link}}.

According to this search, there are about 590 articles that have a https://www.academia.edu/download/... url. Of those, this search suggests that about 265 of those are marked as dead.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I have gone through, manually checked, and corrected, all my recent updates. And I have discovered a further twist: in the majority of cases I examined, where the link to the /download/ address is used, eg https://www.academia.edu/download/66170878/Honegger_2004_Bag_End.pdf, it will automatically redirect to the free-to-read alternative, ie https://www.academia.edu/45669412/From_Bag_End_to_L%C3%B3rien_the_Creation_of_a_Literary_World. This happens whether or not I am logged in to Academia.

However, in the case mentioned above (Middle Earth to Westeros) this does not happen, so there may be similar cases. Possibly this is due to the PDF in the /download/ link being of the whole book, not just the individual chapter that the free-to-read link shows.

@Trappist the monk: thank you especially for those search links; I will be checking through them for further actions (but only for articles in my areas of interest, I admit). -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 12:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQ is the place to request assistance from a bot operator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Aide pour la création d’un article sur une plateforme (Appwinners)

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

---

Bonjour,

Je suis nouveau sur Wikipédia et je découvre peu à peu son fonctionnement. J’ai récemment tenté de créer un article à propos d’une plateforme appelée Appwinners, que j’ai moi-même développée pour un ami. Mon intention était simplement de décrire de façon neutre cette plateforme, en présentant ses fonctionnalités et objectifs.

En tant que débutant, notamment en SEO, j’ai souvent lu que Wikipédia joue un rôle important dans la visibilité en ligne, notamment pour les jeunes entreprises ou projets. Mon objectif n’est pas de faire de la publicité, mais simplement de proposer une fiche descriptive claire et informative sur la plateforme, qui pourrait apparaître dans les résultats de recherche Google pour ceux qui la recherchent.

Lors de la création de la page, un message m’a indiqué que le contenu pouvait être perçu comme promotionnel. Je comprends que Wikipédia a des règles très strictes à ce sujet, et je m’excuse si mon texte ne respectait pas toutes les consignes.

Je souhaiterais donc obtenir un peu d’aide ou des conseils pour reformuler mon article de manière conforme aux standards de Wikipédia. Je suis ouvert à toute suggestion ou à toute correction pour que la page puisse être acceptable et utile à la communauté.

Merci d’avance pour votre compréhension et votre accompagnement.

Bien cordialement,

voici mon article en anglais

[deleted copy of User:Sayhiislam96/sandbox ]

-- Sayhiislam96 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see the messages on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

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

IP Adress Blocked

Why are so many IP Adresses blocked on Wikipedia? For example, 2607:fb91:340d:5509:8661:cc72:ba90:63 and 205.175.106.122. Why do I have to use alternate Wi-Fi to make an account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerSizzling (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

In general, see WP:BLOCK. In these specific cases, vandalism and abuse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

And SummerSizzling is blocked too. Oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Probably because you called that person an idiot. See WP:NPA. Polygnotus (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies: review

Please note that this article has been edited multiple times without sources. Kindly review the changes thoroughly, verify them, and correct them as per Wikipedia policy. South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies Gvihar 18:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Gvihar. You appear to be the one with an interest in the article. Why do you not do the work?

Note that there are other options beside the one you have suggested. You could tag them with {{citation needed}}. You could revert them, with an edit summary "Adding unsourced information". You could open a discussion on the article's talk page, pinging the editor who added them, asking them to add their sources.

But asking random people on the help desk may not be the most effective way to fix a problem that you have noticed. ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I will be careful from now on. Gvihar 20:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Drafts Tianwen-5 and Tianwen-6

• Draft:Tianwen-5
• Draft:Tianwen-6

How to propose deletion of this pages? I think that these drafts must be deleted because there is no planning of this CNSA missions, there are not much sources about these missions and these missions will not be launched soon. Егор Затяжкин (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Drafts are usually not deleted for notability reasons, which applies to both of these. After 6 months, if no edits are made to the pages, they will be deleted with the criteria WP:G13. Otherwise, they can remain as drafts, and if news about them is published in time, editors can continue working on them. -- Reconrabbit 14:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

BRIJ MOHAN

Professor BRIJ MOHAN is Dean Emeritus at LSU, USA. His name has been either ignored or mispalced as a film Maker. 2600:8802:5305:1D00:D59D:17D7:7F9C:A87B (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? This is the encyclopedia Wikipedia. According to Brij Mohan we don't have an article about the man you mention. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Paty Cantú

When I click on the "V" at the top left of the navbox at Paty Cantú, it leads me to Template:Navbox musical artist instead of Template:Paty Cantú. Does anyone know why this is the case? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: There were non-breaking spaces in the attempt to set a name parameter for making V T E links.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Content based on misinterpreted citiation

If a citation is given for content but the citation is misinterpreted and, therefore, the content provided based on that citation is untrue, may I remove the incorrect content and citation.

