How do I get new account creations from the user creation log to stop appearing in my watchlist? I don't even know why this started happening in the first place. Sandcat555 (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sandcat555, you can customize what you see in your watchlist by applying filters. At the top of the page, click Active filters (if they are hidden, you'll have to click Show first). A pop-up menu of filters appears; scroll through to Type of change and deselect Account creations. Schazjmd (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd Thanks, that fixes it. Sandcat555 (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to make Template:Episode table sortable or collapsible? TipsyElephant (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, I have two tables in my sandbox and I want to make them the same. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: A sortable option has been requested several times [1] but is not currently supported. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Can you please point me to a wikihow on how to add references to a page?

thanks Ramanp75 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ramanp75. You can start with Referencing for beginners. You might also take a look at User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners, which includes a video. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Perne 2601:4C1:CB00:3BB:3849:9EAE:FA53:514D (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silly IP... You sort of don't have anything. Link to the page affected? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 21:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, can you be more specific? Perne lists three men, all born in the 1500s. TSventon (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be more specific about what you're talking about as none of the Perne related pages Andrew Perne, Andrew Perne (Puritan), nor Ralph Perne have seen any edits in several months, nor does it look like you have edited any of these, at least not under the IP address you used to post this help request. TiggerJay (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to use the Talk page I keep getting, The "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking "Edit source". How do I reply?

Thank you Krios101 (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unable to do so, it's because the comments' time and date are linked in diffs, and if they're not signed in advance or later broken, than you can't use the reply function (like I am). Moreover, I think the question was self-answered by yourself. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, you can edit the source of any individual talk section. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to reply using [edit source], use a new line, followed by a colon (:) with your comment. Don't forget to sign your comment with ~~~~. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the contents of Wikipedia:Contents/Portals is displaying white text on very pale green - even in dark mode! It is unreadable. CornflakeCancer reported this on the talk page on 20 November, but there has been no response. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears fine on my screen with a bunch of blue links on white text. It would seem as if perhaps either your browser or your theming might be impacting this by changing the link color away from blue. TiggerJay (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same white-on-green display when I use a private browser window (rules out any non-default WP preferences) with no special theming added (Firefox on a desktop computer). It seems like the underlying content and style is pulled from Wikipedia:Contents/Types layout. The most recent change was on 18 July 2024 by User:Jon (WMF), but the underlying styles are from Wikipedia:Contents/styles.css, whose most recent change was on 5 November 2024 by User:TheDJ. Both of those are noted to be related to dark-mode. The styles.css change appears to be the one that triggered this poor color effect. DMacks (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been fixed via changes to styles.css. DMacks (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Condition of raided GISB-linked children's home, 11 Sept 2024.jpg this is a police media handout per these articles crediting the Royal Malaysia Police for the picture. Can I use it without fair use? Does the crediting of the police by multiple media make it able to be converted to free use?

• https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2024/09/1104471/updated-igp-20-raided-welfare-homes-tied-gisb
• https://themalaysianreserve.com/2024/09/15/pdrm-religious-agencies-urged-to-act-swiftly-decisively-on-exploitation-of-religion-issues/
• https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2024/09/12/police-raids-on-homes-shock-residents
• https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2024/09/11/global-ikhwan-denies-exploiting-children-vows-to-cooperate-with-probe/

(and more)

All of the articles above credit the Royal Malaysia Police for the picture. Thanks! N niyaz (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Licensing, and it does say that it could be non-free. But, as the uploader, I can only recommend that you check out Wikipedia:Use rationale examples#Historical photographs. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 01:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, N niyaz. The best place to get expert advice about this image is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. As a general rule, widespread publication of an image in a press release does not change its copyright status. Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wiki Team,

There are these two articles, State space (computer science) and Eight queens puzzle, that give the possible arrangements of eight queens on an 8×8 board as 64!/(8! × (64 - 8)!) instead of 64!/(64 - 8)! = 64×63×62×61×60×59×58×57 = 1.7846298763776×10¹⁴.

