Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

Mohammad Sharifullah, also known as “Jafar” - deported to the US, DOJ officially confirms.^[1] He is one of the most brutal terrorists, who will face justice here in the US. But we do not have an article about him in Wiki. Who can help with this? M.Karelin (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“This evil ISIS-K terrorist orchestrated the brutal murder of 13 heroic service members,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. M.Karelin (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest dropping the jingoism; it's not helping your case at all. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I understand you correctly, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed 2 or 3 Americans, and there is an article about him, but we should not have an article about someone, a terrorist, who orchestrated the brutal murder of 13 US Military officers ?? Is that what you mean ?? M.Karelin (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were just asked to drop the jingoism. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Kabul airport attack does have an article, but it is too early to have one about Mohammad Sharifullah, per WP:BLP1E.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then why we have an article about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, or about Timothy McVeigh ?? Or about Thomas Matthew Crooks ?? M.Karelin (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the amount of sourcing. At the moment, there probably isn't enough sourcing to justify a standalone article about Mohammad Sharifullah, and anything that needs to be said can be covered at 2021 Kabul airport attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Миша Карелин, you're making the assumption that whether an article can be written about a subject depends on what they are or what they have done: this is incorrect. The criteria (notability) mostly comes down to whether or not enough independent material about them has been reliably published or not - and it may simply be TOOSOON for that. ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is BBC an independent source ? [2]. I know we have not much info about his bio, but there is a lot of info about what he did in Kabul (btw, according to BBC - At least 170 Afghans died alongside 13 US service members in the attack). M.Karelin (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an independent source. It says he is accused of organising the attack, and uses the word alleged a few times—so it's carefully not saying that he did it, only that he's accused of doing it, until the trial determines whether or not he actually did. Musiconeologist (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about Thomas Matthew Crooks, and he never been convicted but any court... M.Karelin (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion about whether there should be an article—I'm just saying what kind of thing the reference would be a reliable source for, namely the accusations and the fact of his being put on trial. Musiconeologist (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Миша Карелин, whether or not it is appropriate to write an article about a person depends entirely on the quality and depth of coverage in reliable sources discussing that person. The BBC report says that he was arrested and extradited, that he is short and was wearing a mask, and little else. We do not learn whether he is Afghan or another nationality, or how old he is, what his education is, whether he has family, when and where he was apprehended or any other biographical information. As for Thomas Matthew Crooks, that article has 53 references to reliable sources, and we have massive information about his short, troubled life. As for Crooks not being convicted, that is irrelevant. He has been dead since last July so our strict policies on biographies of living people do not apply to him. Also, we have articles about John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, neither of whom were convicted, but both of whom are highly notable. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New sources will appear. If we try to search them, of course. M.Karelin (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Миша Карелин, that may well be the case, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not predict the future. Please read Wikipedia:Too soon. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have a question about the policy regarding lead images for contemporary biographies in the infoboxes where there are photographs. Where is the policy for it and what is the precedent? For example, I have seen in a lot of political officeholders, they usually have a free picture that says "Official portrait, __ year" If the jurisdiction they serve doesn't have a free picture, usually it is a close up, cropped photo of them with the caption "Last name in __ year" The same applies for notable celebrities that have free pictures that are not prepared by government bodies. Some exceptions to the government ones are probably JFK and Donald Trump.

However, I have seen some other exceptions regarding celebrities. For example Leo DiCaprio's article which is featured says him at some film festival. Also, the featured article for today March 5, 2025, Les Holden, has something different. Also the same for Dolly de Leon. I changed Willem Dafoe's to the format of "Last name in __ year" but now I am realizing I may have made a mistake.

Any insight is greatly appreciated! AsaQuathern (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AsaQuathern. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. Donald Trump signed a law in 2018 banning official presidential portraits. His current lead image is his 2025 inaugural photo. JFK's portrait is official. It was taken in the Oval Office by White House photographer Cecil W. Stoughton. Les Holden's image shows him "in action", as it were, and calls for more detail to clarify things for the reader. Leonardo DiCaprio's caption explains why he is wearing a tuxedo. And so on. Each case is unique. Be aware that the Manual of Style is not a policy. It is a guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense thanks! One last question though, if TRump signed a law banning official portraits, why does Biden have a portrait?AsaQuathern (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I believe the bill he signed in 2018 was concerning oil portraits, not photographs based on the research I did. However, the MOS link you gave was much appreciated! Perhaps Dafoe's caption should be changed then...AsaQuathern (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AsaQuathern, you are correct. I did more reading and according to Artnet, the law only applies to government funded paintings, not photos. Cullen328 (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Example is here Talk:Hurricane Milton. A user made a potentially constructive edit but it was reverted as user was found to be blocked. Is it within the rules to make that edit myself due to the fact it was only reverted because of the user not the edit? HydrogenPowered (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HydrogenPowered Yes that's fine, provided you are happy the edit is within policy. See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_and_blocked_editors. You, of course, will be taking responsibility for the content now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to keep the navbox below expanded at the article 97th Academy Awards. could you please tell me what i did incorrectly? I thought that {{Oscar nominees 2025|state=expanded}} would do this.

thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: I have implemented the state parameter.[3] It has to be done in each navbox with the option. There is sometimes false documentation claiming it works. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thats good to know. sorry, just to clarify, what do you mean, There is sometimes false documentation claiming it works? i think i understand, but just want to make sure. thanks for your help!! Sm8900 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: By false documentation I meant Template:Oscar nominees 2025#Initial visibility which also documented the alleged parameter before I made it work. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category titled "Category:Perpetrators of the Herero and Namaqua genocide" It is a list of people who participated in the genocide of the Herero and Nama people in German Southwest Africa. As one may have noticed, I have referred to them as the Nama, and not the Namaqua, like in the name of the category. This is because Nama is the modern term. Namaqua is an outdated term literally meaning "place of the Nama" in the native language of the Nama, Khoekhoegowab. The reason for this discrepancy is most likely due to article writers using dated sources, due to the fact that Namaqua is a much older term. Thus, it would be pertinent to change the name to "Category:Perpetrators of the Herero and Nama genocide". However, I do not know how to, nor do I believe I have the qualifications to change the name. I have multiple sources using the modern name as well:

• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nama-people
• https://namibian.org/namibia/people/nama
• https://www.imb.org/55-in-5-resource/nama-of-namibia/
• https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/hunters-and-herders-of-southern-africa/nama-and-others/3F60EA6E9C5AB21022C28D599A0343DC

-Sincerely and Aufrichtig, Babelball (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do note, the International Mission Board is a website for an organization focused on spreading Christianity, so I'd take information from it with a grain of salt. Babelball (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Babelball The place for the rename discussion is WP:CfD. You are absolutely qualified to start the discussion, as is any editor. Go ahead, be bold. Ultraodan (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't know exactly where to discuss this. Babelball (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like Template:WikiProject style advice to have a parameter that removes it from Category:WikiProject style advice and places it into one of the more specific categories that I have created to diffuse the category (mirroring Template:Style), like (arts), (regional), etc. Thanks for your assistance! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JuxtaposedJacob: {{Style}} doesn't add categories and you already removed the addition of Category:WikiProject style advice from {{WikiProject style advice}}.[4] The wanted categories can just be added normally to the pages. Template-added categories other than maintenance categories are controversial and need a good reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks @PrimeHunter; have a good day! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can a user find all the templates he has created? I can only find my user's subpages. But All pages (with prefix) does not show templates or other prefixes. Arbabi second (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@اربابی دوم:. At Special:Contributions/اربابی_دوم click "Search for contributions", choose Template in the Namespace box, and select "Only show edits that are page creations". It gives [5] showing you created two pages in the template namespace, one of them a redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter Thank you very much for your detailed and quick response. I'm sorry that I sometimes have to take up your time. Arbabi second (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. The article Wythall railway station has an interesting OpenStreetMap on which a red line has been overlaid, marking a route. I can't figure out how it has been done (maybe it only works in the context of the "Infobox station" template used by that article), but it would be useful for some articles I have worked on or may work on in the future. Is it possible to do this on an OpenStreetMap outside the confines of "Infobox station"? Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've figured this out: it is to do with "Template:Infobox mapframe" and Wikidata items associated with the relevant location/feature. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I, and a fellow user (at a different location using different wiki), are unable to access the site: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/

We are holding a wiki editathon tomorrow and want to make sure that this issue is resolved. I'm not sure who to contact about this so I thought I would start here!

