Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

There was recently a very long thread at ANI about a user who was eventually site blocked. I won’t link to the thread because, frankly, life is too precious.

The user was a promo-only account who initially attracted attention to themselves by opening multiple threads to try to rush 3 film articles through AfC. The stated aim of the user was to get the articles to appear on Google searches to coincide with the US release of one of the films – i.e. apparent search engine optimization (SEO), as can be seen here [1].

The user also went to great lengths (again across multiple threads) trying unsuccessfully to remove PAID and/or COI tags from the articles.

The intersection between these two aims is clarified by the user’s suggestion that These tags negatively impact the articles' indexing and discoverability [in Google searches], reducing accessibility for readers. This is not about SEO but ensuring that notable topics are properly represented and accessible.

I’d be interested to hear from other users on the issue of whether or not the presence of such tags would represent a serious impediment to the aims of someone involved in SEO. The film mainly in question here (It's Coming (film)) currently has 2 tags and appears 5th on a Google search for “It’s Coming film” and not on the first few pages of results if searching for “It’s Coming” (which is evidently far too generic a search term).

Any input here would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own understanding is that Wikipedia has its own objectives, rules, and policies, and ignores the objectives of SEO agents. If an editor admits that his objective is SEO, I personally would be disinclined to cooperate with him. If I read the suggestion you quote in teal above, I'd respond "That's great – I hope you'll work on improving the article until an impartial editor removes those tags." Maproom (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this ANI thread for further views. The now-banned Stan1900 has been remarkably effective at making enemies. Maproom (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quite so (in response to both of your posts above). The user almost went out of their way to advertise their promotional and SEO objectives and then behaved at ANI in such as way that their conduct there alone was enough to get them blocked.

However, my question is whether the existence of the tags interferes with attempts at search engine optimisation. And also, how does it interfere?

To some extent I'm inclined to briefly remove the tags and see if the article moves from #5 to #1 on the Google search, but I'm reluctant to make an edit for such a contrived and non wiki-related reason. If I put the names of some (relatively obscure) untagged films into Google they do tend to occupy the #1 spot in a search - so there would seem to be some evidence that the blocked user was rather knowledgeable on how tags influence SEO (possibly implying a promotional background?).

If COI/PAID tags do interfere with attempts at SEO then that can only be a good thing, of course. Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The movie in question is It's Coming (film). A Gooogle search for two common words like "it's coming" is going to produce countless false search results. But search terms "it's coming movie" and "it's coming film" have the Wikipedia article ranked about #5 on Google, which is pretty darned good. The film's own website and trailer and Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb rank higher. The specifics of Google's ever changing search algorithms are opaque, providing employment to countless SEO specialists. Of course, the prominent banners at the top of the article may deter prospective streaming viewers, but that is the result of the primary author behaving like a total ass in so many ways. The one constant that I have noticed over the years is that more comprehensive Wikipedia articles tend to rank higher than briefer articles, which is no surprise. Cullen328 (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And hence perhaps another reason for the user having wanted to pad out the article with a great number of positive quotes from reviews. Although, in fairness, there were other (entirely neutral) ways in which the article might have been lengthened if that had been the intention.

However, that still leaves the question of why the user was so sure that These tags negatively impact the articles' indexing and discoverability [in Google searches].

Obviously it's staggering that the user felt that non-conflicted users would find an SEO-based reasoning a compelling argument to remove the COI/PAID tags - but it seems reasonable to assume that he believed what he was saying. Axad12 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google, and other search engine operators, do not reveal their criteria for evaluating pages, as that would make it too easy for people to game their evaluations. There are techniques that SEO people discuss and use; if you're interested, you'll be able to find such discussions. It seems to me likely that a long Wikipedia article will score higher than a short one, and that one with tags at the top will score lower. An SEO expert will know far more about these things than I do. Maproom (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should witness statements for court cases or public enquiries be used as sources for biographies of living people? I avoid it, even if they are available online (public enqiry!), as they may contain information of a very personal nature about family, health, etc. or can end up making the article look like a CV. I might give a brief quote: "she said in her witness statement to the public enquiry..." if there is anything very important, although if it is important it is likely to be reported in the media, but not use the statement for details of someone's childhood, etc. I ask because another editor Strugglehouse is adding content from witness statements from the Horizon Inquiry to articles of living people, for example, to Paula Vennells and, potentially, Jo Hamilton and I haven't been able to find anything in reliable sources guidance about it, although I am sure I have seen something in the past. Southdevonian (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for bringing this up. I used these sources as, as you mentioned, these are public.

