Checking if instructions like "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it." on an archived talk page discussion (e.g. an RfC or FA review) include correcting formatting or indentation to make it more legible. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say in 99.5% of the cases it should be left completely unmodified even for things that otherwise make sense such as formatting. Especially in the case you're talking about it can actually change how replies and responses were intended. Sometimes the actual discussion ends up with messy formatting, but people are also actively reading and responding within that context, not the modified one you might put forward even with good intentions. An example of where I just today did edit a "closed" discussion was to revert someone who replied today to a closed discussion -- of course that doesn't belong there because it was never part of the discussion. TiggerJay (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Got it, thanks! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Closed Limelike Curves: WP:IAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

no mention of music legend's death on the main page - why? Weberchas (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Weberchas It has been nominated but there is concern about the quality of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Weberchas (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion has stalled for 8 days, and it seems pretty evident that no comments are likely to come. I tried to request closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests but I have been ignored for some reason. I'm not sure why that's the case because the appropriate 7-day timeframe has passed, and it seems unnecessary to keep this inactive, non-contentious, and seemingly resolved discussion going. I'm not sure of what I should do, therefore I require some assistance with this situation. If you can close this discussion, please do. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree with the characterisation of the CR thread as I have been ignored. I'm also not sure I'm seeing the seeming resolution. It looks like there are two proposed merge targets and an attempted redirect as well? I see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals has already been notified. Someone at CR will implement a close eventually if the discussion remains inactive, so maybe patience is the best advice here.

What is your view on the consensus generated by this discussion? I'm genuinely not understanding, perhaps due to subject matter inexpertise. Folly Mox (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

(commented at list article talk --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC))Reply

Quick reminder that WP:MERGECLOSE suggests that the length of discussion is "7 days or more", ten days isn't really a length of time to be worried about the close. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The link for to the social deduction game Among Us is written as, "amogus" Hail~Fire 15:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hailfire150394: The link in Category:Wikipedia semi-protected redirects is not written as "amogus" which goes to the top of Among Us. It's not possible to list piped links in categories. It says Amogus which redirects to the section Among Us#Memes and mods where "amogus" is mentioned, one of eight occurrences on the page (including references). There is nothing wrong. It even has an entry at wiktionary:amogus. Even it had actually been a misspelling which wasn't mentioned in the article, it would still be correct to list it in the category when the redirect is semi-protected. We have numerous redirects from misspellings, mainly to help searchers who make the same misspelling. Category:Redirects from misspellings has 56,000 redirects (many others aren't categorized), but not Amogus since it's intentionally written like that. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh I think I know where I got confused from. It's because of the fact it's a redirect. I was treating it as if it was the proper link to the page. Hail~Fire 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there or why isn't there a Library in the USA dedicated to exclusively those men & women who have been and are ICONS in the Music Industry, regardless their National Origin, gender and regardless the music genre'? Is there such a Library in existence, now?, which I am not aware about? MyMarue (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is the help desk for Wikipedia, it is for questions about how to use this website. We do take more general/random questions like this over at the reference desk and there are also other websites that have forums for discussions like this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Courtesy link: discussion on 1 November is archived at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 November 1#Red Links are All blue now. TSventon (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I asked for help with this problem before and nobody even believed me. I need genuine technical help. ALL links that should be red on all of wikipedia are blue. Every single one of them, with no exception whatsoever. This has been going on for over a week and I have not seen one single red-colored link in that time, but I have wasted a lot of time clicking on blue links that gave me the this-page-does-not-exist error message. I am NOT talking about redirects. I am NOT talking about links that display a name different from the article they link to. I am talking about links which have the word "redlink" in their url when I mouseover them, and display this error message when I click on them: "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for [Bitumenpicus minimus] in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. You need to log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed to create new articles. Alternatively, you can use the article wizard to submit a draft for review, or request a new article. Search for "Bitumenpicus minimus" in existing articles. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title. Other reasons this message may be displayed: If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes or try the purge function. Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title. If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?" Someone demanded that I list EVERY SINGLE link that looks like this to prove I wasn't lying. I compiled a very long list of links as examples, but I can't find the conversation now. Please, I need technical help, NOT people calling me a liar. This makes it extremely difficult to browse Wikipedia because I waste an enormous amount of time clicking on blue links that should be red. 98.240.217.220 (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Try quitting your browser and reopening it.

