Wikipedia:Help desk

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

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

Ask a question

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

Serif font for headings

Can one of you fine folks please set me up with a custom css that returns the section headings to use a serif font, in articles and Talk pages?

I have read the discussions on this. I don't want to turn all of the "improvements" off -- the horizontal line is OK above the heading, and the "latest comment 5 minutes ago" line is also OK. But I really hate the sans serif font on the section headings.

I would appreciate it if someone would make me a CSS file to "fix" this. And install it in my "profile".  :-)

Thank you! David10244 (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Typeface_in_discussion_headings  AxG / ✉  15:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@AxG Yes, I had already read all of that... It's a somewhat complex discussion among several participants, with mentions of bugs, patches, recommended css that apparently produces errors, and another post that says "I did XYZ and it didn't work".

Hence my request here, because I am expecting some of the helpful and seasoned hosts to know css..

I know basically what css stylesheets are, but I have not created any for my account.

I was (and I still) am hopeful that someone will be kind enough to implement some css for me, based on a comment that I had read just before posting this request. ESanders of WMF said "I think user CSS is the best place for customisations like this".

Here's hoping! Thanks. David10244 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@David10244

Please try this:

1. Copy all the following as a single block, making sure to include the dot at the beginning and include the lonely curly bracket at the end:

.ext-discussiontools-visualenhancements-enabled
.ext-discussiontools-init-section.mw-heading2,
.ext-discussiontools-visualenhancements-enabled
.ext-discussiontools-init-section {
  font-family: serif;
}

2. Go to your own user CSS page at User:David10244/common.css and click the edit button. (You may see notices and so on on the page, put there by Wikipedia - just leave them as they are, and click the edit button as you ordinarily would.)

If you receive a notice that your action will create a new page, that's fine, agree to it. Then paste in the blob you copied, and click the save button.

You're done. Except that just this time, you may need to do a special reload of the Wikipedia page if you don't see your results right away. Do this by holding the Shift key while you use your browser's Reload function. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Thank you, that's exactly the kind of help I need. And thanks for the pointer to (my not yet present) CSS. I will try it when I am at my computer instead of my tablet. Cool! David10244 (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have since discovered that this good and correct solution only covers one of the trickiest parts, namely getting serif text in the new feature on discussion pages that was being discussed on the thread we had a link to further up this topic. If you want that, you will need to add this to your file; however, it omits the easier, more basic places where you also might want serif text, and to get that you'll need to add a few more lines of a similar sort, into the same file using the same method. I've never seen exactly which lines those are, but since they're the ones with the more obvious and well-known names, I'll find them without much trouble. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Ah, thanks for that. I haven't been to my desktop computer yet.

But you see why I was saying "I know it's complicated", and the previous answer was not complete (or really very helpful).

Your answer was way more helpful, and I appreciate your help.

I hate to ask the developers for more "options", but different people like different things. I like the other discussion changes but certainly not the sans serif font.

It's not the end of the world, but if others feel the same way then an option OR an easy set of CSS would be good.

It might be that a lot of editors don't have any CSS and don't know how to set it up. David10244 (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Obtaining acceptance of non-promotional editorial content.

Hello. I am writing about Alternate Concepts. I am a paid communications consultant who ranks Alternate Concepts, aka ACI, among my longstanding clients, with a relationship dating back to 2006. By way of background, I am a former print journalist (1987-1999) with several awards earned, including investigative reporting recognition in two states. I am leading an effort to provide Wiki users with a fact-based record of ACI's work at the intersection of public transit and private sector. It strikes me that more transparency regarding a private operator of public transit is important, and that is the spirit that was used in revising the text that was previously in place until last week. Please note that I aggregated and inserted citations for the content with full intent of adhering to Wiki policies. Last week, an editor named TonySt - User:TonySt - deleted all of the content after publication, claiming it was promotional. Via the 'Talk' function, I was able to communicate with TonySt to better understand the requirements, including disclosure on my page of conflict of interest about my work with ACI. Also, i spent a week carefully line editing the text to remove any adjectives or words that could not be supported by citations in the public record. Because ACI manages public services and/or provides support for a variety of public entities, I was exceptionally careful to cite records that are verifiable and linked to cites. The text sets forth the scope of contracts that ACI holds or held in the service of public transit. The claim that such content is 'promotional' defies credulity. It is not presented for the purpose of obtaining contracts, a process that is strictly managed by way of state ad federal bid regulations (under the shroud of secrecy, it should be mentioned.) It's sole purpose is to educate users about the nature of the services that ACI provides to the public via government entities. With respect, TonySt undid all of the additional edits yesterday without comment under the claim of promotional with a conflict of interest. This is frustrating because there has been no communication as to the offense committed, i.e., what text is considered promotional at this point? Is disclosure of a COI not enough, i.e. is more verbiage needed? I set forth these issues in the best spirit possible - transparency. Considering the importance of public transit to humankind, it would seem self-evident that private operators of transit systems would be encouraged to set forth their background, experience, current and former contracts, etc. Of course, the text is editable by all Wiki editors, which would allow for more edits as needed. However, to delete all of the content seems directly in contrast to the stated mission of the Wikimedia Foundation to to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license. The edited Alternate Concepts page is strictly educational and factual. I respectfully submit it merits to be available to people of the world. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It's sole purpose is to educate users about the nature of the services that ACI provides Wikipedia considers this to be "promotion" within our scope of that word. Promotion is anything designed to bring attention to a subject. A Wikipedia article should generally be a completely neutral and detached summary of the information available in reliable, independent sources completely unaffiliated with and uninfluenced by the subject of the article.

I would suggest you read WP:YESPROMO and WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a standard that's incredibly difficult to understand in 21st century vernacular. How does sharing information bring attention to it? This content will not be publicized. It will not be distributed. It is as neutral and detached as humanly possible within the framework of an expert (me) who has tracked the company's work for 20+ years. With respect, I can provide reliable independent sources to verify all content and remove ACI website content - but lordy, this is upside down thinking. ACI will not profit from the publication of a Wiki page. It will not benefit from publication other than to have accurate, verifiable info in the public domain. Much different than the tens of thousands of public figures who are featured on the site, etc. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

ACI will not profit from the publication of a Wiki page. It will not benefit from publication other than to have accurate, verifiable info in the public domain And if that wasn't a benefit to them, why would they be paying you to do it as part of their marketing/PR strategy? The Wikipedia article about them is the second google search result after their own website; that's a pretty major SEO boon. Athanelar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The 'stub' page that's been in place for years is inaccurate, and the company's leadership asked me to lead an effort to have content that on point, verifiable, etc. They don't benefit from SEO because they don't sell a product. Their credibility with public transportation authorities is gained or lost on the basis of highly technical documents that are submitted via publicly advertised Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP) legal advertisements for rail and transit operations and maintenance services. Read more here to learn general information about the RFQ process and here for the RFP process. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@ScottDFarmelant, I will reply here as well as on your talk page. I have not edited Alternate Concepts in more than one week. Your edits were undone by another editor yesterday because they felt they were promotional edits, as you can see in the page history of the article. My name is included in the edit summary because they changed it back to how it was after I edited it on July 7. TonySt 20:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you TonySt. It remains confusing as to why this is considered promotional as COI has been published, all adjectives removed, all cites inserted from 3rd party verifiable and trustworthy resources. ACI is an unusual entity because it provides the public with a service yet doesn't own the underlying assets that serve the public. Key point is there's nothing to be gained by accurate content other than public education and understanding of the services they use an rely upon to access work, school, healthcare, R&R, etc. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Promotional means what audience it's for, not what style it's in. If you make it so that customers and investors come away stymied because they found none of what they wanted to know, that's non-promotional.

Another way to put this: Only write what will be required learning for a history class in the year 2365. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

A whole different way of putting it: Wanting to make the public aware that these services are available is the very definition of promotion. The attempted fixes you described above are merely the difference between nice promotion and not-nice promotion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Neither the current version of the article, nor ScottDFarmelant's much longer promotional versions, answers two obvious questions:

1. What does the company actually do? Own trains? Run trains on behalf of their owner, employing train drivers etc.? Do the timetabling for trains? Something else?
2. Why does it have such a silly name?

Maproom (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the second sentence of the page, and clearly states exactly what ACI does for public transit authorities:

ACI provides transportation operations, coordination, consulting and maintenance services to multi-modal public authorities that own light rail, subway, streetcar, rapid transit, commuter rail, and bus networks across the United States.

Great question on the name, and there is an answer but there's no citation available! It reflects the company's origin to help secure financing for public transit authorities from private sources to fund infrastructure growth. That model obviously changed over time to a focus on operations and maintenance contracts. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@ScottDFarmelant Please clearly define the following terms: "transport operations", "coordination", "consulting" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

For example, delivering biscuits is a transport operation, improving guitar technique is coordination, and dress-code advice is consulting, but I'm pretty sure those aren't what you meant. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:SOLUTIONS. Athanelar (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Transport operations (for passenger rail and public transit): Moving people via public transit, buses, or trains. For ACI, transport operations means working under contract for public transportation authorities or agencies to manage the transportation of passengers by rail or bus.

Transport coordination: Assisting public transportation authorities or agencies with the management of transportation of passengers by rail or bus.

Transport consulting: Advising public transportation authorities or agencies about the management of transportation of passengers by rail or bus. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the answer is along the lines of owning and maintaining the rolling stock for a number of relatively small rail lines, hopefully making it more economical for those lines to operate than if they each bought their own. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Operations and Maintenance companies like ACI do not own assets typically, and when they do, they lease assets to public owner entities. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@ScottDFarmelant Again, which you didn't grasp in any of the discussion, is that notability depends on what has been published about this company in independent media, by non-press-release-prompted, disinterested authors. Not whether transportation, or this company's place in the industry, is important, but what has been published about the company. Nothing else matters. David10244 (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@ScottDFarmelant Why should users be educated "about the nature of the services that ACI provides to the public via government entities"? If it's all done in secrecy, then we don't need to know about it. Right? David10244 (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Notability of Alternate Concepts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The best place to continue this discussion is at the AFD for the article because that where a consensus on the subject's Wikipedia notability is going to be established. Trying to hold what is essentially the same discussion simulatenously on two different pages will only lead to fragmentation, repetition, or both, which in turn will just confuse matters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

---

@ScottDFarmelant:, in case you have not noticed, the article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate Concepts. The criteria for notability (suitability for a Wikipedia article) of a company are explained at WP:NCORP and a key section is WP:SIRS, which says that several sources about the company need to

1. "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth."
2. "Be completely independent of the article subject."
3. "Meet the standard for being a reliable source."
4. "Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability."

