Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• If you are having an issue while editing, which editor are you using?
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

hatnotes for "Belgrade Fortress"

Belgrade Fortress looks written by someone with non-native skill or machine-translated, so many sentences are meaningless. It needs hatnotes. .... Xo4v (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

When you say hatnotes, do you mean that it needs a note linking to another article (what we usually mean by hatnotes on Wikipedia)? Or do you mean maintenance tags that address the problems with the article? I'm going to take a look at it and see if I can do some cleanup, but if you think it should have a note at the top linking to another article, please let me know which one. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hatnote: maintenance tags that address the problems with the article to warn new readers

someone familiar with subject or language should look at Belgrade Fortress .... Xo4v (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I added a "confusing" tag and am also seeing if anyone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia wants to take a look. Thanks for pointing this out! I don't think it's a machine translation issue because the article was first created in 2004 and because I don't see any major recent additions, it looks like content was added over time, but I could be wrong. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

genders of nouns are wrong, and nouns are wrong, so "machine translation" was a guess. the "improve by translating from serbian:Belgrade Fortress" Wikipedia:Hatnote might work .... Xo4v (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hatnote does not say what you say it does ("maintenance tags that address the problems with the article to warn new readers"). It says: "Hatnotes provide links at the top of an article or a section to help readers locate a different article if the one they are viewing is not the one they're looking for." AndyJones (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

"Hatnotes provide links at the top of an article"

there are many Hatnotes. some assert WP:NPOV, "article seems LLM", "article seems written for pay", "article seems written by someone close to subject", "article needs inline citations", "article needs translation from other language"

Hatnote = template at the top of an article

Xo4v (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Xo4v: We don't call what you described hatnotes. They're article message templates, many of which are usually referred to as maintenance tags. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to prevent any future confusion, hatnotes are the ones you see on the very top that provides things like disambiguation, e.g:

For other uses, see Honey (disambiguation).

They usually go above the maintenance tags themselves, as described in Wikipedia:Hatnote#Hatnotes_above_maintenance_tags LkL-70547 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Smithsonian fair use?

Walnut (crane) hasn't an image. The Smithsonian web site Has images of her. I understand many U.S. govt images are free to use, but these are apparently attributed to a specific photographer.

Are either images fair use? Scuttlebug Jam (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:Scuttlebug Jam! Copyright rules are indeed complex, and this question seems to tangle up several different topics related to what "use" means. One is the licensing of the images, and whether they are "public domain" as a US government work-product. I think the answer is yes, given Commons even has a specific {{PD-USGov-SI}} tag. That means the image can be uploaded to commons and then used here in the enwiki article. For completeness, "fair use" is when we choose to use things despite license prohibition, which always strikes me as an easily-misunderstood phrase. In that case, it is prohibited on commons, but one image of the subject might be uploadable here to enwiki for use in that article. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You cannot assume the copyright status is public domain- since the content is not marked "Creative Commons Zero" according to the Smithsonian's policy. However, the answer to your question is probably "yes" according to

https://www.si.edu/termsofuse

and given that the page is not marked, the section that applies seems to be:

"b. Other Content – Usage Conditions Apply"

There are many images of other white-naped cranes on Wikimedia Commons, so you might (as a workaround) use one of those instead and word the caption accordingly to make clear that this is not actually Walnut?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=white-naped+crane&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

If the purpose is general illustration, might that be an easy and acceptable alternative? 45154james (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

If the image in question is a work-product of the SI employee as part of their job and SI is a US-govt-funded unit, then the work-product meets {{PD-USGov}} whether or not the SI explicitly says so (or even thinks so). In particular, {{PD-USGov-SI}} has been well vetted by commons and has found that SI's claims to "non-commercial only" are overly broad and therefore potentially invalid. The bold-faced part is the only detail that needs to be established. A non-free image of this specific crane would meet the enwiki fair-use criteria for this specific article. A generic image of this type of crane would be a poor substitute even if it were a free image. DMacks (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

How to make/display section links with {{for}} template?

While reading Image sensor format (previous edit, not the current one), I stumbled on a broken {{for}} link at the top of the page, tagged like this:

{{For|a quick understanding of numbers like 1/2.3"|#Table of sensor formats and sizes}}

So the idea is to direct readers to a table further down the same page. It displays correctly (well intuitively), as:

For a quick understanding of numbers like 1/2.3", see § Table of sensor formats and sizes.

but links incorrectly back to the top-level Wikipedia home page.

I have changed the markup to this, so the link now functions correctly (takes the reader to the right place):

{{For|a quick understanding of numbers like 1/2.3"|Image sensor format#Table of sensor formats and sizes}}

However, the displayed link now includes the name of the page that we're actually on, which might be confusing:

For a quick understanding of numbers like 1/2.3", see Image sensor format § Table of sensor formats and sizes.

IMHO, this clumsy {{For}}> hatnote is a kludge workaround where the real solution is a properly structured article that introduces the topic simply to begin with. However, forgetting that entirely, as a temporary fix, is there a better way to do the {{For}}> markup so it doesn't display the name of the page we're on and correctly links to the table further down?

Thanks for any tips. 45154james (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@45154james: The whole thing should be removed. Why pick out a very specific bit of information, and what has a random fraction got to do with this article's subject?

On a more general note, the table of contents is where the article's sections are listed. The site's search for "1/2.5” sends me to Aspect ratio (image), which might benefit from the hatnote you describe. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

With respect, I left it because it seemed to me to be serving a useful purpose, albeit imperfectly. "Why pick out a very specific bit of information, and what has a random fraction got to do with this article's subject?" Simply, I'd guess, because most "naive" people probably go to that article for the same reason I went: to learn what a very commonly cited but very opaque optical sensor measurement such as 1/2.5" actually means. The hatnote served that purpose: it sent you straight to the relevant part of the article. That the article itself is an inefficient explanation for people seeking an answer to that question is another matter. I don't have time/knowledge enough to rewrite it and it may well (in all probability) never be rewritten. So I'd gone for what I saw as the lesser evil - kludging the kludge rather than fixing the article. Removing the offending hatnote is easy, but ignores the question of why it might have been put there; it just means readers of the article will now have to work harder to find what they want. 45154james (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

{{for}} and other hatnotes are only for links to other articles to help readers who reached the wrong article. If the section is really that important to readers then it can be linked in the opening paragraph with {{section link}}, e.g. "See § Table of sensor formats and sizes for specific formats." The "§" hints that it's on the viewed page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you PrimeHunter. That's most helpful and appreciated. The real answer is to sort out the article, of course! :) 45154james (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Tulle

Hi, a user who answered at Talk:Tulle#Requested move 15 August 2026 forgot to sign his comment; could someone add the signature? Thanks in advance. ~2026-44999-83 (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. I use {{Unsigned}}, which makes it really easy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: That's useful. Thanks. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Suspicious edits to mayoral election candidates

Hi, the two main mayoral election candidates in Ottawa (Mark Sutcliffe and Jeff Leiper) have had their pages edited on the same day (2 May 2026) by two temporary accounts, with the edits clearly designed to paint one of the candidates (Jeff Leiper) as an unhinged leftist (Bike lanes! Drug injection sites! Tax hikes!) while at the same time sanitising Sutcliffe's page.

