Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2021 July 18

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 17 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 19 >
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.


July 18

edit

I want to create a new English Article Name

edit

i want to create a new Article name New Article Name is Darveshpur This is village name is Located in Block Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh please help for improvement article name Thank you Darveshpurorg (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darveshpurorg: Search article name (Derveshpur) in the search box. If article is not available on the Wikipedia, you'll see You may create the page "article name". Then click on article name and start editing. Your first article may help you to understand. Dinesh | Talk 07:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before creating an article, you may review Wikipedia's notability requirements. Dinesh | Talk 07:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Darveshpurorg, you created Draft:Darveshpur, Uttar Pradesh last month, and submitted it for review, but it was not accepted. I suggest you read your first article, and work on improving that draft. I wonder from your user name, and the fact that you are apparently not aware that your account created that draft, whether that is a shared account? If so, please note that shared accounts are forbidden on Wikipedia: each account must be used by one person only. --ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excess spacing before poem

edit

Referring to this, I may add that I just realized that when I remove the illustration above the poem of the said section, the problem does not occur. ???--Hildeoc (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hildeoc, I had the same spacing issue on my browser. I rearranged and resized (to try and avoid sandwiching) the pictures in that section a bit, and the white space no longer appears for me. You can revert if you don't think the new layout is an improvement. It was nice to start out the day by reading a little poetry! Wikignome Wintergreentalk 14:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikignome Wintergreen: Looks perfect. Which browser are you using then? (Maybe the system just wants to force the alternating image layout on us ... 😉) Anyway, very nice of you to take care of that – so a big thank-you for your interest and support! And, of course, I'm glad you enjoyed the poetry. 😊 All the best--Hildeoc (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hildeoc: I'm using Firefox 89.0.2 (64-bit). It's interesting to see the little differences in how various browsers display webpages (though it must be an absolute nightmare for developers). Glad to be of assistance! Wikignome Wintergreentalk 16:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk editors, please have a look at some unanswered peer reviews

edit

Hi all. We have a larger than usual amount of peer reviews that are lingering without any response at all, sometimes for several months. Most editors seeking help not only improve an individual article but also influences editing styles and many reviews would benefit from the kind of constructive feedback provided here. I implore anyone who reads this to at least have a look at the list of unanswered reviews (WP:PRWAITING) and ideally respond to two or three of them. Many thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference then and now

edit

I've never come across this before. This is how the reference looks today. And this is how it looked when it was added to Pitseolak Ashoona. So how do I add that to the reference? Do I just use the {{cite web}} and "archive-url" & "archive-date" or some other way? The reason for needing that particular reference is that I can't find her death date anywhere else. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, add the bit you are citing as an archive-url. You can then change the |url-status= field to be corresponding, say dead, usurped, unfit etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fixed it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I report disruptive editing?

edit

On the page for Jammu & Kashmir Bank, a number of IP users have been making a series of disruptive edits, including content that is promotional in nature and edit warring. Is there somewhere I should bring this up? I'm fairly new to editing and don't know what to do. INDT (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@INDT: You're going to want to go to WP:RFPP and request protection. Make sure you give the reason and the affected article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu 🐲 Thank you! INDT (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nakagawa Hidenari → Nakagawa Hideshige

edit

中川秀成 is not called Nakagawa Hidenari but Nakagawa Hideshige.

In Asia, if you call 中川秀成 as it is, it's Nakagawa Hideshige.

Nakagawa Hidenari comes out as 中川秀成 when translating Nakagawa Hidenari.

中川秀成's 秀成 is Hideshige.

About 中川秀成 foreigners are mistaken for Hidenari, and it's recognized that it's correct.

Katsuhiro because there was a misunderstanding, Nakagawa Hidenari lily with Nakagawa Hidenari the actual I hope you move on to.

I also requested for Wikimedia Commons use.

