Help desk
< April 3	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 4

make my watchlist decay

I'm so old, I remember when there was no option to watch a page temporarily. Is there a way to apply a new time limit to my existing watchlist, other than clicking on every page? —Tamfang (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamfang: If you want to change pages from temporary to permanent then you can remove and readd them at Special:EditWatchlist/raw. They don't have to be readded in alhpabetical order. I don't think you can do other things. mw:Help:Watchlist expiry#How to change watch period and Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Watchlist doesn't show anything. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the results of PrimeHunter's investigation, but it kinda sucks if one wants to alter the expiration time of lots of entries in the watchlist. That sounds like a good candidate for Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

something i need help with

how do i add a userbox...without harming my page? User192828 (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userboxes What do you mean by "harming" your page? Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User192828: If you make an error or regret something then you can always revert it. See Help:Reverting. And you can preview before saving to discover many problems. See Help:Show preview. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

im saying that i wanna add a userbox without accidentally destroying my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by User192828 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User192828: You cannot "destroy" a page. You can make it look wrong but it's easy to revert. If you are unhappy with how it looks then you can ask for help to improve it, or just blank it to display a blank page, or place {{db-u1}} on it to request deletion including the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can i get back the draft that declined

Recently mh draft was declined by saying it as CV. How can i get that draft to revalue it for further submission by changes in it. Is there any proper way to get that deleted draft back Soniya Gtr (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you mean Draft:Kanhu Charan Patro, you can ask the deleting admin, user:Jimfbleak. Meters (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, thanks for ping, I've replied on this editor's talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help with my Wikipedia draft

Hello, I am seeking help with my draft on HedgePay that I submitted to Wikipedia. English is not my first language, so I would appreciate any assistance in improving my draft or making it live on Wikipedia. I am not sure if my draft meets Wikipedia's guidelines, so any guidance in this regard would be helpful as well. Thank you in advance for your help.

The draft can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HedgePay Hokeecheong (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a conflict of interest. Please read these:

Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me. I appreciate your concern and have already declared my conflict of interest with the relevant article on my user page.

I understand and respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on conflicts of interest, and I am committed to contributing neutrally to the articles in question and i'll keep in mind to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hokeecheong (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your message and please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help address any concerns please let me know Hokeecheong (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising on the front page

It often seems like at least one of topics chosen for display on the front page is essentially a lightly-disguised advertisement.

Often it will be an article about a celebrity who has just released a new project, of which today's Meghan Trainor "featured article of the day" is an example; this artist just released a heavily-promoted new single one week ago.

Or sometimes it's simply a direct reference to a product or media property which is currently being promoted, as we saw when a fact about the show "The Last of Us" was featured in the "Did you know..." section on March 28th of this year.

I've noticed this for years. I don't believe Wikipedia's front page should be used to promote recent products like this, especially when a big media company clearly and obviously has something to gain from this kind of backdoor advertising.

I think that this kind of stuff should be more closely watched for and forbidden. Why is this permitted? Innobap (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article is chosen from the list of all Featured Articles that have not been on the main page before, although you can request certain ones hit the main page for specific days. Other items, such as Did you know? and in the news are based on newly created content and have an approval process. I'd suggest clicking the links in this response for more information. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm familiar with the content on those pages. What I'm suggesting is that these processes should be subjected to a brief review for who might gain from millions of people seeing something on the front page. Frankly I see it as a conflict of Wikipedia's "no ads" policy to see something on the front page that correlates with a product which is currently being advertised through other channels. At the very least Wikipedia should get a piece of the cut. Innobap (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All articles are advertisement in some way. In advertising circles, there's a difference between paid and earned advertisements. If something hits the main page by someone who enjoys that subject, there's not much you can do. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting the standard be high. I am suggesting that it's suspicious when the front page article is for an artist who released a new single one week ago, while simultaneously this single and artist are being promoted through traditional advertising channels.

Even if pushing the article to the front page is done purely by the actions of fans who are engaging in viral marketing without personal benefit to themselves, it's still unacceptable.