Is this considered vandalism? Does it deserve correcting, and if so how should it be done? GEmualliuG (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It is absolutely not vandalism by Wikipedia standards, because vandalism is defined here as intending only to disrupt or destroy, not when intending to change the content to different content. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. To put it differently, is it an allowed behaviour? If not, how should it be corrected? GEmualliuG (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You might be looking for the term Tendentious editing. But we shouldn't go out accusing people lightly, but rather Assume good faith. The best way to address this is to simply stick to the content and to the policies, in this case especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and its section called WP:DUE. Look at each individual change. Is this constructive? Yes? Good! No? Fix it! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Creating an article - interviewing for sources?

Hi, I am involved with climate activism in northern CA and I know two people who I feel have significantly contributed to the region's history without much info about them online. But in looking it up I see that it's discouraged to write about subjects you have a connection to. I'm wondering what the best thing to do here is, and if it might be not doing a wiki page at all and instead interviewing these people as a source that someone else might use. If so, does anyone have advice on where to share these interviews? Would they be considered firsthand sources and thus also not helpful to make a wiki page?

The existing articles I could find connected to their work are Grove of Old Trees and Redwood Summer. ~2026-45240-59 (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-45240-59. Unless it can be demonstrated that the two people in question clearly meet Wikipedia:Notability (Wikipedia:Notability (people), any attempt to create a Wikipedia article about them is going to most likely end in failure. There are lots or people and organizations out in the real world that are doing or have done some pretty great and WP:NOBLE things, but they need to meet clearly Wikipedia's notability guidelines for any article created about them to have a chance of surving a deletion request.

As for sources considered reliable by Wikipedia, as long as the source is published and reasonably accessible, it doesn't necessary need to be online; online sources, of course, tend to be much easier for others to verify but "being online" isn't a requirement per se. WP:INTERVIEWS, though, for the most part are considered to be WP:PRIMARY sources; an interview can sometimes be cited as a reliable source for certain types of article content, but interviews, in general, don't really help establish a subject's Wikipedia notability. In addition, the reliablity of the interview often depends on who conducted it and whether they did their due dligence and provided some form of editorial control as explained in WP:NEWSBLOG. An interview conducted by an established journalist who is considered to be a content expert with a good reputation of editorial control and fact^checking is going to be considered more reliable by Wikipedia than an interview conducted by some unknown person without any type of track record regardless of how accurate/true the content of the interview might be. Please understand I'm not trying to imply that you're the latter type of interviewer, just providing some general information on what Wikipedia tends to look for when it comes to interviews. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Basically, to get them onto Wikipedia, you would need to show an already-published biography written in an independent reliable source ("independent" meaning "not associated with them, and without their help"). What they say about themselves won't get accepted, even if they say it to a third party. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for Review of Amina Melikova’s Wikipedia Article

 Courtesy link: Draft:Amina Melikova

Hello. I am writing regarding the Wikipedia article we have prepared about Amina Melikova.

After creating the article, we received a notification on July 17 asking us to make some revisions and add additional sources. We followed the recommendations, revised the article, added reliable and independent sources, and resubmitted it for review.

However, it has now been more than a month since the resubmission, and we have not yet received any further feedback or a decision.

Amina Melikova is a museum director, curator of international exhibitions, and author of several publications. There are a number of independent sources documenting her professional activities, and relevant references have been added to the article.

We would kindly ask you to review the article when possible and let us know if any further revisions or additional sources are required.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Kaktu23 (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Who is "we"? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kaktu23! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for both your post and your contributions. I understand you're here to ask that your AfC submission be reviewed more speedily, but I want to note at the outset that there's no centralized body of editors at AfC or any other place on this platform. Rather, we're comprised solely of volunteers who decide for themselves what to work on and at which points in time. I also want to note that this is the help desk, a place for users to ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia. It's not quite the place to ask for a response to a request you've made for a specific article. For your information, there's a help desk reserved for asking questions related to AfC in a subpage of the project.

But to provide a response, if I may, I'd like to explain how AfC actually works so there's no misunderstanding there. Because of the risk of giving very new, to wit, very inexperienced editors the ability to create articles, a WikiProject had been created to facilitate the peer review of articles such editors seek to create, that WikiProject being WikiProject Articles for creation. You typically submit a prospective article using the Article wizard, it gets placed in a feed among hundreds of other articles, and you wait until it receives feedback. Because of the volunteer nature of the project, as well as the massive backlog those volunteers seek to cut through, it's common for editors to be forced to wait over a month to receive that feedback. This is a normal and natural part of AfC, and though it's understandably frustrating, to my knowledge, there's not much you can do but to wait that time.

In the meantime, you may wish to review our content policies and notability guidelines for the greatest chance of success once your submission finally does get reviewed. Make sure that every contentious claim made in the article is supported by an inline citation to an independent, published, and reliable source, as per our verifiability policy; that the article doesn't unduly highlight any particularly positive or negative aspect of Melikova's life, as per our neutrality policy; that all of the claims made in the article can be directly supported by those reliable sources, as per our policy on original research; and that you abide by those policies strictly and without latitude, as per our policy on biographies of living persons. Make sure that you only use images that hold an appropriate license or are under an acceptable fair use claim and that you avoid plagiarism or close-paraphrasing of your sources, as per our copyright policy, including our image-use and non-free content policies. And make sure that Melikova would actually meet our notability guidelines for people, which involves—with some edge cases—receiving significant coverage in multiple high-quality sources. As always, reach out again if you need any help or clarification with this. All the best! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You may need to WP:BOSS and WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Do note that the box at the top of your submission says "This may take 2 months or more". LittlePuppers (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

(Currently) misleading redirect

I have posted a message at Talk:Terrel Williams. The redirect leads to a american football coach named Terrell Williams, at least currently a boxer or former boxer named Terrel Williams is subject of newspapers. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Himbeerbläuling. I wouldn't say that redirect is misleading; most likely it was created because of the similarity in the spelling of "Terrel" and "Terrell". Redirects are often created when a spelling error is anticipated, particularly for names. Whether the boxer "Terrel Williams" is Wikipedia notable for a stand-alone article per WP:NBOX is something that might be worth looking into. You can ask about this at WT:BOXING. If it turns out that Terrel Williams meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then a article about them can be created using their name, and the two articles distinguished from each other by either a WP:HATNOTE for just the two articles or by creating a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page if more Wikipedia notable Terrel/Terrell Williams are found to exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

What, if we can anticipate that for many readers the article they are seeing is not the one they are looking for, but the article they are looking for does not exist? In this case, the effect arises for readers who were redirected. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

To bump in: good q, but I've never seen a hatnote disambiguating between the bio subject and another person who has no content on WP (dunno if there's consensus against this or just hasn't been done before). But if there's bound to be sustained reader interest, and the missing-on-WP person does not meet notability guidelines, then relevant content might still be DUE in another article? in which case we could add an anchor and make a {{r from person}} to that content, and then add a dab hatnote at Terrel Williams, if that makes sense? - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

PrimeHunter has changed the target of the redirect at Terrel Williams. TSventon (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I saw that daily hits on Terrel Williams increased from 0 to 384 after the death of Prichard Colón where he is mentioned. I have never seen a case where literally every reader was sent to the wrong article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hits on the football coach Terrell Williams grew from 76 to 21,450 so around 99.7% got the wrong article. I have added a hatnote there. The article was also getting bad edits calling him a killer because of the boxer. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Avril Cherasard

Avril Cherasard

Please merge the page history back to the original creator, User:Randomguy73, as I did not create this page. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 13:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, Wawan Kurniawan merged into User:Genrifinaldy. This happened because the user removed the speedy-deletion tag and re-added the content without submitting it through AfC. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 14:36, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I may be wrong on both of these points, but I think the request you're making is based on the fact that these articles are ... well ... that they're not your fault; and because of that situation you don't want them counted as yours.

