Help desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 13 >

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.

June 12

Article Deletion

Hello there!

My name is Darren Walters, and I created a boardgame called OOF DAH! The Organic Farm Strategy Game. There's 600 plus hours of OOF DAH on Youtube, making it a relevant and topical subject for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of viewers. My article, containing the rules of the game, however, were hastily deleted for obscure reasons (it doesn't align with Wikipedia's goals, etc). So I'm wondering: what was the criteria that allowed other boardgames, such as Trivial Pursuit, Monopoly, and Pictionary, to receive articles? Thank you for your clarification. Waltrs1 (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those existing articles were probably not written by the games' respective creators. —Tamfang (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is that a great deal of independent material has been published about those games in Reliable sources that are independent of their creators, vendors, etc. Please consult Wikipedia:Golden Rule. More broadly, see Wikipedia:Not, especially Section 2.

[Note that I cannot access your deleted article, so cannot discuss its details.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waltrs1 the text was pure spam, written by an LLM (not permitted) with a fake edit summary "I removed a few typos." for an edit that added 105,648 bytes and no proper refs. I'm tempted to block you now, i definitely will if you try this again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete "Suerior olivary nucleus" article

I made Suerior olivary nucleus with typo and it should be deleted. The original one is Superior olivary nucleus, and I realized that it was already made by someone.(They're redirect pages.) Dollasdal (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the page for deletion, it should be gone shortly. Tollens (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot publish a page edit - limited by Wikipedia

I am making a minor edit on a page. When I publish changes, I get this error:

"As an anti-abuse measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes. If you are attempting to run a bot or semi-automated script, please read and understand our bot policy, then request approval. Users who run unauthorized bot scripts may lose their editing privileges."

I am editing by hand, not a frequent editor, and I've tried this a few times each a week apart in case it is a temporary problem. How can I save my edit? Mbseales (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RIGHTS, new users are limited to 8 edits per minute. I don't see that many edits in your contributions, so it shouldn't restrict you so much. Could you be pressing the button more than once? Anyway, you should reach the autoconfirmed access level after 5 more edits so this is not likely to be an issue for long. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reported a similar issue here at the Teahouse last week. HerrWaus (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the talk log under discussion

Is it a violation of Wikipedia policy to delete or hide discussion logs without the permission of the parties involved? 163.136.36.56 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about this edit, archiving discussion logs is not the same thing as deleting them and is standard practice on talk pages. Deleting would have been a violation of the WP:TALK guideline. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting or hiding ("collapsing") material may be appropriate. If there is good reason for it, this good reason will normally also be apparent to editors who are both uninvolved in the matter and experienced. It's usually better to leave the deleting or hiding to them. -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted all the photo collages i made

