The article MS Mega Regina calls the ship MS Mega Regina (formerly MS Mariella) both "she" and "it" in the same section "History". What is the accepted style? Are ships supposed to be called "she" or "it"? Or is it even so complicated that "she" refers to the essence of a ship with a particular name, owner and crew, while "it" refers to the actual physical object? JIP | Talk 00:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SHE4SHIPS. There's no rule. There's no rule because people can't agree. I think that the current situation is that, when creating an article do as you think best, and give the same courtesy to other editors (that is, don't change what you find). Internal consistency within an article is required, tho. If you find both "she" and "it" used in the same article, it's OK to change all of it to either "she" or "it", in fact you should if you have time. Which it should be -- she to it, or it to see -- I guess it's up to you. I'd go with the majority, if there is one. Herostratus (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's two or three "it" references, it looks like; the rest are "she". So I'd go with "she". —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Another valid way is to find out what the original article creator used and go with that. Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the Guardian and Observer style-guide (https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-s) states: "ships are not feminine: it ran aground, not she ran aground; no quotes, no italics." Hogyn Lleol (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's worth something, it's a data point, and I expect that most important style guides still do this. Ours doesn't, because:

1) We don't have chief editor to make us, and we can't decide. There've been well-attended discussions, with no decisions.

2) Which is reasonable, we're supposed tend behind the cutting edge, and also a lot of our ship articles are about history, while Guardian etc articles are probably mostly about current ships)... and many publications are concerned only with current practice today, while we to an extent also consider usage as it was 50 years ago, as a data point.

3) The ship-article mavens (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships) have a fair amount of input into these matters (and that's all to the good), and I get the vibe that they are more immersed in in nautical history than the average Jane. And historical sources use "she" a lot. (I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines, in its "Example articles" section, uses "she" in the samples (altho they don't take an overt position).)

Eventually there will be guideline mandating "it", I suppose. Not for years tho, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: I would just like to note that more immersed in in nautical history than the average Jane, in this context, was so excellent it deserved to be called out Nosebagbear (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Nosebagbear:Oh my gosh, I wasn't thinking of that Jane. And of course it wouldn't be true, Commander Jane is (well, was) more immersed in nautical history than the ship mavens here, I guess. I was just meaning "average Joe" and since I generally use the generic she, it became Jane. Coincidence! Herostratus (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain the joke for others? Searching for "commander Jane" turns up Kathryn Janeway and Commander Shepard, neither of which seem particularly relevant. Adding ship-related terms turns up Janet Taylor but it still seems far off. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing they were referring to Fred T. Jane, though he was never a Commander except at the wargames table.Chuntuk (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's tradition to refer to ships in the feminine, as noted in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 217 - We may also note that the miller, as the sailor when referring to his ship, speaks of his mill as being of the feminine gender : "Ah! She's been a fine old mill in her time." The practice of using the feminine pronoun for ships is immemorial ; it may have arisen, I am told, from the resemblance of a ship in full sail to a graceful woman. - William Coles Finch (1933). Watermills and Windmills. p. 62.. In Russia, ships are referred to in the masculine. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Human–animal breastfeeding deals with two disparate phenomena, widespread throughout history and the world. On the one hand: human infants getting their nutrition directly from animals (mostly goats and donkeys) when wet nurses were unavailable, or deemed inadvisable. On the other: lactating women suckling animals (often puppies), for various reasons, not only the survival of the baby animal. Clearly there ought to be two separate articles. What should each be called? They don't have to have exactly parallel titles. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think that the article should be split. I suggest that you start a discussion on the article talk page before proceeding further. nagualdesign 03:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The situation of the dying Mary Wollstonecraft has little connection to Romulus and Remus. The two existing section titles are unsatisfactory in their own ways. I have started a discussion on the talkpage, as suggested. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The standard link to the page Martha Gardener (broadcaster) has disappeared. However, the page is still there. I did get in my using the method for starting a new page. Can you please restore the link? With thanks in anticipation. Albert Isaacs (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Martha_Gardener_(broadcaster)

@Albert Isaacs: As you say, the article is there. What link are you referring to as being missing? RudolfRed (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created Martha Gardener as a redirect to the article. -Arch dude (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for restoring the page - appreciated. However, there is another, allied problem. When one Googles in "Martha Gardener Wikipedia" the page does not come up. This problem has existed ever since I created the page on 31 May. Albert Isaacs (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Albert Isaacs: The page will be hidden from Google until it is reviewed by WP:NPP or 90 days has passed. RudolfRed (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia only has one article about a person using the name "Martha Gardener", that article ought to be called "Martha Gardener"; there's no need for the disambiguation "(broadcaster)". I've moved it accordingly. Maproom (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone know why "Museum of Contemporary Art Toky", with no "o", does not produce a preliminary drop-down result in the search box, while "Museum of Contemporary Art Tokyo" produces a link to the article? Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 02:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: No, but there was someone on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help ^connect today who was concerned that worse search results have been appearing since yesterday. GoingBatty (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GoingBatty. I guess whatever cache or database that command is searching needs an update. --- Possibly ☎ 03:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's working now. --- Possibly ☎ 07:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May be related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Problems with mobile search in Chrome for iOS. – Rummskartoffel 09:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made an error moving a draft article to the mainspace, and now my sandbox is a redirect page to that article. Bots have already done some cleanup. How do I restore the sandbox (and its previous edit history) so I can use it again? Thank You. TheBawbb (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBawbb: Are you referring to Heures séculaires et instantanées? If so, you can move it back to Draft:Heures séculaires et instantanées. GoingBatty (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one. Tried moving it back to draft and got this message: The page could not be moved, for the following reason: Source and destination titles are the same; can't move a page over itself. TheBawbb (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Draft:Heures séculaires et instantanées. Maproom (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and stupidly, I did the move leaving a redirect. I blanked the redirect, but it still exists as a blank article, and it needs to be deleted. I've found two long policy articles on when to use speedy deletion, but nothing on how to do it. Maproom (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean how to mark a page for speedy deletion or how to actually delete it? Only admins can delete pages. To mark a page for speedy deletion, simply insert the template {{Delete}} on it. JIP | Talk 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBawbb: - I've deleted the draft page for you. You should be able to move the article back to draftspace now. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all! TheBawbb (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This update to template:archives is causing a recursive loop ("Template loop detected: Template:Archives") on my talk page. Or is it just me? --- Possibly ☎ 06:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cited source on MS Viking Grace is wrong. The BBC article says the ship was going from Turku to Stockholm. However, according to an YLE article, the ship was going from Stockholm to Turku. How can I mark the BBC article as wrong in the Wikipedia article? JIP | Talk 10:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP: The best template I can think of is {{Obsolete source}}, particularly if the BBC article was published before the YLE one. Is there a reason as to why the incorrect citation can't be removed? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One reason I can think of is that the BBC one is in English while the YLE one seems to only be in Finnish. JIP | Talk 15:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could add an {{efn}} to the end of the ref, maybe. – Rummskartoffel 15:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added it after the reference. I tried to add it inside the reference but got a template syntax error. JIP | Talk 16:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP: The sources disagree. How do you know which one is correct? Do you have a third source, or are you using extrinsic evidence? Did one source publish a correction? If all you have is two sources in disagreement, you will need to need to mention the disagreement in the article instead of picking one. -Arch dude (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked over at the Finnish Wikipedia, and got a link to an official accident investigation report that confirms my view that the ship was travelling from Stockholm to Turku: [2]. JIP | Talk 19:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I think using the report as a primary source to support the YLE article would be helpful, and that the BBC article could be deleted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team,

We would like to create two individual and company profile pages in Wikipedia.

Also would like to protect it forever.

We have profile of CEO and COO for the company.

Kindly assist us to create and publish our own profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhgodofx (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is no such thing like a 'profile' at Wikipedia. There is also no such thing like 'our own'. And there certainly no such thing exists like 'protecting forever'.

You'll have to seek another website to place your ads. --CiaPan (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Also, the Terms of Use of all Websites hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation require a disclosure. Lastly, please be aware thaat a Wikipedia article might not nessesarely be desireable. There are reasons why one would rather not want one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's always seemed strange to me that so many people think they should be able to tell an encyclopedia what to write about their company. This explicitly is not social media. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They only see Google results. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has now been hardblocked by @Orangemike: which seems a little heavy handed to me given that creating a blank sandbox and asking this question were the only things they ever did. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The spamusername combined with the obvious promotional intent seemed to justify a full hard block. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No user with a genuine interest in contributing to Wikipedia would ask to protect "their profile" forever on their first post. JIP | Talk 20:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox It's not just an empty sandbox and the question, but also the history of the question. See the last edit of OP.... --CiaPan (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, I think that's the nub of the problem. Many organizations are hiring social media consultants to manage their online presence, and sometimes they don't quite get that "one of these things is not like the others". S Philbrick(Talk) 20:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox and Orangemike: I would actually go with Beeblebrox on this - AGF applies to me, in this case, in the sense that by asking here, rather than diving out, there is the chance to guide them to compliance. I'm aware others may judge the scales of probabilities differently to me here, but to me, crucifying even those who ask questions in bad ways is something we really should avoid Nosebagbear (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I don't think Mhgodofx was crucified. They got warned about their apparent COI and inappropriate username, and then the account got blocked. The block message says both the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation [...] which is against the username policy. I do not agree with the former, either, becuse the account has not been used that way yet, although obviously it was created for such purpose. However the latter part remains valid – the username is against the username policy an as such the account deserved a block.
But a block is not a ban. The user was informed about proper venues to username change and IMVHO there shouldn't be any problem with unblocking the account after renaming.
Of course they may get blocked again due to COI and PAID if they got back to their original plan to create personal 'profiles' for their company officials – but that has nothing to do with the current block, and it needn't even happen. --CiaPan (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user attempting to create an article and have encountered a problem with syntax (I presume) relating to the infobox. An explanation or resolving of the error would be greatly appreciated. I have used the infobox function before and it has performed as it is supposed to.

The page can be found here the error in formatting is obvious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Carty

...JohN...DoE...DeeR...JohN... (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC) ...JohN...DoE...DeeR...JohN...[reply]

Looks like it's been fixed [3] and that extraneous coding was the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]