Hello, Gameposo. I'm afraid that I have undone the edit to Nakagawa Hidenari (I'm guessing it was by you, not logged in) because it did not provide a published source for your claim, and the only source currently cited in the article disagrees with you. If you can find a reliably published source which says the name is Hideshige then the alternative name can be discussed in the article.
This Help page relates only to English Wikipedia. If you want to recommend changes to other projects (including Wikidata) you will need to bring the issue up on each one separately. --ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gameposo: If you're able to provide a source, even in Japanese, that Nakagawa's name is read なかがわ　ひでしげ in furigana or similar, the move request is more likely to be successful. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I submit the following evidence to provide the source why Nakagawa Hideenari is Nakagawa Hideshige. You can see that Nakagawa Hideshige is used more than Nakagawa Hidenari.

1.

信長のWiki

中川秀成 Nakagawa Hideshige (1570年－1612年)

2.

Hideshige Nakagawa

Hideshige Nakagawa (Japanese: 中川秀成, Genki 1st year (1570) - August 14th (September 9, 1612) in the 17th lunar year of Keicho) was a warlord and daimyo from the Azuchi-Momoyama period to the first half of the Edo period. . He was the first lord of the Bungooka Domain.

3.

VAN HIER TOT TOKIO – JAPANESE ANTIQUE STORE

EXCEPTIONAL SET OF 2 EDO PERIOD SUITS-OF-ARMOUR (YOROI), COMPLETE WITH 2 MATCHING HIGH 6 PANEL BYOBU SCREENS

he split Bungo Province in a number of small fiefs and transferred in 1594 Nakagawa Hideshige (1570-1612) from Miki Castle in the Harima Fief to Oka Castle in Kyūshū.

4.

ReversoContext

Translation of "秀成" in English

Hideshige - 秀成, 秀重

5.

The Mystery of Inari and the Caves That Surround the Castle Town (Chapter 4)

I contacted the landowner and asked him about the Inari shrine. I received a surprising answer. “Somewhere along the line it became an Inari shrine without my realizing it. I donʼt know who did it. From childhood I had always thought of it as a beautiful cave but up until 15 years ago (1997) it definitely wasnʼt an Inari shrine.” Lord Hideshige Nakagawa allowed many vassals to live in the Kudo area.

6.

The Otamaya Park of Oka feudal lord

Unshitsuzenshi was invited from Toganji of Somadani that was situated southeast of the castle town, and made funeral service of Nakagawa Hideshige and became the first Jushoku (chief priest) of Hekiunji.

Thank you. --Gameposo (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which 3rd party domains do we use for articles + reliable sources to qualify in publishing a wiki page

edit

Hi. I am trying to create a page for a CEO, however, what are the basic requirements needed to do that.

Also, what are the top-tier credited publications/media companies that qualify for the minimum of 5 references in Hong Kong and the US?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.20.58 (talk • contribs) 2021-07-18T15:32:27 (UTC)

Before you go any further, you should register an account, read WP:PAID and WP:COI, make the necessary declarations, then take a look at WP:FIRST. Girth Summit (blether) 15:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do not judge a source solely based on the outlet it is run in - what's written/said in the source is equally important. A name-drop in the Wall Street Journal is just as useless sourcing-wise as a name-drop on Law & Order. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. It sounds as if you have heard a rather garbled version of the requirements: there are no particular domains for sources; in fact, they don't even have to be online. What we require is that they are published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. You can find discussion of particular publishers at WP:RSN, and a list of publishers and sites which have often been asked about at WP:RSNP.
I note that you use the phrase "create a page for", which makes me think that you might be confusing Wikipedia with social media, as many people do. A Wikipedia article is not in any way for the benefit of its subject - any benefit the subject may derive is incidental as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and 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.
If you have any connection with this person, you should declare your conflict of interest; and if you are in any way remunerated for doing this, or are doing it as part of your job, then you must declare that you are WP:PAID. Once you have done that, you should study NBIO and see if you can find enough independent reliable sources to base an article on - if you can't find them, then you should give up, as you will be wasting your time and energy. If you find them, then read your first article, and use the articles for creation process to create a draft from those sources, not from what you know yourself.
My personal suggestion is that you should shelve the idea of creating a new article for several months, and (if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia) you add far more value to it by improving some of our six million existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before you embark on the extremely difficult task of creating a new encyclopaedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have some idea about the needed sources. There is a distinction between sources that are reliable (WP:RS) and sources that help to establish notability (WP:N). Mention in multiple reliable sources is necessary but not sufficient: obscure but reliable sources don't count toward notability. Please read WP:CSMN). -Arch dude (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Article about the Cuban Uprising is WRONG.

