Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    • For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
    • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
    • If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
    • Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
    • For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
    • New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).
    Ask a question


    Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    Assistance for new editors unable to post here

    The help desk is frequently semi-protected, meaning the help desk pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

    However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. Just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

    Original code in Red–black tree

    I am concerned that the code in this article was rewritten by a single user, and it appears to be their original creation. While I do appreciate the fact that it is significantly simpler and easier to follow than the prior version, another user and I have raised concerns about its correctness and I've tried discussing with the author on the talk page. I think ideally the article should cite an existing source as a known correct implementation, ideally a peer-reviewed source, so it is easy to compare the code against another version for correctness (even if it isn't exactly the same). I am wondering how best to proceed here? Tombob51 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tombob51 I would recommend posting on WP:VPT. Polygnotus (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi How do I add an external link to a school's archive. This is an official site, but open to the public. DBlez (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi! Please see Wikipedia:External links#How to link and feel free to ask further if something is unclear. A common mistake is to put an external link in the body of an article – make sure to put it in the external links section. Perception312 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You want to put an external link on which article of Wikipedia ?
    EDIT : Is this "Rugby School" ?
    Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    how to remove "dead link" notation

    I fixed a dead link by adding the correct URL. How do I remove the "dead link" notation, please? EmLoki (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I ended up creating a new line with the current link and deleted the one that had the old link and the "dead link" notation. EmLoki (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    EmLoki you needed to remove the dead link template, which is straightforward in source editor, and you seem to have found a workaround in visual editor. TSventon (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect issue/deletion request

    Hi, can an admin please help delete the redirect from Qasim Shesho to Haydar Shesho? They are two different people: Qasim Shesho is the Uncle of Haydar Shesho

    The current redirect is incorrect and blocks my article. Thanks! Kuripenjwen (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Kuripenjwen, it looks like you've already created the draft page. This draft would go through the AfC draft approval process before being moved to replace the existing mainspace redirect. Once the draft is accepted for mainspace, the existing redirect would be tagged for deletion and it would be replaced with the approved draft (at that point in mainspace). I did add Template:R with Possibilities to the redirect page per WP:Drafts Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 (talk || contribs) 23:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Jiltedsquirrel, thanks for the info! I wanted to manually move it to mainspace, The current redirect link stops me from doing so and deleting it won’t cause issues Kuripenjwen (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! There are instructions present for this situation on WP:Drafts as well, but you may need to make a request at WP:RMTR if you're unable to complete the move yourself. Instructions for how to make a request there are present at the top of the page. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 (talk || contribs) 23:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kuripenjwen, why not simply submit Draft:Qasim Shesho for review? -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because that takes way longer than me just manually moving it now if the redirect link gets deleted. Of course these are two different people it should be removed please. Kuripenjwen (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But Kuripenjwen, drafts that already are obviously good enough to become articles are, from what I observe, typically accepted pretty quickly. Now that I look at this draft, I wonder. It cites just two sources, and one of these is Vice. "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." So why not first improve the draft and then submit it? -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright Hoary but the current redirect Qasim Shesho → Haydar Shesho is factually incorrect (they are uncle/nephew). This needs correction regardless of the draft status. I've requested deletion at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests. And i will take your advice and improve the draft Kuripenjwen (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kuripenjwen, for future reference, you can request deletion of a redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. There is some guidance on the page you should read before making a nomination. The current redirect Qasim Shesho → Haydar Shesho doesn't imply they are the same person, it just means that you can find some information about QS on HS's page. TSventon (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kuripenjwen, putting aside questions about the reliability of Vice in general, the Vice page you cite is based on one or more discussions with the subject of the article. The Rudaw page you cite is an interview with him -- or so it seems (I haven't listened to it). An article would also need to cite disinterested sources about him. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kuripenjwen The existing redirect is not "factually incorrect." If there is no existing article for a person, it is common to have a redirect to a target page that mentions the person. Although he is not mentioned by name, there is a reference to "his uncle" in the article Haydar Shesho. Madam Fatal (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Review

    Why do I get notifications about submitting to review Fritzbring (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fritzbring The articles for review process is often backlogged, so the idea is that editors will want to be informed once a review has occurred, whether it has been successful or not. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I need help

    I need help editing Indonesian National Revolution specifically on the commanders and leader section in infobox when ever i try to add DI/TII and FDR they never appear or just break a another part of leaders section in infobox Depotadore (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you show to us the "Wikitext" you did tried to put ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    nope but you can see the leader section Depotadore (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When you are talking about the "leader section". Is this in the infobox ?
    If you show to us "Wikitext" you did tried to put. We'll maybe discover a mistake you made.