In fact there is something I can do: I stopped donating to Wikipedia years ago, once I noticed how frequently backdoor ads appear on the front page. Innobap (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, donations don't go anywhere near editors who actually make this content, so it's by the by. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not claiming that I'm personally withholding money from editors of a free encyclopedia. I'm saying that the policy to allow content that looks like advertising on the front page affects my decision to donate, and may affect others as well. It's certainly not a threat, because Wikipedia won't notice whether I donate or not, but I think it does matter. Innobap (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to find an answer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People put a lot of work into bringing an article to WP:FA standard, and it is unlikely that they are doing it for advertising purposes. This is a lot different from some obscure Instagram celebrity or company trying to have a vanity page on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Innobap, there is no prospect of us not running popular culture FAs just because you believe that their mere presence is advertising. If you think the content violates G11, there are existing remedies, or you could oppose promotion at FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC) (TFA coordinator}[reply]

I'm not asking for pop culture to be ignored, nor am I suggesting a high bar be enforced. Having Meghan Trainor as the featured article of the day a week after she released a new single should not nearly meet the bar, though. It strains credulity to assume that no money changed hands for an artist to appear on the front page at the same time she's being heavily promoted through traditional means, but even if this is merely viral marketing freely performed by fans, it's still unacceptable. At the very least, Wikipedia should get a piece of the cut for running this ad on behalf of Epic Records. Innobap (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would counter this by suggesting that the amount of work required makes it more likely that moneyed interests are involved in bringing an article to that standard, given that it's vastly cheaper to pay someone to spend a few hours updating an article than it is to pay for traditional advertising. Innobap (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what it is you are seeking here- and you don't seem to have any evidence of your claims, they seem to just be supposition on your part. If you want to oppose posting articles on the MP because you feel that they are "advertising", then please participate in the processes that determine what appears on the MP, where you are free to make that argument. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided circumstantial evidence, but you're right, I don't have any real evidence. My point isn't to prove a specific wrongdoing, it's to point out that if Wikipedia cares about its "no ads" policy then on principle that should include the appearance of advertising. If we have to explain that "this looks and feels like an ad, but it's actually not" on behalf of certain content on the front page, then it doesn't belong there in my opinion. Innobap (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Innobap: It takes far more than a few hours to get an article to featured article status. Lips Are Movin was promoted to featured article 20 March 2021 at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lips Are Movin/archive3. The article has been edited by 325 users and IP addresses. There is usually a long waiting period for featured articles to become today's featured article on Main Page. On 9 March 2023 [1], Lips Are Movin was scheduled for today, 4 April. It was done by Jimfbleak, a trusted administrator with 20 years and 160,000 edits at the English Wikipedia. No concerns have been posted at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2023. I don't share your suspicion that it had anything to do with advertising for the artist at a specific time. If you want the scheduling to actively try to avoid any proximity to business activities related to the subject then you can suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. You can also monitor the schedule yourself and post concerns. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it were about specifics, I would point out that 25 days isn't a "long waiting period" when compared to the promotion cycle of a song, or album, or whatever; the single was already slated for release well before March 9, 2023. And I would mention that an investment of "far more than a few hours" is still orders of magnitude cheaper than running a traditional advertisement.

But it's not about specifics, it's about the principle of not only having no ads, but additionally not putting content on the front page that has the appearance of advertising.

I understand that I will have to invest in following the proposed front page articles pages in order to push this idea further. Thanks for the reply. Innobap (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider the edit histories of the users involved. As noted, if you think Jimfbleak is a paid shill only interested in advertising, you must have very strong evidence to support that given his extensive experience. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that my reasoning is well-outlined throughout this thread, and it is an argument made out of principle. I used the current front page article as an example to communicate the idea, but I've stated multiple times that I've noticed this occurring for years. Nowhere have I suggested any wrongdoing by any editor. Innobap (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that something is advertising or could be advertising, then you must think someone somewhere who edited such a topic is knowingly doing this incorrect behavior. Advertising is about intent so if you think something is advertising you must think someone is intending to do it. I guess I just think that you have a very broad definition of "advertising". The article about Adolf Hitler "advertises" Hitler by your definition, newspapers "advertise" whatever is on the front page. Every article on Wikipedia "advertises" its topic. I don't mean to hassle you, and you don't have to reply again. You are welcome to participate in the processes as I noted- but I respectfully submit that you may not get consensus for this. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watering down the concept of "advertising" to include any broadcasting of any information denudes the word of meaning and is not part of my argument.

The scope of "advertising" that I refer to here is whether someone or some company is greatly benefiting from the millions of eyes who will see Meghan Trainor on the front page at the same time that her new record is being heavily promoted across other media. We can with all certainty say that someone absolutely IS benefiting from this example, and I think many people would perceive the appearance of the Trainor article on the front page as marketing, whether overt or viral. Nowhere do I suggest that any specific editor is profiting from this; I have no insight into that and I won't make such a baseless accusation. But someone, without any doubt, IS profiting from the Trainor front page article, at the very least those who stand to gain from the success of the single, album, associated tour, and so on.

