Help desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

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.

March 16

I have a feeling someone is following me watching my every edit, and it's making me uncomfortable

I have a feeling that someone (who I will not name) is WP:HOUNDING me across Wikipedia. They once even showed up on my talk page for an unrelated matter. How can I prevent this? It makes me uncomfortable. Félix An (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the good thing is to ignore, but if you're feeling uncomfortable, it might be best to email an admin and let them know who is hounding you and they will see if it needs a warning or a block. I don't think going to the ArbCom is required right now, unless there has been any off-wiki harassment or there is confidential information. I will let you know that some editors might be tracking your edits as you were recently unblocked, and this kind of following around is not usually considered harassment as it helps them to see if you have done any violations of your unblocking criteria TNM101 (chat) 07:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Changing an article name before closing discussion?

Courtesy link: Nia (charity)

Hi, An editor moved an article I wrote to a new name without doing WP:Beforemoving. I moved it back because the name they moved it to was not appropriate for the geographic region the article refers to. I told them to be mindful and to please do some research before moving a page.

In response, they put a name change discussion tag on the page to move it a second name. I responded with an objection.

After the discussion was up for a few days, this editor then adjusted the name under discussion to a 3rd name.

This was done without changing the name discussion template and without closing the prior discussion. They just adapted the tagged name. Is this ok to do? Some of the points in the prior discussion refer to the initial name (the 2nd one) that the discussion was posted about.

This editor also accused me if having a conflict of interest with the subject of the page. I do not have any relationship to the subject of the page. This is a personal attack.

At this point it feels the drive to change the name on the article is not based on any benefit to the article, rather it's a personal grievance against me because I reverted their first name change. What should be the best course of action here? There's not much discussion on the talk page as it's not a controversial page. I don't think the behavior is appropriate and I'm not sure what to do here. Nayyn (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I've left a note at MPian's talk page to find out why the name change took place. scope_creep^Talk 09:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The article clearly states that its in British English so the name shouldn't have been changed. Its known as a charity, been in existance for 50 years so that is likely the common name. I've not done an archival search but its known as Nia (charity). The website refers to it as Nia. Its one of these names that are easy to remember, you can attach to it easily. The editor who changed it is fairly new, 3 months I think, so its inexperience. I see what the note says, when they come in. scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why the article was moved to Nia (organization), but the official name is "the nia project", which means that Wikipedia policies on capitalisation and names beginning with "the" are relevant. Based on the first five references, it is reasonable to argue that the "Nia Project" is the common name of the organisation. TSventon (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: Where did you find that. scope_creep^Talk 10:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I see it.That is the official name. All their docs refer to it as Nia. Even the recent website redesign. scope_creep^Talk 11:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:COMMONNAME, en Wikipedia looks at what independent reliable sources call a subject, not what the subject calls itself. TSventon (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I know, but your not confusing it with this Project NIA or this Emory School of Medicine Nia Project? scope_creep^Talk 12:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I was going off when the article was first written, also to keep it succinct. Nayyn (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

the article was moved to Nia (organization) by the editor who later submitted the name change discussion. I reverted it because it was inaccurate, and then they submitted a name change discussion under The Nia Project.

After I pointed out it should not use "The" in front of the name, they edited the name discussion to Nia Project without indicating this and suggested that I had a conflict of interest.

I didn't want to link to the article in my original query as I didnt want it to feel like I was canvassing. I appreciate the help here. Nayyn (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

thank you all for chiming in here and on the talk page of the article, I really appreciate it. Nayyn (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Another WP:CITEVAR question, if I may. I'm doing some work on The Tempest and I see two differing footnote styles. If you look at its References section you'll see what I mean. References 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 (etc.) take a different form from most others. The majority of footnotes use the {sfn} template and link through to something in the Sources section - whereas these and many others use a {cite book} or {cite web} template. I acknowledge that achieving perfection might be a lot of work - but would the perfect solution be to create all the sources in the Sources section, and then to turn all footnotes in the text into {sfn}s. It would then all be consistent. AndyJones (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you intend to take it to GA? scope_creep^Talk 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

If the article was going GA, they would like sfn tags as its nice and clean and easy to review. But it looks as though as its under some development. There is a lot of cn tags. The majority are in sfn, so I would convert the rest to sfn tags. Its a quite a small number. That article needs a wee bit of love and care. I've copyedited somewhat to fix a couple of problems with references. scope_creep^Talk 10:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Tempest is already a GA, so I checked the approved version and all the sources were in the sources section there. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I missed that. Its been horsed a wee bit. I'll give you a hand. Answer to question. Yes. scope_creep^Talk 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a GA but it is undergoing quite an overhaul at the moment. Look for my name in the edit history for all the gory details. A lot of the {cn} tags were recently added by me but I am in the process of killing them all off. Thanks everyone for your help so far. AndyJones (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@AndyJones: I intend to do more. I noticed that some may be refering to the whole possibly, as a version of The Tempest. I posted a list to the talk page on what I find. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you @Scope creep:. As you can see I'm working my way through the major sources of the page, gradually, so do feel free to post anything you consider problematic on the talk page (where you'll see there's already the discussion GA concerns) and I will fix/delete/replace as appropriate. Thank you to @TSventon: also. AndyJones (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Notifications for WP:Peer review requests

Hi, I volunteer to do peer reviews and am subscribed to Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_unanswered_reviews#Philosophy_and_religion, but for some reason I don't get notifications when new requests are listed. Could anyone advise? I'm open to helping out in other areas as well, but it's only this one for which I would like to receive some kind ping or notification.

Many thanks, Patrick (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh When I navigate to the link you supplied, I see the possibility to click on "subscribe" to that section. Have you done that? It should trigger a notification when someone adds new content there. You can check what you are subscribed to at Special:TopicSubscriptions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've clicked that, and my subscription is recognized (the only option presented to me is to "unsubscribe"). This has been an ongoing issue. I previously thought something might have been thrown off with a change to header titles or the like, but unsubscribing and resubscribing has not corrected the issue.

I was not previously aware of Special:TopicSubscriptions, but the subscription does show up there with the "Latest notification" field reading "never"—even though there have definitely been new requests listed. Patrick (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

~~I think that the problem is that topic subscriptions is a feature designed for talk pages and the page in question is a project page, not a talk page~~. You might raise the issue at WP:VPT, as I suspect the "subscribe" option shouldn't be there at all. Or wait for User:PrimeHunter to show up here, as I'm sure he'll have the definitive answer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

... scrub that. This Help Desk page is also a Project page and subscribing here works fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I'll wait to see if PrimeHunter anyone else chimes in. (I'm subscribed to this query without following the whole page and get notifications just fine.) Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh: The page Wikipedia:Peer review/List of unanswered reviews hasn't been edited since 2022. The only content of Wikipedia:Peer review/List of unanswered reviews#Philosophy and religion is a transclusion of User:AnomieBOT/C/Philosophy and religion peer reviews which transcludes something from other pages. You don't get notified if a transcluded page is edited. You can add User:AnomieBOT/C/Philosophy and religion peer reviews to your watchlist but not subscribe to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Wow, not intuitive. But thank you! I now follow that user/bot page.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Could someone look something up for me in the Wikipedia Library?

I've not got my 10 edits this month, so I can't check it myself, and the suggested IRC on that page gives me a "does not exist" error. Ousman Miangoto has been suggested for deletion and I thought I'd have a look for any potential sources, especially as he appears to have been a flag-bearer. Using the google books search, I get a hit for this "N'Djaména hebdo, Issues 7–68, 1989" but it's behind a paywall. Is there anything on TWL? Red Fiona (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You have to make literally one more edit to hit the threshold ... that's probably easier than asking others to dig for sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Very good point - I think when I posted this I was further away and didn't think I'd be making so many edits tonight. (My apologies) Red Fiona (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apparently Newspapers.com has 113 matches for Ousmane Miangoto, but I haven't signed up. If no one here can help you could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. N'Djaména hebdo in Google books says something like "II git de Ousmane Miangoto qui it fait équipe avec Alladoum lo , NDoubadoum Raïngar et doum ." It looks like a single sentence and the lines seem to have been truncated. TSventon (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the Resource Request link. Red Fiona (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Redfiona99 I've looked at some of the newspapers.com hits and they are not very promising, I'm afraid. Most are listings of events he ran in and a couple are about free haircuts he obtained! I don't see any WP:SIGCOV but it would take some effort to go through every hit to be sure. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

... I've now gone through all 100+ hits and they are the same repetitions. It is surprising how many local newspapers covered the haircut but that hardly helps WP:NBIO. A search in the top level search bar of TWL generates no hits at all. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull Thank you for satisfying my curiosity. Were any of the hits from Chad, or even France? It is possible that a more specialist database would give better results. TSventon (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

No, they were all US newspapers. I don't know where one might find archives for French-language material. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking. At least it's promising that there might be something, even if the decision is to redirect his article for the time being. Red Fiona (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Linking to visible anchors

I have been adding visible anchors to the Swinefleet Warping Drain article for the Acts of Parliament obtained to carry out work on the drain. So on List of acts of the Parliament of Great Britain from 1793 there is an entry for Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793 which links to a <Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793> redirect page, containing #REDIRECT [[Swinefleet Warping Drain#Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793]]. I can click on the entry in the List page, and it jumps to the visible anchor in the Swinefleet Warping Drain article. However, if I click on the Redirect page, the anchor in the article is highlighted with a blue background, but if I click on the List page, the highlighting does not appear. Is this how it is supposed to work, and is there any way to get the highlighting to appear in both cases? Thanks. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bob1960evens I don't quite understand what blue background you're referring to, but your usage of redirects is correct here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bob1960evens: At Swinefleet Warping Drain#Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793 I see blue background for "Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793". I also see it both when clicking the Whitgift entry on List of acts of the Parliament of Great Britain from 1793, the redirect Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793, and on the redirect page Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793. What is your browser? What is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? Does it work if you log out? Is JavaScript enabled in the browser with no script-blocking extensions? What is the url in the address bar after clicking Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793? For me it's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinefleet_Warping_Drain#Whitgift,_Yorkshire_(Drainage)_Act_1793. If your browser blocks some JavaScript then it may be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitgift,_Yorkshire_(Drainage)_Act_1793 for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I see (on Chrome for Windows Desktop Version 134.0.6998.89 (Official Build) (64-bit)) a blue background for the anchor when I visit the page directly, but not when via a redirect.

The anchor text has a class of "vanchor-text", set by {{visible anchor}}; that same template includes

<templatestyles src="Template:Visible anchor/styles.css" />

to fetch the stylesheet required by {{visible anchor}}.

When the page is displayed directly (not via a redirect page), that text is styled using rule

.mw-parser-output .vanchor>:target~.vanchor-text { background-color: #b1d2ff;}.

The rule is defined in an in-line <style> element as

<style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1238216509"> :::.mw-parser-output .vanchor>:target~.vanchor-text{background-color:#b1d2ff

}...</style>.

When linked to indirectly (via a redirect page, for example), that style element is replaced with a link:

<link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1238216509">,

so the required CSS rule is not present and the text not highlighted.

@Bob1960evens: See above for a dissection of the pages being displayed. You may need to refer this to a technical help desk.

That aside, I do not understand why text with an unexplained blue background is required. It is confusing, as apparent from this discussion; I would not have known what the background meant if I had not participated in this discussion. As the text is the title of a redirect page, it is already bolded to show it's the title of a redirected page (as allowed by MOS:BOLD). Bazza 7 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all for the info. I put the text in bold so that it is easier to spot where the subject matter is, because the blue highlighting only works when there is no redirect involved (on my system, and as explained above). I can carry on making the titles of Acts of Parliament bold where they are linked from elsewhere. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It works for me in the same Chrome version as Bazza 7 when clicking the redirect Whitgift, Yorkshire (Drainage) Act 1793. @Bob1960evens and Bazza 7: Is the url in the address bar rewritten from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitgift,_Yorkshire_(Drainage)_Act_1793 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinefleet_Warping_Drain#Whitgift,_Yorkshire_(Drainage)_Act_1793 when you click the link? It is for me. The feature requires the url to be rewritten. MediaWiki redirects do this with JavaScript after loading the original url and not by actually loading the page from the new url like normal url redirection. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Like you, I have the same URL in the address bar regardless of whether I got to the article directly (from a clicked link) or via a redirection. I am currently using Chrome for Android desktop which exhibits same behaviour as Chrome for Windows desktop I described earlier. Bazza 7 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)