Wikipedia:Help desk

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

January 26

Please help me verify my artist profile

User:Johannes9343 Please help me verify my artist bio. Thank you Johannes9343 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an artist profile in Wikipedia, only encyclopedic articles about notable artists, which the page you linked to can not be classified as. Please delete the contents in your user page, otherwise it will be tagged for deletion. Consider taking some time to read WP:NOT and WP:GNG before creating any article in Wikipedia, including your own user page. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Sample: "Whether commanding the piano or crafting beats in the studio, Johannes Tavdgiridze is an artist redefining musical boundaries and inspiring audiences across the globe." Where does one start to describe what's wrong here? -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there an independant source saying this ? [[...] Johannes Tavdgiridze is an artist redefining musical boundaries and inspiring audiences across the globe. [...] Anatole-berthe (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Information from books

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, how are you? I would like to include information from books in Wikipedia articles, that is, from reliable sources. Can information from books be a reliable source? Thank you. (VVWiki8 (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC))

@VVWiki8 If the book is a reliable, independent and secondary source, absolutely. Ultraodan (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. (VVWiki8 (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC))

@VVWiki8 For general help on citing sources, see Help:Referencing for beginners. We normally use the template {{cite book}} for books and that link gives the full documentation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank (VVWiki8 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC))

Deleted

Deletion My Wikipedia page was deleted. Can I make any changes to the content and have it restored? The page name was Philip Krejcarek Pkrejc (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Pkrejc Your article had no meaningful content, that is why it was deleted. Unless you have much experience in creating articles, it is highly recommended that you use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft for review by another editor. Please read Your First Article.

Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Pkrejc, you originally created the article with your surname in lower case. It was later moved to Philip Krejcarek, and then deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Krejcarek. Cullen328 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Size of photo too big

onWikipedia, the support mug shot on this page came out way too big. We need help to make it the standard size. We are not technically skilled and could use assistance. To see problem, go to Tom Stienstra If you know how, feel free to fix size. Waymeister (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It's fixed. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

January 27

Editing protocol in absence of consensus

 Courtesy link: Alison Weir (activist)

Is it permissible to delete text from a Wikipedia page that is is extended-confirmed-protected without first discussing the edit on the Talk page, not to mention seeking consensus for it? Kenfree (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean, as long as it's a reasonable edit in good faith (which is presumed unless there's a glaring problem), of course it is, per WP:BOLD and WP:EDITCONSENSUS. You don't need to seek pre-approval for every individual edit - it might be a good idea if the edit is obviously going to be controversial, but it's still not required. The hard part is what happens after someone objects, but generally the thing to do then is to follow WP:BRD and seek consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Well in my opinion this was not a good faith edit, but here's the problem: I can't revert it because it is a protected page and I haven't made enough edits to qualify as a "confirmed-extended" editor. The text in question was introduced at my request using the edit request protocol, and this other editor, with no advance discussion, just swoops in out of the blue and deletes important parts of it. How do I, lacking the power to revert, object to this? Kenfree (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You can start a discussion on the talk page, notifying the editor about it. And remember to assume good faith because the edit I assume you're talking about is 100% good faith Ultraodan (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Really? Truncating a direct quote from a citation because an editor, with no citation or other justification, or any prior discussion on the talk page, considers it too laudatory, and leaves awkward grammar and inappropriate punctuation behind , is "good faith"? Kenfree (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Kenfree, you must assume that the other editor is acting in good faith unless you have powerful evidence to the contrary. Discuss the matter with the other editor involved a non-confrontational way, and if that does not work, there are various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Kenfree (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

In asking Help Desk questions, it helps responders help you if you link the actual article and edit(s) in question; namely:

• Alison Weir (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).     (Added courtesy link above as well.)

