Revision as of 17:06, 18 December 2024 view sourceStan1900 (talk | contribs)147 edits →Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:25, 9 January 2025 view source Schazjmd (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users68,305 edits →Edge Case sourcing question: replyTag: CD | ||
(836 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Page for questions relating to Misplaced Pages}} | {{Short description|Page for questions relating to Misplaced Pages}}{{pp-sock|small=yes}} | ||
{{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
{{/Header}} | {{/Header}} | ||
{{skip to top and bottom}} | {{skip to top and bottom}} | ||
Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
<!-- Ask your question at the bottom of this page and it will be answered shortly! --> | <!-- Ask your question at the bottom of this page and it will be answered shortly! --> | ||
= |
= January 6 = | ||
==]== | |||
Reference number 22 is "Not Quite Right" (in red). Please fix. I am sorry. ] (]) 06:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Before somebody kindly fixed it, reference 22 told the reader (in red) "Check date values in: |date=". This means that the value specified for the date is invalid. And the cite template read "date=20144", which (as it has not four but five digits) is several thousand years into the future. -- ] (]) 06:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
== How long should I wait before submitting another unblock request? == | |||
ref number 6 is in the red too - Im sorry, I will try not do any more editing this year! Please fix this reef. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 09:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Did help? Also the year has just started. Perhaps try to do more and better editing this year. ] (]) 09:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Statement: True or false? == | |||
I was disappointed that I had been blocked from editing ], as you can see on my talk page. I appealed the block, but an admin only suggested a harsher punishment. How long should I wait before returning to that topic again? I don't want to upset any more admins and want to be able to edit Misplaced Pages freely like I used to be able to. I hope it doesn't stay with me for my entire life. Could I request a lighter block (e.g. 1-2 years) instead of an immediate unblock or a permanent block, like the one I have currently? ] (]) 04:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I think users with less than 500 edits can't be administrators. ] (]) 13:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:You probably should not return to the topic. While the admin used a very firm tone, the advice is good. You don't need to edit emailSanta.com or any other page that relates to Santa Claus, and it seems to become a problem when you do. Right now you're only page blocked, which isn't a huge deal. Just explore other parts of Misplaced Pages, there are countless interesting areas to contribute. ] (]) 04:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::OK, I guess it's time to throw in the towel then. At least other editors have cleaned up the ] and ] (and I believe they will continue doing so throughout WP), so it's not necessary for me to edit it anymore (and I probably should focus more on my university work anyways; maybe this block is a signal for me to not distract myself every Christmas with WP 😂). Thank you for your response, and merry Christmas! ] (]) 04:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:You're only blocked from that one singular article. There are almost 7 million articles on here, why don't you just... edit some of those instead?Though I'd avoid anything Santa Claus related because it seems like you're already on thin ice. ] (]) 05:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:There have been cases of admins from other Wikimedia projects but very few contributions on English Misplaced Pages, who are promoted to adminship here to facilitate particular cross-wiki tasks.{{pb}}]ship is a position of community trust, and editors with brief tenures and few contributions have not yet had the opportunity to build that trust. ] (]) 13:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Using AI artwork in articles == | |||
::So if someone was an editor with only about 100 edits, will they be or not? No, right? ] (]) 13:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::See guidance at ]. The formal requirement for adminship is 500 edits and 30 days of experience. However, a user who only meets this minimum standard is almost certain not to pass an RFA. ]] 13:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::So if I was a user with 505 edits, I can't still be? ] (]) 12:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::You can run. But your odds of succeeding would be near zero. It's fairly common for RfA candidates with thousands of edits to be opposed by the community due to lack of experience. ]] 12:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::So where can I apply? (I forgot) ] (]) 13:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Likely copyvio ? == | |||
Hello. Is there currently any policy about using AI artwork in articles or does it just depend on how people feel about it at the time? And no, I don't have any examples. it's just a general question because it comes up when people upload AI generated slop to Commons for Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
First, I wish you a very happy new year ! | |||
:] I'm pretty sure this would fall under ] as AI does not always provide accurate depictions of whatever it's rendering. ] also says {{tpq|It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such.}} ] (] • ]) 16:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:AI prompts given summaries of articles sounds horrible and gives me thoughts of the entire wiki getting overrun by computer-generated imagery with the potential to significantly miss its mark, and I rightfully hope the specific type of AI content you're referring to gets deleted from Commons as out-of-scope. Now, AI-generated imagery does have some relevance - such as at ] where the people we put in charge of running it created AI art to represent it. That's a different case from what I think you're referring to. Most articles would be significantly better off with no AI content, except where the specific AI content is a subject of discussion, as in the previously described case. See also ], the policy on chatbots being used for adding text content to articles. ] (]) 16:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|Departure–}} I should have been clearer but I'm specifically talking about articles that don't have anything to do with AI or AI artwork to begin with. --] (]) 16:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Then we are on the same page. AI content getting added to pages where it isn't at all relevant is the illustration equivalent of original research and I hope all such images get removed from Commons. ] (]) 16:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I hope I'm not in the wrong section. Here is the main issue : | |||
== Help with New Page Patrol Review and Paid Editing Tag Removal for "It's Coming" == | |||
] | |||
Hello, | |||
I wonder if this photography uploaded on en.wikipedia.org has not been made by ] (just died in 2023) for french Sygma agency, September 18, 1975. | |||
I'm seeking assistance with the New Page Patrol review process and the removal of a paid editing tag for the article "]". I initially requested a review on December 3rd, after moving the article from Draft space to mainspace. On December 12th, I followed up on my review request and also asked for the removal of the paid editing tag that had been added to the article. I provided a detailed explanation of my contributions and assured editors that I am not receiving any compensation for my work. | |||
Here other sources to evaluate this issue : | |||
https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/news-photo/belgian-cartoonist-georges-prosper-remi-aka-hergé-at-home-news-photo/1441929742 | |||
'''Exactly the same type of light, same time (1975), same haircut, same shirt with rolled up sleeves and same tie, same place''' (at home in Brussels), ... | |||
Despite these efforts, I have not received any substantive response to my requests. I also sought input on the ], but the situation remains unresolved. | |||
And here, the same Tintin's bust statue in the exactly same state : | |||
The article is thoroughly sourced and complies with Misplaced Pages's guidelines for verifiability and neutrality. I've also added a Reception section with a Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus to further demonstrate the film's notability. | |||
https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/news-photo/belgian-cartoonist-georges-prosper-remi-aka-hergé-at-home-news-photo/583065342 | |||
Hergé was very conservative about photoshootings and it's very unlikely that any other photographer could have been worked at the same period for one of his last album of Tintin | |||
Could someone please advise me on how to proceed with getting this article reviewed and the paid editing tag removed? Is there anything else I can do to move the process along? | |||
press promotion. | |||
Regards. ] (]) 13:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|Stan1900}}, it is unlikely that any uninvolved editor will remove that tag or mark that page as patrolled until you are far more forthcoming about your relationship with the film and filmmaker. If you haven't read ], I suggest that you do so. Do not repeat your earlier cookie cutter responses. A full and frank explanation is needed now, instead of evasiveness. ] (]) 17:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I understand your concerns and need to directly address your characterization of my responses as "cookie cutter" or "evasive": | |||
::1. I created this account 8 years ago to edit Katherine Langford's page, which is completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander. To be absolutely clear: I have no personal, professional, or any other relationship with Shannon Alexander or anyone involved with these films. My interest in documenting Perth-based artists and their films stems solely from identifying gaps in coverage of independent films transitioning to wider releases. | |||
::2. All my sources are from established media outlets which meet reliability standards without question. | |||
::3. I have never received payment for editing. I have no financial or professional connection to these films or filmmakers. The paid editing tag is unjustified and should be removed. | |||
::4. The articles comply with guidelines and use reliable sources. I have been consistently transparent about my editing, and rather than being evasive, I am trying to provide clear, direct answers. If you have specific concerns about the content, I'm happy to address them. I hope this clarifies my position and resolves any misunderstandings. ] (]) 19:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{u|Stan1900}}, all that simply repeats your earlier statements and offers no new information. You are now behaving effectively like a one person public relations agency for Shannon Alexander on Misplaced Pages, and the skepticism of uninvolved editors is justified in my view, given your pattern of editing. While it is true that you made four edits to ] in 2017 and 2018, you then stopped editing for 5-1/2 years and then returned 2-1/2 weeks ago to write three articles in one day about low budget films made by Shannon Alexander. One of those remains a draft. And since then, your editing behavior has been entirely focused on Shannon Alexander. That is highly unusual behavior consistent with a paid editing assignment. There is no solid proof but the way that various editors have responded to you is indicative of something not yet fully explained. ] (]) 20:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Let me address each of your points specifically: | |||
::::1. **Editing history**: Yes, I had a gap in editing - many Misplaced Pages editors do. My return coincides with these films receiving wider international distribution and recognition, making them newly notable for Misplaced Pages coverage. The fact that I wrote three articles in one day simply reflects when I had time to contribute - my work habits are not indicative of anything beyond that. | |||
::::2. **Focus of documentation**: I want to correct several mischaracterizations: | |||
:::: - I am not a "one person PR agency" - I'm documenting notable films based entirely on independent, reliable sources | |||
:::: - I haven't even created a biographical page for Shannon Alexander - my focus is on documenting specific films that meet notability guidelines | |||
:::: - Your dismissal of these as merely "low budget films" overlooks their international recognition and distribution | |||
:::: - These are works that have transitioned from Perth's independent scene to receiving international attention and acclaim | |||
:::: - All information is based on coverage from established media outlets | |||
::::3. **Pattern of editing**: When I edit, I edit according to my available time and interest. The timing and volume of my contributions is my personal choice and has no bearing on their validity. What matters is the content's compliance with Misplaced Pages guidelines, not when or how quickly I chose to write it. | |||
::::4. **Evidence and assumptions**: You acknowledge there's "no solid proof" of paid editing, yet continue to push this narrative. Making repeated accusations without evidence contradicts Misplaced Pages's assumption of good faith. | |||
::::I remain open to addressing specific concerns about the articles' content. If there are elements that need improvement, I'm happy to work with you and other editors to resolve them. However, continuing to make unsupported accusations about my motivations is not constructive. ] (]) 02:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::], I provided a detailed response addressing the concerns about my editing history and relationship to the subjects. I've demonstrated the films' notability through reliable sources and international recognition. Could someone please review and advise if any additional information is needed to resolve this? ] (]) 04:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{u|Stan1900}}, you have not yet been able to convince uninvolved editors that the tag should be removed. And so it will stay. ] (]) 05:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::], I'm unclear what constitutes "convincing" in this context. I have: - Provided reliable, independent sources - Demonstrated the films' notability - Explained my editing history - Clearly stated I have no financial connections - Followed all Misplaced Pages guidelines These are verifiable facts, not matters of personal conviction. If there are specific Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines that haven't been met, please identify them. Otherwise, continuing to maintain these tags without specific concerns seems contrary to Misplaced Pages's assumption of good faith. ] (]) 06:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::{{u|Stan1900}}, repeating yourself over and over without providing any new information is not an effective persuasion technique. Why not just drop the matter and move on? ] (]) 06:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::], I've bent over backwards to address your concerns and provide the info you asked for: | |||