edit

I am disgusted with your portrayal of the uprising In Cuba as a US embargo issue. You are intelligent enough to translate the word “LIBERTAD” it means FREEDOM. This is the chant that is prevalent throughout the entire island. Furthermore the protests were started by artists wrapping about their lack of freedom, the lies of the Socialist government and the violations of human rights they live with daily. Your summary is not only wrong but lazy.

You can always bring it up at Talk:2021 Cuban protests if you actually care enough about the issue to want to fix it, rather than complain here and not follow-up. You're more apt to get a responce there. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edit to the description of Prophecy

edit

i was told it was not relevant but you will soon see it is well you wont and that's because it won't be allowed to been seen ie my post being removed plz put it back up so all can see that want to, it will create traffic

Hi IP editor, Wikipedia is encyclopedia, your edit was an example of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, in particular Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a means of promotion. TSventon (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yo fams

edit

Where would I go to discuss policies and guidelines, or lack thereof, regarding the handling of the deadnaming of dead transgender people? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abryn, the guidelines you are looking for are at MOS:GID. The talk page over there might be a good place to start a discussion. Girth Summit (blether) 15:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy links to related discussions:
RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 16:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest?

edit

Hi! I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I have a Ph.D. and teach history at a university. I wrote a book about the Cape Cod Canal. Yesterday I wanted to quickly check a fact, and noticed that the entry was rather vague and doesn't even list my book, which is a standard reference by Arcadia Press. I didn't change anything in the text. I noticed that a paragraph was missing a lot of detail and was marked as needing a reference. So I added detail to the end of the paragraph, and referenced my book, which I also placed in for further reading. This morning I got a note that an editor had removed all of my content because he thought I had a conflict of interest.

Yes, I have a Ph.D. Yes I spent two years researching the topic and wrote a book published by the country's leading publisher of local history. I wrote the book for Historic New England, so I do not get any royalties from it. So if this is a conflict of interest, then I guess I'm wasting my time trying to help improve Wikipedia?Tim11311 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing one's own work often comes across as spammy. The proper venue would be to bring the source up on the article's talk page or at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and let users without a connexion to the book judge it on its merits. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tim11311. Expert editors are very welcome at Wikipedia; but they often find it frustrating because our policy of verifiability means that a non-expert with a reliably published source generally trumps an expert without one. As for citing your own book: that is regarded as a conflict of interest; but that doesn't mean you cannot help at all: what you need to to is to make an edit request to add material cited to your book, so that an uninvolved editor will make the final editorial decision. Please have a look at expert editors. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim11311: Adding your own book to "further reading" will often trigger a closer look at the conflict of interest issue. More generally, if a reference is cited, it is usually not also placed in the "further reading" section. That said, we really do need your help, so please do work through the {{request edit}} mechanism whenever another editor raises a COI question. Unfortunately, the anonymous crowdsourced nature of our editorial review process leaves us with no other choice for maintaining a neutral point of view, even in a case like this where we clearly benefit from your expertise. -Arch dude (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim11311: For academic research, it is not necessarily prohibited to cite one's own publication in an edit you make. The policy is at WP:SELFCITE. The main point is that the citation must be relevant and conform to Wikipedia's usual content policies (e.g. regarding neutral point of view). If in doubt, then discussion on the article's Talk Page is the best way forward, as others have stated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive comment to my address

edit

Good evening! That was one of the rare cases when I decided to edit one of the article in Wikipedia, specifically this one: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Constitution_Day_(Ukraine). I found it very poorly written with a bunch of deprecated links for 2008-2011 and felt it needs to be fixed.