But I think these things have already been taken into account by the way article histories normally work - that it's already perfectly clear you're not to blame, and merging isn't necessary. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

It was showing up in my Article Creation XTool, which is why I requested that the histories be merged. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 16:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

How do we resolve conflicting information between two different versions of Wikipedia?

I raised a matter on the talk page of an article this morning, concerning the late French Singer Claude François. Both the English and French articles differ in their listing of his death; The English version cites his death as being from an Electric Shock, whilst the French version cites it as being from a Pulmonary Edema as a result of the Electric Shock.

Is there any way that our article can be verified as correct or otherwise, by discussing the matter with the French Wikipedia, or do we presume that our article is correct, based upon the sources we have listed with it? Is there scope for editors to search and find sources which differ from our own, and state the other injury as cause of death?

In my mind, I believe that articles should at least have the same basic information across all versions where they're listed.

What are your thoughts on this, please?

Dane|Geld 13:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi DaneGeld, the general answer is that different Wikipedias are independent projects with their own rules, and written by volunteers with their own interests, so the information in articles on the same subject in different languages may or may not be the same.

If you find an error in one Wikipedia, you can fix it in other Wikipedias, if you know the language well enough, or contact a help desk to let them know. Obviously some "facts" are disputed and likely to be presented differently in different languages.

This case seems to involve a more detailed account in fr Wikipedia than en Wikipedia, rather than a contradiction. If you can check the French source, and it is reliable, you could add the extra detail. TSventon (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

One other simple but useful way of looking at it: forget both versions of the article, and examine the sources. This could be both to judge (i.e. which sources are better in which ways), and to develop a strategy to use what's available to make good articles.

Regional items (for example an article on a food that's much less well known elsewhere) might justifiably tell things differently sometimes, I don't know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you read two reliable sources that are in conflict, then put both versions into the article and note the conflict. We do not claim to be able to evaluate which is true. -Arch dude (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I have added the second source noting the Pulmonary Edema into the article, correctly referenced and cited from Paris Match. I think this should be sufficient, but I'll watch for notes or messages from other editors. Thanks for your help. Dane|Geld 23:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

2021–22 NHL season

 Courtesy link: 2021–22 NHL season

The page looks messed up......look at the teams list ~2026-45408-87 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Which exact part of the article? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Upwork

I just found out that on upwork people pay Wikipedians to write certain articles, and that this is seemingly allowed on Wikipedia (as long as you disclose and still follow the rules). One user even said they routinely got $150 an hour for that , which is insane, especially for someone like me who has been doing this all for free.

Is this really true? Because I've heard the saying: "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." and this honestly sounds way too good to be true. Also, if you do use it, is there a way to still remain anonymous and ensure that your wikipedia account doesn't get linked with your real life?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The editor who made the post you link to does indeed say that, before retirement, they earned $150 an hour.

They do not say they earned it editing Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

If I was giving career advice, 'paid Wikipedia editor' wouldn't seem an obvious choice if you were looking for long-term job security. Unless you have specialist knowledge, you will be competing with people from economies where wage rates are low, and if you do have specialist knowledge you will probably earn more putting it to use elsewhere. As for anonymity, that'd be down to how careful you are, and how much attention you attract, just as with doing anything else on the internet. AndyTheGrump (talk)

'paid Wikipedia editor' wouldn't seem an obvious choice if you were looking for long-term job security. Okay sure, but still, if you're already doing it for free, isn't it better to get paid to do pretty much the same stuff? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Both free and paid work are editing, but not "pretty much the same stuff". Volunteer editors choose what to edit. Paid editors do what their sponsors tell them to do, and often face dilemmas when that conflicts with Wikipedia's norms. It's like the difference between driving for pleasure in the countryside and taking a job delivering parcels junk mail. Certes (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Will Wikipedia have a 30th-anniversary mascot?

I was wondering today on if Wikipedia would have a mascot for the 30th anniversary of the website? Like we know that we have a birthday mascot of the 25th anniversary of Wikipedia, but will we even have a new mascot for the 30th anniversary? Who knows if we will have a 30th anniversary mascot in 2031, which is less than 5 years from now. For now its uncertain. - Wikipedian2025 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

A lot can happen before then. Probably best to leave such questions for a few more years yet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, might ask that question again in 2030, which would be ~1 year before the 30th anniversary of Wikipedia Wikipedian2025 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw, I too would like a cute mascot for the 30th :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Check on creation of Wiki Page

We hired a company to create a Wiki Page for our company called "Tradier Inc" - back in December we gave the go ahead to publish the articles we had ready and to submit for review to Wiki. It's now 8 months later and we keep being told "it's still in review". I want to ask if we can check or get confirmation that we are "in the system" at all or where we might be in the queue if we exist?

Thanks ~2026-45350-39 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I can find no evidence for such a page ever existing anywhere on Wikipedia. It seems possible you have been scammed. And please note we do not host content for companies. We may, if a company meets the requisite criteria, have an article about it, but said company will haver no control over the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The company you hired has no connection with Wikipedia, and unfortunately this sounds like a scam. Wikipedia editors create articles free of charge, but only about notable companies and other topics. The normal place for an article under development would be Draft:Tradier. That page did exist once but was deleted on 15 March 2018 because it had remained in draft for six months without being edited. We now have no page with that or any similar title. Certes (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the way to spot a Wikipedia scam is "money is involved". Wikipedia has no way of processing transactions, no facilities for paid editing other than trying to police its misuse, and especially no article queue. (Articles awaiting review have no precedence or sequence, but languish in an indiscriminate pile until a volunteer chooses one.)

Most articles composed with the participation of the subject - whether a company or an individual - end up being declined for reasons of bias, or having a promotional purpose, or use of information that's connected with the subject, or all of the above. Having to un-know your knowledge, ignore your own best interests, and write only what an outsider can discover from third-party publications, is hard. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

If you still have the conversations with the person you communicated with, please send them to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit summary blanking

Is there a place where I can request the blanking of an edit summary? NP (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@NP2026: See WP:REVDELREQUEST. If it's not sensitive then you can post the diff here but it may draw unwanted attention before something is done. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd rather not post the request here for privacy reasons. Thanks for the help NP (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I did something that might be what you are thinking, but I'm not sure if something else should also be done. It doesn't look like you have enabled email, though, so I will refrain from saying anything further in public. Please check...happy to do more but would obviously rather keep comments about it off-wiki. DMacks (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised you were able to find it so easily. Thanks for the help! NP (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

How can I add my bio to Wikipedia

my name is Elaine Elle Espinosa if you google my full name you will know my bio..I'm in Marquis Who's Who and won 2 lifetime recognition awards and recognitions by others I would like to know how can I be part of Wikipedia? Elaine Elle Espinosa (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read the autobiography policy. The short answer is- don't. The best thing that you can do is go on about your life as if you had never heard of Wikipedia and allow independent editors to take note of you and your career as described in independent reliable sources and write about you themselves. Very, very few people succeed in writing about themselves(either directly or via a representative) here and it will likely just waste your own valuable time for you to attempt it, 331dot (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Also know that an article is not necessarily something to desire. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I googled your full name, and I found nothing worth reading; I only found things written by you (or people close to you), and lots of excited announcements.

