I figured this is probably the most fitting place to ask. As seen sometimes on Special:AbuseLog, there are a lot of burner accounts or IPs who go to random talk pages and start new sections with brief snippets of text. I know this is a known problem, but has anyone figured out what the deal is with these bots? I haven't seen one that posted anything obviously promotional. ⫷wikidoozy (talk▮contribs)⫸ 23:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A first guess is, trying to "game the system" to rack up edits to get the account autoconfirmed. Since any admin can just revoke it if someone in fact does that, basically just wasting theirs and everyone else's time. Slowking Man (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPs cannot become autoconfirmed, so that can't explain all of those edits. -- asilvering (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the past I have blocked a lot of those IP's with bots behind them. A lot of them made no sense, but were probably making a first edit to see if what they entered stayed around. Some were blatant promotion, but others were search engine optimisation. Others were probably trying to enter into conversations with users. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Springback Binder has no sources, so obviously needs help. But what kind of sources would I even be looking at here that would establish a binder's notability?

I'm not really expecting there to be news articles about forks, but I don't think that's a good reason there shouldn't be an article about forks.

So...are there notability guidelines for objects? I can't find any. How do I determine an object's notability?

I see a failed proposal for products, and astronomical objects, which depending on one's location in the universe this could maybe count as, but that's for a different message board.

Thanks! Delectopierre (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delectopierre, it's notable if it has been written about in some depth. The write-up doesn't have to purport to be "news". Also, see WP:GNG. The article's creator was editing here as recently as January, so you could ask on their talk page. And there do exist books devoted to stationery; you could search for "springback binder" via your preferred search engine but also in the books and magazines at the Internet Archive. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did search it online and found a lot of product listings, but nothing written about it. I've read GNG, but honestly, I don't think I could get 'Fork' to pass GNG from scratch. Delectopierre (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delectopierre, forks have an important place among cutlery. A desultory look for books on cutlery design quickly told me of Bauer, European Cutlery Design; Brown, British Cutlery; and Moore, Cutlery for the Table. (And I'm sure there's more.) I haven't attempted to look into any of the three, but it's unlikely that all three are junk and that there aren't usable alternatives. -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delectopierre, if you do not want to read entire books, there are plenty of reliable shorter sources discussing forks in depth, such as this article from a food museum and this article from another museum and this article from Slate and this article by an author of a book about household objects and this article from the California Academy of Sciences and this article from the appropriately named Museum of the Home. Forks are notable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary@Cullen328 Thank you both. This is helpful. I need to remember to go past internet sources only more often. Delectopierre (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... which is why we have an article Fork. However, finding good sources for springback binder, the original question, I agree is a bit more challenging. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't bothered to go through all the results, but a Google Books search for "springback binder" has results that at least aren't people selling the things. Deor (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this US Government publication, although old, has a decent section on these binders, which could easily be used as a source for our article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks. Yeah, I wasn't trying to argue that the forks article shouldn't exist. It self evidently should. I was only trying to get at the difficulty I'm experiencing with GNG WRT springback binders. But I see your point that the notability of the objects are vastly different. Delectopierre (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I've noticed that some Wikipedia articles have "Sfn" citations. Can anyone tell me how to use them in the visual editor (by the way, I skimmed Help:Shortened footnotes, but sadly I got a little lost there)? Moonshane1933 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would never use that reference formatting, and would recommend sticking to the cite templates as used in the visual editor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonshane1933 "sfn" citations have some inherent complexity because they create a short citation (usually with a page number) that is linked to a full citation (with all the info you would need to locate the cited source) somewhere on the same page. Because of the way the software works neither the full citation nor the short citation can interact with the other one. Thus if there is any kind of typo in either one, the link breaks. The main benefit of using short citations is citing many parts of the same source. If you are citing shorter sources (journals, web pages, magazines, newspapers, etc.) or only citing a page or a few pages from longer sources, there isn't really a benefit to using shortened footnotes. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fellow Wikipideans,

I have been an avid Wikipedia user for many years. I contributed sparingly in its' early stages and then just became an avid consumer. Recently I found myself looking into the case of the disappearance of Maddie McCann, after many years. I looked up information online and thought I'd see if Wikipedia had a page regarding the issue, and of course, it did. As I started reading, I couldn't help but feel, given the information that I have, that the issue was being presented in a carefully biased way. I took the time to read through the talk page, and realised I wasn't alone: many users have been pointing out some of the same frustrations I had for years and years, and the receptiont hey got was not a welcome one. It seems that the article is mainly under the care of 1 or 2 editors who don't seem interested in addressing the situation from an equidistant position. I was wondering if and how this situation could be addressed, namely by having other editor's input.