Specifically, in the page on The Rest of the Story radio program the content stated that "After the elder Harvey's death on February 28, 2009, ABC radio host Doug Limerick was chosen as the show's new host. The Rest of the Story was canceled after three weeks with Limerick as host."

However, the cited news story from Radio Ink Magazine says "Limerick takes on the "Rest of the Story" afternoon slot. ABCRN said his features "will focus on the day's news mixed with folksy, positive stories."

The misinterpretation is that Limerick took on hosting duties of "The Rest of the Story". That is not what the citation says (and nor is it true.) Limerick, as the citation says, took over the time slot with his own content.

May I therefore remove that content, and any other part of the page with the misinformation? Woolworth Warrior (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Woolworth Warrior.

You don't need anybody's permission to make an edit that you believe is an improvement.

If you make the edit, the worst that can happen is that somebody disagrees with you, and reverts your edit. In that case, following WP:BRD, you can open a discussion with that editor and any other interested editors on the article's talk page, and try and reach consensus.

Alternatively, if you are not confident, or if you think your edit might be controversial, it is a good idea to start the discussion on the talk page first, and wait until there is consensus before editing the article. ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much. 98.13.218.240 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Using Bengali Sources (Or any) in English Wikipedia Articles: Is It Allowed?

Suppose the subject of an article is quite famous in Bangladesh. There are several newspaper articles and other sources available online in the Bengali language, but not enough reliable information in English. If I want to write an article on English Wikipedia using those Bengali sources, can I cite them?

There’s a chance that other contributors reviewing the references may not understand Bengali, except by using tools like Google Translate. Is this allowed? What does Wikipedia say about using non-English sources in English articles? Rafi (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Rafi Bin Tofa, non-English sources can be used, there is guidance at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. TSventon (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Rafi (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Page Back

How to apply for removed page back? 103.99.250.216 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

What page are you looking for? See WP:REFUND and WP:DRV. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hide and Show table

 Courtesy link: BK VEF Rīga

Is it possible to hide the existing table and leave only the title? Mc krams (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mc krams: MOS:DONTHIDE says that's not a good idea. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll explain why:

I want to hide the 2024 basketball team roster and create a new 2025 roster. It would be nice if the historical rosters remained hidden. Mc krams (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mc krams: So create the new roster above the 2024 one. You could place both in a section titled "Rosters", with subsections "2025 roster" and "2024 roster" inside it. There seems to be a lack of reliable sources for the information you are describing; please remember to supply some for any new information you add. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Good idea, thank you! Done. Mc krams (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Urgent Request to Address Misinformation on "Gaza Genocide" Wikipedia Page

AI-generated question responded to. Since IPs aren't allowed to discuss this further (starting this section might be a valid edit request) we're done here. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Gaza genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dear Wikipedia Team, I am writing to formally raise concern about the misinformation and one-sided propaganda currently presented on the Wikipedia page titled "Gaza genocide." The page falsely states: "According to a United Nations Special Committee, Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, B'Tselem, and other experts, Israel is committing genocide in Gaza against the Palestinians during its ongoing blockade, invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip." This is a misleading and inaccurate claim. While some individuals and advocacy groups have made accusations of genocide, this is a contested and unresolved legal matter. Even the case brought by South Africa to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) resulted in no determination that genocide is occurring. Instead, the ICJ found that the allegations are plausible enough to warrant further review, not that genocide has been proven. To portray these claims as fact, especially from organizations that have not officially declared genocide under the legal definition, is a distortion of truth and a violation of Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and verifiability. The current phrasing promotes a deeply biased narrative that fuels division, hate, and misinformation. Furthermore, the editing lock placed on the page makes it impossible for users to correct these distortions, enabling the spread of dangerous falsehoods under the guise of fact. If Wikipedia allows such misinformation to remain unchallenged, especially under protected pages, it risks becoming complicit in spreading not only false narratives but also modern forms of blood libel. I urge you to immediately review the page for neutrality and factual integrity and to revise it in accordance with Wikipedia’s own standards of reliable sourcing, balance, and editorial objectivity. 2600:1700:590:BB00:68A2:132:53A9:5DFD (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC) The article states that "According to a United Nations Special Committee, Amnesty International" etc, Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Which is verifiably true: we cite the sources where those listed express that opinion. Stating that someone has expressed an opinion ("According to...") is not an assertion that the opinion is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)