TSventon (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

With respect, ACI exists at the intersection of public transit and private commerce, which creates a lack of transparency that ACI would prefer to eliminate to the degree possible. This is the challenge - who will share content about a company that exists in the public sector and behind the scenes other than somebody connected directly to the organization? Considering the many aspects of Wikipedia that are leveraged to publicize and promote commercial interests - entertainment/Hollywood, tech giants, pharma - it's fascinating that a transport management company is treated so harshly in its pursuit of sharing verifiable, non-commercial, non-promotional information in a transparent manner via Wikipedia - content that would seemingly benefit the public that uses and relies on bus, rail and similar transit services. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@ScottDFarmelant We are treating this company as we would any other topic which clearly does not meet our criteria for inclusion. The fact is Wikipedia has, unfortunately, millions of bad articles that do not meet our criteria for inclusion but no volunteer editor has improved or marked them for deletion yet. qcne (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't dispute this, but I respectfully suggest the "any other topic" does not apply here because the services in question are central to the daily lives of millions of people across the world. Knowledge is power. ACI believes people should know about the contracts they hold and the services they provide to public transportation authorities across the USA. It's my hope that editors would be interested in helping solve the problem rather than dismiss it as a 'bad article.' ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Being "central to the daily lives of millions of people across the world" isn't one of our criteria for inclusion. Our criteria for inclusion is clearly stated at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You have not demonstrated in any way the company meets any of the criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Fine, but why then is there a "stub" article that is out-of-date and inaccurate? ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Because it was created in 2021 by a volunteer editor. It is common for editors to create stubs that might not meet our criteria for inclusion. The outcome is either improvement of the content to meet our criteria, or deletion. There is currently a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alternate_Concepts. qcne (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the conversation. Public transportation appears to obviously and clearly meet the notability standard. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Which, specific, Primary criteria for inclusion do you believe it meets? qcne (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

From Wikipedia "Notability" page...

"When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education..."

Public transportation has a profound effect, or if you will, significant and demonstrable, on society and economies. There is readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability of public transportation and by extension, the entities that operate and maintain the services. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I like how you purposely didn't include the sentence directly above No matter how important editors personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it.

Your sources do not evidence that this company has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education etc. qcne (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for not including that, but as has been stated in every thread, the article is extensively researched with citations for all statements of fact. This includes government websites, academic research sites, public transit organizations, main stream news media, and trade media. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

And you've completely avoided the point which is: there is not proof of notability via significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources.

I get it: this is your job and this is your client. But this is exactly why we don't like editors with a conflict of interest editing articles. Imagine this argument, repeated for every company on earth, by every PR professional. It would destroy Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The article that is nominated for deletion had proposed content edits with citations from websites maintained by public agencies in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, San Juan, Washington, DC, as well as the federal government (Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration.) It included citations from media outlets like the Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, NBC 4 News/Washington DC, and American City Business Journals are referenced. It linked to citations from the non-governmental research bodies like the Transit Research Institute and World Transit Research. It also included links to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Trade publications like Railway Technology, and Railway Track and Structures are cited. Other citations include the American Passenger Transportation Association (APTA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and technical publications like Movement Engineering, Transportation Review and Transit Lab. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Namedropping your sources tells us nothing. It's not merely about who says something, but what they say. The sources need to provide significant coverage of this specific company and must not simply cover the routine business activities of the company. Athanelar (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That means you need to demonstrate that this specific company has had that kind of significant impact; with the sources to back it up. Not that the company is part of an industry that has had such an impact. Athanelar (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

See last reply. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

There are no special considerations when it comes to article inclusion; public good does not provide any exception to the typical requirements. Athanelar (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Public good is not the point. It's public education and awareness that's the point. Specifically, public transportation has a profound effect, or if you will, significant and demonstrable, on society and economies. There is readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability of public transportation and by extension, the entities that operate and maintain the services. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No, there is no "by extension." Notability is not inherited, public transport companies aren't automatically notable just because the concept of public transport is notable.

I'm not sure why you're so intent to argue the point here. We have very clear guidelines on how the notability of organisations and companies are determined at WP:NCORP. Either you demonstrate the company meets those guidelines or there's no basis for an article; no two ways about it. Athanelar (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Right, but they are notable by virtue of actively operating four passenger rail systems in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey as well as San Juan? There seems to be a clear basis for an article... ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No, they are not notable by virtue of actively operating four passenger rail systems in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey as well as San Juan. Running four passenger rail systems is not a criteria for notability. Why are you not understanding this? qcne (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

A criteria for notability "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies," [emphasis added in bold.] The passenger rail systems in questions meet all of this basic criteria for notability and directly impact hundreds of thousands of people. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No, that isn't a criteria for notability. You have misread the policy page. qcne (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

We're not talking about whether "passenger rail systems" in general are notable; they obviously are, hence why we have an article about them at Passenger train. You need to demonstrate that this specific company is notable. And no, it does not inherit notability merely by being involved in the passenger rail industry. Athanelar (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No? Where does it say anything of the sort in WP:NCORP?

What makes a company notable, as is plainly stated there, is that it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The scope of the company's operations, its subjective importance to public life, and whatever else you might argue, is totally irrelevant as far as our requirements are concerned. What you need is the presence of multiple sources meeting the golden rule, nothing else. Athanelar (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the citation: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) The text you question is set forth in the first subsection of the first major subject header ("Decisions based on verifiable evidence" entitled "No Inherent Notability." ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that supports your argument. Athanelar (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

For a communication professional, it's really interesting that you don't seem to be able to read headings. The Decisions based on verifiable evidence is very obviously an informative heading to help readers assess notability based on sources. The actual criteria is then, very obviously, directly below named Primary criteria. qcne (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You men this, ys?

Primary criteria

See also: Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources; and Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline

Shortcuts

• WP:ORGCRITE
• WP:ORGCRIT

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

The article that is nominated for deletion had proposed content edits with citations on the basis of significant multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of ACI, including websites maintained by public agencies in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, San Juan, Washington, DC, as well as the federal government (Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration.) It included citations from media outlets like the Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, NBC 4 News/Washington DC, and American City Business Journals are referenced. It linked to citations from the non-governmental research bodies like the Transit Research Institute and World Transit Research. It also included links to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Trade publications like Railway Technology, and Railway Track and Structures are cited. Other citations include the American Passenger Transportation Association (APTA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and technical publications like Movement Engineering, Transportation Review and Transit Lab.

It would be wonderful to cite more resources, which would surely happen if the content in question is approved for publication. Thank you. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Where are all those sources you say you cited??? qcne (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Deleted by editors who objected to content on basis of me posting as paid consultant, which I disclosed in keeping with COI policy. Here's the text that was proposed then deleted via the Edit History section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternate_Concepts&oldid=1364521381 ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It would be wonderful if a non-paid editor cared enough to work on the proposed content so it could pass muster. Key point on this end is ACI wants more information in public domain about the 'boring business' of public transit, not less. As their rep, my role is to do what's possible within the confines of every internet platform's requirements and that's what i'm doing here. Thank you. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, no, it was reverted because it was heavily promotional in tone; full of synthesized material; full of unencyclopedic and undue detail; an excessive reliance on primary sources; and still didn't prove notability.

You wrote a company tender document, not a Wikipedia article. It was wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia which is why it was reverted.

This is exactly why we hate CoI editors editing on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm doing my best and have asked for guidance. I removed all adjectives for example to avoid any possible 'promotion.' Regardless of who write it (multiple parties), it's not tender document, aka a bid response submittal, which is a highly technical legal document that includes hundreds of forms, financial documents, technical filings, etc. so that phrase simply not accurate. What's been challenging personally is the many statements about claimed issues without follow up as to what's acceptable. How else would a transportation operations and maintenance entity set forth the services it's contracted for without listing said services, outcomes, impacts, etc.? ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

How else would a transportation operations and maintenance entity set forth the services it's contracted for... It shouldn't. That's the point. As we've tried to communicate to you many times, a Wikipedia article about a company should primarily consist of a summary of things written by people completely unrelated to the company. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to "set forth" their service offerings. Athanelar (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@ScottDFarmelant It sounds like your company can operate just fine, even if the public doesn't know about it. David10244 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 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.

Ship colors

I tried to download a great article about ship colors, but the only thing that wouldn't print was the color samples. Why?

I wanted a pdf of an article titled 'World War II ship camouflage measures of the United States Navy', which of couese includes color samples. The article printed fine, except for all the color samples, which are empty (white). Is there a workaround for this? Threedeewiz (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Did the blue links come out really blue on the print? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the source of World War II ship camouflage measures of the United States Navy, the colour samples aren't images, they are hexadecimal RGB values in tables. That may be the issue, though I'm not sure what the fix is. If you don't get an answer here, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Bear in mind though that accurate colour reproduction will depend in part on the abilities of your printer and/or your computer screen: don't expect colours to necessarily look the same on different media. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. I tried downloading the article as a PDF, and then viewing the resulting PDF on screen. Whether I did so using Firefox, Chromium, Document Viewer (Evince), or qpdfview (all on the same computer), the photographs appeared as they should, but the color (as well as the not-colored) samples were white/blank. My computer isn't connected to a printer, but I imagine that for me (i) the color samples wouldn't print, and (ii) this would have nothing to do with the printer or printer driver. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The colors in the article are set as table cell background colors, but Wikipedia style sheet overwrites them with white backgrounds when printed:

@media print { .wikitable > tr > th, .wikitable > tr > td, .wikitable > * > tr > th, .wikitable > * > tr > td { background: #fff !important; color: #000 !important; border: 1pt solid #aaa; padding: 0.4em 0.6em; } } MKFI (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Threedeewiz: I have replaced the cell backgrounds with {{Color strip}}s. MKFI (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! This makes the article truly useful as a guide in a complicated subject. Yes, colors are a tricky thing to deal with in computers and printing, but a guide like this is a real aid in pointing ome in the right direction. Well dome. Threedeewiz (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

why is the radiance from hollow knight not reference in the silkworm moth page

the title is the whole thing tho seriously why ~2026-41138-67 (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-41138-67.

I have no idea what that is about. But if you can find a reliable independent source that discusses whatever that is, then you are welcome to edit the article to insert it. But don't do so if you haven't got a reliable published source for the information. ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I bet this has something to do with Hollow Knight: Silksong, but exactly what I cannot fathom. —Wasell^(T) 15:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

the radiance is the first game's main antagonist, final boss, and resident moth, except for when she's not, so this is just a case of "no need to mention this character here, it's not like silkworm moths are synonymous with the radiance" consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 21:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41138-67: It mostly has to do with how wikinotable the Radiance is outside of the game. Something like this is also more appropriate on the Hollow Knight wikis that are on the Internet. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I thought this was about moths, and I wondered if "Hollow Knight" was a kind of moth. Then I wondered how radiant (reflective?) some moths are. But the other responses helped me understand. If only the OP had given some context.

It's interesting how our frames of reference can leave out important details. I do that at work sometimes, even when I try not to. The mind is a fascinating thing... David10244 (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. I need help with a recently closed page

Hi Wiki team,

A colleague of mine, Lawrence Baxter, a scholar, was recently the victim of a Wikipedia scam. He had paid the supposed writer, and this person published the page for a while, then oops, it went down, so we figured it out. He is trying to resolve the issue with his bank and CC today. Anyway, It's very unfortunate because he deserved that page! Is there a way to salvage his page and rewrite it with proper links and info? he has a notable background. I have his link below:

Lawrence Baxter

Kind Regards,

K. Van Kramer

~~~~

Kvankramer (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Deserving, unfortunately, isn't part of the picture on Wikipedia. I don't think I ever saw the page in question, but I seriously wonder how valuable the scam page could have been - and therefore why anybody would hope to retrieve it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean that waiting for an honest person who has no business or personal connection with Lawrence Baxter to start an article from scratch later on is probably better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Kvankramer, you say that the article Lawrence Baxter had been paid for. It was created by "Indiclock". So we infer that "Indiclock" did it for payment. Wikipedia requires that people paid to edit (i) declare this, and (ii) do not create articles but instead create and submit drafts. Indiclock's list of "contributions" (and, though you won't be able to view this, list of subsequently deleted "contributions") show violations of Wikipedia's terms of service. ("Indiclock" was anyway just one of many IDs used by a "spam farm".) As for the deleted article, I don't notice within it summaries of substantial discussion of Baxter (his work or self) by reliable sources independent of him. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:05, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Kvankramer, as Hoary has just implied above, most of the sources are written by him, or are other closely associated with him. Find independent third-party sources first, and work from them Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This information helps. As far as I know, there is a way to start fresh by posting a disclosure stating (with a "real" writer (not Indiclock!) has a COI regarding the article's subject, not creating the article directly in mainspace, and submitting it through Articles for Creation (AfC) — a draft space where a volunteer, uninvolved editor reviews it before it goes live. And then, stress-testing notability before submitting. An AfC reviewer's first question will be: does this person meet Wikipedia's notability bar? That generally means at least three independent, reliable secondary sources that cover him in substantial detail — not passing mentions, not his own institutional bio pages. Understood, everyone, thanks. Kvankramer (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kvankramer.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia scammers rely on their victims not knowing some important things about Wikipedia. Specifically:

• 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.
• An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing
• Most people on the planet do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Unless you have first found the reliable, independent, substantial, sources necessary for establishing notability, trying to create an article about somebody is a waste of everybody's time.

Unless the scammer looked for and found suitable sources (and why would they have bothered?) the article they created is going to have been worthless. ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Mentorship

How to request to be a mentee? The page said to click the mentorship module, but I can’t find it on my Special:Homepage. Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 00:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star walker: The module should be underneath the "Your Impact" module on the right-hand side. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star walker: {{#mentor:Star walker}} produces Organhaver, currently indicating you are already a mentee of User:Fieryninja. The mentorship module can both be to the right of impact and below it. Does the right side of Special:Homepage#growthexperiments-homepage-module-mentorship have a box saying something about a mentor? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tenryuu and PrimeHunter: Where?

Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 02:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star walker: For me it's below my "Your Impact" module. What do you see on your Special:Homepage? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

(I'm seeing their screenshot, just above your message) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star walker: File:Screenshot of newcomer homepage variant D 2020-10-23.png shows the mentorship module. I don't know why it's missing in your screenshot. When it works it's possible to remove the mentor but then there is still a smaller box with a "Get a mentor" button. It doesn't have a url so I cannot post a link to it. Does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Homepage?safemode=1 show the module? Try to disable "Display newcomer homepage" near the bottom of Special:Preferences, click "Save", enable it again and save again. If it still fails then try if it works at the German Wikipedia. Select English (it's only the interface language) at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Einstellungen?uselang=en#mw-prefsection-personal-i18n, enable "Display newcomer homepage", Save, and then check de:Special:Homepage. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: No, still don’t see it. I do however see it on the German Wikipedia, meaning this is very much an English Wikipedia only problem.

Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 10:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star walker As an experiment, I've just clamed you as my mentee using a feature in my Mentor's dashboard. Whether or not that changes your Special:Homepage, you are welcome to ask me questions via my Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull: Oh, thanks, it works now.

Wikipedian ^{Talk to me!} _{or not…} 20:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star walker: If you know how to run a JavaScript command in your browser (maybe using something called the console) then run this while here at en.wikipedia.org:

new mw.Api().saveOptions({ 'growthexperiments-homepage-mentorship-enabled': '1' }).done(function() { location.reload(); });

Otherwise you can save it in your common JavaScript and remove it if the mentorship module appears. Don't keep it there forever. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

It may not work in your common JavaScript. If you don't know how to run it in your browser then which browser is it? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

from a Cairo Benson requesting me to change a few issues on

Dear Wiki I got an email from a Cairo Benson requesting me to change a few issues on my wiki page, I might be at the wrong place here but does anyone know of an administrator called Cairo benson? At Wikipedia ~2026-41264-78 (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Was money involved between you and them in any way? This sounds like a scam. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 10:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia (whether this one or that of any other language) has no editor (whether an administrator or not) using the name "Cairo Benson". Or so we learn from m:Special:CentralAuth/Cairo_Benson. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

And a genuine editor is more likely to contact you on your user talk page than by email Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I assume that the OP is the subject of a Wikipedia article and not (identifiable as) a Wikipedia editor. In that case a good faith editor might contact them by email, but wouldn't claim to be a non-existent admin. TSventon (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

There are very few circumstances where it might be considered appropriate for a contributor to contact a biography subject by email, unless they have previously made it clear that they wish to be contacted that way. Depending on circumstances, uninvited communications may even be regarded as harassment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. TSventon (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Clearly a scam, harassment of phishing attempt. I'd advise the OP not to reply at all as it might generate risks by itself. Stansfield (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see our Scam warning for advice and where to report scams. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Image upload sizing

Dear Sir/Madam

I have uploaded an image at the following URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastener However, the image seems to be quite large. How can I edit it so that it is smaller in size Eyby.com (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Eyby.com, I added some code from Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size, is it better now? TSventon (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Eyby.com, note that TSventon fixed it in the article, not by modifying the file in commons. This is ideal. The commons image is still the same full size and is available for others to use at that size (and thank you for the image!), while the article uses the appropriate smaller size. If you create images in the future, please use the largest reasonable size for the file itself, so the article editor can chooses the proper size for the article. -Arch dude (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Reference errors at Link-N

There are a bunch of bold red error messages in the references section of Link-N, but I can't seem to find the errors that are causing them. Can someone else have a look? Marbletan (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

<ref = "Noorwali_2018"> should be <ref name="Noorwali_2018"> etc.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I see now, thanks. I've made the corrections to the article. Marbletan (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport has passed away on July 8th and Wikipedia has not updated this information. Also, the listing for him has misspelled his name. It's Rapp'o'port, not Rapp'a'port! I know it's a biased rag of a site, but usually they can record a death and spell a name correctly. ~2026-41292-41 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: John Rappaport. If you can find a reliable source recording his death, feel free to add it to the article. Also, the reliable sources in the article so far say Rappaport, not Rappoport. In short, the problem here is the sources, not the "biased rag of a site". ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 17:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The OP is probably talking about the reporter Jon Rappoport, not the legalist John Rappaport (or John Rappaport (screenwriter)).

OP, we do not have any article on Jon Rappoport, as the red link above indicates, so there is nowhere appropriate for Wikipedia to record his death.

Why do we not have one? Probably because either no-one has ever volunteered to create one, or someone looked into doing so but did not find sufficient material in Reliable sources to pass our Notability threshold. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped straight to the legalist without thinking about other possibilities. Thanks for the info! ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 21:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

But why would someone ask about an update to a non-existing article? Even if it's on a "biased rag of a site" Stansfield (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

There are loads of Google hits showing that Jon Rappoport [sic] died on July 8th. The OP may have seen a Google knowledge panel and assumed that there was a Wikipedia article. All we have is a Wikidata item, not yet updated with the DOD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Another Account

Hi admins. I'd like to know if I can set up another account on the domain, basically to wipe my history clean or leave it in the past. I was involved in some articles I'd rather not have been, and I want to create a more solid account dedicated to the area I actually enjoy writing and interacting in. I spoke about it over on wikipt, and they said it was absolutely fine. Am I alright to create a new account here and just edit normally? Cheers. 𒁂 C H A O S ࿐ 16:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Clean start. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 16:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

AI generated edit requests

Is there a guideline for handling AI generated edit requests? - FlightTime (open channel) 16:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

That would presumably fall under WP:AITALK. Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

removing a page

i just discovered i have a wikipedia entry. i was never consulted on this and want it removed. ~2026-41341-15 (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You would need to name the article so that we know what it is. It would not be practical for Tom Cruise to veto having a Wikipedia article, because he easily meets the General notability guideline. However, if you are less famous, you could request deletion, particularly if the article was thinly sourced. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion of biographies and BLPs and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. Wikipedia is under no specific obligation to consult article subjects, or remove biographical content (or any other content compliant with our policies) under request, but we may sometimes take this into consideration. Without more detail though, it is hard to offer any more specific advice. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Requirements for creating a biography page

i, I'm looking to create a Wikipedia page for a music producer and media executive who has worked under two different professional names throughout his career. I'd like to know what sources and coverage are required for the page to be approved and remain up long term. I'd also like to understand how Wikipedia handles someone who has been known by two different names — would both names appear on one page? Thank you. ~2026-41278-79 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:COMMONNAME might be helpful to you. It depends on which name he's best known by and which name is covered more in reliable sources; no matter what the circumstances, you would not create a page for each name.^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 17:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-41278-79.

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.

Some further responses:

• Most people on the planet are not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article can be written about them. The first thing to do when planning to write an article about somebody is to look for independent reliable sources about them - see WP:42; because if you can't find many such sources, there is probably no point in spending any more time on it.
• Music producers are one of the classes of people who are often not notable in this sense, because as workers 'behind the scenes', they tend not to get written about that much. You may strike lucky with this one, of course.
• While we informally talk about "X's article", I strongly advise you to banish the idea of "a page for X" from your thinking. What you are proposing is "an encyclopaedia article about" the person - it will not be "for" them (or against them" - it should be a neutral summary of what people have published about them, good and bad).
• If this is a person you know, you need to be aware of Wikipedia's policies on editing with a conflict of interest. If you are in any way employed by or on behalf of this person, you will be regarded as a paid editor, and must comply with the conditions. If that is the case, please read WP:BOSS.
• If the person is yourself, please be aware that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so monumentally difficult that very few people have ever managed to do it successfully, and you are strongly advised not to try. See autobiography.

ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41278-79 For an answer about "two names", see how it's handled for Cat Stevens. -- Maresa63 ^Talk 16:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

How to compliment an article's author?

Some articles are so good that I want to post a brief compliment to the author and/or editors. Should I simply add that to the article's Talk page? Or is there a better way? Mermaid Smiled (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Most articles don't have a single author. If you notice someone made significant contributions to a page, you can thank them for their edit (using the the thank button in the edit history), leave a message on their user talk page, or use WikiLove. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Or award an editor a barnstar on his or her user talk page. Deor (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm alone in my dislike of barnstars, but you can always just post a pic of a barn on their talk page instead - this is one of my favourites (top),

Great Coxwell Barn

but this could turn passive-aggressive (left)... MinorProphet (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

         Derelict barn

WP:LLMPRVOBJ

WP:LLMPRVOBJ

I think this section is not very clear on the exact steps needed to prevent removal. I would like to take over the Gigazine article that is currently due to be removed. Where must I go to "achieve consensus for its inclusion"? TPI81AF (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@TPI81AF I think that the simplest thing to do is to WP:Draftify the article (i.e. move it to draft space) and then, with no time pressure, you can re-write it by checking the existing sources and/or finding new ones. Remove the WP:PROD template once in draft. If you want expert eyes on your re-write, use the WP:Articles for creation process, which just means placing the correct template at the top of the draft and submitting it when it's ready. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

New article - where to start?

(heading added by TooManyFingers)

I would like to add a WIKI for someone who does not have one. WHERE DO I START???? Where do I add a new Topic? I apologize but your interface makes absolutely NO SENSE to me & I am a WRIET BY PROFESSION. Patriciacunliffe (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

If you're writing for a friend, an employer, as a freelance job, or writing about yourself, please be aware that any one of those things tends to be extremely frustrating for the writer, as well as being quite likely to result in a rejection. The way to avoid these problems is to not write anything at all until you're familiar with how writing is done here and what the requirements are. If you simply get started right away, the chance of "crash and burn" is far too high. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably the information you'll currently need the most is that information provided by the subject is not admissible as the basis of a Wikipedia article, though it can sometimes be used for minor details. The information at this link: WP:42 is very important. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You may find more information at WP:YFA and WP:BLP. TPI81AF (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

If your sandbox is an indication of which article you are intending to write, it's worth noting that right now it's too promotional. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

No offense - but I wish someone would show me how it is promotional. I ask because I write press releases & I would NEVER write a press release with just a bunch of listings. Obviously I am writing about someone's accomplishments - otherwise WHY would I even bother with wiki? Interesting that you find it promotional... Is the wiki founder by any chance a scientist or academic scholar? I find most of your articles way too verbose & boring (NOT yours personally - I mean wiki in general). I would appreciate help accessing those 4 pages that wiki thought were appropriate for my content that I cannot locate any longer. Patriciacunliffe (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Patriciacunliffe Promotion, on here, is not just the use of promotional techniques or styles. Mainly, it means the writer's intended audience is not the same as the encyclopedia's intended audience. When the subject is a musician, an encyclopedia's audience is similar to that for a music history textbook; deciding to include information more suited to publication in a business directory or on the musician's own website is promotion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

At the time it ended with something that sounded like it was praising the encyclopedia article's subject (I'm not going to go get the diff right now to direct quote, I think it's since been removed). - Purplewowies (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Patriciacunliffe.

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.

I will also add that if you are "trying to add a Wiki for" somebody, you have basically not understood what Wikipedia is (like most people). The operation you are contemplating is writing a well-sourced, neutral, encyclopaedia article about the person. Such an article will not belong to them (or you), will not be controlled by them or you, and should have very little input from them or their associates. Writing it should begin by determining whether or not the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: most people in the world do not, even many who have a public presence of some sort. ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hate to break this to you but I am a writer by profession... Patriciacunliffe (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Artist, writer, documentary filmmaker & art filmmaker Patriciacunliffe (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, @Patriciacunliffe, I saw that. I nevertheless gave you some of my standard advice because writing for Wikipedia is different from any other kind of writing I've ever encountered, in ways that are not obvious when you first meet it. Two of the salient points are:

1. Information coming from the subject or from the subject's associates, via whatever channel, is mostly discounted. Official certificates and the like are also not of significant importance. See secondary sources.
2. An article should never present an argument or a conclusion, except when summarising an argument or conclusion which is in its entirety presented in a single reliable source. See original research.

ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and all of those writing disciplines have different goals and employ different techniques than is the case for writing and editing on Wikipedia, [Disclosure: retired former non-fiction Editor at John Murray and elsewhere.] Even writers of scientific papers have great difficulties adjusting to Wikipedia's standards and practices. Wikipedia is peculiar to itself: if you dive in thinking you already know what to do you will fall flat. This is not a reflection on your existing writing skills, it is because you evidently do not yet understand what the rules here absolutely require.

(Consider as a parallel: even Formula One multiple World Champions are required to take "Rookie" training and pass "Rookie" tests before being allowed to compete in the Indianapolis 500.)

Colin Fine's advice is very pertinent. Additionally, to get an idea of Wikipedia's fundamental approach, I advise you to read Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Patriciacunliffe, as ColinFine noted, writing a Wikipedia article requires different practices than most other writing. Your draft, which has now been declined twice, has a number of issues. The most important is that the references are for the most part not what Wikipedia considers reliable sources; see WP:RS. IMDb is not a reliable source, since it contains user-generated content. AllMusic is marginal and can be used for some purposes, but not for biographical information; see WP:ALLMUSIC. eBay and Facebook are also WP:UGC and are not reliable. Even sources that may be acceptable as sources may not contribute to notability if they are WP:PRIMARY sources, such as interviews with the subject or their associates. From what I can see, very few, if any, of your current sources contribute to notability. See WP:GNG for a summary of what kind of sources are required: each should be reliable, independent of the subject and provide significant coverage of the subject.

As it stands, the article is mostly just a list of things that Alkes has done, and name drops of people that he has worked with. That's might make a good CV, but is not really what a biographical encyclopedia article should be. Also, although less importantly, your article is not formatted like an encyclopedia article: there are no section headings and no lead. If you want to see what well-written encyclopedia articles look like, you could look at some of the music biographies which are classified as "Featured Articles" here; Featured Articles are some of the best that we have. CodeTalker (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

tandard = standard

In the article Standard Marathon in references: "tandard Chartered Marathon Singapore: 29-year-old man dies after collapsing during..." ; cannot locate original placement to change.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

We have no article by that name. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The article is Singapore Marathon. I fixed the ref in this edit. ~2026-41187-70 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Dsitrict to District

In about 20 articles a supplied reference title appears as: "Dhanbad Dsitrict Map." as seen in article "Tetulmari". Can someone do what is done in edits of multiple articles edits of the same intent?~2026-32542-29 (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I have fixed ten out of twenty. In this case the source is spelled correctly. TSventon (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I fixed a few of that typo in other contexts. Current list of current articles that have it. DMacks (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. There are some file-descriptions on commons that someone should fix when they get a chance. DMacks (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors

I'm getting an error: inv_local_long when I try to use a reference from enwiki on cywiki, which normally works. I can't see anything wrong with the citation but I don't know where to look for the list of technical error messages. Deb (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

(Context appears to be cy:Deallusrwydd artiffisial cynhyrchiol. That would've been helpful.) This looks like cywiki's versions of cy:Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation and cy:Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration are out of sync with each other. The first is looking for cfg.date_names['inv_local_long'] (like enwiki does); the second defines cfg.date_names['inv_local_l'] (like enwiki used to, for example in this old version). It seems - bearing in mind that I have zero knowledge of this module - that it'd be fixed by copying the inv_local_l line there to inv_local_long, and inv_local_s to inv_local_short. —Cryptic 06:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Deb (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Coming of Age (2)

Hi, I asked for an opinion yesterday about a disambiguation, but I didn't receive any replies, so I'll ask again. Should Coming of Age (2008 TV series) be disambiguated with 2008 or 2007? The pilot episode first aired in 2007. ~2026-41103-90 (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

If you don't get an answer here, you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. TSventon (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit for Categories as vedit?

I noticed that when I view an article I have an edit link in a box wrapped around the categories. That edit goes into vedit. Is there any way to change that to edit rather than vedit or to completely remove it. (I use hotcat also). Right now in general I show both edit and vedit buttons for each of the sections.Naraht (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Naraht: It cannot be changed to a source edit. It can be hidden with this in your CSS:

.ve-init-mw-desktopArticleTarget-categoryEdit {display:none;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Maplink template error that affects every single page using it

On the Maplink template page, which hasn't been edited since May 2018, there are multiple errors displayed on top of the page saying something like "mapframe: Title "[BLANK]" is not a valid map data page" in red text, which is funny because said .map links do exist and are fully accessible. This doesn't just happen on there, every article that use the maplink template has this error displayed instead, making it quite a significant issue. Quake1234 (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Any "STAR" rated articles using it?~2026-32542-29 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Quake1234: It has been reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"not a valid map data page" and phab:T433008. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined

While my piece was being rejected yesterday - I also got another message with 4 other music pages that invited me to submit the content there - but today when I am looking for them - I'm no longer able to find them. I thought I had just hit another tab, but apparently not. How do I find those 4 invites again? Patriciacunliffe (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

See the section above where you have already raised this. I can still find Draft:Joey Alkes, but it is unsuitable for Wikipedia, see Your first article. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Please note, Patriciacunliffe: your Draft has not been "Rejected", it has been "Declined": the distinction is important.

"Declined" means "Your draft has not reached all the required standards yet [likely with further explanations and comments of how it hasn't]. Please improve as suggested and submit again."

It is quite usual for drafts to go through several rounds of submissions, declines, improvements and resubmissions. So long as genuine improvements are evident each time, this is entirely acceptable.

"Rejected" means "This is not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article at this time and no amount of effort can make it so. Please do not resubmit as this will waste your time and ours."

The usual reason for unsuitability is that the subject is not "Notable" in the sense that Wikipedia jargonises that word (or, at least, because the Draft has not demonstrated Notability with suitably cited sources). This may be because the subject has simply not been published about in suitable sources; because what has (if anything) been published about them is routine and unremarkable; or because they may potentially, one day, be published about sufficiently but as yet it is simply "Too soon".

The fact that your Draft has been Declined and not Rejected indicates that the reviewer(s) think that, with further work, it can be made acceptable.

Please take on board that it is insufficient merely to list a subject's activities and published works. A Wikipedia article needs to show, by citing sources, that those activities and works have been recognised as significant, and written about reasonably extensively (winning significant awards also helps): see in particular Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Unfortunately, some professions, though valuable, are less often written about because their activities are somewhat "backroom" (most record label executives certainly fall into this category), and it is not at all unusual for, for example, a particular book to be 'Notable' (and be the subject of a Wikipedia article) but its author not (and not be).

Hope this helps; keep trying! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Patriciacunliffe Phrases like "Before immersing himself completely into the music industry, ..." are not "encyclopedic". David10244 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

... and the reason is that these show-off-style words are editorial choices, not quoted from a reliable third-party source. Any words that might help make the subject (or their products, their experiences, etc) seem special, interesting, unique, elevated, or any other good thing, must come from reliable and specifically-identified third parties. Please see MOS:PUFFERY. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Article classification not showing in TP

I nominated Dutch Boats in a Gale to Good Article. A reviewer classified it as B-Class according to the history and this code was added: {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| {{WikiProject Visual arts}} }}

But my GA nomination banner dissappeared from the TP, as well as the B-Class rating, so I manually added this code (which was shown in the history), trying to force the display, but with no success:

{{GA nominee|21:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Jp1008|Jp1008]] ([[User talk:Jp1008|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Art and architecture|status=|note=|shortdesc=Painting by J. M. W. Turner}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=no| {{WikiProject Visual arts}} }}

Thanks in advance for your help.
JP User:Jp1008 17:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jp1008:, the talk page looks fine to me. The version with a B class rating was 21:43, 20 July 2026 and the current version is the same with |collapsed=no added. TSventon (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I had cleared the (iOS)Chrome cache and still blank. But it looks fine in Safari. Thanks! Jp1008 (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

BLP to BDP

I've been asked by a COI editor to update Richard J. Estes as he's recently died; the text is obviously straightforward, but I'm not sure what else needs to be changed so the article is not tagged as a BLP any more. Help, please? Meadowlark (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark I have removed the Category:Living people. Please note that BLP still applies to recently deceased people. ⠀⠀ .n 04:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark The WP:BLP criteria do apply to recently deceased people. (Not sure if "recently" is explicitly defined.) David10244 (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@David10244: To an extent; particularly controversial BDPs retain BLP protection for two years maximum post-mortem. Something less controversial could get away with a few months. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 05:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@David10244, @.nhals8, of course, I understand that, and if it were a news event for some reason I'd have added a recent death maintenance tag - but this seems like a quiet biography that doesn't need it. Is it really as simple as removing the category? (thanks nhals8 for doing that!) That I can definitely manage next time. Meadowlark (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

ANI about an LLM-generated mass messaging script

I remember an ANI where a user sent out over 900 notifications for an AfD, including to nonexistent users, using an LLM-generated script that blanked existing content on the user talk pages. I was unable to locate it with search, despite trying numerous keywords. Can you find it? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I found it because I participated in it: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1211#TattooedLeprechaun. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 Sort by user talk in the advanced search settings; [1] ⠀⠀ .n 08:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Updating File's rationale

File:Emorytatejr1984.png states for example "Copyright owned by the relevant author." and "Original publication: Not sure" however the "immediate source" provided states it's via the US Chess Federation. From what I can tell the author should be set to the federation and the immediate source left as just the intermediary. Unless we want to just directly link to the federation since I easily found their page with the image. https://new.uschess.org/news/armed-forces-champ-brilliant-tactician-emory-tate-1958-2015

I'm not sure how to properly update the rationale as |Portion= and |Low resolution= are both missing with the "optional" |Replaceability_text= also missing. Meanwhile, |Replaceability=, |Minimality=, and |Commercial= are all just ".". It feels wrong to just CSD it and let someone else replace it, but as not the creator I don't know how to answer those. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Louisiana Federation of Teachers

Please can you improve this draft by replacing source and expanding it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Louisiana_Federation_of_Teachers Ashantsey (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Ashantsey.

Please note that Wikipedia is edited by volunteer editors (like you and me) who work on whatever they choose.

While it's possible that your appeal will strike some editor reading this page as what they want to work on, it's not very likely.

Where you might be able to find somebody willing to help you find sources at appropriate WikiProjects such as WT:WikiProject Louisiana or WT:WikiProject Education; but again, there's no guarantee.

Generally, if you want something done to an article (or draft) most times the most effective way to do so is to do it yourself.

Unfortunately, you appear to have done something which many new editors do, and plunged straight into the most challenging task there is for a new editor: creating an article.

My suggestion is that you leave this draft alone for some weeks or months while you make yourself more familiar with Wikipedia's standards and policies by making improvements to existing articles: once you have understood reliable sources and WP:42, you may have a better chance of finding suitable sources.

Even if your draft is declined again, it will not get deleted unless it is untouched for six months; so you can safely leave it for a while until you have a better understanding of what is needed. ColinFine (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Apparently blocked user - who isn't blocked

Looking at the page history of Periyar, the editor of the last entry is crossed through, as if the user is blocked. Looking at their block log, they were blocked for 24 hours over 2 years ago, but are not currently blocked. What is going wrong? - Arjayay (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

They're globally blocked (and whitelisted here). —Cryptic 13:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The global block was dated 24 May 2026, and they are still editing, presumably because the Whitewashing states "exempt global block on homewiki". The fact that their edits are struck though led me to waste time investigating a perfectly good edit; can the striking-through be turned off, to avoid other editors wasting their time? - Arjayay (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not see any strike through of edits in the page history. Might you have some optional gadget or CSS modification enabled that does this? older ≠ wiser 13:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

When I toggle

User preferences -> Gadgets -> ("Appearance" section) -> Strike out usernames that have been blocked

... this problem toggles on and off along with it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks TooManyFingers, but that is not a solution to my specific problem. I would like usernames who are blocked on en.wikipedia, to be struck, but usernames who are not blocked on en.wikipedia, not to be struck, even if they are blocked elsewhere. Looks like I may have to accept the current confusion. Thanks all. - Arjayay (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I want the same as you, and I only intended to pinpoint the (apparent) source of the problem, not suggest that you should turn off this useful feature. They can't fix it unless they know where it is. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Arjayay: You can post the case to MediaWiki talk:Gadget-markblocked.js#Edit JS adding check for global blocks. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it true that some usernames who are not blocked on en.wikipedia are struck? Because users who are blocked globally are blocked on en.wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

This person has a global block with a whitelisted exception added. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe that I've seen that expired TAs are struck through, even if they've never been blocked. I guess the rationale is that the TA is no longer usable, but I find it rather confusing. CodeTalker (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

How to reach extended confirmed

Don't waste time with socks The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How do I reach extended confirmed? Schohei (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You just need to work hard and edit a lot! You get there when you have 500 edits and 30 days of activity, if I remember correctly. Help out where you can! Edit! Get to a point where not only Wikipedia can trust you to edit about contentious topics, but where you are able to trust yourself. Sincerely, WikipediholicRat (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC).

See WP:ECREXPLAIN. It requires at least 500 edits to the English Wikipedia and after 30 days have passed since the account's first edit. This is quite steep, but it is needed on some high profile articles where disruptive users have bypassed WP:SILVERLOCK which is semi-protection. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Minor edits not hidden from watchlist

I've ticked "Hide minor edits from the watchlist" under Preferences, Watchlist, but am still seeing a lot of minor edits, clearly labelled with their m. Have I misunderstood this, is there a different definition of "minor edit", or what is happening here? Can someone please shed some light. I enquired first at WP:VP(T) but my post has just been archived unanswered after 6 days. PamD 17:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@PamD I normally don't hide minor edits but as an experiment I have just gone to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and ticked the relevant box, then "saved". Sure enough, the minor edits were then gone when I returned to Special:Watchlist. Can you check that your preferences are set up correctly and report back, please. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull I've not hidden them in the past but have recently got bored of seeing so many watchlist entries for tweaking deprecated infobox parameters or making refinements to categories so decided that probably very few babies would be thrown out with the bathwater if I suppressed the minor edits. But I can't get it to work. I've just checked, again, that there's a tick beside "Hide minor edits from the watchlist", but still edits such as this, labelled as minor, are showing on the watchlist. I experimented with unticking it, reloaded watchlist, no difference, so then re-ticked it, still no difference.

(Why's that pond on my watchlist? Because I stub-sorted it many years ago, and created a talk page with project banners, before we had the chance to watchlist for a fixed term: it got added to my watchlist forever by default because I created the talk page. I might remove it, but not right now as I've used it as this example.) Here's another example from my watchlist. PamD 20:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@PamD Well, that is strange. I watchlisted Ellis Pond and immediately saw that minor edit on my watchlist. Then I ticked "Hide minor edits from the watchlist", saved, and returned to my watchlist and that edit was, correctly, no longer visible. So the issue seems to be specific to your account, which I can't explain! Your best hope is WP:VPT, linking this thread for context. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Resolved at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#2nd request: Minor edits showing up on watchlist though I've ticked "Hide minor edits". There was a saved watchlist filter. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thanks. I've followed this up with a note at Wikipedia talk:Customizing watchlists#Information on watchlist filters?, as I don't see where there is any information about watchlist filters! PamD 10:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sam Kerr

I have just created Sam Kerr (disambiguation). Could someone please update and fix the hatnote at Sam Kerr? I can't do it myself because the page is protected. Thanks in advance. ~2026-41495-42 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for creating that. Editors might be interested in the related Talk:Sam Kerr#Requested move 25 July 2026 discussion. DMacks (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Site not found

I can't access my page. can you tell me what has happened to it please...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frypan13/sandbox Frypan13 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Frypan13 - As it clearly states on that page "Abandoned user subpage of non-contributor – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND/U6" - Arjayay (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep TA contributions on new acct?

I created an account because I got sick of losing the ability to easily track what edits I've made, and was hoping to start with the current history of my last TA. Am I out of luck as far as preserving those contributions go? FineIllDoIt (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes. Edits are not transferrable, neither TA to TA nor TA to account. DMacks (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

alright, thanks FineIllDoIt (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

One option would be to list those TA on your account's userpage. You can easily find what you've done if you want to revisit pre-account edits or pages of interest and others can appreciate your edit history as a person even if it is not attributed within the software itself. However, that opens the door to many more people being able to know your IP address, which is a major concern for many people and negates one of the advantages of having an actual account. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Problem / problems

Is it correct for problem to redirect to problem solving and problems to problem (disambiguation)? Shouldn't they both point to the same article? ~2026-41609-22 (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, but it's worse than that. Problem (disambiguation) starts "A problem is a difficulty which may be resolved by problem solving." (If my bike has a puncture, this is more or less of a problem, but calling it "a difficulty which may be resolved by problem solving" is ... odd.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

"Resolved by solving" also needs a look by the Committee Against Tautologically Redundant Phrasing in Saying the Same Thing Over Again By Repeating It After the First Time Prevention Committee. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 09:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Why don't we go even further? A problem is an issue which presents a difficulty, and it may be resolved by a solution determined through problem solving. Athanelar (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

"If you're not part of the solution, maybe it's already saturated." TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Is The Weather Channel website reliable?

I was reading the page on Tropical cyclones in 2026 and saw a section was empty. While I was about to add something to it, I looked for references to back up my info. Is the Weather Channel a good source for these sorts of things? I asked since it may fall under the primary sources rule, being a Weather related company. TheNerdy Parakeet (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, TheNerdyParakeet. There is no problem with the fact that the Weather Channel focuses on weather. After all, the Wall Street Journal focuses on business and is an excellent source for business coverage. When the Weather Channel is reporting in real time about today's weather, it is a primary source. When they run a long form documentary about some past severe hurricane, tornado or flood, then that is a secondary source, which is preferable. Primary sources can be used for basic facts but secondary sources are best for analysis and drawing conclusions. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Make a donation

i was trying to make a donation Kathiawoola (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Kathiawoola. The Wikimedia Foundation handles all financial donations. Please read this page for complete details. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Coding correctness on

Is this correct? Lifted from the article 12th Illinois Infantry Regiment: "*Lieutenant Colonel Henry Van Sellars – mustered out with the regiment. "~2026-32542-29 (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC) ~2026-32542-29 (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

References

For some reason I can't access this link , but as a general rule genealogy websites are not suitable as sources. This needs some reliable secondary sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

That information may or may not be correct. It is referenced to RootsWeb, which consists of user generated content. Such websites do not meet Wikipedia's Reliable source standards. That does not mean that the specific content is incorrect. It just needs a better source. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

That discussion still does not address the quality of the reference presentation. Anyways Gen site use is original research rather than secondary affirmation from authorities generally recognized as acceptable.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

infobox optional parameter

How can I make some parameter of infobox to be optional? Igor Kercsa (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You need to provide some kind of default value in case the value is absent. You can do that using syntax like this: {{{parameter-name|default-value}}}, replacing both those with the actual things you want.
So for example, if you want your name parameter to default to the page title, you could do {{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}, or if you wanted your age parameter to just not appear if it is absent, you could do {{{age|}}}, which just replaces it with nothing if it is missing. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 08:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Is changing tone to be more objective considered a minor edit? DarkSoulCat (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:MINOR; changing tone would not be a minor edit, as tone can be disputed. A minor edit is something that cannot possibly be disputed, like fixing spelling or grammar. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

A rule of thumb is, if you aren't sure if it's minor, it's not. Much better to leave something unmarked than mark a controversial edit as minor. (Even one word can be highly controversial: saw a badly labeled one-word edit a while back where the word was "not"!) M kuhner (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I see you already have replies, but I'm going to drop one more note in here. From WP:MINOR:

A minor edit requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

So if it could be of dispute, it's not minor. Tone is included there. However, if you're changing a comma splice to a semicolon, for example, then it likely is minor. If you want to err on the side of caution, don't mark it as minor. Hope this helps. --ABx11 (she/they) 04:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

It should be said that essentially the only thing marking your edit as "minor" does is allow people to easily filter it out when searching through edit history, other than that it serves no particular crucial function. I can't remember the last time I marked an edit as minor; don't worry too much about it. Athanelar (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Wiki page for myself a sports related

How can I submit something about myself MYW6 (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@MYW6 Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please see our guide on autobiographies (articles about yourself) at WP:AUTOBIO. ⠀⠀ .n 10:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The very short answer is- you shouldn't, it's strongly discouraged.

The longer answer is described at the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves- or what they want the world to know about themselves. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" means critical analysis and commentary, not just the mere description of the person's activities. This is usually very, very difficult for someone to do about themselves, as it requires setting aside what one knows about themselves and only writing based on what others have said. Most people cannot do this, and few succeed. Are you the rare person who can? Possibly, but the odds are against it.

Please also see how an article is not necessarily desirable.

Nevertheless, if you wish to proceed anyway, you may submit a draft via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Elastix

I asked for input at Talk:Elastix about which disambiguator should be used for the article, but I haven't received any replies. Does anyone have any suggestions? ~2026-41619-62 (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41619-62 Are you talking about Talk:Elastix#Requested_move_24_July_2026? If so, please let the discussion finish. --ABx11 (she/they) 04:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think there was no discussion at all, until they came here and mentioned it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah understood, thanks! --ABx11 (she/they) 06:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Accidentally uploaded the same photo twice

On the page I'm working on (C.E. Poverman), I somehow uploaded the same author photo twice by accident. How do I eliminate one of them or does an editor have to do that? Thanks. Hedman1 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Your question makes sense, but it means "... or does an administrator have to do that?" - because "editor" is what you are! :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Hedman1.

You only seem to have uploaded one photo ever, c:File:C.E. Poverman color head shot.jpg, so I'm not sure what you mean.

I wonder if you are looking at your contributions in Commons c:Special:Contributions/Hedman1, and noticing two lines with that filename? One was you uploading it, and the second was you adding an English label. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. What I'm referring to is that there is a box in the lower right hand corner of the photo frame (white area below the photo). If you click on that, two of the same photo appear. I minimized one of the photos as for some reason it appeared in the middle of the text of the article as well as in the photo box. Hedman1 (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong, @Hedman1. When I click on the icon in the frame, I see the File page File:C.E. Poverman - Cropped Street Shot.jpg: it has a large copy of the photo, as expected. There's a small copy further down in the "File History" section, recording what you uploaded. ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I'll leave it alone then. Just looked strange to me. Thanks for your input. Hedman1 (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

why is "restore this version" less dangerous than rollback?

Can anyone point to a discussion that explains why rollback is a user right that must be applied for, but "restore this version," which is potentially even more destructive--and does not allow preview either, as I've found to my cost several times--is available for everyone? I feel there must be something here that I don't understand, and better learn about before applying for rollback.

(I work on LLM text removal, so I end up doing things like this a lot. Have borked more than a few infoboxes, and gotten my ears pinned back for it. Because of the lack of preview, "restore this version" is a really good way to introduce errors you won't see in a quick scan of the actual text; you have to make a mock edit and use preview. Learned the hard way.) M kuhner (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Rollback is a one-click function, restore this version is two clicks, one to start the process and one to complete it. It is essentially a normal edit, unlike rollback. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

'Restore this version' also prompts for an edit-summary, for you to explain what you're doing and why. WP:ROLLBACK is designed for edits that really don't need an edit-summary, so it requires a bit more trust that the editor is doing the right thing. DMacks (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, @M kuhner, you technically can preview "Restore this version" by first clicking the timestamp of the version in question, which will take you to view the revision of the page as of that time. Granted this doesn't give you a full diff view compared to the current version, but it's not nothing. Athanelar (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Payment

I paid $20 on my visa card. You don't acknowledge ~2026-41619-84 (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are referring to a donation you have made to the Wikimedia Foundation, you will need to make an inquiry with them directly; we editors have nothing to do with the donation process. Please email donate(at)wikimedia.org. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41619-84: If it's not about a donation then 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) 08:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

cancle my account not interested your @~2026-41619-84 ~2026-41902-61 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41902-61: If you refer to a Wikipedia user account then they cannot be deleted or cancelled. See more at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. If you refer to donations to the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia then donations are not tied to user accounts. https://wikimediafoundation.org/give/donor-frequently-asked-questions/ may have information you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Taysom Hill

Reference help requested. Can you help me? I tried to add a reference to Taysom Hill but the citation button somehow didn't add it correctly. I got a notice from a bot about it and would like to fix the error.

Thanks, In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 00:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy I'd ask at WP:VPT if you want more technical help. I don't know how it works, but it is powered by Zotero, which can be finicky like this at times as it tries to "guess" stuff like the title, source, etc. of the article based on webpage info. --ABx11 (she/they) 04:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing to do with Zotero or any other metadata detail here. It's just a syntax error in the call to the Wikipedia citation-formatter template. Fixed. DMacks (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Image copyright help

Hi, I want to know if I can use the images on this page: [2] They have diagrams that I'd like to use in articles. The problem is that they claim copyright of the images in their ToU. IANAL, but aren't images produced by government organizations automatically public domain? --ABx11 (she/they) 04:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

It's true of the US Federal Government, but for others (whether sub-national, as here, or of course foreign) it may or may not be, and I gather has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. I think the fact that copyright is here explicitly claimed is a strong indicator: commercial companies (such as Picture Libraries, in my personal experience) may overstate their copyright claims, but an organisation such as TriMet seems unlikely to.

Wikipedia:Public domain status of official US government works is apparently inactive, but may be of some help. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks; another question. How do I see if images are already in Commons? TriMet released these hundreds of images under CC-BY SA 4.0: https://trimet.org/photos/ --ABx11 (she/they) 05:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Commons has a robust category tree. If you know what the subject is, you can start somewhere and then drill down/up/sideways depending how general the topic is and how many variations of files exist for it. Every image has a title and (ideally) a description, among which is usually at least one keyword that can be found by searching. DMacks (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

30K links pointing to same domain?

I simply cannot understand how Wikipedia allows this level of spam on its website. A few links to the same domain might be understandable, but over 30,000 links pointing to a single domain is beyond belief. It's not as if the website is genuine or contains real content. If you check it, nearly every post is fake and redirects users to the same page. I can provide further details upon request. MackJohnson79 (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@MackJohnson79: Many websites have more links. Just post the domain if you actully want us to look at it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is domain findarticles(dot)com, pointing out from several top pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil Most of them having 1-5 links from such specific page. MackJohnson79 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@MackJohnson79: The links worked when they were added. FindArticles was once a good resource. Wikipedia:Bot requests has discussed what to do some times.[3] Wikipedia:Link rot is a big problem affecting thousands of websites. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Until we know what domain is involved (and I am intrigued to find out), it's difficult to say much, but bear in mind that we have 7.2+ million Articles (and links can also be in Article Talk pages and I suppose User pages and their Talk pages), so 30,000 links is equivalent to a good deal less than than one link per 200 articles or 400 pages. Link rot could be involved. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Yah, but certain others are intrigued to find out whether your browser is working. Or not. MinorProphet (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Not yet, because I haven't yet summoned up the courage to try the suggested possible remedies in case everything goes even further wrong: I'll report once I have. In the meantime I'm using and slowly configuring Opera, and contemplating buying a complete new IT setup, from soup to nuts. Thanks for asking. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.105} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Best of luck. Whatever, I would try to avoid Win 11 like the plague. It sounds considerably worse than Vista. If you can coax Opera to work for you, fine. It should even be possible to import FF settings... MinorProphet (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

All the useful-looking links I tried redirect to the generic /news page: a list of irrelevant feature articles. We should probably mark the citations with |url-status=usurped, adding a link to an archive site where available and not already present. This looks like a job for WP:URLREQ. Certes (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Or specifically WP:JUDI * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 00:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see any gambling ads. Although unhelpful, I think it's a semi-good-faith redirect. It's rather like when I visit a reputable news site trying to check a reference which has been deleted or moved and instead it shows me today's headlines, effectively making their home page double up as a 404 page. Certes (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

How to put a pin or arrow in a map

Aucanquilcha uses File:Txu-oclc-224571178-sf19-07.jpg as a map; is there a way to put a pin or arrow in the file so that it shows where the volcano actually is, other than by modifying the image? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You could use {{location map}} but that would require creating a new map definition. On the bright side, that would make the map usable in similar articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps shows the template in use, with an example which is simpler than the template's own documentation. Certes (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: {{Location mark}} is simpler for a single use. Neither method will keep the mark if you click the image to see a larger version. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Andrey Rublev

The Russian icon painter Andrei Rublev is sometimes spelled Andrey Rublev in some sources. Given that this alternative spelling is identical to the title of the tennis player's article, do you think a simple hatnote is sufficient, or would it be preferable to move the tennis player's article to Andrey Rublev (tennis player) to avoid potential confusion? ~2026-41904-71 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The tennis player gets ten times more page views than the painter, so it's probably safe to leave him as the primary topic for the Y spelling and just keep the hatnote. Certes (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Given the extensive ignorance of most English speakers about written Russian and other Slavic languages, why not go for Andrei Rublyov (tennis player), since it approximately accords with the pronunciation of the existing articles about the iconist Andrei Rublyov and the soldier Semyon Budyonny? I hope that the ghost of Semen Budenny doesn't take offence. If only written 'ë 'was transliterated as yo, rather than imagining that Cyrillic 'ë' = English 'e' = 'є', which it doesn't: but hey, the unmusical and uninterested speakers of the so-callled English language. MinorProphet (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MinorProphet. The key question is not how the name is pronounced, or how it should logically be transliterated, but how it appears in the majority of English-language sources (per WP:COMMONNAME).

It is completely bonkers that Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky is written in English with that "T" in front of his name (because French), but that is how his name has been written in English for well over a century, and it is not up to Wikipedia to try and change consensus. ColinFine (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Colin. I completely agree with you, but you incidentally prove my point exactly. The composer's name is indeed correctly written Pyotr, because Пётр - with the Cyrillic 'ë' - is indeed pronounced exactly thus, and not Peter or 'Petr' as English transcriptions had it and, I suggest, for considerably less than a century:

• Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilich Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians 2nd Edition (1904) Vol. V, p. 33.
• Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilich Grove, 3rd edition (1934) Vol. V, p. 278
• Tchaikovsky, Peter (Piotr) Ilyich Grove, 5th edition (1954) Vol. 8, p. 327
• Tschaïkovsky, Peter Ilich Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition (1911), Vol. 27, p. 348
• Tschaikovsky, Peter Ilich, EB 14th Edition (1929), Volume 22, p. 525
• Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilich, EB 15th Edition, (1974) (repr. 2005), Volume 11, p. 592
• Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilich. 'Music Received' Music Library Association, Vol. 54, No. 2, December 1997, p. 586 (subscription needed, via Wikipedia Library)
• There's always Tchaikovsky Research eg Bibliography (1970) - randomly chosen but not investigated - I could go on...

Therefore, as you say, Rublev. Q.E.D. Maybe the rest of the world will get it in 100 years' time: but I bet Tchaikovsky's music will outlast the evanescent fame of some bloke named Rublyov who rushed around trying to hit a bouncy ball. See - eventually - Budyonny as above, despite Budenny, which is only comparatively recent. I expect my ghost will be haunting these pages. MinorProphet (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I once had a professor in a music theory course who would go on rants about Tchaikovsky and how it should be Chaĭkovskiĭ. Thankfully, it was a general course for an elective that interested me; I think if it had been a specialized course on Russian composers, I would have gone mad just trying to spell the professor's preferred names, and would have had to drop the course. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Florida congressional district error needs to be addressed

Hello! I do not have any clue as to where I should tell you all about this, so I decided to post here because it is going to be read faster. Anyways, I have noticed that every Florida congressional district has an error involving the map files. It seems there is supposed to be an interactive map file for each one but the files which are being referenced by the page do not (or possibly no longer) exist. I would like help relating to this situation by either creating the files or removing all instances to contact them. Thanks! Γ+2 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@GammaPlus2: It's a recent general bug discussed in phab:T433008. You can just wait for the bug to be fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for the information! Γ+2 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

watchlist

hi is it possible for me to keep a list of my favourite wikipedia pages other than the watchlist? Joe0472 (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You could manually create a page like User:Joe0472/Favorites and add articles to it. Or even just add them to your user page. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Joe0472: See Help:Saved pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