If that does not help, restart your device.

Whatever the outcome of each step, please come here afterwards and tell us. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

IP editor I have posted a link to your previous query at the top of this section. Were you able to follow the (somewhat technical) advice provided? TSventon (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your the link, TSventon. I had been unable to reach the page at all after my last post there, so I didn't see any further replies. I have an older browser and the advice about reprogramming the CSS programming language is beyond my comprehension, unfortunately. I don't even know what CSS is. Is there a way for me to stop using "Vector 2022"? 98.240.217.220 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are suggestions for turning off the new skin at Wikipedia:Vector 2022#Without an account. TSventon (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh wow that browser add-on fixed everything! Thank you TSventon! 2601:441:5000:13E0:7063:9715:54DE:9B3A (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

And simultaneously my IP address changed too (I was 98.240.217.220) 2601:441:5000:13E0:7063:9715:54DE:9B3A (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am happy to give most of the credit to the editors who did responded to the previous question. TSventon (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can also create an account (easy and free) and set the skin to Vector legacy (2010) at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Then you don't need a browser add-on. The blue links are a possible sign that you have an old browser which doesn't work with the way Vector 2022 makes red links. By the way, we only asked for one example. You then linked a page and said all links were blue there but we wanted a specific example to avoid possible misunderstandings. Then you posted many specific examples. We only needed one. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm new to Wikipedia. It's my first time reverting an IP address's edit for improperly or uncited material, and I want to know if I've done good. Please look at my last 3 edits apart from making this question. Size5football (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not seeing anything in your revert or your message on their talk page that is inappropriate. Welcome to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ad Orientem Thank you very much. May I ask what project this is? Size5football (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia. It's commonly referred to as the project by regulars. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thank you very much, @Ad Orientem. Have a good rest of your day. Size5football (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This was a bit long running question i had. I have seen sources and citations subsections under reference section. And sometimes references and sources in their own sections. like wise is there a hierarchy for these? like what comes under what section or is it random. (regarding references, citations, sources, notes, external links, see more, bibliography etc). is there a guideline concerning these? VihirLak007^hmu!/_duh. 23:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the Standard appendices and footers section of the Manual of Style addresses your question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have been working on editing a bunch of topics that simply do not cite sources, and some of those run into issues with notability.

is it possible to get an article approved that simply doesn’t cite sources, or how did those articles end up on this platform

—— Mangoflies (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mangoflies, no it isn't possible; but not all articles have needed to be approved. There is indeed a great amount of junk on Wikipedia (unreferenced articles, promotional articles, etc). How crappy articles have come to be varies a lot; you might look in the histories of those articles. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi User:Hoary

can you elaborate more on not all articles needing to be approved?

—— Mangoflies (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There haven't always been systems for checking candidate articles or new articles. -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