While I do think some public documents shouldn't be used, I believe these are probably okay. Most very personal information within the couple of documents that I have used is redacted. Therefore, I think it's okay to use for some claims.

I do agree, however, that if claims can be proven by other sources, such a the book source used in the Jo Hamilton article, this is probably better. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. Schazjmd (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's borderline. I agree that most of the time these kind of documents probably shouldn't be used. However, as I said, all actual personal details, such as dates of births, are redacted in the documents I used. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the absolute term “do not” especially in a section talking more broadly about other things to avoid is very clear. Furthermore, even when covered by secondary sources, which might be permissible, when it comes to testimony, WP:UNDue must be considered as well. TiggerJay (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed some persistent vandalism at Ijaw People. Namely, persistent change of the population figures to an outdated number, not reflecting updated figures and sources. Removal of multiple reliable sources confirming new figures and replacing with one outdated source still on old figure . Persistent valdalism carried out by da5ft9. A tribes population calling remain constant for over a decade, hence the single oudated population figure is null and the multiple recent population figure is correct. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, Bondwagon (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you talked with the person you accuse to do this on his/her talk page ?

Each user have a "Talk page". Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not speak with the person Bondwagon (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondwagon, please do not ask the same question four times. I've collapsed the duplicates below. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you @CanonNi for your contribution. Anatole-berthe (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Bondwagon (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondwagon I would advise you to either open a discussion at the editor's talk page or the article's talk page to settle the matter. It seems that Da5ft9 has reverted you earlier because the sources added were irrelevant and unreliable (regarding this, I don't think the 101lasttribes source is reliable since Wikipedia is one of the places they took their information from). Jolly1253 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

101 last tribes excluded, there are other sources that should be considered and that are relaible too. If you take a loot at the sources, you will agree that not all should be discarded. Like I said earlier, it is highly unlikely that a tribes population will remain constant over multiple years.

That being said, I will take your advise on the matter. Bondwagon (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Madagascar banana can we simply add direct translation of anything we want from pages 74 to 86 of https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/161596 as the author died in 1898 and it was published in 1909 so presumably it is out of copyright? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under French law. It is out of copyright if we are talking about the right of the author and his heirs.

In France , the delay is 70 years after the death of the person.

If you want , I can show you texts from French legislation and translate this into English for you. Anatole-berthe (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the public domain (it's out of copyright); so, as regards copyright, yes we can. However, if by simply adding you mean not using quotation marks (or block indentation) and not attributing the material to the author, no: for a Wikipedia editor to do either would be to plagiarize, which is unethical. Also, despite various hiccups, fads and mistakes, scientific understanding generally improves over the span of a century, and what was written and published commendably circa 1900 may later have been discredited. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you. @Hoary We have of course attributed the author. @Anatole-berthe Perhaps you might be interested in expanding https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensete_perrieri which only has English cites at the moment. As you can see the original description is very long so perhaps you might be able to summarize it in the French article? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: the original French is in the public domain. The English translation is a derived work and is copyrighted by default, with the copyright belonging to the translator. If you translated it yourself, you can license your translation under an appropriate license, e.g., CC-BY-SA or CC0. It might be better to put the originals French and you translation on Wikisource to preserve the provenance and have a place to put your copyright license. -Arch dude (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude My French is nowhere near good enough. So if we use Google Translate the copyright belongs to Google? @Anatole-berthe If so would you have time to translate it? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright doesn't belongs to "Google" if you use "Google Translate".