Here's an extreme example: if I google Albert Einstein, of course I find some silly garbage, but I also find 10 or more large serious books about him.

Nobody thinks you should be Einstein, but Wikipedia won't write about you until there are some large serious histories written about you in major reliable publications, where there's no representation or help from you. It doesn't have to be many thousands of pages like for Einstein, but it can't be interviews, it can't be publicity or announcing anything, and it can't include social media. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

.Too many fingers your opinion is useless to me next to your own bio ~2026-45445-27 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The opinion I gave there is very useful to you, and there's no Wikipedia article about me either. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Sanitized CSS help

Hello. I created a little script that gives my userpage a hacking in movies-esque background. Is there any way I could get someone with the correct permissions to use Special:ChangeContentModel and set it to Sanitized CSS so that other users can see it as well? Just wondering. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ilov3gam3z: That sounds like a poor use of your common.css. If you create a css page in the template namespace, e.g. using Template:TemplateStyles sandbox, then it automatically gets Sanitized CSS and keeps it if you move it to your userspace. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I will do. Thank you. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I just did that but it does not work for some reason. I made it in the Template:TemplateStyles sandbox pseudo-space, and moved it to here but it does not show on my userpage, even though no code is changed or anything. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

You have to add to User:Ilov3gam3z. You would also have needed that for common.css if you wanted others to see it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Wait, nvm. I must be dumb or something. I added it to my page (see this diff) but for some reason it still does not appear on my screen. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Ignore this comment, I figured it out. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

How to remove the promotional content on an article?

Hello, im currently thinking about removing promotional content in the article about Zig (programming language), like what are the signs on some article containing promotional content? - Wikipedian2025 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

One oversimplified hint: pretend you're reading a history textbook, and find the parts that don't seem to fit in that kind of book.

Another oversimplified hint: the word "offer" or anything slightly similar (like in "the company offers ...", not like in "he accepted the offer") probably means that sentence is promotional.

Good parts of the article often focus on "what important events happened". Promotional parts often focus on "why are they good" or "what can I expect to get".

None of those points are absolute. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. - Wikipedian2025 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Make your editing as obvious as the promotional content is. If it's maybe sort of promotional, then maybe sort of edit. If it's hugely obviously promotional everywhere, then slash slash slash. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

How to close AFDs

I recently learned how to nominate article for deletion with the help of some experienced editors here, and I've been getting more familiar with the process. I noticed that after a week, discussions reach a consensus and an editor closes the board to further comments. I'd love to learn and would greatly appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction or guide me on how to start, Staticspector (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Staticspector, see WP:XFDCLOSE. Closing discussions is usually done by administrators, but in some cases can be done by experienced users in good standing; I don't know if there are strict criteria. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@LittlePuppers I will be reviewing this I appreciate the guidance. Thank you Staticspector (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

What do I do…?

I hope this isn’t a weird question to ask, but frankly I have no idea of where else to go. I was emailed, and it asked me about editing histories related to topics about the UN, by the user UN-on-Wiki. They claim they are a journalist, and I refuse to do anything related to this before getting some advice. I have tried reaching out to them on their talk page. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)(rights) 21:07, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you very sure that that user exists? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The account was created today. Clicking the link below gives a different message from clicking on This user really doesn't exist (and Popups gives a different hover message too). Certes (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: UN-on-WIKI.

What sorts of questions? LittlePuppers (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

First 3 Paragraphs: “I’m a journalist working on a story about the editing histories of Wikipedia pages belonging to candidates in the current race for United Nations Secretary-General.

As part of that reporting, I’m reviewing significant edits and disputes across several candidates’ pages. I’m hoping to better understand how editors approach these biographies, particularly when questions arise around sourcing, neutrality, weight and biographies of living people.

Would you be willing to answer a few questions on how you assessed the material you edited, and your understanding of the discussion among editors? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)(rights) 21:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I would say, if you don't want to email an unknown person, don't email them. TSventon (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

That first paragraph had said "I'm a journalist working on a story about ... Wikipedia pages belonging to candidates...". To me, that's a red flag, prompting caution. Wikipedia does not have "pages belonging to [anyone]". Wikipedia has "neutral articles about..." not "probably-biased pages belonging to...". Be cautious about engaging this supposed "journalist" further. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

For me, the red flag is that the person is completely unknown. I would be less concerned about how much or little they know about Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The best rule of thumb is not to reply to emails from any Wikipedia account that cold-emails you. That email seems designed more to harvest your email address than anything (Wikipedia email addresses are normally not visible to the sender; only the fact you have one is.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 01:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

While I share the suspicion, I'm not sure that this is a red flag. What precisely Wikipedia is appears to be widely misunderstood by non-Wikipedians. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

But someone calling themselves a journalist, by the inherently inquisitive nature of that job, and especially when their topic is "about the editing histories of Wikipedia pages" ought to be more aware. Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the benefit of doubt. UN-on-WIKI (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi TheClocksAlwaysTurn. My suggestion to you is to do the same thing you always do when receiving unsolicited (somewhat suspicious) emails; the fact that the email is related to Wikipedia shouldn't really matter any more than if it was an email from your local bank. You reached out to them on their user talk page. If they respond there to your satisfaction, then decide whether you want to engage further with them. If they don't respond, then just move on. If you start noticing messages similar to yours showing up on their user talk page or start receiving more emails from the account, then most likely they're someone who is WP:NOTHERE; you can then bring the account to attention of some Wikipedia administrator, who will appropriately deal with it. Another suggestion (if you're worried about more of this type of thing ocurring moving forward) is to create an email address solely for Wikipedia (if you haen't already done so) and only use it for that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone (@Marchjuly,Feline Hymnic, CoffeeCrumbs, Jéské Couriano, TSventon, LittlePuppers, TooManyFingers)

I’m the person who sent the email, so I wanted to respond here and hopefully clear up some understandable concerns. I also want to state that I am new to this community. I stumbled on this world while researching.

I am a journalist reporting on the current UN secretary-general selection and, specifically, on changes to the Wikipedia biographies of the candidates. I created this Wikipedia account for the purpose of contacting editors whose publicly visible editing histories were relevant to that reporting. I am not trying to identify editors, obtain anyone’s private email address, or collect personal information about them. And for the sake of transparency, I sent similar email to a couple of other editors.

I also completely understand why an unsolicited email from a newly created Wikipedia account would cause caution. Anyone I contact is welcome to keep the entire conversation on Wikipedia if that is what they prefer. I am also happy to provide verification of my identity and journalism through my publication and professional work to anyone confortable speaking with me privately.