So you are saying back in the long ago articles didn’t need to be approved. Mangoflies (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Editors have always been, in principle, able to create articles without submitting them for review, and many articles have been added to Wikipedia in this manner over the years. Certain things like Wikipedia:Articles for creation have been set up over the years to help make things easier and try to maintain a certain standard, but they are more options than required. Less experienced editors and editors with a conflict of interest are encouraged to work on drafts first and then submit them for review, but such a thing isn't mandatory per se (except perhaps in the case of editors being paid to create articles). All articles are, however, subject to Wikipedia:Notability, and those that don't meet this standard can be tagged, proposed or nominated for Wikipedia:Deletion if their issues can't be fixed. There are over six million Wikipedia articles and more keep getting added; so, finding the bad ones can be hard, and a bad article can fly under the radar for years until something happens that makes it get noticed. It's highly unlikely that any reviewer would approve an article that has zero citations, but it is possible that the version you're currently seeing is not the same one that ended up being approved. Figuring this out often means you've got to be willing to dig through the page's history to see how the article developed over time. If it has been without citations since it was created, then perhaps see if you can find some yourself or add a maintenance template to it to let others know about it. If it seemed fine early on but got worse over time, then perhaps see if you can figure out how to get it back to the version that was OK. If you think the situation can't be fixed and you've done your due diligence, then perhaps deletion is warranted or at least a community discussion to determine as much is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What Marchjuly says, Mangoflies, pretty much. But as for "If [an article] seemed fine early on but got worse over time, then perhaps see if you can figure out how to get it back to the version that was OK": Figuring this out is not likely to be difficult. You can then revert to the latest version not to have been debased, simply by choosing to edit that version, ignoring the warning you get about editing an old version, and saving, with an informative edit summary. But this is not usually a good way to do it. It's likely that the added junk isn't so obviously junk, and it's also possible that benevolent editors have been tinkering with the poor versions while unaware of how much better the article had earlier been: these editors (and others) may notice your reduction of 10 kiB or whatever and misinterpret this as vandalism. Better, then, to announce and explain your plan on the article's talk page, and wait a couple of weeks for agreement (or lack of disagreement). Then make your edit, with a summary such as "Reverting to Apr 2018 version; see talk page for reasoning and discussion". -- Hoary (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mangoflies If you want to work on articles that are entirely uncited, you could use WP:PETSCAN to find articles in categories of interest to you and that have the template {{Unreferenced}} at the top (which places an article in the hidden category Category:Articles lacking sources or one of its sub-categories). There are currently about 125,000 totally unreferenced articles marked as such. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

How can i found my home screen 160.119.47.95 (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That depends on which browser you're using. If you mean in/of Wikipedia, I don't know what you mean by "home screen". (If you mean your user page, you won't have one unless/until you're logged in.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The home acreen is the screen you see upon starting up your device or browser, so you just start up your device or browser to see it. See home screen for more information. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm looking to get community discussion and approval for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#Updating Colorado 14ers per new measurements. I posted to the relevant wikiproject a few weeks ago, but it doesn't look to be too active. I could just edit the page in question myself, but there's a specific ask on the list page not to update elevations without alignment from editors; I'm looking to get that alignment. Any way I could advertise this discussion/flag for review? Thanks! KilimAnnejaro (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@KilimAnnejaro You have already highlighted your plan on the relevant project's Talk Page 8 days ago. After two weeks of WP:SILENCE, I think you should be WP:BOLD and start to make the changes to the list. Your proposed source looks reliable to me. Of course, if anyone reverts your additions, then further discussion on the Talk Page of the list itself will be needed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I really want to write a article on never quit by Jimmy Seattle about his time as a PJ or pararescue in the air force. I loved the book but I do not believe I have the skill yet to write this article. Hardwork 234 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hardwork 234 You are wise to develop your skills by adding to existing articles first but you can begin a draft at Draft:Jimmy Settle (author) as soon as you like. There is no hurry in submitting it for review. Note that you appear to have the wrong author name, judging by what I found on Amazon books. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Someone did these changes at Child psychopathology, I'm pretty sure it's just promotional editing and not actually a good contribution, but I also don't know anything about this topic or MEDRS and don't feel confident enough to revert it. – user usually at 2804:F14::/32, currently 143.208.239.58 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Checked it. As far as I'm aware, it was a good faith edit. If there are any issues you have with the article, you may put it up for discussion at the article's talk page, and perhaps members of WikiProject Medicine so that they're aware. If you think it really was vandalism, fine. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 19:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's vandalism, it's just all sourced to acespsychiatry.com (the other reference was already in the article, it's just that the link changed). Granted the acespsychiatry article does cite sources.