:::::::::- I've shown my sources are reliable and independent, from respected outlets like Hollywood Reporter and LA Times. | |||
:::::::::- I've explained multiple times that I'm editing these topics because I'm genuinely interested in improving coverage, not because I'm getting paid. I've said point-blank that I have no financial connection. | |||
:::::::::- I've detailed how I'm following all of Misplaced Pages's policies on sources, neutrality, and notability. | |||
:::::::::Honestly, your refusal to remove the paid editing tag feels baseless and unfair at this point. I've answered all your questions and met the requirements laid out in the guidelines. If there's anything else you need to know, just ask. But I'm not going to keep repeating myself. | |||
:::::::::Slapping a paid editing tag on my work without clear reasons goes against Misplaced Pages's principles. You're supposed to assume good faith and focus on content, not target individual editors. I've tried my best to discuss this openly and helpfully, but you don't seem to be listening. | |||
:::::::::If you won't reconsider based on everything I've said, I'll have to get a third opinion or start a formal dispute. I'm not just going to drop this when my editing integrity is being attacked without good cause. | |||
:::::::::I want to keep contributing and improving Misplaced Pages. I'm open to any actual constructive feedback you've got. But this feels like an abuse of the paid editing rules to shut down a good faith editor. That's not what Misplaced Pages is about. | |||
:::::::::Let's resolve this in a way that fits with Misplaced Pages's mission and policies. I'm doing my part - now it's on you to be fair and reasonable. | |||
:::::::::] (]) 23:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{od}}{{u|Stan1900}}, there are many thousands of active editors and hundreds of administrators. I am just one among them. Any other editor could have commented in the past three days. The Teahouse has over 9,600 page watchers, after all. I edit what I want and voluntarily choose to pick which actions I take and which I don't take. I am not obligated to do something just because you want me to. So, go right ahead. Get a third opinion or pursue whatever ] process that you choose. ] (]) 06:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@] Looking at the NFCC tags on the image, it looks like the uploader made a good-faith effort to identify the photographer but failed. I think it's plausible that Pavlovsky is the photographer, in which case the author credit for the image should be changed. However, the image would still be usable on Misplaced Pages, since it meets the ]. —''']''' (]) 13:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= December 16 = | |||
== Article name change == | |||
== Linking other languages in Misplaced Pages - Wikidata problem == | |||
Hello, I am debating whether should I change the name for the former ] into Jeddah Airport, or keep it the same. The term “Kandara Airport” was probably coined by the former airport’s location to the area, and that people didn’t want to confuse it with the newer ] (nicknamed Jeddah Airport). And also, before 1981 when the new one was built, the former one was officially named Jeddah Airport according to historical documents and videos. If I changed it, it would have been more historically accurate. Any thoughts? ] (]) 14:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Please see ] - I have added links to other language articles before, but in this case it didn't work, and I'm not familiar enough with Wikidata to work out how to do it. Can anyone help? ] (]) 01:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:The best place to discuss this is at ]. When a subject has more than one possible name, it is best to get a consensus before renaming the article.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 14:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I have responded at ]. It is possible to add interlanguage links manually, but I don't think that is the best solution here. ] (]) 12:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::A notice should also be added to ] as ] redirects there. A ] at King Abdulaziz International Airport or a ] page at ] are alternative options. ] (]) 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== What's my actual edit count? == | |||
== Easier way to use visual editor to cite report with different pages and quotes? == | |||
As of before I add this topic: | |||
Hello, | |||
Your impact: '''371''' Total edits | |||
I use the Visual Editor for cites including the very useful “Re-use” option. | |||
View all edits > User contributions for Therguy10: A user with '''372''' Edits. | |||
Every year the government publishes a report about ] so I would like to cite many (maybe 20 or so) different pages of this in the article. At the moment I use the “rp” template for pages but if I remember right someone was working on improving the VE to do it more easily. But I cannot remember the name of the improvement. Can you? | |||
Am I missing something here? Thanks! ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Also I would like to “Re-use” the same report but with different quotes. Because so far I have generally put just page numbers but sometimes the info is not obvious on the page - for example GHG quantity for coal is sometimes buried in a table under “solid fuel”. Is there an easy way to “re-use” a report with different quotes? Or maybe I should put the row and column number of the table or put the number in Wikidata? ] (]) 08:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:There are a couple of things that impact your edit count, depending on what tools and methodology are being used. Some are based on all contributions, while others reduce your edit county by deleted edits (sometimes called "live" edits). Plus some pages are cached, for performance reasons, so their data might lag being by a few edits (or minutes)... For more information also see ]. ] ] 18:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I am searching for that too, i remember that something like sub-reference appear at top banner once in Misplaced Pages a few months ago. it works like that you can use same source with different pages at different references. searching that i could only found this ]. see if that helps.––]<sup>(])(])</sup> 08:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@]Interesting, I'll keep that in mind. I'll probably go off of my User Contribs but that's good to know that it can differ. Thank you! ] (]) 19:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{Ping|Chidgk1|KEmel49}} the subreferencing feature announced in a CentralNotice banner in August is ].{{pb}}Once deployed, it may or may not be possible to reuse a reference with the only difference being a {{para|quote}} parameter.{{pb}}Quotes in references are generally overused. ] can be used for references to the same page of the same source with different quotes, but the quote must be placed after the template proper, within the {{tag|ref}} tags. (Given there are two multiply cited reports issued by the ] dating November 2024, you'd also have to use title–date citation style rather than author–date as default).{{pb}}In lieu of or in addition to specific quotes, navigation information can be provided following a citation (also within the ref tags), like "see Table ''n'', under 'solid fuel'" or even "select ''Option'' from ''Dropdown''" etc.{{pb}}I'm not sure how any of these manifest within the Visual Editor, but given that the is cited twenty-five times, it's a good case for shortened footnotes replacing {{tl|rp}}. ] (]) 11:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{re|Therguy10}} if you click on "Preferences", that will show you edit count. This is my 323,426th edit. ] (]) 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::{{re|Mjroots}} are you sure that 323,426 is a complete and accurate count? Your edit count report shows | |||
::::Global edit counts (approximate) ► en.wikipedia.org 323,426 | |||
::::and | |||
::::Live edits 322,487 · (98.9%) deleted edits 3,486 · (1.1%) Total edits 325,973 | |||
::::] (]) 13:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::<s>{{re|TSventon}} as it says ''Global edit count'' - this includes other language Wikipedias, but not, as far as I know, Wikimedia Commons. ] (]) 15:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</s> | |||
:::::Scrub that. Not sure then. The figure I gave was what shows up when the preferences tab is clicked. ] (]) 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Reference errors == | |||
== Necessary to add footnote for languages if in infobox? == | |||
Greetings, can someone with more stamina and time go into ] and resolve the reference errors? I don't know how to fix the spurious sfn error, for instance. ] (]) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
This is for ] and other MRT stations in Singapore. Is it necessary to add a footnote for the name of the station in different languages if it is already in the infobox? Keep in mind that Singapore is a multilingual society. ]. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 10:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Jo-Jo Eumerus}} {{done}} ] (]) 20:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Maintenance categories == | |||
:@] If the names in languages other than English are already included in the infobox or the lead paragraph, then it's not necessary to add them to the footnotes. ] (]) 12:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Ok, thanks! Btw, by footnote I mean putting one in the lead paragraph since it makes the article less cluttery but either way, it's fine]. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Hello, I have a few discussions (] and ]) concerning maintenance categories that I would like to bump - ] is pretty quiet. Would there be an appropriate noticeboard to bump these discussions? The ] and subsidiary boards seems to be for larger discussions. ] (]) 20:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Biography: names of living children == | |||
:1) if you want to ask what a category is for, you can just ask its creator. I pinged them for ya. | |||
:2) looks like this topic died a natural death after Anne drew said {{tq|According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details}}. If you want feedback you could use ] or ]. ] (]) 20:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Advice on appropriate informational/warning template == | |||
I'm sure I've read somewhere that, in biographies, WP should not publish the names of living children who are not notable, in order to protect their privacy. Can someone point me at a policy or whatever? ] (]) 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
A user tagged me this afternoon on another user's talk page in the context of trying to recruit other editors to collectively undermine the work of me and a collaborator in our ongoing efforts to improve ]. Please see the comment ]. (Apparently this has something to do with the off-Wiki group GSoW. I'd never heard of it.) | |||
:]. ] (]) 10:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
This first editor has made only one edit to the article in question (or actually just its talk page), three years ago, with a minor question about the presence of a sidebar. | |||
== Semi-problematic IP ranges == | |||
Aside from this ping (which I suspect was an accident), they have made no efforts to contact me or to offer criticism or suggestions on the article talk page. | |||
There's a few semi-problematic IP ranges I've noticed - some appear to be dominated primarily by the same user as well. I've found one in particular with edits not quite SPI or AIV level but frequently unconstructive - an IP-hopping not-quite-vandal on a different IPv6 every day where any warnings issued would be worthless. In lieu of a rangeblock (as disruption doesn't appear too frequent nor blatant), would it be allowed to keep a contributions link to their range on my userpage (or a subpage thereof)? This would make it easier to keep tabs on any less obvious disruption they cause and remove it sooner. ] (]) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Is there a template of some kind I could add to their user talk? Obviously some of this is just ignorance of Misplaced Pages culture and norms, but {{em|wow}} is this the wrong attitude to start with. | |||
:@] You can certainly keep such a link, as you can to any other editor's contributions. You may not know how to find contributions that appear missing for an editor using an IPv6 address: add {{code|/64}} to the end of the URL. For example ] and you should get all their contributions. ] (]) 16:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks, I was just wondering because I believe a few other pages accusing actual logged-in users have been deleted as attack pages. As far as I know this user doesn't have any accounts and only edits anonymously. ] (]) 16:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for your thoughts on how to handle this — | |||
== Difference between "connected to" and "passionate" == | |||
Cheers, ] (]) 21:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Hey! When preparing to create an article there is a section in the article wizard that asks if you are close or related to the topic you are wanting to write about. In my case, it's something I'm not really connected to, but have done research on in the past and enjoy. (Everything I would write would have the references and citations needed, of course) I understand that policy is there to avoid a bias opinion and tone within the article, and my information is mainly factual. But because it's something I love and am invested in, would I be "ineligible" to write the article? Is there a set precedent for this? Thanks! ] (]) 16:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Patrick Welsh}} Are there any other relevant links you know of? If not, then it seems you are overreacting and failing to AGF. It is not (yet) clear if these are nefarious people doing nefarious deeds or simply people who have a boring content dispute about a boring wikipedia article which can be solved with a boring conversation. And my money is on the second option. There is an article about {{ping|Sgerbic}} over at ]. ] (]) 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I'm afraid not, just the post at ]. OneSkyWalker's account dates back to 2006, but it has only 107 edits that, at least at a glance, appear innocuous. | |||
