[Portal] Help desk

The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • For other types of questions, see Help:Contents and Are you in the right place?. 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.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
  • If you need real-time help, you can join our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
  • If you are a new editor, you might prefer to ask your question at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.

March 16

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Reference number 21 is still in red and I cannot fix it - especially not on tis mobile device. Please fix it up if you can and thanks (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two ISBNs listed. Which is the correct one? Does the "undo" button work on your device? RudolfRed (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done, I removed the short-form ISBN and kept the long one. Only one can be used in the cite template. MB 02:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the third time in the last 2 weeks that this user has asked about the double ISBN problem..... Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
And has had the same problem several times in the further past. We have come to accept that this user (who is easily recognisable by subject matter and writing style whether logged in or not) finds it very difficult to grapple with anything connected to coding, as well as being limited by available devices, but makes sufficiently valuable and extensive contributions to a range of articles that it's easier to just sort out the problems. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Obchod na Korze/The Shop on Main Street

The Wikipedia page about this Oscar-winning film from Czechoslovakia ends with a sentence about the final scene in the film, which it describes as a dream sequence showing the widow Lautmann and her deceased husband dancing in their wedding clothes. I think that careful examination of the scene will show you that the man with whom the widow dances is not her deceased husband, but the decent carpenter who hangs himself after reaizing he has accidentally killed the widow Lautmann while trying to hide her from the militia who are rounding up the town's Jews for transport to camps. Keep in mind that the widow had earlier given the man some of her deceased husband's clothes, most notably the bowler hat we see in the dream sequence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CD90:9720:8D0F:254E:2348:C139 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. However, you will need to provide a reference to a reliable source (WP:RS) that agrees with you, because otherwise this is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. of course, the same may apply to what is in the article now, which is why you need to discuss it. -Arch dude (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You are missing a line item, The USS John E. Kilmer DDG-134 will be named for a U.S. Navy Hospitalman who won the MOH, but was killed in Korea.

You are missing a line item, The USS John E. Kilmer DDG-134 will be named for a U.S. Navy Hospitalman who won the MOH, but was killed in Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C02:8AAB:997A:BFA2:7972:186C (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If this is about one of the articles here, please let us know which one. RudolfRed (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I added it to the John E. Kilmer article, linking to USS John E. Kilmer (DDG-134). It you enjoy finding stuff we should add to Wikipedia, that's great. If you want to help further, please consider learning how to edit Wikipedia yourself. -Arch dude (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

New page preview system

Not sure if this is the right place, please move this post to the right place if this is not it.

I love the relatively new page preview system because it can greatly reduce the "rabbit hole" effect of wikipedia where you want to look up one thing but the description has other terms you need to look up and so on until you get side tracked so much 2 hours later you are looking at a nearly unrelated article.

But sadly the preview text is very often not helpful and gives so little relevant information that you need to click on the link after all and it's nearly the same as without the preview system. E.g. for movies, games, etc., the preview is usually 80% "meta information" like year of release / country of origin, platform the game was released for / genre, etc. but usually if there even is information about the content of a work of fiction it's actually cut off at the end the of the preview.

For other articles like e.g. physics articles the preview text is usually similarly just the introduction of the article before the actual summary of it or only half or less of the summary.

As mentioned, this means the page preview function is usually not very useful when it has enough space for a short but explanatory summary. I don't know how feasible it is to edit these page previews to give a good amount of information with the limited text available but at the moment the feature is sadly very often rather pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:49B4:9300:99F0:5EE2:D621:4F4B (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If you WP:REGISTER an account, you get access to the "Navigation Popups" gadget, which allows some control over the length of the initial preview, as well as providing a "more" link that lets you retrieve more of the article. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The preview is taken automatically from the start of the page. We don't write pages with the preview in mind. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is the guideline for leads. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I cross-posted the feedback at mw:Talk:Page Previews. I believe it genuinely help to have the developers have the user feedback, even if they decide against it (which is probable since there are tons of high-priority projects for few developers). TigraanClick here to contact me 14:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Science article introductions / summaries are too complicated and use too many terms you have to look up as well

Many science related articles (especially physics) lack any really helpful introductions / summaries for laymen. As the majority of wikipedia users do not have much knowledge of science and come here to find out what a scientific term means, introductions / summaries that go into a lot of detail and are written for people that know the subject matter and are just looking for detailed explanation are not very helpful for most wikipedia users.

It's good that the main body of an article is very detailed and precise but the introduction / summary should not be like because it's a very important explanation for the people who do not know the subject. The articles are not going to suffer any real degradation in quality or precision either from the introduction / summary being simplified for laymen since for those who care about details and precision there is the main body, the other 95% of the article.

The main issue is that most of these summaries use scientific terms and so you are forced to look these up only to find more articles with summaries using other scientific terms and so the rabbit hole never ends.

I feel like this goes against the main purpose of wikipedia, being an encyclopedia for everyone and instead these articles are textbooks for students of these subjects and useless for everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:49B4:9300:99F0:5EE2:D621:4F4B (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If you don't want to take on the task of clarifying them, we have maintenance templates such as {{Technical}} and {{Context}} that you can add to the article, or add a section to the article's own talk page to discuss specific concerns with other editors that may be interested and knowledgeable in the particular field. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
You might find the Simple English Wikipedia more suited to your needs.--Shantavira|feed me 08:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
People who "come here to find out what a scientific term means" might do better at Wiktionary. Maproom (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
You are basically correct: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead section is supposed to be "accessible". However, it is also supposed to be concise, to indicate why the subject is notable, and to mention the main points of the article, all without being too technical. This set of requirements is basically impossible to meet for some subjects. Some of our science articles have companion "overview" articles in an attempt to address your concerns. If you have the time, please try to improve our articles, or at least make comments in the articles talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
As an example, consider second law of thermodynamics (arguably the most important topic about thermodynamics, or at least in the top 3). I doubt someone without former knowledge of thermodynamics can make heads or tails of the first two paragraphs. Yet, they are probably as simple as they can be while still being entirely accurate. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I made a lead section of a physics article clearer for the layperson, but it got reverted, so I gave up. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I came across an article called Sexual Script theory by mistake. It is not a scientific article I think except in a very vague sense of the word "science." However it is equally impenetrable. I put a note on the talk page asking for clarification some time ago. Others have done the same. Although there have been some technical edits since then nothing has been altered to make it more readable. I looked it up on the Simple English Wikipedia as suggested above but it is absent. What I did find on that site was a statement that it was designed for those learning English. This is not what is required at all. I and the originator of this strand, I think, are native English speakers of reasonable intelligence who require technical subjects of which we know little explained to us. I was a professional lawyer and considered it was part of my job to explain technical legal concepts to others (clients and Magistrates.) I think some scientists and social scientists should be able to do the same. I am therefore disappointed at the reaction Clarityfiend received when he tried to change something. I will try to do something similar to the article I mentioned when I have the opportunity (with anti-Covid 19 measures beginning to bite that may be soon)Spinney Hill (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. In the world of traditional publishing, it is very easy for the author to be self-focused on their own work ("look at me, the author, and what I know") and so a major task of the traditional editor is to have a focus of the intended readership ("you, the reader, will relate to this because..."). But here on Wikipedia, although we are technically referred to as "editors", all too often we write with an authorial self-focus rather than with editorial reader-focus. So articles often end up as a "brain dump of me" rather than as "here is your journey". Alas, I don't think there are any general, quick-fix easy answers. As others have said, you can take it to an article's talk page (although in my limited experience, this often only leads to a dark void). Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Many talkpages don't have a lot of watchers. It can help if you at the same time put a "I have started a discussion about X at Y" message on related wikiprojects and noticeboards. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, all I can say is "the original poster is right and it sucks", but I am not sure we can do much about it (apart from reminding people what the guidelines are). The problem is simply that there are not enough editors in niche topics. The "flagship articles" usually are decent but the more specific articles will have few editors because there are few people who have the knowledge necessary to write the bulk of the article. I do think physics is a hard-hit area in that respect but it is probably because I read more niche physics articles more than (say) niche history articles.
Note that I include myself in that criticism (I think the lead of our article electric field is worse now than at the time of my last edit but both versions must be utterly impenetrable to someone without a bachelor's education in sciences). The thing is, correcting mistakes is higher-priority than making articles readable, and (stereotype warning) us physicists are more interested in the former than in the latter anyway. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
How about this version of the lead? It was almost entirely just a copy/paste re-arrangement of sentences (and occasional phrases) with minimal re-wording to hold it together as English. I also separated different subtopics into different paragraphs. The aim was to bring the outsider into the subject. (I'm not convinced that the "SI units" info needs to be in the lead at all, but I left it there for the moment to keep my changes restricted to the lead.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


How much does U.S. Gov. Stand to save, if the corona virus attacks elderly and people with underlying health issues? (Considering u.s. had an outbreak like other countries) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This page is for help with editing Wikipedia. I suggest you read Financial impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.--Shantavira|feed me 14:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Special:Content Translation

Translators do not work. --Вадзім Медзяноўскі (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no special page by that name. See WP:TRANSLATE for translating pages. Machine translations are not allowed on this Wikipedia RudolfRed (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Вадзім Медзяноўскі, if you are referring to the links with names of non-English languages that are typically listed on the left of an English Wikipedia (EW) Article (or other) page under the heading 'Languages', these do not create or (usually) link to direct translations of that page; instead they link to articles on the same subject in the independent Wikipedias of those other languages. The links have to be manually created, so there may well be many non-English Wikipedia (NEW) articles that could be linked, but are not linked yet.
Such non-English articles are usually not direct translations of the EW article – some may have started out that way, but after creation they will have been further modified by that Wikipedia's editors.
The same applies to EW articles that were originally translated from articles in NEWs. All such articles are/were translated by human volunteers (see Wikipedia:Translation): there is no Wikipedia automated function to make translations, and we do not accept direct machine translations because the technology available to date is not adequately accurate (see Wikipedia:Translation#Avoid machine translations). (Human translators may start with a machine translation, but will need to carry out extensive further work on it.)
I hope this was helpful, since your query was too terse to understand reliably. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 17

Article for deletion

I'm a bit confused about this article: Genie_(programming_language)

It had an original Article for Deletion, which was relisted to generate more comments, but whose result was Delete back on 27 July 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genie_(programming_language)

And then a second nomination, which seems like one that was trying to make a point, but was unrelated to the first nomination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genie_(programming_language)_(2nd_nomination)

How come the first nomination didn't result in a deletion? What should happen now (I have searched and can't find any new information on the topic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterl (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to read the AFD again. It did result in a deletion, but it was 27 July 2009, not 2019. A new version of the article was created later that year. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh I see! Thanks for your help. peterl (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Are examples of use acceptable sources to demonstrate that something is used a lot?

Tried to fit this question into the constraints of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but it didn't seem to belong, so I've brought it here. Sorry if that's wrong. A few times lately I've seen claims made in articles that a particular word or expression is frequently or commonly used to describe something, and the sourcing for it is several examples of it being used. This doesn't seem right to me. The most recent case in point is 2019–20 Australian bushfire season, where an editor has written "The term black summer has become a common term for the 2019–20 bushfire season". The sourcing for that claim is three separate examples of it being used that way. An ideal source, to me, would be one that actually says pretty what I put in quotes there. Three examples doesn't prove something is a common term. So, are examples good enough to be sources in situations like this. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's not appropriate to use examples of a term to verify that it is commonly used. This practice could qualify as original research if no source explicitly says the term is "common". However, the examples might serve as suitable verification for a sentence along the lines of Some newspapers have employed the term black summer to describe the 2019–20 bushfire season, subject to the due weight policy, which could serve as a suitable compromise. – Teratix ₵ 07:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States will not accept navbox

Do you know why article 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States will not accept {{2019–20 coronavirus pandemic}} at the bottom of the page? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Jax 0677, see WP:PEIS. Looks like the page has too many citations/is too big and is increasing the template size too much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Seems like Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/United_States_medical_cases is the main problem, accounting for half the references in the page and of the limit. I think the daily references would need to be axed since it is not sustainable (or at least substed). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jax 0677: See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Page-size data. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Quarantine the Coronavirus

Majority of companies in the world are locking down to certain extent to work from homes even providing leaves due to new COVID-19 (coronavirus) in order to reduce the impact of spreading the new coronavirus. thus in order to reduce the impact of covid-19 countries need to impose policies to lockdown for certain time to mitigate the effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What was your question? JIP | Talk 08:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a help desk for editing Wikipedia, not for general questions/observations. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


I need assistance in creating an acceptable biography for Wikipedia, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENNEDYMBA (talk • contribs) 09:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What assistance do you need? -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Try Help:Your first article and WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@KENNEDYMBA:But first, know that Wikipedia wants to have an article on every notable subject, but we delete any article on a subject that is not notable. Really. We delete about 200 articles per day. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY if applicable, WP:AMOUNT, and Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) before you start on your article, to save yourself (and us) from unnecessary effort. Don't get discouraged: if your subject is indeed notable, we will welcome your contribution. -Arch dude (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Long term storage of personal favorite searches

I don't see the as an clickable option anywhere in your tools/or access pages. I would like to store my favorite author searches by some means. If you don't have that ability within Wikipedia should I just create a google sheet for this?

Thanks John Sherman Nashville TN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shermanjohn (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Shermanjohn: Nothing in Wikipedia that I am aware of. You could bookmark it in your browser. RudolfRed (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Lützow's Wild Hunt

This article should be split in two. Queryzo (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Reporting Spam

Hey Guys

There is a user that owns ecosecretariat.org/ that has built an affiliate marketing/make money online blog and has a TON (hundreds) of backlinks from Wikipedia on Pakistan, the middle east etc - 100% NON-relevant for his website now.

I'm guessing he aquired the domain once it expired, and re-built it to take advantage of the backlinks from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlenney (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jlenney: Not exactly a ton (25 occurrences). I'm investigating. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done @Jlenney: I recovered and correctly marked the cites and ELs in 24 articles as usurped. Only one was unrecoverable (at Gyorgy Busztin), which I marked dead. I also reported it at Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests#ECOSecretariat.org usurped. Where did you see "hundreds" of links? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 18

Google search issue

Hello, While searching "Asp.Net core", on Google search stable release shows 34 days ago, while in actual Wikipedia page of " Asp.net core" shows 2 months.i thinks 34 days is logically not correct, please check and verify ,let me know.

Thanks and regards, sanjeev — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:9190:8416:E826:DFC2:F5A8:DF12 (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The information on the Wikipedia page appears to be sourced and therefore we would hold it to be correct. If Google displays something else, we have no control over that. Google often displays information in such a way that impies it comes from Wikipedia even though they compile data from multiple locations. Please link to any pages where you need help and (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with a long-term purpose; it's not meant to be an up-to-the-second-accurate resource. Things like software releases are updated whenever volunteer editors get around to it. See WP:RELEASENOTES. If you want to know what the current release of ASP.NET Core is, the relevant Microsoft website would be the place to look. If the article is wrong or out of date, you can also leave a note at )]— 11:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
ASP.NET Core was last edited 18 February 2020. The time ago is updated automatically in the article and at the time it would have said: "Stable release 3.1.1 / 15 January 2020; 34 days ago". Google monitors our recent changes and cached the article at the time. They say exactly the same now in their data box so they probably did get it from Wikipedia but a month ago. We don't control Google. We could maybe get them to update their data by making an unrelated edit to the article but we don't do that to influence external sites. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi, I created a page which had some issues and has been moved to draft. I edited them but now it looks like no one reviews it (it's been three days) and I cannot see any way to request a review.What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effat.assar (talk • contribs) 09:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Effat.assar I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for review. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Effat.assar: You deleted the "Resubmit" button when in this edit you removed the lines saying "-- Do not remove this line! --". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Why am I getting this error?

Hello, I just got a reply that I am not blocked, from administrator --jpgordon. I just want to upload few more images, but I am getting this messgae now and I don't know why: We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. Can you help me? thank you Kcotic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcotic (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kcotic: On User talk:Kcotic you mentioned a cross-wiki message which happens when you try to start a Commons upload at another wiki like the Slovenian or English Wikipedia. Try commons:Special:UploadWizard instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


Hello there!

The whole community of Wikipedia has recently caught my attention. After reading about what people like you, reading this do I created an account and I just want to know how to do what you people here do (answser different questions from people like me), since I have a lot of free time I ought to make my self useful. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for offering to help. Most of us who answer questions on the help desk have been Wikipedians for a long time and we have a lot of experience, and we still make the occasional mistake. If you see a question and you think you know the answer, you answer the question by just editing the section the question is in. As a newbie, you should try very hard to make sure your answer is correct (as an experienced editor, I should also try very hard, of course.) In pursuit of this, I very strongly recommend that you check your answer against our various policies and guidelines, and then link to them in your answer. Also, always make sure you are logged into your account, and start your answer with a notifier to the questioner, like this: {{re|questionersusername}} and end your response with four tildes, line this: ~~~~, which will put your username and time at the end of the message. Arch dude (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Most new users who need to kill some time will start by doing simple edits to improve articles, but this is your choice to make. We each do whatever we want to, with at most very loose coordination. If you like to answer questions, you might wish to take a look at the reference desks (WP:RD), where your relative lack of Wikipedia experience will be less of a problem and you can become productive immediately. -Arch dude (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm having trouble submitting my sandbox entry

Hi, I'm Stephanie, and I make several edits to a few articles in my sandbox. I'm having trouble submitting my changes because the system says that there's an error. I'm not sure what to change to help it submit. Can you help me? Stephanie.merrick.wright (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Stephanie.merrick.wright. I'm afraid I'm not clear what you are trying to do. I can't see any evidence that you have tried to submit your sandbox for review - but there would be no point in doing so at present, because it does not resemble a Wikipedia article. Please explain what you want to do with it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit of Peppa Pig Episodes

Hello there,

I have a question for Rmosler2100, who reverted my edit of the first few episodes of Season 1 of Peppa Pig because it was not "constructive". I don't understand why he did this.0 Someone had changed the first few episode titles to irrelevant ones (including one, Vader's Biggie, that seemed salacious). All I did was change them back to their correct titles. I would appreciate a reply at some point. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, and keep it up. Your edits were in the middle of a series of disruptive edits by a vandal, and a patroller used a semi-automated tool to "roll back" all of the edits to the point before any of the vandalism had occurred. Your edits were caught in the crossfire, and all of the IP addresses if any edit in the group got that automated message. In the future, you can check for this sort of thing by looking at the page history of the article in question. -Arch dude (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Arch dude: - Not quite true. User:Rmosler2100 reverted just the edit from Having seen this question here I subsequently reverted the vandalism by If the OP wants to talk to Rmosler2100 they can do so by starting a new section at User talk:Rmosler2100. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

my first article

I've recently purchased a book and would like to write a wiki page on it. It's called City Spies and it was written by James Ponti. I feel like it's notable enough. It was published about a week ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikew42007 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Check out WP:Your first article for a guide about starting articles, there's a lot of good information there. For this topic, the first thing to do would be to see if the book is notable, meaning there's enough coverage from reliable sources to be able to fill out an article. — Aᴋʀᴀʙʙıᴍ talk 18:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Mikew42007: Additionally, read WP:COI regarding working on an article subject that you are connected to. RudolfRed (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something - I'm not sure how buying a book gives someone a COI? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Children in Brinnington area of stockport

Hello, We have just heard that schools will close from Friday due to the Virus, In BRINNINGTON we have a lot of children of all ages. Are children allowed to play out? Anyone who knows this area will now that children run wild normally & with the elderly in our area it could cause problems with them being bored & nothing to do all day & being on the streets. Will Brinnington be policed & the rules enforced for staying off the streets so the Virus does not spread. Can this question be asked. I’m sure other area’s have similar issues. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the help desk for questions related to Wikipedia. For your questions, you would need to speak to your local council or check the Government advice on the matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Linking 'contents' to sections

I for the life of me can't figure out how to link the contents to the sections in my page. Please advise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckalkazian (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If you format your section headers correctly, using
== Section name ==
instead of
'''Section name'''
you don't need to – the contents section gets created and linked automatically. Maproom (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Should articles about current events be written in the present or past tense, and when should it be changed to present tense?

For example, the COVID-19 crisis is happening as of right now, and each section of its page switches between both tenses. SO which tense should information about current events be written in, and when should it be changed to past tense?

Aykay55 (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Aykay55: Normally present tense is used. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Verb_tense for when past tense is appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to switch out an image on Wally West for one that the page used to have, as i found the previous one to be much cooler.

Okay, so occasionally I edit the page for Wally West, as he's my favorite superhero and i know all about him and stuff. A while ago his Wikipedia page had it's main picture switched out with another one, but the previous picture was way cooler, at least in my opinion. But I don't know how to find and add back that picture.

The picture looks like this;


There's another picture farther down the page that's very similar, but it's all cropped and squished into being thinner and stuff. It wasn't always like that, and I'm not sure why they did that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The main problem here is copyright. Basically all images you find on the Internet are copyrighted, and we can only use copyrighted images if the copyright owner provides an acceptable license, or under the "fair use" doctrine. All of the images in that article are copyrighted. None of them has a an acceptable license, so each of them is used under the "fair use" doctrine. We have a very restrictive policy on use of fair use images, and one of our rules is that the image must be used at the lowest resolution that will still convey the sense of the image. There are too many fair use images in that article already. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. -Arch dude (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

March 19

The first paragraph of Unite the Right Rally needs correction

I am confused as to how to get this corrected. The first paragraph of Unite the Right Rally is lacking in the full scope of truth and is very slanted implying unjustly that all people attending the rally were... "Protesters were members of the far-right and included self-identified members of the alt-right,[11] neo-Confederates,[12] neo-fascists,[13] white nationalists,[14] neo-Nazis,[15] Klansmen,[16] and various right-wing militias.[17] The marchers chanted racist and antisemitic slogans, carried weapons, Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols, the Valknut, Confederate battle flags, Deus Vult crosses, flags and other symbols of various past and present anti-Muslim and antisemitic groups."

Well a rally is defined as: "a mass meeting of people making a political protest or showing support for a cause." Source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=rally%20definition&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=rally%20definition&sc=8-16&sk=&cvid=59D10D67E53C4E24A53E720538A745E7

To read the first paragraph of Wikipedia's "Unite the Right Rally" one is given the impression that the character of the marchers represented the character of all in attendance at the rally. The rally was not just the marchers, the rally by definition is everybody in attendance or all who were attracted to the rally. There were thousands of people and I would even say most of the people in attendance were there solely for protecting history, their heritage and the historical monuments. These were not there for racism, antisemitism or any other non-humanitarian or un-American purpose and they were the majority. Trump was correct when he said there were a lot of good people on both sides. We need to be careful to be accurate on this issue. These remarks by Trump have been used by the left to call him racist and this false narrative has been pushed by the liberal media and the opponent political party ever since. False information which is being fed to the citizens of the US for political purposes. This article needs to be cleaned up. It is full of false narratives, and contributes to the misinformation propaganda of the left. I hope someone can please help me correct this unjust portrayal of ordinary southern American citizens as racist, white supremacists, neo-nazis and all the other negative character which Wikipedia has assigned to us. Wayne L. Hester — Preceding unsigned comment added by WLHESTER (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to discuss this at the article Talk page with fellow editors. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 00:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Sukhnam Gill wikipedia

Sukhnam singh famous for painting and singing. he is full with talent.he is very kind.his age is 17 years old

Extended content

Sukhnam singh Gill

Born Sukhnam singh gill

23 November 2003(age 17) punjab , India

Alma mater bhai dan singh Occupation Singer Painter lyric Years active 2003–present Works

personal painting Net worth ₹ 10000 (2020) Spouse(s) badhni kalan

Children 0 Awards no amy Honours local reward

Signature sukhnam Gill [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhnam Singh Gill (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sukhnam Singh Gill: If you want to create a new article, read WP:AUTO and WP:YFA. Autobiographies strongly discouraged. RudolfRed (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This page was last updated at 2021-03-24 16:24, update this pageView original page

All information on this site, including but not limited to text, pictures, etc., are reproduced on Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), following the . Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License