When I wrote “Wikipedia pages belonging to candidates,” I meant the biographical articles about the candidates. Forgive me if I do not understand the lingo here yet. It is really a facinating world here and I have had to learn alot to even know that I could contact the editors.

I suggested email essentially because thought it would be more appropriate not to conduct reporting interviews on a public talk page, particularly because I wanted to allow those I reached out to the privacy to speak freely without the public spectacle. I am not asking anyone to disclose their real-world identity. I am interested in understanding some of the things that are confusing to me and wanted to create an atmosphere where that exchange can be relaxed.

I hope that explains both the purpose of the outreach and why I initially thought email would be the more respectful forum. UN-on-WIKI (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you intend to contribute to Wikipedia in some way? 331dot (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I would hope that my reporting would contribute in some way. UN-on-WIKI (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

Under your circumstances as an anonymous journalist requesting information, I expect that more than a few people will be suspicious whether you really are a journalist and who wants the information. I think posting your real-world identity on your user page, including which organization is funding this particular project (rather than a sample of who you've worked for in the past), would help a lot. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I will consider your suggestion. UN-on-WIKI (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

(With journalists, "who are you working for at this moment" can often be even more important than "who are you".) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Marchjuly,Feline Hymnic, CoffeeCrumbs, Jéské Couriano, TSventon, LittlePuppers, TooManyFingers, 331dot I was told I couldn't keep my previous username. So, I changed it. You can reach me on this one if you want. Insearch-of-Something (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Where did that comma come from?

In the middle of the article Ian_Gillan, there is a short blockquote by him. There's a comma after his name. I was going to edit out the comma, but it's not in the source. Is it coming from the "ref" tag? Help... Thanks. David10244 (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

There was an extra | after his name. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

(I didn't actually know by looking; I just thought "What if I take that out?" and it worked.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:56, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Ah, great. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Dendera Light

In a now-archived help discussion, I offered to upload some panoramas to add to the 'Dendera Light' page. I've now uploaded those panoramas to the Wiki Media site, but can't add them to the article. I'm hoping someone else can do that, assuming the panoramas are wanted. Daniel DanielFFF (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

DanielFFF, the images are File:Z92 1570-75dev Temple of Hathor – 'Dendera light' pano2bLfEt(Wiki)F.jpg and File:Z92 1563-69dev Temple of Hathor – 'Dendera light' pano1bLfE(Xsz)T(Wiki)F.jpg; the article is Dendera light; the howto starts at either Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor/1 or Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1 (depending on your taste in editing). If you encounter any difficulty, feel free to ask here. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@DanielFFF Did you take those pictures, with your own camera? David10244 (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

SAVED ARTICLES ON IPHONE APP N/A ON BROWSER

Looking for my saved articles to print out from browser, or save articlew from browser, are functions not available. Please correct in future. Scrutator41 (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The "saved articles" function only exists on the app and not on the browser site. Athanelar (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

A saved pages feature was added to the browser site this year but I don't think it can retrieve pages from a similar app feature. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Scrutator41: If you're using a browser, the closest thing is to click on the in the top-right corner of the page and go to the Print/export heading. You have the option to save the article as a PDF or turn it into a printable version. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Removing myself from your subscriptions

i do not want to continue to subscribe to your company. Please stop all payment collections. My bank has put a block on the payments, please stop all future payments being collected. Thank you Mrs Curwood. ~2026-45724-45 (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If you are referring to donating money to the Wikimedia Foundation, you will need to communicate with them directly, we editors have nothing to do with the donation process. Please email donate@wikimedia.org. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-45724-45: We are not a company but we are run by a nonprofit organization which does accept recurring donations so I'm not sure but I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 7.2 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Tool/scripts

Hi, I m looking for tools/scripts to make Wikipedia editing easier. #Is there a tool for one-click user-talk-page warnings? #Is there a tool for quickly participating in AfD discussions? #Any recommended Gadgets/UserScripts for warnings, reverts, AfD, etc.? Recommendations for installation would be appreciated. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 10:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE for all of the above. Athanelar (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok got it 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 11:03, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

English page missing, translated version of French page?

Hi, As there is no English page for the cheese "Rambol" yet the French page (which claims to be a stub yet provides plenty of detail) seems fine, is it allowed to create an English page purely by translating the French page, or does the English page need to have references entirely in English? As common browsers now come with machine translation, why is it still not allowed to redirect to a foreign-language page in cases such as this? ~2026-45564-36 (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I recommend reading Wikipedia:Translation if you haven't already done so. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is considered acceptable on the French Wikipedia is not necessarily considered acceptable in the English Wikipedia. It is up to the translator to make sure the article they are translating meets the requirements of the Wikipedia for which they are translating.

References do not need to be in English. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

False positive CS1 error

The page: Category:CS1 errors: access-date without URL used to report ~100 pages with "CS1 errors: access-date without URL". A little over a week ago, the number of pages mushroomed into the thousands... 7,702 currently.

Take 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade for example...

a search through the references for "9th/12th Charitable Association Website" shows the error

{{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

If you go into the source editor, do the same search, you will find that the reference is complete:

<ref>{{cite web|date=5 July 2012|title=9th/12th Charitable Association Website|url=http://delhispearman.org.uk/notice-of-regimental-amalgamation-5thjuly-2012/|url-status=usurped|archive-url=https://archive.t0day/20130505152240/http://delhispearman.org.uk/notice-of-regimental-amalgamation-5thjuly-2012/|archive-date=5 May 2013|access-date=2013-03-13|publisher=Delhispearman.org.uk}}</ref>

If you click the preview button, the reference shows no error... until you save, and the error still shows.

Apparently, I cannot even save this question to the home page because of a link to archive.today... perhaps that is the issue?Quebec99 (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If you comment-out the archive.today URL, the error disappears. Quebec99 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The url http://delhispearman.org.uk/notice-of-regimental-amalgamation-5thjuly-2012/ is marked as |url-status=usurped. cs1|2 suppresses such urls when an archive url is present AND when not in preview mode. usurped and unfit urls are not suppressed in preview mode so that editors can easily check the status by clicking the citation's title link. Because archive.today urls are also suppressed, |access-date= refers to nothing and so the error message. The link http://delhispearman.org.uk/notice-of-regimental-amalgamation-5thjuly-2012/ is declared as usurped but it is actually dead so deleting |url-status=usurped fixes the access-date error.

When last I looked at Category:CS1 errors: access-date without URL, the preponderance of these errors that I looked at had |archive-url=https://archive.today/... and |url-status=usurped or |url-status=unfit. The best fix is to replace the archive.today url with a url from another archival service and make sure that the url in |url= is actually usurped or unfit

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Big job, but something to look forward to. Quebec99 (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

As side issue, "Delhispearman.org.uk" is not a publisher. Perhaps "Delhi Spearman" is meant? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Citing a Deletion

How would one cite an edit that removes content from Wikipedia? The paradox is that citing sources is imperative, but – unlike adding or changing content – one can't exactly add a reference to content that is removed. A hypothetical to help explain and illustrate that such a scenario is possible: Organization A once operated Division B, which is included in a section on Organization A's article listing their current divisions. However, Division B has since been disestablished. How do one justify the removal without being able to add a citation? For the sake of argument, assume Division B's existence is insufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the history section of the article, so the dilemma can't be solved by noting that it was disestablished. Furthermore, assume that the existence of Division B up to that point is well referenced, so it cannot be removed with the argument that it is uncited.