::GSoW is apparently a group that coordinates offline campaigns against stuff like pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages. I don't know anything about them except what's on their website, and that User:Sgerbic is the founder and principle coordinator. ] (]) 21:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Meh, my advice would be to relax and invite them to have a conversation on the talkpage. Postmodernism is not a form of pseudoscience, and you are not a psychic, so I think you have nothing to worry about. ] (]) 21:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Okay, I will take your advice. I really don't love the battleground mentality, however, or the deliberate secrecy. I mean why not at least try starting on the article talk page? ] (]) 21:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Some internet users expect Misplaced Pages to be a turnbased combat game, and it certainly ''can'' be. But there are also many articles where polite people politely disagree about topics that are not very exciting (like Postmodernism). The mention of GSoW seems to be unrelated to Postmodernism article. And, if my Google-fu is to be trusted, the GSoW secrecy is based on old unrelated drama. Nothing to worry about. ] (]) 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::Just to be sure we're not talking past one another, I'm totally fine with editors coming to the article talk page full of objections to this-or-that shortcoming. I welcome it! | |||
::::::My problem here is that the editor did not do this. Instead, they went to the talk page of user who has not worked on the page seeking collaborators to edit the article in a way that they apparently expect in advance will wind up in arbitration. | |||
::::::Oh, and I have no problem with Susan Gerbic. I too am opposed to pseudoscience. ] (]) 22:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I understand. I can think of plausible non-nefarious reasons why that editor showed up at Susans talk instead of at the Postmodernism talk. I myself have also posted on a more experienced users talkpage saying something like "I think article x is imperfect what do you think" instead of posting on the talkpage of that article because I was unsure I wanted to get involved without the support of someone saner and more experienced than I am, and as a sanity check if my opinion even made sense. ] (]) 22:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Something to play with == | |||
:You definitely are eligible to create Misplaced Pages articles/drafts about that. However, if I were you, I'd select the "I'm not connected to the subject" button. You really can't create an article if you haven't done any research on it. ] (]|]) 16:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Hello! You have nothing to worry about here. "Connected to" refers to things like writing about yourself, people you personally know, or a company you work for. Most of us write about things we've researched and are passionate about (and sometimes we even discover new passions while writing). As long as you write in ], you're good to go. ] (]) 03:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@] @] That's what I was looking for! Thank you both very much! ] (]) 15:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::You're welcome. ] (]|]) 23:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I'd use with extreme caution. It doesn't seem to like authoritative sources. ] (]) 21:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Strange accident when reverting vandalism == | |||
:Yeah that is nonsense. It is simply a wrapper around an OpenAI API call. And why oh why do they hate webdesign so much? ] (]) 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::They are demonic (favourite word of the month) sent to try you. I don't understand it. Webdesign is an establish industry with traditions. No need for it with a well established and well understood design ethos. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Where is doomguy when you need him? ] (]) 09:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== {{Japanese football updater|KawasakF}} == | |||
Hi, I was reverting some vandalism to the article ] () but something bizarre happened: the edit history shows I apparently deleted nearly the entire article! I quickly reverted that edit (), but the edit history is even stranger, showing the article restored, but with a bunch of small edits to the article. Can someone take a look at the edit history and help me understand what happened? ] (]) 18:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Are there instructions on how to access and use these updaters in Japanese football (soccer)? This is from Kawasaki Frontale ] (]) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Daxion}} Your heading says <code><nowiki>{{Japanese football updater|KawasakF}}</nowiki></code>. That means it's calling ]. If you edit it then you can see some instructions at the top of the source code. If you mean how to call it then there is documentation for some similar templates in ]: {{tl|Brazilian football updater}}, {{tl|English football updater}}, {{tl|Spanish football updater}}, {{tl|Welsh football updater}}. I haven't used any of them or examined the documentation but I guess they work similarly. ] (]) 09:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Looks like a technical error, with the entire article being placed in a template of some sort. More than likely this was on your end and entailed some variant of the mouse button being held down when going through the article, followed by a deletion or replacement action. I've rolled back the edits manually. For future reference, you can rollback edits manually even without the rollbacker right by going to a previous good revision, clicking "edit source", and publishing changes - this will revert the article to that revision. But if you just pressed "Undo" and then "Publish changes", then something must have gone horribly wrong somewhere along the line, perhaps on the network's end. ] (]) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
= January 7 = | |||
== Why am I being redirected to the arbitration committee when I feel like it is unncessessary. == | |||
==Namespace number== | |||
Why there are numbers in ]? What is the purpose of that namespace number? ] (]) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Vitaium}} Probably because that's how they get stored in the database(s). Imagine you have 6 million records in a database. Much better to store a zero for each of those to denote that its an article than the string "article". ] (]) 08:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Vitaium}} See ]. Template code with namespace numbers can be copied between wikis where the names are different. Namespace numbers are also used in other places, e.g. some url's to restrict features like search or WhatLinksHere to selected namespaces. If you don't make namespace-dependent templates or tinker with url parameters then you may never need the numbers. ] (]) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== I am not permitted to Requests for page protection/Increase/Form == | |||
Hello, yes it's me again for the 100th time. I posted a unprotection request on ] for the ] and I've been told to follow the instructions on ], but that's telling me to go to the arbitration committee when it feels like that would be going too far. And the arbitration committee deals with a whole contentious topic, I only want that single page unprotected or semi-protected (the current protection is extended confirmed.) Thank you and Misplaced Pages needs to be less complicated, '''please'''. ] (]) (ping me!) 21:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I am trying to report persistent vandalism over the span of 6 months on the article ], I am not permitted to do so. I get the message <br> | |||
:Probably should have stated that it does not fall under one of our contentious topics which are covered by the ArbCom, but it likely was ECPed because of persistent disruptive editing in the past. If it’s downgraded to Semi, then those with less than 30 days and 500 edits with (inadvertently or otherwise) little understanding of our guidelines may improperly edit it and run afoul of them constantly. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 22:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
''Failed to create request. Error code: abusefilter-disallowed. Please try again or ask for help at WT:RFPP.'' <br> | |||
::{{u|2601AC47}}, ] does exist and covers the subject. It does not come with an extended-confirmed restriction like ] though. ] (]) 01:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Can you perhaps submit it for me? I don't think it can get fixed i've tried alot of things. ] (]) 09:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Anyway, do check what I just gave you on your talk. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 22:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Pinging the man behind the hair, our beloved Sideshow Bob, {{ping|Oshwah}}. ] (]) 09:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|ミラへぜ}}, looking at , you have not been redirected to the Arbitration Committee. Please have a closer look at the list below {{tqq|An editor appealing a restriction may}} at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Contentious_topics#Appeals_and_amendments}}. You have been informed about an appeal process that starts with asking the protecting administrator, {{u|Courcelles}} in this case. This is independent of contentious topic restrictions, though, as you should always ask the protecting administrator first. As the protection was made more than a year ago, special rules apply in case another administrator disagrees, but these details are irrelevant until you have asked Courcelles. ] (]) 01:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: The title of the article was triggering an edit filter. Your submission to ] was , no need to cross post. <b>] ]</b> 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Er, while we're here, isn't this username against policy? It's like naming yourself ウィキペディア. -- ] (]) 02:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Are you referring to the alphabet or a translation? ] ] (]) 02:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Neither. Miraheze, like Misplaced Pages/the WMF, is a non-profit that runs wikis. -- ] (]) 05:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Despite non-Latin being fine, your example would be a violation of ], since it's just 'Misplaced Pages' in kana. Is there a Japanese organization named 'Miraheze'? ] (]) 03:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::{{u|ミラへぜ}}'s userpage mentions miraheze.org, described at ]. ] (]) 03:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Well, that's me shown. Good catch by asilvering! ] (]) 04:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Yeah, it's another wiki hosting service. I'm somewhat surprised to find that we don't have an article on it already. -- ] (]) 05:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Changing the italics in a title == | |||
= December 17 = | |||
Would like to propose this for as it appears Roman and uncapped in . thanks ] (]) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Getting my profile back == | |||
:{{ping|Shelter3}} ] use {{tl|Italic title}} to deliberately display the title in italics per ]. Page names start with a capital letter unless the first word would usually be written lowercase at the start of a sentence like ]. Merriam-Webster is a dictionary so they want to show how a word is written inside a sentence but they still say Ikebana when the word starts a sentence. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Our sister project Wiktionary is a dictionary and their article is ]. ] (]) 13:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Sorry to clarify, it is already IN italics and needs to be Roman. So: {{tl|Roman title}}?--] (]) 11:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ping|Shelter3}} ] uses {{tl|Italic title}} to deliberately display the title in italics, so you could remove the Italic title template to remove the italics. The article is in UK English so arguably you should check a UK English dictionary. ] (]) 11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Referencing edits, citations, etc from the talk page == | |||
Hi, I use to have my WIKIPEDIA page, for some reason it got taken down by you. What can I do to get it back up? It was created by a third party. ] (]) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{re|ShonaliSabherwal}} - it is not "your profile". There was an article about you at ] but it was ]. One of the reasons given was undisclosed paid editing, another was that you are not ] to have an article. ] (]) 07:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@] - it looks like it was deleted, but let me also caution you that you might not want an article about yourself restored, see ]. ] ] 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I’ve been collaborating with someone on the talk page of an article, but I’ve had difficulty finding clear standards or easy methods for referencing an edit or citation from the article we’re discussing. I’ve even struggled to find a simple way to quote something someone has said on the talk page. After some searching and working with raw code, I was able to use something like ]. | |||
== Publishing translated biography on the main Misplaced Pages == | |||
Since talk pages seem so important, is there a page that outlines all the tools available for constructive discussion? If such a page exists, I’ve honestly tried to find it! :D ] (]) 13:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I have translated and updated the biography of Magdalena Pinkwart, Polish journalist, writer and TV personality from Poland living and working in the UK as a TV correspondent and journalist. I am an experienced Wikipedist on Polish Misplaced Pages, on English Misplaced Pages I have less contributions, so I am not able to publish the article on the main Misplaced Pages. I would like to ask an experienced editor to have a look on the article and move it to the main Misplaced Pages Page: ] | |||