If it was the case , it would not be possible to use "Google translate" with "Wikipedia:Content translation tool" in others Wikipedia than the version in English language (It's disabled on Wikipedia in English).

Use an automatic translator can help but it's necessary to verify the translation given.

I advise you to read this "Help:Translation#Avoid_unedited_machine_translations".

I can translate texts from English to French but the reverse is more complicated for me and impossible for some texts.

I'm a native speaker of French language , I haven't a sufficient knowledge of English language to translate from French to English. Anatole-berthe (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: [2] -Arch dude (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how long is it reasonable to wait for a response to an edit request on an extended-protected page? Kenfree (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no guideline about this subject in my knowledge but you should read this "Wikipedia:There is no deadline" and "Wikipedia:There is a deadline". Anatole-berthe (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for these references Kenfree (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say, Kenfree, but certainly no less than one week. As for your three-day-old request on Talk:Alison Weir (activist), I note that you placed it immediately below a section all but the first sentence of which is an enormity added by you in this edit, made two days earlier than your request. Do you expect people to read and digest that section too? As for your request, it's in the form "Change: [text] To: [text with five numbers for references] The sources are here: [sentence including references]." If you (i) change "The sources are here" to "The same suggested replacement text, but with working links", and (ii) remove the line break, the result would be easier for others to understand. However far better than providing mere links would be to specify author(s), title, website and link for each of the five references. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,I think any editor with an interest in this page should be apprised of the point by point critique of its content by Weir's organization...As I said in summary, the Wikipedia entry on her in its current form reads more like a hit piece than an objective description of this activist.

As to the rest of your reply, I will take it under advisement and follow your instructions to the best of my ability....thank you for it! Kenfree (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, Kenfree, you expect others to read your ten screensful of critique, but you haven't bothered to properly format the references in the material you want put in the article. You can expect to wait a very long time for a response. Maproom (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary,I think I have succeeded in formatting according to your constructive criticism. Would you be kind enough to take a look at its current iteration and let me know if it is acceptable? Thanks. Kenfree (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement, Kenfree, but let me reformat one of the references for you. <ref>Paul Findley, "[https://www.wrmea.org/2006-december/why-was-the-palestinian-mother-of-eleven-murdered.html Why was the Palestinian mother of eleven murdered?]", Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2006.</ref>. Now you do the others. But wait -- one of the three references you provide for the claim that Weir "[chronicles] the bias in U.S. media coverage of Middle East events" is her own website (not a disinterested source for the claim); and at least one of the other four references is described in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as problematic (no, not as Daily Mail–level garbage, but dubious even so). So I suggest that you ensure that each of the references you provide is likely to persuade, and then do the needed reformatting. Also, I second Maproom's comment above. This voluminous addition of yours to the talk page even suggests that "Perhaps someone officially representing Wikipedia could reach out to Alison and ask her to help draft a more objective appraisal of her life and activism?" (I hardly know where to start with this; but in a word, no.) Since nobody has yet responded on that talk page to your immense post, I suggest that you rethink what you want to say in it, prepare this via a text editor on your computer, condensing it to no more than one tenth of the bulk of what's there now, and when you're happy with it swiftly copy it and paste it to replace what's there now. If you want to do this, be sure to hurry, carrying out the replacement before your original post gets a comment. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary:

1) I appreciate your reformating of the single citation which gives me a model to work from, which I will commence with as soon as I finish this reply.

2) You do not mention the periodical in question which is supposedly problematic so i cannot reply to this point.

3) As to the use of her own website, you seem to miss the point entirely. I adduce it because there is no better place to demonstrate that this is what Alison does as an activist, critique perceived media bias. All three of these latter citations do nothing else than demonstrate this activity on her part (not that her position is correct, in which case, yes, using her own website would be verboten, but just that this is the essence of her activism). If you want to contine this point please do so in the TALK pages of her entry, and we can futher debate it.

4) In deference to your request, I have seriously reduced the size of my earlier edit that Included the complete critique of the entry by her team, and cited only the part that directly pertains to the revision I am currently advocating. Kenfree (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenfree, this is sounding more promising. (And I suppose that it's looking so; though I don't intend to take a look. It wouldn't help your persuasiveness if any other editor appeared to be coaching you.) Just one point, on your observation number 2: I very deliberately didn't specify the periodical: Not specifying it would, I hoped, nudge you towards checking each magazine/website/whatever that you're thinking of citing against Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. (Indeed, I suggest that you spend ten minutes grasping a general picture of what that page is doing before using it for specifics.) If a potential source doesn't appear on that page then go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and within this, near the top, look for "Search the noticeboard archives". Immediately above this, type in the name of the source, and yes, click on "Search the noticeboard archives". It's quite likely that you'll get a dismaying number of hits; look among these for the newest that doesn't merely mention the source but instead has a discussion about it. (And with this comment, I take my leave of this discussion.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the best place for help on templates like Template:Title number?

I've created User:Naraht/John's Foo season 4 contestants and grabbed the source for that template used SUBPAGENAME rather than BASEPAGENAME (since it is in my userspace and the first title number it generates is 39 and the second is 4 (the only one it generates should be 4.) My original issues were in Catspace and this is for experimentation. OTOH User:Naraht/Johns_Foo_season_4_contestants (note no quote) is fine. So it can't handle the apostrophe???Naraht (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: Yes, BASEPAGENAME and SUBPAGENAME are returning a version of the name where the apostrophe has been HTML-encoded as '. The workaround for this is to pass the name to "#titleparts". I've added two lines to your sandbox as a demonstration. Perhaps post at Template talk:Title number to ask if this should be done by default. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the limited activity on the talk page (and indeed the template page), I decided to reach out to the original author of that template, but linked back here.Naraht (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Worked with template author who implemented John of Reading's change.

Trying to put image in info box.

For this article: Nicholas Birns - Wikipedia

I am trying to place the subject's image in the infobox using the image in Wikimedia commons that is here:

File:71735021568 2B229B72-7B34-435D-B94A-0D1DC717E17D.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

It won't show up in the correct place. Can you assist me? Grateful for help. Kmccook (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I've placed the image at the right spot. Do you need any further assistance or questions regarding where to place images at the right spot? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe I'm being harassed by an user who is going after any and all edits I'm making without reason getting rid of them. They use their wikipedia friends to gang up on me and intimidate me. They're getting rid of what I've added that is sourced and adding unsourced information or leaving it unsourced. Longislandtea (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the forum to raise grievances with the behavior of other users. That is done at WP:ANI, but be aware that your actions will be examined as well. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being harassed. You're engaging in an inappropriate behavior called genre warring, and you're making inappropriate accusations against people who are trying to explain the correct process to you. Your only steps forward right now are either to listen to what's being said, or to leave the article alone. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between what feels like harassment and actual harassment which is not permitted. Rather what you find yourself in is a situation where you're having trouble understanding the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. TiggerJay (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain to me why genres that are sourced on the page of Fetch the bolt cutters are being removed for seemingly no reason? Aren't the genres supposed to be sourced? Longislandtea (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can explain it any better than @User:Tbhotch has been trying to tell you at length for a while now. You have a few options going forward: You can solicit assistance in the form of a third opinion over at WP:THIRD. And, while 331dot mentioned WP:ANI I would discourage it because this does not actual meet the primary criteria of "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" which despite your feelings this does not meet that criteria, instead I would suggest WP:DISPUTE as recommended by the ANI page. You could reach out to a recently active admin but again I would suggest THIRD or DISPUTE processes first. TiggerJay (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think there is a superfluous paragraph at the end of Help:Disambiguation. I added this topic to the Talk page asking about it. The automated help text told me that this particular Talk page is "not watched by many users" and suggested asking my question here. So: Is there a superfluous paragraph at the end of Help:Disambiguation? If the last two paragraphs say the same thing, one should be eliminated; if not, one or both should be rewritten to clarify the point each is trying to make. Larrydberg (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Larrydberg: I guess Waddie96 meant to reformulate the existing paragraph in [3] but forgot to remove the old version. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. Apologies. I fixed the issue. waddie96 ★ (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk,

I hope this message finds you well. I published an article on India Semiconductor Mission (username - Display Ecosystem) in November, and it has not gone live yet. The article draft can be found at the following link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DisplayEcosystem

I would like to understand the status of this article and whether there are any additional steps or issues preventing it from being moved to the live Wikipedia space. Your guidance on resolving this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Sonali Jain DisplayEcosystem (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's because all of that content is on your Userpage. If you want to publish it completely then you should move it to a new space. However, I'd move that content to a draft and continue working on it since it still doesn't look ready to me. Should I move it to a draft so you can continue working on it? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please guide me on further steps to make it live. It would be really great if you could provide me with your valuable feedbacks on page and it's content. DisplayEcosystem (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure, you can move it to draft so that I can publish it again. DisplayEcosystem (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll create a draft for you but please keep working on the content to make it better and then publish it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want the title to be? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is all about "India Semiconductor Mission". DisplayEcosystem (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on your talk page. If you are employed at India Semiconductor Mission, you are considered a paid editor and should make a paid contribution disclosure as explained in the message. Please also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that I am not employed at India Semiconductor Mission. This page is being created for a government organization, which operates under the Ministry. Therefore, it should not be considered as a paid contribution.

I kindly request your guidance on any further enhancements or adjustments required to meet Wikipedia's standards. DisplayEcosystem (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would also be a paid editor if you are employed or paid by the Ministry. For advice on your draft, it currently has no sources apart from external links. Wikipedia does not care about what India Semiconductor Mission or the Ministry says about itself. You need to find reliable sources that are independent of India Semiconductor Mission and base the article on what those sources say. If no such sources can be found, the organization probably does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. You can also read Help:Your first article for further advice. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @DisplayEcosystem.

Editors who try to create an article before they have spent significant time learning how Wikipedia works often have a disappointing and frustrating task, because they have no idea what it takes to create a Wikipedia article. It's like trying to build a house when you have no knowledge of surveying, building, plumbing, electrical installation, etc. And it's even harder when you have a conflict of interest.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

Be aware that Wikipedia is basically not interested at all in what you know (whoever you are) or in what the subject of the article (or their associates) say or want to say. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, and very little else. First find your sources (and make sure they are independent: see WP:42) then forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problem with loging in😭😭😭😭😭😭 41.122.130.103 (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you use Special:Login? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I change current Syrian flag in the page List of songs recorded by Zecchino d'Oro with the 1980-2024 version? 176.200.157.77 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion might be helpful: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Syrian_flag Schazjmd (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It states in the Wikipedia, George Washington, political party - independent. I believe that to be incorrect and he was a member of the Whig. 2601:3C4:17C:3F0:64CC:8BE9:5A55:2B9E (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to change it, you will need to provide a reliable source backing up your claim. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my knowledge he was never member of any political party.

About "George Washington" , I verified if my knowledge were wrong and I confirm he was never member of a political party accorded to searches done. Anatole-berthe (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington was not a member of a political party, and he was opposed to the very idea of political parties, as he explained in George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796. His thoughts on that matter have been widely ignored ever since, and Abraham Lincoln, for example, was heavily involved in party politics. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cullen328 for the details about the matter. I did knew nothing about this letter.

Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahir cast 1 gujrati sAhirurname add chhaida છૈડા 2409:4041:E4E:24F8:0:0:9D09:8B08 (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This forum is only about "Wikipedia in English language" and not "Wikipedia in another language". Anatole-berthe (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking to add something to Ahir or to Ahir clans? If so, the talk page of the relevant article is the best place to ask. But be aware that unless a reliable published source is found, information may not be added to Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1700:55B0:810:5C4F:E631:B09C:2AEE (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all!

I was revising a page about a TV drama and citing YouTube interviews of the actors which are rejected by the system. I ended up mentioning the year and program of the interviews, which got entirely removed by Rastinition, which I believe should be Wikipedia.

What can I do? Not sure if it is a piece of information that will make a difference, the language I am amending is traditional Chinese. Cwcw12 (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are speaking about "Wikipedia in Chinese language". You're not on the right forum.

This is the forum for "Wikipedia in English".

The right forum is the next if you're talking about Wikipedia in Chinese language : https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%92%E5%8A%A9%E5%AE%A2%E6%A0%88/%E6%B1%82%E5%8A%A9 Anatole-berthe (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the curious, these percent escaped unicode glyphs resolve to zh:維基百科:互助客棧/求助. This kind of inscrutable alpha­hexanumeric line noise is what is displayed in Firefox when attempting to see which Chinese Wikipedia page is being pointed to by {{ill}}. Folly Mox (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the English Wikipedia, the vast majority of YouTube videos are not acceptable as references. But not all are excluded. A YouTube video on the official channel of an established news outlet accepted as a reliable source is also presumed reliable. Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Augustus was born in 63BC and died in AD14 he was 51 years old when he died. How come your Wikipedia lists his age 74 when he died. Please correct the information about Augustus’s age when he died in AD 14. 173.71.121.220 (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can make the change yourself and provide proper, reliable source to back up your claim. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say 74? Augustus correctly says 75. BC means Before Christ. AD meand Anno Domini which is after Christ. There was no year 0 and he didn't reach his birthday in his year of death so he was 63-1+14-1 = 75. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you add crypto donations? Its probable easier for peoplr to transfer from digital wallet 184.98.196.150 (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have anything to do with the donation process; please offer your suggestions to donate@wikimedia.org. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what 331dot said above, crypto donations were stopped following this global RfC, which you should read before making suggestions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typically how long is Pending Changes turned on for individual articles? I ask because, assuming I'm interpreting the log correctly, Pending Changes has been turned on for the Henry David Thoreau article since 2017. Rockfang (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Pending Changes status won't expired after a period of time. According to WP:PC, editors can make request for unprotection to remove PC. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change my monthly donation 208.84.130.4 (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See donate:Cancel or change recurring giving. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Pegram actor. When Google searching for  my name, it says that I died. Trust me, I'm still happily alive. What can I do to rectify the situation please? Nigelpegram (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Nigel Pegram here, then fortunately you are still alive on Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia has no control over what external websites and search engines say, and you would have to find a way of contacting them directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The article about you(Nigel Pegram) currently indicates you are alive, though in November it was edited to say you had died(this edit, even providing a source, though I know little about it). This was removed, but perhaps Google has not indexed this change.

We can't help you with issues surrounding Google searches; you would need to contact Google or the sources that indicate you are deceased to ask them to issue corrections. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This Google search infobox might give the impression that Wikipedia is saying that Nigel Pegram died on 28 October 2024. Not sure where they found this, but it wasn't the current version of the Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They could have found it in the article version of 9 November added by an editor (Rolando Williams) who was maliciously altering various dates in biographies and has now been blocked. Apologies to @Nigelpegram and please note that the advice at WP:ASFAQ says that this is one type of vandalism you can immediately revert yourself. However, please make other suggestions for changes to the article on its Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Michael, Thank you so much for your quick reply and for explaining the situation.

  Happy Christmas!

  Best wishes

  Nigel (Pegram) Nigelpegram (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigelpegram: The alleged death was copied from Wikipedia to Nigel Pegram (Q106264634) at our sister project Wikidata on 11 November 2024.[4] It was removed from Wikipedia 16 November but not from Wikidata. I have now removed it. Google does not reveal sources for their data fields, only the text snippet at the start if it's from Wikipedia, so I cannot say whether it will have an effect later. Here is a stock reply for similar posts:

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t seem to get any of the false historical information posted on this site to be removed / updated.

How can we get this addressed in a quick manner? 108.41.112.201 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you've tried to remove false information by being bold and doing it yourself, remember to either include a source or remove information without a source. Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth - if a reliable source reports on an untrue fact, Wikipedia will host it as if it was true in most cases. Enough factual information is published to where running this way is more efficient than being a platform of original research. Departure– (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the best way to address an inaccuracy in an article is to start on the article's talk page. If the "inaccuracy" is cited to a reliable source, you'd need to provide other reliable sources that counter it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to give you a clear answer when you haven't told us what article you were trying to edit. But generally, if you tried to remove something and got reverted, this is for one of three reasons:

1. . You removed something without explaining why in the edit summary, and an editor patrolling for vandalism mistook an unexplained removal for vandalism.
2. . You removed information which was, or appeared to be, verified by a reliable source. You will need to address this, either by showing that the source does not verify the information or is not reliable; or by adducing other reliable sources which support your version.
3. . You are working in a contentious topic, where different people have different views about what information is genuine and what is false.

Whichever of these cases applies, you should open a discussion on the article's talk page, making sure to ping the editor(s) who reverted your edits - you can find who they were by looking at the article's history. ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite IUCN Template:Make cite IUCN is fantastic. You basically just copy-paste unformatted information (author name, title, publisher, etc) and it formats them for you. Do we not have templates that can cite other sources? A template that cites journal articles would be particularly helpful. They often have numerous authors and, depending on the topic, dozens may need to be cited to write one complete article. Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Template:Cite journal specifically for citing journal articles. You can find some more citation templates at Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember coming across Template:London Gazette the other day and it functions somewhat similar to a citation template, maybe you can also find some templates you want at Category:Specific-source templates. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tutwakhamoe, I meant Template:Make cite IUCN. That one fills the parameters automatically. Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's always https://citer.toolforge.org/ for URLs, ISBNs, DOIs, PMID, PMCID, and OCLC. Schazjmd (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd... that does exactly the trick! Wonderful. Thanks <3 Surtsicna (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So i was digging around and i realized that 2 years ago someone(that is currently blocked from wikipedia) edited the article about "Rap God", particularly in the critical reception part where it went from "the song recieved critical acclaim" to "the song received mixed reviews" even tho it currently doesnt display it due to this being so long ago.

before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rap_God&oldid=1072529929

after: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rap_God&oldid=1075188916

Im pretty new to editing and contributing so i apologise, but what ended up changing because it seems that it was still acclaimed/praised by critics?(Kory Grow from Rolling Stone, Jim Farber from Daily New, and Nick Hill from Contact Music among others) Elijahjb306 (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elijahjb306. Since the editor who changed it is blocked, we can't ask why they made that edit, but neither wording ("critical acclaim" or "mixed reviews") is in the article now. The reception section simply summarizes the reviews and lets the reader make up their own minds. Schazjmd (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see that makes sense, noted. I was just wondering so thank you for the response Elijahjb306 (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created Flamingo Boy, a 2018 British children's novel written by Michael Morpurgo. A year later it was published in the states by Macmillan Publishing under the title The Day the World Stopped Turning, which is currently a redirect to Music Played by Humans, due to a single on that album having that name. However, the top search result from Google for "The Day the World Stopped Turning" is from Amazon books (Michael Morpurgo), and the fourth and fifth search results on the first page from Google are from Macmillan Publishing and GoodReads for the book. The single from the album is listed as the eight search result. I wanted to create a redirect for the American book title, but I don't just want to hijack that redirect page. Any advice on what to do, if anything, or should I just not worry about it. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway The usual procedure in such cases would be to turn the redirect page into a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. Read that page for instructions or come back here if you need more help. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabancaya has an unknown parameter "|1=" somewhere but I can't find it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a change. How's that? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Source formatting can make my eyes glaze over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]