The two options I can think of would be to either: include the reference (e.g. a URL for a news story about Division B's closure) in the edit summary or make a form of dummy edit that adds the relevant reference, followed by a second one deleting the sentence/paragraph/section/etc. Any ideas? Or is there fine print in a policy I'm missing somewhere that I'm missing that addresses this situation? –Noha307 (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is history, not news. Division B must stay in the article unless it never ever belonged in the first place. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

(Division B can be moved to a "Former divisions" section. But not removed.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Ditto above (would not remove Division B from article at all). Ifl if Div B's inclusion is sufficiently WP:DUE in one part of Org A's article, then its disestablishment will also be DUE in some part of the same :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the GAN process

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am presenting two suggestions to improve fairness of the GAN rapid (immediate) failure process, followed by a detailed account of my experience with two GAN failures as supporting evidence for why they may be needed.

I need to say I am not whining or lobbying for special attention to my articles. But also that as a result of my experience with two nominations, I have decided to stop nominating future articles to GAs. I will dedicate my time and energy into doing research to convert poor articles into the best articles I can make.

Long proposal

Suggestions to improve GA Review policy & guidance

The following are explanations of the suggested improvements to rapid-failure policy, to be evaluated by the powers-that-be and added to the GA Criteria and/or wherever it is deemed appropriate.

I. EARNING THE RIGHT TO A DETAILED REVIEW

Before doing a rapid-fail for smallish issues without specific suggestions, the reviewer should scan the edit history.

If the editor has done little to improve the article or if it has serious flaws (as defined in the GA Criteria), the rapid-fail is fine. But if there are tens or hundreds of edits during the course of weeks or months by the same editor, it is a pretty good indicator that they have put serious work into the article. In this case, I believe that this writer has earned the right to a serious and dedicated review and if the reviewer has no time to do it, they shouldn't really do a rapid-fail.

In these cases, the suggested course of action for the reviewer in the Guidance page should be to leave a message on the Talk page of the article saying that he meant to evaluate the nomination but had no time for the detailed review that the editor's work merits. He may then give his general suggestions. After the editor responds he has addressed them, the rapid-failer can check and approve the nomination. Or not. But the important thing is the editor is not given a D grade with no explanation after weeks of work!

I am expecting the institutional answer: "But that is the whole idea of the GAN process! The editor can fix and resubmit." But fix what? A rapid-fail with explanations so general that cannot be addressed is a very frustrating result for an editor that has put a lot of effort to improve an article to a level which he considers to be of GA level. This unfairness disincentivizes a truly dedicated editor to send another article for a GAN review.

II. TIME FOR A GAN "FAST TRACK APPEAL" PROCESS?

I know, I know, this is not an existing process and it may take work to write the policies, bots, etc. But I will develop the suggestion anyway and hope for the best.

A Fast Track Appeal (FTA) can be an option to safeguard against rapid-failures of good articles from dedicated editors with insufficient and unfair feedback.

I realize this may smell of redundant tasking, but the upside is that (hopefully) it will incentivize committed editors to keep up the good work for many more years by getting GAs after putting in the work to make them so.

Also, some reviewers that may find reviewing too tedious or don't pick a nominated article due to not being knowledgeable on the subject may actually enjoy doing quick-appealing of quick-failed review articles.

The qualifying conditions for a reviewed to take on a FTA should be that:

1) The article does not meet any of the Immediate Failure criteria in the Good article criteria.

OR

2(a) The article's log demonstrates that the editor has dedicated a considerable effort to improving it; and (b) The rapid-failure comment is too general and unfair given the effort.

An experienced editor would quickly note this even without knowledge of the article's subject. A quick scan of the article versus the comment from the rapid-fail reviewer will also provide a good indication that something may indeed be amiss.

See my account below of the rapid-fail of the Snow Storm article for a documented case of when having this option would be fair for a submitter.

–––– o ––––

My experience with two GANs

I will provide the detail and the article links just to document my experience, hoping it will provide an example to the suggestions and motivate that they are found useful and implemented and as I already said, not with the intent of lobbying for approval. I will let bygones be bygones.

During the last six months, I have spent hundreds of hours researching the Romantic English painter J. M. W. Turner, including buying and reading several books dedicated to his bio and artworks. As a side note, around 20% of those hours were spent learning wikicode syntax and Wikipedia best practices as I wrote and polished the articles in my sandbox, comparing them to FAs of paintings.

I selected two of the most important Turner paintings to work on, which were in VERY poor shape: Snow Storm: Hannibal and his Army Crossing the Alps and Dutch Boats in a Gale. After around two months dedicated to each one, I nominated them for GA review. Both failed.

Snow Storm: The "good" failure

Even failure review for Snow Storm was actually an excellent experience and I am very grateful to User:Phlsph7. It was very quick and had a super detailed list of suggestions, many with extended comments. A couple were very insightful about the content (and were correct) and demonstrated passion and deep knowledge of the subject. I fixed all of them in a few days and resubmitted it 90 days ago. I understand it may take some time for him to get to it and I will just have wait. But even if he is never able to reconsider the resubmission, I am a happy customer.

The Dutch Boats (very frustrating) Rapidfailure

My second GAN, for Dutch Boats, came back with this note by User:A.Cython: "Unfortunately, I have to rapid-fail this one. First of all there are uncited statements, the text is underdeveloped with multiple single sentence paragraphs, there are four harvid errors, and other issues."

I need to say I am grateful to Cython for reading the article and doing the review, even if it was a rapid-fail. No further action is needed on your part Cython. I do understand that GA reviewers have limited time and do reviews on a best-efforts mode. But I will take the liberty to use your feedback as supporting evidence of why I believe the above policy changes to rapid-fails are needed. I hope you don't take this personally.

Let's compare the feedback to the article content.

• Paragraphs with one sentence: In some cases I think this is the cleanest way to highlight something or present a fact that does not merit an additional and unnecessary sentence but this can be a matter of opinion. There are some cases in which this is clearly not the case, but just scanning for single sentences should not be a reason for disqualifying an article. In my rapid-failed article, I reviewed each case of widowed sentences and determined that they could reasonably be attached to the previous paragraph, even though they conveyed a separate fact or idea. And the reason for this is that I spent a lot of time polishing the text to make sure the flow was as good as I could make it.

• Citation format: It took me several months and many errors to learn the way to cite sources using the inline "ref" syntax. But the version of the Dutch Boats article that I found used the sfn syntax, with which I am not familiar. Rather than spending hours trying to homogenize the full article in one style, I dedicated my time to the text I did also validate the existing citations as good as I could, but left those that looked valid. Even though my nominated article has no red errors, the style inconsistency was mentioned as one of the reasons for the rapid-failure decision. I do not see "perfect ref style usage" as a requisite in the Good article criteria.

• Lacking citations: I have dedicated a lot of time to make sure ALL of the articles' assertions are cited. In several cases, the citation is at the end of the paragraph to avoid repeated citations. I saw this practice in FAs. With no "citation needed" tags by the speedy reviewer, I have no way of fixing the article where I consider it needs to be fixed so that it may have a chance to be reconsidered.

I would understand this in a very under-referenced article of an important topic but not in one of a painting –important for Turner but not at all for painting in general— that has 23 citations!

Any (not too institutional-Wiki-defensive) comments would be appreciated!

JP Jp1008 (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Jp1008, one nitpick: it appears that A.Cython did add some {{cn}} tags in this edit. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear Jp1008, I understand your frustration, but we are volunteers for the development of an encyclopedia. Just like you, We all have to follow the WP guidelines and Manual of Style and learn from other more experienced editors of what constitutes a B-class < GA-class < FA-class articles. For example, the practice of the community is that at B-class (note that not even at GA) every paragraph in the main body should end with a citation. This is essential for anyone to be able to verify the content of the article. Otherwise it should be classified as C-class or even less, depending on other factors. In the Dutch Boats in a Gale version that I read, there are the following issues:

1. Uncited statements, these should have been addressed before nominating the article.
2. Single sentence paragraphs is an indication that the text is underdeveloped. There should be coherent story to be told, single sentence paragraphs suggest that a story is lacking structure and thematic cohesion. My read felt that things are missing or not adequately explained.
3. There are still four harvid errors, specifically: Hamilton 2007, Shanes 2004, Bailey 2013, and Hamilton 2017. These errors are generated because you are using the sfn template without placing the target reference in a cite template, e.g., {{cite book|last =...|first=...|title=... }}. Thus, the sfn citation cannot target the corresponding source, generating these errors.

These are organization & structural issues that should be addressed prior the nomination, so that the reviewer would not have to deal with these issues and instead the reviewer would focus on the content, i.e., going through the provided sources and make judgement of the quality of the article based on the content.

Please note that IMO these issues cannot be addressed within a week (particularly #2), meaning that it is best to address these without the pressure of an ongoing review. You are free to resubmit the article for GAN and hope to find another reviewer. However, the same issues would be raised by another reviewer if not addressed. I hope this helps. A.Cython(talk) 02:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think my response comes anywhere even close to institutional-Wiki-defensive: if you are trying for Good Article status, they're right to assume you already solved every little problem, and right to assume you don't need "hand-holding". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jumping during editing

Hi, for example Chronicon Pictum when I scroll to a column, and when I enter the visual editor mode, it always jumps far, through many columns, when I finish the edit, it again jumps far. This behavior is very irritating. Do you know a solution to prevent this? OrionNimrod (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You could try nailing your shoes to the ground. (joke) - Walter using an LLM? Ego 08:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

If you rewrite your question to give exact instructions how to make the problem happen, you can take it to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

user page shows extended confirmed protection

Hello, I just created my account, and when I try to edit my user page, it says the page is protected and only extended confirmed users or administrators can edit it. Could someone please explain why, and how I can get access to edit my own user page? MinimalMei (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I see no restrictions on editing User:MinimalMei. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

If you click on the red name in your own signature, or the red link given by 331dot, it will take you to the right page to edit. It sounds like before you were trying to edit the wrong page. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hyphens

I have a minor disagreement at VeraCrypt and I wanted to make sure I am following our guidelines I was of the opinion (but now suspect that I might be wrong) that the following is correct:

• Open source software
• Free and open-source software

Another editor appears to think (hard to tell because they are so aggressive) that it should be

• Open-source software.

I suspect that they may be correct.

Here is Google's Ngram:

Related

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens
• Open-source software
• Free and open-source software
• Open source

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Collins lets you decide. So does Cambridge. M-W forces it to have a hyphen, Oxford does the opposite.

I prefer it with so that it can't be misparsed, but that's by-the-by. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand that MOS prefers "open-source software" as "open-source" is used as a compound modifier. Generally it is easiest to follow the MOS to avoid repeating the same arguments about hyphens. TSventon (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Is it okay to paraphrase articles in other articles?

Let's say I have, e.g. an article about a movie and want to make one about a different movie. Can I use the first article's same sentence structure, but with the information changed to be about the second movie? Do I have to provide attribution for this? If so, how should that be done? Via edit summary or something else? —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 14:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Best avoided. Certainly you can (and should, if you don't already have some experience) look at articles on similar topics and see how they are structured, but using an individual article as a cut-and-paste template for another can result in overly-formulaic writing. Instead, think about what is important, what the sources say, and how you can best get it across to the reader. Not only should this lead to more readable articles, but it'll improve your writing skills too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Leaf.Sheap: Yes, it's allowed. Whether it's a good idea is a matter of editorial judgement, and you are the editor. If the subject is notable, I would rather see such an article than no article. Please be careful: I have seen some egregious errors introduced by this method in articles related to space missions. Attribution: see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If the edit summary is insufficient (e.g., "structure copied from XYZ"), then explain your approach in an entry on the talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

What you really want in this situation is done by a different method: read and read and read, hundreds of articles, especially articles about topics that are quite interesting but are not your absolute favourite. (On real favourite topics, many people get so focused on the content that they may ignore details of how it's written.) Read. After a lot of reading, you absorb more of how it's done without having to copy.

Note: For technical features of articles such as how to make good tables and so on, yes absolutely you find some other article where they made the thing you need, and shamelessly copy their code. But not for how to write - it doesn't really work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all; I will take this helpful advice into account. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 17:45, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikitext help

On my userpage, I have condensed everything under banners. However, inside the 'Barnstars', 'Articles' and 'Progress' sections, I just cannot get the yellow box to stretch to the full width of the banner. I tried finding info on this, but I'm not very technically skilled on wikitext and I didn't exactly know where to look for. If anyone could help me align everything properly, that would be much appreciated. Cheers, TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 15:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@TNM101: Is this what you want? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Just a small note that is tangential to what you're actually asking, but if you care about contrast, the "show" links on those collapsibles are incredibly low contrast (ratio 1.48). Not sure if there's a way to handle that short of moving the text color assignment to the place where the background of the collapsible header is defined (rather than a span on the box title). Felt worth bringing up because it's low enough some readers may not realize the boxes are expandable. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@TNM101: I made the show links white like the header text. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much @PrimeHunter and Purplewowies. Really dumb of me that I didn't try the most obvious "width" parameter. And thanks as well to both of you for noticing the contrast thing. Cheers, TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 03:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Help on blocked title

Sock

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Luther Nyanzi

Oboteoboth (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Heelo, this is oboth, I am inquiring on a title that was blocked but there is significant coverage from reliable sources and notability was established but still its blocked and now I don't know what to do. I request for your help and review if the new sources. Oboteoboth (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific. We can't really give good answers to vague questions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean, the article I want to write about is blacklisted and yet there is new coverage from reliable sources establishing notability. Is it possible to have a draft of it drafted. Oboteoboth (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I refer you to my reply above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know the subject you are trying to write about. TSventon (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The subject is about Martin Luther Nyanzi however some sources use Nyanzi Martin Luther. I have a connection to him that's why am inquiring and i also tried making inquiries with the Uganda Wikimedia Off Wiki at thier headquarters and they told the issue for Martin is not about sources and it can only be fixes by following right steps here in Wikipedia. Oboteoboth (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

If you "have a connection" to the subject, you should follow WP:COI, and perhaps WP:PAID.