Last days (after 1 year) the user https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Yulia_Romero left a very strange comment and reverted my changes. I found that comment quite offensive as there was:

1. swtich to personalities and some strange wrong assumptions to my address 2. disrespect regarding official Ukrainian government source 3. some wrong accusations that I edited the page in a sneaky way, when edit button is available to everyone

Here is the original comment:

(→‎History: Restored version of article of 6 January 2020 which was butchered and replaced (in a sneaky way) by a meaningless PR bla bla bla which "source" was a Facebook post by the Ukrainian government. I presume that the person who did this (User:Daria Chernobaieva) is a Ukrainian civel servant (the user did not edit about anything else then Ukraine's Constitution Day)

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?diff=1034040009&oldid=1029290007&title=Constitution_Day_(Ukraine)

Unfortunately I didn't find the way to respond to the author of this comment. I believe when someone claiming such things that person should also write arguments proving his/her points and not just throwing the words like that. I really hope for your reaction. Thank you in advance!

Best regards, Daria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daria Chernobaieva (talk • contribs)

@Daria Chernobaieva: There are two places to respond to the author of the comment: User talk:Yulia Romero or Talk:Constitution Day (Ukraine). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

edit

I am trying to fix something written about my grandfather (that he has 8 grandchildren and not just the 3 mentioned). Every time i fix the text, the author deletes my changes, even though they are correct. The author wants to mention only 3 grandchildren. What can i do? Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnljtr (talk • contribs)

Cnljtr Edits cannot be based on your personal knowledge; we need a reliable source to cite that has that information. The article does not claim that he has only three grandchildren, it simply mentions three of them- though I wonder if that is necessary since those grandchildren do not have articles about them. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can i prove there are 8 grandchildren? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnljtr (talk • contribs)

Published sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cnljtr: have you tried raising this issue with the person that has been undoing your edits, Yossinakar? Disputes are resolved by discussion. Perhaps one of you can find a reliable source which mentions that the figure has eight grandchildren, or perhaps the article could just omit mention of the number of grandchildren. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if mentioning the grandchildren at all is particularly relevant. We mention that one is a non-notable musician, one is a college professor and one is a medical professor. I get that this is sourced, but seems a bit tenious to include their names and jobs if it's not all of them. A thing for Talk:Theodore Friedman. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:single chart webpage unavailable

edit

Please fix this article chart template webpage with Dance/Mix Show Airplay category at 15th position. Source. The Supermind (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Supermind:   Fixed! GoingBatty (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of underwater diving - repeated script timeout errors