    As I did already edited infoboxes on others articles. I know it's far to be easy. Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Depotadore, I think that what @Anatole-berthe is trying to say is that if you make clear what you are trying to add, how you are doing, it, and what the result is, it would be easier to help you. Template:infobox military conflict is a huge template, with lots of parameters, and its use in that article is equally complicated. The only change you have recently made in that article is to add a combatant, so it's hard to see what you are saying about (presumably) the commandern arguments. ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone read over the existing Gameplay section of Draft:Dorfromantik (board game) to make sure that the rules summary doesn't violate copyright? I don't know why it would as board game mechanics can't be copyrighted but maybe this infringes on the presentation (which is copyrightable)? I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to copyright, but the rulebook is publicly accessible for free (it's cited) so I'm really not sure. Thanks! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The "someone" won't be me, Chorchapu, because I'd have to compare it with the content of a PDF that I'm unable to download. (Perhaps its server is having difficulty, or perhaps the PDF is huge.) I'm guessing that by "board game mechanics" you mean "board game rules". Why would these not be copyrightable? Accessibility to the public without charge is no obstacle to copyrightability (an example is Wikipedia itself). Citing a source doesn't permit one to reproduce chunks of it. (The chunks should not be major, and should use quotation marks where appropriate.) Copyright issues aside, this article is odd. Sample: "The rules of Dorfromantik: Sakura are incredibly similar to the original" (does "incredibly similar to" mean "almost the same as those of"?). And the writer clearly prefers (or writers clearly prefer) four-syllable "Dorfromantik" to monosyllabic "it". -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rulebook is the rules of the board game, meaning the implementation of mechanics. Mechanics are individual things (like hand management or worker placement) that board games draw from, and they can't be copyrighted individually. In the existing section of the article (I'm not done writing it), I do not quote the rulebook directly for any meaningful length, however my question is whether or not just my summary violates copyright.
    Yes, Dorfromantik: Sakura is almost identical to Dorfromantik, with only stylistic changes and modifications to the campaign.
    I could change the wording up a bit to "it" if that would make it clearer to read.
    Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chorchapu, are you perhaps confusing different areas of intellectual property–related law? Consider the cotton gin, an idea that's now centuries old. If I create (or even sell) either a sedulous copy or my own interpretation of a centuries-old version, I can't be violating anybody's patent (because any patent would have expired). If I copy (and then publish) a 19th-century description of a cotton gin, I can't be violating anybody's copyright (because any copyright would have expired). If I copy and then publish a 21st-century description of an 18th-century cotton gin, I very likely am violating the writer's copyright. (Indeed, I should assume that the description is conventionally copyright -- "all rights reserved" -- unless I can point to clear evidence to the contrary.) ¶ As for questions around plagiarism, does Wikipedia:Plagiarism help explain? -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm trying to figure out if the paraphrasing and summary in the article I'm currently writing is a violating of copyright (or something similar) by summarising the rules of the board game so closely. I'm not directly copying anything, but I'm just wondering if my summary is detailed enough to count as copying the rules. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you've said, game mechanics are not subject to copyright. The specific expression of those rules can of course be copyrighted (ie. we still can't copy-paste the exact wording in the rulebook, outside of the limited protections of fair use), but a summary of game rules in our own wording isn't a copyright issue, even if it's precise enough for someone to completely reproduce the gameplay on its own just from our article. Of course, there's still the question of whether it is WP:DUE and encyclopedic, but it's not a copyright issue. --Aquillion (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright then, thanks. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Live updates for watchlist

    I used to get live updates to my watchlist automatically, but now I have to referesh the page manually. Is that option no longer available? Did I turn it off by accident somehow? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you clicked on the button "Live Updates" ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the button for Live Updates? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This button is on your "Watchlist".
    If you use a computer to access to your watchlist.

