Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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).
    Skip to top
    Skip to bottom

    December 6

    In the Tip of the Day for today, the buttons to click on for both the previous message and to get more information about external links aren't working for me. They go to an information message that's not relevant to where they're supposed to go. I think a tekkie is needed to look into this ... but in case it's something I should be doing, please advise. Augnablik (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Prior tip" and "Wikipedia:External links" both work for me at both User:Augnablik and Wikipedia:Tip of the day/December 6. They go to Wikipedia:Tip of the day/December 5 and Wikipedia:External links. Do the links fail in both places for you? What does the information message say and what is the url when you view it? PrimeHunter (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, @PrimeHunter, they're working now. All I can tell you is that much earlier today, they weren't. What happened, to answer your question, was ... nothing. Literally.
    I may have some gremlins playing around in my computer because for about 2 weeks now I've had a maddening situation I'll describe for you. When I start typing a new sentence or use a capital letter within my current sentence — also when I try to use a dash, colon, or semicolon — my cursor jumps back to the start of the preceding sentence and what I'm trying to type appears there.
    • This means I have to copy those letters or pieces of punctuation and paste it where it should go.
    • And that all the capital letters and dashes you see in this message had to be copy/pasted into their correct locations!
    My computer isn't doing this anywhere but within Wikipedia. Do you have any idea who I should connect with about this? Augnablik (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Augnablik: If you have enabled wikEd at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets or the first feaure at WP:HILITE then try to disable it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrimeHunter, I thought these places you suggested I go would be under the Preferences section on my User page, but apparently not. When I click on the location links in your message, I'm told that I'll leave this page. Maybe that's what I have to do, but that's made it awkward to write you this message.
    When I send you this message, I'll try the links and see what happens, but I did want you to know my confusion about where these links lead. Augnablik (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Follow up to my above reply) Okay, I just went to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and found that it was actually on one of the tabs on my User page (Gadgets), but I didnt see wikEd anywhere. And when I went to WP:HILITE, I didn't see a "first feature" I could disable. I feel as if I'm wandering around in thick fog. Augnablik (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Augnablik: A browser will usually only warn you that you will leave a page if you are editing the page or filling out a form, but it may vary. If you were previewing then it also counts as editing. The message is to warn you that you may lose your work when you leave the page. Most desktop browsers can open a link in a new tab by right-clicking it and choosing an option, or by just pressing Ctrl while clicking it. wikEd is in the "Editing" section at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. I don't know whether users can have circumstances which omit it. WP:HILITE doesn't offer the mentioned feature but describes where to enable/disable it on a highlighter marker button . PrimeHunter (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Need to change page title

    I'm researching US radio stations and searched on WPLH, a college station in Georgia. This redirected to WJYI (FM). The issue is confusing because WPHL filed with the FCC for a new construction permit in 2021, was assigned WJYI as its call sign, and then switched back to WPHL when its new license was approved in 2022. The Wikipedia article doesn't cover this well, though the worst of it is having WJYI as a title. In any case, I'm certain WPLH is correct per the FCC and the website. So what's the procedure for changing the page's title? Thanks. Allreet (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Allreet The procedure is Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I wouldn't have thought "moving" was the same issue. I probably won't get to this tonight (our time), but shouldn't have any trouble once I do. Allreet (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allreet I don't know if various redirects will be "a technical barrier to the move", if so, you'll notice. If that happens, you can request a move, see top of that page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Thanks for the additional heads-up. Allreet (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why am I seeing ...

    ... little symbols I can describe only as "right-angled arrows" on some of the text at my User page? They occur to the left of 4 bulleted items just below a barnstar and several related paragraphs, and also to the left of the first sentence in the first paragraph after that. Augnablik (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be the break lines when editing on mobile (particularly through the browser, not the app)? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 12:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this occurred on my computer. Now I don't see the symbols when I make a fresh attempt to go to my User page, but earlier those arrows were there. Incidentally, I thought I checked carefully then to make sure I wasn't in editing mode, and it seemed not, but I wonder if somehow I was and didn't quite know it. I'm frankly a bit confused as to what went on. Augnablik (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with poor English contributions