As I mention elsewhere, I'm not suggesting that a high bar to be set. Here's a simple view: if it looks and feels like it could be promotional, then it shouldn't appear on the front page at this time.

If an article about Adolf Hitler, an important historical figure who's been dead for over 80 years, appears on the front page, would anyone consider that advertising? Of course not. On the other hand, if a new show about Hitler was released to streaming a week ago, and is being heavily advertised across media, and Adolf Hitler appears on the front page, does that feel like marketing? Yeah, to me it does. Innobap (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to see decisions about content made on "looks and feels". There should be evidence. I also don't see why there can't be a Meghan Trainor related article on the front page around the time of her album, which is a time when readers may be looking for information about her or her work. We're helping readers, not Meghan Trainor or her label. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Readers seeking information on a topic don't go to the front page.

Whether intentional or not, whether desired or not, the decisions made by Wikipedians are absolutely helping the artist and her label; this is certain and beyond doubt. Wikipedia is helping her star shine brighter in the zeitgeist at the same time that a marketing campaign seeking the same thing is in effect. This, in effect, is the evidence you seek. Innobap (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that is not evidence, that is supposition and speculation. You are certainly entitled to your views, and I'm not attempting to dissuade you from them or in trying to get them across in the various processes(as I still encourage you to do, happily). But that's not evidence. I don't think anyone denies that the presence of an article has promotional effects- I block plenty of people for promoting their companies here- when I have actual evidence that's what is going on. You've already said that you have no evidence for your hypothetical example regarding Meghan Trainor that her or her agents/PR team are editing articles about her and getting them on the Main Page to build her sales or promote her work. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make much of a distinction whether this is intentionally done by a paid PR team, or done by fans who are performing viral marketing for free, or if it just made the front page today by random happenstance.

The fact is the artist and associated business partners are obviously heavily benefiting from this front page appearance occurring in conjunction with their marketing campaign.

That's the evidence, and that's where the line should be drawn. Nothing more specific needs be claimed or proven, and requiring hard evidence of something nearly unproveable only further benefits moneyed interests at the expense of added editor overhead. On principle, if we claim Wikipedia is ad-free, then we should always err on the side of not broadcasting marketing material.

Many examples aren't as clear-cut as this one; if an article in a different situation is suspicious but less so, then sure, let's put it on the front page. Innobap (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's not evidence. That's what you think is happening- which is fine, but not proof of intentional or unintentional marketing efforts. Fans of musicians create much content here and I can't think of a better way of discouraging them by telling them that their contributions are indirect "advertising" and that those contributions need to be limited or withheld to avoid providing Meghan Trainor or whomever with an indirect benefit. I think that there is a definite difference in philosophy and on what "advertising" is between us, which is fine, but I do not wish to occupy your time further. Please have a good day. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple fact that someone is benefiting from the current front page article. Everyone knows it. A principled editor might observe the conflict of interest therein and in the future strive to uphold the "no ads" principle by working to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Quoting from the Conflict of Interest article: "A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results."

I appreciate your insight and respectful tone, but nearly every reply you've made in this thread introduces new concepts on my behalf, concepts which I never claimed and don't endorse, and then argues against those imagined concepts. This sort of framework-shaping is unhelpful. In this case, it's the idea that I want to "tell fans that their contributions should be limited or withheld." This is frankly inane and does not follow from anything I've said. The argument is simply about the use of front page space. Innobap (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said "What I'm suggesting is that these processes should be subjected to a brief review". I don't understand what the purpose of such a review would be unless contributions would be withheld or limited pending or as a result of such a review- even if just from the Main Page. That would discourage many contributions. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't understand what motivates contributions. Are people contributing solely with the aim of getting an article about a pop star to the front page? I don't feel that article contributions be limited or withheld beyond what the current standards and rules require.

I do feel that the front page of Wikipedia is a valuable and treasured space which should be protected from moneyed interests to at least a rudimentary degree. Every day, a few articles are displayed on the front page, to the exclusion of countless other articles which meet the bar of front page quality.