Hello, i would like to know if it is ok for a user to delete photo collages which were there for 3-4 weeks, without discussing that on the respective talk pages first. Someone deleted my photo collages at Leipzig, Dresden, Halle (Saale), Freiburg, Frankfurt and Vienna, and even other, very long-lasting collages at Berlin and Cologne and other cities, stating that the collages consisted of "too many", and also "low quality images". However, articles like Miami show something different, and i think that the new photos are completely ugly to be honest. It is really unbelievable how ugly the collages now are, compared to my versions from before. If someone could look at my edits and tell me what i can do now, or am not allowed to do now. Or do i just have no taste and find truly beautiful things to be ugly and ugly things to be beautiful? Thank you. Tibesti1 (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to make almost any edit without discussing it first. See WP:BRD for how it's usually handled. MOS:INFOBOX and WP:GALLERY have advice that applies here. I only looked at the Leipzig article, but I agree there were too many images. Including too many images causes visual clutter and increases an article's file size which may make it inaccessible for users with bad internet. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are discussing this with the other editor on your talk page. FWIW I agree with the deleting editor. Please continue the discussion there. If you have an issue with other articles, then the place to discuss this is the talk pages of those articles. Incidentally, we are not concerned with whether the images are ugly or beautiful; what matters is whether they provide useful information on the topic. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know if i may revert the changes that have been done by the user. The most obvious example is Dresden. Compared to the version of June 7, it is now unbelievably reduced in quality. It can not be the case that anyone can make changes as he pleases, and then the version has to stay that way no matter how it looks then. Since he is the one who changed an existing version and i disagree, he would have to start a discussion on the talk page before making changes. Tibesti1 (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You prefer a collage with eleven images, another editor prefers one with five, as at the beginning of May. You should discuss this on the talk page, rather than edit-warring. Maproom (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Maproom said, see WP:BRD. You made that changes that pleased you, correct? That is fine (up to a point), but if someone reverts your WP:BOLD edit, and you disagree with the revert, it's time for discussion at the article talkpage. More at WP:DR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, note that he also changed collages which were long-standing, and not from one month ago, like Cologne and Berlin. I know that at least those changes can be reverted for sure. Secondly, he did not revert the collages to the state in which they once were, but he changed them completely. Therefore, the question is, in which state do the collages have to stay during possible talk page discussions, and whose task is it to begin such discussions. I am not interested in them. It seems that during the discussions, the collages would have to stay like they were the past weeks and not like they are since the user's recent changes, and that the discussions would have to be initiated by the person who made the most recent changes others disagreed with, and therefore not by me. Also, the current not nice collage at Dresden also recently replaced another collage that was also from me, and which was there for a year or longer. Tibesti1 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a help desk. It is not a platform for content disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, i didn't get an answer. The questions are easy: if someone changes a collage which existed for months or years, am i allowed to undo the changes as long as the discussion is ongoing. Secondly, if the collages existed for three weeks only, in which state do the collages have to remain during the discussions: in the recently created state from a few days ago or in the state they were the weeks before? Tibesti1 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the only answer you are going to get here. Arguing the toss over which state the article should be in while discussions are taking place isn't productive. Starting such discussions (on the article talk page, whey they are supposed to take place) is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an inappropriate answer. We all know that the collages of course can be reverted to the state before the first disagreements and discussions arose. When i once altered a collage someone else undid the change and told me to discuss on the talk page first. And now i want a confirmation that i'm allowed to undo the changes, in order to prevent an edit war. As far as i know, if someone makes a change someone else disagrees on, the change is made undone until a solution has been found. Tibesti1 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would insisting on your version while the discussion is going on "prevent an edit war"? It seems to me that it would be precisely edit warring. ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if you didn't understand the logic behind it, of course i want a confirmation, in order to prevent the other user to then again undo my revert and accuse me of edit warring. To take the extreme example, Cologne. The user changed a collage which was there since ages, and now you are telling me that no one is allowed to undo these changes without being accused of edit warring? I ask again now: if someone makes changes to articles that someone else disagrees on, can the change be undone then before the discussion about it has ended, or will the disputed change stay in the article forever from then on. How can i be the one having to start discussions on all the talk pages to defend the old collages? This is against all logic. The one who wants new disputed changes be included in the article would have to discuss it. Is that so difficult to understand. Tibesti1 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm, based on many years of contributing to Wikipedia, that if you persist in trying to argue the toss here over who should start a discussion over a content dispute, rather than actually doing something useful and starting one, eventually peoples' patience will run out. You are unlikely to be satisfied with the outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the other user changed around 10 collages, some of which were there since years, some since months, and some since weeks. So, now, what to do again now if i disagree with all these changes? I have to copy the old and the new collages on all the ten articles' talk pages and ask which one is better? Tibesti1 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to copy them, you can just link the relevant diffs.

The fact that an aspect of an article has existed in a particular state for a long time does not preclude someone deciding that it can be improved. Work through the BRD process. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But somehow, this BRD process is on my side: it says there that someone edits an article, then if someone else disagrees he may revert it, and it is then up to the user who made the new edit to discuss it with the reverter, and then, he may attempt a new edit. This is exactly what says the BRD page. And therefore, if i revert all the collages now, the user could not accuse me of edit warring. Anything else would be illogical anyway. Otherwise i also could create new collages for several cities now, and every time someone doesn't like the collage and reverts me, i'd just say "discuss on talk page please". And therefore i'd like to know now, if the user can accuse me of edit warring if i revert the collages to the state of before. Tibesti1 (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they can. BRD is an essay (albeit one that I'd argue is pretty widely respected); it's not license for you to insist that it's the other party's obligation to start the discussion and that you're entitled to keep reverting them until they do so. If you know the next step in the process should be a discussion (and clearly you do at this point), and you're making a deliberate choice not to do so because you think it's their responsibility, not yours, then you're not editing in good-faith. DonIago (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) When it comes to edit warring, there's no right and there's no wrong. So, no matter how right you know you are and how wrong you know the other person is, the two of you are likely going to end up blocked at some point if you keep reverting each other back and forth. If you end up at WP:AN3 because of this and try to argue that it was OK for you to continue reverting because the other person was the one who should've started discussing things on the talk page, an adminstrator is almost certainly going to tell you that's not how things work and you be lucky to get off with jsut a warning. So unless you're going to claim that your reverts are clearly not edit warring (i.e. one of the things listed here), you should be careful.

FWIW, one of the advantages of you being the person to start a discussion about this is that you get to make the first post; as long as your WP:CIVIL and keep your comments focused on the content of the edits being disputed and not the other person, you'll able to present you side first. The other person isn't obligated to respond, but you would've at least shown that you're the one willing to try and resolve things in accordance with WP:DR. You don't need the other person to participate in discussion per se, but if others do participate and agree with your position, it's likely that a WP:CONSENUS will be in favor of the collages. A consensus isn't something that the other person can't really ignore; they either have to accept it and move on or use the article's talk page to try and change it. If they continue reverting once a clear consensus has been established, they will be the one edit warring against consensus, and they will be the one that ends up blocked. If article talk page discussion between the two of you doesn't lead to compromise or other solution, you can move to another stage of the dispute resolution process as explained in WP:SEEKHELP. If even then, things still aren't resolved to your satisfaction, your best option might simply be to move on to something else.

There are, after all, more than six million Wikipedia articles and pretty much all of them are in need of some improvement. Of course, you're free to continue focusing all of your time and energy on this one particular dispute, but others aren't obliged to do the same. At some point, some administrator might decide that the who thing has become too much of a time sink, decide enough is enough, and block the two of you. At some point, you're going to need to ask yourself whether you want this to be your hill to die on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this answer. One question, how can i copy collages on talk pages so that they are directly viewable there. Somehow, it doesn't work. Aside from that..... at Vienna, which still has a comparable beautiful collage because most of my photos remained, the following happened: someone copied a discussion i had with them on their talk page, onto the Vienna talk page. I don't even know if that is permitted because now it looks like as if i wrote something on the Vienna talk page although i never have done so. And there, no one answered for weeks. And Vienna is comparably important, and not even there was someone interested in such a discussion. It is foreseeable that the same thing will happen on the other talk pages. I'm not interested in opening ten different discussions where no one is going to answer. What is also foreseeable is that this one person will want to talk through with me every single new photo he included, and tell me why his choices are better than mine. The beginning of that is viewable on my talk page. And therefore, there must be a way to prevent people from "destroying" collages without the defender of the original state being obliged to be drawn into discussions with the potential of never coming to an end. There were perfect collages at Frankfurt (until June 8) and Leipzig (until June 11) that i created and now look what they have become. During the process of discussion, it should be normal that the original state remains until the discussion is concluded. Otherwise it would mean that if someone would exchange a collage with a single photo, this single photo would have to remain on the page until a discussion about whether a single photo or a collage is better, has ended, and this can definitely not be the case. Tibesti1 (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep using words like "destroying collages" when you try to discuss this, any discussion regarding them is unlikely going to get very far. If from the very start you frame a discussion as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, others are likely going to repond accordingly. Everytime you click the "Publish changes" button, you're agreeing to allow others to take your edits and modify or revert them as they seem fit. It's hope they do so in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy and guideline, and edits which are clearly WP:VANDALISM or otherwise a serious policy violation can be reverted asap. It's content disputes where two editors who believe they're making improvements in good faith disagree that WP:DR is intended to help resolve. The idea isn't for one side to come away the winner and another to walk away the loser; the idea is for both sides to see whether any compromise can be reached in which Wikipedia ends up being the winner. So, if you don't at least try to WP:AGF at the beginning of a discussion, you can't really expect others to respond to you in good faith.

The collages you created are also not destroyed because they can be found within the article's page history. You can link to older versions of an article for reference in talk page discussion much in the same way you would add an external link to any Wikipedia page. You can go to the article's page history and scroll down until you find the version that you want, and then on the time stamp for the entry to display the article version that was current at that time and date. If you copy and paste the url from the top of the page into the take page discussion, others will know which version you're referring to, This might actually be a better approach then trying to format images onto the talk page for comparison purposes.

Some article are more heavily watched then others; so, responses you receive to article talk page post may come quickly, slowly, or never at all. There's no way to work around that. If you post something and are hoping for a quick response, you can try adding a {{Please see}} template to the talk pages of any WikiProjects listed at the top of the talk page to let others know about the discussion. As long as you avoid WP:INAPPNOTE, doing so should be OK. If nobody responds even after posting at the WikiProject level, then perhaps nobody's interested and you're then going need to decide whether pursuing the matter is worth any more of your time and energy.

If all of the collage disagreements are related to one another, you can probably one of the article talk pages or one WikiProject talk page as the venue for discussing things, and then just add links to the other talk pages to let others know about the discussion. You don't need to try to simultaneously manage multiple discussions about essentially the same thing on multiple talk page; in fact, you should probably avoid this because doing so almost always leads to a fractured discussion, redundant comments and confusion.

If someone copied something you posted on one talk page onto another talk page, then they probably did so in good faith. It would've simply been better for them to post a link to the original discussion instead, but they either didn't know how to do that or didn't think to do that. (In additon, the original source page is required to be properly attributed per WP:CWW, but many users just don't make the effort to do that. So, you could post a comment below theirs to clarify that you originally posted the content in question on some other talk page. You could also try to modify the quoted part of their post using a template like {{talk quote block}} to show that it's quoted text originally posted on some other page. Whatever you decide to do, you should make sure to leave a clear byt civil edit summary that explains the reasons for your edit to others. If you do decide to "edit" someone else's talk page post, you should only do what is absolutely necessary per WP:TPO; you shouldn't modify any of their original words in anyway. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm ok thank you for the detailed answer. Am i right in assuming that all this is also valid conversely too. So if i create new collages now for some cities, my new collage can not be deleted and reverted with the comment: "discuss on talk page first" or "long-standing collage reinstated", but as soon as someone doesn't like my collage, they would also have to open discussions on talk pages, and my collages would stay. And why is it not possible to show collages on talk pages by just copying them from the history pages, somehow it doesn't work. Thank you Tibesti1 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you is to stop wikilawyering. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and our joint purpose is to get as close as we can to consensus. If you have reason to believe that an edit you want to make will be controversial, then it is going to end up in discussion anyway. You are permitted to make the edit and wait for somebody to revert it before you start discussing, but why would you want to waste everybody's time in that way? And if you are doing that in order to get your version in while the discussion goes on, that sounds like tendentious editing to me. (Note: I am not arguing for or against the changes you want to me: I have not looked at any of them. I'm focusing on how you are approaching collaboration.) ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of years on Petersen Automotive Museum

I was reviewing the Petersen Automotive Museum article and noticed that, although the infobox indicates it was founded on June 11, 1994 (and today is June 12, 2024), it shows it has been in existence 29 years instead of 30 years. Why might that be? Bahooka (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bahooka, ages and other auto-updating figures, remain unaltered until the article is edited. I have added a space to that article, and saved it, and the figure has updated to 30 years. - Arjayay (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had no idea. I will try to remember that and do the same if I see that in the future. Bahooka (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahooka: A purge is enough to force an update and articles are sometimes updated automatically but it's unpredictable how long it will take. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Bahooka; strictly speaking, I have confused a Help:Dummy edit with a WP:NULLEDIT - I described it as a null edit, but adding a space is actually a dummy edit, so I was the Dummy making the edit ! - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for guidance on using the term "best known for" in the lede

As an editor, I really dislike seeing uncited superlatives. They are often just thrown in, without adding any needed clarification. Largest as of when? Oldest according to whom? And little consideration of the maintenance aspects added to the article.

"best known for" is a very common occurrence that drives me nuts, because the claim is almost never cited. In those cases, I assume that it is mainly the opinion of the editor(s) of the lede, hopefully based upon cited facts presented in the rest of the article. But even this seems a clear case of SYNTH (where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources). I think to include that statement, we would really need to provide a reputable secondary source that specifically states that this person is "best known for" whatever.

Doing a search for "best known for her role" provides a snapshot of many uncited cases. And another problem is that claims of this sort can be very generational. Actors in a well known role in the 1980's and again in the 2010's are going to be "best known for" different things. Which begs the question "best known" to whom?

So back to my original thought that superlatives are often not encyclopedic and become stale over time. I think we should state what roles the actor (for example) was in, their history, awards, reviews, etc. and stick to the facts. Let the reader decide for themselves what is "most significant" in the article.

Any thoughts on this, or directions to an applicable WP consensus? Many thanks! • Bobsd • (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If it isn't attributed to a source that directly says someone or something is "best known" for something then it's WP:SYNTH. Popcornfud (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud Thanks for the response. Would you say that the cite for the "best known" should follow the phrase directly in the lede? Because I know that the lede is considered a summary of the article, so somewhere else in the article there may be a citation for that "best know" although hidden in the cited article. That would take a lot of research to untangle. Or put another way, should those uncited (in the lede) claims be removed? Don't worry, I'm not going to start nuking all the articles ... I need a lot of feedback, and some consensus is agreed upon. • Bobsd • (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is a summary of the article, and plenty of folks prefer to keep citations out of the lede since they should ideally already exist later on in the article, but in cases where there's an extraordinary claim there shouldn't be an issue with sticking the citation for one specific statement in the lead as well as later on. Ex.: In James John Joicey, the description of his contributions to entymology is cited in the lede, but the size of his collection is not. It is really a matter of preference and depends on the article. If the information exists later on in the article though, like if a reputable source describes a person by what they are "best known for" directly or there are multiple sources just describing one thing that they achieved or did, then why remove it in the lede and make it less clear what the article is going to describe?

If I can clarify this, though - there are many cases where, if it is not specifically stated in a source that a specific role or accomplishment is what a person is "best known for", in my opinion, there is no harm in simply removing "best known for" and replacing it with a neutral statement of fact ("She is best known for her role as..." -> "She played the role of...") Recon rabbit 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit that is certainly the direction in which I would like see changes made. Thank you. • Bobsd • (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant but I found Curtis Brown (agency)#Clients which has 39 "best known for", all unsourced. Wow. PrimeHunter (talk)

You made my day!!! • Bobsd • (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a persistent IP user ended up blocked after trying to do something about this WP:PUFFERY shouldn't deter others from trying. It's non-neutral and unencyclopaedic in almost every case, and is almost invariably unsourced. Removing it is a service to the project. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, and thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure that any removals are clearly WP:SYNTH and/or WP:PUFFERY before removing. And personally, I don't think it's worth a fight for what is basically a common catch phrase. When I get reverted, I hit the article or user talk page, and unless it's a factual error, I let it lie. Especially due to the fact that nothing is ever locked down, so the same thing can happen next week. Life is too short. • Bobsd • (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert wars and 3rv rule?

Hey, I use the Spanish wiki a lot so rules may be a bit different here.

It seems that general policies like edit warring and 3rv rules are present in both wikies. Now where would be an appropriate place to report such incidents? I think there would need to be 2 places, one to seek a neutral third party for dispute resolution, (ideally before the 3rv rule is broken)and another to actually report violations of such rules (when other resources are extinguished).

Thank you for the info.--TZubiri (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TZubiri: To seek a third party for dispute resolution, your best bets are Wikipedia:Third opinion (WP:3O for short) or the dispute resolution noticeboard (WP:DRN for short). (I'd suggest trying 3O first, as it's a more lightweight process and thus likely to be faster.) If there's active edit warring that needs to be addressed, you can report it at the Administrators' Noticeboard for edit warring (WP:ANEW for short). ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks!

Another informative alternative is also involving editors from other articles, more eyes are more points of view and attention to the problem, and it can give cohesion to the wiki as a whole too. TZubiri (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Line breaks

In some situations I use to force a line break, but I often see that some use . Which is the proper method? What's the real difference? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is HTML, whereas is XHTLM, which is the HTML subset of XML. I always use which the WP parser seems to handle well. • Bobsd • (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: is generally preferred but they currently and maybe forever have the same effect in wikitext since Help:Line-break handling# says is automatically converted to . Such fixes aren't always made forever when our software is updated but I guess will never be allowed to fail. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the help. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if MediaWiki stopped converting   to   and just left it unchanged, it'd still be valid HTML either way. The HTML standard states that br is a void element, that "void elements only have a start tag", and that you may (but need not) put a forward slash in a void element's start tag. Rummskartoffel 09:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need a number to donate

I need a number to donate some money 2600:100C:B025:D41A:515E:579F:566E:50D2 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which type of number you want but maybe donate::Problems donating will be of help. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia finances before doing so. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the maps in New York?

For example, in articles like Empire State Building, the map shows misspelled names such as "tudor siti" (tudor city) and "hadson jards" (hudson yards). What's up with that? (I can't seem to find the same misspellings on openstreetmap.org.) Weeklyd3 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Weeklyd3: It was reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 212#Serbian place names displayed on Manhattan maps. gerrit:1030307 may be a fix on the way. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, "Vašington Skver" is not a mis-spelling, it's ~~Serbian~~ some Slavic language (but not Serbian, which is written in Cyrillic). Maproom (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian language has both a Cyrillic and Latin writing system and I think that's the cause of the problem. The Serbian in this case is marked as using the Latin script while English has no script variations and is not marked with Latin. The map software currently prefers scripts marked as Latin over unmarked scripts, or something like that. It's being worked on. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Hudson jards" and "Tudor siti" seem to be romanization of their Russian names, both of which are recorded on OpenStreetMap. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Weeklyd3, PrimeHunter, Maproom, and Tutwakhamoe: It is Serbian (sr-Latn), see phab:T195318. More exactly "Hadson jards" is coming from here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5706568334/history. Cheers, VIGNERON * ^discut. 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]