    You can use "CTRL + F" with your keyboard to find it. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CTRL+F on the Watchlist just brings up the entries for this page on the Watchlist.No button. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your suggestions. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to use "CTRL + F" and type "Live Updates".
    The link to the watchlist is : Special:Watchlist Anatole-berthe (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I submit my draft?

    I wanna submit my draft: Draft: A Dog's Courage but for some reason it didn't work, do I just have to move it? Henihhi28 (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have edited the page and moved the draft to use a straight apostrophe, as I think the curly apostrophe may have been a problem.
    Before submitting the draft I would suggest looking at Help:Your first article. In particular the subject of an article needs to be Wikipedia:notable, which generally means having substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. None of the sources are independent and reliable: e.g. Good Reads is user generated so it is not regarded as reliable by Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thank you and I removed the goodreads source. I do think the rest of the sources are fine though, maybe I'll remove google books since I see why that isn't reliable. User:Henihhi28 (talk)
    Google books shows the book exists, but the description is provided by the publisher. Then you have the publisher's and author's websites and an interview with the author. The publisher and author want to sell the book, so they are not independent. You usually want three or more independent sources, for example I looked at A Dog's Way Home (novel) and it had Kirkus Reviews, PETA and the New York Times. TSventon (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I'll work on it another time. Henihhi28 (talk)

    @Henihhi28: generally it is best to find the sources before writing the article, as if you write it first and then can't find sources, you are stuck. TSventon (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgotten email address

    If an editor forgets or doesn't have access to the email address they used to create their account, is there still a way of changing their password? Emmentalist (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In my knowledge this is not possible to change a password if you don't have access to the address used to create the account.

    First , try to change the e-mail address used in your account if this is possible. Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can find a browser on which you are currently logged in to Wikipedia, it should be possible to solve this problem. However, if you cannot access the email address or the password, access to the account is lost and you will have to create a new one.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Emmentalist: Is this about you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser?wpTarget=Emmentalist says you haven't specified a valid email address at Special:Preferences. If you know the current password then you don't need an email address to change it. If it's you and you are still logged in but don't know your password then see Help:Logging in#What if I forget my password? for an option you could try with a committed identity and a request by email. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I make a recommendation for a rule change

    OP has correctly been referred to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). There's nothing else here that the Help Desk can do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I think that the subject of an article should have a right to respond tab where they can address the contents of their own article, this goes agaisnt rules about writing about yourself but I think those rules should be changed to allow for this. It'd work how any news site does it, a tab reads 'Right to Respond' and then their verbatim quote, proof it's their quote, and the date they made it. I hope you get what I'm trying to say! NotQualified (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A proposition like your seem to me unlikely to succeed.
    In the hypothetical case there are one day a change that make that the subject of the article can comment.

    It should not be on the article but on a distinct "namespace".
    Why not create another namespace for subjects to address the contents of the articles about themselves ?
    Your idea seem good but there are negative hypothetical consequences like some fans of celebrities using this namespace to threat celebrities if this is not a namespace in which only the subject can write.

    When I'm writing these words. Subjects can use the talk-page of an article but we can't be certain this is the subject and not another else.
    If we create another namespace when only subjects can write about the article about themselves.
    How to verify the identity and who should verify this ?

    Also , there are not only "Wikipedia in English". There are now more than 300 Wikipedias existing.

    Do you imagine this for each version of Wikipedia ? In my knowledge , there are not any person for which there are an article on all version of Wikipedia but some people such "Justin Bieber" and "Volodymyr Zelensky" have an article about themselves in more than 150 versions of Wikipedia.

    Does it does means that a person should have to interract with each version as each Wikipedia is independent of each other ?

    If we do that for a living person. Should we extend this for dead people.
    If we extend this for dead people. Who could have the rights to use this hypothetical userspace ?

    People such "Jean de La Fontaine" and "George Washington" are dead since centuries.
    It does means that all people who knew them are now deceased. Is this sensical to allow for example theirs descendants to comment ?

    My message is long but it explain in few words some of problems we can meet with your proposition. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NotQualified, opinions on the merits of your idea don't belong in the Teahouse so I shan't express mine. But if somebody's description of their proposal needs a supplementary "I hope you get what I'm trying to say!", then that proposal, if so described, would have no chance of success. You should instead think hard about your proposal (probably tinkering with it, and very likely changing it considerably). Having done that, work hard on expressing it clearly, persuasively, and concisely. Only then put it forward -- but not on the relevant proposals page; instead on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hoary You said to @NotQualified to go on "Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)".
    For me , this question is above "Wikipedia in English" because it seem to me to be an interwikipedia matters.

    In this case the "Village Pump" isn't the right place in my mind.
    I prefer let "Notqualified" explain the idea. After , we could guide the user to the right place.
    I don't know if the idea is only for the "Wikipedia in English". Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Charles Frederic Moberly Bell

    Charles Frederic Moberly Bell

    Please help with this url which is a PDF: file:///Users/m.reed/Downloads/GB0085%20DD-761%20(3).pdf

    it is from here: Hammersmith and Fulham Archives and Local History Centre

    The National Archives https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk › down... PDF See also:DP/193 correspondence from A M Lupton,Hon Sec FHA, 1928;. F331.83 BAR Report on Housing Conditions in the Metropolitan Borough of Fulharn, Barclay and ...

    It is citation number 7 on the above page. Please assist if you can.

    Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Srbernadette, luckily for whoever m.reed may be, most of us don't have access to their filesystem on whichever server this may be. (Certainly I don't.) Additionally, and as has already been pointed out, such values as "1927-1968" are not going to work for "date" in a Cite template. But look, none of this matters, as the article you're editing is ostensibly about one Moberly Bell, not about a daughter of his. So all you need do is remove this superfluous material about the daughter. -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite common to include material about children (also siblings, spouses, etc.) who don't have their own article, in that manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    file:///Users/ indicates that the file is sitting on your local machine or network. You can either include a URL where you originally obtained the file online, or you can omit it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    I had a conflict with another editor, so he opened a discussion. And I shared my opinion there, but the user hasn't responded yet, and still continues to edit the article according to his own view.

    In this situation, what should I do? I just pinged the user, but I think it't unfair for his version to remain in article until an agreement is reached. If he ignores the discussion, it seems like his edits could stay indefinitely. Doesn't that seem problematic? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Camilasdandelions: Does this relate to Talk:Something Beautiful (Miley Cyrus album): that looks like a discussion between two editors, who are unable to agree on a question. I would suggest posting neutral notices at relevant wikiprojects to get more editors involved. There are other alternatives at Wikipedia:Consensus#By soliciting outside opinions.
    There is more general advice at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. TSventon (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC

    Millicent Fawcett

    The number 21 has been altered and is all wrong. Please fix if able, thanks Srbernadette (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Srbernadette Findmypast is considered a generally unreliable primary source (see table at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) so I think you need to remove that cite altogether or find a better source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Find the first name of a page

    Hello ! I want to fusion two elements of "Wikidata".

    The element about the article "The National Cybersecurity Institute (INCIBE)" and the element "INCIBE [Wikidata]".

    The problem is the next. I didn't found the corresponding element about "The National Cybersecurity Institute (INCIBE)" in Wikidata.
    I suppose this is because this is not the original title of the page.
    How to find the successive titles of a page ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I read logs like "move log" and "merge log".
    No result. I get "No matching items in log." Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    PDF previews from Commons on enWP?

    Cover of Cindarella (1865)

    I uploaded c:File:Treatment_for_Pediatric_Gender_Dysphoria.pdf (a 4MB PDF document) to Commons in the hopes of using its generated thumbnail as the lede image for the article about it (Trump administration HHS gender dysphoria report). The preview works fine on Commons, but visiting the file's page on English Wikipedia does not include a preview, and my attempt at embedding it following the advice at Help:Pictures § DjVu and PDF files failed. [[File:Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria.pdf|thumb|left]] Any advice? Is this a known issue or have I missed a step? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 16:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RoxySaunders, your file is there at Commons, at File:Treatment_for_Pediatric_Gender_Dysphoria.pdf. But it's a pdf, not an image; treating it as if it were a jpg, png or svg file won't work. Maproom (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maproom: This appears to work fine for files like c:File:Cinderella (1865).pdf. A thumbnail of the first page of that document is now embedded to the right. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1288440091"