Wikipedia:Help desk

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

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

Ask a question

January 17

I need help... again.

How do I add a file from another Wikipedia? User332224 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean a existing image from another language of Wikipedia? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 00:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

yes User332224 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That's what I mean. User332224 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If you link the pic you have in mind, editors here might be able to tell you if it's possible to use that pic on en-WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

In any case, see this for information on how to add them to a article. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 00:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The only images that can be displayed on English Wikipedia pages are ones that are here on enwiki or are on commons. You cannot display an image here from another language's wikipedia. But (depending on the file's license and how you plan to use it) you might be able to download the file from that other language and then upload it here on enwiki or maybe to commons. DMacks (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I plan to place it on the infobox in an English translation of a page on the Portuguese wikipedia. User332224 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean this? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 15:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This pic? [1] If so, when/if your translation is accepted in article space, you can upload it locally on en-WP. If that happens, go to the File upload wizard and chose "Upload a non-free file". > "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" > "This is the official cover art of a work." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding City Officials and Job Description

I am attempting to add the city's elected Officials Treasurer and Clerk, however I am stumped on to include them. DeanLJones (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Treasurer and clerk are usually not included in an article about a city due to the relative lack of coverage these positions received. If some notable individual has or had served in one of these roles, you can mention their time in office by adding Template:Infobox officeholder as a module of the existing infobox. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This user appears to be a WP:SPA centered solely on editing the article for Compton, California. Sarsenet (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Copying from GFDL-only Wikipedia

Copying from GFDL-only sources is prohibited. However, does this extend to Wikipedia when it was GFDL-only? In other words, is it prohibited to copy from a pre-2009 Wikipedia edit to an article today? If not, why? JJP_Master (she/they) 04:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, JJPMaster. I think that GNU Free Documentation License and its references should answer most of your questions. In brief, special arrangements were made in the phase-out of GFDL licensing from Wikipedia, and I do not fully understand all those provisions. Cullen328 (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct value of page= parameter when citing a journal via a compilation of an entire volume

Hi, apologies if some of my terminology is off, but I'm trying to figure out what the proper way is to cite an article within a journal where the source available online is a compilation of an entire volume of the journal, with its own page numberings. The source in question is at this link; the article is on page 456 of volume 14, but presumably the article's page number when issue 28 was distributed on its own was different. There doesn't seem to be any obvious way to distinguish whether the reference is citing the article within the volume as a whole or an individual issue of the volume.

I've gone with this for now, but I'm not sure if this is correct: {{cite journal |last1=Taylor |first1=J.N. |title=Organic Chemicals |journal=World Trade Notes on Chemicals and Allied Products |date=13 July 1940 |volume=14 |issue=28 |page=456 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jdseHwBxG5YC&pg=PA456 |access-date=17 January 2025 |publisher=[[United States Department of Commerce|Department of Commerce Chemical Division]] |location=Washington, D.C. |language=en}}.

Thank you! Jokullmusic 17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Jokullmusic you should give the page number in the edition that you are using. I may be wrong, but I believe that the page number would have been the same in both versions when the journal was issued in 1940 so that the citation based on an individual issue and based on the bound volume would be the same. TSventon (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks more like a newsletter, or something similar, than a peer-reviewed academic or scholarly journal so I would use {{cite periodical}} (an alias of {{cite magazine}}) and |periodical=. As above, cite the source that you consulted; how the individually distributed issue was paginated is irrelevant if you did not consult that issue.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to you and User:TSventon both for clearing that up. I'll switch it to the periodical template -- I was uncertain between the two. Jokullmusic 18:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Jokullmusic, agree with both of the above. I would add the following, which may help if you have similar questions in the future. Think about the bottom line, namely, why do we have these citation templates in the first place: it is to ensure verifiability, and in the case of any given citation, it is to answer the question: "How do I get an interested user to the right place so that they can see that the content in the article is backed up by this source?" So whatever you are looking at, tell the user exactly how to get there, including the page number if applicable, but also: if there are multiple ISBN's for hardback, paperback, etc., give them the one for your item; if you are looking at the second edition, then include |edition=2; if you are looking at the 2025 publication of an anthology first published in 1940, give them |date=2025 and the current publisher, location, and page number of that one, and if you wish, optionally add the |orig-date=1st pub. Old_Publisher:1940 which lets the reader know that the one you found was not the original, and allows them to delve deeper, if they wish. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Assistance with posting a link with a bracket in the URL