I'll just let it be, thanks for looking into it. *edit: Apparently I'm not going to let it be, I'm pretty sure the sources cited in the website aren't findable, if they exist at all, they are incredibly vague. – user usually at 2804:F14::/32, currently 143.208.239.58 (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC) *edited: 20:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have asked at WikiProject Medicine. – user usually at 2804:F14::/32, currently 143.208.239.58 (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

IP editor. I see that the edit has been reverted. The source is little more than a WP:BLOG and is a long way from being WP:MEDRS-compliant. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is only helpful when looking at the contributions of vandals, but usually the people I look at will not be vandals (such as myself) and it's annoying to constantly have to uncheck that box. interstatefive  21:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not clear what you mean by "Contributions page", but if you're talking about your Watchlist this is a setting at the bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. If that's not it, please provide a link. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Special:Contributions interstatefive  03:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, right. I see now that it uses the same preference I sent you for the Watchlist. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Sometimes when looking over edit requests (e.g. Category:Wikipedia_extended-confirmed-protected_edit_requests), I notice that the original request was never answered, and the Talk page section has since been archived. What is the best course of action here? OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This just came up on WT:ER. What I said there was When I patrolled I would either move out back to the talk page if I thought it would benefit from more attention, or just flip the switch on answered since there was clearly no consensus to implement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ScottishFinnishRadish I only searched the Edit Requests project page; didn't think to check the talk haha. Seems reasonable enough, just wanted to check it wasn't frowned upon - thank you! OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussions about edit requests are always all over the place, unfortunately. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

how do I create a Wikipedia page for myself? AnaturalhairstoreyLLC (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The short answer is you don't. Wikipedia is explicitly not social media and not a place to write about yourself

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi AnaturalhairstoreyLLC and welcome to Wikipedia. We strongly discourage creating or editing articles about one's self or any entity with which you have a close connection. This is considered a conflict of interest and promotional editing of any kind is not allowed. Additionally we do not allow accounts that represent a non human entity or that suggest they may be used by more than one person. Please see the welcome message I left on your talk page. You should consider requesting a new account name if you are a single person and do not intend to edit areas where you have a COI. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note I have soft blocked the OP due to their username. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

kind of a weird thing to do when they hadn't edited outside of this one post and username discussion template was dropped on their page less than five minutes earlier. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

How do I find an editior to help me with an article Queendstorey (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have a strong suspicion that this is just a sockpuppet of AnaturalhairstoreyLLC. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

They were soft blocked so they are explicitly allowed to make another account. With this level of accusations over all of two edits asking for help I wonder how any new users would even want to continue contributing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I am new to this and everyone keeps asking why I don't have an wikipedia page after being in the business as a National Bestseller, 12x Published Author and Signed Recording Singer/Songwriter but I tried to add one it was deleted stated personal. Is there anyone that can help fix this for me please.

Divon Delgado 2603:8081:3A00:A43C:11AF:56AC:784:364 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you've already gotten a thorough explanation and some good advice at User talk:Divon Delgado. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Divon Delgado, here is a "fun fact" for you: 99.9% of people who try to write a Wikipedia autobiography end up failing, wasting their own time and the time of the reviewers who are unpaid volunteers. Your attempt did not resemble a neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia article in any way. We expect excellence here. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As was explained to you earlier, Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself. If you meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then someone else may write an article about you, although you won't have any say as to what is actually in the article.

If you have any questions or need any clarification, feel free to ask here.  miranda :3  04:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Queendstorey, nobody wants to read your unreferenced elevator pitch here. The only thing that experienced Wikipedia editors care about in a discussion like this is the quality of the independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to you. Those sources must be entirely independent of you. That is the only thing to discuss here in this case. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

In a long discussion at Talk:Continued fraction, consensus was reached that

• Continued fraction should be moved to Simple continued fraction;
• Continued fraction (non-simple) can then be moved to Continued fraction.