It just seems to me that Wikipedia should be careful about how it presents itself. Neutrality is supposed be its' mainstay, and I feel in this case, it very much not the case. I will ask you to take a special look at the lead and how the case is being presented to the average, unsuspecting Wiki user.

Thank you for any replies.

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Pedro161982 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro161982 You are free to offer your input on Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It's difficult to respond to a "this is biased, fix it" grievance. All sources of information have biases; Wikipedia presents the sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves when determining what they think or believe.

If you believe that a passage of the article is biased, please detail the specific issue on the talk page. If you feel the sources presented are not being accurately summarized, again, please detail how on the talk page and how you would correct it. If the sources are accurately summarized, but are in error, you will need to take that up with the sources first, or offer more current sources with more current information here that can be worked in somehow.

Neutrality is often mistaken for "all sides must be presented equally", which is not what WP:NPOV means. (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). Information should be presented in proportion to how independent reliable sources present it. Wikipedia does not present all sides equally if sources do not. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've been to the talk page already; that's where this should be handled. If you believe other editors are violating policy, you should first attempt to work that out with the other editors on that page; failing that, you can go to a forum like WP:AN and detail which behavioral policies have been violated(but your own behavior will be examined as well). 331dot (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the inner workings of Wikipedia, so I am trying to figure out exactly how to address this and any other situations that might arise in the future. Thank you for the reply. Pedro161982 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth reviewing Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Disputes on Talk pages of contentious articles can be civil yet prolonged to the point of annoying the participants and driving away any editors less committed to the disputed content. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass also applies. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your suggestions and I am not quite sure how it aplies to this case, but for general purpose and guidelines I appreciate your input. Thank you. Pedro161982 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since creating your account on March 3rd, 21 of your edits have been to Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. So, yes, I meant my comment for you now, specifically, not the general future. David notMD (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and...? I commented on an article that I felt needed some polishing. Is there something wrong with that? Like I said, I read and appreciate your input. That is all. Pedro161982 (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As editing school articles, I realized that a large number of them aren't notable, or mostly rely on sources from the school website for information. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, should articles (specificially high schools) that aren't notable/have enough reliable sources be subject for deletion? Examples include Kailua High School (which I subjected for deletion) and Mission Valley High School. Theadventurer64 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theadventurer64: The usual course of action for a nonnotable school is to redirect it, either to the school district of which it's part (if there's an article about the district) or to the town in which it's located (it helps if the town's article mentions the school). Deor (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds good; If a majority of school articles don't meet the criteria for notability/reliability, then could a mass deletion/redirection be done?Theadventurer64 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theadventurer64: see Wikipedia:MULTIAFD for how to nominate a group of articles for deletion. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theadventurer64: I recommend following the steps of WP:BEFORE before either nominating an article for deletion or redirecting it. Deor (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have prepared a draft article - biography of a living person - but when I try to Publish the article, the system responds that no article with the title I have assigned (the name of the person) exists. How do I get a draft out of my sandbox into review? Veridia (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You click the "submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you took a picture of her, do you have a connection with her? Is there any particular reason you hadn't edited in 19 years before today? 331dot (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veridia: as far as I can tell, you don't have a sandbox. But your user page, which ought to be about your own actvities on Wikipedia, has a template saying "This is the user sandbox of Veridia." Maproom (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Draft:Elena Macevičiūtė. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were there just ahead of me, @331dot ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right place to make it, but I have a feature suggestion for Wikipedia (and hence MediaWiki). Feel free to share/repost this if this is not the right place, because if you just tell me the right place, maybe I won't get (or even be?) around to... yadda, yadda, yadda. Anyway:

It would be interesting to have a "suggested edit" feature, whereby users —any users, experienced or new ones— could draft and suggest individual edits they're not too sure about and that they thus maybe don't want to immediately go live. Currently this staging can be done on the Talk page, but a "suggested edit" feature would provide another, possibly more direct mechanism. Once the suggestion is made, any other users could accept the edit – or just let it linger. Obviously, the longer any suggested edit lingers, the more likely the attempt to accept it would generate an edit conflict, at which point the suggestion would need to be manually worked in. This would be somewhat similar to —but also different from— the Wikipedia:Pending changes feature. "Suggested edits" could be submitted for any article, even by users who do have the right to just full-on edit the page. Perhaps the submitter of the suggested edit could even set a threshold i.e. this suggestion needs to be voted for by at least n other editors to go live. This feature would basically be an instrument of self-restraint and confidence and consensus-building, which could avoid some potential for controversy and friction and eventually overbearing "policing" altogether. It would set apart edits that really clearly should go in, and go in right away, from those it's quite reasonable to disagree on. Because once those are conflated, that can tempt overbearing policemen to treat constructive contributions very non-constructively. So I don't know, maybe a technical fix like this could avoid any such friction, and reduce opportunities for would-be self-appointed policemen to reach for the foot-guns. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a better place for this would be WP:VP Mgjertson (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, using an equal sign in the text of a footnote triggered by {{refn|group="note"|text} doesn't work if "text" contains an equal sign. How can I get around this? Johsebb (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Via Template:=. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johsebb. You can either use {{=}} as suggested above or a numbered parameter |1= as suggested at Template:Refn#Errors. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How would I get a map into an article. The map is not in the commons so I was curious of Wikipedia's policy for taking maps from online. Vestrix (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy is of strict observation of copyright. If it is very clear that a map is in the public domain (as this term is used legally, not conversationally), or the copyright holder expressly copylefts it according to a license acceptable to Wikimedia Commons, then you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons; otherwise, you cannot. Which map do you have in mind? -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the map I was hoping of adding. If there is any way to zoom in on Assel, which is a small town in the southeast, then that would be the part I need Vestrix (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You link to an image file. (You made a markup error, which I've corrected.) Unsurprisingly, this is uninformative about its copyright status. Where did you find the image file? If within a web page, then what's the URL of the web page? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you're approaching this the wrong way: one that, however well intended, is likely to end in frustration. I recommend a reading of Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Source materials (and perhaps other WikiProject Maps materials as well). -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you Vestrix (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note you can use Wikipedia's in-built open street map if it is good enough, either in the map parameter of an infobox or using Template:Maplink. Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm trying to be more careful about the licenses of images I upload, so I thought I'd ask whether this satellite loop is in the public domain. — E_F⁵ 00:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's produced by NOAA, it's public domain. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until NOAA is defunded and all its buildings sold off (sigh). David notMD (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is there a limit to how long a sample of a non free (copyright) song can be? I want to upload one around 33 seconds long because thats what fits well YisroelB501 (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard numerical limit, rather the controlling policy for length of non-free sound samples is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy point 3b which states:

• Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low-resolution, rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples#Guidelines states :

• Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples must be short in comparison to the original song. As a rule of thumb, samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter.

If you want to use one that is longer than 30 seconds you can, but you need to explain why a shorter clip cannot fulfil the same encyclopaedic purpose as there is a very strong presumption that longer than 30 seconds is not required. "It fits well" is not a sufficient reason. A sample that is longer than 10% of the song's length will be appropriate only extremely rarely.

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is the best place to get advice about non-free content, but if you want specific answers it is best to include specific details about the media you want to use (which specific song, which specific 33 seconds) and where you want to use it (which section of which article). Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

would you say "a good reason" is because it is the length of the entire chorus which is the main part of the song and what its mostly known for? YisroelB501 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but without the context of the article or song I can't say for certain. Do you need the whole chorus rather than a part of it? Is there something text cannot adequately convey? Thryduulf (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the song is It's My Life by Bon Jovi and the chorus is 33-35 seconds (depending on where you end it). and I consider this the only part of the song people know and remember, its the only part of the song you would hear in a youtube or ticktok video. so I am wondering if this is a valid reason or not. if not ill trim it shorter so not the entire chorus is in the sample. but it would be better in my opinion if its longer YisroelB501 (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The chorus is not mentioned at all in the article prose, so it is very unlikely that a sample of it will meet the non-free content criteria (NFCC) (specifically point 8), and certainly not the whole thing. Reading the prose that is there, the only non-free audio sample that might be appropriate would be of the use of the talk box, but even that would be a stretch. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so your saying if I put it in a talk box and possibly add sources from a reliable website then I can do it? if possible can you (or any other users) confirm this? is a talk box that box of text under the audio file?