If this Meghan Trainor article hadn't reached the front page, if editors reviewing it had come together to say "this isn't appropriate for the front page right now, but we can re-evaluate after a few months," who would have noticed? Would that have a chilling effect on contributions? Another article would have simply been displayed on the front page instead. Innobap (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "a long waiting period", it referred to the two years from becoming a featured article in March 2021 until it appeared on the main page. I don't think it was put through the difficult featured article process in the hope that it years later could be manipulated to appear on the main page relatively close to the release of another song by the same artist. Wikipedia:Featured articles isn't merely about a chance to eventually appear on the main page. It has been a featured article for two years and appeared in other places as such. I haven't studied the timing of main page appearances compared to related commercial interests but beware of confirmation bias. And advertising of commercial releases is nearly always about the product you are actually trying to sell now, not something you made nine years ago. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you've noticed this "for years", why don't you raise it with your account? This does not appear to be a case of WP:LEGITSOCK Star Mississippi 17:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to change the name of an article/page on Wiki?

The "Move" button seems to have vanished, so, what is the best possible way to ADD a word/phrase or CHANGE the name of a Wikipedia Article/page? Would be great if someone can suggest! Bengaluru2023 (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bengaluru2023 New accounts cannot move articles; nor can certain protected articles be moved. Based on your edits, you seem to want to add "Dr." to an article title- it shouldn't be in the title, and should only be in the article under the criteria here. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for a super quick response! Can someone help me ADD "Dr." to the Title of the page for now? Would truly appreciate it. Bengaluru2023 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bengaluru2023 As I said, it shouldn't be in the title of the article. We don't have titles/honorifics in the actual article title unless they are commonly known in most reliable sources by a title or honorific(like Mother Teresa). See WP:COMMONNAME. It also shouldn't be in the article itself except by the criteria I linked to above. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a particular connection to this doctor to be so invested in the title of his article? 331dot (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this UPE account was shared by the doctor's "Social Media team" (as admitted on their talk page); so it's been blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Weird. Responded to your reply but apparently didn't read it. David10244 (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't move pages yet because you aren't autoconfirmed yet. Once you meet those criteria you'll see the move button. For requesting for pages to be moved, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

I paid for a page to be created, this went live June of last year. I have been advised that Wikipedia notified the administrator that they want more references so that they can be cited into the page to keep it going.

The person claims more updated references are needed, even though all the references current on the page are from last year. I used examples to the person of pages were the more recent reference used was from 10 yrs ago. I very skeptical about what this person is asking for because it doesn't make sense to me . Can you advise on this ? Davinia Priscilla (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the references were not sufficient to establish notability. It is not so much about how new a reference is, but about how reliable it is. See WP:RS for more on the subject. If you give us the name of the page and possibly the name of the account of the person you hired someone may be able to figure out what exactly happened. If the person you hired did not disclose that they were being paid and therefore having a conflict of interest it is also possible that the article was removed because of that. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davinia Priscilla Please give more detail. Who is "the administrator" and who from Wikipedia notified them? I suspect that you were scammed: see WP:SCAM. Note that in Wikipedia jargon we have articles about topics not pages: whatever a Wikipedia biography contains it is not owned by its subject (unlike most social media). Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too, they work on behalf of American wiki writers. I checked with other people, they claim they probably want more money from me. They state if I don't provide more references Wikipedia says it will delete the page. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly: you were scammed. These people are among the hundreds of parasites out there ripping people off. I am sorry, but you have wasted your money. (What was the subject of the "article", by the way?) --Orange Mike | Talk 12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well they did create the page and it went live last June. What I don't understand is them requesting for more references when I've seen pages which last source's were from 2014. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davinia Priscilla, which article? Please give us either the title or a link. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gizelle Bryant page Davinia Priscilla (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Gizelle Bryant - created by Stephen Chandler in April of last year. They haven't edited since June of last year, I see. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Priscilla 223 was blocked on the 2 March 2022 for adding unreferenced information and Davinia Priscilla account being created that same day who edits the same articles WP:QUACK.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 15:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely misread what I wrote please forget it Davinia Priscilla (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is now claiming, on their talk page, that this was all a big misunderstanding.

Anyway, the article has been semi'd due to repeated attempts to remove the maintenance templates which were put in place. There's discussion on talk. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davinia Priscilla, they're telling you that you need to pay them for more work because: they're a scammer, you've proven yourself an easy mark, and they'd like to continue scamming you. This person is a weasel, and you should block them. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete sections here, we need them to go into the archives. If you like you can request the section be closed. It'll be archived in a few days. Valereee (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, @Davinia Priscilla, please do not remove valid maintenance templates. The article was, in fact, created by an undisclosed paid editor, as you have told us above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now reported @Davinia Priscilla to Administrators noticeboard regarding possible block evasion, WP:OWN and edit warring.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 18:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Venezuela'

This sentence is not well understood; why is 'Venezuela' written twice? Is there a reason? "with Puerto La Cruz, Lecheria and Guanta, making up Greater, Gran Barcelona, the largest and most important metropolitan area in the Eastern Region from Venezuela, the city preserves a variety of buildings dating from the viceregal era,[1][2] Venezuela.[3]". Barcelona, Venezuela. JackkBrown (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown You don't need to provide the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article or page, simply place the title of the page in double brackets, as I did here. You should address problems with an article on its associated talk page, such as Talk:Barcelona, Venezuela. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown The lead of the article was fine in January this year but was messed up by February. I think you could work this out yourself and make WP:BOLD edits back to something appropriate without needing to go to the Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointers to email providers needed

I am looking for whole-domain email providers with catch-all capability, since GoDaddy forced Microsoft 365 Email on me, and Microsoft refuses to support the catch-all in my former GoDaddy Workspace Webmail email account and a substitute for the former inclusion of that account with my domain registration. 24.185.206.49 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question the Wikipedia help desk can answer. You may want to ask at the computing reference desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Libya, Washington, D.C. location issue.

For the article Embassy of Libya, Washington, D.C. , there appears to be a problem with the map shown. The coordinates in the upper corner of the article (38°58′32″N 77°2′3.5″W) are for the correct location (pretty far north in Washington DC on the site of the old Walter Reed Army base (between 16th and US 29(Georgia Avenue)). But the map generated between the photo of the embassy and the rest of the information in the infobox has the blue pointer a couple of miles south near the Kennedy Center (south of Georgetown). Any ideas how this can be fixed?Naraht (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: Those kinds of maps use Wikidata information as their source, rather than the coordinates in the article. I've emended the coordinates in Wikidata, and the correct location should be shown on the map now. (The Wikidata page also has a photo of a building in the Watergate complex. Perhaps the embassy was formerly located there?) Deor (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deor what is the link from the page to Wikipedia?Naraht (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naraht, I'm assuming you meant Wikidata; otherwise I can't make sense of your question It's via Template:Location map (used in Template:Infobox diplomatic mission). The documentation says "If no coordinates are specified, the template will try to get them from the page's Wikidata item". ColinFine (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deor, sorry, I meant Wikidata. What is the Wikidata location for the information?

And according to https://www.embassy.org/embassies/ly.html , yes, it used to be near the Watergate...Naraht (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: Therefore, I've also replaced the photo in Wikidata with the one in our article. (Wikidata has the Dahlia Street address right, and the Watergate photo clearly didn't match that.) Deor (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deor Thank You. I am curious on the Wikidata location.Naraht (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: The Wikidata item is here. Deor (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deor Thank you. Everything looks good and consistent now.Naraht (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia user watchlists

User Watchlists seem to have been removed having links on pages with the new design. I've been trying to find it without activating "Switch to old look". No sign of it on "Special pages". A search for watchlist only goes directly to Watchlist, which is not relevant. Are user watchlists being phased out? Puzzled, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I found mine, but why are links to such hidden now? Shouldn't that be easily acessible to users? -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is under a dropdown menu. That is pretty accessible. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:SpecialPages also has Special:Watchlist as an entry. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me in the new skin Vector 2022, it's on an icon

at top of every page. In narrow windows it moves to a dropdown menu. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. OK. It's not in the list of links under "Main Menu" at the left. It's not in the list of links under "Tools" at the right. Instead, one has to click a little icon of a person, at which point one will get a dropdown menu where it's one of the options. Yeah, "accessible" if you know where it is. If you read every bit of text on the page, you won't find it. If you do a search in the page for the text "Watchlist" you'll won't find it. *sigh* -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the icon or similar to access your account details is now pretty much standard across the Internet. But you can easily switch back to the old skin in your account settings. Go to Preferences → Appearance → Skins → Vector legacy (2010). Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Genealogy

Hello, can you tell me how to go about creating a new Wikipedia portal on genealogy, i.e. the study of family history, a scientific discipline that interests many people and that largely deserves a dedicated portal? Thank you. Regards (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arx76: Portal:Genealogy was deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Genealogy. It's hard to make a good portal and interest in portals is low. See Wikipedia:Portal for general information. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]