:I don't know about ''all'' of the available tools, but ] seems like a place to start. ] (]) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
the referral page of the person (Polish): https://pl.wikipedia.org/Magdalena_Pinkwart | |||
::How would you link to a citation in the article? Or a previous edit? I have just gone to the edit and copied the URL from the taskbar, or gone into the source code and copied the link to the citation if it has an external link or file. ] (]) 17:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::You can link to a previous edit as a ], if you mean a comparison of an old and new version of text; it sounds like you may have ultimately done something equivalent. If you wanted to link to a citation. I'd probably just quote the text where the relevant citation is listed, but it's not something I personally have needed to do thus far. ] (]) 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:The template {{tl|tq}} is sometimes useful for quoting text from an article or posting - it displays it in green. --] (]) 19:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: {{Tl|Reflist-talk}} is also useful. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Can't fix my error because edit source is no longer part of the section == | |||
Thank You ] (]) 10:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Yes, I know I added the wrong citation markers. But now the page ] doesn't include edit source, so I cannot go back and fix the mistake. ] (]) 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: |
:@], I've removed the empty ref tags inserted before the heading, that should fix it. ] ] 20:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
:And I have added a missing "<nowiki></ref></nowiki>". ] (]) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 8 = | |||
== Hudson Bay == | |||
Does an uploaded photo on wikimedia commons count as a refrence? | |||
What did I do wrong with the {{tl|sfn}} at ? It won't link to the actual book listing. It's references 16 and 21. Thanks. ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 04:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
For example, | |||
:{{Re|CambridgeBayWeather}} It was ]. -- ] (]) 07:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for catching it. ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== 2025 in country music == | |||
I recently went on a tour to the hong kong ] headquarters and there was a plague listing the deaths in the line of duty, which I put onto the wikipedia article along with a photo of the plague with the list. ] (]) 13:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
At ], does anyone know why there are songs under "Top new album releases"? --] (]) 13:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for your information ] (]) 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:They mostly seem to have been added by IP 2603:8000:9401:B55:2407:F6EC:241A:CA3E and another IP in the same range. IP's often change, so these are quite likely to be the same person. There's probably no point in posting on the IP's user talk page for that reason. | |||
== Strange user notifications == | |||
:I suggest raising the issue on ], and get consensus for removing the songs from that table (perhaps moving them to another table?) You might also want to put a note on ], pointing to the discussion you create. | |||
:Or else you can be ] and rearrange the article yourself. ] (]) 15:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::The CODE is in the correct section, the SONGS are in the wrong section. I do not have the skill set to fix this without removing the tunes in their entirety. --] (]) 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Fixed by closing the table. ] (]) 20:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you! --] (]) 01:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Question about reusing references and reliable sources<span class="anchor" id="Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2025"></span> == | |||
Can anyone shed light on why I got 50 near-simultaneous notifications at around 09:00 UTC today about a non-existent user (]) thanking me for each of my most recent 50 edits? ] (]) 15:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
As my account is 3 days old, I would like someone to move this to the help desk itself: | |||
:The user exists, they just don't have a User page. It's possible it is a spam bot account. It happens. —] (] • ]) 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Looks like you were one of 4 people who were thanked by a user with zero edits . Not sure if you should feel appreciated or harassed. Cheers! ] ] 16:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Hi. I’ve inputted 2 claims into an article supported by the same source, and I’ve managed to cite the first claim but wanted to use the same citation on the second claim and I have problems with that. How do I use an existing citation on a different part of the article? Please use an example, because I understood I need to use names, but I am failing to actually use the names (I am not sure how to). Also, is ''The Economic Times'' a WP:RS? ] (]) 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== IP address blocked == | |||
:{{re|Waited2seconds}} the following source code: | |||
:: <nowiki> Some wild assertion.<ref name="foo">the really great reference</ref> Another wild assertion.<ref name="foo"/></nowiki> | |||
:results in: | |||
::Some wild assertion.<ref name="foo">the really great reference</ref> Another wild assertion.<ref name="foo"/> | |||
:since I do not use the visual editor, I hope you can use the source editor. -] (]) 14:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I looked up ''The Economic Times'' at WP:RSN and found ]. As the discussion was inconclusive, I suggest using the source with caution, see ]. ] (]) 14:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist talk}} | |||
==Gaelic speakers/reader== | |||
I have used Misplaced Pages for years and edited articles without any problems. | |||
Hi Folks, does anybody know any regular gealic speakers on Misplaced Pages who can translate loch names on a regular basis. Thanks. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I have had data fibre installed to my house with a different service provider. | |||
I now get the message "This IP address is blocked from editing Misplaced Pages" | |||
I can edit using my mobile phone when using a cellular data connection. | |||
I need to get ublocked. I would really appreciate a simple guide how to do this. Thanks ] (]) 17:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Most of the editors in ] don't seem to have edited recently, but in ] @] seems to be current, while @] says they've moved to gd-wiki, but I see they've edited here within the last two months. Whether either of these would be willing is another matter, of course. ] (]) 18:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:You can request an IP block exemption at ]. ] (]) 17:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Are there any particular lochs that you have in mind? I have a book of Scottish place names, and know some online sources, which might help. (Incidentally, the name of the language is Gaelic.) ] (]) 21:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|AndrewWTaylor}} This one ]. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ping|User:scope_creep}} I'm happy to answer questions, just put them on my Talk page, just not doing that much in mainspace any more. ] (]) 12:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::@] Interestingly, Google translate, when prompted that this is in the Irish language, gives the English translation as "Loch a'Baid-luachraich" whereas Microsoft's equivalent (via Bing search) says it is "the lake of the rush". ] (]) 14:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
It's the 'loch of the clump of rushes'; ''luachair'' 'rush(es)', genitive ''luachrach'', bad 'clump, cluster', genitive ''baid'', ''bad luachrach'' 'a clump of rushes' and then some more genitive marking piled on tope. In proper Gaelic spelling it would be ''loch a' bhaid luachrach'' (never trust machine translation when it comes to Gaelic word spacing... in fact, better not trust it at all when it comes to small languages!) ] (]) 17:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Merge conflicts - is there something I am missing? == | |||
I see that it has a diffing system, but on the merge conflict page, is it really asking me to open a new tab, switch both to code view and hand merge manually myself? The edit conflict help page states ''"Both the source code editor and the visual editor use CVS-style edit-conflict merging, based on the diff3 utility."'', but I can't really find merge tools on the merge page. ] (]) 23:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= January 9 = | |||
== Access to citation indexes == | |||
Hi, I'm wondering how to determine ] #1, and specifically how to access the two citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus. It seems that they require subscription to access them, so I'm wondering if there is a way to ask if someone could look them up, like asking about references at ]? | |||
I'm specifically wanting to check ] - the draft has been declined at AfC, with reference to ], but the decliner also said " Significant secondary coverage is needed" (although ] explicitly states that many academics "are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.") I was able to see on Scopus that Elizabeth L Miller has authored 106 papers, and Google Scholar shows that some have been cited 200, 300 or 400 times, so I think there is a good possibility that she does meet Criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC - but how do I confirm that? Many thanks, ] (]) 04:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Pinging {{ping|WeirdNAnnoyed}} who declined the submission. ] (]) 05:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::If I understand correctly, you're trying to meet ] criterion 1. I would have accepted that as evidence of her impact in her field (my main concern was the sources being mostly non-independent). Geology isn't my discipline so I don't know what citation rates count as high-impact. As for getting access to citation databases, I can't help you there. However, I work at a university so it's trivial for me to get that data. If you'd like I can try to do some digging on her citations and h-index and get back to you later today or tomorrow. ] (]) 12:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you very much, I'd really appreciate that. The draft does need editing - I see on the draft creator's talk page that they have been advised that another draft bio didn't have the appropriate tone or format. I'll check back in a couple of days when you've maybe been able to check her citations and h-index, and I'll be happy to do some editing on the draft. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:], I know nothing about geology. Still.... I see within the draft "This paper proposes a much simpler history of Cordillera than that proposed in Colpron and Nelson (2009)." It's normal for a paper to propose this or that. But how has this proposal been received by other, unrelated geologists (''not'' her frequent co-authors/collaborators, etc)? If {{Blue|Lieber and Novotny (2018) described the history as "remarkably perceptive and highly convincing"}} <small></small>, then saying so would I think add evidence of notability to her work, and thereby to her. And of course it's not just unalloyed praise that would have value; what's wanted is evidence of the importance of her work, in the eyes of her peers. -- ] (]) 08:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for your reply. The current draft needs editing, which would be worth it if she can be shown to be notable through the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. As ] explain, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." That is why I would like to access the ]. ] (]) 09:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::She is notable. Both as an established full professor at a well known notable university and from having more than five papers with >100 citations on each which she does. There is other stuff there is as well that makes her notable. Hope that help. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you, that's what I was thinking. ] (]) 22:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Reverting war == | |||
I have a problem with that is constantly adding wrong item to the article ]. Some help would be useful to block such a user. Thanks beforehand. ] (]) 15:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:]. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 15:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Misplaced Pages pages are not indexed by Google == | |||
Hello! Could you please explain why a page may remain unindexed by Google 90 days after its creation, even though it is indexed by other search engines? ] (]) 16:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Articles need to be patrolled by a New Pages Patroller. If that's occurred, you'd have to ask Google why something is not indexed, we have no control or influence over their algorithms. ] (]) 16:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:@] Even after the article has been patrolled (which you can check by going to the history page of the article and clicking on "View logs for this page" at the top), search engines may not actually do their indexing for some time afterwards. However, I find that if you make even a minor edit to the article once it is available for crawling, it will be indexed very quickly because Google etc. know how useful Misplaced Pages articles are to those doing searches. ] (]) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|Sanidelle}} Yes, Google appears to monitor recent edits but there is no edit when noindex is automatically removed after 90 days so Google will not know it unless they revisit the page for some reason. ] (]) 21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== "Edit source" v "edit" == | |||
It's a while since I edited Misplaced Pages and when I just went to do so the option to "edit" does not appear but appears to have been replaced by "edit source". The thought of doing so using code is beyond me. How do I get back the old way of editing where I could see what I was doing? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:@] You probably want to use the visual editor wherever you can. Look at your settings at ] and you'll see how to set that up. Instructions also at ]. The visual editor isn't easily available everywhere and has some minor limitations compared to the source editor. See ] for a brief introduction to the good stuff you can do in source editing. ] (]) 16:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks Michael. I have twice now set the preferences and saved them but the toolbar does not appear. Is it hidden somewhere? ] (]) 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::On a PC (I don't use a phone to edit), it is not a tool but a separate word next to "Read" in the horizontal menu at the top of the article. One says "Edit" = visual edit and the other says "Edit source". ] (]) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm using a PC. This is the problem. I was used to seeing the word edit but now only get "Read - Edit Source - View History" with no mention of "edit" alone. This is my problem! ] (]) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Then I am pretty sure you haven't ticked "Enable visual editor" and saved at ]. If you are sure you have, you need to take this up at ]. ] (]) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::I absolutely have, so I'll do as you suggest. Thanks. ] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::@] but first, don't forget to look at your configuration of the dropdown menu just below the tick-box for the visual editor. ] (]) 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::All fixed. I had somehow changed the "Editing mode" setting. Someone directed me to the place to fix this. Thanks for all your help, Mike. ] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Co-prince of Andorra for French Republic == | |||
Greetings everyone ! I have an idea for articles about those who were "]". Click on the link to see the list of people concerned. | |||
A "]" '''(Link points to the article about this political function)''' is also one of the "]". <br /> | |||
Is this sensical to add this tenure in the infobox of an article about a president ? | |||
I'd like to do it but a '''"President of France"''' is automatically one of the '''"Co-princes"'''. <br /> | |||
I prefer to ask because a '''"French President"''' is a co-prince ] and therefore it is maybe non-sensical to add this information in an infobox. ] (]) 19:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Help in expanding an article == | |||
I would very much like to expand the article on Christopher M. Reddy, marine chemist. Although I took the Gypsy Horse article from a stub to a full article, I worked with Montanabw on this, and I am a neophyte in Misplaced Pages, and this has been sometime in the past. Could an editor in living biographies work possibly work with me a bit? I know how to edit a page and I am quite familiar with using objective, reputable sources to substantiate content. I am not as familiar with how to go about this as I would like. Thank you. ] (]) 20:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:], as you expand the article ], please remove external links that appear in the body. (As a pair of examples, we now read "recognized Reddy’s achievements as a with the ": as currently presented, both external links are improper, although either would be usable within a reference.) Just do your best improving and augmenting the article; and when you don't know what to do, or know what you should do but don't know how to do it, ask here. -- ] (]) 22:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Add ] to ] == | |||
Hello, | |||
request adding this condition to the template above. Probably needs a new section "pelvis" under "arm" and "leg". | |||
== Can XC users bypass PC? == | |||
It's too complicated to edit this template, I don't know how to do it correctly. | |||
As it says in the heading: can extended confirmed users bypass pending changes review? I'd imagine it would be a waste of time for reviewers to have to approve XC users' edits, but you never know. Thanks, ] (]/]) 20:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Also I noted on the talk page of the template another user requested to add some other conditions to it. | |||
:Hi @], yes, they automatically are. And not only extended confirmed but also auto confirmed editor's edits to articles under pending changes are automatically accepted. No special action is needed. The main caveat, that I'm aware of, is if there are any pending changes/edits from a non-auto confirmed user, all later edits are marked as pending until a reviewer reviews the edits. ], and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Pending changes#Frequently asked questions}} in particular, I think describes it fairly well. ] (]) 22:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Ah, thanks! I misread part of the FAQ you linked and interpreted it to mean that "established users" didn't get their edits automatically accepted (it was actually just stating the caveat you explained), so I was confused and wanted human confirmation. ] (]/]) 22:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Many thanks if you can help ] (]) 21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
= December 18 = | |||
:Hello, @]. ] is the best place to suggest this. ] (]) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft == | |||
Hello, I request assistance with two issues: | |||
== Misplaced Pages Org Chart == | |||
# '''Request for Page Patrol and Removal of Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" Article''' Although I have not been directly tagged for paid editing, User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article ]. I have provided reliable sources, stated I have no financial connection to the subject, and followed Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Despite multiple attempts to address their concerns and answering similar questions from other editors, the tag remains in place without clear justification. Can someone help review this situation and provide guidance? | |||
Hello! | |||
'''Why it should be published:''' | |||
#* The article is well-sourced, with reliable, independent sources such as Rotten Tomatoes and critical reviews. | |||
#* There are no violations of Misplaced Pages's neutrality or notability guidelines. | |||
#* The continued application of the paid editing tag without clear evidence is detrimental to the article's progress. | |||
#* I also request page patrol for the article, as it has been thoroughly vetted and should be considered for removal of the tag and eventual publication. | |||
# '''Review of "The Misguided" Draft''' I submitted a draft for the article ] on December 3rd, 2024, and have followed up on the draft's talk page. However, I have not received any review or response. Can someone assist with reviewing this draft and moving it to mainspace if it meets the requirements? | |||
Obviously I do not have the stats to apply for administrator in a de facto sense, however I was wondering if there was a lower level role I could apply for. ] (]) 22:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
'''Why it should be published:''' | |||
#* The draft is sourced with reliable, independent sources, including Hollywood Reporter and LA Times. | |||
#* The article meets notability requirements, covering key aspects of the film's reception and production. | |||
#* The draft has been patiently waiting for review and has already gone through multiple improvements based on feedback. | |||
:Like Pending Changes Reviewer, New Page Reviewer or Rollbacker? They can all be ]. Just be sure that you meet the requirements for either of these powers before nominating yourself. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 22:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for your help! ] (]) 07:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:The statement that {{tpq|User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article}} is a falsehood. I have ''never'' edited either ] or its talk page. I have never discouraged any uninvolved editor from removing the tag. I have simply tried to explain to Stan1900 why several editors have expressed concern about their pattern of editing. As for ], submitted for an additional review on December 3, 15 days ago, there is a notice at the top of the draft that says {{tpq|This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,820 pending submissions waiting for review}}. Stan1900 has no basis for complaining for at least another six weeks. Stan1900 is a single purpose editor totally focused on films made by Shannon Alexander, plus getting their own way. ] (]) 08:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The statement {{tpq|eventual publication}} regarding ] makes no sense, since that article is already in the mainspace of the encyclopedia. It's published. Misplaced Pages does not exist to facilitate search engine optimization. ] (]) 08:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@], there are thousands of articles in the queue for both page patrol and AfC reviews. You just need to be patient until a volunteer gets to them. ] ] 13:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|Schazjmd}}, thank you for your input. While I understand the backlog for reviews, I must address the following points: | |||
::1. **The paid editing tags on ] and "The Misguided":** | |||
:: - The tags are unwarranted and unsupported by evidence. | |||
:: - I have provided reliable sources for both articles and have explicitly stated that I have no financial connection to the subjects. | |||
:: - These tags negatively impact the articles' indexing and discoverability, reducing accessibility for readers. This is not about SEO but ensuring that notable topics are properly represented and accessible. | |||
:: - Their continued application without clear evidence contradicts Misplaced Pages's principle of assuming good faith and undermines the integrity of the review process. | |||
::2. **"The Misguided" draft:** | |||
:: - While I acknowledge the standard review timeline, the baseless paid editing accusations are influencing the progress and fair evaluation of this draft. | |||
:: - The draft meets notability requirements, supported by reliable, independent sources from established media outlets. | |||
::3. **Clarification of my contributions:** | |||
:: - I have been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics. | |||
:: - My recent focus on Shannon Alexander's films stems from identifying a content gap that I sought to address using reliable sources. | |||
:: - Allegations questioning my integrity distract from the core issue: the quality and adherence of the articles to Misplaced Pages's guidelines. | |||
::I request an immediate review by uninvolved editors to: | |||
:: - Remove the paid editing tags on "It's Coming" and "The Misguided" based on content and sourcing. | |||
:: - Conduct a new page patrol review for both articles to ensure fair evaluation and compliance with Misplaced Pages policies. | |||
::Constructive feedback grounded in Misplaced Pages's guidelines is always welcome, but baseless claims should not overshadow the fair assessment of content. | |||
::] (]) 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Cullen328 linked you to ] in your first conversation on this page; I suggest you review the options there to address the paid editing tags. ] ] 15:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::{{u|Schazjmd}}, thank you for directing me to the dispute resolution process. Which specific dispute resolution avenue would you recommend as most appropriate in this case? I want to ensure this is handled through the correct channels. ] (]) 16:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::We can't guarantee you a speedy review. ] (]) 16:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::@], start at the beginning. You have yet to discuss the paid editing tag with the editor who applied it; I'd start there. ] ] 16:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::@], I also strongly urge you to ] the false statement {{tq|User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article ].}} ] ] 16:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@]: Whilst complaining of others not assuming your good faith, you have not yet addressed the response to your accusation that @] added the paid editing hatnote which you have complained about. (The text of that hatnote states "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payment"; that's "may have", not "has".) ] (]) 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::{{u|Bazza 7}}, you bring up assuming good faith, yet the continued presence of an unwarranted tag without evidence does exactly the opposite. The articles' content and sources demonstrate compliance with Misplaced Pages policies. Instead of debating semantics, we should focus on whether the tag is justified based on actual evidence and policy. ] (]) 16:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::@]: I was not debating semantics. I was observing a still-present defamation about another editor. ] (]) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{u|Bazza 7}}, if you're concerned about defamation, perhaps address the unsupported accusations that I'm a "one person PR agency" or doing "paid editing" for "SEO." These claims continue without evidence, affecting article accessibility and my ability to contribute. The focus should be on article content and compliance with Misplaced Pages policies, not unfounded accusations in either direction. ] (]) 16:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I have changed the tag on ] to a conflict of interest since the user admits contacting them, I have also trimmed some of the unsourced contnet and marked it as reviewed. ] (]) 16:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::{{u|Theroadislong}}, thank you for reviewing the article and removing the paid editing tag. However, requesting source materials when writing an article is standard practice and doesn't constitute a conflict of interest when there's no financial or professional relationship involved. The article's content is based on independent, reliable sources and maintains a neutral point of view. ] (]) 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::It is very clearly NOT standard practice I have written more than a hundred articles and never felt the need to contact the subject. ] (]) 16:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::ChatGPT doesn't have a very good idea of what our standard practices are. -- ] (]) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::{{u|Theroadislong}}, {{u|asilvering}}, Reaching out to subjects for source materials is standard journalistic practice, and I’m fully within my rights to do so. It’s about ensuring accuracy, not creating conflicts of interest. | |||
:::::::::::As for the AI comment, it’s a bit off-topic. I’m not just parroting information I find online—I’m engaging with these topics thoughtfully. Let’s keep the focus on the articles and the sources used to ensure the content is reliable and neutral. ] (]) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Non-free historic image == | |||
:{{ec}} <s>I am sorry, the answer is no, because you are ].</s> | |||
I'm working on ], the Chinese version of which has an ] tagged with {{tlx|non-free historic image}}. Is the image allowed under enwiki's criteria? Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 09:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: |
:There is a list of user permissions at ], however the reason for additional permissions is to help you contribute to the encyclopedia. ] for its own sake is discouraged. ] (]) 22:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
::{{u|NotQualified}}, yes, please read ]. You are already extended confirmed. Administrators may be reluctant to grant optional avanced access levels given the problems identified on your talk page. ] (]) 22:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::The Chinese rationale just says something like "it is hard for the reader to understand the incident from words alone, which is why this image is needed." I'll go ahead and upload the image here. Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 13:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Edge Case sourcing question == | ||
Misplaced Pages operates on a basis where sources are got from ]<nowiki/>s typically and people can't cite the person themself or something they made. | |||
Whenever i scroll down, images in inventory table drastically go down in size (although very few of them stay the same, but only at start then if i scroll more they too get smaller), is there a way to set images to stay the same size as it is set? ] (]) 09:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
What if a source comments on something that someone said, such as a Twitter post, but didn't include it outright. Am I then allowed to quote what someone posts online to provide context, or does an ] have to explicitly mention the post? | |||
:What do you mean by "inventory table"? What article or other page are you looking at? ] (]) 10:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Sorry, images in a template. ] (]) 11:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Which template? And do you mean looking at the template page, or at an article which uses the template? Also, what kind of device are you using? ] (]) 12:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::For instance, template found on a page “List of equipment of the Royal Netherlands Army”. And of course, images do not get drastically smaller just on that article but on every that uses template with images. I am using iphone, but I had same thing happening on android as well. ] (]) 14:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::The page doesn't declare a minimum width for the column containing images. On mobile, they will get scaled to the predefined minimum size, which indeed is rather small. Setting a CSS statement of min-width: 100px or something on each column header of columns with images should help here. —] (] • ]) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thanks, hope it helps ] (]) 15:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Mind if I ask how do you set a CSS Statement on min-width? ] (]) 15:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== If I actively volunteer for transport hubs, should I declare a COI on the respective articles? May I still edit them? == | |||
e.g. "Mr. XYZ expressed on Twitter last night his thoughts on the economy..." ] (]) 23:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I actively volunteer for ] and I volunteered for ]. The former gave me a ¥50 credit for my transit card and the latter gave me ¥30 a day for a week (I forgot the exact amount). Do I need to declare my ] on their respective talk pages? Am I still allowed to edit them? (To be honest, there's not much to write anyway. It's more to be transparent that I volunteered there before.) ] (]) 09:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:An independent reliable source noting that comment is what lends significance to it. People say a lot of things; most are not worth recording in an encyclopedia article. ] ] 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 23:25, 9 January 2025
Page for questions relating to Misplaced Pages- For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
- Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
- If your question is about a Misplaced Pages article, draft article, or other page on Misplaced Pages, tell us what it is!
- Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
- For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
- New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).
Misplaced Pages help pages | |
---|---|
| |
About Misplaced Pages (?) | |
Help for readers (?) | |
Contributing to Misplaced Pages (?) | |
Getting started (?) | |
Dos and don'ts (?) | |
How-to pages and information pages (?) | |
Coding (?) | |
Directories (?) |
|
Missing Manual
Ask for help on your talk page (?) |
Search the frequently asked questions |
Search the help desk archives and other help pages |
January 6
Bellarine, Victoria
Reference number 22 is "Not Quite Right" (in red). Please fix. I am sorry. Srbernadette (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Before somebody kindly fixed it, reference 22 told the reader (in red) "Check date values in: |date=". This means that the value specified for the date is invalid. And the cite template read "date=20144", which (as it has not four but five digits) is several thousand years into the future. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Emma Thynn, Marchioness of Bath
ref number 6 is in the red too - Im sorry, I will try not do any more editing this year! Please fix this reef. Thank you in advance. Srbernadette (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did that help? Also the year has just started. Perhaps try to do more and better editing this year. Polygnotus (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement: True or false?
I think users with less than 500 edits can't be administrators. Gnu779 (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- There have been cases of admins from other Wikimedia projects but very few contributions on English Misplaced Pages, who are promoted to adminship here to facilitate particular cross-wiki tasks.WP:ADMINship is a position of community trust, and editors with brief tenures and few contributions have not yet had the opportunity to build that trust. Folly Mox (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- So if someone was an editor with only about 100 edits, will they be or not? No, right? Gnu779 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- See guidance at WP:RFA. The formal requirement for adminship is 500 edits and 30 days of experience. However, a user who only meets this minimum standard is almost certain not to pass an RFA. GMG 13:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- So if I was a user with 505 edits, I can't still be? Gnu779 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can run. But your odds of succeeding would be near zero. It's fairly common for RfA candidates with thousands of edits to be opposed by the community due to lack of experience. GMG 12:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- So where can I apply? (I forgot) Gnu779 (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can run. But your odds of succeeding would be near zero. It's fairly common for RfA candidates with thousands of edits to be opposed by the community due to lack of experience. GMG 12:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- So if I was a user with 505 edits, I can't still be? Gnu779 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- See guidance at WP:RFA. The formal requirement for adminship is 500 edits and 30 days of experience. However, a user who only meets this minimum standard is almost certain not to pass an RFA. GMG 13:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- So if someone was an editor with only about 100 edits, will they be or not? No, right? Gnu779 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Likely copyvio ?
First, I wish you a very happy new year !
I hope I'm not in the wrong section. Here is the main issue :
File:Herge with bust of Tintin.png
I wonder if this photography uploaded on en.wikipedia.org has not been made by Jacques Pavlovsky (just died in 2023) for french Sygma agency, September 18, 1975. Here other sources to evaluate this issue : https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/news-photo/belgian-cartoonist-georges-prosper-remi-aka-hergé-at-home-news-photo/1441929742
Exactly the same type of light, same time (1975), same haircut, same shirt with rolled up sleeves and same tie, same place (at home in Brussels), ...
And here, the same Tintin's bust statue in the exactly same state : https://www.gettyimages.in/detail/news-photo/belgian-cartoonist-georges-prosper-remi-aka-hergé-at-home-news-photo/583065342
Hergé was very conservative about photoshootings and it's very unlikely that any other photographer could have been worked at the same period for one of his last album of Tintin press promotion.
Regards. Tisourcier (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Tisourcier Looking at the NFCC tags on the image, it looks like the uploader made a good-faith effort to identify the photographer but failed. I think it's plausible that Pavlovsky is the photographer, in which case the author credit for the image should be changed. However, the image would still be usable on Misplaced Pages, since it meets the non-free content criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Article name change
Hello, I am debating whether should I change the name for the former Kandara Airport into Jeddah Airport, or keep it the same. The term “Kandara Airport” was probably coined by the former airport’s location to the area, and that people didn’t want to confuse it with the newer King Abdulaziz International Airport (nicknamed Jeddah Airport). And also, before 1981 when the new one was built, the former one was officially named Jeddah Airport according to historical documents and videos. If I changed it, it would have been more historically accurate. Any thoughts? Bollardant (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The best place to discuss this is at Talk:Kandara Airport. When a subject has more than one possible name, it is best to get a consensus before renaming the article.--♦IanMacM♦ 14:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- A notice should also be added to Talk:King Abdulaziz International Airport as Jeddah Airport redirects there. A Misplaced Pages:Hatnote at King Abdulaziz International Airport or a Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation page at Jeddah Airport are alternative options. TSventon (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
What's my actual edit count?
As of before I add this topic:
Your impact: 371 Total edits
View all edits > User contributions for Therguy10: A user with 372 Edits.
Am I missing something here? Thanks! Therguy10 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are a couple of things that impact your edit count, depending on what tools and methodology are being used. Some are based on all contributions, while others reduce your edit county by deleted edits (sometimes called "live" edits). Plus some pages are cached, for performance reasons, so their data might lag being by a few edits (or minutes)... For more information also see WP:EDITCOUNT. TiggerJay (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @TiggerjayInteresting, I'll keep that in mind. I'll probably go off of my User Contribs but that's good to know that it can differ. Thank you! Therguy10 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Therguy10: if you click on "Preferences", that will show you edit count. This is my 323,426th edit. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: are you sure that 323,426 is a complete and accurate count? Your edit count report shows
- Global edit counts (approximate) ► en.wikipedia.org 323,426
- and
- Live edits 322,487 · (98.9%) deleted edits 3,486 · (1.1%) Total edits 325,973
- TSventon (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
@TSventon: as it says Global edit count - this includes other language Wikipedias, but not, as far as I know, Wikimedia Commons. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- Scrub that. Not sure then. The figure I gave was what shows up when the preferences tab is clicked. Mjroots (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Therguy10: if you click on "Preferences", that will show you edit count. This is my 323,426th edit. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @TiggerjayInteresting, I'll keep that in mind. I'll probably go off of my User Contribs but that's good to know that it can differ. Thank you! Therguy10 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Reference errors
Greetings, can someone with more stamina and time go into Hualca Hualca and resolve the reference errors? I don't know how to fix the spurious sfn error, for instance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Maintenance categories
Hello, I have a few discussions (1 and 2) concerning maintenance categories that I would like to bump - WT:CATP is pretty quiet. Would there be an appropriate noticeboard to bump these discussions? The village pump and subsidiary boards seems to be for larger discussions. Tule-hog (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1) if you want to ask what a category is for, you can just ask its creator. I pinged them for ya.
- 2) looks like this topic died a natural death after Anne drew said
According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details
. If you want feedback you could use Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) or WP:3O. Polygnotus (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Advice on appropriate informational/warning template
A user tagged me this afternoon on another user's talk page in the context of trying to recruit other editors to collectively undermine the work of me and a collaborator in our ongoing efforts to improve Postmodernism. Please see the comment here. (Apparently this has something to do with the off-Wiki group GSoW. I'd never heard of it.)
This first editor has made only one edit to the article in question (or actually just its talk page), three years ago, with a minor question about the presence of a sidebar.
Aside from this ping (which I suspect was an accident), they have made no efforts to contact me or to offer criticism or suggestions on the article talk page.
Is there a template of some kind I could add to their user talk? Obviously some of this is just ignorance of Misplaced Pages culture and norms, but wow is this the wrong attitude to start with.
Thanks for your thoughts on how to handle this —
Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Patrick Welsh: Are there any other relevant links you know of? If not, then it seems you are overreacting and failing to AGF. It is not (yet) clear if these are nefarious people doing nefarious deeds or simply people who have a boring content dispute about a boring wikipedia article which can be solved with a boring conversation. And my money is on the second option. There is an article about @Sgerbic: over at Susan Gerbic. Polygnotus (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not, just the post at User talk:Sgerbic. OneSkyWalker's account dates back to 2006, but it has only 107 edits that, at least at a glance, appear innocuous.
- GSoW is apparently a group that coordinates offline campaigns against stuff like pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages. I don't know anything about them except what's on their website, and that User:Sgerbic is the founder and principle coordinator. Patrick (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Meh, my advice would be to relax and invite them to have a conversation on the talkpage. Postmodernism is not a form of pseudoscience, and you are not a psychic, so I think you have nothing to worry about. Polygnotus (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I will take your advice. I really don't love the battleground mentality, however, or the deliberate secrecy. I mean why not at least try starting on the article talk page? Patrick (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some internet users expect Misplaced Pages to be a turnbased combat game, and it certainly can be. But there are also many articles where polite people politely disagree about topics that are not very exciting (like Postmodernism). The mention of GSoW seems to be unrelated to Postmodernism article. And, if my Google-fu is to be trusted, the GSoW secrecy is based on old unrelated drama. Nothing to worry about. Polygnotus (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be sure we're not talking past one another, I'm totally fine with editors coming to the article talk page full of objections to this-or-that shortcoming. I welcome it!
- My problem here is that the editor did not do this. Instead, they went to the talk page of user who has not worked on the page seeking collaborators to edit the article in a way that they apparently expect in advance will wind up in arbitration.
- Oh, and I have no problem with Susan Gerbic. I too am opposed to pseudoscience. Patrick (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand. I can think of plausible non-nefarious reasons why that editor showed up at Susans talk instead of at the Postmodernism talk. I myself have also posted on a more experienced users talkpage saying something like "I think article x is imperfect what do you think" instead of posting on the talkpage of that article because I was unsure I wanted to get involved without the support of someone saner and more experienced than I am, and as a sanity check if my opinion even made sense. Polygnotus (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some internet users expect Misplaced Pages to be a turnbased combat game, and it certainly can be. But there are also many articles where polite people politely disagree about topics that are not very exciting (like Postmodernism). The mention of GSoW seems to be unrelated to Postmodernism article. And, if my Google-fu is to be trusted, the GSoW secrecy is based on old unrelated drama. Nothing to worry about. Polygnotus (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I will take your advice. I really don't love the battleground mentality, however, or the deliberate secrecy. I mean why not at least try starting on the article talk page? Patrick (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Meh, my advice would be to relax and invite them to have a conversation on the talkpage. Postmodernism is not a form of pseudoscience, and you are not a psychic, so I think you have nothing to worry about. Polygnotus (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Something to play with
It's an AI bias checker. I'd use with extreme caution. It doesn't seem to like authoritative sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that is nonsense. It is simply a wrapper around an OpenAI API call. And why oh why do they hate webdesign so much? Polygnotus (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are demonic (favourite word of the month) sent to try you. I don't understand it. Webdesign is an establish industry with traditions. No need for it with a well established and well understood design ethos. scope_creep 22:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where is doomguy when you need him? Polygnotus (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are demonic (favourite word of the month) sent to try you. I don't understand it. Webdesign is an establish industry with traditions. No need for it with a well established and well understood design ethos. scope_creep 22:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
J1 League
Are there instructions on how to access and use these updaters in Japanese football (soccer)? This is from Kawasaki Frontale Daxion (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Daxion: Your heading says
{{Japanese football updater|KawasakF}}
. That means it's calling Template:Japanese football updater. If you edit it then you can see some instructions at the top of the source code. If you mean how to call it then there is documentation for some similar templates in Category:Association football infobox updater templates: {{Brazilian football updater}}, {{English football updater}}, {{Spanish football updater}}, {{Welsh football updater}}. I haven't used any of them or examined the documentation but I guess they work similarly. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
January 7
Namespace number
Why there are numbers in namespace? What is the purpose of that namespace number? Vitaium (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Vitaium: Probably because that's how they get stored in the database(s). Imagine you have 6 million records in a database. Much better to store a zero for each of those to denote that its an article than the string "article". Polygnotus (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Vitaium: See Misplaced Pages:Namespace#Programming. Template code with namespace numbers can be copied between wikis where the names are different. Namespace numbers are also used in other places, e.g. some url's to restrict features like search or WhatLinksHere to selected namespaces. If you don't make namespace-dependent templates or tinker with url parameters then you may never need the numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not permitted to Requests for page protection/Increase/Form
I am trying to report persistent vandalism over the span of 6 months on the article Gang rape#India, I am not permitted to do so. I get the message
Failed to create request. Error code: abusefilter-disallowed. Please try again or ask for help at WT:RFPP.
Can you perhaps submit it for me? I don't think it can get fixed i've tried alot of things. ContributedEditor (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging the man behind the hair, our beloved Sideshow Bob, @Oshwah:. Polygnotus (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The title of the article was triggering an edit filter. Your submission to WP:EFFP was already handled, no need to cross post. OhNoitsJamie 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Changing the italics in a title
Would like to propose this for Ikebana as it appears Roman and uncapped in Merriam-Web. thanks Shelter3 (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Shelter3: Ikebana use {{Italic title}} to deliberately display the title in italics per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Non-English-language terms. Page names start with a capital letter unless the first word would usually be written lowercase at the start of a sentence like iPhone. Merriam-Webster is a dictionary so they want to show how a word is written inside a sentence but they still say Ikebana when the word starts a sentence. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Our sister project Wiktionary is a dictionary and their article is wiktionary:ikebana. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry to clarify, it is already IN italics and needs to be Roman. So: {{Roman title}}?--Shelter3 (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Shelter3: Ikebana uses {{Italic title}} to deliberately display the title in italics, so you could remove the Italic title template to remove the italics. The article is in UK English so arguably you should check a UK English dictionary. TSventon (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry to clarify, it is already IN italics and needs to be Roman. So: {{Roman title}}?--Shelter3 (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Referencing edits, citations, etc from the talk page
I’ve been collaborating with someone on the talk page of an article, but I’ve had difficulty finding clear standards or easy methods for referencing an edit or citation from the article we’re discussing. I’ve even struggled to find a simple way to quote something someone has said on the talk page. After some searching and working with raw code, I was able to use something like Talk Quote Block.
Since talk pages seem so important, is there a page that outlines all the tools available for constructive discussion? If such a page exists, I’ve honestly tried to find it! :D Dr pangloss (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about all of the available tools, but Help:Talk seems like a place to start. DonIago (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- How would you link to a citation in the article? Or a previous edit? I have just gone to the edit and copied the URL from the taskbar, or gone into the source code and copied the link to the citation if it has an external link or file. Dr pangloss (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can link to a previous edit as a WP:DIFF, if you mean a comparison of an old and new version of text; it sounds like you may have ultimately done something equivalent. If you wanted to link to a citation. I'd probably just quote the text where the relevant citation is listed, but it's not something I personally have needed to do thus far. DonIago (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- How would you link to a citation in the article? Or a previous edit? I have just gone to the edit and copied the URL from the taskbar, or gone into the source code and copied the link to the citation if it has an external link or file. Dr pangloss (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The template {{tq}} is sometimes useful for quoting text from an article or posting - it displays it in green. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- {{Reflist-talk}} is also useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Can't fix my error because edit source is no longer part of the section
Yes, I know I added the wrong citation markers. But now the page Ecclesiastes#Influence on Western literature doesn't include edit source, so I cannot go back and fix the mistake. Lalare (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lalare, I've removed the empty ref tags inserted before the heading, that should fix it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- And I have added a missing "</ref>". TSventon (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
January 8
Hudson Bay
What did I do wrong with the {{sfn}} at Hudson Bay? It won't link to the actual book listing. It's references 16 and 21. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CambridgeBayWeather: It was just a typo. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching it. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
2025 in country music
At 2025 in country music, does anyone know why there are songs under "Top new album releases"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- They mostly seem to have been added by IP 2603:8000:9401:B55:2407:F6EC:241A:CA3E and another IP in the same range. IP's often change, so these are quite likely to be the same person. There's probably no point in posting on the IP's user talk page for that reason.
- I suggest raising the issue on Talk:2025 in country music, and get consensus for removing the songs from that table (perhaps moving them to another table?) You might also want to put a note on WT:COUNTRYMUSIC, pointing to the discussion you create.
- Or else you can be WP:BOLD and rearrange the article yourself. ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The CODE is in the correct section, the SONGS are in the wrong section. I do not have the skill set to fix this without removing the tunes in their entirety. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed by closing the table. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed by closing the table. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The CODE is in the correct section, the SONGS are in the wrong section. I do not have the skill set to fix this without removing the tunes in their entirety. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Question about reusing references and reliable sources
As my account is 3 days old, I would like someone to move this to the help desk itself:
Hi. I’ve inputted 2 claims into an article supported by the same source, and I’ve managed to cite the first claim but wanted to use the same citation on the second claim and I have problems with that. How do I use an existing citation on a different part of the article? Please use an example, because I understood I need to use names, but I am failing to actually use the names (I am not sure how to). Also, is The Economic Times a WP:RS? Waited2seconds (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Waited2seconds: the following source code:
- Some wild assertion.<ref name="foo">the really great reference</ref> Another wild assertion.<ref name="foo"/>
- results in:
- Some wild assertion. Another wild assertion.
- since I do not use the visual editor, I hope you can use the source editor. -Arch dude (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I looked up The Economic Times at WP:RSN and found Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 421#The Economic Times. As the discussion was inconclusive, I suggest using the source with caution, see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. TSventon (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
References
Gaelic speakers/reader
Hi Folks, does anybody know any regular gealic speakers on Misplaced Pages who can translate loch names on a regular basis. Thanks. scope_creep 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of the editors in Category:User gd-5 don't seem to have edited recently, but in Category:user gd-4 @SaoiDunNeachdain seems to be current, while @Akerbeltz says they've moved to gd-wiki, but I see they've edited here within the last two months. Whether either of these would be willing is another matter, of course. ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there any particular lochs that you have in mind? I have a book of Scottish place names, and know some online sources, which might help. (Incidentally, the name of the language is Gaelic.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @AndrewWTaylor: This one Loch a' Bhaid-luachraich. scope_creep 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: I'm happy to answer questions, just put them on my Talk page, just not doing that much in mainspace any more. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Scope creep Interestingly, Google translate, when prompted that this is in the Irish language, gives the English translation as "Loch a'Baid-luachraich" whereas Microsoft's equivalent (via Bing search) says it is "the lake of the rush". Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: I'm happy to answer questions, just put them on my Talk page, just not doing that much in mainspace any more. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @AndrewWTaylor: This one Loch a' Bhaid-luachraich. scope_creep 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
It's the 'loch of the clump of rushes'; luachair 'rush(es)', genitive luachrach, bad 'clump, cluster', genitive baid, bad luachrach 'a clump of rushes' and then some more genitive marking piled on tope. In proper Gaelic spelling it would be loch a' bhaid luachrach (never trust machine translation when it comes to Gaelic word spacing... in fact, better not trust it at all when it comes to small languages!) Akerbeltz (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge conflicts - is there something I am missing?
I see that it has a diffing system, but on the merge conflict page, is it really asking me to open a new tab, switch both to code view and hand merge manually myself? The edit conflict help page states "Both the source code editor and the visual editor use CVS-style edit-conflict merging, based on the diff3 utility.", but I can't really find merge tools on the merge page. Dr pangloss (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
January 9
Access to citation indexes
Hi, I'm wondering how to determine WP:NACADEMIC #1, and specifically how to access the two citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus. It seems that they require subscription to access them, so I'm wondering if there is a way to ask if someone could look them up, like asking about references at WP:RX?
I'm specifically wanting to check Draft:Elizabeth Miller (geologist) - the draft has been declined at AfC, with reference to WP:NPROF, but the decliner also said " Significant secondary coverage is needed" (although WP:NACADEMIC explicitly states that many academics "are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.") I was able to see on Scopus that Elizabeth L Miller has authored 106 papers, and Google Scholar shows that some have been cited 200, 300 or 400 times, so I think there is a good possibility that she does meet Criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC - but how do I confirm that? Many thanks, RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @WeirdNAnnoyed: who declined the submission. Polygnotus (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you're trying to meet WP:NPROF criterion 1. I would have accepted that as evidence of her impact in her field (my main concern was the sources being mostly non-independent). Geology isn't my discipline so I don't know what citation rates count as high-impact. As for getting access to citation databases, I can't help you there. However, I work at a university so it's trivial for me to get that data. If you'd like I can try to do some digging on her citations and h-index and get back to you later today or tomorrow. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, I'd really appreciate that. The draft does need editing - I see on the draft creator's talk page that they have been advised that another draft bio didn't have the appropriate tone or format. I'll check back in a couple of days when you've maybe been able to check her citations and h-index, and I'll be happy to do some editing on the draft. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you're trying to meet WP:NPROF criterion 1. I would have accepted that as evidence of her impact in her field (my main concern was the sources being mostly non-independent). Geology isn't my discipline so I don't know what citation rates count as high-impact. As for getting access to citation databases, I can't help you there. However, I work at a university so it's trivial for me to get that data. If you'd like I can try to do some digging on her citations and h-index and get back to you later today or tomorrow. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- RebeccaGreen, I know nothing about geology. Still.... I see within the draft "This paper proposes a much simpler history of Cordillera than that proposed in Colpron and Nelson (2009)." It's normal for a paper to propose this or that. But how has this proposal been received by other, unrelated geologists (not her frequent co-authors/collaborators, etc)? If Lieber and Novotny (2018) described the history as "remarkably perceptive and highly convincing" , then saying so would I think add evidence of notability to her work, and thereby to her. And of course it's not just unalloyed praise that would have value; what's wanted is evidence of the importance of her work, in the eyes of her peers. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. The current draft needs editing, which would be worth it if she can be shown to be notable through the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. As the WP:NACADEMIC Specific criteria explain, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." That is why I would like to access the citation indexes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- She is notable. Both as an established full professor at a well known notable university and from having more than five papers with >100 citations on each which she does. There is other stuff there is as well that makes her notable. Hope that help. scope_creep 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's what I was thinking. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- She is notable. Both as an established full professor at a well known notable university and from having more than five papers with >100 citations on each which she does. There is other stuff there is as well that makes her notable. Hope that help. scope_creep 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. The current draft needs editing, which would be worth it if she can be shown to be notable through the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. As the WP:NACADEMIC Specific criteria explain, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." That is why I would like to access the citation indexes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Reverting war
I have a problem with this guy that is constantly adding wrong item to the article Millennium Prize Problems. Some help would be useful to block such a user. Thanks beforehand. Pra1998 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Send it to AIV. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 15:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages pages are not indexed by Google
Hello! Could you please explain why a page may remain unindexed by Google 90 days after its creation, even though it is indexed by other search engines? Sanidelle (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Articles need to be patrolled by a New Pages Patroller. If that's occurred, you'd have to ask Google why something is not indexed, we have no control or influence over their algorithms. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sanidelle Even after the article has been patrolled (which you can check by going to the history page of the article and clicking on "View logs for this page" at the top), search engines may not actually do their indexing for some time afterwards. However, I find that if you make even a minor edit to the article once it is available for crawling, it will be indexed very quickly because Google etc. know how useful Misplaced Pages articles are to those doing searches. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sanidelle: Yes, Google appears to monitor recent edits but there is no edit when noindex is automatically removed after 90 days so Google will not know it unless they revisit the page for some reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
"Edit source" v "edit"
It's a while since I edited Misplaced Pages and when I just went to do so the option to "edit" does not appear but appears to have been replaced by "edit source". The thought of doing so using code is beyond me. How do I get back the old way of editing where I could see what I was doing? Stagememories (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Stagememories You probably want to use the visual editor wherever you can. Look at your settings at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and you'll see how to set that up. Instructions also at Help:Introduction. The visual editor isn't easily available everywhere and has some minor limitations compared to the source editor. See Help:Cheatsheet for a brief introduction to the good stuff you can do in source editing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Michael. I have twice now set the preferences and saved them but the toolbar does not appear. Is it hidden somewhere? Stagememories (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- On a PC (I don't use a phone to edit), it is not a tool but a separate word next to "Read" in the horizontal menu at the top of the article. One says "Edit" = visual edit and the other says "Edit source". Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm using a PC. This is the problem. I was used to seeing the word edit but now only get "Read - Edit Source - View History" with no mention of "edit" alone. This is my problem! Stagememories (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then I am pretty sure you haven't ticked "Enable visual editor" and saved at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. If you are sure you have, you need to take this up at WP:VPT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I absolutely have, so I'll do as you suggest. Thanks. Stagememories (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Stagememories but first, don't forget to look at your configuration of the dropdown menu just below the tick-box for the visual editor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- All fixed. I had somehow changed the "Editing mode" setting. Someone directed me to the place to fix this. Thanks for all your help, Mike. Stagememories (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Stagememories but first, don't forget to look at your configuration of the dropdown menu just below the tick-box for the visual editor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I absolutely have, so I'll do as you suggest. Thanks. Stagememories (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then I am pretty sure you haven't ticked "Enable visual editor" and saved at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. If you are sure you have, you need to take this up at WP:VPT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm using a PC. This is the problem. I was used to seeing the word edit but now only get "Read - Edit Source - View History" with no mention of "edit" alone. This is my problem! Stagememories (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- On a PC (I don't use a phone to edit), it is not a tool but a separate word next to "Read" in the horizontal menu at the top of the article. One says "Edit" = visual edit and the other says "Edit source". Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Michael. I have twice now set the preferences and saved them but the toolbar does not appear. Is it hidden somewhere? Stagememories (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Co-prince of Andorra for French Republic
Greetings everyone ! I have an idea for articles about those who were "Presidents of France". Click on the link to see the list of people concerned.
A "President of French Republic" (Link points to the article about this political function) is also one of the "Co-princes of Andorra".
Is this sensical to add this tenure in the infobox of an article about a president ?
I'd like to do it but a "President of France" is automatically one of the "Co-princes".
I prefer to ask because a "French President" is a co-prince ex officio and therefore it is maybe non-sensical to add this information in an infobox. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Help in expanding an article
I would very much like to expand the article on Christopher M. Reddy, marine chemist. Although I took the Gypsy Horse article from a stub to a full article, I worked with Montanabw on this, and I am a neophyte in Misplaced Pages, and this has been sometime in the past. Could an editor in living biographies work possibly work with me a bit? I know how to edit a page and I am quite familiar with using objective, reputable sources to substantiate content. I am not as familiar with how to go about this as I would like. Thank you. SFGMary (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- SFGMary, as you expand the article Christopher M. Reddy, please remove external links that appear in the body. (As a pair of examples, we now read "recognized Reddy’s achievements as a science communicator with the Ambassador Award": as currently presented, both external links are improper, although either would be usable within a reference.) Just do your best improving and augmenting the article; and when you don't know what to do, or know what you should do but don't know how to do it, ask here. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Add Pudendal neuralgia to Template:Peripheral nervous system disease
Hello,
request adding this condition to the template above. Probably needs a new section "pelvis" under "arm" and "leg".
It's too complicated to edit this template, I don't know how to do it correctly.
Also I noted on the talk page of the template another user requested to add some other conditions to it.
Many thanks if you can help Moribundum (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, @Moribundum. TT:Peripheral nervous system disease is the best place to suggest this. ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Org Chart
Hello!
Obviously I do not have the stats to apply for administrator in a de facto sense, however I was wondering if there was a lower level role I could apply for. NotQualified (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like Pending Changes Reviewer, New Page Reviewer or Rollbacker? They can all be requested here. Just be sure that you meet the requirements for either of these powers before nominating yourself. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
I am sorry, the answer is no, because you are NotQualified. - There is a list of user permissions at Misplaced Pages:User access levels, however the reason for additional permissions is to help you contribute to the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages:Hat collecting for its own sake is discouraged. TSventon (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- NotQualified, yes, please read Misplaced Pages:User access levels. You are already extended confirmed. Administrators may be reluctant to grant optional avanced access levels given the problems identified on your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Edge Case sourcing question
Misplaced Pages operates on a basis where sources are got from Reputable Sources typically and people can't cite the person themself or something they made.
What if a source comments on something that someone said, such as a Twitter post, but didn't include it outright. Am I then allowed to quote what someone posts online to provide context, or does an Reputable Source have to explicitly mention the post?
e.g. "Mr. XYZ expressed on Twitter last night his thoughts on the economy..." NotQualified (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- An independent reliable source noting that comment is what lends significance to it. People say a lot of things; most are not worth recording in an encyclopedia article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)