If I wanted to get an article up to GA or FA, and I was trying to clean up the refences section when should I be using template:cite news as opposed to template:cite web? If all the sources are available online what counts as "news" and what doesn't count? TipsyElephant (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use "cite news" , with the parameter "newspaper=" when the publisher is a newspaper and the article is part of its reporting or opinion pieces with editorial control. Its the oversight by a news organization that matters. Newspapers now publish both online and in print. If the source is a blog or other such thing on their website, use cite web. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryGrandma: I am specifically working on Forest 404 and it sounds like I should convert the majority of the citation templates from cite web to cite news. For instance, the very first reference from the Irish Independent should use the cite news template? An example of something that might stay using cite web might be the Mississippi Valley Conservancy because it's technically not a news organization? To clarify, you're recommending the parameter "newspaper=" as opposed to "work=". I see "work=" much more often, when is that supposed to be used? TipsyElephant (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: I would say be consistent in which templates you use, but opinions differ and there will be borderline cases. For example, see the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Web-based "magazine" sources. Work in cite news is probably fine. It is used in {{cite news}} and in the citation templates dropdown list in the Wikipedia source editor. TSventon (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"work" is a generic parameter for the source in the citation templates. Its aliases are "journal", "newspaper", "magazine", "periodical", "website". Any of these will be italicized in the reference, and the title will be in quotes. (It is not used in "cite book" since book titles are italicized, not put in quotes.) I always use one of the aliases because I am citing particular types of sources. But "work" works just fine since the results are the same. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryGrandma:, I would have left the question to you, but I thought you were probably offline. TSventon (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

While it is true that |journal=, |magazine=, |newspaper=, |periodical=, |website=, and |work= are all aliases, it should be remembered that {{citation}} uses these parameters to determine how the citation will render |issue= and |volume= parameters:

{{citation |title=Title |work=Work |volume=1 |issue=2}}

"Title", Work, vol. 1, no. 2

{{citation |title=Title |journal=Work |volume=1 |issue=2}}

"Title", Work, 1 (2)

Best to get in the habit of using the work alias that best describes the source so that follow-on editors know what it is that you are citing.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of the 'Society and Culture' section there is an external link to the official website of Hunter's Hope, a foundation founded by Jim Kelly to raise awareness about Krabbe. I assume clause 19 of WP:ELNO applies here but I just wish for confirmation. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 07:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays. (The result is still a mess.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Still sounds like a promotional. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 07:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just wondering, how I should expand this article? Jorge906 (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should you expand it at all? But if yes you should, then before you do so perhaps you could attend to the Cite template syntax errors. -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the info within the headings need expanding Jorge906 (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorge906: You might want to ask on the article talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taylor Swift.

@Hoary: I fixed the Cite template syntax errors. GoingBatty (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have a problem with my talk page archives. why are the sections that are archived currently being saved to Archive #1, instead of the latest archive file? appreciate any help. please ping me when you reply. Sm8900 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: In Special:Diff/1227088369 you accidentally deleted the counter parameter from the archiving instructions. Put that back and all should be well. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of a niche problem, but I work on tornado articles where I cite a lot of local sources. These typically have four-letter identifiers, such as WHO-DT, WLS-TV, WQAD-TV, WPTZ. The problem is that none of these have a consistent naming scheme and when I just type in the identifier into a cite template it often turns into a redirect or disambiguation page (see WHO, WLS, WQAD, WPTZ-TV, etc). Is there a script of some kind or a similar solution that I can use to highlight redirects or disambiguation pages in the search bar? I use Vector Legacy 2010 as my skin, and prefer to edit in the source editor whenever possible simply due to its performance on my device; I'm aware the visual editor would solve this, but it doesn't run as well nor am I as acquainted to it as the source editor. Departure– (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that due to similar performance issues, simply opening a new Wikipedia tab to check what page I should target my template to does work and is often the best option but it's still far from ideal. Departure– (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Departure–: There's JavaScript which is now "turned on" by default, that, in the source editor when you enter a wikilink, if the page link is to a disambig page, a popup shows alerting you to that. Hitting the popup also takes you to a field which lets you do a page title search. (Try it out in your sandbox if desired.)

If you turn on the "make disambig links orange" gadget in your preferences, it, well... does that! Specifically, when a page is "rendered" and displayed. So when editing you have to preview your edit. You also may find Popups to your liking if you aren't using that already.