Thanks for your help! Shshepherd0 (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshepherd0: It was down when I started this post but it's up now. A phab: search on "outreachdashboard" shows many down reports in the last year. phab:T385477 sounds like Ragesoss (other account Sage (Wiki Ed)) is good to notify in case of problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I embed a YouTube video within an article, even if it is playable? Whatback11 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:YOUTUBE. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Whatback11. The Mediawiki software does not allow any external material to be embedded in an article: it would first need to be uploaded to either Commons or Wikipedia before it can be embedded. You may in some circumstances link to external sites - as well as the page 331dot linked, see WP:EL. ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article Jihae (musician) claims her year of birth to be 1974, although this contradicts the source used which claims she was 27 ears old in 2016. Do we have some "Contradicts source" template? --KnightMove (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to point to the more probable birth year of 1989, as that's something the source can support. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To mark such situations in the future, you can use {{Failed verification}}. CodeTalker (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the place where she claimed to be born in 1974? TheLegendofGanon (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, uh, yesterday I decided to gather a few more userboxen and add them to my (unreasonably huge) collection of them, and, for some reason, some of them are appearing as hyperlinks, as shown here (be sure to scroll down at the bottom of the page).

So... uh... yeah, there's that. I didn't think anyone could screw things up this miserably, but... here I am. If anyone here could lend a helping hand, it would be greatly appreciated! ☽ elm ^{talk to me} 17:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cedelmwood: when I edit and preview your page I get "Warning: Post-expand include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." TSventon (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: Oh, dang... does that mean I have to remove them, or possibly continue my collection on a different subpage? It could be titled something along the lines of User:Cedelmwood/Userboxes/Continued. ☽ elm ^{talk to me} 18:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cedelmwood: I was going to say "yes", then I decided that you could probably answer your own question. TSventon (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is in the hidden Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded. The coding can sometimes be optimized but in this case you just have to reduce the number of userboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: @TSventon: Ah, alright. Thank you for all the assistance. ☽ elm ^{talk to me} 19:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going through the coding of the article: Liu Jiakun; closing gaps/reducing spaces - which "SdkbBot" I think (not sure) is shown as "Task 1": User:SdkbBot. At cite 8: "<ref name="q133">{{cite web | title=" - attempting to close the space between "web" and the pipe causes an error notification in the References list: "Cite error: The named reference was defined multiple times with different content" Onemillionthtree (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Onemillionthtree: "q133" is defined twice in the article with the same code, I suggest replacing the second instance with <ref name="q133" />. TSventon (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ref name="q133" & ref name="q133" / processed as the same? Onemillionthtree (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC) What/where determines the coding return/display for the coding screen? Onemillionthtree (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained in Wikipedia:Naming references for beginners, but you got it right in the article. TSventon (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"<ref name="q133">{{cite web |" / "web|" the system reports the bug: "Cite error" at the second v. - is a security issue somewhere in the wikicode execution system? Onemillionthtree (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Onemillionthtree: The message "Cite error: The named reference was defined multiple times with different content" is generated because you have deleted a space in one version of "q133" but not the other and the system notices the second version is not the same as the first. I think that is a feature of how the code works not a security issue. TSventon (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Onemillionthtree: Most of the edits that you have made at Liu Jiakun simply remove whitespace. That sort of edit is merely cosmetic and is discouraged. There are plenty of things in that article that need fixing. You might better benefit the encyclopedia by fixing those things rather than removing whitespace. Consider your example template:

{{cite web | title=刘家琨获2025普利兹克建筑奖：建筑应该揭示一些东西_艺术评论_澎湃新闻-The Paper | website=thepaper.cn | date=4 March 2025 | url=https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_30300947 | language=zh | access-date=7 March 2025}}

That should be written:

{{cite news |script-title=zh:刘家琨获2025普利兹克建筑奖：建筑应该揭示一些东西 |newspaper=The Paper |date=4 March 2025 |url=https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_30300947 |language=zh |access-date=7 March 2025}}

刘家琨获2025普利兹克建筑奖：建筑应该揭示一些东西. The Paper (in Chinese). 4 March 2025. Retrieved 7 March 2025.

Also, note the spacing that I used. That is the spacing that Visual Editor uses when creating citation templates; it is also the recommended spacing for bots (see WP:COSMETIC). Jamming parameter upon parameter without spacing is editor-hostile; it makes it more difficult for editors reading the wikitext.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the space as it is only unnecessary bytes which increase loading times - SdkbBot is programmed to do this.Onemillionthtree (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Onemillionthtree: Umm, nonsense. Between this version of the article wikitext (12,466 bytes) and this version of the wikitext (11,959 bytes), you removed only whitespace and the duplicate 'q133' reference. That is a difference of 12,466 − 11,959 = 507 bytes.

Clicking the edit tab for each of these versions loads the article wikitext, the wikitext editor, and some boilerplate:

for this version (wikitext: 12,466 bytes) the html size is 97,888 bytes

for this version (wikitext: 11,959 bytes) the html size is 97,339 bytes

The difference is 97,888 − 97,339 = 549 bytes.

At 19.2kbaud (remember those days?) the 'large' edit page will take 50.983 seconds to load and the 'small' edit page will take 50.728 seconds; a difference of 50.983 − 50.728 = 0.255 seconds. Not a noticeable difference in those olden days and trivially insignificant at today's much faster data rates.

You are mistaken about what User:SdkbBot task 1 does. You can see what that task does by inspecting the edits listed at Special:Contributions/SdkbBot. Task 1's purpose is to remove whitespace between the end of a line of text and the opening <ref> tag so that the article complies with MOS:REFPUNCT; see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SdkbBot. It does not remove or modify whitespace inside citation templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Views of 6 March is 14977 x 0.255 = 3819 seconds/60 = 63 minutes; as a group saves more than 1 hour of loading; which is considering the complete species and time on the globe: our progress as a species - with regards to the group being: individuals all of whom are interested in architecture. 0.255 is actually a definite difference (not a miniscule difference) I think you undervalued the difference 1/4 of a second makes to screen loading - especially for those whose computers aren't very powerful - plus the annoyance of other sites slow loading is a cumulative damage. Really it is a balance of how editors could cope with the difficulties presented by clustered text: as a practice - if the whole encyclopedia were changed to improve loading times that would make a difference globally - although as you state the difference individually might seem insignificant. I am here to take your advice - I don't want to jut make changes then find the complete effort is wrong obviously. Onemillionthtree (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Statistics#Page views "In 2024, 296 billion page views" if the same time saving as "Liu Jiakun" is 296000000000 x 0.255 = 75480000000 seconds/60 = 1258000000 minutes/60 = 2096666hours/24 = 873611 days/365 = 2393 years. This indicates as a species we would have arrived in 2025 in the year 368BC as a representation of global time saving :) - obviously the range due to article size I can't possibly account for in my estimation Onemillionthtree (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What this would mean/the significance is like stating: if I have to prepare for the stresses of tomorrow I could arrive from 368BC in the past as a liberty of time instead of arriving at todays problems tomorrow (being like trying to understand tomorrow from the year 2025 + 2393 = 4418 AD) it is not possible to make a crucial difference today without access of the possible today which saving 2393 years represents: comparing both possible realities. As you state, alternatively, it is easier for editors to make a difference with more space - so this (maybe) saves time - that editors arrive at solutions faster: as you propose. Onemillionthtree (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the difference for the whole of wikipedia were 0.001 seconds page loading improvement - this equated to approximately 9 years difference for the species. I suppose this is like stating time-travel would be possible (as an analogy of realities) in one reality, but not the other. Onemillionthtree (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the difference is:

• 0.000001 seconds loading time per page for the whole of wikipedia - this is 34 days saving for the species.
• 0.0000001 seconds is 8 hours for 2024-2025.
• 0.00000001 improvement for the whole of wikipedia if all wikipedia whitespace change caused this difference is 49 minutes difference - which is insignificant in human terms but as a time measurement comparison - isn't representative of reality.
• 0.(8)1 improvement per page is 4 and 9 tenths of a minute (54 seconds) difference.
• If the global improvement of page loading per whitespace reduction were 0.(9)1 is 29.6 seconds
• 0.(10)1 improvement is 2.96 seconds difference.

Onemillionthtree (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

0.(10)1 is 100 picoseconds improvement per page still makes a difference - at least if I wanted to end 2024 with the correct time on my watch: comparing both realities. At the upper pico range the global time is still wrong. Onemillionthtree (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the template it was in situ - I could make those changes though. Onemillionthtree (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each time a console retrieved the page the spaces are included as a value; but the value is null - except for the matter of problematicizing future changes due to density of the textual element - I do appreciate this could be a problem. Onemillionthtree (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to make an account to run a test. I can't do it while logged out, because my IP address is blocked. I know there's a page where you can create a new account while logged in, but I don't remember what it's called. Can anyone remind me? JBW (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, Special:CreateAccount. It will appear in your log. If your IP is ACB blocked, then some temporary IPBE may be needed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JBW is an admin so already has IPBE. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have some obscure singles from the album article, and it doesn't have references. So I want to ask if other editors can find a source for it due to my technogical problem. But I can't find where to ask, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music here is almost dead so I'm frustrated. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Camilasdandelions. An editor called Binksternet has a lot of expertise regarding reliable sources about popular music. Try asking him for help. Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ping. Camilasdandelions, I see that you have received a notice of a song article nominated for deletion: Winter Bird (song). If you can't find good sources to establish notability for a song article, the unfortunate answer may be that the song does not deserve its own page. In that case, you can tell the reader details about the song at the album article. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref number 46 is all wrong - I added in a page number. Please fix. i am unable to 9again!) . Sorry 05:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Thank you.

@Srbernadette: Please read the documentation for {{cite book}}, particularly Template:Cite book § Examples which shows the correct syntax when using the |page= parameter. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tired - but I could not do it. I will stay away form editing for a while - sorry. Srbernadette (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srbernadette, it wasn't hard to fix, you had "page 156" in parameter instead of "page=156" Cmr08 (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a straightforward way to share a page, like you routinely get in for news websites for example? Chalky 08:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia app has sharing via the three dot menu in the top right hand corner.[6] Most mobile web browsers have this as well. For desktop view, you may have to copy and paste the link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can well understand why certain Wikipedia articles need to be fully protected to prevent malicious editing, but I am beside myself to understand why the talk page for an article should ever be restricted. But this is exactly the case for the article Gaza Genocide in the conversation about which I would like to be included, as I have high interest and knowledge on this subject, but I am template-prohibited. So my first question is why can't I even particiapate in the relevant discussion of the subject as an editor, even if the article page stands in need of protection?

My second question has to do with appealing the protection level of the page: I am told that before appealing it I must first discuss with the editor who protected it, but the template does not contain any reference to that editor that i can see.

Thanks.

Kenfree (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenfree Here is the page protection information. (I had to go via Page information in the Tools menu, then scroll down to where it says "View protection log" and click that.) It was protected by Daniel Case. Musiconeologist (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Kenfree (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kenfree Note that talk pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict are often protected if they draw an excessive amount of inappropriate postings by users who are not permitted to make edits related to the topic(non-extended confirmed users). You don't yet have 500 edits, so you shouldn't be involved in extensive discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict. The only thing you are permitted to do is make very uncontroversial edit requests, that don't require extensive discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This policy feels out of alignment with Wikipedia's slogan that it is an encyclopedia anyomecan edit. Not only can newbies not edit certain pages, they cannot even engage in discussion about it. Like a seasoned editor once said, this is newbie biting Kenfree (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenfree: The Arab-Israeli conflict, moreso than any other topic area, tends to attract partisan editors who couldn't care less about Wikipedia policy and trolls/provocateurs on either side who are created solely to make life miserable for those actually trying to work in it in good faith. There's no less than seventeen Arbitration cases focused on it, the most recent of which closed in January. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can well believe that, but why should I be sanctioned for their behavior? Kenfree (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunter: the I/P topic area is one where there is no shortage of people wanting to make edits. This is a few years outdated, but as of then a grand total of approx. .025% of the English Wikipedia's articles were under ec‐protection or greater. That's two-and-a-half-hundreths of one percent. If you want to find something to work on, I'm sure you can do so among the other 99.975% of articles. In the event you can't, I"m afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. --Slowking Man (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I don't think there's any protection level available between semi-protected and extended-confirmed, or any user category between autoconfirmed and extended-confirmed. So if something more than semi-protection is needed for a talk page to remain usable, extended-confirmed has to be used. Musiconeologist (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re:this is newbie biting. It is not biting. There is nothing personal about it. It is simply a standard policy that applies to all new editors. The goal is to protect the time and effort of other volunteers who contribute their free time to Wikipedia. Lova Falk (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any thoughts on how I should express the citation which now appears (directly in the text, not a footnote) as :(Ovid, 7.265–268) in the article The Tempest? I can see the advantage of linking to wikisource when the text is available there (although, in passing, I note the article doesn't do the same with Shakespeare). But all other quotations on the page have a footnote instead and for consistency (and in the spirit of WP:CITEVAR) I feel this should, too. I'd add that there's a secondary source at the end of the parallel quotation so I don't feel it needs another. AndyJones (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyJones: you could try {{Cite wikisource}}. TSventon (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

If I understand what you are asking, you might write:

{{cite book |author=Ovid |date=1567 |translator=Arthur Golding |chapter=[[s:Metamorphoses_(tr._Golding)/Book_7|The Seventh Booke of Ouids Metamorphosis]] |title=The. xv. Booke of P. Ouidius Naso, entytuled Metamorphosis, translated oute of Latin into English meeter |location=London |publisher=Willyam Seres |via=[[Wikisource]]}}

Ovid (1567). "The Seventh Booke of Ouids Metamorphosis" . The. xv. Booke of P. Ouidius Naso, entytuled Metamorphosis, translated oute of Latin into English meeter. Translated by Arthur Golding. London: Willyam Seres – via Wikisource.

I don't know what the 7.265–268 means; neither 265 nor 268 appear in the linked wikisource document.

Booke 7 is a 'chapter' and {{Cite wikisource}} doesn't handle chapters well so I chose not to use it here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks. Will try that. I have 2 comments:

• 7.265-268 must mean, I think, book 7 lines 265 to 268.
• Should I enclose the text you've laid out above inside ref tags to make it appear as a footnote? AndyJones (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may.

If 7.265–268 is really line numbers, that is very reader hostile given that there are no line numbers in the linked source. Copying the text into an editor with line numbers, I find that the lines 265–268 are on page 165:

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS to the above I tried the latter and it seemed to work well. It's probably more in keeping with the way the page is sourced to use {sfn} so I'll try that instead shortly. If I have more queries I'll post back here failing which this is resolved, and thank you @Trappist the monk: and @TSventon: for your help. AndyJones (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PPS Agree with @Trappist the monk: that the line numbers are potentially reader-hostile so I haven't used them. Although the lines cited by you above don't match those quoted in the article, they do appear on that same page, so I have linked to it. The way I've cited it can be seen at this section so if anyone here has any comments on how I can improve it then let me know or just make a bold change. Failing that, thanks again, and this query is resolved. AndyJones (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:Userboxes but just can't quite get the hang of how to work with them ... (1) to add existing ones to show project group membership with correct spacing and alignment and (2) to create unique personalized ones.

So I'm looking for a practice tutorial. Is there one somewhere? Augnablik (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: I am not aware of a userboxes tutorial. What would you like to achieve? Since userboxes are templates maybe H:TQG is of interest? Polygnotus (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus, thanks for the helpful reminder that user boxes are actually templates.

As far as what I’d like to achieve, I’d say just basic ability to:

• take an existing userbox and place it wherever I want it without it throwing off other text on the same page — which I know involves being able to control spacing and possibly making dividing lines
• create a new userbox from scratch if I need to

A good tutorial would require us to do a number of tasks related to the above objectives and provide useful feedback on each task that we submit — ideally with several requests to do the same task rather than only one request per task. This would be to make sure that succeeding on one request wasn’t coincidental. Augnablik (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: Frankly, the easiest way to make a "unique personalized" userbox is to find one on someone else's user page that resembles the appearance you want and copy the code to your sandbox, then try out changes in wording, colors, etc., until you're satisfied with it. (That's how I made the top one on my user page.) You can then copy the final code to your user page. With regard to arrangement, many users seem to use {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}} to create a vertical column on the right side of the page (like the Babel boxes already on your user page). Deor (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, that may be as good as a real tutorial, @Deor,if there isn’t one! I took a look at your User page and copied the first userbox you alerted me to, plus the larger box with — I guess — Middle English. I’ll play around with them.

For someone who’d be “confused and frightened being in my world,” as your top userbox declares, you seem to do very well! Thanks. Augnablik (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any list of most viewed articles of poor quality (like below C-class)? Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grumpylawnchair: Not that I know of, but if something like that exists the people over at WP:VPT would know about it, maybe ask over there. See Wikipedia:Statistics#Page_views. Polygnotus (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Thank you! Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know how to do a web cite to a URL that I know is dead and only in the web archive. As best I can tell, Wikipedia requires a URL, but it also requires that the URL be distinct from the ArchiveURL. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kwdavids ("Dr. Conspiracy"), here is a Wayback Machine scrape from 2008 of the first of three web pages that add up to a 1950 article from Time. As I view the page (Firefox, on a computer), at the very top (by which I mean the very top of the page, not the window) I see "http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C812777-1%2C00.html". That's what you're after, unless I misunderstand you. (I could also have derived it by chopping off what's at the front of the longer, Wayback Machine URL.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Kwdavids (I wish people wouldn't use signatures that completely fail to match their usernames: it makes it harder to reply).

Assuming you are using a citation template such as {{cite web}}, you should still give the original URL in url =, but also specify

url-status = dead and

archive-url =

Hope that helps. ColinFine (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]