We understand that this needs support by an admin so that no histories be lost. How to proceed? -- Dyspophyr (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Dyspophyr since the move is now non-controversial, you can add a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, and a page mover or admin will move the pages shortly. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. I have created a draft article titled 'Swindon Health Hydro'. I would like to rename it 'Swindon Health Hydro, also known as Milton Road Baths'. This is because many people in Swindon refer to the Health Hydro as 'Milton Road Baths' and that, for a time, was its official name. It seems that renaming an article, even in draft, is a problem.

2. The bigger problem relates to the existing article 'Swindon Victorian Turkish Baths'. My intention was to just cross-reference this article when creating the new article. It seems that this will not be permitted and that my article should be merged with this existing article. The existing article is focused on the Turkish Baths, which are just one element in a building complex that also includes two swimming pools and an extensive 'dry side' that once housed a comprehensive set of medical services. The Turkish Baths are Edwardian in origin (having been built in 1904-05), though Victorian in style. I wanted to make a start on creating an article on the whole building, its qualities as a building and its historic importance, particularly in relation to the founding of the NHS. There is no point doing this in an article entitled 'Swindon Victorian Turkish Baths', a term that means nothing to anyone in Swindon and wouldn't reflect the article's content. That title would create a barrier when it comes to others accessing, improving and expanding the article. I suspect that the authors of the existing article, who are focused on Turkish Baths, will not be happy with it being subsumed into a much broader article in which the Turkish Baths will play a relatively minor part. Without an appropriate title, my efforts would be wasted and this important building will not be recorded in Wikipedia.

3. There's a third issue. I have no material interest in the building and no connection to its owners (Swindon Borough Council) or its operators (Greenwich Leisure Ltd, trading as Better) other than being a resident of one and a customer of the other. I am the member of an informal campaigning group (Friends of Swindon Health Hydro) that want to see the building fully restored and fully utilised. It has been suggested that this might create some kind of conflict of interest. Of course I am interested in the building or I wouldn't be creating an article about it.

Overall, I want to create an article about the Swindon Health Hydro covering the entire building and its history from 1891 to the present day. With an appropriate title, so that others can find the article, read it, improve it and expand it. I would prefer to cross-reference the existing article, rather than merge with it. I suspect that, otherwise, I will get into a 'turf war' with that article's authors. I did change 'Victorian' to 'Victorian-style' within the article, only for the change to be immediately reversed.

Mydaemonthirst (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Courtesy link: Draft:Swindon Health Hydro. @Mydaemonthirst Please address the messages on your talk page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

how do I navigate to my Talk page? Mydaemonthirst (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

By clicking the (talk) link beside your username. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there a help desk for mathematical articles? I've written an article on Agnew's theorem and would like an experienced Wikipedia math editor to take a look at it and edit it if necessary. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, UnladenSwallow. I know little about advanced mathematics but I do know that an article referenced to just one source written by the person that the theorem is named after is an article with major problems. References to significant coverage in reliable sources fully independent of the topic are required. If this theorem goes all the way back to 1955, haven't other mathematicians discussed it since then? Cullen328 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your feedback, Cullen328. I actually found out about the theorem via a discussion on MathOverflow, so it is certainly being discussed by mathematicians. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Ianmacm. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@UnladenSwallow: See also WP:WikiProject Mathematics and its talk page, where you can talk to other editors active in the topic area. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Pigsonthewing. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

UnladenSwallow, when the definition of "Agnew permutation" says "union of at most K intervals", does it mean "union of finitely many intervals"? Maproom (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maproom, no. There must be a specific natural number K, such that, no matter what n you choose, the image of interval ${\displaystyle [1,\,n]}$  under the permutation is a union of at most K intervals. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

How do I like to pages like Piglet’s Big Game properly? Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 09:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is it the article Piglet's Big Game? If you want to link to it, you need to use a straight, not curly apostrophe; see MOS:APOSTROPHE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added an organization infobox to article Nexus Project and have some questions re the parameters board_of_directors, key_people and main_organ. In the case of the Nexus Project, the main organ is the Nexus Project Board. Is there a way to state this and to list the members of the Nexus Project Board, making clear that they are the members of the Nexus Project Board? For now, I've just listed them using key_people.