Maybe im just making a mistake, but whenever i attempt to include links such as this: https://californiarevealed.org/search?search_api_fulltext=&f[0]=search_page_series_title:Shades%20of%20Fresno%20Collection in the external links page and add the text afterwards it doesn't fully work. I believe this is because of the brackets in the link itself. Does anyone have a solution so I can include these type of links on Wikipedia. Thank you! NewishIdeas (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@NewishIdeas:, when I switch the search results to show 96 results, the [0] disappears from the url: https://californiarevealed.org/search?search_api_fulltext=&f%5B0%5D=search_page_series_title%3AShades%20of%20Fresno%20Collection&items_per_page=96. Schazjmd (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It hasn't disappeared, it's been encoded to %5B0%5D. See Help:URL#Fixing links with unsupported characters. The original page without changing the number of results - if that's important - can be linked like this. —Cryptic 20:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If I am looking at this correctly, it appears you replaced the bracketed zero with %5B0%5D and that fixed the issue? NewishIdeas (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. —Cryptic 20:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot I appreciate it! NewishIdeas (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

January 18

Citation numbering

I added a citation to an existing article, somewhere in the middle. Although the number of the previous citation was something like 18, my added one ended up with 44.

I was surprised, assuming everything would automatically renumber. It looks so weird now. Should I have done something to make automatic renumbering happen? Augnablik (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: You did right and shouldn't do anything else. Citations can be used multiple times as described at WP:REFNAME. They are automatically numbered by their first appearance. The citations in [2] jump from 18 to 46 but if you click "18" then it says "18. ^{^ a b c d e}" This means citation 18 is used five times. Each letter is a link to a use. The first use is after citation 17. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand that letters following the citation number show various times in the article that the same citation is used. It just seems strange that a new citation right after previous citation 18 wouldn't become citation 19 instead ... and all other citation numbers in the article change accordingly. That's what would occur in word processing. But thanks, @PrimeHunter, for explaining how things work with Wikipedia citations, which was what my question entailed.

I guess I'll always wonder why Wikipedia tekkies don't make updated numbering happen with citation changes, but I probably won't lose sleep over it. Augnablik (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter and Augnablik: The citation numbers are auto-generated when the article is displayed, and are not stored when it's updated. The reason you get a gap in numbers (i.e. from 18 to 46) is because citations 19 to 45, which occurred earlier in the document, was then followed by a reuse of citation 18, so the citation number that's displayed after 45 is followed by the reused citation 18, and then the subsequent citation would be "new" (i.e. the earliest occurrence of this citation in the document), so it would be assigned 46. Fabrickator (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Errrkkk... Augnablik (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I said "They are automatically numbered by their first appearance." By this I meant the first time the citation number is displayed on the page whenever the page is rendered. The numbers are updated automatically every time the page is rendered, even if the page hasn't been edited but there are citation changes on transcluded pages. The first appearance of 18 is between 17 and 19 in the Music career section (citation 17 had been used earlier so it's not the first appearance of 17). Citation 18 appears four more times and keeps being called 18 because that's the number it has in the references section. Maybe it's a little confusing but I think it would be worse if the same citation had five different citation numbers and was repeated five times in the references section. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, what I’m used to in pretty much all types of writing involving footnotes (or endnotes) is a new number for each citation. This means, then, that if a citation is used multiple times, it does get a new number.

I can see one advantage in Wikipedia’s style: we get to see at a glance which footnotes came from the same reference. Although we could get the same information by looking at the footnotes done in the more conventual way, it would be much more time-consuming, especially if there are a lot of footnotes.

I still find it jarring to see citation numbers throughout the article so way out of sequence, but at least I understand this is simply how footnotes work in Wikipedia. And now that I’m thinking about all this — weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each way of doing footnotes — I can see merit to Wikipedia’s. I just wasn’t prepared for it, and I kind of think many other readers won’t be either — with the likelihood of not just some confusion but also some concern that Wikipedia’s not working right, and maybe in turn contribute to the beginning of a trust issue. Augnablik (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I strongly prefer Wikipedia's method of numbering references because it cuts down on reuse bloat. Imagine if Wikipedia numbered all sources by order of appearance, and the same reference was used three times in an article, all distant from one another. That source would be given three different numbers, and each instance would repeat redundant information that increases page length. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

List of marine bony fishes of South Africa#cite_note-Smiths_2003-3 is used 1379 times. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, Tenryuu, in conventual footnoting you give all the publication details just once, the first time the citation is used. From then on, you use a much shorter format to refer to the same source.

But yes, I can see that Wikipedia’s format cuts down on the number of times the same footnote is used — or, as you have so picturesquely termed it, “reuse bloat.” I wonder if this format is an up-and-coming new contender for acceptance in the world of editing that I simply wasn’t aware of. Augnablik (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if citations are shortened in subsequent uses, that still results in bloat (which may be the most accessible option in print). I can see it being useful where a full bibliography is given at the very, very end of the work. Mediawiki's able to get past this by virtue of being electronic with easy access to the sources through linking. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

When I went back to the Citing sources guideline just now to re-read it after a long time back, I just don't see anything about what to expect if we're working on an existing article and we add a new citation that re-uses one already there. Have I missed something in the guideline about that? Or anywhere else in related Wiki directions? Augnablik (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That's the Wikipedia article on citations; you may be looking for WP:NAMEDREF. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Tenryuu, though I think that WP:NAMEDREF could explain the term named reference so much more clearly, and that it would really help to show examples of citations involving re-use, especially when added in between other citations within an existing article, so we could see how existing and new citations would look before and after.

It would also help if all of Wiki's documentation about doing citations, which I now see occurs in several different places, could be integrated in a more unified way.

Also on my wish list for documentation about doing citations (well, actually "not just") is that all policy and guideline documentation be done for how to work with both the Visual and the Source editor. Visual is so much easier to use for citations, yet Wiki documentation is written almost 100% for editors who use the Source editor. That pretty much leaves me out. Augnablik (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

American Chemical Society journals have long taken the same approach we do: footnotes or endnotes numbered seqeuentially by first use in body, containing full bibliographic detail where the number is resolved (bottom-of-page or end-of-article), and then subsequent use of same ref gets that same original number. DMacks (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

If a respected professional organization like the American Chemical Society uses it, then we may be on the cutting edge. So, @DMacks, you've helped address a question on my mind in this thread, about whether anyone else is using a citation format like Wikipedia's.

Meanwhile, I'll never forget my shock at seeing the automatic numbering applied to my newly added reference right after a previous citation in the article, with this result:

Xxxxxxxxxxx.¹⁸ Yyyyyy.⁴⁶

It's that sort of shock I wish could be avoided for other readers who may also be caught unaware. True, of course, that many readers won't even notice — and of those who do, fewer still will come pounding on our door in confusion or protest ... Augnablik (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Even more interesting (or jarring:) is: Xxxxxxxxxxx.^18,41,7 Ideally, one could get the numbers in ascending order, but because the basis of the numbers is somewhere earlier in the article, an edit there could scramble the order later. DMacks (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, @DMacks, I’m converted now — at least to the merit of this new way Wikipedia and the ACS have chosen to do citations.

At the same time, I think the concerns I laid out in my previous reply to your message are also valid. But they’re of a different order. Augnablik (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1966

OK, this one is puzzling me. On the list of shipwrecks in 1966, the [edit] button is not showing for September onwards. I've got no idea why this is, no obvious error in the last entry for August. Mjroots (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed There was a missing pair of closing braces. DonIago (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Doniago: Thank you! Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Notability

Hi help desk hosts, I am working on Draft:Stephan Nance. I think it is barely GNG passing with the sources currently in the article and I was unable to locate any additional ones. Did I miss any sources and if not is the references in the article enough to pass GNG? Justiyaya 06:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The sourcing is rather thin, and the article is currently too short. You are right that this is barely meeting WP:GNG, so it needs more work.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I copied a User Draft to Mainspace before it was ready - how to delete it?

I thought that User:Gronk Oz/Peter Botten was ready for mainspace, so I created Peter Botten. But a heap of errors showed up in mainspace which were not apparent in the user draft. So I would like time to fix them in the User Draft - is there an easy way to remove it from Mainspace? Gronk Oz (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I have checked all the CSD criteria, and I can't find one that caters for this situation. Any suggestions?--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Try WP:G7 -- œ^™ 12:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlEnglish: That looks like just the thing. I did not recognize it from the description earlier; I need to look more carefully. Thanks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Geohack

Has Geohack gone down? I'm getting error pages whenever coordinates on articles are clicked. Rupples (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's working again now. Rupples (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism help request from WendlingCrusader

I have noticed some vandalism at Monakhov gorge. And as soon as you view the pop-up screen you will see the problem! Namely, for the second time in six days, a brand-new editor has vandalised this page. The first editor [3] wrote in english, and has since been blocked. This second editor [4] has added text in a foreign language (Indonesian?), together with a telephone number. I feel it requires more than a simple reversion. Would an editor please assist me with fixing it? Thank you, WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The user has been warned. ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Live on TV

i was watching fox news live and litterly 4 minutes ago Marsha Blackburn publicly expressed intrest in running for tennessee governor. how would i cite that? Cannolorosa (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't. A politician saying something is not of itself encyclopaedic.

Wait until this has been discussed by secondary sources. See NOTNEWS. ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding Portals

The following discussion 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.

---

How to add more Portals? 2toneq (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

January 19

Tracing a comment

Hello, I have a trival WP:RTP hangup. I can't find the source of 63.98.140.237's comment that appears in this page creation, which is sourced from this page. Leaving a message in case any WikiWizards know a quick method to search historical WP other than Special:Search (no result for me other than the copied destination). (Were IP contributions not recorded in Sep '03?) Tule-hog (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tule-hog: If you click View logs for this page in the page history then it shows a deletion in 2006. As an administrator I can see the deleted edits which include the edit by the IP. BoNoMoJo copy-pasted and redirected Talk:Inductive reasoning in 2003. The copy was later moved back to the original title. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Answering extended confirmed requests

If a request is too complicated or I'm not familiar enough with the topic, should I respond letting them know this, or should I just ignore the request and wait for (and if) someone else to answer? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally best to ignore such requests. When pages are protected, they are often for very good reasons and you don’t want to bypass that protection without good cause. TiggerJay (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism edits

Is there a dedicated AN or other board for requesting deletion of specific edits (not related to personal information, just vandalism)? Would I just go straight to WP:AIV? Asking in context of looking to wipe the ES of a decade old single-edit account's "contribution". Tule-hog (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how you found that edit that's over 11 years old. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Testing on that page, but this is just a specific example I had on hand of a question I've had come up before. Tule-hog (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

(ec)The edit was blanked shortly after it was made, and there's nothing there that needs a WP:REVDEL. Meters (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

REVDEL was what I was failing to recall, thanks. WP:CRD basically addresses my question. Tule-hog (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism simply gets deleted. AIV is for reporting persistent vandals for blocks. Meters (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Short description overridden at Lambda-CDM model

I edited the short description of Lambda-CDM model, but the page continues to show the old short description. What is overriding the explicit short description? rblv (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rublov: Try WP:PURGE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Didn't work. rblv (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a weird one. The short description that you added is visible to me, but above it is a short description that isn't formatted like anything I've seen before. It has an edit function to its right, which brings up a pop-up editing window. The source for it doesn't appear in the wikitext, so I can't figure out where it's coming from. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It's because it transcludes the lead section of Axis of evil (cosmology). —Cryptic 17:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Well spotted. That was exactly it.

For future reference, putting the short description of Axis of evil (cosmology) in <noinclude> didn't work, but creating a named section excluding the short description and transcluding that at Lambda-CDM model did. rblv (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Strange situation in someone's userpage

(I am deliberately not linking to the page in question as this question involves G10/RD2 content)

I have come across a userpage made recently. The person wrote an attack page as their userpage and then blanked it. A check through the history shows no content worth saving. Is it still eligible for G10 or should it be RevDell'ed instead? QwertyForest (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

If you don't want to link to the page, I suggest that you follow WP:REVDELREQUEST and request either G10 or RD2, then the responding admin can decide. TSventon (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I've now resolved the issue. QwertyForest (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Access to ProQuest

Per WP:URLACCESS, "Links inserted by named identifiers are presumed to lie behind a paywall or registration barrier" in which case it should be indicated when there is free access. However, I don't see a URL access indicator for ProQuest. Typically, I'd add ProQuest using the ID parameter and Template:ProQuest. I noticed that the template documentation says "the access status of the linked document is not reflected in the |url-access= parameter", which I assumed meant that there was no way of indicating the access level within the template. I added the parameter to the ProQuest template for the first source cited at Forest 404 and it seems to have worked fine. Did I add it correctly? Is this the correct way to indicate the access level of a ProQuest URL? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Creating a bot

Let's say I want to create a bot. Initially I would work only within my own userspace, while learning how to do it. I know the basics of programming (cycles, if statements, boolean logic, etc), but where would I add the code to make the account do those automated actions? Cambalachero (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Cambalachero. Please see WP:Bots, and the pages linked from there. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I did, I haven't found the info, so I'm asking here Cambalachero (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Try Help:Creating a bot. The same policies apply regardless of where you intend to use the bot. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

So my Sandbook is no being targeted for deletion with Malice

The following discussion 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.

---

I reported I'm being cyber bullied. by certain admin, and now my sandbox Is being targeted for deletion. Guess my point is proven. Edward Myer (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Your sandbox was nominated for speedy deletion because it's duplicating the draft you had restored after the article was deleted. Work on the draft version. Schazjmd (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Tha draft was 9years and would have had to be done from scratch. So I started a fresh more improved article. Edward Myer (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Do it in the Draft:Bruse Wane location. There is no need to make a third draft location; you're already using two. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

TWL access to Newspapers.com

I was recently given access to Newspapers.com but I only have the free subscription which means I can't clip pages. Did I do something wrong? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Apparently the user who reviewed was Nikkimaria. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheTechie: It has to be processed by Newspapers.com which might take a week or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

January 20

Foreign language citation in English articles?

I was reading an English article and was unsatisfied with the amount of information, so I switched it to Spanish (a language I can read) and found a lot more info there. If I wanted to write some of that into the English article for those who can't read Spanish, would it be appropriate to still use the Spanish-language citations? Qqars (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Qqars. The sources cited on English Wikipedia articles do not have to be written in English themselves. But if you wish to use them here, it is your responsibility to double-check that they actually do support the content you write. Sometimes a ref might be incorrect in one place, and then copied to somewhere else in a way that spreads the mistake even more widely. That happens even in English sources, but copying between different wikipedia sites seems to be more prone to it. DMacks (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What DMacks says. Additionally, remember that a lack of information in an English-language article doesn't necessarily reflect a lack of English-language sources; it may instead reflect a lack of energy for looking for those English-language sources that do exist. -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Qqars: I would encourage the use of the trans-title parameter when citing a non-English source. Fabrickator (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Content of a filmography

I'm looking at the page of a director and their filmography a number of items described as "documentary installation" which I assume are a form of video installation. Do these belong on a filmography? The filmography also contains standard films. Also, this filmography contains a number of short films for which I can find few, if any sources. Do items on a filmography have to be notable? Truthnope (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you give us a link to the page ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Tina Gharavi. For full disclosure, the IP address that made the recent edits on that page are mine. I only started using this account recently. Truthnope (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if there are an official policy about cite films that aren't notable in the filmography of someone who is notable. Anatole-berthe (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

IMO, filmography entries don't have to be notable. I've added shorts lacking articles just for completeness. I'm not so sure about documentary installations, whatever those are. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

redict

Popular paksitani drama Meem Se Mohabbat has delated because of socks and redirect now drama has full sources, should i unredict or draft? by --Sunuraju (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)