Help desk
< July 5	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 6

use of multiple sandboxes in my account

I received this notice from JBW. "Why do you have three copies of an article in userspace pages? JBW (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

Is there some restriction regarding the number of sandboxes I can use in the userspace? I replied to JBW and explained why all three were not copies. I got no reply after 2 days.

I used the userpage sandbox as a backup at the point of organized with photos, references, and text formated 90%-complete-article, sandbox/2 as a last minute backup of the 100%-completed-article, I used sandbox/3 as a copy of the complete article just before publishing the completed article into namespace.

I don't see why anyone needs to know why I am using a tried an true method for me. MikeMARS52

MikeMARS52 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While everything on Wikipedia is public, sandboxes are for you to do nearly anything you want, so I don't see a problem here at all and don't know why @JBW: felt the need to inquire about it, but maybe they were just curious. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MikeMARS52, there's no need to save alternate versions of the same article as separate pages during your work. Any changes you make are saved as a separate revision each time you tap "Publish", so you can retrieve any version you like if you want to undo some changes. Folly Mox (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See more at Help:Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeMARS52: We all have our own ways of doing things. Regardless of the helpful information from @Folly Mox and @PrimeHunter, if you have a method which works for you and results in a good improvement to an article, then stick to it. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on my first article

ZenSunflower (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to request feedback on my first wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZenSunflower/sandbox1 ZenSunflower (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brief feedback: precisely zero possibility of it being accepted in article space. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and the section entitled 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion' in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really your first article. For about two years now, you have done nothing but attempt to advertise this person, their place of worship/teaching, their beliefs, etc. This was blatant advertisement, as usual, and has been deleted as such. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This single purpose spam account hasn't responded to a COI request either, so I've indeffed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems REALLY biased - think it should be reviewed

United States Department of Justice 71.114.36.29 (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can usefully explain why you think it is biased, I suggest you start a thread on the article talk page: but read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view carefully first. 'Bias' can only really be measured in comparison to something else, and we are fairly specific as to what we use for comparison... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are inline blocks allowed in signatures?

According to signature guidelines, it seems that CSS block elements are not allowed in signatures, but are inline-blocks allowed in signatures? I used them in case the rainbow gradient did not work. RainbowLover334148 ¦ speak up 03:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RainbowLover334148, your rainbow gradient using the css background-image property works for me, although as a Dark Mode editor I don't think I'd characterise it as the consensus rainbow. Does it not display in your browser? Folly Mox (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Folly Mox, it does work in my browser, as it is clearly up to date. Consensus rainbow? The problem is, I want to keep it as an strictly accurate transcluent hue gradient. I don't want to make it opaque otherwise some parts of the username will dip in legibility. I could change the text color, but I cannot find a fitting tone for the text, as the background is rainbow. If I leave the color blank, it will be blue as if it was a link, ergo making it too illegible. I don't know any class names to make it match the body text color. I didn't even think about dark mode in the first place when making the signature. Anyways. RainbowLover334148 ¦ speak up 03:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you enable the Dark mode toggle and the "Core styling for dark mode gadget" at the bottom of the same page, you can experience the gradient as something other than what we would typically call a rainbow (there's a useful legend to how the colours map in the community dark mode gadget at {{Text color templates see also}}). The WMF dark mode available from Special:MobileOptions just dims the colours, so your signature <span> looks like a standard rainbow gradient.

Your username texts renders in white for me with the dark mode gadget, and in black with the new official dark mode, where there is a dip in legibility around substring r3. I'm no longer competent enough with CSS to be of further technical assistance. Folly Mox (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Folly Mox How about we move on into classes that are bundled with MediaWiki, for example the ones that start with mw-, or it could have a completely different format. Not sure if I could use mw-body, I feel like it might contain undesirable traits not for inline signatures. It's not that gruesome, maybe browse through some styling-related pages in the Wikipedia: or MediaWiki: namespaces. This might help you find it? RainbowLover334148 ¦ speak up 01:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RainbowLover334148, I'm afraid we've reached the limits of my technical competence and time to devote to this question. I must defer to more technically competent editors. (PrimeHunter – apologies for the ping – often frequents this board and is one of our most technically competent editors. Perhaps he can follow up here.)

If no one else here provides you a way forward before the thread is archived, you may get a response at WP:VPT, although the topic is not really fit for purpose at that venue. Best to all and back to work, Folly Mox (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also forgot to mention I'm already tightly close to the 255-character signature restriction. RainbowLover334148 ¦ speak up 01:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Harris

Where Ed Harris was born? I found multiple sources that say he was born in Englewood, while others say he was born in Tenafly. What's the right statement? 2A02:B027:F05:E37E:961C:175B:750C:B6CF (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The place to ask this is Talk:Ed Harris. I recommend that when you bring up the matter you link to two or three of what you regard as the most authoritative sources for the one place, and likewise for the other place. -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we would have to resolve the issue to come to a conclusion for our Wikipedia entry. So I ask you if you can help me with this research and answer the question 2A02:B027:F05:E37E:961C:175B:750C:B6CF (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. You say you have "found multiple sources". To avoid wasting other volunteers' time, you should state what these are so no-one needs to repeat your searches and can verify what you provide. The correct place to do that is on the Talk Page of the article, which has 224 watchers and should rapidly get to the truth. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks, I did it. I hope someone will reply to my question. 2A02:B027:F05:E37E:961C:175B:750C:B6CF (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you get no response, then you as a fully-authorized Wikipedia editor should modify the article yourself, using reliable sources. In this case, with multiple contradictory sources, the article should mention that there are conflicting sources. -Arch dude (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global watchlist?

Is there anything like a 'global watchlist', where I can see edits made to pages I've watchlisted on all projects? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CanonNi, there is, though you'll have to go to meta for it: m:Special:GlobalWatchlist; more information at mw:Extension:GlobalWatchlist. Rummskartoffel 14:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page for article on UK politics

I notice this page Talk:Politics of the United Kingdom has an RFC where all the talk seems to be happening. Do I make comment/suggestion on the Talk Page or at the RFC? Gottitzer (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gottitzer the RfC was opened back in 2022 and is definitely not happening. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So where does the talk happen? Because there is close to none on the main page? (Im sure its obvious I'm brand spanking new here...) Gottitzer (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like the message says, the RfC was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. I'm not sure where exactly the original discussion is located as there are 15 RfCs in the archives, so you'll have to do a bit of digging yourself. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your replies. Probably you do not understand my question. Anyway I'll figger it out. Thanks Gottitzer (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gottitzer: An RFC is a discussion about something specific, in this case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 15#RfC: Infobox "appointer" parameter consistency. The RFC is inactive. It affected many articles so it was placed on a central page instead of a specific article talk page. Talk:Politics of the United Kingdom is the correct page to discuss the content of the article Politics of the United Kingdom. The talk page has low activity like lots of talk pages. It's a coincidence that the latest post is currently a notification of an RFC from 2022. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley emoji ... Thanks!!! Wow, little talk on such an important page... Interesting. Thanks Gottitzer (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Poster help

So I uploaded the poster for The Last Screenwriter under fair use, used solely for the infobox as per usual. I thought that DatBot would immediately come and reduce the file size, as I uploaded the full size poster. After a while, I figured this wouldn't happen and reduced the size myself. Problem is, the previous full-size version is still on Wikipedia. I had some back and forth with reverting it, thinking DatBot would come and do the work for me and I didn't want the smaller poster to get reduced to the point of unrecognition, but nothing has happened. Right now, the version on the article is the correct size and shouldn't infringe on the commercial value of the poster, but what should I do about the previous versions?

Also, what should I do next time I need to upload a film poster? All the posters I see follow some template for their non-free use rationale, which I couldn't find when uploading the poster. Dunkahoop (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused previous versions of non-free files will be deleted automatically, but it doesn't happen straight away. Please give it a few days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India illegal word information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not a help desk question but rather a propsal to alter site policy. WP:VPP would be a more appropriate venue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article 17, Constitution of India 1950“Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of “Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

the word untouchable is forbidden in india.

I want to know does wikipedia is aware about it or not? If aware of it then hope you will remove word from below article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasi_(caste) 2405:201:300B:390E:14C4:2D38:7E6D:B15A (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian courts have no jurisdiction regarding Wikipedia content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. While I understand that Indian courts have no jurisdiction over Wikipedia content, I would like to highlight that Wikipedia, as a global platform, has a responsibility to ensure that its content adheres to ethical standards and respects the laws and sensitivities of different cultures and nations.

Article 17 of the Constitution of India explicitly abolishes the practice of 'untouchability' and criminalizes any enforcement of disabilities arising out of it. The use of the term 'untouchable' is deeply offensive and historically rooted in discrimination and oppression.

I respectfully request that Wikipedia review its content to ensure that it does not perpetuate discriminatory language. Instead of using the term 'untouchable', more appropriate and respectful terminology should be employed to discuss this aspect of India's history and social structure.

Thank you for your consideration.

2405:201:300B:390E:14C4:2D38:7E6D:B15A (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say, the institution of untouchability is abolished, and its practice is forbidden, etc. To me, that doesn't say that the mention of it is forbidden. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the history books. Slavery has been outlawed in the United States, but we read about it and hear about it all the time. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. I understand that mentioning 'untouchability' in a historical context is important for educational purposes. However, my concern is with the contemporary use of the term 'untouchable' when referring to individuals or communities.

Many people, not just myself, are advocating for the respectful representation of historically marginalized communities. In line with Article 17 of the Constitution of India, which abolishes the practice of 'untouchability,' we believe Wikipedia should avoid using the term in a contemporary context and instead use more appropriate terminology.

Updating Wikipedia's guidelines and content to reflect this sensitivity would be a significant step towards promoting respect and understanding. Thank you for your consideration 2405:201:300B:390E:14C4:2D38:7E6D:B15A (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. I understand that mentioning 'untouchability' in a historical context is important for educational purposes. However, my concern is with the contemporary use of the term 'untouchable' when referring to individuals or communities.

Many people, not just myself, are advocating for the respectful representation of historically marginalized communities. In line with Article 17 of the Constitution of India, which abolishes the practice of 'untouchability,' we believe Wikipedia should avoid using the term in a contemporary context and instead use more appropriate terminology.

Updating Wikipedia's guidelines and content to reflect this sensitivity would be a significant step towards promoting respect and understanding. Thank you for your consideration

2405:201:300B:390E:14C4:2D38:7E6D:B15A (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue for Help desk/Archives. Referred elsewhere.

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

FfD - I seem to be doing this wrong

See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 6 - can anyone clue me in on how to fix the formatting and not break it in the first place? I would appreciate it. I have several others to list. Please ping. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

somebody fixed the header hierarchy. i will re-read the documentation. Elinruby (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit clash] Jonteemil has already fixed this, Elinruby. (Incidentally, if you know that your edit is a test edit, why not do it on your own computer, with GIMP?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: because the other editors on the page can't see the proposed change on my computer, that's why. There have been disputes about label placement on the map, mostly with respect to Morocco and the Western Sahara. I think those are resolved. Etc. There are some other images that were about whether it was possible to make the sky less orange and still look natural. That's why.

Is there a better place to bring these things for deletion? Because there are a few more. These are locally uploaded files for use on the talk page. Commons helpdesk said just make sure it's a unique filename. Elinruby (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]