I'm wondering whether there is a way of achieving a similar flexibility to that provided by parameters leader_title etc. That series of parameters allows one to specify the name of the role.

Parameter board_of_directors, OTOH, doesn't appear to allow that kind of flexibility.

Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Misha Wolf: {{Infobox organization}} has five customizable leader titles. Nexus Project only uses the first. You can just use leader_title2 and place multiple people in leader_name2. This search has examples. Some of them don't even use it for people but aircraft. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @PrimeHunter, I don't need leaders with various titles. I need to be able to place the title of a body, such as "Project Board", in the infobox, and then list the members of that body. I was citing leader_title as an example of a parameter which has a default value ("Leader"), which can be overridden, which does not appear to be possible with, say, board_of_directors. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi again @PrimeHunter, I see from the examples retrieved by the search you provided that some others are using the leader_title etc fields to represent bodies, with multiple members, which is also my use case. So I'll adopt that approach. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's exactly what I meant. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

👍 Misha Wolf (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not an expert on infoboxes, but doesn't 'organ' mean the organisation's (main) periodical publication? I have never encountered it being used to refer to a board of people. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.7.95.48 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @94.7.95.48, Template:Infobox organization says:

main_organ = ' Misha Wolf (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oops! I'll try it another way:

main_organ = < !-- or |publication = -->< !-- organization's principal body (assembly, committee, board, etc.) or publication --> Misha Wolf (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Misha Wolf, try {{para}} or mw:Extension:SyntaxHighlight. Folly Mox (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @Folly Mox. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Today I proposed deletion of Ben McKay (actor) per WP:PROD. At the time I had not realised that a previous AfD had concluded on 2007-04-08 that the article should be deleted. (The current article was created on 2011-05-01, so I guess it was deleted in 2007 and then re-created in 2011.)

I then discovered that the article was in Category:Proposed deletions needing attention which distressed me, and on re-reading WP:PROD it seems that the article may not be eligible for PROD having previously been subject to an AfD discussion. Should I revert my PROD and submit to AfD instead? Or revert my PROD and submit for deletion under WP:SPEEDY criteria G4 instead? Or just let the PROD stand? I am quite new to editing, so would be grateful for advice from more seasoned editors. I certainly don't want to circumvent due process and discussion, but fundamentally I do not think that the subject of the article is notable; at least, I have been unable to find decent sources to support it. SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is not your fault, notice of the previous deletion should have been posted on the talk page when it was re-created. The person doing so would have seen a notice and should have taken action. That being said, it is true that it is no longer eligible for PROD and will need to go through AFD. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Just Step Sideways, many thanks for your help! I will keep a weather eye on the AfD discussion. SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

How do you file a complaint about content? One page looks like someone tried making several changes over a few days then there appears to be 30 or more brute force changes from random numbers only URL. Blkvette94 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Blkvette94, usually we tell people to be bold and fix things themselves. What's the article? -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

i recently saw in List of international schools in Sri Lanka a school was removed for not being notable. Does notability that strict for contents inside lists? Was it removed because it doesn't have a separate Wiki article to itself? VihirLak007^hmu!/_duh. 21:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

VihirLak007, applicable guidance is at WP:NLIST. Folly Mox (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Folly Mox: That section is about the notability of lists themselves. Did you mean WP:LSC? jlwoodwa (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jlwoodwa, sorry, yes, I always get those two mixed up. Apologies also to VihirLak007 for the faulty link target. Folly Mox (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi guys. I'm new to Wikipedia but I really want to be an editor. I search famous people that dont yet have a page and would love to make an article on them, at least a draft, and then add stuff accordingly. Can I do that? I've heard there are moderators on the platform that do not allow new people to create new articles, flagging it as promotional. Please help and give me a roadmap as to how I can start doing this since I actually want to be an renowned profile on this platform! xx

Any help would be appreciated! Noobx9000 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note that "fame" is not the same thing as notability- such as notable musicians or notable politicians.