How to force tables to occupy the entire width of the page?

I'm trying to create a table containing lists with {{divcol}} inside, but whenever all cells have that template, instead of showing the lists arranged in multiple columns, the table remains only one column wide, because there is nothing "pushing" the table to be wider. Here is an example of what I mean. How do I force the table to be wider, thus allowing the divcol template to actually work? — Snoteleks (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If no-one answers soon, I would try The Village Pump, and mention that your query is being forwarded from the Help Desk, otherwise you will be roundly scolded for asking twice. MinorProphet (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not good at this, but is it right that you have |{{divcol}} (with a pipe character at the beginning)? Doesn't this try to place the columns inside of one cell? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is the intention, I want the list in a single cell — Snoteleks (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there more? Eventually you may tell us what you really seek ;) MinorProphet (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? — Snoteleks (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Snoteleks: Try this.

A	B
one two three four five six seven eight nine	one two three four five six seven eight nine

My experience is that this can be hard to get a satisfactory presentation because you don't know the display width yet have to give a list-column width in absolute units (such as em; but never px). Bazza 7 (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 The thing is, I specifically want them in the same cell because on mobile I want it to be possible to only see one column, whereas on desktop I want to see several columns, depending on how wide the available window is. — Snoteleks (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Snoteleks: You seem to be falling into the trap which many editors find: tables are for tabulated data, not for formatting presentation. You are trying to adjust and influence screen layout as if you're working with printed media on paper. The device or media – laptop, desktop, phone browser, phone app, paper – is irrelevant.

So my table above contains four pieces of information, arranged in a header row (the letters A and B) and a data row. There are two columns in each row; each cell in the data row has a single piece of data which is a list of nine items.

I've looked at your table: you seem to be using it to format, not to arrange data. your data is not really tabulated at all, its a set of nested lists, and this is what you should be using. My table might be better as lists as well; they can be columnised, which I've done:

• A
  • one
  • two
  • three
  • four
  • five
  • six
  • seven
  • eight
  • nine

• B
  • one
  • two
  • three
  • four
  • five
  • six
  • seven
  • eight
  • nine

There are other tools specifically for classifications which you can use to help. From your test page, Template:Automatic taxobox/doc may be a good direction to go.

(Incidentally, in your table you are attempting to use spaces (which are data) to influence layout. Don't.) Bazza 7 (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you showing me columnised lists within non-columnised lists, I did not think that was possible. However you're making several assumptions. 1) Device is not irrelevant, as the entire point of me trying to make tables is due to how this format of tables is not mobile friendly and I am trying new styles that are mobile friendly after some complaints/suggestions from other editors. 2) The point of me using tables is indeed the formatting, as it allows the reader to collapse large chunks of text that they may not be interested in; something that is not possible in printed paper. Plenty of examples at Help:Table are meant to show advanced formatting, not just tabulated data. 3) I am already aware of taxoboxes, and are part of the taxobox task force; they are meant for different usages. 4) Again, yes I am using spaces to influence formatting. That is the point of all of this. I would never think a reader could be put off by an empty space on a cell that would otherwise be also empty. Thanks for the input but it's simply not what I asked for (see title of the topic). — Snoteleks (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Snoteleks: Well ok. It wasn't clear what you asked for and you declined another another editor's request to do clarify. Your title ("How to force tables to occupy the entire width of the page?") is easily answered: add style="width=100%" to the starting markup of the wikitable. But that does not seem to be what you are asking for. So I had to second guess.

I disagree with most of what you have said.

1) Device should be irrelevant. Your content should be device independent; if you are old enough to remember the browser wars you will know the mess that can be got into when content has to be provided with regard to the device it will be read on.

2) Tables are not for formatting. Tables are for organizing data. Styling is for formatting. Styling includes how content will be positioned on different sized devices and orientation. Tables are not for formatting (again). Help:Table is a complete mess, and contains many contradictions of newer styling policies, especially WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Tables are not the only collapsible objects.

3) Good.

4) Anyone using multiple spaces to attempt to determine the position and layout of content should be using a typewriter.

Your problems are a result of wikimarkup restricting what presentation options are available. Newer CSS flex and grid functionality allow is a bit sparse in wikimarkup: {{Gridlist}}, {{Flex list}}, category:List_formatting_and_function_templates. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Accessing "old" gen AI response before a Wikipedia article was published?

Odd question here - I'm a high school teacher, and created the Wikipedia page Capitol Crawl to use as a demonstration for my students (also because it well exceeds the notability guidelines and should've had its own page ages ago!). Many popular websites say or imply that the Capitol Crawl was a major catalyst for the passage of the ADA, but I found in my research that the reality is more nuanced, so the page reflects that.

When I ask Chat GPT about the impact of the Capitol Crawl, its response closely mirrors what I wrote, and cites the Wikipedia page as its source. I'm confident that these responses would have been different before I created the article, and I'd love to use this as an example for my students of the limits of AI and how AI models get their information. But sadly, I didn't think of it until now! Is there a way I can see what an AI model like Chat GPT would have said about this topic before the article was written? If it's relevant, the article was created on May 10th. MissRedwood (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a good idea but unfortunately not possible- for that to be possible, you’d have to edit ChatGPT’s data repository which of course can’t be done. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 22:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm curious whether we could bring the whole AI thing to a grinding halt just by asking how it would have answered differently at different specific times in the past. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that would provide an accurate answer though because it would still be factoring in current information even if you're asking it to ignore it. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 03:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

My point was that ignoring and not ignoring the same information at the same time could confuse the poor thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@MissRedwood That's an interesting project. I have also noticed that new articles get quickly picked up by LLMs. This has also been reported for non-Wikipedia sources, e.g.. Could be a fun thing to look at next time someone develops an article on an otherwise obscure topic. Best, CMD (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Exceedingly poor/misdirected advice The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Obviously you will have to start all over again with an entirely new subject, and don't ever refer to Capitol Crawl again, or this post, don't even use the same account: literally wipe the slate clean. See Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. You can hide this entire conversation as well, no-one will care, we get it, otherwise, y'know... MinorProphet (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC) <!-- Just put these hidden marks around everything -->

Why are you recommending this user to vanish, am I missing something? Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 02:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You would need to use a model trained before you published the article and disallow the model from searching but it's totally possible. I can probably get what you're looking for once I'm back on desktop. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 02:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that would work? Even if you used an old model it would still have access to current information. You'd have to use an old dataset and I don't believe that's possible. I don't think old datasets are even stored. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 03:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaking your terminology, the model is the dataset. The only ways to give a model access to new information are either giving it access to the internet, or training (in part or in full) a new model. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Models dont get access to info intrinsically. You need to hook up search tools. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 19:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Just got around to it. This is gpt-5.4 mini's answer bc for some reason open router hates me.

GPT-5.4-mini slopping it up

**The impact of the Capitol Crawl on March 12, 1990** was that it became a **highly visible, emotionally powerful protest** that helped push disability rights into the national spotlight. Activists crawling up the steps of the U.S. Capitol dramatized the barriers faced by people with disabilities and showed how inaccessible public spaces were.
Its broader impact included:

- **Building public pressure** for disability rights legislation
- **Helping speed support for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)**, which was passed later in 1990
- **Turning accessibility from an abstract policy issue into a vivid moral and political issue**
- Becoming an **iconic moment in the disability rights movement**

So, in short: the Capitol Crawl was not the only reason the ADA passed, but it was a **pivotal symbolic action** that helped galvanize momentum for the law.

I currently have a cold, so i apologize if anything here is majorly broken. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 19:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Body weight

Is it really appropriate for Body weight to redirect to Human body weight? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a broader article at "body weight" covering the concept across all animals, with "human body weight" as the main article for the human-specific aspects? "Body weight" is a generic scientific term and is not inherently restricted to humans. ~2026-41659-08 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You are probably right, but this requires some volunteer to first create the more general article, which I suspect would be no small task.

'Human body weight' would probably still be the most frequent intended topic for searches on "Body weight", so the best option might be to add to the current hat-note on it (which appears after redirection),

"(Redirected from Body weight)"

to add something like:

". . . : for the more general topic, see [[New article title]]".

Others may differ.

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree especially with the idea that redirects should go to the topics that people commonly intend, and should not go to a "science surprise" that is technically true but not what they were looking for. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Ref error

Why is Talbotiella showing as having a reference error? I've checked the code (using source editor), and it looks correct. Weirdly it looks fine in the preview. Is this a known bug? EmergentAnarchy (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Ignore me i think i fixed it EmergentAnarchy (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't remove the AfD tag I added by mistake

I wanted to nominate an article for deletion and I added an AfD tag with the number one by mistake. I didn't know that because it was already nominated by deletion a new discussion wasn't opened. I tried to revert my edit and a filter didn't allow me to. What should I do? Koubaki (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the tag.

In future, you should make deletion nominations with WP:TWINKLE. It handles the nomination process with one click. AfD nominations are otherwise far too complicated to try to do by hand. Athanelar (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That's good advice but this report does indicate a problem. I was editing for ages before I discovered Twinkle, and I wasted far too many hours fiddling about with complex procedures, sometimes getting it wrong. Experienced editors don't see how intricate these operations are. Either the processes need to be simplified or Twinkle needs to be better advertised (or both). Certes (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In its defense, WP:AFDHOWTO says right away nominate the first article using one of the methods below, preferably the § Twinkle method, Athanelar (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Koubaki (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Captcha on login blank

Can’t log in, since I need to enter the text from a captcha, but it is solid white so I can’t read the text/there is no text. Refreshing doesn’t help ~2026-41730-78 (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

You could try a different browser or internet connection, but this is best raised at WP:VPT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41730-78: If you use Dark at Special:MobileOptions then try Light. You could also try "Desktop view" at the bottom of pages. If you use a dark mode on your device then try to disable it or change to light mode. Try another Wikimedia wiki like meta:. If you log in there and come here then you should still be logged in. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikibreaks?

What is a common practice regarding Wikibreaks? Is there a significant number of people who believe that Wikibreaks should be done, even if one feels energetic? I'm asking about customs, not Wikipedia policy. I was thinking of maybe taking a 15 day or 30 day break, though 30 days seems a little long. Vanguard10 (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The common practice is as follows:

1. It's good that you know about this. In my opinion, more people should know.

2. Take the concept - i.e. there is such a thing as taking a break from Wikipedia, and you or anyone can do that - and use it in the way that makes sense in your circumstances.

I think that's basically it.

Opinion section:

In my opinion, the length of break you decide to take probably has a lot to do with why you're thinking of taking it. The break is supposed to help something, so it should be enough to have a good chance of helping that thing. And all of that is your private business, unless you choose to discuss it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also say - just my opinion - that if I was taking one, I would hope to avoid announcing it and just do it. But that might not always work, I don't know. Whatever works for each person. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Enrico Tazzoli (priest)

Hi, this is the second time I have requested the move of Enrico Tazzoli (priest) (see the talk page), but I still have not received any response. I have already notified the relevant WikiProjects about the discussion. Is there any other way to get feedback? ~2026-41785-65 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Creating framework for roster entry for sports team

URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Kentucky_Wildcats_football_team

Page does not currently contain a roster entry for the team of 1967. Various other seasons contain a separate roster section, however there doesn't appear to be a uniform method for adding the entry. Would it be possible to add a framework for any page without including the individual players or can it only be created as the whole table?

How does one add an item in related articles (in this case the football media guide published by the university for the corresponding year), and link the cover image to the header of the page? The media guide will generally contain the roster and in cases where the roster is unavailable via the media guide it can be found on a game-by-game basis in the programs for each game many which are available through the university's digital library. BigBlueChaos (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)