Wikipedia:Help desk

The Wikipedia help desk is a place where you can ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.

• For other types of questions, see Help:Contents and Are you in the right place?. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• If you need real-time help, you can join our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• If you are a new editor, you might prefer to ask your question at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.

Click here to ask a new question
about how to use or edit Wikipedia

March 15

Help!

I’m locked out of my user page and I’m not receiving email from Wikipedia to rest my password ... help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.179.18.48 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

See Help:Logging in for general help. If you say your username then we can see whether the account has stored an email address but not what it is. If you don't remember or get a password then you have to create a new account. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

My username is Castlemate. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.179.18.48 (talk)

User:Castlemate has not specified an email address. If you create a new account then you can say on both user pages that you are the same user. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternative account notification. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you want me to give you my email address here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.179.18.48 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I cannot do anything with it. An email address can be given at account creation or at Special:Preferences for users who can log in. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok... can someone please tell me what todo? I’ve been going around in circles for days. I’m stupid and need a simple answer. Please don’t send me to Wikipedia pages that I need a PHD in computer terms to use. Help! Help! Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.179.18.48 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but your ONLY OPTION is to abandon the account and start create a new one, because the old account does not have an email address. You may then add notes to the user pages of both new and old accounts to tell other editors about the linkage. -Arch dude (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

How can I add a note to an old account that I can use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.179.18.48 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

supposedly I can: After creating an account, you can associate an email address to your account on Special:Preferences. You can navigate to the "User profile" tab, where you will see an “Email options” section. You can enter your email address in this section. But this need a password as well. Clearly nobody seems to know what has to be done. Can I have an expert opinion please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.179.18.48 (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is you don't like our advice: Create a new account and abandon the old one. You can edit the old user page with the new account to say you are the same person. I recommend storing an email address in the new account to reduce the risk of losing that account too. In rare cases server administrators may consider setting an email address for an account so you can use Special:PasswordReset. As far as I know, there are no public guidelines for it. I think they try to minimize the number of requests. You have to prove it is your account, e.g. because the account gave identifying information in a logged in edit. They also prefer accounts with advanced user rights. Otherwise you can just create and use a new account. You claim to be a user with 7412 edits but you still haven't managed to sign an edit in seven posts. That does not inspire confidence. You also make other beginner mistakes like top posting, wrong header syntax, failure to start a post on a new line, and posting to the wrong section. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your ongoing unhelpful abuse. No wonder I have dislike Wikipedia editors who are so unhelpful and have been for over 10 years. I really didn’t know I could sign posts when I wasn’t logged on. 49.179.18.48 (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, I do not believe this is Castlemate (talk · contribs), but let's not waste any more time on this. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Article on new concept

Hi, I was advised by a Patent Lawyer to publish a new concept (such as Anthropocene as an example) on Wikipedia. I developed this concept and I am in the process of registering the trademark and legal rights to it. During my research on Wikipedia I came across the following and would like to know how a new concept such as Anthropocene got onto Wikipedia, if the following is correctly understood by me. Quote:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Editing_Wikipedia No original research Simply put, Wikipedia is not a place to publish original ideas. Rather, you should summarize what others have published in reliable sources about the topic. Articles may not contain any new analysis, and they should not synthesize published materials to reach broader conclusions beyond what the individual sources say.

if I can go ahead, I've read that I should first edit 10 articles and I did one. How do I get back to edit 9 more articles? Just can't find it. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.178.18 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Tell that patent lawyer that an administrator says he is absolutely wrong about Wikipedia and to never give that advice again. Honestly, I'd demand my money back for that session if a lawyer told me to do that.

We do not use nor publish original research. We are not a means of promotion. In other words, we do not allow people to do what that lawyer advised you to do and we will delete it from the site. You'd honestly better off publishing your concept by writing it on a public toilet's walls because it will last longer.