    I recently left a message on a new user's talk page ([1]) welcoming them, but also letting them know that the majority of their edits have not conformed to proper English and reminding them that there are Wikipedias in other languages. Is this the proper way to handle situations such as these? I don't want to accidentally be rude to someone who's actually acting in good faith, but I also don't want to let poor edits like these pass without letting the user making them know. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @GracenC Your message had a reasonable tone but I'm not sure that you really had enough evidence to conclude that User:Harrisonsdgage737 is not fluent in English. For example, their most recent edit was, almost certainly one that they did as a newcomer task suggested because of the "puffery" tag on that article and they removed the words that could have been seen as non-neutral. Their edit summary certainly implied this. The fact that the word "she" was left instead of "She" and that the article has an "Introduction" section header it should not have mean it still needs much more work but that's not something that newbies would always recognise. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking back on it, I probably did jump to conclusions about them not being a native speaker. However, in the other edits I reverted, namely [2] and [3], it certainly seems like their understanding of proper syntax isn't great (e.g. to be used by the use of). I'd like to imagine there's a place here I can direct them to that would be helpful, because like you said they're most certainly going through newcomer tasks and have positive intent, given that they actually removed POV language (totally on me for reverting that without noticing the actual contribution). /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for a tool to get statistics on article references, specifically reliance on individual domains

    For articles with many news org references, it can be hard to tell exactly how much weight is being given to one source. Is there an analysis tool available to display a table of the total link count for each domain in the reference list? Safrolic (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    December 7

    I’d like to request guidance on a situation where I have probably erred…

    Recently I was dealing with a COI edit request which asked for several blocks of text to be amended to be consistent with the [subject’s] website. Investigation indicated that the blocks of text were, as I suspected, direct lifts from the subject’s website. Further investigation indicated that (a) the great majority of the Wikipedia article consisted of material lifted directly from that website, and (b) the article had been curated by a series of SPAs for the last 15 years, some or all of which apparently derived from within the subject organisation.

    I declined the COI edit request, removed the majority of the article text on the basis that it was WP:COPYVIO and requested WP:REVDEL, which I believe would be normal under such circumstances. The COI editor then informed me that since the subject, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, is part of the US government there is no COPYVIO.

    Assuming that that is correct, it still seems to be problematic that virtually the entirety of the recent article text was directly lifted from the subject’s website (e.g. there is a complete reliance on non-independent sources, the material describes the subject in the subject’s own words, absence of NPOV, potential for promotion, etc. etc.).

    I’ve not met this situation before and would be grateful for some guidance. I assume that I'll need to replace (in some form or other) the material I deleted, but I'm unsure of to what extent such material was rightly in the article in the first place.

    Until recently the article looked like this [4], with the first 6 paragraphs being direct lifts from the subject's own website (i.e. everything prior to NIGMS produces a number of free science education materials).

    Any input here would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If the editor is saying that the text is from a US federal source, and that is acknowledged on the page, there is no violation. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it depends what you mean by acknowledged. In our article the material was cited (as per a normal citation) to the relevant pages on the subject's web site, but it was not specifically acknowledged within our article that the text has been lifted wholesale from there. Axad12 (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12 Isn't the more important point that the article currently has 9 citations, all of which are to the Institute's website? Without secondary sources, I don't see how it can meet the relevant notability guidelines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, that was part of my original point, i.e.: it still seems to be problematic that virtually the entirety of the recent article text was directly lifted from the subject’s website (e.g. there is a complete reliance on non-independent sources, the material describes the subject in the subject’s own words, absence of NPOV, potential for promotion, etc. etc. Notability is just another side to that, albeit one that could theoretically result in the article being deleted.
    My main concern at this point is what material, if any, should be reinstated. However, if you think the article should go to AfD instead then please do go ahead and nominate it. Axad12 (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would involve a WP:BEFORE search on a topic I'm not sufficiently interested in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a copyright violation but in my opinion, it is a form of plagiarism. Wikipedia editors are supposed to summarize the sources, not to wholesale copy sources that happen to be in the public domain. WP:PLAGIARISM says even though there is no copyright issue, public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source. This practice transforms what should be an article summarizing what independent reliable sources have written about the institute into a simple extension of the institute's own website. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    December 8

    when to go to ANI?

    I know it’s discouraged to go to ANI, but I’m unsure of where to take a conflict with a user. I don’t think their edits are considered vandalism by Wikipedia standards/warrant a full rollback but I do think they are disruptive and might need a WP:CIR block. I (and many others) have addressed this in both user and article talk pages, but they do not seem to understand the issues raised.

    Things this editor has done include repeatedly not citing sources, repeatedly citing blogs, edit warring/ownership, and has partially deleted talk page discussion in a manner that changes what the original post means (instead of fully blanking). It also appears this editor may not have a good grasp of English due to the mispellings and grammar issues they have introduced.

    I’ve lurked for a lot of my WP career and feel like I have a good grasp of policy, but I’m not sure where to go with this. Thanks, Sarsenet (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Making some assumptions based on your edit history on who you might be referring to, and if I'm looking at the correct user, they've already been blocked once, and appear to still have a problem differentiating between what their opinion of what WP is, versus what it really is, is a continuing problem, and raising it over at ANI doesn't seem out of line given this extensive warning (and responses) by the user on their talk page. TiggerJay(talk) 03:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're looking at the correct user, this is the first editor I've considered bringing to ANI. Thank you for your advice! I will be raising the case soon. Sarsenet (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Consistent rejection of my adequately researched article on a notable person.

    Dear Wikipedian,

    I have authored a draft article on a notable Rabindra Sangeet singer based in West Bengal (an Indian state/province having the population of a 100 million people - the combined population of the UK and Canada).

    I have cited a number of reliable sources on the singer from English as well as Bengali print and other media. However, my article has been rejected on the ground that it has not fulfilled the legitimate criteria of notability—that I must cite articles that pertain directly to the subject rather than having passing references to him.

    To quote the reason stated - " they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)"

    In this context, I would like to clarify that -

    1) On "signficiant coverage" - The person was famous as a Tier 1 singer in the Rabindra Sangeet genre in West Bengal throughout the 80s and 90s. Thus, his coverage in those sources available online are limited, though far from nonexistent.

    2) The sources that I cited all focused solely on the artist—his contribution and legacy—and were not making a mere passing reference to the artist. I can affirm that each one of the sources spoke directly, solely, and in detail about the artist.

    3) The sources I cited are all published, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject. None of them are personal blogs or allied platforms. On the contrary, they are highly credible, established platforms of print and online media in Bengali and English.

    To elucidate on point 3:

    a) I cited "Anandabazar Patrika" twice—by attaching two articles that solely speak on the legacy of the singer on whom I wrote. " Anandabazar Patrika is the most acclaimed newspaper in Indian Bengali print media, whose daily print circulation exceeded 800,000 in 2022 (by comparison, The Wall Street Journal has less than 650,000 papers in print circulation, The New York Times has less than 300,000, and Prothom Alo, being Bangladesh's largest paper, has about 500,000).

    Also, Anandabazar Patrika has been widely cited in the Wikipedia pages of Srikanto Acharya.

    b) I also cited Washington Bangla Radio, which is a highly credible source of enquiry into Bengali art and culture, having an enormous coverage and archive of Bengali artistic ventures and artistes. It has been cited by some other fellow Wikipedian in the page on Chinmoy Chatterjee, another prominent Rabindr Sangeet Singer from West Bengal.

    c) I went on to cite the Youtube Video on the artist from the official Youtube video of Hindusthan Records, which attributes its information to their own archives.

    d) BookMyShow has been cited by me. The same has been cited in the Wikipedia page of another prominent Rabindra Sangeet singer, Srikanto Acharya.

    Shourjo Roychaudhuri (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [on Draft:Sreekumar Chatterjee:] Shourjo Roychaudhuri, if there is indeed "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject [Sreekumar Chatterjee] in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject", then here, in this thread, please nominate three good examples of such sources. (No more than three, please.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft:Sreekumar Chatterjee definitely doesn't meet the required standard for article mainspace at the moment. The sourcing is thin, and parts of it read like a CV. These are common reasons for a draft article to be turned down, and they would need to be fixed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shourjo Roychaudhuri I think that the main problem is that the sources you use are not independent of Chatterjee as most are based on interviews, where obviously people say what they want. For Wikipedia notability we want mainly to know what sources that have not been fed information by the subject have said about him. Sources do not have to be available online (see WP:OFFLINE). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem archiving on Archive.org due to the Cloudflare page

    I would like to archive the entirety of this website on Archive.org.

    However, I tried with this page and Archive.org only saves the "Verifying you are human. This may take a few seconds" Cloudflare page, and not the content of the website. Same goes for any page of the website.

    The owner of the website is an academic who has put all their publications on their website (categorised here), so I think this is important to archive the website.

    Could someone please help? Veverve (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your best bet would be to try other archival websites IMO. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing comments from your talk page

    A user has a problem with me editing the comments she makes on my user talk page. The reply button is grade out. I think she would prefer them to be deleted. How do I delete comments please Sharnadd (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the Reply function to work, it needs a valid sig within the subheading. When you edited the comments on your usertalk to remove the signature of the editors adding them, you broke the Reply feature for those sections. Editing other people's comments is discouraged, even on your own talkpage (where removal is valid): see guidance at WP:TPG. To remove threads, tap "edit full page" from within the "three vertical dots" menu in the upper right. Folly Mox (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to WP:REFACTORING your talk page, you're welcome to do so, as long as the way in which you make edits do not change the meaning of what has been written by others. You can completely delete entire sections, but caution should be used when removing parts of a section that might lead other people to misunderstand conversation taking place on your talk page. TiggerJay(talk) 22:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can i revert an accidental GA delistment?

    Hi! I accidently delisted Bleeding Through from the GA articles list. It was the last A class article for metal and I intended to comment but I clicked delist because I didn't know what I was doing. Can this please be reverted? Sorry. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    aka: i wanted to comment and I thought i was commenting but i was not. Facepalm Facepalm the nom was working on improving the article as well so. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I believe I have fixed this. I reverted all the script edits related to this article. If there's anything else I need to know about please give me a ping. mftp dan oops 15:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AFC

    Hello. May I ask: is the inclusion of the [citation needed] tag, even if only a single one, grounds for an article for creation to not be accepted for move to mainspace? Thanks. (Edited 15:27 08.12.2024) Ramkarlo82 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ramkarlo82, An article will only be accepted if its free from any issues. any maintenance template like {{Citation needed}} are only placed to highlight maintenance related issues and that could lead to rejection of any Draft article submitted to Article for creation. Anyway, why should there be any such tag on a draft article yet as its not even accepted.––kemel49(connect)(contri) 17:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ramkarlo82, I disagree with KEmel49. "Free from any issues" is a higher standard than is needed for acceptance in mainspace. I have had an article accepted by a reviewer while containing a [citation needed] tag. Maproom (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maproom, I wonder how can an article non even in mainspace (and awaiting review) could contain such maintenance tag. can you please elaborate the scenario as "accepted by a reviewer" could also mean that the article was reviewed by Patroller, while this discussion is about AFC.––kemel49(connect)(contri) 17:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A cn is a reasonably common tag, it appears and disappears as part of normal editing processes. It's worth keeping in mind though that a lack of a tag does not mean there is not an issue, and a reviewer may identify an issue without a tag present. CMD (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lake Assad in Syria

    Please monitor the internet, as the name of this reservoir may change in a few days. Ffederal (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ffederal, Steps will be taken based on discussion if such happened. Editors are discouraged to foresee things based on imagination.––kemel49(connect)(contri) 17:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can a government report be a reliable source about what is being reported?

    I'm not too sure if the government report linked at Santiago de Compostela derailment is a WP:RELIABLESOURCE about the derailment itself.

    I believe that the document is generally reliable as a description of the events unfolded on that tragic day. That said, who is to blame for the accident was/is a contentious topic, and it could be argued that, while the report does not make claims one way or the other, it is not written in a manner that would comply with WP:NPOV.

    I would like to use it only to add facts to the article, giving more details about the exact sequence of events that happened, as the article is based mostly/fully on news reports, which, I believe, actually makes it less WP:NPOV.

    Furthermore, the article has factual errors:

    1. ASFA would not warn any train operators of overspeed, only if overspeed caused by exceeding the train's speed design characteristics, or by exceeding a limit imposed by approaching a signal showing "Danger" or "Caution", none of which happened on the accident day. (The exceeded speed restriction was due to a curve, that is, an infrastructure-imposed restriction)
    1. The ERTMS section is poorly worded. The tracks were supposed to have ERTMS (but this had been non-operational for a long time) up to somewhere before the curve. This meant that, true, usual speed restriction signs were missing, but an operational ERTMS would not have warned of that specific restriction, it would only have warned, somewhere before the curve, of a transition to Level 0 (that is, to no supervision).
    1. The article makes no mention that Spain's railway administrator was made well aware of the potential safety problems in that site.
    1. The article makes no mention that a train employee called the train conductor on the company phone, about something unrelated, which made the conductor miss his mental (that is, not marked on the track) mark for applying the brakes.
    1. Although not exactly a factual error, pointing out that the driver had posted a photo to Facebook boasting that he could "drive" at 200 km/h in a high speed train (when Spain's high-speed rail network is, at some places, rated for 350 km/h), is, in my point of view, just sensationalist nonsense.
    1. In general, the sequence of events for the crash could be better explained.

    Most/all of this things could be fixed (by me or someone else, I could start to work on it in the following weeks) if I could use the report as a source. Am I allowed to?

    I hope someone can help me. Thank you very much!

    Milo8505 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say feel free to cite this source, but be sure to attribute the claims both in a citation and in the text itself, like so:

    A government report released in 1995 investigating the cause of the event stated that apples are a superior fruit, when comparing them to oranges.[1]

    References

    1. ^ Government report
    And if the citation and by extension claim's inclusion is challenged, be sure to discuss it before readding any information found in it. Departure– (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Milo8505 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    December 9

    Comment from Shayvidas

    Hi,

    I recently created a draft titled "Draft:Shay Albert Vidas," but it was deleted under G11 for being promotional. I understand the concerns and would like to request that the draft be restored to my user page so I can revise it further.

    I plan to rewrite the content to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability standards. Unfortunately, I cannot contact the deleting administrator, Bbb23, directly as their talk page is restricted, and I’m unable to post in the Administrators’ Noticeboard because it is semi-protected.

    I would greatly appreciate it if someone could assist me in restoring the draft to my user page or guide me on how to proceed.

    Thank you for your time and help!

    Best regards, Shayvidas Shayvidas (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved comment from talk page here. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In your second and so far final edit to this, Shayvidas, an edit you described as "less promotional", you added:
    Shay also manages a Facebook group with over 15,000 members, which has become a vibrant community for watch enthusiasts. Members actively discuss their shared passion for horology, share updates about the brand, and connect with others who appreciate handmade, unique designs. This platform has been instrumental in growing the VIDAS brand and fostering strong connections with collectors worldwide.
    And there still were no references. So I have no reason to think that the draft, were it resuscitated, would lead to an article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shayvidas: I should also add that writing about yourself, if you are indeed the subject, is strongly discouraged as it is virtually impossible to write neutrally about oneself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also suggest you take a moment to read the essay WP:PROUD, as you might not really want an article about yourself, as much as it might sound like a good idea right now. TiggerJay(talk) 05:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How to post on an article's Talk page that you have COI

    I need to post on an article's Talk page that I have COI with the subject. Could you give me an idea of what to write, maybe a sort of template to use, as I've never done this before. Augnablik (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps == Conflict of interest == [line break] I have a conflict of interest with [what it is that you have a COI with]. ~~~~ -- Hoary (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don’t need to explain what the COI is, or anything further? Somehow I was thinking that would be important, not just a brief admission of COI. Augnablik (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:COI. -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm, yes ... thank you, @Hoary, I'd read the COI information some time ago but forgotten there was something about how we could declare it with a particular article. I'm thinking carefully which of the three options I'd like to use when I start in on that article.
    It seems to me that the option letting me put a COI userbox about this article on my User page sort of hides my COI from view, and wouldn't be as transparent as the other two options. I'm sort of surprised we can do this, as also that we apparently needn't elaborate on the connection we have with the subject of the article. Augnablik (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Augnablik You could use the template at Talk:Elayne Harrington, Template:Connected contributor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is one of the three options mentioned at the COI guidance page. You certainly found an interesting example, that folk singer herself being a Wiki editor! Augnablik (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, per definition, to "template" someone like this, they kinda have to be a WP-editor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But not necessarily a celebrity who’s the subject of a Wiki article. 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure there's an easy remedy, but I'm lost at the moment. The dimension in the infobox are wrong. The statue is 6-feet (1.8 m) tall and 2.5-feet (0.8 m) wide. The infobox says 6 cm × 2.5 cm (1.8 in × 0.8 in). I tried switching the parameters from Template:Infobox artwork but it's still showing up in cm. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed... What you were missing was metric_unit and imperial_unit, by default it uses cm and inches respectively. Simply setting those to meters and feet resolved the problem. TiggerJay(talk) 04:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, thank you. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How to make this link?

    On this page Norway women's national handball team in the info box on the right side, under Results, then under World Championship in the Appearances section it says '22 (First in 1971)'. Once you click on 1971, the link correctly takes you to the Women's World Cup that year.

    However, on this page Slovenia women's national handball team in the same section where it says '8 (First in 1997)' if you click on 1997, the link incorrectly takes you to the Men's World Cup that year.

    If you go to 'edit source', you will see that details are not provided there, it just says 1971 in the first instance and 1997 in the second, without any links. How can the problem on the second page be solved, so that the link is for the Women's World Cup in 1997?

    Thanks. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]