also thank u so much User:Thryduulf u have been very helpful!YisroelB501 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The talk box I was referring to is the talk box effects unit mentioned in the first paragraph at It's My Life#Background (I can't think of a Wikipedia feature referred to as a "talk box"). I was saying that an audio sample of that is the only non-free audio sample that might meet the non-free content criteria for the article as it currently stands. The barrier to including non-free content is intentionally very high. If you want to include a sample of the chorus you would need to add a substantial (ideally at least a paragraph) of in-depth reliably sourced content discussing the chorus specifically. It would need to be substantially about some aspect of the chorus that the audio sample would significantly aid the understanding of in a way that text alone cannot (e.g. the lyrics alone are unlikely to meet this requirement).

I'll leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions (which is where the folks who are most familiar with this sort of question generally hang out). Hopefully one or more people with more experience in these matters than me will be along shortly to explain things better than I've managed. Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:BHUNNA ; The sources I have for the individual primarily highlight their production credits and mentions in major articles as a producer. The individual is signed to Sony, with two Platinum plaques and two Gold plaques certified by the RIAA. However, I am uncertain about how to establish their credibility on Wikipedia effectively. I believe I need assistance from experienced users to guide me through properly formatting and strengthening my citations. RhythmWordsmith (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a page about her? TackyWiki (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do reliable sources describe or comment on her in depth? -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I wanted to know how we can change our account name. I want to change my account name. Sikh History78 (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may do so via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sikh History78 (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm working on an article about Veterinary World, a peer-reviewed journal indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, EMBASE, CAS, and CABI. While the journal meets indexing criteria, I'm facing issues with establishing notability.

A bibliometric analysis of Veterinary World was removed due to concerns about a "close connection," but the authors of that study are not affiliated with the journal. Would a bibliometric study published in a university journal qualify as an independent source?

Additionally, Veterinary World is listed in the libraries of major universities such as the UAB, University of Washington and Cornell. Could this help establish notability?

I’d appreciate any guidance on whether these sources meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for academic journals.

Thanks in advance! Riyazsher (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already asked about this here [1] and received replies. Did you not like the answers? Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the previous responses, but I’m still trying to understand how Wikipedia applies the independent sources requirement for academic journals. I understand that WP:NJOURNALS is only an informal essay and not binding policy. However, I am focusing on WP:GNG for establishing notability. Veterinary World is indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed Central, and a bibliometric analysis has been published about it by independent researchers (unaffiliated with the journal). Additionally, it is listed in major university libraries like Cornell and the University of Washington. Given this, would it qualify under WP:GNG, as it has received significant independent coverage?

I’m trying to ensure I follow Wikipedia's guidelines correctly and would appreciate further clarification. Riyazsher (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking clarification on how WP:GNG is applied to academic journals, specifically why Veterinary World was declined while many BMC journals remain despite having similar sourcing.

Currently, these BMC journals have articles on Wikipedia despite primarily citing internal sources, publisher pages, and indexing databases:

• BMC Bioinformatics
• BMC Biology
• BMC Biomedical Engineering
• BMC Cancer
• BMC Endocrine Disorders
• BMC Ecology and Evolution
• BMC Genomics
• BMC Health Services Research
• BMC Medicine
• BMC Microbiology
• BMC Plant Biology
• BMC Public Health
• BMC Systems Biology
• BMC Veterinary Research

Most of these articles do not have independent secondary sources (e.g., news coverage, critical reviews) and rely almost exclusively on Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and publisher websites.

If Veterinary World is being rejected under WP:GNG, then why are these BMC journals accepted under the same circumstances? Either:

1. All these articles fail WP:GNG and should be reevaluated for deletion, or
2. Veterinary World should be reconsidered as it meets the same standard of notability.