edit

The Outline of underwater diving article has several big red The time allocated for running scripts has expired. messages about two-thirds down the page. This was reported on its talk page by User talk:Wbm1058 on 24 June 2021. The talk page suggests that "Someone has probably changed {{annotated link}} or a module it uses." As of today (18 July 2021), this issue still exists. Can someone knowledgeable in what this error means please take a look at this article and try to resolve the error. Thank, in advance, for the community's assistance. Truthanado (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthanado: If you don't receive an answer here, you might want to ask at Template talk:Annotated link. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The culprit is {{annotated link}} of which there are 950 in that article, first introduced at this edit by Editor Pbsouthwood who, it appears, has continued to add that template until the article has exceeded the Scribunto time limit (10 seconds).
This should not be surprising because {{annotated link}} calls {{Template parameter value}} (at lease twice, could be more times) which {{#invoke:}}s Module:Template parameter value to do the work (what that module actually does and why it does what it does is obscured because the author couldn't be bothered to document the code). What I do know is that the module opens another article page, reads the wikitext and looks for a {{short description}} template from which it fetches target article's short description for display by {{annotated link}}. Wash, rinse, repeat 949 more times. Very inefficient. The solution would seen to be: replace all of those templates with simple wikilinks; no easy task in itself because there are 950 templates to replace...
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simple wiki links would indeed remove the problem of script timeout errors, but it would do that by removing the annotations which are the content that lets the reader know what the linked article is about. This could be solved by creating or copying the annotations for the links so they are local rather than transcluded, which is also a lot of work. An intermediate option would be to substitute the annotated links, which would retain the annotations as they are at that time, making it necessary to manually update each one if the associated short description is improved. There is a conflict between programmatic inefficiency of rendering a long list which automatically updates annotations, and human editing to do the same work. I guess a bot could update annotations periodically, but someone would have to write that bot. I will go through the list and see what I can do about localising enough annotations to prevent the timeout, as an interim solution. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that GoingBatty has already done a few, and I have done some more. If the problem recurs, more can be done. I just ask that editors unfamiliar with the topic first check that the affected short descriptions are good enough annotations, and if in doubt, leave the doubtful ones as transclusions or fix the short description first. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a simple experiment to the current version of Outline of underwater diving. I restored the handful of {{annotated link}} templates that Editor GoingBatty had replaced. When I previewed the article, it once again had time-out errors. This suggests that the substing that Editor Pbsouthwood implemented does not fix the problem. In that substing, where there was once a simple a {{annotated link}} transclusion you now see something that looks like this: 
<!--
-->[[Diving procedures{{!}}Diving procedures]]<!--Write piped link to article
-->{{#if: |&nbsp;()|}}<!--If parameter abbreviation exists, write abbreviation in parentheses with leading space
-->{{#if: |, also known as |}}<!--If parameter aka exists, write following standard prefix string
-->{{#switch:{{Template parameter value|Diving procedures|Short description|1|1|1}}||blank|none|null|not required|redundant|&nbsp;=|<!--Test for null Short description cases. If found do nothing.
-->&nbsp;&ndash; {{Template parameter value|Diving procedures|Short description|1|1|1}} }}<!-- If not null, get and write short description for capitalised template
-->{{#switch:{{Template parameter value|Diving procedures|short description|1|1|1}}||blank|none|null|not required|redundant|&nbsp;=|<!--Test for null short description cases. If found do nothing.
-->&nbsp;&ndash; {{Template parameter value|Diving procedures|short description|1|1|1}} }}<!-- If not null, get and write short description for uncapitalised template
-->
That is essentially the content of the {{annotated link}} template where {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} have been filled in.
In light of the result of my experiment, it would seem that substing of {{annotated link}} templates is not a viable solution to the timeout problem. Also, substing in the three sections where it was employed, added 55,315 bytes to the article's wikitext.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trappist the monk, that was so not what I was expecting! It would appear that I completely misunderstand what substitution of a template actually does. Can you tell me where all this code is stored after the substitution has been rendered, because I do not see it in the resulting wikitext, which looks like what I expected – a normal wikilink followed by a copy of the short description at the target page, no more, no less. Adding to the wikitext size is understandable, if the annotation is to be stored locally it will take space, but I did not think it would take that much space Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now, it is a mess. I will have to substitute manually. I have often substituted templates and I have never seen anything like this before. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: I've made changes to {{annotated link}} that make substituting it do what you expect. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pppery I have had a look at what you did. Such a simple fix! Live and learn... Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a picture to my user page

edit

How do I upload a photo to my user page? I'm kind of stuck

the same way you would load a picture to any page: you first upload the image to Commons, and you then use the "file" syntax on your user page. But note: the picture must be licensed CC-BY-SA or other acceptable license: you cannot claim "fair use" of a copyrighted image on your user page, or anywhere else except in an actual article. Also, make sure you are using your user page to tell us about yourself as a Wikipedia editor, and not for a non-project purpose: see WP:USERPAGE. OK, after all that, just click on the "upload file" link in the left-hand column on the desktop version of Wikipedia, and follow the instructions. Come back here if you need further help with this. -Arch dude (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@1RingFB: You could also use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, which will provide you all the right prompts to upload the image correctly. Happy editing! (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2021_July_18&oldid=1088803532"