Also it's not any huge deal if you do link those pages. Links to mainspace redirects are often preferable except where proscribed by the MOS (for instance on disambig page entries). All your edits that contain a disambig link get automatically tagged with an indicative tag. You can review your edit history and change such a link if desired; there's nothing wrong with making multiple edits to a page (just don't go totally bonkers overboard, to the tune of like dozens of edits in quick succession). For editing questions tips et al go ahead and hit me up on my talk page anytime. --Slowking Man (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the Javascript is that it takes around 3 seconds to show up and doesn't actually tell me where I can find the link I'm looking for. Often it goes to a disambiguation page and, yes, it can be fixed relatively easier, but that means two edits and extra time spent on a mundane matter. In addition, popups are also less than ideal and sometimes don't have the full page title in the bold. Departure– (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that there is policy that says "don't try to wrangle the layout so that it suits a particular screen size". Or maybe there used to be? I've looked in MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:IMAGES, but neither say so anywhere obvious. Have I imagined it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF You may be thinking of Help:Pictures#Thumbnail sizes (and related links there), since it is usually images that create problems. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no, that's not it. The context is that an editor moved some (normal) thumbnails to the left because on their (wide) screen, the images had become detached from the text they illustrate. I suggested {{clear}} but that had the effect of introducing acres of white space – on their wide screen, of course. Oh well. Who ever said that life had to be fair? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to install Move+ and I put the script in here. I reloaded to bypass my cache and still nothing is appearing. Can someone help me? Rexophile (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rexophile: Is the problem in mobile or desktop? You edit in both and I don't know whether the script is supposed to work in mobile. If it's desktop then what is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? Please link an example page and name a feature from User:BilledMammal/Move+ which is missing there. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im on desktop. My skin is the 2010 legacy. The feature is importScript('User:BilledMammal/MovePlus.js'); // Backlink: User:BilledMammal/MovePlus.js. Rexophile (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rexophile: I'm looking for a feature of the script and a page where that feature is missing. Something like "Move+ is missing from the More menu at Foobar". It's not missing for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved. Rexophile (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i could use that space NerdestBruce (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NerdestBruce: What is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? Please name an item in the bar you want to remove. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Bar, the rectangle, all the items

that is just a HUGE amount of space to leave unused; i can fill it with more editing and previewing space, which is critical on a 13-inch screen NerdestBruce (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and this only for editing pages

in the perfect world, any source-editing page does not have a navigation bar

in the very good world, when i click "Edit source" the entire navigation bar on the left goes away; it comes back (in the active window) only when i exit editing mode (when there is no source pane) NerdestBruce (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NerdestBruce: What is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wikis,how remove this template {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} ,after restore this photo on the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#File:Old logo Ecological Movement of Venezuela (2008).png i edited the infobox but now User:Iruka13 reverted the tag,please how deleted this template?? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to resolve this is to discuss it directly with @Iruka13. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Polygnotus (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible that I see foreign editsummaries on the English version of Wikipedia in a few cases. For example Annulation des modifications... instead of Reverted edits by...? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus Links please. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: See here for example. Polygnotus (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is that an edit history was imported from fr Wikipedia via Wikipedia:Requests for page importation. TSventon (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't know that that existed, but I don't think its the case here. Polygnotus (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the user's contributions, the French summaries are for Android app edits of the kind that generate an automatic summary. So I think they're editing in English with the app set to French. Much like I have the app set to English but occasionally edit on Norwegian Wikipedia with it. When undoing an edit, the app asks for a reason then appends that to a standard summary that the user has no opportunity to edit. Musiconeologist (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Musiconeologist: Thank you! I think that solves the mystery. Not sure if that is the desired behaviour of the app but at least that explains it. Polygnotus (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably isn't. Filed as T387518 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pppery! Polygnotus (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this counts as solved, but I do the reverse. I look for uses of "John Hopkins University" and correct to "Johns Hopkins University" across wikipedias. So even if the article is in an alphabet that I wouldn't know what continent it is from, I still can correct the English in a cite and will use the English Language "Spelling" as an edit summary. I would imagine someone whose language is Spanish correcting N to Ñ might be in a similar situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed this https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/02/12/wikipedia-recognized-as-a-digital-public-good/ so can we add https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DpgBadge.svg to our user page, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already added the badge, so you have answered your own question. TSventon (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes (I saw that other topics were getting posted and answered below, and mines was not) however thank you for answering, I do appreciate it,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: I (more or less) had to click on the two links to answer your question, which may have deterred other helpers. I would suggest making life easier for helpers by asking something like Hi, I noticed that wikipedia has been recognized as a digital public good [link], so can we add the digital public good logo [link] to our user page, thanks. TSventon (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