So your question appears to be about whether this recent edit by Scratchinghead (talk · contribs) removing some of the content previously added on your behalf by Ultraodan (talk · contribs) in response to your ER of 11 Jan. was justifiable or not. I have no reason to doubt their good faith, as reasons were given in the edit summary. Of possible additional relevance: some of the references included in the content added per your ER are under discussion at the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Please explain this to me: if a direct quote is provided from a secondary source , that fits the criteria you yourself referenced in the talk page. You expressly wrote there that the personal opinion of Wikipedia editors is NOT a valid source for determining the validity of a claim about a living person. And yet here User:Scratchinghead deletes the bulk of the quote because he personally considers it too laudatory. How does this not violate the very protocol you were insisting on? Kenfree (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Just looking at they edit and what was removed seems to be simply WP:puffery which is not appropriate. It doesn’t matter if it is a reliable, secondary source or not. Now there is a secondary question if Middle East is appropriate versus PI which was also removed. You are not powerless, as you’ve already demonstrated here and the talk page. The reason for the protection on the page is to protect it from various threats and while it can get in the way of well intentioned editors, it does more good than harm. Also, because it would protect you from making a bad revert as a newer editor. Generally speaking, even if you could change it back, you should not, but instead take it to the talk page, which you are already fully able to do. See WP:BRD for more details. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Why do I have to take things to the talk page first, whereas User:Scratchinghead does not? That editor makes changes without consulting anyone. I'm sorry to say that I am inclined to agree with the seasoned WP editor who opined that template protocols constitute newbie biting... all editors are equal, but some are more equal than others, it seems..... Kenfree (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

They do, when it reaches that part of WP:BRD. You with your edit request did a bold edit, Scratchinghead partially reverted/altered it. Now since you disagree with their edits you both need to discuss it on the talk page.

You needing to go to the talk page first is not because of BRD, but because of the protection. Many contentious pages are protected to avoid edit warring in sanctioned topics. Ultraodan (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Well then the policy fails in that regard,because what it really means is that only extended-confirmed editors can edit war, and all others need not enter the fray, because they are prohibited from doing so. The discussion on the Talk page of Alison Weir regarding the validity of this book review as a citation source had a rough consensus that it was viable. Yet User:Scratchinghead, who did not participate in at all, ignores this assessment and determines with no other authority than his own personal opinion that it is not credible and guts the quote from it, leaving the quotation marks which now make it seem that the source was not calling her a Middle East expert, but rather a QUOTE Middle East expert...as if these are air quotes by the source. I really don't see how such autocratic editing can be defended at Wikipedia ....It flies in the face of editorial consensus building. Kenfree (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected: the Wikipedia:BRD policy does not fail, rather you, User:Ultraodan, fail to understand the policy. The policy states very clearly that BRD fails when the page is protected. The Alison Weir (activist) page is protected. Ergo, the use of BRD on that page as an editorial tactic is out of the question. If you think about it, you will recognize why this must be so. The only reason a bold edit can be countenanced in the first place is that all interested or potentially interested editors have the power to revert it if they find it, shall we say, too bold! So the Wikipedia:BRD policy has no relevance at all here....it simply doesn't apply. Kenfree (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not policy, merely an explanatory essay about an optional dispute resolution process, just one of many. To an extent, you are mixing up two things here, one: the nature of EC protection, which allows others to make bold edits but not you, and two: finding consensus. To the first, though protection may seem unfair to you, it is actually protecting you as a new user, because if you were to make a bold edit the way you wish to more than once, you might be at risk of sanctions due to BLP restrictions and especially, the contentious topic sanctions in effect on that article. That said, it may feel like an unfair restriction to you now, but for a contentious issue with a content dispute like this one, not that much will change when you reach EC level. For example, if you think it's about getting your licks in last so your bold edit "wins", it really isn't; it's about talking it out on the Talk page (policy) to gain consensus (policy) about disputed content. And that is what you are already doing now, so that's great.

It's true that a recent editor made a bold edit which you cannot, but think a minute: there are other editors on the Talk page who could have reverted that edit but have not; that is probably not an accident. The bottom line is consensus; by far the best way to get your preferred content into the article is to have consensus for it, and you gain consensus by persuading other editors to agree with you on the Talk page. That has not happened yet, and it seems at the moment there is rather a small consensus against your position, but that could change. (Note: the true bottom-line is Pillar Two of Wikipedia's core principles, namely, WP:Neutral point of view; but for now, consensus is what you should focus on.) You could try engaging more editors (*not* by cherry-picking them, but by appropriate notification) for example and maybe that will swing the tide. Your gaining EC status will not affect consensus-formation one iota, but it will affect your ability to run into the quicksand at full speed instead of stepping carefully around it, so don't be so hasty to bemoan the protection, because it is protecting you as well. Keep working at consensus formation in discussion; that is the way forward. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sir, I've been continuously getting notifications of him saying that i am not following the rules so i went to sort it out at the talk page and im pretty sure most of the issues are solved. Thanks folks ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

History merge?

I received a talk page message that Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) that I created is under proposed deletion. Now I have nothing against "Vitalstatistix (disambiguation)" being deleted, I agree with the nominator that there is no need for such a disambiguation page. But I didn't create it as a disambiguation page, I created it as a stand-alone article at Vitalstatistix and later changed it into a redirect to List of Asterix characters. Someone else later moved it to Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) and created another page at Vitalstatistix. I want to preserve the attribution history by merging the histories of these pages together so my original edits won't get lost when Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) is deleted. How can I do that? JIP | Talk 07:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@JIP: If the early edits of Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) are history merged to List of Asterix characters then it will get a confusing edit history which starts as Vitalstatistix and suddenly changes to [1] with an edit summary saying "created list of recurring characters". I suggest to instead history merge to Vitalstatistix (character) which is one of many character redirects to the list.[2] Is that OK? History merges can be tricky if you aren't experienced. Can I do it? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I don't want to history merge Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) to List of Asterix characters. I want to history merge Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) into Vitalstatistix and then the proposed deletion of the disambiguation page can go ahead. JIP | Talk 12:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@JIP: That also works. Wikipedia:History merging has general instructions. If you do it then exclude the 2022 edit. Special:MergeHistory will suggest to include it. Later edits will automatically be excluded because they are newer than the oldest edit at the target. I'm happy to do it but don't know whether you want to try the process yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I have now history merged Vitalstatistix (disambiguation) into Vitalstatistix. The disambiguation page can now be deleted. I think it's best to wait until 2 February when the proposed deletion period expires and the page will be deleted if there are no objections. In the case there are objections I can nominate it for deletion myself. JIP | Talk 13:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@JIP: The merge looks good and I agree to wait. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

What do the text arrows in Visual Editor mean

I was editing Lakeside MRT station and there's this annoying issue in the Station Details section where if I try to make another paragraph, it just automatically merges with the previous one. There's two arrows that indicate it. There was a similar issue for Eunos MRT station as well but it was resolved. Would appreciate some help, it's been annoying me for a while now. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 11:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Icepinner: Fixed by placing image code on its own line.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct revert?

I just reverted User:Abade.bio.ambiental as their edit was not in English. I wasn't sure which category the revert fell under, so I just selected 'Manual of Style' issues on the Ultraviolet menu. I'm pretty sure that probably wasn't the right choice, so could someone tell me the correct category please? TNM101 (chat) 15:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's a "correct" category in this case, as Ultraviolet did not seem to have defined the criteria for each of the revert options. In my opinion, both "Manual of Style issues" and "Non-constructive edit" can be applied. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like an edit that would have been constructive if it hadn't been in Portuguese—it's a list of pollinators, with a source for the information. I'll copy the text to the article talk page if nobody objects. It needs someone who reads Portuguese to check the source and write an English version, I think. (I don't know Portuguese and simply pasted it in Google Translate to get the gist.)
Edit: there's an English-language version of the cited article available at the source URL Musiconeologist (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Now done. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't use Ultraviolet, but the appropriate warning template would probably be {{uw-lang-noteng}} or {{uw-notenglishedit}}. There is also {{uw-lang-pt}} specifically for Portuguese, if you think the user is not able to read English. CodeTalker (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that it's their only edit, and that assuming the reference is OK they've potentially doubled the amount of information in the article, I'm not sure a template warning is appropriate—it at least needs to be a personalised message recognising that, in my opinion. Though of course it might just be someone citing their own research paper. Musiconeologist (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the responses! TNM101 (chat) 15:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Copyright for painted portraits of elected officials

Hello, my local courthouse has portraits of historical local lawyers/elected officials. What is the statute of limitations with regard to copyright on painted portraits in the United States and uploading to Wikimedia Commons? --Engineerchange (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Engineerchange. Copyright can be very complex, but the general rule of thumb in the US is 95 years since publication and being placed on display in a public place for people to photograph is considered publication. So, if the painting has been displayed since 1929 or before, it is highly likely to be in the public domain. Release into the public domain is an annual event each January 1, so 1930 publications will be in the public domain next New Year's Day. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

See Public Domain Day for what has become an annual observance for those of us who care about such things. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think I can use old newspapers to determine when the portraits were placed in public display to confirm the public domain piece. Appreciate it! --Engineerchange (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If a newspaper published a photo of the painting back then, that would be powerful evidence of its public domain status. Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

At least in my area (mid-atlantic), it was common for a local judge and/or politician to get their portrait added to a local courthouse as a type of "key to the city" kind of accolade in their career. Most newspaper mentions are just a short blurb saying "a portrait was added to x courthouse of y judge". I imagine this is the best I can do to prove public domain as an employee likely won't know when it was hung 20 years ago, let alone 95 years ago. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Engineerchange, if public domain status cannot be established, low resolution non-free images of people who have died can be uploaded here on English Wikipedia for use only in their biographies. The strict standards can be found at WP:NFCI. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Engineerchange, any published mention at all that indicates its age should suffice. This is not a rigorous proof of it's being in the public domain, but it supports a good-faith assumption that it is. If some theoretical copyright holder objects, they can inform us and we will take it down. -Arch dude (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Cullen328 and Arch dude: Thanks, I looked into a bit yesterday. I believe posts like this and this would suffice, but I'm unsure about posts like this and this, where there is some vague procurement and "presentation", but no clear mention of it being "hung". I imagine it's enough for good-faith, though? Thoughts? Did find this fun tidbit about the practice, if anyone was curious - don't see anywhere where this "trend" could fit in an article, though, but I generally veer away from the art side of Wikipedia. --Engineerchange (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Engineerchange I think this is a "rule of reason". Copyright exists to preserve the economic value to the copyright holder. You have no economic incentive to violate any possible copyright here, these images have no discernable economic value, you have made a good-faith effort to ascertain that the portrait is in the public domain, and if a copyright holder does turn up, they and we have a simple remedy. I would simply assert that they are PD based on the research you have done. If you have any way to determine who the actual article is, you should add that to the description page as a matter of attribution, not copyright. A close-up of the artist's signature on the portrait would do this. -Arch dude (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Arch dude Makes sense, would definitely attribute the artist, as well as the transaction (read: donor(s)) in the description on Commons. Appreciate the advice here by both of you. Thank you very much, --Engineerchange (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Argument supporting free content

Is there any help page, user essay, or external site that makes a convincing argument why content should be free (i.e., commercial-use allowed)? Why do we reject non-commercial image licences even though we are a non-commercial project? What's the issue with non-commercial licences, what exactly is our justification? I don't need to be convinced about this, I am just looking for something that I can show to new users, and I am surprised that I can't find something easily. Thanks! Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack, from its very beginning, Wikipedia has been dedicated to Free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content is probably the best place to point to, since it discusses the general principle in the context of explaining the limited exceptions. That policy begins by saying Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. So, it is the free re-use by other entities that is the issue. It is well established that commercial search engines such as Google can excerpt our free content and that commercial book publishers can include free Wikipedia content as long as they attribute it. My own photos that I have freely licensed on Wikimedia Commons have been re-used in several newspapers, magazines, books and websites published by commercial entities and I see that as a good thing. I would not have freely licensed them if I did not want them used that way. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that [4], which is linked in the pages you provided, is a good page to point to. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack, that is fine as long as you understand that is not a Wikipedia/Wikimedia website. Cullen328 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

January 28

Marlborough College

I have added a "Marlborough College, c.1891" (this should be the caption) file which is WAAAAAY too big. Please repair. Also, Ref number 28 is connected/ close to a line which has the word "circa" - a link - which goes nowhere. Please place the correct link for "circa" if you are able. Thanks. Srbernadette (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added |thumb |Marlborough College, c.1891 to the file link, to make the image thumbnail-size and add the caption. I'll leave any further tweaks to someone else who's more familiar with details of the syntax. Musiconeologist (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Relief on City Pushpin Maps?

Hello all,

I have been trying to keep the relief on the pushpin map on my home city Wikipedia page along with for example the capital of Port-au-Prince but someone says relief is not to be used and reverts my changes on both relief I add.

Please help. Thank you all. Just want to do my best editing Wiki’s.

I did read the Wikipedia help guide regarding relief and pushpin maps & it even shows pushpin maps with relief. NightExplorer96 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@NightExplorer96 It may be that the other editor knows of some long-standing convention for how to show these maps in infoboxes but you can certainly ask them to justify their reversions: that's the basis of our normal bold, revert, discuss cycle. The best place to do that is on the Talk Page of the relevant article, with a ping to inform them you want to have the discussion there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

NightExplorer96, if you're talking about this edit, I suspect that it's related to the purpose of the map — the current map shows the city's location in relation to the provinces, but the provincial boundaries are very difficult to see in the pushpin relief map, since it concentrates on topography rather than legal boundaries. However, for major US cities it's quite common to show multiple pushpins in the infobox (cf. Chicago), so I don't understand that aspect of the initial reversion, let alone the unexplained second reversion. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Directionality in the Visual Editor's source editor

In the old editors (2003, 2010), a key combination like Ctrl-Shift-X (in Firefox) switches the directionality of the text in the editor itself (independent of the directionality of the text that will be displayed when the page is saved). This also works in the search bar. It does not work in the source editor of the Visual Editor. How does one change the directionality of the text there without changing any of the source text/markup? (IOW, I'm not talking about setting the directionality using "div" or "span" tags. I just want to change the direction of the text I am looking at when I first open the editor on a page or section.) - dcljr (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Dcljr. You may have more chance of an answer at WP:VPT. I don't use the VE myself, but I understand that it has limitations, and this could be one of them. ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

How to set up two columns

I reworked the article New York Tennis Club Open and noticed five redirects going to it. I requested they be deleted w/o success. But, OK. My reasoning is at "New York Lawn Tennis Club Fall Tournament", under "Category:Defunct tennis tournaments in the United States." I really wanted to know the following. I asked a question about this article last Dec., and have one more. This is in regard to Paul Martin (illustrator), under the heading "Tennis." I'm trying to get a section in two columns, without putting it in a colored box. I can't figure out how the template {col begin and col break} works. I just adjusted the width numbers so it looks decent on my desktop. Maybe I should use another template like {div col}. I just want two columns (under subheadings, Wins and Runners-Up), and for it also to appear decent on mobile devices. JimPercy (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC) UPDATE. Solved on my own. Please ignore. JimPercy.

Reuters as author

I came across a citation using this Reuters article (https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/chinese-ai-startup-deepseek-overtakes-chatgpt-apple-app-store-2025-01-27/) that lists Reuters as the author. Is it then fine to use author=((Reuters)) in the citation to get around the generic author warning, or should it be treated as anonymous and left blank? Truthnope (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No need to be redundant. Do this:

{{cite news |date=January 27, 2025 |title=DeepSeek hit by cyberattack as users flock to Chinese AI startup |work=Reuters}}

"DeepSeek hit by cyberattack as users flock to Chinese AI startup". Reuters. January 27, 2025.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Better to use "|agency=Reuters" per the comment in the Examples section: "A news article released by a news agency and having no credited author". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, when the work is some other entity like the newspaper given in the example you highlight. When the content is provided by the agency on the agency's own platform, |agency= is not appropriate. See the parameter documentation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

and left blank? If you mean |author=, I'm not aware of any good reason for any null cite parameter, especially author. The cite doc suggests |author=<!-- not stated -->, but nobody I know uses that, and it's not "null" in the sense I meant. But I'm not the cite expert around here, that's Trappist. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

January 29

Blank label

I have previously used the "blank label" field in some 'info boxes' to create a novel field for information. However, I have forgotten how to do this, and I cannot find the help page to jog my memory on how this field functions. I am currently working with the blank field in an 'Template:Infobox game'. Please advise me on the coding for adding a novel field name via the 'blank label' functionality, and let me know the URL for the help page. SMargan (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@SMargan: Specify "blank_label = your_label" and "blank_data = your_data". You have to check the template doc, as the availability of this feature is specific to each Infobox template. Fabrickator (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@ - I am having a little bit of trouble envisioning what you mean. Do you mean like this:

| blank-label = Developer
| blank-data = Gavan Brown and Matt Tolman

I tried this, and this just seems to throw up error messages. SMargan (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

According to the documentation in the info box, the fields are called blank_label and blank_data with underscores, not hyphens. ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@SMargan If the template you want to use does not have the "blank_label" field, and you want to add it to the template, you should add these lines to the template inside the {{infobox}} section:

| labelXX    = {{{blank_label}}} | dataXX     = {{#if:{{{blank_label|}}}|{{{blank_data|}}}}}

The "XX" should be a number. In {{Infobox game}}, this is the 27th label, so it would be "label27" and "data27". Change this number accordingly. You may also want to add

| blank_data | blank_label

to the "check for unknown parameters" at the end.

I would highly recommend using the sandbox for the templates you want to try this out on. If anything here is confusing, adding an edit request rather than doing it yourself is a safe way of working with templates. Reconrabbit 18:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

can't format a note correctly

can someone please help fix the missing 'note 1' hyperlink in the page Abaza Family Wiki 1756 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wiki 1756 You can place the text in a efn template {{efn|Example}} will create this note. Make sure you include the {{notelist}} in the Notes section. It won't get exactly "Note 1" but it's a simple way to do it and keeps it very separate from references. Ultraodan (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave this for you to do yourself so that you can learn it. I recommend previewing your edit before you save it. If you need any more help please ask Ultraodan (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Notes

Why did my editing streak break?

Hello,

When I go to my homepage, it says my last editing streak broke on x day. However, when I look at my contributions, I definitely did an edit on X + 1 day. So why did my editing streak break? Daphne Morrow (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably because Wikipedia uses the UTC time zone and an entire day has passed without you editing regarding the UTC time zone. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:( damn, that's a bummer. Do you happen to know where I can suggest that they change the streak code to reflect the user's local timezone? Daphne Morrow (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Daphne Morrow, the more important question is why you even care about something as exceptionally silly as an "editing streak". Wikipedia is not a video game. I have been editing for over 15 years and have edited a large majority of days over those years. But if I am busy with other things due to travel or health issues or family visits and do not have time to edit in a specific 48 hour period, I don't give it the slightest thought. Why do you care about this? Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Because it brings a little joy to my day to see the number go up. It's exceptionally silly and that's what I love about it. Daphne Morrow (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This, I think, is a perfectly valid and positive reason, and you shouldn't have to defend it. The more you enjoy the experience of being here, the more likely you are to continue making a contribution, so Wikipedia benefits too. Musiconeologist (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, I don't bah-humbug the harmless ways you enjoy wikipedia. I don't think you should bah-humbug the harmless ways other people enjoy wikipedia. Daphne Morrow (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Daphne Morrow, you have been editing Wikipedia for less than two months and I have already mentioned how long I have been editing. I list on my userpage many of the hundreds of articles that I have written or expanded. That's how I enjoy Wikipedia, mostly by creating good content. This is a project to build and improve an encyclopedia, not to rack up phony brownie points. You have made many edits to Hashimoto's thyroiditis and I will assume that you improved that article significantly. Thank you for that! That is the sort of accomplishment that deserves accolades, not anything having to do with artificial meaningless "editing streaks". Cullen328 (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I take my commitment to building an encyclopedia seriously, but not joylessly. I like that someone took the time to add a little streak feature, and I intend to use it.

If you feel like your way of building an encyclopedia is superior, good for you. However, my way of doing it doesn't actually put the project at risk. I wish you wouldn't try to suggest I should try to be the kind of person you are, because while I'm sure that's extremely valuable in its own way, I am a different person altogether. Daphne Morrow (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Daphne Morrow You may enjoy reading an article about the longest editing streak. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The last I remember looking at it, the concept of a streak was within any given 24-hour window, not within each 24-hour period defined by a specific time. Each of those could have value for editor interest or other purposes, but are different concepts that might be more or less appealing to different individuals. I remember some years ago having a difficult time in Real Life and using the streak concept as a "at least once a day, remember to do this to get out of your rut for a rew minutes". Either keeping up on a long-term interest, doing a bit of research something unusual I saw around town, or clicking 'random article' 5 times and make at least one substantive improvement to one of them. DMacks (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Daphne Morrow, curious, what are you talking about? I've been editing here 19 years, but I've never heard of an automated editing-streak counter, and I don't see anything on your user talk page. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably https://streaks.toolforge.org. Personally I intentionally try to break my streak and spend a few days not editing Wikipedia every month or so. I'm not always successful in that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

External links to National Archives are formatted differently

I added an external link to a Wikipedia article using the link tool in the visual editor, but for some reason it was formatted differently than an ordinary external link. I copied and pasted the full link into the editor box, but when I published my changes, the link was automatically reformatted to: [[nara:74887660|Moving Images Related to George Washington Carver]] which looks like: Moving Images Related to George Washington Carver. I expected: [https://catalog.archives.gov/id/74887660 Moving Images Related to George Washington Carver] which looks like: Moving Images Related to George Washington Carver (note the blue arrow). I bring this up because the two links behave differently from one another. The normal link opens the linked page in a new tab, while the reformatted link opens the page in the same tab, and that bothers me. I could write the link in source editor and have it open in a new tab like a normal external link, but I don't know why it was automatically formatted to not do that, so I'm not sure if I should change it or not. I did some searching and couldn't find any reason why this link would be reformatted so I came here in hope of some answers. Nikoledood (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It reformatted again! The normal external link that I expected is: [https://catalog.archives.gov/id/74887660 Moving Images Related to George Washington Carver] which actually looks like: Moving Images Related to George Washington Carver. Nikoledood (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Nikoledood. The Interwiki link system knows about a number of resources which are not Mediawiki projects, and can link to them using a wikilink rather than an external link - the list is at Special:Interwiki.

nara: is the shortcut for https://catalog.archives.gov/id/$1, and it appears the link tool has recognised that and created a wikilink.

If it is important to you that it appear as an external link, I think you're going to need to edit it in the source editor (but there may be a way in the VE - I don't use it). ColinFine (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Unable to bold subject of article

Not commenting on the content of this article - in short, this may be a borderline WP:NPROF pass - but why is the markup not working right when I try to bold the subject's name in this article? Draft:Jamal Lasri. Adding apostrophes ('') in any quantity in the first paragraph bolds and italicizes all the text coming after it. Reconrabbit 14:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Found the problem - further in the lede, source shows "and study of the intermolecular transamidation reactions of ''N''-carbamoylmethyl-''N'''-tosylguanidines" - there's three apostrophes after the second N when there should be only two. This disrupts the bold markup for anywhere before then. Departure– (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! It was hard sorting through all those apostrophes, and it didn't stop happening in an obvious place. Reconrabbit 15:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Reconrabbit, although your edit fixed the formatting in the lede, it made the actual chemical name incorrect. The second N needs to be italics (as you recognized) but also have an apostrophe after it. See the title of the cited doi:10.1021/ol035377z ref for confirmation. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. The first reference to that sentence wouldn't load. It would be nice if citation bot could grab the titles for all of these references. Reconrabbit 19:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit, Departure–, and DMacks: Pleas see this edit: Special:Diff/1272663526 – I put the nowiki-ed apostrophe inside the italicized region, so that it does not collide with the upper-right end of the italic 'N' letter. Feel free to undo if you think it's not an improvement. --CiaPan (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Can't figure out how to remove an inappropriate category

The article Butter is listed the category 'Dietary fat templates' and since this is an article and not a template, it shouldn't be there. However, within Butter's page source, I don't see why it is ending up in this category. Ike9898 (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Comparison of cooking fats}} emits that category. You can raise the issue with interested editors at Template talk:Comparison of cooking fats.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. The category link inside that template should have been inside a <noinclude> group, and I have moved it there. ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Lost one-click archiving

I used to be able to one-click archive threads via a link that would appear to the right side of sections. I haven't seen that option for some time now. I suspect I may have screwed up my preferences or added a script that's not playing well with it or such, but I'm not sure what I need to do to fix it. If any technically-minded Wikipedians would be able to help me out, I'd appreciate it! DonIago (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I also had this problem recently. The script you linked to is outdated and no longer maintained since the user was banned; I started using this script that works well: User:Elli/OneClickArchiver. If the page doesn't already have a link to the archive you may need to add {{Talk header}} or similar. Reconrabbit 17:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that version of OCA, but I do (or should) already have that one installed. DonIago (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know then. I can see a very small "|Archive" button next to this section (on Vector legacy). Reconrabbit 18:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)