You may use the Article Wizard to create a draft, but it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles first, as creating a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. I would also suggest using the new user tutorial and reading Your first article. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the help, will surely look at the links you've provided. One question here - if a person is notable yet doesn't have a Wikipedia yet, could it be made (easily)?

I just dont want to create an article and get it deleted straight away because I am just trying. Noobx9000 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The nice thing about the draft space is that you can work on a draft with a little more ability to work, rather than if you directly created an article. It will be treated as a draft or work in progress. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Noobx9000: What you've heard is somewhat inaccurate. Wikipedia doesn't have moderators – it has administrators who carry out community consensus. Wholly-promotional articles are often speedily deleted under criteria WP:G11 or WP:A7, or deleted after a discussion at Articles for Deletion. This is because the Wikipedia community has long held that Wikipedia is not for promotion. If you want to write an article that isn't deleted, you should make sure that it verifiably demonstrates the notability of its subject, and is written in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. The article will be judged on its own merit, not by how long you've been an editor. However, new editors often find it difficult to write articles that meet Wikipedia's standards until they've spent some time working on existing articles. So if your article is deleted, please don't be discouraged – there are many other ways to contribute to Wikipedia, and you can come back to article creation later with the benefit of experience. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reference help requested. I am a complete noob to all of this, can someone please explain how to do this properly? Thank you in advance! Thanks, Flashoftruth (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Flashoftruth, please see my edit. (Incidentally, the reason why access is dated 12 November is that I forgot to use UTC.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Flashoftruth (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the Timeless skin, I'd like to widen the content/ editing window. As a matter of fact, I'm trying to do this at Wikisource, but the wiki shouldn't matter.

•  
  It currently looks like this.
•  
  I'd like it with the side bars compressed and the main area wider.

Is that possible? Cheers, Cremastra (u — c) 23:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Cremastra: This reduces the left pane for me at Wikisource:

#mw-site-navigation {width:9em !important;}
#mw-related-navigation {width:9em !important;}
#mw-content-wrapper {width:106% !important;}

I don't have a right pane at all. Those things are further down in the left pane for me. Do you still have a right pane at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page?safemode=1, or if you log out and view https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page?useskin=timeless? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PrimeHunter Thanks, but that code didn't seem to change anything. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think the right panel thing is due to screen size; Timeless is supposed to be more responsive. I'm on a 13-inch laptop, but if I narrow my browser width a bit, the right panel disappears.

I was able to shrink the side panel sizes by selecting the .sidebar-chunk class. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 01:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

what is my best choice for a head set to plug int a radio/cd player? HOPING TO ORDER IT RIGHT AWAY FOR TOMORROW AEEIVAL SterlingHI55 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

SterlingHI55, the Help Desk is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. We do not recommend electronics. Cullen328 (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added a logo to the organization infobox of article Nexus Project and it doesn't look quite right:

• It's right-aligned rather than centred.
• It contains two small overlapping rectangles.
• It's enclosed in two boxes.

How do I fix these problems?

Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @PrimeHunter, I see that you've fixed it ... thanks!! Misha Wolf (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Misha Wolf: Yes, the logo parameter only wants the file name.[1] Many infoboxes add their own image code to image parameters. It's not stated explicitly at Template:Infobox organization but it's hinted by the context of {{{logo}}} in the displayed infobox at Template:Infobox organization#Full syntax. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

👍 Misha Wolf (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you please help me set up 1CA on my talk page. Braxton7248 (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Have you tried following the instructions at WP:1CA? TSventon (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply