Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 May 23

__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ = May 23 =

Content about Swaraj Shetty - Guruva of Kantara
Why is my content not getting approved even after providing with the needed citations and references ? Shivani Sudhir Suvarna (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Because it doesn't meet our standards. Read WP:NACTOR and Reliable sources carefully. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

About the correct pronunciation of the word Fuerdai
This is a word from Chinese. Because of the pronunciation rules of Chinese, it is necessary to emphasize its correct pronunciation. Unlike Tierra del Fuego, Fuerdai in Fu-er-dai is three syllables, while Fue-go is two syllables. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 03:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fumikas Sagisavas: I don't understand what the problem is. Both the pinyin and the IPA transcription make the demarcation between the first and second syllables such that it's clear there isn't a diphthong. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"Zuppa inglese", not "zuppa Inglese"
Could someone correct the title of this page? In the Italian language, the word "inglese" when used as an adjective should be written with a lowercase initial letter; it's not like in English, where the word "English" is always written with a uppercase initial letter. Italian is the most beautiful language in the world, by far, but it's difficult to learn. Page: Zuppa Inglese. JackkBrown (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @JackkBrown: The page isn't move protected and you're extended confirmed, so you can move it yourself. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * no, I have already tried; from a mobile device it cannot be done. JackkBrown (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @JackkBrown: The mobile version doesn't have as many features as the desktop version, which you can go to by tapping on  at the bottom of the page. Assuming you haven't messed with the skin's appearance, it's under a dropdown menu accessed by pressing EB1911 Inscriptions - three dots.jpg in the top-right corner, and then pressing [[file:OOjs UI icon move.svg]] . — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried, but "The page could not be moved, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." Could someone do it for me? I don't want to waste all this time on this. JackkBrown (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The page with the lower case inglese is a redirect to the page with capital Inglese. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * can this problem still be solved? JackkBrown (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page over the redirect. Deor (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , next time, if you can't move a page and it is an uncontroversial request, you can use the process at Requested moves/Technical requests. TSventon (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The "i" may be lower case in Italian, but this Wikipedia is written in English, so we should adopt the usage of English language sources. DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the word in question is taken from the Italian language and must therefore remain unchanged. JackkBrown (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * English doesn't work that way. When English adopts a word it goes the whole hog, the word learns to behave like any other English word, and is treated just like its siblings, natural or adopted. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , what happens when English adopts a word is debatable, for example a word may or may not keep its foreign plural. A Google books eearch suggests that "zuppa inglese" is rarely pluralised in English, but both "zuppe inglesi" (Italian) and "zuppa ingleses" (English) are sometimes used. TSventon (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @JackkBrown: Please see WP:COMMONNAME. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I put up a page authorized by the artist and it was rejected
So I would like to add an Iranian artist to the entertainment/ educational about the artist. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. ScreamingLeansheeArt (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just about everything, ScreamingLeansheeArt. I shan't list them all; instead, I'll say that I've moved your improperly posted draft to User:ScreamingLeansheeArt/sandbox, which is where you can work on it. When you say that it's "authorized by the artist", I infer that it's made with the collaboration of the artist and therefore that you have a conflict of interest. Please read, digest, and observe what's written in Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. As for the content, you might start with "developing his own unique style". Which reliable source says that it's unique? -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so for your response. No i didn't mean the artist told me to do it. He didn't say anything about it. I don't know him personally, by authorized I meant he didn't object to the idea I made through an IG request I made. He didn't answer me at all.
 * A friend sent me music from several Iranian music artists, dancers and poets too. I picked him to start because I like the song. I wanted to create information for some artists (in all genres of art), that work hard. I should choose my words more carefully. I was frustrated with myself for not being savvy enough to create the page. Thank you again for your quick response, sorry for my inept skills. ScreamingLeansheeArt (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, ScreamingLeansheeArt. The main problem is that "authorized by the artist" is completely irrelevant, except that it indicates that you have a conflict of interest as Hoary says.
 * Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. And if the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (that is, there is enough material published about them), then an article can be written even if they object to it. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ScreamingLeansheeArt, both you and this authorizing artist need to be aware of one thing. If you or this artist--or anybody else--succeeds in creating an article about this artist--even if the result is "authorized" by the artist, others can come afterwards and add things that the artist didn't "authorize."  And if those things are relevant and well supported in reliable sources, there will be pretty much nothing s/he can do about it. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * From a previous answer:
 * Thank you so for your response. No i didn't mean the artist told me to do it. He didn't say anything about it. I don't know him personally, by authorized I meant he didn't object to the idea I made through an IG request I made. He didn't answer me at all.
 * A friend sent me music from several Iranian music artists, dancers and poets too. I picked him to start because I like the song. I wanted to create information for some artists (in all genres of art), that work hard. I should choose my words more carefully. I was frustrated with myself for not being savvy enough to create the page. Thank you again for your quick response, sorry for my inept skills.
 * So, I'll go back to the sand box and work on it. Again, as a writer and Art enthusiast all I want to do is inform more about music, art, dancers, poetry, and other forms of art. It's a dying love for most people.
 * Thank you,
 * Isabel Gutierrez ScreamingLeansheeArt (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Invisible revision history
Hello, I have noticed that on a non-administrator's user page edits seem to be made every now and then without there being any recording of such in the revision history. I am simply wondering how this takes place as I assumed only administrators had access to Revision deletion, unless it is related to MediaWiki interface. (WP:SMI) As one can see I am confused by this situation which is why I am asking for guidance before jumping to any conclusions. Red Phoenician (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Without any specific example to look at, it sounds like you're describing WP:Suppression? Cabayi (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Cabayi, thank you for your response, yes this seems to be most likely what is going on. But would there still not be a visible placeholder according to the current RevisionDelete? What i'm describing seems to be more similar to the Old Oversight which appears to have been phased out. Red Phoenician (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Red Phoenician This happens fairly often on pages like the Teahouse. For example my contribution here on May 7 was subsequently suppressed when an admin removed from the page a group of inappropriate edits and my valid edit became "collateral damage". There is now no diff to see, only a timestamp with a double-line through the entry. You can't imply from noticing such entries in an editor's history that they have done anything wrong. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Michael D. Turnbull, thank you for your response, I am aware of contributions themselves being suppressed but they are usually still visible in the history as you described with a single or double-line through them. What I am describing does not have any lines, or timestamps, or any evidence that there was ever an edit at all. It is possibly a use of the Old Oversight tool which I discussed in my response above with Cabayi but that only makes things more confusing as this tool seems to have been phased out. Red Phoenician (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Red Phoenician, admins have the ability to suppress edits without actually leaving an entry in the page history when they do so (for instance, if the material has already been removed, they wouldn't need to actually edit anything). That may be what you're noticing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your response, I am referring to new edits taking place without there being any trace of such in the page history. From what I've read from Oversight (as redirected to me above) it seems that the public has access at least to the edit having taken place in the page history, unless of course I am wrong. Red Phoenician (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Red Phoenician, can you give us a link to a page where you've seen this occur (after 2009, which is apparently when the new system came into effect)? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your response, this occurred this year however I think it would be outside the scope of the help desk to provide a link here and will possibly move it to the administrators' noticeboard. Red Phoenician (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Things can be removed with Selective deletion, and related methods, especially on user pages, although it's not exceedingly common. I suggest have a look at the page logs, looking for moves or deletions. Oversight/suppression leaves no public logs, but everything else does. I'm also curious how you notice a thing which isn't noticeable? -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Zzuuzz, thank you for your response, it is possible that it is selective deletion. I checked the logs and there was no record at the time of this happening, but it seems the user switched at one point from a traditional userpage to a template which might explain the missing revision history. To answer your question, the changes themselves are noticeable but there is no evidence of them taking place in the revision history. Red Phoenician (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Want to have my Company shown on Google results
HI I HAVE NOTICED THAT WHEN YOU WRITE A COMPANIES NAME ON GOOGLE. ON THE DESKTOP BROWSER THE COMPANY DETAILS COME UP ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE, THIS I BELIEVE IS LINKED TO WIKIPEDIA AND THE DATA IS TAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA PLEASE ASSIST ME TO UNDERSTAND HOW CAN I ALSO HAVE MY BRAND SHOW UP IN RESULTS ON THE RIGHT SIDE Sancha Tea, India (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has nothing to do with how Google displays its search results. You would have to contact Google. Furthermore, it is prohibited to use Wikipedia for publicity purposes. See WP:CORP for inclusion criteria, and WP:Golden Rule for criteria regarding sources. I am skeptical that your company meets the inclusion criteria and that any reporting about your company meets the Golden Rule critera. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . First, please don't type in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS because such a thing sometimes can be mistaken for anger or online shouting. The users who typically answer questions here at the Help Desk are more than capable of understanding posts not written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Next, there's not much that Wikipeida can do when it comes to Google search results and hjow they're displayed. Wikipedia has no control over how Google operates. Maybe try looking at this Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Starter Guide published by Google because it might explain exactly what Google is looking for, how search results are displayed and how you can get it to do what you want it to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Marchjuly said above, I'd also add that Google gets it very wrong on a number of occasions. Just hang around on this page for a while and someone will come along pointing out a mistake, thinking that it's Wikipedia's fault, all we can do is point them towards Google. I suppose what I'm saying is be careful what you wish for, because you might just get an information box that's on view to the world and contains inaccurate info about your company. - X201 (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Accidentaly opening a sockpuppet investigation
I'm sorry but I accidently opened a wrong sockpuppet investigation on an article instead of an IP address that is believed to be a block evasion user. . How can I request it to be closed now? 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 06:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Deleted, G7. Cabayi (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

When will my page be live?
I created a page for James G. Gibson back in April - when will it be live? Thanks! BPRJG (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To quote the top line of the Draft review request template at the top of that draft: . We're all volunteers, people review articles when they feel like it. - X201 (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've cut short your wait, BPRJG, and declined this. Start by removing anything copied from the PR Newswire piece (and do so fast, before the draft is deleted as a copyright violation). Continue by removing any citation of this piece. Cut anything for which you can't cite reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You didn't take up my invitation to improve this quickly, and I therefore deleted it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have created the page again with your suggested amends BPRJG (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned it up a bit, but there are still a lot of unreferenced statements in the draft that need sourcing. CodeTalker (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to query for literal "%" [percent] sign in advanced page search
I was trying to do find previous discussions of prevalence figures in talk archives of ADHD. To this end, I thought it would be useful to search for the presence of the two search terms "prevalence" and the literal percent character "%": example query. However, when I enter these terms into advanced search, the percent character seems to be ignored. Is there a workaround? To show that % doesn't seem to have any effect at all, check this search for presence of "prevalence" and absence of word "%". The results still show articles with "%" present: example query AncientWalrus (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not something I know much about. But SQL databases treat the % character as a wildcard, matching any string of characters. Maybe you could try putting quotation marks around it? Maproom (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @AncientWalrus I thought that an insource search would help but it doesn't. So this search readily finds this very thread as its first hit but this one gets no hits at all. That's pretty good evidence that the % character isn't behaving as a wildcard and is just being ignored, for no reason I can explain. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wiki search engine ignores % along with a load of other special characters  It treats them as spaces, and then for good measure ignores spaces if there's more than one. - X201 (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I now see that the insource link I provided tells you how to construct a search that will find these characters. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So this search does what @AncientWalrus wants. It gets lots of hits with URL! Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you @Michael D. Turnbull. This works:   (adding a space after the percent gets rid of false positive URL encodings). AncientWalrus (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Tags
Good morning I tried to submit my draft for review, but I can't fill the gap about tags, " choose tag" etc. the last one gap. Can you help me? J.D.K. (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , your edits here (your 9th & 10th) get you to autoconfirmed status. Does that resolve your problem? Cabayi (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean "WikiProject classification tags" after clicking "Submit your draft for review!" at User:J.D.K./sandbox. You can select,   and  . Start writing them one at a time and click them above the field to select them. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you J.D.K. (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect link
When I search for "GE Plastics" I get the Saudi Chemical Industry. 24.190.249.16 (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * GE Plastics correctly redirects to SABIC (Saudi Arabia's Basic Industries Corporation). SABIC says: "On May 21, 2007, SABIC acquired General Electric's Plastics division, in a US$11.6 billion cash deal, including US$8.7 billion of its liabilities, and launched SABIC Innovative Plastics. ". If you want to find other articles mentioning "GE Plastics" then select "Search within pages" below the search box in the mobile version. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * [Edit Conflict] :In the General Electric article is the statement "On May 21, 2007, GE announced it would sell its GE Plastics division to petrochemicals manufacturer SABIC for net proceeds of $11.6 billion. The transaction took place on August 31, 2007, and the company name changed to SABIC Innovative Plastics, with Brian Gladden as CEO.[169]" There are several other mentions of this in the article, it is also mentioned in the SABIC article – search it for "Innovative Plastics" or just "Plastics".
 * The GE Plastics article created in 2004 was always very short, and was redirected to General Electric before being re-redirected to SABIC.
 * It might be interesting to have an article on the original GE Plastics Division and its precursors, but researching and writing one would be a considerable effort. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.77 (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

How do I delete my own image
I'd like to delete my own image (like of my face), that I uploaded years ago. Bpappin (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You seem to have worked out how to do this yourself, using criteria G7. It should disappear soon. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know why Hanoi infobox is so wide?
There's no use of nowrap or other similar templates in the infobox, and there's no set fixed value for the infobox width. All the infobox content therefore seems to allow the infobox to be narrower, but why is it still so wide? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks fine to me in two different browsers. Try a forced reload of the web page by holding down shift and clicking the refresh button. - X201 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mean that the infobox is taking the entirety of the screen. What I meant is that compare to articles such as New York City, the infobox is wider and I don't really know why. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CactiStaccingCrane: The Hanoi infobox has a width setting for its multiple-images group (300px). The New York city infobox has specific width settings for its multiple-images group and map (both 280px). Bazza (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to resize multiple images but it doesn't work. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason you want the Hanoi and e.g. New York infoboxes to be exactly the same width? The difference is only +7%, and as far as I know (corrections welcome) there's no rigid standard for City (or any other) infoboxes – we just go with what works. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.77 (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to know the reason why. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CactiStaccingCrane: For another reference, London's infobox is 292px wide. You can use a browser (such as Chrome) to inspect the infoboxes and their content to help determine what widths have been calculated. F12, or right-click and Inspect, will invoke that. Bazza (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, what is meant is why the infobox is so wide for no apparent reason, not that why the guidelines doesn't dictate infobox width. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CactiStaccingCrane: Yes, I know what you meant, and I gave you a suggestion on how you can examine the HTML structures to see which particular elements might be forcing a greater width. I do not have time to do this at the moment, Bazza (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Two differing citations from the same magazine article?
I've just got my latest physical copy of Buses magazine and I'd like to reference two deliveries of a bus type using the same section of the magazine. However, this is a heavily lengthy section by Wikipedia standards, and to reference the deliveries specifically, I need to quote from the article. Here's the following two quotes, with the operator's names, which serve as the headers for these quotes, included in brackets.

"(Ambassador Travel, p72) Scania K410EB6/Caetano Levante III C55FltL 306-8 (BV72 XGK-M) were new in February and were joined in March by Scania K280UB/Higer Fencer F1 B38F YT23 BDE/F." "(Passenger Plus, p78) New in March were Scania K280LB4/Higer Fencer F1 B37F YT23 BTX-Z [...] The Fencers are for a contract in west London on behalf of pharmaceutical company GSK, linking its Brentford premises with Ealing Broadway station."

So, what's my angle here? Do I duplicate the citation to 'In Fleet News This Month' using different page numbers and quotes, or is there another way I can cite this information in a way deemed accessible? I'm a bit stumped here; I don't think there's any articles about these deliveries elsewhere, and unfortunately, the online version of the Fleet News article is locked behind a subscription barrier. Hullian111 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, Hullian. You can use named references to avoid repeating the citation, and then select the appropraiate page for each with rp. According to the documentation you can use the  parameter with this, to get the quote in the "tooltip". ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's really neat. I'm operating on an iPad so I can't entirely see how the tooltip function works, but if its how I think it works, that's readily solved my conundrum.
 * In that case, would I basically just format two RP templates next to each other after the citation, or is there a better arrangement for that? Hullian111 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD
I am trying to find the correct template for the formatting of German dates which is for example 2023-05-23 for the top of an article similar to use MDY and DMY templates. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:5412:4309:BBCF:A3AF (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At en.wiki there is no template.  The consensus is to use either DMY or MDY dates in an article.  See MOS:DATES for allowed date formats.  de.wiki may have different rules.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IP editor. Note that citations often use a date format, for example for access-date as YYYY-MM-DD, which will be correctly rendered in the format set by the usage templates (see Use mdy dates#Auto-formatting citation template dates) Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Michael D. Turnbull That’s the issue I’m facing. I know we have American dates and European dates so those seem to get picked up by the bots by what I’m reading so I think what you are saying is if I put it in as YYYY-MM-DD the bot will convert it to MDY or DMY which is not what I want as I was under the impression that articles are supposed to use the dates based on the subject and in this case the subject is German. So do I just use the Europe version of DMY? I know Germany is an odd ball one. Looking at MOS:TIES doesn’t seem to help either. The main language is German at 95% per our own article on it. Thanks.
 * @Trappist the monk Do you have a link to that consensus discussion so I can the recommendations please? Thanks
 * 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:5412:4309:BBCF:A3AF (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How does Germany use dates in prose? YYYY-MM-DD is allowed in limited situations, which generally doesn't include general use. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tenryuu You just answered it for me. It would be awkward to say the year first. The day followed by the month. So I’ll go by that but no header at the top because the refs are different. Thanks a bunch! 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:5412:4309:BBCF:A3AF (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS:DATES embodies the consensus at en.wiki. The discussion that established the consensus (there are likely many more than just a single discussion) will, in all probability, be at WT:DATE and/or its archives.
 * If you are talking about dates in references and you are using cs1|2 templates ( etc) you can force references to use YYYY-MM-DD dates by setting y in the article's template.  But: don't do that without a consensus from other interested editors.  Establish the consensus first at the article's talk page.  Alternatively, you can set ymd (just publication dates) or ymd-all (publication, archive, and access dates) in a cs1|2 template to tell the template to reformat whatever date format it has in to YYYY-MM-DD format:
 * – publication dates only
 * – publication, archive, and access dates
 * Again, be sure that you have consensus ...
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Trappist the monk Thank you. I just followed what was stated above which in the article is day month and for references yyyy-mm-dd as was pre-established in the article. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:5412:4309:BBCF:A3AF (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Date format by country, Germany can use DMY or YMD. so DMY is OK. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @AngusWOOF Thanks I looked at that too but I didn’t want to format it wrongly formatted. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:5412:4309:BBCF:A3AF (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, be sure that you have consensus ...
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Trappist the monk Thank you. I just followed what was stated above which in the article is day month and for references yyyy-mm-dd as was pre-established in the article. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:5412:4309:BBCF:A3AF (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Date format by country, Germany can use DMY or YMD. so DMY is OK. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @AngusWOOF Thanks I looked at that too but I didn’t want to format it wrongly formatted. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:5412:4309:BBCF:A3AF (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Set of eyes
I’m not sure but I’m not finding much on the article Canopy Innovations that I just came across. It seems to be a few passing mentions and has a paid tag on it since November 2021. Would you think this is a speedy? 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Just go a little more in depth if you look at the references listed 90-95% of them can be removed as they are hiring sites, information directly from their website, or periodicals that do not even mention them but a condition or other circumstance showing a study. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:5412:4309:BBCF:A3AF (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Department
Good evening, where can I find a department to talk to Wikipedians who mainly deal with "Russian" pages? JackkBrown (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @JackkBrown, WP:WikiProject Russia is the most obvious place. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean Russia-related pages in the English Wikipedia. If it's about pages in the Russian language then they belong at the Russian Wikipedia at ru:. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IP address! JackkBrown (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, that's what I meant. I put the quotation marks because otherwise the meaning would have been different. JackkBrown (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

counter vandalism unit joining
How do I join in the counter Vandalism Unit im ready to revert vandalism from wikipedia. PoopMoney623 (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your username, PoopMoney623, suggests that you are not ready. If you're serious about this, then abandon this username, create a new one, edit while logged in under the new one, build up a list of several dozen constructive edits ("contributions"), and then ask the question you're asking above. -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Problems with a Quote box in article Helen Fein
I've added a Quote box to article Helen Fein and have two problems:


 * The subsequent section displays on top of the Quote box.
 * I want to add two pieces of information to the citation and don't know how to do this as I haven't been able to call up the citation dialogue box. The two pieces of information are:
 * "p. 67"
 * "(emphasis original)"

Help, please. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed the citation. I don't think that it is necessary to state that the emphasis is in the original.  Don't know why  hides part of the subsequent section; it probably shouldn't do that.  I've added  which 'fixes' that condition.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Misha Wolf (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)