Additionally, an admin flagged Veterinary World for COI, but there is no connection between the article’s contributors and the journal’s editorial board. The content is neutral, factual, and based on publicly verifiable data. Can someone clarify why this tag was added?

If Veterinary World needs additional sources, could you specify what kind of coverage is required? Since academic journals are typically covered in indexing databases and bibliometric studies rather than general media, what standard is being applied here?

I appreciate guidance on resolving this inconsistency. Riyazsher (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Draft:Veterinary world. David notMD (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you discuss this at the AFC Help Desk, instead of using multiple forums. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several examples that you listed are poorly referenced Stubs, so the fact that those exist as articles doesn't help your position. And really, each article has to stand on its own merits. References 4-8 confirm VM is indexed, but are not ABOUT the journal in any length. David notMD (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: Veterinary World is not just indexed; Are you suggesting that indexing in Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and presence in over 1,100 libraries—including Cornell and Universitat de Barcelona—is insufficient for notability? Many reputable journals, including those from Springer and BMC, don’t necessarily have news articles written about them, yet they are considered notable. If a bibliometric analysis conducted in a peer-reviewed journal (Reference 3) is not sufficient, what exact level of coverage is required? Please clarify the standard being applied here. Riyazsher (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notability requirement is WP:GNG, as you know. If you read that advice, you'll see that the sources have to be all three of reliable, independent and with significant coverage. Listing in databases is not significant coverage. Further, we usually expect to see three sources all meeting these key requirements to ensure an article won't just be deleted when properly scrutinised. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in publishing a draft as 'final' Km4water (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Km4water: Normally, you can click the "submit your draft for review" button and the people at WP:AfC will review it. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 19:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Km4water (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering if I could start a new wikiproject dedicated to improving stubs and not sorting them. How would I do it and how I would get interest in it? Vestrix (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like with WP:AFI? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but like just for stubs, no C or start classes Vestrix (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub improvement, Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge, and their talk pages may interest you. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2015, Benjamin Netanyahu met Ayman Odeh. After the meeting, Odeh said: "I came with a great responsibility, as someone who represented the large minority in the country, a minority which, as a part of a despicable election tactic, the Prime Minister chose to incite against it and against its very citizenship."
Is it possible to remove the "despicable" word from the Odeh's quote? _Dgw|Talk 20:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the word from the quote would be changing the quote, which I don't think should be done. Per WP:IMPARTIAL on WP:NPOV you could remove the quote entirely and and instead choose to summarize the remarks instead, although without context of the meeting I am unsure if it was a "heated dispute." Could you maybe link the article this quote appears in so I could take a look? -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emily, it was my editing. _Dgw|Talk 21:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be bold and add the full quote. Respectfully, your revision was pretty much pasting the quote and removing both the first-person pronoun and the word "despicable." I think the word is valuable here in presenting Odeh's opinion of Netanyahu. I understand you have bias being a native Israeli, but it's important not to hide certain things and present people's opinions, when appropriate, in the article. In this case, Odeh's comment adds onto the information presented about the meeting. Thank you for posting here. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me how this is possible?, I mean how is he able to remain anonymous and have no ip address or edit history? Codonified (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Codonified. The edit is from 15 September 2001. Our current software MediaWiki was released 25 January 2002. Earlier edits from other software were imported, sometimes incompletely, or were lost, sometimes rediscovered later. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir for solving this mystery for me, I am grateful for this Codonified (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Larry Sanger's edit history is visible just like any other registered editor. [2] Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No not that one, I am talking about this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berry_Berenson&diff=prev&oldid=239250

The person here is anonymous yet you won't be able to access his user contribution or talk page or anything for that matter Codonified (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia originally used UseModWiki until 2002. UseMod is extremely bare-bones, designed for small websites. It doesn't have "real" user accounts or use a true database system; it just stores everything in flat files. The software has no "real" concept of "users" or "user X made this edit": the only thing it records for an edit is the time and an optional "username" which is just whatever string the client sent along with the edit. (If none is provided, UseMod asks the Web server for a hostname from reverse DNS lookup on the client's IP address and stores that instead. Hence edits from names like office.bomis.com.) It does have accounts of a sort, but all those do is store some user preferences, including that username value to use in edits.

Consequently there is no way to block individual editors via the UseMod software; the only "editing restriction" it supports is flipping a switch to require inputting an "edit password" to edit. (How did you obtain that password? You e-mailed someone and asked to be sent it. This is also how you obtained the administrator password to give you access to administrator abilities.)

As stated by others, those 2001-era edits are all imported from UseMod, and hence there isn't any "user account" data from UseMod to associate with the edits (more specifically a user id value corresponding to an entry in the user table in the SQL database backend that MediaWiki stores its data in, which is how MediaWiki identifies you). Someone could if they really wanted to spend the time, go through each of these imported edits attempting to associate it with a MediaWiki user account, and directly modify the database by hand to do so, but there doesn't appear to be a huge demand for this.

To take a look at what Wikipedia looked like circa 2001, check out Nostalgia Wikipedia. --Slowking Man (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there one list of all Userboxes anywhere? SophiesSketchbook89 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a topical guide to galleries of userbox templates, see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries.

For an alphabetical list of all userbox galleries, see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/alphabetical.

Moxy🍁 22:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited Moldovans with the convert citation feature in VisualEditor here. However, the title part of the new citation says, "Wayback Machine", because the link is a deadlink and points to the Wayback Machine. Should the title not be "Wayback Machine"? It seems wrong. Justjourney (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the title should be the actual title of the source. Wayback machine is just an archive, a repository of sources, so just like you wouldn't use the name of your local library as the source title if you cited a book you'd borrowed from there, you shouldn't use put the name of the archive in the title! --bonadea contributions talk 06:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I fix it (here)? Justjourney (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I nominate someone's article for deletion, how do I notify them? Which template I should use? SouthAsia78 (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthAsia78 you would use Template:Afd notice. Consider using Wikipedia:Twinkle, which allows you to request a speedy deletion and notify the page creator all in one! Yeshivish613 (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SouthAsia78. You may also notify users with a simple custom message. As far as I'm aware, using templates aren't required. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== Response to Feedback == Thank you for your feedback, ColinFine. I appreciate your concerns regarding the independence and significance of the sources in the article. To address these issues, I have gathered additional independent sources that I believe clearly establish Erik Sigerud’s notability: Institutional and critical coverage: Statens Konstråd lists Sigerud’s work in its public collection, demonstrating institutional recognition. Falukuriren, a regional newspaper, has covered his exhibitions and artistic approach. Independent art reviews and profiles: Omkonst provides an independent review that discusses his perspective and technique in depth. On Art and Aesthetics offers an interview that provides insights into his thematic concerns. Additional independent coverage: Coverage on platforms such as Articulaction, Galleribox, Galleri Gotland, and Fria.nu further underlines his standing in the contemporary art scene. Together, these sources provide significant independent coverage of Sigerud’s career—well beyond self-published material or statements from associates—and support his inclusion according to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for artists. I am happy to work on integrating these references into the article and welcome any further suggestions. Thank you for your consideration. Artkritik (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a good position to help, as I can't read Swedish. But what's needed is reliable indepenedent published sources with extensive discussion of the subject. A listing doesn't count, as it lacks discussion. An interview doesn't count, as it's not independent. Maproom (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is about User:Artkritik/sandbox. None of its "Selected exhibitions" is referenced. None of its "Awards and recognition" is referenced. Inclusion in "public collections such as Uppsala Art Museum and the Swedish Public Art Agency (Statens Konstråd)" is referenced to the extent of one work at Statens Konstråd or so it appears (but I confess to an ignorance of Swedish, so I may misunderstand). I see no reference for Uppsala Art Museum or other museums. WP:NARTIST, which is what ColinFine asked you about, has various criteria for notability. Which criterion (or criteria) does Sigerud clearly satisfy? -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is it okay to have a link to a disambig page in a navbox? asking bc currently Marriage in Bangladesh redirects to a disambig page which is. completely messing up the Template:asia topic when its used just with the parameter 'Marriage in' and while im aware of WP:INTDAB, the only way i can think of to fix it would be to make one of the links on the disambig page the main topic, the links on that page are. uh. Bengali Hindu wedding and Bengali Muslim wedding and uh. i don't. want to touch that. Froglegseternal (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Froglegseternal Usually linking to a disambig page in a navbox is frowned upon but given there are two possible topics it could refer to I think it's acceptable in this case. Ultraodan (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My submission (https://w.wiki/DKJi) has been declined because of a lack of independent, secondary, in-depth, and strictly independent sources. I've done some more research, and discovered new sources that, to the best of my knowledge, meet all four criteria. Here they are:

- https://www.quotenet.nl/zakelijk/a192644/kickstart-startme-zoekt-half-miljoen-om-vernieuwende-bladwijzerbeheerder-uit-te-bouwen-192644/

- https://lifehacker.com/start-me-offers-customizable-start-pages-you-can-use-in-1762960188

- https://www.ghacks.net/2015/02/11/this-is-pale-moons-new-start-page/

- https://sourceforge.net/software/bookmark-managers/

- https://www.experts-exchange.com/articles/33474/Start-Me-An-excellent-Free-and-very-useful-Bookmarks-Manager.html

- https://www.save.day/blog-posts/browser-independent-bookmark-manager

- https://alternativeto.net/software/startme/about/

The first source is in Dutch, the other ones are in English. Do you concur that these sources meet the criteria? I really hope so! Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Stefanstartme (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to resubmit an article if it was rejected earlier.

I have made article about list of former chief justices of high courts but the draft earlier submitted was rejected as it was partially completed but after days of hardwork i have almost completed the list but doesnt know how to resubmit it can any one help about this Aruunn (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aruunn with source editor, add the following code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page to resubmit. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Aruunn (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wanting to search through what links to Gloria Hemingway in order to make sure links to her comply with MOS:GENDERID, however it seems that she's included in Template:Ernest Hemingway, and any instance of that template gets listed in Special:WhatLinksHere/Gloria_Hemingway. Is there a way for me to do a search for links to Hemingway outside of the Ernest Hemingway template, or do I need to sift through all 200+ links manually? Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 19:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LaffyTaffer Is this [3] what you want? I have have a gadget installed for that, User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you so much! <3 Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 19:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to edit my sandbox page in the visual editor, but when I click 'submit' it returns 'parsoid error'. Please could someone tell me what to do with this. I looked it up and none of the questions posted about this address my issue Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,m @Krimzonmania7078. I'm not entirely sure what that is, but what I do know is that it is a technical problem deep down in the inner workings of the Mediawiki software, and nothing to do with the content of your page, oor the edits you've made. Having said that, one of the things that sometimes gives that sort of technical error is if an edit window has been open for a long time: might that be the case? So what I would suggest is to take a copy of the current version of your edit (I think you'll need to switch to source editing first, if you use the visual editor), cancel your edit, and then start it again, and paste your saved version in.

If that doesn't help, you'll need to ask at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ColinFine, thanks for replying. Unfortunately, it doesn't let me switch to the source editor (it comes up with the same parsoid error again). I've tried this on multiple devices so I'm sure it's not due to the window being open for a long time. I'll ask at the page you've mentioned. Thanks again for your help Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Krimzonmania7078, I just performed a test edit on your sandbox and it worked fine for me. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which tends to confirm the suggestion that its to do with @Krimzonmania7078's edit session, and not the content. ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ColinFine @JuxtaposedJacob. If it helps, I'll explain what I'm trying to do in my edit session. I'm working on a new article and decided to copy and paste another article into my sandbox to use as a 'template' of sorts (which ended up being a pointless exercise because I've basically written this article from scratch anyway). I think the issue might stem from that decision somehow. The reason why I'd like to get this fixed is that now I've been editing the article in my sandbox for a while and basically have no way to save my progress. I've also sent something on the village pump, so hopefully that might help, but this may shed some light on the issue Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually found a workaround which is good enough (copy-pasted the article into another session of the sandbox with the first sentence missing) - that seems to have fixed it. Probably something right at the top of the article I was trying to use as a 'template' which I mindlessly copied was causing it. I'll be more careful in future. Thanks for your help, it's genuinely very appreciated. Krimzonmania7078 (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how article content/templates/etc. would do that, but I had never heard of a parsoid error before this. And yes, the copy-paste trick is a great workaround that I've used myself a couple of times. Be aware that you can also make additional subpages of your userpage and are not limited to single sandbox. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 02:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. So last December, I got into a conflict with another Wikipedian, especially with my extreme eagerness in the edit summaries for my December 12 edits on Apple Intelligence. I really don't want to see these edit summaries anymore because they're getting stuck in my head. Can administrators please use RevisionDelete hide these two edits on that article? That was one of the most unfair moments in my Wikipedia career, and when I realize my edit gets reverted, I change back my mind. Sparkbean (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkbean, there is nothing in those edit summaries that justifies revision deletion. Per Wikipedia:Revision deletion, that tool is limited to grossly improper content. Cullen328 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These two edit summaries were my most eager but most unfair ones I’ve ever written, making the editor pissed off. I also should remember to be safe when writing my edit summaries. Sparkbean (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkbean, that was nearly three months ago. Time to move on. Cullen328 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This issue arose from a series of repeated edits at Max Schreck, but its resolution should have broader implications. I don't see anything about this particular issue at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Germany), but maybe it's been addressed before, and I just don't know how to find the discussion. If there is a guideline or discussion that provides a clear answer for me, could someone please link me to it?

The issue is this: should "Nazi Germany" replace "Germany" for all events occurring in the country between 1933 and 1945, irrespective of whether they involved the Nazi party or the German government in any way? In this instance, Max Schreck, the actor, died in Germany in 1936. He was not, as far as I know, a member of the Nazi party, and the article about him suggests no connection with the Nazis or the German government at the time of his death. His place of death is normally given simply as "Germany", but various editors—or perhaps one determined anonymous editor—keeps changing this to "Nazi Germany". I, and occasionally other editors, have been reverting this change as improper or even vandalism, but I'd like to be able to point to a policy—or at least a consensus—against it, since logic alone doesn't seem to be satisfactory.

I'm not a mind reader and can only speculate as to whether the other editors' motivation is to tie Schreck to the Nazis, or to say that everything in Germany after 1933 was tainted by the Nazis, or just some kind of adamant insistence that "Nazi Germany" should be regarded as the proper name of the country from 1933 to 1945. I understand that when discussing political and military history, the Nazi regime, its systematic repression of minorities, and various topics related to World War II and the Holocaust, it frequently makes sense to refer to "Nazi Germany". But that wasn't the name of the country at any period of time, either in German or English; it's more of an alternative name that carries certain implications that simply aren't relevant to all subjects touching on Germany. And using that name when there seems to be no clear connection to the Nazis or their government seems misleading.

The most recent editor to make this change and be reverted then changed it to "German Reich", which at least has some claim to officialness, though it still seems wrong to me, as it wasn't the common name of the country in English, but would only have appeared in very formal contexts—and the reason for preferring that name still seems suspect to me: an attempt to call attention to the Nazis and their government in an article that isn't concerned with either.

I could understand using "German Empire" between 1871 and 1918. I don't think that term is as frought or weighed down with baggage, and it has some advantages in defining a historical period. But saying "Nazi Germany" as though it were the name of the country strikes me as like insisting that articles—or their infoboxes—refer to "Red China" or "Communist" China, rather than "China", or "Apartheid South Africa", or the "Jim Crow South" in articles that don't concern communism, segregation, or racial discrimination. I think it's commentary, and unencyclopedic. And if there's a consensus about this, then it would probably apply to hundreds of articles about people, places, or events occurring in various places during particular spans of time. P Aculeius (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I share your point of view that we had to write "Nazi Germany" only if this is necessary for the context.

I think it's irrelevant to write "Nazi Germany" for example because someone died in "Germany" during this period in the biographical article about the person who died there.

I think to "Max Schreck" mentionned in your message.

When "Charles de Gaulle" is born in 1890 in "Lille". At the time it wasn't the "French Fifth Republic" but the "third".

Do we write in the infobox he died in 1970 during the "fifth" ? No

Do we write in the infobox he is born in 1890 during the "third" ? No Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make a page on the game Iron Meat I mean it has gained a lot of attention and many know it’s lore and bosses Lordofcallofduty (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the game is notable ?

Do you think there are reliable sources about this game ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]