good point(will do so going forward) and thanks again, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: You might want to update the Digital public goods article as well. GoingBatty (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_public_goods&action=history did a few edits, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am thinking of creating a category of "Body donors" to list those people who donated their bodies to medical science. There is a Sperm donors category. This is somewhat outside my usual category area, but I have recently researched two people who were donors, and there are quite a few others on Wiki already who did the same. I suppose I am mostly asking about the terminology - is Body donors OK? Thanks BJCHK (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a vague category that comprise several notable people. Additionally, there's some confusion I have with that (I know sperm, blood and organ donors, but not body ones). Who, if willing, are the two, and are they notable primarily for being body donors? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 14:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know as being a donor has to be the primary source of notability. But it has to be defining of the person in some manner beyond just something they random did, I would think. I don't think that such a category would fly. I could be wrong; you could ask at... let's see... Wikipedia talk:Categorization I think. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's certainly some people who are notable for donating their bodies, like Susan Potter. Sarsenet (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be a good citizen and fix my maintenance issues on cites, but I can't see them. I changes by .css files, bypassed the cache, but still nothing. What else should I try? LouScheffer (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LouScheffer: Try with !important:

.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint {display: inline !important;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */
.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error {display: inline !important;} /* display hidden Citation Style 1 error messages */

PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't need !important. Help:CS1 errors was recently changed away from:

.mw-parser-output span.cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */

Perhaps that change broke the css for you on your browser. Try the older version; ignore the warning message.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the change.[1] @LouScheffer: You still have to do one of the above to your own version of the code. They both give a warning you can ignore. !important says to override other attempts to control the display but that's OK here when the code is only for yourself and overriding existing code to hide it is exactly what you want. If something later changes in the existing code, maybe the span version fails and you do need !important. Some people strongly dislike !important and look for alternatives but when it's a user's personal CSS, it does exactly what that user wants, and they can remove it if they no longer want it, I don't see the point. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I tried the 'span' fix and it worked. I can now see the messages. LouScheffer (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a warning that a url is unsafe for reference 5 in Yolande Bonhomme. How do I warn others, i.e. is there a standard warning template for this situation? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to warn as the link seems to be dead. You can mark ref 5 as dead by adding "dead" to the "url status" field, or removing ref 5 entirely and replace with other source. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. |url-status=dead has no meaning when a cs1|2 template does not have a value assigned to |archive-url=. Perhaps you meant {{dead link}}? A suitable fix might be:

{{Cite web |url=https://exhibits2.library.duke.edu/exhibits/show/baskin/item/3945 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210907050545/https://exhibits.library.duke.edu/exhibits/show/baskin/item/3945 |archive-date=2021-09-07 |title=Yolande Bonhomme — Printer and Bookseller |website=[[Duke University Libraries]]}}

"Yolande Bonhomme — Printer and Bookseller". Duke University Libraries. Archived from the original on 2021-09-07.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a file just now in the St Ann's College section. It is too big. Sorry. Please reduce size and place a caption underneath the old photo: St Ann's College Chapel (far right) Est. 1888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srbernadette: Done DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could both the two old black and white photos be made a little bigger and can we get rid of all the space underneath the "Geography" section please. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it, Srbernadette. The obvious way to get rid of all the space would be to let "History" (and perhaps also "House system") float above where it is (they are) now. Doing this would have the photos impinge further on the text. Would this be desirable? Also, rather than putting effort into prettifying the article (or anyway de-uglifying it), how about providing references for the sections that are now unreferenced? -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to properly format the citations in Forest 404 and noticed that two of the sources appear to be syndicated content from Press Association. Specifically, this source in the Irish Indepenent and this source in The Independent. How should I format the citations? At the moment I have Press Association listed as the publisher, but I don't think that's quite right. Is this a scenario where I'd use the "via=" parameter? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the Irish Independent use: |agency=[[Press Association]]. Not obvious that The Independent sourced their article from Press Association so omit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you please take a look at the Aesthetic Realism Talk page and the auto-archiving that is set up? It is supposed to archive after 14 days of inactivity with a thread of 4 or more posts. It doesn't seem to be working. Can you look at the code and see there is something that can be fixed to run the auto-archive? Thank you, Lore E. Mariano (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LoreMariano: The bot does not care about the number of posts in each talk page section; the code minthreadsleft = 4 tells the bot to leave four sections on the page. Currently there is only one section at Talk:Aesthetic Realism. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @John of Reading. Lore E. Mariano (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a source cited by a user is listed in Oxford Bibliographies, does that guarantee its reliability, regardless of being published by a non-academic press? Hu741f4 (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with the name Oxford Bibliographies, Hu741f4. Just what is the publisher? -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this out, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sambhaji?markasread=334700739&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Akshaypatill-20250227044100-Hu741f4-20250227041200 Hu741f4 (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hu741f4, I am not going to read that wall of text. It turns out that Wikipedia has an article Oxford Bibliographies Online. This lacks any obvious warning signs ("Edwin Mellen Press", "lulu.com", etc). This does not mean that you can't have legitimate concerns. You're welcome to ask about "Oxford Bibliographies", but the place to do so is WP:RSN. Be sure to specify what claim it is that "Oxford Bibliographies" is being used to support. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions seems to be about using a book, Gajanan Mehendale's Shivaji: His Life and Times, which is included in Oxford Bibliographies, so any RSN discussion should be about that book not Oxford Bibliographies. TSventon (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix up the references - 12, 13 and 14 - they are all the same citation so shouldn't they all be linked in some way? - I cannot do this - sorry. Thank you in advance. Srbernadette (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choose a name for the reference, Srbernadette. I'll call it "ECW". Choose any one of the three instances. In this one, change <ref> to <ref name="ECW"> (and note that there is no "/" in this); for each of the others, change <ref>[various details]</ref> to the much shorter <ref name="ECW" /> (and note that there is a "/" in this). If this poses a difficulty, then please say precisely what the difficulty is. -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HELP PLEASE!! I replaced ref number 13 (which is identical to number 12) with what you suggested - but it didn't work. Could you please check - sorry again. (Just to help you again - citations 12, 13 and 14 are all the same refs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs)

Srbernadette, I see that Jessicapierce has cleared up the mess. That's kind of her, but not so educational. It seems that you logged out, and while logged out, made this edit. But what I'd invited you to do was both (i) to change any one of the three instances of <ref>{{cite web |title=Emmanuel College, Warrnambool |url=https://www.emmanuel.vic.edu.au/ |publisher=Emmanuel College, Warrnambool |access-date=28 February 2025}}</ref> to <ref name="ECW">{{cite web |title=Emmanuel College, Warrnambool |url=https://www.emmanuel.vic.edu.au/ |publisher=Emmanuel College, Warrnambool |access-date=28 February 2025}}</ref> and (ii) to change each of the other two to <ref name="ECW" />. (Within that, the choice of "ECW" was pretty arbitrary.) You got (i) wrong (perhaps I'd described it poorly), and you didn't attempt (ii). Little wonder that you got an error message. -- Hoary (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary and Srbernadette: In future you might try using the ReFill tool for this kind of thing, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mabbett, it's not the fault of ReFill that so many people using it don't bother to read or anyway to act on the clear instruction to check the accuracy of its results and, where appropriate, to correct these. But anyway they don't act on it. Which of course isn't to deny that many people do act on it. That aside, it's not clear to me how ReFill would have helped here. Srbernadette just needed to digest this about the reuse of references. (And perhaps still needs to do so. Srbernadette, please feel free to ask here about anything that isn't clear.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Natural language, when you scroll down below References, there is a text box "Authority control databases". Next to that box there is a link saying "Czech Republic" and opening to a database. What is this link? Should it be there, and if no, how to remove it? Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lova Falk, that is a link to a unique identifier for that article on a Czech library system. This is explained a lot better than I can at Help:Authority control. Ultraodan (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply Ultraodan! Lova Falk (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Type 072 landing ship i used a source from news.qq, which would normally constitute as WP:BLOGS, however it is published by the official PLAN account. If i remember correctly, last time I asked a similar question the answer was that as long as the publisher is reliable then it can be used, but I will ask just to make sure Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thehistorianisaac, questions about the reliability (or not) of sources are better asked at WP:RSN. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the article and the links supporting it are outdated and untrue. The situation has changed. I want to add information that is relevant today in order to make Tamaz Somkhishvili’s article objective.

The article is under protection. I want to add additional information so that the article becomes relevant and objective. I found many links in the media space that will help make the article objective.

Here is an example of a link that gives current information about Tamaz Somkhishvili as of today.

James Wilson (2025-01-23) «Seeking Justice for Investors» https://eupoliticalreport.com/seeking-justice-for-investors/ Армен Меликян (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is protected, but the talk-page of said article isn't. Please use an edit request there. Lectonar (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and updated the page. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just suggested in the talk page certain amends to this page: Martin Green (musician) and outlined my connection with the person in question, I just wanted to check I'm suggesting amends correctly - absolutely great if I am and if it's just a matter of time for someone to check them then that's great. I've read a lot of the articles now and I think I'm doing it correctly. It's just to get a sense of what happens next. Thanks again, @Martinproduces Martinproduces (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Martinproduces. Thank you for being open about your COI. The most obvious problem was that you had nowiki tags round your {{edit COI/significant}} template, so that it did not get expanded, and - crucially - did not get added to the list of COI edits awaiting attention. I've corrected that. (I don't know how this happened - I suspect it's something the Visual editor does, but I've never used that). I haven't looked at the content of your suggestion - I know that generally we recommend splitting requests into smaller, independent sections, so that some can be accepted even if others aren't; but I don't know how that works with /significant. ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, that will have definitely been my mistake for not being input properly, apologies for that, still getting my head around this. If it's better for me to just edit each section then I'm really happy to do so also - it's just so much of it isn't accurate/missing information I thought it might be easier to start from the beginning. But I'll await further feedback. Thanks again! Really appreciate it. Martinproduces (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is apparently needed for a requested move. Talk:Ghulam Kadir what do I do if it gets ignored solely because the other editors don't want to? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You follow the advice at the top of the relevant section, RevolutionaryPatriot: "editors can strengthen their arguments, discover new ones, and then try again in a few months to garner consensus for these renames" (my emphasis). So far just one (1) day has gone by. I suggest that you do the strengthening/discovering on your hard drive, and on that talk page (and elsewhere in Wikipedia) keep mum about the matter till May at the earliest. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But then, logically it'll just happen again. So Wikipedia's name change in this scenario can only be in effect if the User's agree, regardless of Wikipedia's name policy that is effectively irrelevant here. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RevolutionaryPatriot, Wikipedia's fundamental decision making process is consensus and in this case, several other editors disagree with you. When it comes to names transliterated from another language using another alphabet, it is often not possible to say with complete confidence that "policy mandates my preferred transliteration". So, when an appropriate time has passed, use your powers of persuasion (as opposed to confrontation) to build consensus for the change that you favor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen in User:SDZeroBot/PROD sorting, a good-faith IP user is PRODing dozens of poorly sourced software stubs with the rationale "Fails WP:NSOFT" without appearing to search for sources or look for any WP:ATDs. The problem is, I am unable to communicate with them because their IP address is different every time they do a PROD (I think this is due to their ISP). Although some of their PRODs are correct, I have dePRODed many of these articles while adding sources to demonstrate notability. Is there any way to communicate with them? Should the user be allowed to keep PRODing and have each PROD be individually reviewed? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I figure if it's not someone will be able to point me in the right direction :) Apologies for the crude language in the title!

I was looking at the article for NFC West and noticed a curious entry on the map, next to the marker for the Rams - the word "Bitch". I thought it was just garden variety vandalism that had gone unnoticed so went to edit the article to remove this, however there's no reference to it there.

Looking into it further, it looks like that there's an issue with the map itself - going to the Wikimedia Maps page, at around Zoom Level 6\7, it appears on the map.

I had a look at the Wikimedia Maps pages, and couldn't see a way to report a map issue - despite the only time I've spent in Los Angeles being solely confined to LAX, I am quite confident there isn't an area of LA called "Bitch" and if there is, is it an area of enough significance to show up at such high zoom levels?

Just wondering if there's anyone here who might know what the next steps here might be?

Thanks! Douglas 11:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After looking around for a bit, it looks like this was vandalism on OpenStreetMap, which that map is being loaded from. Community members there already reverted it some hours ago, but it looks like the Wikimedia Maps server had cached the colorful name and displayed it to you. Personally I am not seeing it anymore, so I hope it goes away for you soon. Nyakase🐈‍⬛‍ (talk • guestbook) 11:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, thanks for that! :) I'm still seeing but it might be cached either somewhere on my end. Douglas 12:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]