Our article on the Anthropocene is a summary of already published sources by scholars independent whoever coined the term, just as our article on Coca-Cola is a summary of history books and newspaper and magazine articles written by people who do not work with or for the Cola-Cola company. Ian.thomson (talk)

Oh! Also, because of the Creative Commons and GNU licenses that stuff on this site is published under, publishing here could royally fuck over later attempts to trademark your concept. Demand your money back. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

As Ian said, this is absolutely the wrong place for original research, so thank you very much for asking here before you proceeded. The are other places on the Internet you can use. See WP:OUT for some of them. One alternative is github. Although usually used as a code repository, it can be used for any collection of related information that is organized as a directory structure containing files. From a purely legal perspective, github is just as good a place to publish as any other publicly-accessible location on the Internet. -Arch dude (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, nothing above should be construed as legal advice. We're not patent lawyers, and we don't play them on Wikipedia. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur that we are not giving legal advice. That said, the lawyer doesn't have a clue.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah; IANAL, but I am really sceptical that any actual intellectual property lawyer would give such hideously bad advice. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I fail to think of any intellectual property type where publishing on Wikipedia would help. Our CC-BY-SA license means you waive essentially all copyright, a trademark claim would be weakened (see generic trademark), and it would kill a patent application (where you must prove that the patent was unkwown in the "state of the art", such "state of the art" including all Wikipedia pages at the date of application). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

As the others said, forget about publishing your concept on Wikipedia and tell that patent lawyer he is completely wrong and clueless about Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 10:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Need Help Updating My First Three Articles

Hello, I create a few articles on some interesting public figures and a sports company. Can someone help me research and update these articles for me?

Article (Pharaoic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoic Article (Spzrts): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spzrts Article (Davion Robinson): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davion_Robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson28.7 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Johnson28.7 I've tagged the articles with various issues. I'd strongly suggest that you consent to moving the articles to Draft space where you can work on them with less fear of deletion, and then submit them as drafts for a review before they are formally placed in the encyclopedia as they are now. Your articles lack independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subjecst, indicating how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. They also use some promotional language that should be removed. In the case of the company, Wikipedia is not interested in what the company says about itself(such as what it considers to be its "mission"), only in what others unaffiliated with the company say about it. Please understand that successfully writing a new article is the hardest possible task to undertake on Wikipedia. You should read Your First Article to get an idea of what is being looked for, and maybe use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

could you help me out by updating the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson28.7 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I create a few articles on some interesting public figures and a sports company. Can someone help me research and update these articles for me?

Article (Pharaoic): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoic Article (Spzrts): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spzrts Article (Davion Robinson): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davion_Robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson28.7 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnson28.7: No need to repeat yourself. (Joined with previous section with same content). Also, Please sign your messages on talk pages by adding a space and four tildes to the end of the last line of your message, like this:

This is the last line of the message. ~~~~

The four tildes will be automatically converted to a signature that contains your linked username and a timestamp, which helps keep conversations organized. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Lewis capaldi certifications

Hi I was just wondering if anyone could help me with updating lewis capaldis page. I looked into how to do it but I'm afraid I will mess the whole thing up. His nvpi certifications aren't on and none of his swiss ones are either. The nvpi ones are confirmed on there site. I'm not sure if his swiss ones are confirmed on the ifpi site. But I know he has them as he is pictured with his platinum album award on the universal music switzerland Instagram page and he was given an award live on stage for his song someone you loved selling over 200,000. That is also in the universal music switzerland page. I was also told by the ums that several of his song have went gold or platinum in Switzerland. But not one of them has been confirmed on his page. Sorry for bothering you with this but as I said I don't want to mess up lewis page. Thanks. Kind regards Scott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.240.214 (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Lewis Capaldi. There, post a message similar to the one that you posted immediately above, but providing the URL (http://whatever, or https://whatever) for each specific web page that you reference. Doing this will greatly reduce the amount of work you're hoping that some other person will do, and will therefore increase the likelihood that they'll do it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Changer name

Good morning,

I am trying to change my name of my page from aaronsmithphd to simply Aaron L Smith. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make this request. Could someone please assist me in getting it changed so I can start?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronsmithphd (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Aaronsmithphd: That's your username, and that page is your user page: see WP:USERNAME and WP:USERPAGE. The purpose of a user page is to tell other editors about yourself as a Wikipedia editor, not a general CV. You appear to be trying to create waht we call an article, not a user page. Please don't. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. we delete any article whose subject is not notable by our definition. See WP:N -Arch dude (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit timestamps

Hi. I notice in all page history logs, the timestamps are shown rounded to the nearest minute. Is it possible to get them displayed to the nearest second instead? 81.108.190.108 (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If you register an account, you can customize much of your Wikipedia experience. At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, you can set the date format to ISO, which gives timestamps like 2020-03-15T18:33:45. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice! 81.108.190.108 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Done draft

Hello, I did a draft named Draft:Radko Sáblík. Now I would like to move it to "Radko Sáblík". I cannot move it myself. Can someone help me? Best wishes, Petr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petr0101 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, your draft was missing the Articles for Creation box. I inserted it for you. There should be a button now, that you can click to submit your draft for review. --Info-Screen::Talk 19:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice on my page

Hi all A wikipedia page I manage is showing a notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehangir_Hospital Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhitaparia (talk • contribs) 20:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nidhitaparia When you say you "manage" the page, do you do so as a hospital employee or representative? What is it that you do not understand about the notice? 331dot (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nidhitaparia the sources on that page do not appear to establish notability. See Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability).-Arch dude (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

March 16

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Reference number 21 is still in red and I cannot fix it - especially not on tis mobile device. Please fix it up if you can and thanks 203.132.68.1 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two ISBNs listed. Which is the correct one? Does the "undo" button work on your device? RudolfRed (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I removed the short-form ISBN and kept the long one. Only one can be used in the cite template. MB 02:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the third time in the last 2 weeks that this user has asked about the double ISBN problem..... Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

And has had the same problem several times in the further past. We have come to accept that this user (who is easily recognisable by subject matter and writing style whether logged in or not) finds it very difficult to grapple with anything connected to coding, as well as being limited by available devices, but makes sufficiently valuable and extensive contributions to a range of articles that it's easier to just sort out the problems. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.39 (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Obchod na Korze/The Shop on Main Street

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

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

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

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

If this is about one of the articles here, please let us know which one. RudolfRed (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I added it to the John E. Kilmer article, linking to USS John E. Kilmer (DDG-134). It you enjoy finding stuff we should add to Wikipedia, that's great. If you want to help further, please consider learning how to edit Wikipedia yourself. -Arch dude (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

New page preview system

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

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

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

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

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

If you WP:REGISTER an account, you get access to the "Navigation Popups" gadget, which allows some control over the length of the initial preview, as well as providing a "more" link that lets you retrieve more of the article. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The preview is taken automatically from the start of the page. We don't write pages with the preview in mind. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is the guideline for leads. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I cross-posted the feedback at mw:Talk:Page Previews. I believe it genuinely help to have the developers have the user feedback, even if they decide against it (which is probable since there are tons of high-priority projects for few developers). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

If you don't want to take on the task of clarifying them, we have maintenance templates such as {{Technical}} and {{Context}} that you can add to the article, or add a section to the article's own talk page to discuss specific concerns with other editors that may be interested and knowledgeable in the particular field. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You might find the Simple English Wikipedia more suited to your needs.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

People who "come here to find out what a scientific term means" might do better at Wiktionary. Maproom (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You are basically correct: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead section is supposed to be "accessible". However, it is also supposed to be concise, to indicate why the subject is notable, and to mention the main points of the article, all without being too technical. This set of requirements is basically impossible to meet for some subjects. Some of our science articles have companion "overview" articles in an attempt to address your concerns. If you have the time, please try to improve our articles, or at least make comments in the articles talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

As an example, consider second law of thermodynamics (arguably the most important topic about thermodynamics, or at least in the top 3). I doubt someone without former knowledge of thermodynamics can make heads or tails of the first two paragraphs. Yet, they are probably as simple as they can be while still being entirely accurate. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a lead section of a physics article clearer for the layperson, but it got reverted, so I gave up. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Many talkpages don't have a lot of watchers. It can help if you at the same time put a "I have started a discussion about X at Y" message on related wikiprojects and noticeboards. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Well, all I can say is "the original poster is right and it sucks", but I am not sure we can do much about it (apart from reminding people what the guidelines are). The problem is simply that there are not enough editors in niche topics. The "flagship articles" usually are decent but the more specific articles will have few editors because there are few people who have the knowledge necessary to write the bulk of the article. I do think physics is a hard-hit area in that respect but it is probably because I read more niche physics articles more than (say) niche history articles.

Note that I include myself in that criticism (I think the lead of our article electric field is worse now than at the time of my last edit but both versions must be utterly impenetrable to someone without a bachelor's education in sciences). The thing is, correcting mistakes is higher-priority than making articles readable, and (stereotype warning) us physicists are more interested in the former than in the latter anyway. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

How about this version of the lead? It was almost entirely just a copy/paste re-arrangement of sentences (and occasional phrases) with minimal re-wording to hold it together as English. I also separated different subtopics into different paragraphs. The aim was to bring the outsider into the subject. (I'm not convinced that the "SI units" info needs to be in the lead at all, but I left it there for the moment to keep my changes restricted to the lead.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

S.S.Benifits

How much does U.S. Gov. Stand to save, if the corona virus attacks elderly and people with underlying health issues? (Considering u.s. had an outbreak like other countries) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.198.3 (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Special:Content Translation

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

There is no special page by that name. See WP:TRANSLATE for translating pages. Machine translations are not allowed on this Wikipedia RudolfRed (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Вадзім Медзяноўскі, if you are referring to the links with names of non-English languages that are typically listed on the left of an English Wikipedia (EW) Article (or other) page under the heading 'Languages', these do not create or (usually) link to direct translations of that page; instead they link to articles on the same subject in the independent Wikipedias of those other languages. The links have to be manually created, so there may well be many non-English Wikipedia (NEW) articles that could be linked, but are not linked yet.

Such non-English articles are usually not direct translations of the EW article – some may have started out that way, but after creation they will have been further modified by that Wikipedia's editors.

The same applies to EW articles that were originally translated from articles in NEWs. All such articles are/were translated by human volunteers (see Wikipedia:Translation): there is no Wikipedia automated function to make translations, and we do not accept direct machine translations because the technology available to date is not adequately accurate (see Wikipedia:Translation#Avoid machine translations). (Human translators may start with a machine translation, but will need to carry out extensive further work on it.)

I hope this was helpful, since your query was too terse to understand reliably. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.39 (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 17

Article for deletion

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

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

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

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

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

Oh I see! Thanks for your help. peterl (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States will not accept navbox

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

Jax 0677, see WP:PEIS. Looks like the page has too many citations/is too big and is increasing the template size too much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like Template:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic_data/United_States_medical_cases is the main problem, accounting for half the references in the page and of the limit. I think the daily references would need to be axed since it is not sustainable (or at least substed). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Page-size data. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Quarantine the Coronavirus

Majority of companies in the world are locking down to certain extent to work from homes even providing leaves due to new COVID-19 (coronavirus) in order to reduce the impact of spreading the new coronavirus. thus in order to reduce the impact of covid-19 countries need to impose policies to lockdown for certain time to mitigate the effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.202.165 (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What was your question? JIP | Talk 08:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a help desk for editing Wikipedia, not for general questions/observations. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Biography

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

What assistance do you need? -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Try Help:Your first article and WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Long term storage of personal favorite searches

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

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

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

Lützow's Wild Hunt

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

• Done. The poem is now at Lützow's Wild Hunt (poem). JIP | Talk 20:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Reporting Spam

Hey Guys

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

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

@Jlenney: Not exactly a ton (25 occurrences). I'm investigating. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 18

Google search issue

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

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

The information on the Wikipedia page appears to be sourced and therefore we would hold it to be correct. If Google displays something else, we have no control over that. Google often displays information in such a way that impies it comes from Wikipedia even though they compile data from multiple locations. Please link to any pages where you need help and (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with a long-term purpose; it's not meant to be an up-to-the-second-accurate resource. Things like software releases are updated whenever volunteer editors get around to it. See WP:RELEASENOTES. If you want to know what the current release of ASP.NET Core is, the relevant Microsoft website would be the place to look. If the article is wrong or out of date, you can also leave a note at Talk:ASP.NET Core for someone interested/familiar with the article. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

ASP.NET Core was last edited 18 February 2020. The time ago is updated automatically in the article and at the time it would have said: "Stable release 3.1.1 / 15 January 2020; 34 days ago". Google monitors our recent changes and cached the article at the time. They say exactly the same now in their data box so they probably did get it from Wikipedia but a month ago. We don't control Google. We could maybe get them to update their data by making an unrelated edit to the article but we don't do that to influence external sites. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft

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

Effat.assar I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for review. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Effat.assar: You deleted the "Resubmit" button when in this edit you removed the lines saying "-- Do not remove this line! --". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)