Please help in updating them.

I have an account, but editing proved to be daunting, as I am not au fait with the wiki markup language.

Sincerely, TPJ. 197.185.213.201 (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you have an improvement to suggest to an article, but for whatever reason you are not confident in editing the article, the best course is to suggest the change by opening a New Topic on the article's talk page - here Talk:State space (computer science) and Talk:Eight queens puzzle.

I think you'll at the least need to explain why you think the given number is wrong and yours is correct.

Ideally, such a calculation should not be done within the article but cited from a reliable source - otherwise it is original research, which is not allowed. I have tagged the section in the State space article accordingly. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the number given, 4,426,165,368, is correct. Maybe you're assuming that the eight queens are all different. But that's irrelevant; as ColinFine says, what matters here is whether you can find a reliable published source for your claim. Maproom (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are official government websites considered a 'primary' source or a 'secondary source'? Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 14:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, by default, I believe they're primary sources, since they usually are in public domain and/or official statements, addresses, accounts written by people who are directly involved, etc.; I'd check out Using primary sources to see where it would fit. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 14:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like all sources, it depends on what you're using it for. In most cases, it will be primary like 2601AC47 said. But sometimes government websites will have historical information like a short biography of a historical figure from the country, which would be a secondary source (although for something like this there are probably better sources anyway). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there aren't. I was planning on using them as sources for List of governors of Mizoram to make it FL but I don't think that's possible. Not anymore. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 09:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangsangaplaz if you have a detailed question about FL rules, WT:FL might be a better venue. I was recently involved with the First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford FL nomination, where the contents of the list section are referenced to the Oxford University Gazette, a primary source. TSventon (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme ask there. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 11:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with the spacing on a page, as I added a blockquote, but then it caused a paragraph lower down to be stuck to the paragraph right under the blockquote, and it shows them as separated in the source editing, but in the visual editing the two are stuck together, and hitting the return key once to separate them does nothing, only when it's hit twice and now they're too far apart. Reaper1945 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I fixed it now actually. Thanks in advance regardless. Reaper1945 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you may report this issue (one of a handful, I'm afraid) at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 15:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having an issue where the double brackets for links [[ ]] become ʽʼ when I type them consecutively. To get it to work properly, I've been adding spaces between them when I type then removing that space. eg. [[ ]] becomes ʽʼ
Is there some sort of name/term for whatever is happening? Spagooder (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on the visual editor by any chance? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I switch between the two but I prefer the visual editor. Spagooder (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It happens in the editor summary on the visual or the source editor. Spagooder (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spagooder: I haven't heard of this. It sounds like a feature of your device or browser, possibly a browser extension. Does it also happen at other websites? Some software allows users to produce certain characters which are not on a keyboard by typing special combinations of characters. This may be an example of that. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only noticed it on WP, it's happened on several different computers that I've used, I don't have any plug-ins for Wikipedia. Didn't happen on my phone when I tried the desktop editor just now. Honestly at a loss, it just started one day. Spagooder (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spagooder: Does it happen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example&action=edit&safemode=1? Does it happen if you log out? Can you try saving and linking an example edit where it happens? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it happened at that link. No, it didn't happen when I logged out. It also doesn't happen if I use a phone. How would I go about saving and linking an example edit to show it happening? Spagooder (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I wish to create pages for films which I feel deserve to be on this site. Can a film which is rated on IMDB, or other sources be notable?

Here are my interests on including certain films:

• Do Not Open
• Seven Cemetries

I am not associated to these films but wish that these being included on this site. Aitzaz Imtiaz (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aitzaz Imtiaz. The Wikipedia:Notability (films) guideline can help you determine whether there should be an article about a film. You might also find Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film to be useful. (By the way, IMDB is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.) Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, the layout of the backlog banner is in disarray due to the banner not being above the {{Deletion debates}} template.

There are some '<includeonly>' and '<noinclude>' parameters at the top of the page, so I am not sure what is the best way to fix the banner problem, I am too afraid I may break something.

Could someone please help? Veverve (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: {{backlog}} says "This page has a backlog ..." It refers to what is further down on the page itself and not what is linked in {{Deletion debates}} so I think it would be confusing to display it above that template. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: the banners should not be compressed like that, as it makes them very difficult to read. See how such a banner is correctly displayed at: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

Thus, the banner at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy should be fixed. Veverve (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: I thought you meant directly above {{Deletion debates}} with the same width. The page looked OK on my desktop screeen but not in a narrow window. Is [2] OK? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better, thank you! Veverve (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The National Weather Service is by no means unreliable but WP:PRIMARYSOURCE states that primary sources should be avoided in many cases. Obviously, the tornadoes themselves aren't writing editorials about how great they are, but almost every other source for US severe weather knowledge is going off of what the NWS reports. Should the NWS be considered a primary or secondary source for their reporting on severe weather events? (Also, if they aren't, there are a lot (probably thousands) of articles that heavily directly cite them... so retroactively implementing primary source considerations might be a bit of a pain.) Departure– (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I will disagree with classifying weather reports by government agencies as primary sources. Even assuming that they are, based on Policy 1 ("Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.") and 3 ("A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.") of WP:PRIMARY, it seems that presentation of these weather data would be acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are they the ones conducting the raw research and publishing it? Then yes, those are primary sources for their findings. A secondary source is one that reviews primary research/findings and uses them to produce interpretation/analysis. It's totally fine to use primary sources to fill in basic details. But if an article is predominantly based on sourcing like this without any proper analysis of its historical significance? Then we've encountered the Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability problem and there's probably no justification to have an individual article for it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like other US federal agencies, the raw data and the algorithms to process it are PD. If you don't like the "primary" source, you can verify by creating the maps yourself, easier than you think. And if you don't trust the data or the algorithms either... Didn't the feds create the Florida hurricane? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" template at Talk:Asian News International has 2 items in the wiki-text, 31 and 32, that don't show up in the saved template, and I can't figure out why. Help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång That is a feature, Template:Press says Up to 30 sources can be added to the template. I have split the last two press items into a second press template. TSventon (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live and learn. Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thie issue first happened on Nov 27; i edited a few articles since then and the issue is persistent: anytime i make an edit (grammar, add references etc) i see the changes in preview and they are visible but as soon as i publish it, any changes disappear. the log says that the autorevert is manual which i have to click to undo. this never happened before. i never missclicked abything, my profile does not have any bans or warnings... if anyone has any idea on whats up - do let me know, thank you!

attaching a few articles where you can view the logs for more:

• Pope John Senior High School and Minor Seminary

• Russo-Kazan War (1505–1507)

Space011 (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC) (formatted by CiaPan (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@Space011 Looking at your edit-history, [3], for some reason, you have reverted yourself manually a few times, starting November 26. You didn't before that. How/why this happens, I assume unintentionally, I can't say. Maybe someone else has a guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no clue as well, thanks for reading though:) Space011 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Space011: The edit history of articles indicate your own actions tagged as Manual revert. This may happen e.g. when you step back through the viewing history in your browser – when you switch to some view which resulted for example from a Preview action, the browser may have to fetch the old temporary version of the page somewhere in the editing process. Then the browser should warn you it needs to resubmit the editing form to obtain that temporary version. If you accept it, you may inadvertently commit an edit and (re)store some old, possibly original, version of the page. Of course, I'm just guessing, but... do you sometimes use the browser's 'back' button after editing an article? --CiaPan (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no i dont use the back button before i publish... i just click publish. thanks for clarifying though Space011 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently looking at four different articles, none of which correspond with the others. Information in those four articles is not the same, and I am trying to work out what to do with them.

The articles are: List of presidents of the Assembly of Madrid, Enrique Ossorio, Isabel Díaz Ayuso and Next Madrilenian regional election. The problems are:

• Enrique Ossorio's article lists him as the 12th president of the Assembly of Madrid, since 2023, but also lists Isabel Díaz Ayuso as the President at the same time. However, the List of presidents of the Assembly of Madrid has him as the incumbent President.

• Isabel Díaz Ayuso's article lists her as the president of the Assembly of Madrid, but she doesn't appear in the list of presidents at all.

• The Next Madrilenian regional election is for the 14th assembly, but there is no information as to the existence of the 13th assembly.

In short, I am now very confused, and trying to work out what to do with this, because those articles need updating, but I don't know where to start, or how.

Help is needed, preferably from someone with a knowledge of Spanish politics.

Thank you, Dane|Geld 15:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DaneGeld, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities might be able to help. In this case, I recommend checking es Wikipedia articles if the en articles are unclear. As far as I can see

• The en article and es:Anexo:Presidentes de la Asamblea de Madrid (via Google translate) list Concepción Dancausa Treviño as the president of the 6th and 7th assemblies, so Ossorio can be described as the 12th president of the Assembly of Madrid, but the assembly is the 13th and the next assembly will be the 14th.
• Díaz Ayuso is President of the Community of Madrid, a different post. TSventon (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the "List of Eastern Orthodox saints' article contains over 900 entries in its table and is over 315,000 bytes in size. On certain internet connections, this takes quite long to load, not to mention it may take a lot of scrolling to find a certain entry, particularly for mobile users. Furthermore, I plan to add over 2000 more applicable entries to the list in the future; obviously the article will have to be split into 2 or possibly more articles to contain these entries in a navigable and efficient manner.

My questions are, when and how should I split the article? Although the current article is quite large enough by itself, splitting into 2 now seems a useless endeavour as they will be likely be need to be splitted again considering a grand total of ~ 3000 entries is a lot to share between only 2 articles.

It may be noted that I'm currently the only major contributor to the article in the past year and when I don't edit it, no one really edits it except bots and the occasional user. Despite this lack of editing enthusiasm, the article brings a relatively substantial amount of page views, despite not many other articles linking to it.

Thanks in advance. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 16:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War; it has quick links by letter(perhaps an interim solution). If a split is needed, alphabetically would be the best option, perhaps at the midpoint(if half are below the letter H, and half above, split there) 331dot (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alphabetical list of that size could certainly use an index. I have added it.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I make an article about a disaster that kills only one, is it appropriate to mention the name for that individual that is widely reported in media? Departure– (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their name is probably irrelevant, unless they were well known. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen, the title of Weiss special counsel investigation appears italicized, which seems incorrect. I tried to fix it, but I didn't see {{italic}} anywhere in the source code.

Weirdly enough, I tried using the VisualEditor, and was able to remove the italics, but when I saved the page nothing happened (my edit does not even appear in the page history). What's going on? — ypn^2 20:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ypn^2, it was because of the court case infobox further down in the article. I've fixed it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from talk page -- John of Reading (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Clinton Walker

I have corrected a page that was vandalised. The vandal editor has responded immediately saying they will revert the entry to their vandalised version of it on the basis it was not sourced properly, which it was, as the extensive references attest - how to get out this vicious circle? Ozrocka (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you speaking about an edit warring ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozrocka The place to discuss improvements to any article is the talk page for that article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozrocka: Please read WP:NOTVANDAL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can apply Special:RecentChangesLinked to various WikiProject categories, but it only tracks recent changes to the talk pages (since those are the pages tagged by the project banners).

Is there any way to get RecentChanges to display for the main pages corresponding to the talk pages in the category? Or a tool? Tule-hog (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be WP:XWT, which is now deprecated. Also a number of prominent topics (e.g., physics & math) for WP:1 'articles by quality' lists are deprecated (although a few are still working), as well as the replacement web tool. Tule-hog (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I read some lists of people. I saw we can find differences among lists.

For exemple "List of Russian artists" contain potraits of people mentionned but not the "List of Turkish actors".

Unlike the "List of Russian artists" and "List of Swedish poets". The "List of Turkish actors" don't class names by alphabetical order but by year of birth then alphabetical order.

"List of Swedish poets" and "List of Turkish actors" don't contain portraits.

Can we create common norms for lists about people to avoid these differences ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be something outside of the scope of the helpdesk specifically, you might find it best to either bring it up over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists or Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists where there are editors who are talking specifically about the MOS regarding lists. TiggerJay (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on random article a few times to find some articles to work on, and came across two people labeled as "footballers", from what I recall, there was an RFC on how to properly identify them (association football/american football), can someone point me to it? DarmaniLink (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DarmaniLink, I didn't find a RFC, but there is guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) with sections for different kinds of football. TSventon (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it could be for a specific instance that I don't recall, since it was a few years ago that I heard about it in passing. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If I see a BLPPROD tag on a page, and there are clearly sources of sorts on the page (so not eligible per WP:BLPPROD, should I remove the tag (with an appropriate edit summary and notification to the relevant editor)? Or leave it for an administrator to do it? On the one hand, I don't want to overstep the bounds of what I should do; on the other, I would be keen to remove unnecessary burden from administrators' shoulders. Cheers SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to wait for an admin to do this. Note that the article must contain a source that is both reliable and that supports a statement about the person. Simply containing a source is not sufficient. Meters (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Meters I should have worded my question better. I meant to say, if the nominating editor has added a BLPPROD tag in spite of the fact that there were existing supportive sources of sorts (in the case in question, two external links) at the time of adding the tag - so ineligible because the article does not meet WP:BLPPROD: To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. That is, the article was ineligible in the first place, not because it contains a reliable source that supports part of the article. Cheers SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue? If the article contains an external link to a reliable source that supports a claim about the person, the article is not eligible for a BLPPROD. Anyone can remove the BLPPROD tag. Meters (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I'm performing studies on users and aware of sockpuppets. While doing my research, I would like to ask you a question: What if a user made several accounts for security purposes so that the user can you one account when the other is broken or hacked? Gnu779 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnu779 Multiple accounts are permitted subject to WP:GOODSOCK. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For quite some time, the topic "Misgendering of PBA athletes" in the Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines page has yet to be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III though the discussion's last update was in September 2024. Can manually archiving the page resolve that issue or are there other ways to approach this? -Ian Lopez @ 13:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianlopez1115: A user requested no archiving until 1 January 2025.[5] The code would have to be removed to allow automatic archiving before that. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for not archiving was given, so I've removed the code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question for me is Rocket League. The article is marked for being "good;" as I'm sure it once was. However, it is clear that the article hasn't been fully updated in a while, showcased by the lack of major updates to the game being featured and past/present tenses inconsistency. Thanks! Therguy10 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Therguy10, see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. TSventon (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've tried reading everything that I need to over but I'm honestly confused. It looks like I have to use some kind of scripting which I am very bad and inexperienced with. I tried adding some kind of JavaScript installer gadget in my preferences but I'm pretty lost and could really use the help. Therguy10 (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Therguy10, I don't have the script either, if you can't follow the instructions and don't get practical help here, you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. TSventon (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I few days ago I tried to create a Wikipedia page about the indipendent record label "light-years" but it got deleted by a moderator for the following reason: "Does not pass WP:NCORP, also would not be the primary topic for this redirect anyway, would have to disamb". In my opinion it is a notable company that deserves a wikipedia page, but how can i prove it? Also how can I disamb for this particular case? Many thanks! Leooomil (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Leooomil, rather than using the current redirect Light-years, start at WP:Articles for creation and create a draft article. I'd suggest using the title Light-years (record label). Schazjmd (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leooomil: You can copy the markup from [6] to Draft:Light-years (record label) (best if you do it, to preserve attribution; but shout if you need help). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]