Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The help desk is currently semi-protected, meaning the help desk pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

There is currently 0 user(s) transcluding the {{Help me}} template looking for assistance from volunteers.

Does questioning a user's knowledge based on their contributions, constitute personal attack or legitimate criticism?

Hello everyone, I think WP:NOPA has a lot of ambiguities. It's quite clear, when it comes to religion, ethnicity etc. but not on other issues such as an editor's knowledge.

This issue usually happens when discussing the notability of a subject.

There are cases where a user which obviously hasn't done enough research on the subject, disregards nuanced or obvious facts, provides no reason for their opinion, comes and disputes notability.

Therefore I think telling them that they clearly lack familiarity with the subject, is an accurate description of a situation, and not a personal attack, for the following reasons:

1. It refers to knowledge about a specific subject not a person's entire body of knowledge
2. It is based on evidence that the user either lacks familiarity with the sources, or the subject.
3. It's a description of a situation, the person can gain or lose knowledge at anytime, one's knowledge is not definitive of one's personality.

So I'm not sure even if it is a clear case of personal attack, but even if it is, is it that severe of an attack? Let's say you say 2+2=6, and provide no reasons, am I not allowed to tell you that you don't know arithmetic? Xpander (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Also see WP:CIR, which plays into that field, at least partly. Lectonar (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

In priniple, it's irrelevant whether the editor is familar with the subject. What matters is whether they can provide adequate sources for their claim. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Maproom Thanks for your response. That's fair enough. Hope I'm not digressing. But how can you provide "adequate sources" for disqualifying notability claims? You can keep wasting wiki's time just by deleting articles, and provide no reasons, just to annoy people. I don't think there are any safeguards or even repercussions against wrong deletions and undeletion is time-consuming. Xpander (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

As only administrators can delete articles, and they will only do so in accord with policy, what you are alleging is a misuse of admin privileges. Or are you conflating "nominating for deletion" with "deleting"? Cabayi (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cabayi I thought patrols can perform speedy deletions as well, but in that case yes. Also inadequate nominations could be as time-consuming, but I haven't read anything about this counting as a misuse of admin privileges. Xpander (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have to be done in an attacking or even confrontational way. Eg "I think you might not know some information that's universally accepted in this field but not necessarily familiar to those outside", for example. That focuses on the situation but doesn't accuse anyone of anything. It doesn't say they should have known it, or that they're stupid or lazy for not knowing it, or make any assumptions about why they don't know it.

I think it's a very similar situation to looking for neutral language in an article—"You clearly haven't . . . " makes a judgement about the person, or will be perceived that way, when the issue is the factual matter of the gap between what they know and what they need to know.

Edit: For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not accusing you of implying those things, either! I'm trying to comment on the search for neutral language, but not necessarily achieving it myself. Musiconeologist (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Musiconeologist. Okey but how do you dissuade people from making uninformed comments? Think of a false AfD, wrong deletion etc. which take a lot of time from the community. Xpander (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Xpander1, I would not consider it a PA, but why would you want to make such a comment? I don't see what benefit there is to it. Presumably you want them to learn about notability (or whatever the case may be) and no matter how ignorant they may be about their own state of ignorance regarding some guideline, telling them about it, even if it is the truth, is not likely to win them over to your point of view. It seems more likely it will make them dig in their heels and maybe drag you into the hole they are digging for themselves. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mathglot Thanks. To answer your question, not to win them over specifically, but to discredit their views. The problem with notability, is that you can simply say subject x fails to meet GNG etc. without providing any evidence. And this could muddy up the waters when a discussion needs to be concluded. So I think it's only legitimate criticism. Xpander (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

In other words how does WP dissuade people from making uninformed comments, that wastes the community's time and effort? Xpander (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Xpander1, Wikipedia does not dissuade people from making uninformed comments, nor should it do so; at least at the outset, when you don't know much about the person. You can argue against their views, you can reject their views for policy-based reasons, but you should not try to discredit their views, as this has connotations of harming someone's good reputation, rather than simply rejecting their views for good cause which is permissible. In addition, WP:BOLD encourages users, including newbies, to become active and engage with the encyclopedia and with others. They are bound to make mistakes (as we all do), but we should both assume good faith as well as pay especial attention to deal gently with newbies. So, rather than discredit their views, why not help them out and explain the policy or guideline relevant to the situation where they perhaps made a mistake. And always deal fairly and openly with others, keeping in mind that at some point you will make a mistake, and maybe they might have a point after all.

As far as saying that subject x fails to meet GNG etc. without providing any evidence, that is normal, because you cannot prove a negative. People make that statement constantly; if you hang out at Afd you will find dozens or hundreds of comments exactly like that one, without any evidence made by very senior editors and administrators. That is a normal comment to make, because the burden is on the person who wants to create an article, to prove that the topic is notable, not the other way around. So I urge you to take comments like that one as normal, and a simple request to you (or whoever) to prove that the topic is notable, by providing the list of reliable sources that proves GNG. Hope this elps, Mathglot (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Mathglot. I think that settles it. I didn't mean this for newbies or seasoned editors though, but for older users that tend to make reckless comments. Hence sometimes I feel they're doing it on purpose. But apart from that I just read WP:ATA and I think it has very good recommendations, including WP:JNN (i.e. you should say it violates WP:NOT, not dictionary etc., so it's prefferable if one proves a negative). And in the event of nefarious motivations as per WP:ATTP, I should follow the issue perhaps elsewhere, not in the deletion discussions. So I think it's all good for now, WP:ATA has plenty of stuff to dig on for the time being, and I will recommend it to others if need be. I appreciate your help. Best. Xpander (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Xpander1, You're most welcome. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion/exclusion of an item in an article

Hello, What shall a user do when the inclusion of an item in an article is subject to debate, with 2 users on one side and a third on another?

I refer to this talk page discussion. Just deleting that item may start an edit war, although 2 users are in favor of that. So what shall I do? Please see the summary at the end of that discussion and clarify. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the talk page or the article, Yesterday, all my dreams..., but most talk pages have templates for two or more WikiProjects. I'd look at the talk pages of these WikiProjects, and try to choose one that shows signs of life (many WikiProjects are moribund) and whose subject area is relevant to the dispute. If there is such a WikiProject talk page, post on it an invitation to join that talk page discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Yesterday, all my dreams.... Please read dispute resolution. ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both. I asked for help in those places. So I think you can close this section. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Automatic reverting, revisited

I have been teaching PhD students in how to edit Wikipedia as a part of their science outreach for about ten years. What is happening now, I have never seen before with 1500 PhD students editing. Therefore, I first add the previous discussions and then the revision histories where this has happened to several different PhD students and ask for a revisit of the problem.

Old discussion:

I am teaching a course where one of the students got the edits reverted. The revision history claims that she did it herself, but she says that was not the case, it happened automatically. This is the user contribution page User contributions for Daliepremidze - Wikipedia. Now it seems to be working though. Was something wrong? Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Olle Terenius (UU): It is easy to click the wrong button, particularly when new. Nearly everyone here has reverted themselves or someone else accidentally. It is extremely unlikely that anything went wrong other than that Daliepremidze accidentally clicked something. There is no automatic reverting. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Olle Terenius (UU) and Daliepremidze: It looks like she misunderstood something in the interface. Maybe she looked at a diff like [1] and clicked edit on the left side instead of the right side. If you click on the left side then you start a new edit with the content of the former revision. If you save without changing anything (except the edit summary) then it becomes a revert to that revision. If she wants to change the new revision when looking at a diff then she has to click edit on the right side or click the edit tab at top of the page. It's not possible to change an old edit summary if that's what she was trying. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

"Manual reverts" the same minute as the edits were saved have now happened in the following articles:

3D cell culture: Revision history - Wikipedia

Conductive metal−organic frameworks: Revision history - Wikipedia

Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor: Revision history - Wikipedia

Chromogranin-A: Revision history - Wikipedia

Lithium-silicon battery: Revision history - Wikipedia

Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Olle Terenius (UU). If you think there is a technical problem with the software, then WP:VPT is the best place to take it. ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, I have no clue as this is happening to a few of the 50 PhD students, but far from all. But I will try there as well and see if I get some ideas of what is going on. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is "perplexity.ai /search" on wikipedias Black List?

I mean the URL.

and on which black list? -- Steue (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2023-05#perplexity.ai/search. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, * Pppery *

I tried some "Advanced search"ing for this black list. How would I have found this black list entry myself?

Billinghurst put "perplexity.ai\search" on this black list at 22 May 2023, this was almost two years ago. Meanwhile perplexity.ai is doing well (by my experiences).

Isn't it time to review this? -- Steue (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. ;) - Roxy the dog 22:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Steue: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and meta:Talk:Spam blacklist have archive search boxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI Billinghurst has been inactive since August, so you probably won't hear back from them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, if you want to be enlightened, it might help, if you explained *what* you don't understand.

Thank you * Pppery *, but couldn't *any* admin check this case and remove the URL from the black list?
Steue (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

It's on the global blacklist, so it would have to be a Meta admin to remove it, but a local admin could add entries to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist to override the rule. I might be willing to do that, but you'd have to explain to me why that specific URL should be linked to - right now I'm not seeing a clear reason. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Spam blacklist rules (on either the local or the global blacklist) are not removed just because they're old and things may have changed. They're removed (or whitelist entries are added) only if a clear reason is provided why the site should be linked to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

You should note that the URL is a link to a search result. We do not consider a search result a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@* Pppery * and Orange Mike

I'm just a user of perplexity.ai, I have no connections to perplexity whatsoever, and my experinces (in the last few days) are only positive. I asked it technical problems re. my computer, and some language questions, and the answers were spot-on.

But yes, it did do some mistakes, which I recognized, but when I asked whether this is correct or I pointed them out and explained them, along with facts based on its references, it did find the rules and committed the mistake and gave a correct answer. In one case I checked all 9 references, and they all existed and contained what perplexity had said it contains.

So, Perplexity is usefull in finding, summarizing and delivering references (much better than standard (i.e. non-ai) google is), which then can be checked by humans i.e. wp-editors. And checking the original references is, what I would expect editors to do, before using what any ai has delivered for an article.

* Pppery *, actually I don't understand the reasons to put perplexity.ai on the list. I didn't come across the exact reasons why perplexity\.ai.search was blacklisted.

And actually it's not "perplexity.ai" which is on the black list but "perplexity\.ai/search/"; "perplexity.ai" is mentioned in its article.

I only wanted to use perplexity's answer for a disk, so that other editors could check these answers, if they wanted to, which is standard in wp and should be possible, no matter where the info is coming from.

I could copy the answers or part of them or summarize them, and state that they are from "perplexity.ai", with no problem from wp's filter. Only if I want to name the *exact* link (complete URL) to a specific question and answer of perplexity, does the black list block. For a disk I can just insert a space into the url or use a backslash instead of a slash, which already has been done by other editors, so that the url does not trigger the filter.

* Pppery *, if you would take the time and trouble to follow the first link (in this topic) (to the archive) you will probably understand the reasons better then I. And there 'Billinghurst' has written, that we should wait and see how things develope. My hope was, that an admin would check how things are today.

How can we find out if/whether things are better today than 2 years ago? I see only one way: un-block perplexity'ai/search and see what happens.

I think, the services which we, as editors, can get from perplexity (in terms of finding references) are worth a try.

Steue (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't do "suck it and see" with links that were blacklisted, as they're blacklisted for good reason. You would need to provide a compelling case as to why we should even link to it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC_on_change_of_name

Discussion if the name WP:NOTABILITY should change to something else. For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the discussion. Musiconeologist • talk • contribs 15:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit count disparity between Wiki and X-tools?

On my contributions page it shows that as of now I've made 38,973 edits, but according to X-Tools it's 38,683 (live) and 353 (deleted) for a total of 39,036.

Why the 63 difference? It's not much in the grand scheme of things - 0.16%, but it's still a difference. Is there some kind of edit or action (revdel?) that doesn't count on Wiki totals, but is still visible to X-Tools? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Wikipedia:Edit count#What is an edit count? lists some of the reasons for the discrepancies. You've made about 40 page moves, which would account for most of the difference. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

John of Reading - thanks! Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Masking multiple authors

I'm working on the Sources section of the article on Holkham Hall. I want to mask the names of both Richard Wilson and Alan Mackley, for their second entry in the list. I have read Template:Cite journal but I cannot see how to mask multiple authors. Any advice would be much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@KJP1: I believe my edit has accomplished what you wanted? You seemed to be calling author-mask=1 and author-mask=2; the correct values were author-mask1=1 and author-mask2=1. I'm actually not sure what the value of the part after the equals sign is supposed to be, but it's working, so this is probably good enough. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Skarmory - Exactly what I needed! Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

JuicyFields scam

Shouldn't we have an article about the JuicyFields scam?

People with close ties to the Russian government stole more than 645 million euros from more than 186.000 people and there is no article about that? Polygnotus (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it passes GNG and has sustained coverage. I would say that it would be okay to make. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

It crys (or shouts?) for one. -- Steue (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Steue, @Polygnotus, I have made a draft here. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Checking journals for reliability or predation

Is there any efficient way for me to check the reliability of a journal like there being a list (on- or off-wiki) like RSP? Are there any other general tricks to use? ✶Quxyz✶ 14:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

First, you should look at its publisher I think. Ruslik_Zero 18:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you asking as a Wikipedia author ("I found a ref, is it a good one to add?") or a reader/editor ("I'm looking at this article, I'd like to see the suspicious refs flagged.")? DMacks (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

First one, I am having general issues backing up claims and writing articles because I don't know if a given journal is reliable or not. My current strategy is googling it and seeing if some Redditor wrote an essay on the journal's reliability. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CITEWATCH is one starting-point for potentially problematic journals. It's not especially easy to read. DMacks (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. This is something I've wondered about too. Meters (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

How do you archive specific comments

I know how to auto-archive but how do you archive specific things? OrangeLolipopSnail (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

OrangeLolipopSnail, are you looking for Wikipedia:One click archiving? You would need to install a script, I haven't tried it myself. TSventon (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Like if I want to archive a specific comment or something like that how would I do it? OrangeLolipopSnail (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that normally whole talk page sections are archived as the section headers make discussions easier to find. TSventon (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok how would I archive a specific section OrangeLolipopSnail (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the first question is why your automatic archiving hasn't started yet. As far as I can see it should have. TSventon (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

On what? My user page? OrangeLolipopSnail (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about your user page. TSventon (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok I don’t know why either maybe it’s a bug or something else OrangeLolipopSnail (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Davis (priest)

I added a quote to citation number 1 but it is all wrong. Please fix. Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I see a red warning message "horizontal tab character in |quote= at position 36". Maybe you cut'n'pasted that quote from some other site or app that uses 'tab' rather than simply spaces to do alignment? I adjusted it to use just a single regular space character at each location and the message went away. DMacks (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

File music not working properly

I am working on the Vietnamese's DR. Congo page and the national anthem Debout Congolais and when adding the music file Democratic Republic of the Congo's national anthem.ogg, it shows an error, although other language pages like English and French works just fine. Can anyone help me? thanks. (this also appear on many other pages i'm working on) KolnSilver (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@KolnSilver: the file File:Democratic Republic of the Congo's national anthem.ogg is not on Wikimedia Commons (see English Wikipedia file page for reasons). So to use it on viwiki you would need to upload it locally. I am not sure of the viwiki policies about this. Commander Keane (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! May I upload a different version of the national anthem instead (if allowed)? Or I just have to reupload the original files? KolnSilver (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@KolnSilver: I am not 100% sure about the DR Congo copyright laws. I don't think you can upload any version of the anthem to Wikimedia Commons as the tune is copyrighted. You can upload at vi:Special:Upload if vi:Wikipedia:Quy định sử dụng hình ảnh says it is ok. My guess is that you can upload the original file at Vietnamese Wikipedia. Commander Keane (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! KolnSilver (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

For Democratic Republic of the Congo, copyright of a non-photographic work with a known author is 50 years after their death. Per Democratic Republic of the Congo, the song dates to 1960 and was written by Joseph Lutumba and Simon-Pierre Boka di Mpasi Londi. None of the wikimedia sites have an indication whether Lutumba is still alive; frwiki says Londi died in 2006. That means the earliest the lyrics become free of copyright restriction (and therefore uploadable to commons) is 2057. DMacks (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

gosh ok... Thanks! KolnSilver (🗣🔥 | 📒) 02:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You're welome! For the record, I didn't know any of those details, just a few efficient tools to find them and some lucky breaks along the way. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Weasel

Hello. I'm doing some cleanup at The Tempest and in this edit summary a bot refers to "Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from March 2025". My question is, how do I find these weasel words in the article so that I can fix them? Am I missing something obvious in the edit itself? AndyJones (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@AndyJones: (Short answer) This category is added by the {{Who?}} template, among others, and is placed after the text "Some critics" in the article. (Long answer) To find this answer, I visited Special:ExpandTemplates, typed {{:The Tempest}} into the "Input" box and The Tempest into the "Title" box, then clicked "OK". That displays the article wikitext with all the templates expanded, so that I could search for the category name and note where it occurred. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. AndyJones (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@AndyJones: I made a script to do it all with a click under Tools: User:PrimeHunter/ExpandTemplates.js. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

And as for the mention of the category in the edit summary, it simply means that someone prompted the bot to run on all articles in that category; the bot does not do anything with weasel words in particular. Janhrach (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Subject/verb agreement question

Hello! I am currently working on the article for the Young Lords. One thing that's proving somewhat challenging is subject/verb agreement. I thiiiiink that because the Young Lords is the name of an organization, I should be using singular verbs? But this usually feels wrong. "The Young Lords was first established..." feels far less intuitive than "The Young Lords were first established...". Precedent from other similar articles seems to favor "were" for organizations with named like the Young Lords (ex. "The Bloods are a primarily African American street gang..."). What do folks think, though? Spookyaki (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Spookyaki, this should be covered by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. MOS:PLURALS says that in US English singular verbs are usually used for organisations. TSventon (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I recognize that, but that doesn't really conform to the way it's commonly used in this particular case. Of the academic sources I've seen, only one uses singular verbs exclusively. Six (all published in the United States) use plural verbs exclusively, and one uses both. Spookyaki (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Presumably that's because the name of the group is syntactically plural. So in this case, the rule that organizations take a singular verb conflicts with the rule that plural nouns take a plural verb. Thus, in US English, "The Velvet Underground were a rock band ..." is less likely than "The Doors were a rock band ..." because, while both are groups, the name of the former is syntactically singular and that of the latter is syntactically plural. In the first case, both rules argue for a singular verb, while in the second case, one rule argues for plural and one rule argues for singular. Personally, I would use a singular verb for any group regardless of its name; thus "The Young Lords was ...", but I wouldn't strongly object to using "were". CodeTalker (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Farrer Hall (Monash University)

Refs numbers 1 and 6 are the same - can you please double them up and leave the full quote in? Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Srbernadette, over the years, you have made the same request several times. Wikipedia editors have dutifully done this for you. Have you then never examined what they have done, in order that you might later perform the same simple series of edits yourself? -- Hoary (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Use of deprecated (unreliable) source Tag on new article.

I recently created a new article; (Timeline of Yoruba history), however, it was bot-tagged with a 'deprecated (unreliable) source' restriction upon creation. I have looked through all the sources and cross-checked with the currently deprecated sources list here on Wikipedia, but unfortunately haven't been able to identify the culprit reference responsible for the tag. How do I solve this issue and get the article into better standing without having to re-edit/reference from scratch? Oramfe (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I searched the article for "deprecated" and "unreliable" and I don't see either term mentioned anywhere in the article. Could you provide more detail as to where you're seeing this, or the precise name of the tag as it appears within the article? DonIago (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

DonIago see the tags on the first edit in the article's revision history. TSventon (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! DonIago (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Now do I simply edit out the responsible reference or is there any other way to submit the article for a review process to get the tag removed (I created the article directly, not from a draft), because it seems to have precluded the article from search engine indexing parameters. Oramfe (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you can remove the tag, I may be wrong. Hopefully you can fix the Scribd reference as suggested at the perennial sources list. The article won't be indexed by search engines until it is approved by Wikipedia:New pages patrol or 90 days if sooner. NPP is heavily backlogged, but is due for a backlog drive in May. TSventon (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks once again. Oramfe (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oramfe, hopefully someone has a general answer to this question, but I had a look at the references and I think that scribd may be the culprit. TSventon (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

(Almost certainly) Confirmed. Scribd is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. DonIago (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully there is a better answer than checking each of a hundred references against the list at WP:RS/P. Or checking the list and hoping you recognise one of them, which is what I did. TSventon (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, highly appreciated. I know simply editing out sribd will not get the tag out (back-end) How do I remove it? Oramfe (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Just saying there's a concern without making it clear what the specific concern is isn't especially helpful. As far as removing the tag, I don't know whether the presence or absence of it makes any real difference as long as the underlying issue has been addressed, but tags aren't something I'm highly familiar with. DonIago (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Oramfe: An edit filter hit applies to the edit and not the article. The hit means the edit at the time matched a filter at the time and that will continue to be true no matter what later happens to the article or fitler. The tag cannot be removed. It was actually worldstatesmen.org which caused it but it's hard to work out. I clicked "view filter log" at the top of the page history to see it was tagged by Special:AbuseFilter/869. It has a long list of domains which would be very tedious to test one at a time. I don't know a shortcut for ordinary users. My account has access to Special:AbuseFilter/test which helps. I copied the filter code and entered "Timeline of Yoruba history" at "Changes made to page". Then I tried removing different lines of domains and click "Test" to see when the filter was triggered. It was the ORG line. Then I removed different domains from that line and found it was worldstatesmen. An edit filter can unfortunately not report which part of the filter caused the hit. We could make numerous different edit filters for different domains but that's impractical, and inefficient on the servers. Some edit filters prevent saving the edit. This one doesn't and you are not expected to track down and fix the cause. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Oramfe I have the very useful script User:Headbomb/unreliable installed and can instantly see in the current version of the article that it still uses a deprecated source, namely this one to www.worldstatesmen.org, currently #83 in the citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Farrer Hall (Monash University)

Please put in the info box that it is “College Head” not just head and that Mr Mitchell is the head in 2025. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Srbernadette, precisely which obstacle arises when you attempt to effect this very simple change yourself? -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

In the info box, I tried to replace the word "Head" with "College Head" and I failed. Perhaps it is impossible to do with this "template"? Please fix if you can, you are more capable. Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Srbernadette, the template is Template:Infobox residential college. It lacks the field "College head". So here's what you have to do -- while editing Farrer Hall (Monash University) (don't attempt to edit the template). First, in the infobox, leave | head = Steve Mitchell just as it is. Secondly, add the line | head_label = College head. In principle, you can add the new line anywhere, but putting it immediately before or immediately after the line naming the head would be a sensible choice. -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I tried to do what you advised, but you can see that now the whole "head" line has vanished. I tried so hard. IF YOU CAN PUT THE HEAD BACK IN PLEASE STATE THAT Steve Wilson was the College Head in 2015 - NOT 2025. I cannot work out who the current head is - so state that Steve Wilson Was the head in 2015. Also college colours are GREEN and BLACK. Please add this in. Srbernadette (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This is what an IP did. It's most definitely not what I prescribed. But perhaps no matter, because: While I generally pay little attention to infoboxes and so may well not be up to date on the relevant guidelines, I'm surprised that anyone would want to use one in order to specify the college head as of a decade previously. If the identity of the head in 2015 is non-trivial information and can be referenced, why not add it to the body text instead? -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Good point Hoary

I agree - can you add the college colours are green and black. Than you so much. Srbernadette (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This has already been done, Srbernadette. -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

How can I invite editors to help expand an incomplete article?

Hello and thank you in advance for your help.

I’ve recently started Draft:False humility on the English Wikipedia. However, due to limitations in my English skills and access to reliable sources in this language, I am unable to fully expand and improve it.

I was hoping to invite other editors to help develop and complete the article, but I couldn't find any currently accepted template or tag like {{Expand}} or similar that would signal this need to the community.

Could someone please guide me: 1. Is there a proper way to invite collaboration on a specific article? 2. Is it acceptable to leave a note on the article’s Talk page asking for help? 3. Is there any recommended template or place to post such a request (e.g. relevant WikiProjects)?

Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Arbabi second (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@اربابی دوم I think that the most appropriate place to seek collaboration for this draft is at WT:WikiProject Psychology, which is active and where you can place a link to the draft. You could also add that Project's template onto the talkpage of your draft. That is less likely to attract collaborators but may help when you submit the draft for review, assuming you intend to do that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you for your helpful guidance.😊 Arbabi second (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

COI editing

I am the subject of the wikipedia article Djan Khoe. The article is asking for improvements and I believe to have material to do just that. To avoid COI, I would appreciate to have someone to do the editing for me. The edits will be minor, adding a citation, a link and simple text. Khoe0005 (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Giok Djan Khoe survived a deletion discussion a few days ago, but it needs a lot of work. Ideally a biography should contain some background detail about a person and not simply be a list of their work. If you would like to help, please make an edit request at Talk:Giok Djan Khoe.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Khoe0005. Thank you for being open about your COI. I agree with what Ianmacm said, but I would add that everything in the article should be verifiable from a reliable published source - and, in most cases, from a source wholly unconnected with your or your associates. If you request something to be added without a source, the request is likely to be refused. ColinFine (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Farrer Hall (Monash University)

In the info box - which I cannot access on this device - the words for college colours - the word "black" should have a capital letter - B. Please fix and I'm sorry I cannot do this myself. Thank you again Srbernadette (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Srbernadette: Please go to "edit source" and edit the |colours= parameter in {{Infobox residential college}} as you desire, though I fail to see why the colours should be in title case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Srbernadette, if you cannot "access" (edit?) the infobox of Farrer Hall (Monash University) on your device, are this edit and this one not by you? -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)