Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 July 20

= July 20 =

Defunct links for defunct websites
Hi.

Over the years I've repeatedly come across articles for dead websites or magazines or similar which still link to the old URL. I am not sure how to handle this, and cannot find a relevant policy or essay on this.

The most recently example is Seed (magazine). This article has an infobox which links to the former website, but that website is now a GoDaddy placeholder. I do not think we should be linking to these sites, per WP:ELNO, but this was the correct website in the past. It is still useful information, even if it's not a useful hyperlink. Is there some template I can use which displays the URL and also explains that it's no longer working?

To put this another way, the address for a dead website might still be important, and is useful for archiving purposes, but should not necessarily be linked directly. I am hoping to indicate this in the article, and I know I cannot be the first person to have this issue. Is there some standard way to handle this? Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The easiest thing is to tag them with dl. Don't do that if they've been archived though. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

how to upload pictures and informatiom
how can i upload picture,video and music on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taofeek gbadamosi (talk • contribs) 01:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You can make requests here: WP:FFU- FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Renamed section
In the article "Hine-nui-te-pō" (edit: added second quotation mark) (separate edit: just decapitalized the first "edit" written here), I changed the name of the section "Hine-nui-te-pō Background" to simply "Background". Could anyone please tell me if this was right? Sorry if this seems trifling, but as I've said here before, I feel guilty if I don't ask about edits that aren't related to grammar, spelling, and punctuation (though I sometimes ask about those here as well, as my last edit here related to that).--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't need to "clear" your edits here, if something is wrong with an edit someone will contact you. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you please tell me if you're referring to my editing notes here, or the article I just edited? Either way, it's largely because I have OCD (edit: mostly in the latter case).--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I was refering to when you make an edit to an article, you don't need to come to this page and ask if the edit is OK. Other editors will be watching the pages you edit and if you make a mistake they will fix it or contact you about it or both. Hope this answers you question. Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I often feel guilty removing or changing words from the work of others in Wikipedia pages, and like to make absolutely sure that I'm not unintentionally vandalizing an article.--Thylacine24 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Assume that WP:BRD will work as intended. It doesn't always, but reasonably often. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's hard to do so with OCD.--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ...I can't think of a helpful reply to that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway.--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thylacine24, to answer your original question, yes that's good. In general, the page title shouldn't be repeated in a "descriptive" section title. For example, the Russia article should have a "History" section, not a "History of Russia" section. Of course, if the article's name is part of a phrase used as a section title, it should appear, e.g. if John Doe's life were profoundly affected by a book entitled John Doe's Life and Times, it might be wise to have the book title as a section header (you shouldn't reduce it to Life and Times), but that's not a very common situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me.--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Unit formatting and relation to sentence structure
In this sentence from the article "Semaphore telegraph", the "convert" template results in the awkward and (I think) incorrect phrasing of using a plural noun as an adjective:

"A 104-kilometre (65 mi) line connecting Martha's Vineyard with Boston, its purpose was to transmit news about shipping."

Could anyone please tell me how to fix this?--Thylacine24 (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On a good day, WP is far from perfect, phrase-wise. However, you may save the phrasing in this instance by not using the template, and replacing it with what it outputs, edited accordingly.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The template has a parameter (adj=on) just for this. I made the change in Semaphore telegraph. MB 04:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Article title is incorrect but can't Move it
The article Penn's Creek massacre should not have an apostrophe in the word 'Penns'. I tried to move the article to re-title it without the punctuation error but it gives me the message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid." How can I fix this? Lilipo25 (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Penns Creek massacre exists as a redirect to the page with the apostrophe. Eagleash (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. This seems like an error - the name of both the creek and the massacre is just "Penns Creek". There's never been an apostrophe (historically, the creek was once called "John Penn's Creek" but it was changed directly from that to the no-apostrophe "Penns Creek" in 1802). I'm completely lost as to how to fix it. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:BEFOREMOVING, bullet point #2 applies and list at WP:RMT. Eagleash (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help. I have submitted a request to have it moved. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The references in the article (that I have been able to check) mostly call it "Penn's Creek", including one published in 2013. Wikipedia policy is to name an article in the way its subject is usually referred to, rather than its official name. E.g. "Newt Gingrich", not "Newton Leroy Gingrich". Maproom (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I find the opposite - most sources (including the 2000 book Union County Pennsylvania: A Celebration of History by the Union County Historical Society, the 2009 article from the Snyder County Historical Society and the 2010 article from the Snyder County Post) all list it without the apostrophe. Also, the Wikipedia entry for Penns Creek has no apostrophe - the apostrophe is only in the article for the massacre, which is merely named after the Creek. I found some other information in researching that I will post on the talk page for the proposed move rather than go into it here further. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What you have found is that the name of the creek itself is now spelled without an apostrophe. The massacre happened when the creek's name was usually written with an apostrophe, so it is not surprising that texts about the massacre refer to it, even now, as the "Penn's Creek massacre". Wikipedia should follow those texts – just as it has an article about John of Gaunt, even though the name of his birthplace is now spelled "Ghent". Maproom (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What is this citation style called? And where is the WP-instructional page for it?
Health of Abraham Lincoln uses a somewhat odd to me citation style, where the inline references are constructed like this:
 * which then links to the "cite id" code nested around cite book references placed in the Bibliography section.

So, all I need to know is 1)what this citation style is called and 2)is there a template page/instructional page for how to use it? Shearonink (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not got a name so far as I know. It's sort of like author-date (Harvard referencing).  It is sort of cryptic and requires the use of html () use of which is, if I remember correctly, discouraged.  I would note that in that article the  tags are not closed (each  is supposed to have a matching )
 * Were it me, I would remove the  tags and use the  value from them in the ref parameter in the associated cs1|2 template:  → Donald.  This is a technical fix that should not run afoul of WP:CITEVAR.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in on this ...it was driving me crazy yesterday trying to find any info about this style. Yeah it did seem somewhat related to Harvard cites that was then merged into a system of internal anchoring - very unique. One of my concerns is that this referencing-style is so different that it could possibly be keeping interested editors from contributing. I knew I hadn't seen it before and now I see you hadn't seen it before either... I'll post about any ref changes on article-talk...heh, am kind of thinking that because of the singularity am not quite sure CITEVAR would/should apply in this case. (I have noticed that the editor who created the article in 2009 seemed to have used this style on the handful of other articles they created that same year.) Shearonink (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do have an additional question... The author name ...what does that do? Is it kind of an internal anchoring system, where the # links back to the main cite book ref down in the article's Bibliography? I'm just trying to understand why this works... Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just that. The heading at the top of today's section of this help desk page has this:
 * When I want to wikilink to that heading I write:
 * which MediaWiki translates to:
 * and which renders as:
 * 
 * This is a link to an anchor. Anchors are created by the   attribute in an appropriate html tag.  In Health of Abraham Lincoln, the tag, adds an anchor just ahead of the Donald citation and   links to that anchor.  cs1|2 templates are wrapped in  tags with the attribute (anchor)   set to the value assigned to ref.
 * I can extend that and link to anchors in other pages. For example:
 * a section heading:
 * → Health of Abraham Lincoln
 * or, if I want (this is not recommended practice, though I have seen it done), to the Donald cs1|2 template:
 * → Health of Abraham Lincoln
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * a section heading:
 * → Health of Abraham Lincoln
 * or, if I want (this is not recommended practice, though I have seen it done), to the Donald cs1|2 template:
 * → Health of Abraham Lincoln
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

contributions deleted
Hello, why my contributions were deleted? It from a novel study done by Cedars Sinai Medial Center - Heart transplantation. Posted at the new Journal of Investigative Medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor.sebas (talk • contribs) 09:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , here is one stated reason: . In general, if you check "view history" at an article you'll see who did what and hopefully a reason given in an WP:EDITSUMMARY. If you disagree with the revert, start a discussion with the reverting editor, at the article talk page or their talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edits for the reason I stated on your talk page: "You have been replacing existing references on various medical pages with references to one particular paper, which is not a reliable source per WP:MEDRS guidelines and may be considered spamming." Additionally, some of the content you have added appears to have been copy-pasted from that paper, which is a copyright violation and is unacceptable. Please familiarize yourself with the linked policies before making such edits again. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dr. Sebas, please note that a single-purpose account such as yours, and the use to which you put it, suggest that you have come to Wikipedia to engage in vigorous promotion of one paper. This is completely at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, please make a note of it on your Talk page per WP:COI, and desist from making the edit which has been previously reverted, or you may find your account blocked.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

WP Policy regarding the translation of names of organisations and political parties
I could not find a page regarding this subject and the current situation is de facto inconsistent.

For example the title of the article Lega Nord is consistent with the original Italian name, while the article of the Rassemblement National has been translated to National Rally (France).

I intend to create a page for the French political party fr:Ligue du Sud (France). Should I name the article "Ligue du Sud", "Southern League (France)" or "League of the South (France)"? Azerty82 (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello ! You'll find guidance at WP:COMMONNAME. Do your best to judge what it is commonly called in english-language sources and go with that. It can always be changed later if there is reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw: Ligue du Sud. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding occupation to an entry
How do I add a person’s occupation to the title on their page? Ex: making the entry go from “Kobe Bryant” to “Kobe Bryant (Basketball Player). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cici10032 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello ! See WP:MOVE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In general, you don't. The occupation should go in the infobox and the text, not in the title, unless there is another notable Kobe Bryant and WP:Disambiguation is required.   Dbf<i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  11:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Btw, only do that if WP has several articles of people with the same name, and even then at least one will be "name only", like George Washington. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cici10032 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi..Help I just wrote my first wikipedia ......blurb on myself Lynda Diamond...I don't know if I did it properly!? Thanks! Lynda
I don't know what specific question to ask because i'm not sure exactly what I may have done wrong.

Lynda Diamond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovefirst11z (talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * creating a sandbox, as you did, is one way to start. For a new user, Articles for creation may be a good choice. However, writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia: please read Autobiography. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your sandbox text needs to be below "Edit below this line", so I moved it for you. TSventon (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which you have been written about at length, and your article should be a summary of what these sources say. Don't try to submit the article for review until you have added these sources to establish WP:Notability.  You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners to see how to add the cites.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  20:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

What type of links, websites, sources can be used to add information to a Wikipedia page?
Hi,

My question is, What are the different kind of articles, websites, sources I can use to add information to an individual's Wikipedia page as a reference?

Thank you, Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImportantMail (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple types of source can be used as long as they are reliable (see that page for more information) with a reputation for fact checking and are independent of the subject. Both online and offline sources can be used. See WP:REFB for a guide to adding references. Sources such as Facebook and other social media are not acceptable and neither is Wikipedia itself per WP:UGC. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also note that sources for facts must meet the reliability standard. Sources to support a claim of notability must be reliable, but they also need to meet the more stringent notability standards. See WP:N. Facts do not need to be notable, but the subject of the article does. -Arch dude (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to refer to make one mention of a person by only their last name?
Specifically, I'm talking about this sentence from the article "Dead Sea Apes":

"It is also a metaphor used, for instance by [Thomas] Carlyle..."

This is the only mention of Carlyle in the article. (For the record, Carlyle's name contains a piped link to the page "Thomas Carlyle".) Could anyone please tell me if this is appropriate?--Thylacine24 (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no reason not to spell out the name in full on first mention - it makes things much clearer. Popcornduff (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He's one of those people that is frequently referred to by their last name without the need to disamb by given name and the piped linked makes it clear who it is. However, if you wanted to add the fullname I doubt there would be many objections either. Technically, I suppose... it should have the fullname... Eagleash (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is far preferable to give both forename and surname at first mention. It is kinder on the reader. DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That is actually a case of an incomplete citation of the source of a quote. It should be converted to a proper reference, with complete bibliographic information. The more general answer to your question is that we usually use such surname only mentions in the biographical article about the person. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll add the "fix cite" template to it.--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, upon attempting it, it didn't seem to work. Could you please tell me if I should just add Category:Pages with inadequate citations instead?--Thylacine24 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Help with a 404 error
I'm a long-term editor and typically make several edits a day. Once in a while, when I try to publish an edit, I get a 404. Screenshot

The only solution seems to be to reload the page and try to make the edit again. This is a pain because I have to copy the edited text and then paste it back in.

I almost always use the visual editor. Don't know if that's connected. Popcornduff (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It sounds as if you have problems with your internet connection. Does clicking the "back" button on your browser not take you back to the edit you are trying to make, so that you can repeat the attempt?   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  19:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * When it happens, I'm always able to browse the internet normally. I can continue to hit Publish as much as I like but it stays broken until I reload the page (and potentially lose the edit). Popcornduff (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just had the error again. Does seem to be triggered by losing internet connection, but I'm able to publish anything even after the connection recovers. Even if I refresh the tab. I have to open a new tab/session. Popcornduff (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Am I allowed to add the following counter argument to this entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law ?
Am I allowed to add the following counter argument to this entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law ?

Counter argument:

While Goodwin appears to be coming around as documented in the above "Generalization, corollaries, usage" what Goodwin originally pretended to fail to take into account when he created Goodwin's Law is that some ideologies, like Conservatism and Nazism require innocent people be murdered for the ideology to be even be implemented - THAT, not the racism of the Conservative base, or the Nationalism that American Conservatives use as a bludgeon is what makes Conservatives' vile evil murderous pro-pollution ideology no better than the Nazis' vile evil murderous race-purifying ideology.

It doesn't matter if an ideology requires 1,000 people to be murdered, or if an ideology requires 6,000,000 be murdered - crossing the line into murdering people is what makes these two ideologies no different from each other.

Without the murder of innocent civilians, Conservatism could not be implemented:

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/kzmy79/trumps-epa-knows-its-new-coal-rule-could-kill-1400-people-per-year "Trump’s EPA Knows Its New Coal Rule Could Kill 1,400 People Per Year"

Other ideologies, like Democratic Socialism, or as it used to be called "a mixed market economy", aka Capitalism, does not require people to be murdered for those ideologies to be implemented. Even Socialism can be implemented without actually having to murder people - just incarcerate those who don’t believe that private property is theft from humanity.

Conservatism requires that people be murdered or it's just another example of what the sociopaths call 'Radical Extremist Far Left Big Gubment Socialism.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuni Leml (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Not unless you can find a WP:Reliable source that makes that claim.  <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  17:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No. You can only add an argument like this if you have found it in a reliable source, not if you propounded it first. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, you could only add this argument to that particular article if the source itself referred to Godwin's law. -Arch dude (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Who makes the decisions for the Wikipedia Main Home Page - "On This Day" Feature?
Who makes the decisions for the Wikipedia Main Home Page - "On This Day" Feature? And why did they include nothing for today (July 20) regarding the 50th anniversary of the 1969 moon landing? That's a shame. Yet, they put something about Viking I? And the guy who shot 12 people at the movie theater? Really? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Joseph A. Spadaro, that would be because it's July 20th and the 50th anniversary of the 1969 moon landing is July 21st. (Technically, it was still the 20th when it touched down, but Armstrong didn't leave the capsule to make his One Small Step—which is what's significant here—until the next day.) There will be boatloads of moonery. &#8209; Iridescent 19:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Huh?  Wikipedia lists it as July 20, 1969 ... in the July 20 article.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't;; it says that's when the spacecraft touched down. Apollo 11's crew successfully makes the first manned landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility. Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin become the first humans to walk on the Moon six and a half hours later.. The spacecraft touched down at 20:17 on 20th July, but that wasn't particularly significant as lots of craft had already landed on the moon; what was significant was Armstrong becoming the first person to set foot on another celestial body, six hours later in the morning of July 21. Trust me, the scheduling of what to run and when to run it has been discussed to death in the appropriate venues. &#8209; Iridescent 19:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So, the "space ship" landed on July 20 ... but the guys did not exit until July 21?   Which calendar were they using?   USA?    Cape Canaveral time zone?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You do realize that we have an article on the topic you can read to see the exact timings for yourself? &#8209; Iridescent 19:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the confusion (at least from a US point of view) stems from the fact that the moonwalk began on July 21 at 02:56:15 UTC, which was 22:56:15 Eastern Daylight Time on the evening of July 20. For everyone in the US watching the television broadcast of the moonwalk, it was still July 20.--Thomprod (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Uh, yeah ... I do realize that. And I did not think that the article would discuss time zone matters or such minutiae.  But, since we were discussing the matter, I asked  you.  Sorry to have bothered you.  Sheesh.  People are so friendly and helpful.  Huh?     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, UTC. A meaningless convention with which no one does the "math" to figure out what it really means.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Main Page/Tomorrow shows the expected Main Page for the next day. The Moon landing is heavily featured with items in four different sections and images of all three astronauts. I have never seen a story dominate the main page like that. We usually say a story should only be in one section. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. All of my life, I thought that July 20 was the big day.  Had no idea that July 21 was actually the big day.  It still seems wrong to me, for some reason.   Probably having to do with the UTC time business monkey business.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the answer to this issue is that it is set to use UTC time, even though the key date is July 20 in the United States. Starting at 7/8 p.m. Eastern/Central Daylight Time, the Main Page should update. The On This Day feature for that time is here. Master of Time   ( talk ) 19:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But, I was also asking who decides all of this stuff?  Is it just us regular Wikipedia editors, somehow?   Or some special group of editors?       Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is just regular editors who have taken an interest in making the list. You can participate also, if you want.  See Selected_anniversaries.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalizing the first letters of common nouns under "See also"/"Further Reading" lists
I just decapitalized all the first letters of common nouns under the "Further reading" section of the "Non-ferrous extractive metallurgy" article, which all had piped links with the common nouns decapitalized. Could anyone please tell me if this was this the right thing to do, and also if "Further reading" should have been "See also" in this case? Normally, I wouldn't ask about (de)capitalization, but since the links were originally piped, it felt mildly necessary to ask here. Anyway, I feel mildly guilty asking this, since I didn't bother asking about this in a series of earlier edits I did in the "Vacuum packing" article in its section titles and picture captions (though those weren't piped links), as it feels liek I'm half-consciously just doing this to get attention. (Edit: Including writing that last sentence.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems OK to me. The guidance for editing is to Be Bold.  If another editor doesn't agree with your changes, they will revert it, and then you can discuss the changes, following the Bold, Revert, Delete process.  You don't need to keep asking if your edits are okay.  RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have OCD, so it's difficult for me to be bold with a lot of these edits. I still have uneasy feelings about "Further reading" not being named "See also", though. Could you please tell me if you're sure that the section title shouldn't be changed?--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. Eagleash (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As I wrote in response to RudolfRed, though, it seems like "Further reading" should be changed to "See also". Could you please tell me if you agree on this in particular?--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can change it to "See Also". Manual_of_Style/Layout.  Further Reading section is usually a list of citations and external links.  RudolfRed (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know.--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be better. ✅ Eagleash (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Thylacine24 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Searching for text on the "recent changes" page
On the Special:RecentChanges page, I don't see any option to search for text in the list of recent edits. Is there another way to search for specific keywords in Wikipedia's recent edits? Jarble (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Crtl + f'? Eagleash (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they are wanting to search within the diffs of each recent change. RudolfRed (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)