Then you need to show how Nanzi meets WP:NBIO, bearing in mind the advice at WP:Golden rule.

You would also need to address the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Luther Nyanzi. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Manually revert

I’m having an issue with reverting edits. I can’t revert multiple edits at once, so I have to manually revert each edit individually, which is quite time-consuming. I also tried using CVPI, but it isn’t working because it keeps asking for rollback rights. Could anyone please tell me how to resolve this or suggest an alternative tool I can use? 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 21:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

DHIRAJDHONA You manually reverted multiple edits at Maddy Westbeld, do you want to revert edits at multiple articles? TSventon (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can manually revert multiple edits when needed. My main reason for trying to use User:TonySt/CVPI.js was that it makes the process much easier—it can revert unlikely edits and also notify the user with a single click. I was hoping to use it for more efficient vandalism/undesirable-edit patrolling. Since it is asking for rollback rights, I wanted to know if there is an alternative tool that works without those rights. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 22:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:RedWarn works without rollbacker rights, but read the page to see what is expected of users. TSventon (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Also the edits at Maddy Westbeld don't look like vandalism, so it would probably have been helpful to explain the problem to the TA editor. TSventon (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand. My concern was that the year had already ended so I changed it back before the year was over and the edit also appeared to rely on an unreliable source. I wasn't trying to treat the editor as a vandal. I followed the relevant guidelines as I understood them and I also left a notification asking about the edit. So far, I haven't received a response. If the edit is actually valid and properly sourced, I have no problem with it—I was only trying to address what appeared to be an inaccurate or insufficiently sourced change. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 22:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

And thanks for the suggestion RedWarn. I’m not very familiar with use yet so I’m having trouble understanding how to install it and how to operate it. If edit and warn the user without rollback rights? Yeah i can't apply for rights? 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 22:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

DHIRAJDHONA firstly Maddy Westbeld. You should probably read Wikipedia:Reverting, which says Revert vandalism on sight, but revert an edit made in good faith only with an explanation and after careful consideration. That is an essay, but other pages give similar advice. The TA edits seem to be a WP:Good faith attempt to add correct information to the article, sourced to Twitter/X. The policy about Twitter/X is WP:SELFSOURCE, which says that Twitter/X should not be used for claims about "third parties", so I think it was reasonable to revert the edit, but you should have mentioned the reason in an edit summary, rather than just putting "Restored old version". Also it would be helpful to explain the policy about Twitter/X to the TA editor, rather than just telling them their edit is "unconstructive", which does not tell them why there is a problem.

Wikipedia:Rollback#Requesting rollback rights says a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. Rather than getting more tools, I would suggest starting slowly and checking whether edits seem to be made in good faith and also checking the wording of the policies you think are being broken. Then you can build a contribution history to support an application for rollback rights. I don't use RedWarn myself, so I can't offer much practical advice there. TSventon (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@DHIRAJDHONA TSventon's response seems right to me. "Good faith" is a big concept on Wikipedia, and though I think it really is being used according to its ordinary meaning, the way it often comes out can still seem unusual or unfamiliar. On Wikipedia, most of the necessary mentions of "good faith" are made regarding actions that might appear on the surface as if they might not have been good faith at all. (This ties in with Wikipedia:Assume good faith.)

An editor who puts wrong statements about article material, even when persistently and perversely wrong, is editing in good faith - even if they do it after being informed that they're wrong about that material. Good faith means they do believe they're right (or at least they seem to believe it, which is the best we can do).

A very simple case of bad-faith editing would be an editor changing a person's name to "HlvgggggggMMMMM!" - the editor cannot and does not believe that to be true, so it's vandalism.

There is a "grey area". I don't know how large it is or how important it is, but it exists. Anything that's in the grey area should (at least initially) be treated as good faith, and that's good strategy anyway; clear-cut cases are easier to deal with, and a real vandal will vandalize again soon enough. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:16, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t fully agree with this. If an editor adds incorrect information, uses a weak or unreliable source, is informed of the problem, and then repeatedly restores the same disputed material, I don’t think we should continue treating the conduct as good faith indefinitely. At some point, repeated conduct despite clear explanations can become a behavioral concern. Otherwise, someone could repeatedly engage in an edit war under the assumption of good faith while continuing to add disputed material. WP:BATTLE is also relevant here, as editors should not use Wikipedia to pursue a dispute through repeated reverts. I think the focus should be on the editor’s continued conduct and the evidence, rather than assuming good faith regardless of how persistent the behavior becomes. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 18:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

We need to follow the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy, whether or not we agree with every detail. What that means is being very careful about the word "Vandal" and using edit summaries when you revert, unless the vandalism is very obvious. For example an editor may genuinely think their edit warring is improving the encyclopedia, but they still need to stop. Bad edits may need to be reverted, whether made in good or bad faith, and the editor will need advice or warnings. TSventon (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I also know that many editors on Wikipedia, especially new editors, are not familiar with Wikipedia’s guidelines, so their edits often need to be reverted. That is what happened with the Maddy Westbeld edit. The information itself may have been correct, but the way it was added was incorrect. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 19:17, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Revert? Certainly. Call it vandalism? That's a different question. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

You’re not understanding my point, or perhaps you simply don’t want to understand it and are giving your own logic. I already said that regardless of the editor’s intention, if the edit does not comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines, it is still an improper edit. Even an admin would not be considered to be acting in good faith if they knowingly made an edit that violated Wikipedia’s guidelines. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 20:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding; I didn't intend to address your main point at all, but the vandalism "subtopic" or "digression" that came later. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand the distinction now. My point was about whether an edit complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines regardless of the editor’s intention. I wasnt specifically arguing that every such edit should be classified as vandalism. If an edit violates policy or guidelines it can still be reverted even when the editor is acting in good faith. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 21:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Valter - disambiguation

Hi, a disambiguation page titled Valter (disambiguation) is needed; we have the name Valter, Vladimir Perić (known as "Valter"), Attila Valter, and Edgar Valter. Could someone please create it? Thanks. ~2026-45938-81 (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-45938-81: I have added Vladimir Perić to a new section Valter#Pseudonym. It's an article about the name and all your links are people who are now listed in Valter so I see no need for a disambiguation page. A search finds many other people called Valter but they could also be added to the name article. We don't want to duplicate a name list on a disambiguation page. If there were multiple meanings which are not names then there could be a disambiguation page but it shouldn't list everybody called Valter when it could just link to the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

How can the Cite Seer error referenced here by repaired?

The original article matches the cited DOI #. How can the error message be addressed?

Stochastic dynamic programming#Sources Starlighsky (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

If you click the "help" link in the error message, you'll see that the citeseerx parameter is deprecated. Upon a bit of research it turns out that that's because CiteSeerX has shut down. I'll remove the parameter; the DOI is enough anyway. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it might be something with the CiteSeerX. Starlighsky (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Combined ranking table of a volleyball tournament

{{Help me-nq}}

Seeking an advice or third opinion about this discussion. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 14:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

You can ask for a third opinion at WP:30. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC)