Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

Location Maps and OSM Location map

Morning Folks!! This is question on location maps. I have a lot of articles e.g. this one here Rosneath naval base where the location map which is correct opens up without showing the red dot. I have a lot of these articles like this. I have this article here: Barochan Cross. I put an "OSM Location map" in. (Its not finished). When you open it up, it carried the location correctly and shows the dot for the correct location. Is there some way that I can use the mapframe embedded within the infobox that are currently in the articles that are using the old style of locations maps to replace the old map style Its seems a much better mapping solution overall. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I'm assuming you mean that when one clicks on a pushpin map in an infobox, one is taken to the file page for the map, which does not show "the red dot". That is normal, and there's no way around it. If one wants to see a more detailed map of the location, one should click on the coordinates at the top of the page and select an appropriate choice (like a Google Map or OSM) from the maps offered on the GeoHack page. If one wants to have a mapframe map in an infobox instead of, or in addition to, the pushpin map, one can certainly do that (often by just adding the parameter |mapframe=yes to the infobox, depending on what infobox is used). See, for instance, Isla de San Martín (Argentina), for both pushpin and mapframe maps, or Reading Public Museum, for just a mapframe map.

Personally, I find pushpin maps useful, particularly for things like cities, since they usually show locations in a wider context (countries or states) than the mapframe maps. Deor (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Deor: I think the mapframe=yes is ideal. I think it will be more Isla de San Martín (Argentina) as its showing the geographic region and location map. That is exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Message on new articles

Hello Friends! I work a lot of new biographies and today, I'm seeing a message that says the page doesn't exist and to visit Wikispecies - see: Axel Hille and Alejandro Londoño-Burbano. I have never come across this before and not sure what it means or if it is supposed to be there. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thank you!! Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok - I spent some more time looking at it and it is legit. It just threw me because there were so many all of a sudden. - My apologies - please disregard. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you might have recently started writing more about some people who are very obscure by ordinary Wikipedia standards but who are significant within their own fields of study. I would have been surprised to see those messages too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

These type of pages are actually quite common and are called soft redirects. You can read all about them at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Wow thank you! You learn something new every day! Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Creating art for Wikipedia

Creating art for Wikipedia pages that otherwise do not have a suitable selection of photos

I was just wondering whether I could draw illustrations to convey topics that do not have sufficient photos under their Wikimedia Commons category. I've already started creating Paleoart with Wikiproject: Paleoart review, and if this request is met, I would be creating illustrations mainly for species/breeds/animals that don't have a great photo selection to chose from (I'm a zoology-centric editor). An example of a potential application for my art would be the page that I aim to create in the coming days on the Hyacinth pigeon. The Wikimedia category for this breed is pitiful, with the best representations of them being an old black and white photo that isn't focused on the bird itself, and a contemporary innaccurate pair of illustrations. If I could illustrate the bird to an anatomically accurate degree, could I upload it as the page image when I create it? I hope this post makes sense, I'm a rambler. Thanks! Gone Extinct (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

User-created art is used for illustration, but we have a very high standard. The artwork needs to be of professional quality and a scientific level of accuracy.

If you think those criteria are met, I on urge you to upload a couple of examples and see what reaction you get when adding those to articles before expending many hours of effort making more, which might be wasted if they are not used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be sure to keep that in mind if I go through with making art. Gone Extinct (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Something like a bird is obviously not easy to do. There's currently controversy on Wikipedia about uses of AI, and quite a few people are hostile to it. If someone accused you of using AI for your pictures, and if a few others believed them, that could turn into a reason to not use your work.

So I agree with Andy, don't start a lot of drawing projects yet, just one or two for a test. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, birds aren't the easiest to draw accurately. Some pages with illustrated images demonstrate that clearly (eg. Osteodontornis). If I end up illustrating, I'll be sure to brush up on my skills. I'd never stoop as low as to use AI though, that's a definite fact. Gone Extinct (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing@TooManyFingers Sorry for re-igniting this discussion and pinging you both, but would this illustration be considered sufficient? I heavily based it off of existing photographs and tried to make it as accurate as I possibly could. If not, then that's fine, I'd just like some approximation of how far or close this is to becoming a utilisable image in an article. Cheers.

File:Hyacinth Pigeon Illustration.png. Gone Extinct (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know the subject well, but I would say so. I would lose the frame though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

When I clicked on the link to the file, I didn't realize at first that Andy had already responded. Once I had looked at the picture, I came back here to independently say exactly what he said: I don't know the subject well, it looks good to me though, and probably lose the frame.

I think my main objection to the frame is that it goes across part of the bird in a way that somehow doesn't look right. And the way online pictures are presented often gives a frame-ish effect anyway, making the pictures' own frames seem redundant to me. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for replying at all, I’ll remove the frame, cheers. Gone Extinct (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Can I write an article

Can I write an article David F Stevens (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Anybody can write an article. The question of whether you should begins with asking whether you have at least three sources about your chosen topic which meet the requirements described by the golden rule.

What is it that you want to write about, so I can give some more specific advice? Athanelar (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:your first article; but we strongly recommend that you get some experience making smaller changes to existing articles, first. I'll leave some links to guidance on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can write an article u just need ur topic to have sources and be significant enough Gfroi (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I think there are two main categories your question could be in: "about me/someone I know/our business", and "about some other topic". The first category causes new editors massive frustration as their plans tend to clash with Wikipedia's requirements, and usually ends in failure. The second category often turns out much better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Posting a contribution

I want to write about a professor of English at Osmania university who was once my classmate. ~2026-41214-8 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If you can find the necessary independent published reliable sources to demonstrate that the professor meets our notability requirements, then in theory you can. I'd strongly recommend gaining experience in editing Wikipedia more generally first though, as creating articles is a complex process, and frequently results in frustration for newcomers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The Ranboo/Ranboolive page

There used to be a page for Ranboo, but I can't find it any more? Teeny tiny rat (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything like that under any reasonable permutation of the title. ("Ranboo" is, and always has been so far as I can see, a redirect to TommyInnit.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Teeny tiny rat: The logs show an article called Ranboo was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranboo (2nd nomination). It can be found by clicking Ranboo, then "(Redirected from Ranboo)" at the top, "Page history" and "View logs for this page". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Page Move

I screwed up reporting a sock case and need this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dsiegelasu moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Donaldssiegel. Thanks. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you want Dsiegelasu added as a new report in the Donaldssiegel case? Please add a note to Dsiegelasu and a clerk will handle it. DMacks (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I tagged it accordingly. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Magical Golden Whip, Dsiegelasu said they were an article subject trying to update their article, I can see why you reverted their edits, but wouldn't it have been better to also leave a message to explain what they needed to do to get their article updated? TSventon (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Editing milestones

I would like to determine my editing milestones. For example, when did I make my 1,000th edit, 5,000th, 10,000th, and so on. Is there a tool that will provide this info so that I don't have to manually calculate them? Assadzadeh (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Assadzadeh: I haven't heard of such a tool and you have 647 deleted edits, usually meaning edits to pages which were later deleted for any reason. These edits including the time can only be seen by administrators. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Bible translation?

When we're quoting a passage from the Bible, is there a way to determine which English Bible translation we should use? Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It probably depends on the context. How and where is it being used? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

There's very few circumstances in which I can imagine it would be appropriate to quote the Bible anyway. It can't be used as a source as per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and if you're citing a scholarly/exegetic interpretation of the text for some reason then you should use the quote as it's presented by the interpreting source. Athanelar (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what context the original poster is using a quote in, but I can see it making sense in quoting for comparison (+with scholarly citations) between Bible versions, eg King James Version vs. New International Version. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Much will depend on context for the specific use. There is a Wikiproject for Bible topics: WP:BIBLE. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that any Bible quote would have to be in a context where there is absolutely 0 interpretation going on on the part of the editor adding it, because that would inevitably be WP:OR

Any context where an editor says something like "The Bible says X about Y, like in the quote..." would be inappropriate, because suggesting that any quote should be taken in a particular way is exegesis and therefore original research. I think comparing quotes between different versions is essentially one of the only times it would be appropriate. Athanelar (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The entry WP:RSPSCRIPTURE at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources makes similar points to the comments above. TSventon (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

One possible scenario: some topic about which a historical figure quoted the Bible, in Latin; a Wikipedia article quotes that historical figure as having quoted the Bible; an editor wants to include a translation from Latin, but would obviously rather use a good existing translation than try to do their own on the spot. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The scenario is that there is an image in which someone is holding a sign containing a Bible verse, so a note using {{efn is stating what that verse says. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

My guess under those circumstances: Is it a contentious verse? Or one that has been translated in significantly different ways? If yes, tread carefully and examine several translations. If no, any non-quirky non-dumbed-down translation should work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Tool for looking at time density of edits on a page

Given a Wikipedia article, is there a tool which tells me, in a density map:

The edits on the page based on what time they were made. Say, what portion of edits were made in all the various months of 2024? Which months saw the most activity, and so on. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: you could start by going to the page history, then the page statistics for the article, then the month counts. That gives you https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Example#month-counts . TSventon (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very helpful.

I wonder if there's a tool which would tell me how much of the text currently in the article was added at what time? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Nominating article for deletion

Feeling cautious about nominating an article for deletion. Do I have the right idea here?

Hi all. I'm a pretty new editor, so I'm looking to know whether I'm on the right track or not by thinking I should send this article to AfD. I discovered it while trawling through various categories, and I don't think it's suitable for Wikipedia for a few reasons:

1. From what I can find, this work has barely been reported on since its publication in 2020.
2. The wikipedia article itself is extremely short and somewhat vague.
3. The amount of sources cited seems like overkill and some of them read in a promotional manner. There's only 1 source listed after 2020.
4. While the 'guest-editor'/journalist behind the work is notable, I feel like this article could probably just be a redirect to his page instead of its own article.

Because of the reasons above, I debated whether or not to PROD this article or send it to AFD. I know that being bold is encouraged here, but I hesitated because I have never done this before and was unsure if the social justice aspect of the article would make it unsuitable for PROD. Before I do anything, I just wanted to get input from more experienced editors - am I on the right track here?

Thank you sincerely for your time. Showaeire (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, 'social justice' shouldn't be a consideration when the appropriateness of an article is under discussion. At least, not per policy. Given that this project is edited by human beings rather than bots it may possibly tend to sway things a little, but it certainly shouldn't be used as an argument to keep something. Beyond that, you are correct: it is a single-sentence stub, amounting to nothing more that a statement that Coates guest-edited a single edition of Vanity Fair. If there was significant critical response discussing Coates as guest editor, rather than the content in general, than maybe an article might be justified. I can't really see that from the sources cited. The Coates biography notes that he was appointed a senior staff writer for Vanity Fair in 2025, and in my opinion, all that is really needed is a similar brief mention (without the over-citation) of his guest editorship there. This could be done with a merge, and would need no prior agreement (it would of course be subject to possible reversion and subsequent discussion). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. Apologies for clumsy wording and thinking on my end. I think I got stuck on the 'uncontroversial deletion' part and worried that the subject matter might make it inherently 'controversial' and therefore not appropriate for PROD. I think I understand now. I'll look into merging the article, but I'm logging off for tonight. Thanks again for your getting back to me so quick! ~~~~ Showaeire (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Articles cannot be deleted simply because they are stubs, but this fails a range of WP:NOT guidelines. It probably isn't worth a separate article and could be merged into Ta-Nehisi Coates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Fix error at 25th celebration Message page.

Hi! How can I find a page of this: https://wikipedia25.org/ to edit? There is a picture: https://wikipedia25.org/assets/logos-Diyc1gll.jpg which contains Earth in brackets.

What should I edit to fix it? Ishanaum (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ishanaum: The double square brackets around the Earth image are deliberate. This is the notation our MediaWiki software uses to make links to articles. Editors write [[Earth]] to make the link Earth. Everybody can edit Wikipedia and MediaWiki is also used by thousands of other wikis. It's a fairly well-known notation and probably the best known part of MediaWiki coding. I think it's OK to use it next to a text about collaboration in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I write an article?

How can I add an article on a famous person that has no recognition in Wikipedia ~2026-43365-2 (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-43365-2. If the person you want to write about has no reliable, secondary, independent sources that discuss them (which is what I presume "has no recognition" means), then they do not merit an article on Wikipedia at this time. Sorry. We have strict criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43365-2: I suspect your intented meaning was famous person [that has no recognition in Wikipedia], meaning no Wikipedia article. Many famous people don't satisfy our criteria for inclusion. See Help:Your first article but note what it says about notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

We strongly recommend that you get some experience making smaller changes to existing articles, first. I'll leave some links to guidance on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Help

i need to contact Fode ~2026-42091-8 (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-42091-8. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean User:Fode? That account was renamed, so shows no edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

James G. Blaine page

I have downloaded a photo that shows the home James G. Blaine lived in growing up in West Brownsville, Pennsylvania. I am uncertain how to, or if I can, add this photo as an edit to the page ~2026-43707-3 (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Where did you find it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Have you downloaded it from Wikimedia Commons, or from some other website? If from some other website, what is its copyright status? If from some other website and you don't know its copyright status, then precisely where did you download it from? -- Hoary (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

David Muir

David Muir Hello, everyone! Could you replace the link new one for me? it doesn't work: . I am translating this article from English into Russian. ru:Участник:СтасС/Заготовка 1 Help me, please. СтасС (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

СтасС, how about https://cronkite.asu.edu/news/2024/abcs-david-muir-accepts-cronkite-award-for-excellence-in-journalism-sees-hope-for-future-from-inspiring-cronkite-students (with "/2024" inserted)? -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for a link!--СтасС (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Ajijic

Ajijic has {{cleanup}}

what is hatnote for translate from es.wikipedia ?

Piñanana (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you mean Template:Expand Spanish.

But it looks to me as if all or nearly all of the sources for es:Ajijic (like the current sources in Ajijic) are Primary sources. English Wikipedia requires most sources to be secondary sources, so adding better sources to the English article would be a much more valuable improvement than translating text from the Spanish. ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

fr de nl... mostly have no sources

Cannes Ibiza Lake Tahoe

Piñanana (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Different Wikipedias have different standards, @Piñanana. I believe that en-wiki is one of the strictest. ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Different Wikipedias do indeed have different standards, Piñanana; but one also should not assume that all the articles of a particular Wikipedia meet the standards of that particular Wikipedia. (Certainly many articles of English-language Wikipedia don't meet its standards. And we don't want more feeble articles.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

rn.wikipedia.org and RN:

how to make page ? :

en:RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon

Piñanana (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Piñanana. The book is mentioned in Bibliography of Richard Nixon. I assume that it is probably a notable book. Please read Your first article. You should base any draft article on reviews of the book in high quality journalistic sources and discussions of the book in well reviewed biographies of Nixon. Cullen328 (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) § Colons. You need to modify the title a little to remove the colon or otherwise make it not start with "RN:", like "RN — The Memoirs of Richard Nixon" (I have no idea what is best in this situation as I am not familiar with this book), then add a special hatnote to the top of the article you created. OutsideNormality (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

RN; The Memoirs of Richard Nixon Piñanana (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

This redirect is probably the most suitable indeed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Today I learned we have a Wikipedia in Kirundi with 703 articles. DMacks (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

If it doesn't have a wikipedia is it even really a language (hopefully obvious sarcasm) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Anti-abortion movement: globally vs United States?

For some reason, the article Anti-abortion movements is far smaller and less detailed than the article United States anti-abortion movement. The former has 1600 words while the latter has 4500 words. Does anyone know why that is? They get similar page views. Similar thing happens on the abortion-rights side but not to the same extent. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably because abortion isn't the political hot potato topic in most places that it is in the US. Fewer people care so intensely about the topic, meaning that articles get less attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe Andy's response is correct. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

ArbCom actually discussed this during the discussion about rescinding WP:CT/FG; WP:CT/GC and WP:CT/CC were also mentioned in the same discussion as "vastly more contentious in American politics than elsewhere". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

But if abortion is more popular in the US than worldwide, then why do both articles have around 2,000 - 2,500 pageviews in the last 30 days?

PS @Jéské Couriano how did you even know about that? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Coincidence.

2,000 views is one per 170K people in the US, and approximately one per 4 million people globally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: I have a lot of Arbitration-related pages on my watchlist for obvious reasons, and so I was very well aware of the discussion to rescind the FLG contentious topic. (I actually commented on that particular motion as well; scroll up!) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, it's because the US has freedom of press and speech meaning anyone can speak out about their opinions; also, a lot of people here probably consume more US media than the average person and therefore thinks the US just has more discussion on the topic, when that's not the case. I created Abortion in the UAE, and a reason why there isn't as much discussion about the UAE is because of restrictions of freedom of speech. The National source used interviewing a woman selling illegal abortion drugs is actually quite unusual as local media never really goes there - rare, and i have a feeling it wouldn't happen today. TLDR just as big a deal in the rest of the world, just that USA overshadows everyone jolielover♥talk 09:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Re 'the US has freedom of press and speech' see here. Compare to most of western and central Europe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm clearly not comparing to Europe (also, is that supposed to be low? It is really quite high, the US is a whopping 0.83 points above me) jolielover♥talk 18:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with the basis of this analysis. Very many countries have far less debate about abortion, either because abortion is (relatively) uncontroversially legal, or because abortion is illegal and debate is prohibited. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an issue with overrepresentation of certain topics - typically American topics. Alright, not really an "overrepresentation" issue, but an underrepresentation of other regions. This is because the average editor is an American male (Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Demographics), and people normally edit areas they are more familiar with. jolielover♥talk 09:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hushpuppy Mall Walkers- why were they canceled

Hushpuppy Sĥoes ~2026-38004-6 (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! This page is for people who need help editing wikipedia. You might have better luck with a search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo. If you still want help from a Wikipedian, then the reference desk could prove helpful! mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Family history

Details required about William James Doney ~2026-42730-3 (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-42730-3. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? For family history questions, please use your internet search engine of choice. qcne (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

You may find some useful source listed at Wikipedia:Genealogy sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! This page is for people who need help editing wikipedia. You might have better luck with a search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo. If you still want help from a Wikipedian, then the reference desk could prove helpful! mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Artwork section of Faces album .. first step.

 Courtesy link: First Step (Faces album)

Hello. Just pointing out a suspected error in the artwork section of the info on Faces first album, The first step. I noticed in the info around where the cover aw was taken that someone laced the punch with methanol, this will probably have been ethanol as methanol would have killed them all ! Think it should be corrected incase someone reading it in future might think it’s a good idea to add methanol to their drinks. ~2026-44798-2 (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The source refers to some wood alcohol, i.e. methanol, in the punch. I presume that means the amount was dangerous but not lethal. Of course the source could be mistaken. TSventon (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

In addition to TSventons reply, please note that Wikipedia isn't censored, so unless the information was inaccurate (which it isn't) it'll stay, since even if what the sources say could be considered "harmful" it is still nonetheless what the sources say. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Unable to recover account

I created an account about 15 years ago and not used it for a long time. Now I can’t log on because I no longer have the registered email account (I think it was Hotmail). I can’t verify logon because the verify code goes to the non-existent email address. How can I recover my Wikipedia account with my new email address? ~2026-44785-8 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This looks like a problem with Help:Extension:EmailAuth. If you cannot access the email address associated with the account, you can email cawikimedia.org.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

You're also allowed to make a new account if you'd like. If you wan't, you can link to your old account on your userpage but since it's been a while I don't think anyone is going to care since you obviously aren't puppeting socks. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Where is the search box?

Canadian Tour Operators based in Montreal. ~2026-45697-6 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! The search box for wikipedia is at the top of the website on any page (it has a little magnifying glass in it) or, going directly to wikipedia.org will have the search bar under the wikipedia globe. Though, I will advise that if you're trying to book a tour or something you'd likely be better off using a general purpose web search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Resubmitting a declined article

Good afternoon! I had a draft article (Draft:Holly Kim) declined on December 28th. I had great feedback from the reviewer (HurricaneZeta), so I made a number of corrections and I believe I resubmitted it on January 10th. I'm not sure, however, if I properly resubmitted it. I see two line items on the View History page that look like I resubmitted the draft, but I believe there is supposed to be some kind of "Draft Awaiting Review" banner at the top of the draft. I don't see that, so I'm wondering if I could get assistance on how to ensure I have properly resubmitted it for review. Thank you! Kstrine320 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Kstrine320. You didn't re-submit it for review. Please press the big blue Resubmit button, and wait for the page to refresh. qcne (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

It's the big blue button in the banner at the top of the page. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Temporary Indianapolis Star online access

I need temporary Indianapolis Star online access to view several articles including this, this, this and this for Peter Suder.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger have you tried applying for newspapers.com via WP:the wikipedia library. Newspapers.com seems to have access to the Indianapolis Star archive. TSventon (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll check with them, but I think the Indy Star has two classes of articles in regards to evergreening. My Chicago Public Library account has ProQuest access to the Indy Star and I don't have access to these stories that are paywalled online.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, assuming that no subscribers to the Indy Star are reading this, I suggest asking at Wikipedia:Resource exchange if the wikipedia library doesn't work. TSventon (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I am getting some help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_basketball#Peter_Suder_high_school_element.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Do we ever save talk pages in a merge?

Looking at a merge request, which the merge makes good sense, but the article being merged has a good number of talk page threads... I guess these are effectively lost (buried when the merged article becomes a redirect)... seems a shame as they're still relevant... I think this is just life, but there's no way to address this, right? We don't merge talk pages? Just checking. Herostratus (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

If the talk page is archived and the destination location has no archived talk pages, they could be moved there. But generally if an article becomes a redirect, it's best to leave the talk page where it is. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Not Turkey Red

It is Turkish Red during the Ottoman Empire ~2026-47117-8 (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

If you believe that some article gets something wrong, then please go to the talk page of that article and, on that talk page, point out what's wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Turkey red.

The answer is no. In English this dyeing method and its resulting coloured fabric was always called Turkey red. We cannot apply current social sensibilities retrospectively to former eras, invent names that never existed, and pretend that they did.

The question of why items with origins foreign to the UK were sometimes called Turkey X or Guinea Y is a separate one, not without interest: in this case there actually was a historical connection to the country of Turkey. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I know if page has been reviewed?

Hi, I created a page "Disappearance of Steven Clark" over a week ago or more usually with any other page I have made soon after it is reviewed and is reviewable on google when I search up that page it doesn't come up, so just trying to find out if it has been reviewed yet. Thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

ItsShandog It hasn't been reviewed yet. You can go to WP:NPP, then New pages feed and click on Select filters to enter your account name to see articles you created. You should also get a notification when it is reviewed. TSventon (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help. ItsShandog (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

ItsShandog the process is a bit random, articles can wait hours or months before being reviewed. Google can index them after 90 days if they are not reviewed by then. There is currently a backlog drive, so hopefully your article will be reviewed shortly. TSventon (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I was curious as usually any article I have made has been reviewed within a day or two but I forgot about the backlog. ItsShandog (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Invasive of Grenada

Why did you fail to mention DDG-40 USSContz's role in the invasion of Grenada. Those were my shipmates. ~2026-48087-8 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Any issues with the United States invasion of Grenada article should be discussed at Talk:United States invasion of Grenada. If you have a published reliable source to support information that is missing from the article, or from the article about the vessel, please offer it. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Is the graph of a function copyrightable ?

File:Everything's Gone Green (New Order single - cover art).gif - New Order (band)

Fig. 33a in GEB:

"The first one (Fig. 32) is a graph of a function which I call INT(x). It is plotted

here for x between 0 and 1. For x between any other pair of integers n and n + 1, you just

find INT(x-n), then add n back."

"What corresponds to the bottom in the définition of INT is a picture (Fig. 33a)

composed of many boxes, showing where the copies go, and how they are distorted. I call

it the "skeleton" of INT. "

from: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Gödel,_Escher,_Bach...closely related to Fig. 33a in GEB – so closely related that it appears unlikely (to me) that the cover art of the EGG single was designed independently. There is a fractal aspect of self-similarity: one half of the diagonal of squares contains a copy of itself scaled down by a factor of 1⁄2  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, each particular depiction may be subject to copyright but independently re-drawing it by applying the same function is allowed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Piñanana (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Ban temporaneo

Ciao, non ho un account, ma casualmente ho scoperto che ho un ban fatto a fine dicembre che scade il 23 gennaio. Non che mi interessi più di tanto, ma non ho un account su wikipedia, e non ricordo di aver modificato o partecipato a discussioni. Volevo solo informazioni. ~2026-47997-3 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Google translate: Qualcuno che usa il tuo stesso provider Internet e non ha un account stava causando problemi. Dato che quella persona non ha un account, l'unico modo per bloccarla è bloccare gli indirizzi Internet che stava utilizzando.

-

My words: Someone who uses the same Internet provider as you and doesn't have an account was causing problems. Since that person doesn't have an account, the only way to ban them is to ban the internet addresses they were using. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft article for review and publish

How do i get this article reviewed by the editorial team and published. When i click on move it doesnt let me move it to review draft but more towards publishing page and then i get an error message. User:ADChild/sandbox. ADChild (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

New accounts cannot directly create articles. I will shortly move the draft to draft space, at Draft:Ako Defang Mengot, and enable you to submit it for a review. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much. So whats the next step for me to take please? ADChild (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ADChild.

You have submitted the draft for review. But I strongly urge you to take Theroadislong's advice: read WP:REFB, and sort out your citations. ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I do but everytime i hit the publish button, it changes it to this funny layout. I am not sure how to do this. ADChild (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@ADChild I would recommend using the visual editor, which is a bit like Microsoft Word. qcne (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do that now ADChild (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Archiving

Good evening. How many days until a question on the Reference Desk gets archived? And could having many questions there be considered spam? Also, could a page named list of remarkable movie premieres be created? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

(i) Your questions to the reference desks are so numerous that you might keep track of their archiving yourself. (ii) Somebody whose pattern of editing (largely, questions to the reference desks) greatly resembles yours already asked whether such questions could be considered spam. I responded; perhaps other editors did too. Was the questioner not you? (iii) How would "remarkable" differ from "notable"? (A certain degree of notability would go without saying.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

(ii) See WP:HD/Archive 77#Reference desk (10 January). -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. How about i wait a week or so before asking my next question or two. My head just gives me new and new questions a the Reference Desk was made for that, right? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

TA, the reference desk (as with all things on Wikipedia) exists to assist us in building an encyclopedia. It is not supposed to be used to satisfy one's general curiosity on various topics. Given your extensive usage of it and seemingly no other attempts at contributing here, I might politely suggest you find a more suitable discussion forum like Reddit. Athanelar (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but the front page of it says it's like a libraly desk and it's for general questions. In fact, i doubt that all the questions there will be used for Wikipedia. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, why can't i edit this (or any other question here)? I wanted to correct one sentence, where i put a dot instead of a question mark, but i keep clicking on the three dots and nothing happens. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-24671-3 Wikipedia's reply function got broken by a software update - it was nothing to do with you. They fixed it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

DYK

Hello mates. Quick question–does DYK accept new featured lists or featured articles? Oh, and if an article was previously featured on because it was new, is it eligible to appear again when it attains GA status? dxneo (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dxneo: you can ask about DYK at the DYK talk page, WT:DYK. Also the criteria are at WP:DYKCRIT. Being a new featured list or a new featured article is not a DYK criterion. A new GA which has already featured is only eligible if five years have passed. TSventon (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

President Trump is now the president of Venezuela

WP:CT/AP-related drive-by troll. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I have contributed to Wikipedia every time you ask for contribution I will never give you another penny for allowing Donald J Trump to declare that he is the president of Venezuela Fabian Bordelon (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Fabian Bordelon: If this is about a Wikipedia article then please link it. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

데이터를 삭제부탁드립니다

개인계정이고 판매목적으로 사용허눈 계정이 아닙니다 저작권이 있고 현재 유출로 인해 피해를 많이조고있습니다 삭제 부탁드림 ~2026-49035-0 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-49035-0. Since this is English Wikipedia, it's usually better to ask questions in English because it will make it much easier for others to respond. Anyway, you seem to be asking to have your Wikipedia account deleted, at least that how Google translated your post. If that's really the case, then please understand that such a thing isn't possible for the reasons given here because of the way Wikipedia is licensed. If Google mistranslated your post, perhaps you could try clarifying things, but just in English this time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Template for talk pages that aren't heavily monitored

I swear I've seen it somewhere. It says just that: "this talk page isn't heavily monitored", and advises you to go to a more frequented notice board. Can't find what it's called, though. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid: That may be {{Visibility}}, which is displayed at the top of the edit window when you edit talk pages for some less-used namespaces. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, just a gentle follow-up on my edit request above. Natco Pharma

Hello, I posted a conflict-of-interest edit request on Talk:Natco Pharma to update outdated business and history information using reliable sources.

The request has not yet received a response. Could an experienced editor please review or advise on the request?

Thank you. Markcreatives (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You're requesting massive overall changes. I don't think it's permissible to ask that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It is permissible to ask that (perhaps not advisable, but still permissible). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance and apologies for the confusion earlier.

To clarify my conflict of interest: I am not an employee of Natco Pharma. I run a creative agency (Mark Creatives), and I am assisting a personal contact who works at Natco Pharma by helping draft content updates for Wikipedia. I understand that this still constitutes a conflict of interest under Wikipedia policy.

I am not seeking to act as a major author of the article. Going forward, I will limit my requests to small, specific, well-sourced factual additions only, in line with WP:EDITREQUEST and WP:COIREQ. Markcreatives (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Markcreatives. You might want to take a look at WP:EDITREQUEST and WP:COIREQ for reference. The best edit requests tend to be the ones that are brief and to the point; for example, things like "change X to Y in the third sentence of the YYYY section", "add this citation for this content in ZZZZ section", or "change the name of this person to this person in the main infobox". Requests that are too complicated or vague to figure out tend to be passed over or declined. Short requests trying to change things one brick at a time tend to be easier to deal with and digest than those asking for the entire wall to be replaced at once; in fact, the latter is almost never going to be responded to favorably because none of those answering such request are going to perform a major rewriting of an article simply because someone has requested they do so. Doing such a thing would go against pretty much all of the things those answering COI requests have learned to do in all of the years they've been editing Wikipedia. Anyway, the point of an edit request is to allow users such as yourself to request incremental changes/improvements/corrections be made to articles; it's not to have the entire article or a major part of the article rewritten. I apologize if my post seems a bit harsh; however, the sooner you get this is how edit requests are intended to work, the better your chances will be of having them responded to favorably.

Finally, it will make it easier for others to help you if you could clarify your conflict of interest with Natco Pharma. Are you directly employed by the company? Are you working for some other company/agency contract by Natco to update the Wikipedia article written about it? Is "Markcreatives" the name of a business? You need to be careful when in comes to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and make sure you're complying with it if it applies to your situation; a failure to do so would be considered a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use and can lead to your account being blocked by an administrator. You also need to make sure your choice of a username doesn't run of WP:CORPNAME. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the current edit request is intended to be a back-door attempt at becoming a major author of the article, which is exactly the thing that someone with a COI can't do. Not that I think anyone said "haha, we're going to sabotage Wikipedia" - just that someone DID say "significant changes to that article are necessary", and that in itself is the problem.

In a nutshell: COI editors are not allowed much more than to nitpick over details - they can't ask to change the main substance or modify the tone. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Someone with a COI can be the major author of an article; that's why we direct such contributors to AfC if the article is new. For an existing article, the edit-request process is analogous.

"COI editors are not allowed much more than to nitpick over details"—Also false. Please stop inventing rules. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance and apologies for the confusion earlier.

To clarify my conflict of interest: I am not an employee of Natco Pharma. I run a creative agency (Mark Creatives), and I am assisting a personal contact who works at Natco Pharma by helping draft content updates for Wikipedia. I understand that this still constitutes a conflict of interest under Wikipedia policy.

I am not seeking to act as a major author of the article. Going forward, I will limit my requests to small, specific, well-sourced factual additions only, in line with WP:EDITREQUEST and WP:COIREQ. Markcreatives (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Markcreatives: Based on what you posted above, you probably should also comply with WP:PAID because the fact you run your own creative agency is likely going to be seen as a major red flag by many Wikipedians, even if you're just helping out a friend by just being a good friend. COI editing, while not expressly prohibited, isn't popular at all with large parts of the Wikipedian community; so, expect some blow back just because of that. Throw in the fact that you run your own creative agency and are helping a friend, you might experience even more angst because others will always be suspicious of your motives. You will, however, definitely need to address your username because it's almost certainly going to be seen as a violation of WP:PROMONAME. I suggest you do that first before anything else and submit WP:CHUS request asap before your account gets WP:SOFTBLOCKed for a username violation. Once your account name has been changed, I then suggest you make all of the necessary COI/PAID declarations, and only then start with the edit requests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Markcreatives. I'll to what Marchjuly says, to recommend you read WP:YESPROMO, and if you find yourself trying to insert anything at all the Natco says or that Natco wants people to know, you're probably doing it wrong. ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance, ColinFine. I appreciate you pointing me to WP:YESPROMO.

I understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for company messaging or promotional content. My intent is only to request small, factual, neutral updates that are verifiable through independent, reliable third-party sources (e.g., mainstream business media), not company self-published materials or marketing language.

I will limit future edit requests to specific, incremental changes (e.g., adding a sourced sentence, correcting outdated information, or fixing citation errors), and I will avoid proposing any content that reflects what Natco “wants people to know” rather than what reliable sources have already published.

Thank you again for your time and for helping me navigate Wikipedia’s content policies. Markcreatives (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

What to call new City and Guilds article?

So the underlying redirect for City and Guilds Foundation is City and Guilds which was sort of the original name *but* they sold off their commercial arm which is now called .... City and Guilds. What would that article actually be called given redirects? Thanks in advance? Cameron Scott (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

What exactly has changed? It seems like the redirects are suitable in this case. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cameron Scott The first thing to do is raise the issue at the article talk page, which you have done at Talk:City and Guilds Foundation#Article will need a complete rewrite. Then you could cross post at relevant active Wikiprojects.

If there is a new article it could be at City & Guilds Ltd, and it could be moved if a better name is suggested. Wikipedia:Disambiguation is a relevant guideline. TSventon (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Euler's identity

Euler's identity

Hello editors, May I know why the base of natural logarithm, the imaginary unit and the ratio of a circumference to an arc are italicized? Per ISO 80000-2:2019, these shall be printed in Roman typeface instead. I would like to hear your concerns about this. Thanks! ~2026-50328-0 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-50328-0: There are different styles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Roman versus italic. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

this account of mine

I ask the team to help me check this account of mine (I opened the account a long time ago and tried to renew it), and advise me, how to move forward from here towards renewing my home page or is there anything else that needs to be done? And maybe I can also help others in the future. Sponsorid (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Your account is active; you are free to edit your user page. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Your account works since you can post here. It's optional to create a user page for the account at User:Sponsorid. You can edit Wikipedia without making a user page. If you have problems with the feature called "Homepage" then see the above section. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Fortnite article revert summary

In the Fortnite article I was reverted by an administrator, the revert summary and edits by the administrator are illegible.

The revert summary by the administrator is very illegible: "In the lede, being a game platform is key. it does support cross platform but that's less significant hetr", in the next edit by the administrator, the administrator adds new text to the article: "Most Gane modes support cross-platform play between the various supported devices." very confusing. Tokeamour (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It is also very misplaced I suggest reviewing the edit history. Tokeamour (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

–Being the person reverted if it needs to be corrected, it should be fixed appropriately. Tokeamour (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Masem's status as an administrator is irrelevant. Masem is asserting as a regular editor that cross-platform support is not significant enough to be in the lege in place of just "platform." The last word is meant to be "here." Use the article talkpage to politely ask about how you might improve the article. Acroterion (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Acroterion Read the sentence put in. I understand it was in good faith my problem is it is completely grammatically incorrect. I am afraid to mention it to the user directly because I am assuming english is not their first language. Tokeamour (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Acroterion To be honest if anything I feel bad, I am probably not the one to fix it if I am also agitated. I am putting my frustration here not at the user directly it is not kind. Tokeamour (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Acroterion Also imagine the same conversation happening here was moved to the article talk page I don't want to put the frustration in a talk page Tokeamour (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Masem speaks perfectly fine English and has written featured articles. The issue appears to be more about your understanding and “agitation” than what they wrote. Go ahead and ask them (nicely) for clarification, it seems to be a straightforward issue of an overly specific edit on your part and a slightly vague edit summary by Masem. This isn’t a place to vent about a single revert. Acroterion (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Acroterion My problem is not the revert my issue is the text added "Most Gane modes support cross-platform play between the various supported devices." Tokeamour (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

That text was not by me Tokeamour (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

But siad user Tokeamour (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Acroterion I feel like you misunderstood Tokeamour (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't. It's just a couple of typos. I do that all the time in edit summaries - it's easy to do. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Acroterion the sentence not the summary look at what was added by siad user. Tokeamour (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Your question has been answered; please stop wasting other peoples' time over such a small incident. Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

So, I think you do understand that the edit summary is supposed to be "most game modes support cross-platform play between supported devices". Do you have an issue with this? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski What is added by siad user after revert into the article Tokeamour (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski The sentence the administrator added to the article not the edit summary Tokeamour (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there was a typo that was quickly resolved? The fact the user is an administrator is irrelevant as you've been told.

FWIW, the changes are suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

M and N are very close on the keyboard. Their finger touched the wrong one - just an accident. The grammar in their sentence is good. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Home page

Hello, I can't access my home page, with the impact ect. Please help. Dafootballguy (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy: A Thursday software update has issues in the mobile version. Does Special:Homepage work? If not then you may have to switch to the desktop version for some features by clicking "Desktop view" at the bottom of a page. You can switch back later on "Mobile view". PrimeHunter (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it did work. Happy editing. Dafootballguy (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Reliable source

Hi can someone inform me if Instagram and Facebook are now recognised as reliable sources. As there is a new page that is not being reverted by experienced editors that is using such references Thankyou Foristslow (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Foristslow: Link to the article? We'd need to know more context as to how those sources are being used. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

ok sure, Walk for Peace. Foristslow (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Primary sources like that (as in those appear to be the walk's official social media, so that can potentially count) can be used to support factual statements and that appears to be what they're doing (i.e. "they were in x location on x day"), but that doesn't mean they're the best source for those statements if another source exists, and the sheer amount of them compared to other sources (37 of the 111) is... a bit much. - Purplewowies (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply, I have some official Instagram Post that I will include on some pages that I am editing and reference this response. Foristslow (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Most "official Instagram posts" are advertising, and therefore can't be used at all. The exception is only for - if I may call them this - "boring facts". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Social media accounts can, under certain conditions, be considered a reliable source, but how they may be used often depends on the content they're being cited in support of and who controls the account. For example, the Facebook account of a major media outlet with an established reputation of diligent editorial control is almost certainly going to be seen as more reliable than the Facebook account of the average person. So, while there's no direct prohibition in citing Instagram or Facebook per se, everything depends on who controls the account and what it's being cited for. FWIW, at first glance, the citing of Instagram and Facebook in Walk for Peace#Walk locations looks OK for me because it's just being done to support content about itinerary of the event as posted about by the event's organizer, and not really anything that's likely going to be considered contentious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

ok I thought that social media was not a reliable source and a event organiser social media content creator is not a reliable source due to financial interest. If you look at who they follow it is eviden but that being said it seems that the line has moved for Wikipedia. Interested in your response Foristslow (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Foristslow. You're confusing two important but different properties of a source: reliability and independence.

Material published by an organisation about itself (whether directly on its website, or its official channel on social media, or in a press release) is not independent (so it cannot be used to establish notability), but it may be treated as reliable. See ABOUTSELF for the kinds of information which may be cited to such sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The line has not moved, but you have acquired an improved understanding of it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Very constructive reply, You may need to understand "desperate SEO" on the web and this is in my opinion using a encyclopaedia constructed by a collective of good intentions and respected humanistic editors for personal profit and gain by linking domain authority for their posts. How many Posts linking to Instagram when they could use local news papers as a real source ???.If you did not know monasteries are reliant on donations, grants and benefactors in the background. So there is a incentive for promotion in the background from lay management with different lineages to do better than another for merit. Look forward to hearing your reply. Thankyou for your time. Foristslow (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia translate page says the page I want to translate is not written in Polish, but I know that it is.

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

---

I want to translate a Wikipedia page from Polish into English. I created an account and logged in, asked for a new translation, fed in the address of the page I want to translate (pl:Ortynice) and the translate page said it was not written in Polish, but I know that it is written in Polish. How can I get the translate tool to recognize that the Wikipedia article I want to translate is written in Polish and then translate it into English? ~2026-48385-2 (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what translate page you are using, as the WP:Content translation tool is only available for extended confirmed users, not for temporary accounts. Could you elaborate or provide a link? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

So you don't want to translate; you want to have a Wikipedia page translated from Polish into English. Here's one method. (You'd then mark it up yourself.) But considering that the Polish "article" says so little about it, and that its population is given (without any date, let alone source) as just 147, I wonder why it's worth bothering with. -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-48385-2. Before you start translating anything, you should also make sure to carefully read through Wikipedia:Translation and make sure you follow the guidance given there. Articles from Polish Wikipedia can be translated into English for English Wikipedia purposes, but you need to make sure you comply with all required licensing and attribution requirements; otherwise, the translation would be considered a copyright violation. I also suggest you take a look at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION and WP:LLM for reference. You should be competent enough in both Polish and English to sufficiently translate the content; if you feel you Polish and English skills aren't up to the task, don't try to get by using translation software or some sort of AI because you're likely just going to run into problems. Lastily, you might also want to take a look at WP:OTHERLANGS; just because an article exists on Polish Wikipedia doesn't mean it should also exist on English Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia project assesses the content it hosts in terms of its policies and guidelines; so, any article you try to create is going to need to satisfy English Wikipedia's notability guideline. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

On my talk page we figured out that the OP wasn't trying to create an English version of a Polish article. They only read English and were looking for an article about this place in the English Wikipedia. As this article does not exist here, I've advised that they'll probably want something like Google Translate for their purposes. ... And on rereading the discussion here, I've just realised that's also what Hoary was suggesting. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Which page? We can assist you better if you tell us. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The original post mentions pl:Ortynice, and so far that's been the assumption, though it's not a highly developed article. But see ClaudineChionh's fairly recent response. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:32, 23 January 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.

Noticeboard for file movers?

Hi, and hope you're well. Two requests at Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming have been outstanding for a week. Is there a [well-watched] noticeboard to request help from file movers? Thanks in advanced, and enjoy your weekend! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Rotideypoc41352. Have you looked at Category talk:Wikipedia files requiring renaming? The latest (2022) discussion suggests that only a couple of editors manage the category, so you could start a new discussion and ask them what is happening now. TSventon (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Perhaps they could use some help? Do you think posting such a request at WP:AN would be too pushy? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

You could try that. TSventon (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

For my own future ref: Pppry cleared the backlog before I could do anything else. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Austria vs. Australia

I'm adding the {{Distinguish}} template on articles like "Geography of…", "History of…". Any objections? ArionStar (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Well... I guess it makes sense, to me. People don't get confused that much, but often enough to make it a net positive, is my guess... I'd consider using it on only a few big pages, like History and Geography, but not everything (like "1987 in Austria" or "Australian serial killers" etc. But that's just me. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding on main general pages (Parliament, Religion, Cuisine…)… ArionStar (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It sounds bad to me. If it was good then why only on some articles? There are probably hundreds like Austria–France relations, Football in Austria and so. The names aren't that similar. Are there many people who would confuse them? I suggest you first bring it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Austria and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia (which by the way don't have hatnotes to eachother). PrimeHunter (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

How to ping all both WikiProjects editors? Even using it in the main pages (Australia and Austria) sounds bad? ArionStar (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't ping. You can just post to one of the WikiProject talk pages and post a discussion link to the other. I think the main Australia and Austria is different. They have a list of links so it's just one more word in a list, and it's the whole page name which can be confused. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean no offense ArionStar, but this sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Something this obvious would've probably been already done long ago if there was a need for it. Now having posted that, times do change and perhaps such knowledge isn't so common among younger Wikipedia users these days; so, I guess there's no harm in discussing it. You might want to be careful how you frame your post on whichever of the two WikiProject talk pages you decide to post on, though. You should probably also expect to receive some negative responses since there are probably going to post more than a few who feel this isn't really something that needs to be done. I suggest you pick one of the two talk pages (ideally the most active one) for the actual post and then use a {{Please see}} template to notify the other WikiProject of the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It does make sense, but not everything that makes sense is a good idea. I'm on the "Don't do it, nobody needs or wants it" side here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per previously well-argued objections. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose template-addition for reasons stated above. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok,  Reverted. ArionStar (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems pretty unnecessary. This would effect so many articles all for a mistake that would become obvious almost immediately to any reader. Australia is not a mountainous German-speaking country in Central Europe, Austria is not a former British colony with six states and two territories covering an entire continent. LivelyRatification (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:2027 NCAA Division I FBS football season

Can you please make a draft article for the 2027 NCAA Division I FBS football season please. ~2026-50634-9 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't usually answer here, but you can create one yourself using Wikipedia:Article wizard. Seanwk :) ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It is almost certainly WP:TOOSOON to create a draft about the 2027 football season in January 2026. Athanelar (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:2026 NCAA Division I FBS football season was created on 4 September 2024. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

what is it?? lie , plz delete

Per WP:RUSUKR. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Russo-Ukrainian war#War crimes and human rights violations. ~2026-51127-4 (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

If you think information in that article is incorrect, you should note in the at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian war which information you think is incorrect and why. Athanelar (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

"Russian authorities and armed forces have committed multiple war crimes in the form of deliberate attacks against civilian targets, massacres of civilians, torture and rape of women and children, and many indiscriminate attacks in densely populated areas... The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (OHCHR) has documented the murder of at least 73 civilians—mostly men, but also women and children—in Bucha... In 2024, the UN Human Rights Office reported that Russia is committing severe human rights violations in occupied Ukraine, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, crackdown on protests and freedom of speech, enforced Russification, indoctrination of children, and suppression of Ukrainian language and culture... Russia has also systematically attacked Ukrainian medical infrastructure... Many Russian soldiers confessed of raping, looting and torturing Ukrainian civilians and soldiers in intercepted phone calls..."—I suggest you take this up with the Kremlin, not here. But thanks for making sure it doesn't drop out of people's minds. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Tfm

Is there a way to fix Template:Tfm so it is only as wide as the template itself?

It is causing trouble on some pages when it displays above a sidebar.

Late Night Coffee ☕ (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee: Yes, see Template:Tfm#Sidebar. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@John of Reading thanks. Late Night Coffee (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Eric Corne does not appear as a direct search result

On December 4, I published the article Eric Corne, which has since been accepted and is live on Wikipedia. However, when performing a search engine query such as “Eric Corne Wikipedia”, the article does not appear as a direct search result. Instead, only various other pages related to the word or name “Corne” are shown, and the article itself does not seem to be indexed, even further down the results.

When inspecting the page source, I noticed that the following meta tag is still present:

<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard">

Could this be the reason why the article is not appearing in search engine results? If so, is this expected behavior for newly accepted articles, and how (or when) is this tag removed?

Thank you very much for your assistance. MaiAden (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are not listed on most search engines until they have been patrolled. Whilst we obviously aim for this to happen quickly, there is a massive backlog so it can take some time before a new page patroller gets around to it. There is currently a backlog drive going on, so hopefully it will not be too long before it is reviewed. CoconutOctopus talk 16:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the helpful information and guidance. I really appreciate your time and support! ~2026-52317-6 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MaiAden: I assume you used an external search engine like Google and yes, this is expected for new articles until they are 90 days old or have been patrolled by an editor with a certain user right. See Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). New articles do appear in our own search engine. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the helpful information and guidance. I really appreciate your time and support! ~2026-52317-6 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Your article went through Articles for Creation, which is separate from New Pages Patrol. You should get a notification when it is reviewed. You can also go to WP:NPP, then New pages feed and click on Select filters to enter your account name to see whether articles you created recently have been patrolled. TSventon (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the helpful information and guidance. I really appreciate your time and support! ~2026-52317-6 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

platform iyanyun.com

Sir, the platform states that it belongs to the company. Please answer if it belongs to you. ~2026-52573-9 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, do you have a question about Wikipedia? TSventon (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Coloring links to my user page

I seem to recall that there is a gadget or script or something that allows a user to see links to their own user page in a custom color. To be clear, I'm looking for a way that I alone will see links to my user page in the custom color, while links to other users' user pages will be unchanged for me, and of course other users will see no change in any links. Is there such a thing? CodeTalker (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe Help:User style contains what you're looking for. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, if it's described on that page, I'm not seeing it. There isn't even an instance of the phrase "user page" on that page. Furthermore, looking at the HTML for some pages that contain a link to my user page, I don't see any class or id that I could address with CSS. The HTML markup for the link to my user page looks pretty much the same as the link to anyone else's user page, as far as I can see. That's why I thought it might require a gadget or script. But maybe I'm misremembering and this isn't possible. CodeTalker (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@CodeTalker:Try this in your CSS:

body a[href$='/wiki/User:CodeTalker'] {color:gold;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, thanks, that works!
However, it produces a warning on the common.css page that says "Attribute selectors with $= are slow!" Do you think that's anything to worry about? CodeTalker (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@CodeTalker: Not if it works and there is no distracting color change after page load. CSS runs in your own browser and uses no server resources (apart from transmitting that one line) so it doesn't bother anyone else. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@CodeTalker: Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how you see your signature has a version without a warning. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks again! I think that was the thing I was originally trying to remember. CodeTalker (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for misdirecting you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on William Beckford (novelist)

Special:Diff/1334638732

In a reference to a recently published biography I quoted a C19th memoir. This is what is queried. I do not know how to make it plainer

Thanks, MMSteer (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

MMSteer reference 9 has an error message {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help) The reference has date=1998 and year=1984, which is correct? TSventon (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

1998 is the publication of Mowl's book, citing an earlier work that appeared in 1893. I didn’t see how to make this clearer. MMSteer (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the incorrect date and cleared the error message. TSventon (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Tx MMSteer (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Blocked TAs

So, based on evidence I've spent the last hour or so looking at, I believe an editor has been editing logged out for six weeks. One of the TAs I believe is them made a legal threat and is now blocked for it. Their IP is dynamic. Is this an issue we can even do anything about, and if so, is it for SPI? Sorry, still getting used to TA stuff, and it doesn't look like wt:spi has much activity. Valereee (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It is possible to block a range of IP addresses. There is guidance at WP:RANGE, including where to ask if you are not an expert. Of course an expert may turn up here. SPI is less useful as they generally won't publicly link an account with IPs or TAs. TSventon (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, TSv. I'll go poke around at WP:RANGE! Valereee (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

FYI, the page for reporting sockpuppets is WP:SPI, WT:SPI is the talk page for that page, so it's for meta discussion about SPI, if that makes sense. Athanelar (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page seems to get little discussion, which is why I didn't ask there. Valereee (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

There were several answered questions at WT:SPI in December, so the page seems to be reasonably active. TSventon (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Create a new page

Stupid as I may be, I can’t  see anywhere that says how to do this MMSteer (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

What kind of page are you looking to create? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I want to create a profile page for Cherubim Music Trust http://cherubimtrust.org/ MMSteer (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

As you are a brand new editor, we strongly recommend you hang around Wikipedia making smaller edits for at least a few weeks before you think about creating an article. It's a very complex task which requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and norms, which there is simply no feasible way for you to have picked up in the past 7 hours. Athanelar (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

OK. I'm sure you’re right! MMSteer (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MMSteer. I'll add this to what others have said:

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.

Also, experience shows that when a new editor immediately wants to set about creating a page, they are often intending what Wikipedia regards as promotion, even though they didn't think they were doing so.

I should also ask if you have any connection with CMT? If you haven't, then just say so, and people will respect that. But if you have, you need to read about editing with a conflict of interest: you are not forbidden from doing so, but it is even more difficult to do so successfully than if you do not have a connection with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@MMSteer: Wikipedia doesn't have profiles; so, it's not like social media or a personal website in that sense. A Wikipedia article about Cherubum Music Trust is trust will be acceptable if you can demonstrate the trust satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. The trust may be doing some really great things and help lots of musicians, but it will need to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines for an article to be created about it. Please take a look at WP:NOBLECAUSE because you might find that information helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk)

Editing my user name

How do I edit my username? WayneRebhornR (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

You may request a change of username via Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

But, @WayneRebhornR, since this is your only edit on this account, it will probably be easier for everybody if you simply abandon this account and create a new one with the new name

On the other hand, if you actually mean that you want to customise how your name appears in your signature, then please see WP:CUSTOMSIG. ColinFine (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Infobox template

Which is the appropriate Infobox template for a trade fair or exhibition? Because I see in article such as: EXCON, Infobox: exhibition doesnt work properly except for fetching data from Wikidata.. --~2026-45116-2 (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-45116-2: What do you mean by "doesnt work properly"? The infobox in EXCON has several parameters and all are displayed correctly as far as I can tell. Is this about another Wikipedia langauge? This is a help desk for the English Wikipedia. Language editions can have different templates and parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: My concern is that Template:Infobox exhibition dosent have a detailed full syntax values as compared to the likes of: Template:Infobox venue, Template:Infobox company etc. Parameters such as: ′caption′, ′official website′ are considered as ′unknown parameters′ in Template:Infobox exhibition (you can verify it in article: IMTEX ).. Official website mentioned in the corresponding Wikidata-entry are not fetched in Wiki article at all. --~2026-47060-7 (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-47060-7, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A template (and specifically, an infobox template) has only those parameters which the people who created it chose to include. If you would like additional parameters included, ask on the talk page Template Talk:Infobox exhibition. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine: A talkpage to Template:Infobox exhibition doesn't exist at all and I wonder who will address it if I post a query there.. --~2026-48624-9 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine: haha.. by the way for a moment it seemed like I am not welcomed here. By your edit history I came to know this is not the teahouse.. --~2026-48624-9 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48624-9, you can create that talk page. People who are watching the Template will see changes to the Talk page on their watchlists.

Yes, sorry about that welcome: I thought I was on the Teahouse, and put that in; it was only later I realised that I had not been. I thought of just removing it, but that is a bad practice for discussion pages, because I don't know who has already seen it. So I struck it through: I didn't think about how that would come across to you! ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Glad to talk to a nice person like you @ColinFine:, thank you. I created this account to reply, as, to prevent spam, there was an IP limit for editing. --Gandabherunda01 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Script error

When previewing Prince George's County, Maryland, I get twice the following.

Script warning: THEUNITEDSTATES (" United States") is not a recognized country in ISO 3166-1 (Module:ISO 3166).

This also occurs when previewing a version from several months ago, so it doesn't appear from something I changed. Since THEUNITEDSTATES is not in the file, I presume that someone has changed an underlying template or module.Naraht (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the warning relates to {{Infobox U.S. county}} as removing the infobox removes the warning. Hopefully an expert here can explain further, otherwise you could ask at the template talk page. TSventon (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This occurs also on other pages using the same infobox. I think the problem is that {{Infobox U.S. county}} calls {{Infobox settlement}} but does not supply the ISO code specifically and the template then tries to use subdivision_name parameter which is a flag icon? @Zackmann08: you have been editing Infobox U.S. county, do you have an idea about why this happens? MKFI (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but this one is over my head. Not sure what the ISO code stuff is all about... If someone figures out the fix, since I am a TE, I'm happy to implement it! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't get the search window/line when I sign in????

The search line does not show up when I sign in to Wikipedia??? Freeconsta (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

If there is a magnifying glass icon, click on that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on All I Have to Do Is Dream

Special:Diff/1334807665

I recently added a citation to an edit I made, but I received a message saying that there was an error in that I had used a "bare URL." I would like some assistance in attaching a title to the citation. For edification, this is the URL in question: https://www.discogs.com/release/17737495-Kermit-Unpigged

Thanks, JordanBriskin (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi JordanBriskin. There's some information on how to use the citation template Template:Cite web found on its documentation page, which excludes various examples and describes the parameters that are OK to use. Please take a look at that page for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @JordanBriskin. The message is telling you that you did not provide the title for the citation, and {{cite web}} requires one. As far as I can see, the title is "Kermit - Unpigged" - but please be aware that Discogs is not regarded as a reliable source, as it is user-generated; so it should not be cited. See WP:DISCOGS. ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if I can find a suitable alternative. JordanBriskin (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on All I Have to Do Is Dream

Special:Diff/1334807665

I am currently in the process of adding a new citation concerning the cover from Kermit Unpigged, but I seem to have hit a snag. When I hover over the citation number on the preview page, it reads, "Check date values in: |access-date=".

As I am new to citation editing, I request assistance in addressing this matter.

Thanks, JordanBriskin (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@JordanBriskin:. Since the somewhat related to what you've asked above, there was really no need for you to start new discussion thread. You can just add you're new question to the previous thread. As for your issues with the access-date format, this kind of thing is also explained on the Template:Cite web's documentation page. You can also click on the blue "help" that typically appears in parenthesis when you see an error like this (see here for an example of what I mean). Another error has already fixed the problem: it looks like you tried to add "25 April 2026" as the access-date; hopefully, you can understand why that was wrong. Finally, just a suggestion, but perhaps try formatting citations in your user sandbox first to see how they appear and see whether there are any errors. If everything checks out, you can then copy-paste the citation into the article you want to use it in. If not, you can take your time to try and figure out why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on All I Have to Do Is Dream

Special:Diff/1334821118

I have been informed that I accidentally formatted the date in the citation I recently made. I am unsure how to format it correctly, so I request assistance.

Thanks, JordanBriskin (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Once again, you don't need to start a new discussion thread everytime you have a new question about essentially the same thing. It looks like the problems with the citations have been fixed by another user. If you want to see how they did that, you can look for their edit in the article's page history. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Zareen Khan

I have been contacted by Zareen Khan who proposes helping strengthen my wikipedia page. Can you please confirm his association with wikipedia and review his proposal to assist me as below.

Dear Professor Barnes, Thank you for your confirmation, and I appreciate your trust. I’m glad to proceed as outlined. Based on our initial review, your page would benefit most from a structured, policy-compliant enhancement to bring it fully up to date with your more recent milestones and academic contributions. Regarding pricing, we offer three distinct service packages depending on the level of support you’d like: 1. One-Time Edit Package — $1899 (Recommended) This includes a comprehensive one-time refinement of your Wikipedia page. We will enhance the structure, incorporate recent achievements, strengthen sourcing, and ensure full compliance with Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability standards. 2. Unlimited Edits for 6 Months — $2499 This package provides ongoing editorial support for six months, allowing continuous updates, refinements, and long-term stability. Ideal if you anticipate regular additions over the coming months. 3. Per-Edit Package — $799 per edit A flexible option for smaller, isolated updates or occasional adjustments, completed individually under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Given your page’s current scope and the amount of recent material to incorporate, the One-Time Edit Package would be the most efficient and suitable starting point. If you would like to go ahead, please confirm, and I will immediately share the formal contract along with the secure payment link so we can initiate the project workflow right away. -- Warm regards, Zareen Khan Project Consultant OklaCali (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @OklaCali, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm afraid the person you are talking to is trying to scam you. This is an unfortunately common problem and you should absolutely not send any money to this individual. You should forward the email chain to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org and stop replying at once. CoconutOctopus talk 20:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Please read the scam warning and stop communicating with this person. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, these idiots charge $800 per edit for this nonsense?! No wonder paid editors are so determined to get their articles made, that's a hell of a fee to lose out on.

Yes, as others have said, you are being scammed. Please report that person to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org Athanelar (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. I had successfully worked initially with Sean Warner in 2024, but have not been able to reconnect with him more recently to help with updates. I have also been contacted by others who indicate an interest in helping me. OklaCali (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid Mr Warner and everyone else who has contacted you was also attempting to scam you. No legitimate Wikipedia editor will contact you off-site and suggest editing your biography, and absolutely none would edit for pay. CoconutOctopus talk 21:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, you did not "successfully work with" anybody; Mr. Warner (who I doubt is even a real person) successfully parted you from your money in exchange for a service that everybody else here provides for free. None of these people have any interest in 'helping' you, they want to trick you into paying them for "updating" your Wikipedia page, a service that is neither necessary nor worth paying for. Athanelar (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

OklaCali, I commend you, and thank you, for checking here before parting with your money. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Randomly opened this page to see this...wow. OklaCali, others have explained what to do, but also keep in mind that help from actual Wikipedia editors will always be free, and pages like this are the right place to come for that help. HurricaneZeta^C 23:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @OklaCali. It appears from what you say above, that Wikipedia has an article about you. While you should not directly edit that article, you are welcome to make edit requests, that other editors will review and decide what to do with. See WP:AUTOPROB.

Keep in mind that the article should be almost entirely a summary of what people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you, rather than anything that you say or want to say about yourself. So any information you wish to add to the article should be cited to a reliable published source, and preferably a source wholly unconnected with you. ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@OklaCali: You've gotten a lot of responses already. Just for the sake of clarification, paid-editing isn't expressly prohibited by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) or by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Undisclosed paid-editing is a violation of the WMF's terms of use, but paid-editing is allowed as long as it's properly declared. Paid-editors don't get any special priviledges (like special article approval rights or final editorial control rights) when it comes to Wikipedia, though; they're expected to comply with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just like everyone else and are, furthermore, encouraged to follow the guidance given WP:COI. What's important to understand is that a paid-editor isn't an employee of Wikipedia or the WMF; they're more like a freelancer or private contracter/company. So, any agreement you enter into with one of themis between you and them, not between you, them and the WMF or Wikipedia. Paid-editing and COI-editing are viewed dimly by many members of the Wikipedia community, and many mistakenly assume such things are bad in all cases and stupid because why pay for something you can get for free. Your money, however, is your money and you can spend it as you please. If you want to pay someone for their skill at editing Wikipedia, you, of course, can just like you might pay any for their skills at what they do. You just need to due your due dilligence and make sure this person can do what they say they can do and aren't just telling you things you want to hear just to get your money. There are most likely some people out there who do make money editing Wikipedia but who do things properly. They won't try to sugarcoat you, but will be very upfront about what they can and can't do. Someone may promise you they will create an article about you if you pay them and then claim they fulfilled their end of the deal regardless of whether the article ends up deleted for some reason later on. So, if you find someone offering to create an article for you for money, you just need to treat it like other services you pay for: make sure you ask the right questions, be skeptical of claims and guarantees that seem really too good to be true, and read the fine print before signing anything. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

What is the name of the article? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Renee Good Wiki page

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

---

. The Renee Good Wiki page should stand out as an embarrassment to Wiki. It is not only egregiously biased, it is non-factual. This page needs deleted and rewritten in a non biased factual account. How and why does wiki allow this blatant political bias?? Pages like this are why users are shying away from using and/or believing ANYTHING on Wiki. ~2026-15683-6 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

If you only want to read what you want to hear and what fits your views, this isn't the place for you. We cannot respond to "this is biased, fix it". Please point out specific concerns at Talk:Killing of Renée Good. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

They can't because the talk page is extended-confirmed protected.

This is a drive-by complaint that's unlikely ever to see your reply. A common response is simply to revert them when you see them. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:27, 26 January 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.

Publish my article online

How can I put my article online? I'm not sure if I've done it or not. Can anyone help? SilverCoastEV (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SilverCoastEV.

You have attempted to create your draft in your user page, which is not the right place for it. I have moved it to Draft:Engel & Volkers West Coast and Sintra, which is a more appropriate place. (More reply to follow) ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@SilverCoastEV, thank you for declaring your COI. You say you are "associated with the company". If you are in any way employed or compensated by or on behalf of the company (including as an unpaid intern or volunteer), then Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor, and you must make a formal declaration of that status as explained in that link.

I have added a header to the draft to allow you to submit it for review, when it is ready.

It is at present nowhere near ready, because it does not have a single source cited.

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.

Wikipedia is not interested in what your company wants people to know about itself. In order for the article to be even possible, it must cite, and be almost entirely based on, several sources that are completely independent of the company (see WP:golden rule).

I think that your user name may be contrary to the username policy, as it suggests that you are editing on behalf of an organisation, and that the account may possibly be used by multiple people. All Wikipedia accounts are personal, and may not be shared; and they may not suggest that they are being used by or to promote an organisation (you do not have to use your real name - most people don't - and a name like "Jose at Silver Coast" would be OK). Since you have only five edits in your history, the easiest option is to abandon that account and create a new one. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This has zero chance of being accepted at the moment. It is basically a piece of advertising blurb with no sources. Please see Your first article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

User id

How do I find my user id? Seanacoy (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by user ID? jolielover♥talk 03:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that some user pages include both a username and a multi-digit “user id.” Of every registered user has such an id, there should be a way for me to find mine. One source says it shows in preferences, but I haven’t found it there. If it isn’t important, I can skip the search. Seanacoy (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you link to a page that shows both a name and a user ID? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Go to your user page, then under "Tools" (on the right-hand side in Vector 2022, left-hand in Vector 2010) click "Page information". It will show your user ID, which is 20458702. Jimbo Wales' (co-founder of Wikipedia) user ID is 24. OutsideNormality (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Seanacoy: User ID was shown at Special:Preferences many years ago but was removed because it's irrelevant to almost everybody. I have been an administrator since 2007 and have never used it. Most users who display it are probably old-timers who added it when it was in preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

thanks Seanacoy (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You may be referring to WP:Temporary accounts, which appear as multi-digit user IDs for people who either never registered an account, or forgot to log into theirs. You can see yours if you forget to log in, but remember this is temporary and can change. It's based on your browser cookies. Clear your cookies or use a different browser and you get a different temporary account. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Bill Arp

Special:Diff/1334859145

I just got a message about a "missing title error" on the page that I just edited, Bill Arp.

Can you explain to me what that means and how I should fix it? Thanks.

Thanks, Hudsonberry (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hudsonberry: Usually it means exactly what it sounds like; that the {{citation}} template is missing a title written after |title=. In this case the problem is the {{cite news}} reference included after the quote "Verily reconstruction was worse than war. But it is all over now, [...]. Lynch 'em! Hang 'em! Shoot 'em! Burn 'em." To fix it, add the name of the newspaper article as a title to the reference. – Scyrme (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, got it- thanks very much! I will go fix it now. Hudsonberry (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Whoops-- I see the issue: that particular article doesn't have an actual title- just the author's name at the top of the column. Can I get away with "untitled article "or something like that, or should I just leave it alone? Again thanks very much for your help. Hudsonberry (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You can give it a name, like simply Editorial or Opinion. If the section of the newspaper is identified, you can call it that. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks-- that what all do. Appreciate the correction. Hudsonberry (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Sigh... "that's what I'll do" Autocorrect strikes again. Hudsonberry (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hudsonberry: Where an article doesn't have a title, I use (untitled) as the title. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I will definitely remember that-- appreciate the help. Hudsonberry (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for Lua/template coding help

Presently, when {{GHS phrases/list all}} has |setid=P the table it produces begins from P103 rather than P101. I've been trying to figure out why, but have been unsuccessful. The template pulls its data from Module:GHS phrases/data which straightforwardly just lists all the entries in order. The entries for P101 and P102 don't appear to be in anyway different from P103, so I don't think the data module is to blame (though I may be wrong).

That suggests the problem is with Module:GHS phrases which {{GHS phrases/list all}} invokes to generate the table. I've looked at that module, but I don't see a difference between what it does for H phrases (invoked when |setid=H) and what it does for P phrases (invoked when |setid=P), so I'm unsure why the template is only fails to start from the beginning of the list for the P phrases. Can anyone here help with fixing this?

If this isn't the best place to ask, I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction! – Scyrme (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:VPT might be better, for Lua issuers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try there! – Scyrme (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits : Where can One see things to edit ?

where can a new user find something to edit ? Raghu Narayana Raju (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Task Center is set up for just such editors as yourself. Good luck! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Raghu Narayana Raju Alternatively, navigate to Special:Homepage, which is a separate tab on your user page and you'll be given some suggestions. As you have not yet created the user page itself, you may not have noticed that option. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

left-wingers making anyone they disagree with "far-right".

No the far left individual should not be allowed to come in here and make everyone they disagree with as being extremist. If anyone is the extremist it is the leftist who rummage through here making everyone but themselves extremists. Most people they label as far right are actually more moderate than they are. You claim "good faith" but in reality you pander to the dregs on the far left. ~2026-49247-9 (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to let you know that we rely on Reliable Sources WP:RS to direct our writing, and if a "far-right" label is used, it'll be properly sourced. You far-right thugs can go fish. - Walter Ego 00:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Objectively, many people labeled as "far right" are far right, and those you label "far left" are usually moderates or a bit left of centre... Just because you swing even farther to the right than these people does not make them moderate in the same way a moderate saying fascism is a bad thing doesn't make him far left. Simply labeling a political position on the left-right access does not imply anything about it other than how far left or right it is, the fact that you take this as an insult should lead to reflection mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

who deals with fallen trees on Majella rd Westminster

who deals with fallen trees on Majella rd Westminster ~2026-49033-0 (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 7.1 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. I suggest checking with the local government in wherever the Westminster you ask about might be. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! This page is for people who need help editing wikipedia. You might have better luck with a search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo. If you still want help from a Wikipedian, then the reference desk could prove helpful! mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Broken map on Maryland Route 769

I see that the map in the infobox on Maryland Route 769 is broken, I'm not sure what needs to be changed to fix it.Naraht (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that the {{maplink-road}} template in the infobox is missing critical parameters (lat, long, zoom). I have no idea what they should be so I commented it out for now. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Naraht: The appropriate place to raise this issue is Talk:Maryland Route 769. Though you might think that nobody would notice your edit on the article talk page, that's not necessarily true. As an FYI, there is a "related" page at https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11706583. (FWIW, I believe the underlying issue is that the Maryland DOT considers that this route no longer exists, and I could be wrong, but I am doubtful about adding in the parameters mentioned in the preceding comment.) Fabrickator (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Fabrickator I'm not sure where you get that it doesn't exist. It is in the pdf on the state highway administration as of 2024. https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OPPEN/2024%20Prince%20George's.pdf Naraht (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Naraht My inference was as stated, but I am really not an expert in this area. Repeating myself, the appropriate place to raise this issue is Talk:Maryland Route 769). Fabrickator (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Fabrickator I posted to the talk page for the article, and the map was removed by another editor. If it gets a response, we'll see.Naraht (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

is it possible to use two colors at the same time in a wikitable cell?

I was editing List of pharaohs and some entries in that list have colored background to indicate things like if they were not a official pharaoh but acted de facto like one over a large portion of the country or if there existence is disputed. Mentuhotep I fits two of these categories, he is not attested in anything created when he supposedly lived so his historicity has been questioned and he did exists he was almost certainly was not considered a pharaoh while he was alive so I am wondering if there is a way for me to color his entry two different colors to indicate both of these thing and if there is not what is the recommended way to show it PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 22:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@PharaohCrab: I don't know a way to split the background color of the cell but you could add background color to the text with some padding to make it more visible like <span style="background-color:#EBEBEB;padding:15px;>[[Mentuhotep I]]</span>. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@PharaohCrab: technically, it is possible to use a two-color gradient with a sharp cut to create a two-color background but I don't know if it is a good idea. For example replacing bgcolor="#FFE3F9" with style="background:linear-gradient(0deg,rgba(42, 123, 155, 1) 50%, rgba(237, 221, 83, 1) 50%);" will create two-color background:

Example

MKFI (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

ok thanks! PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 23:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@MKFI, @PharaohCrab: Please don't do that. It contravenes MOS:CONTRAST. Bazza 7 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

then what would you recommend I do? PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 23:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand the mechanism behind the trick, but could the "fake gradient" be modified so it has a blue edge and a yellow edge with a mostly blank middle? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@PharaohCrab I use a browser-based dark mode (not Wikipedia's dark mode) and the second half of your current signature is unreadable due to its low contrast. If you are in the process of updating your signature, please be careful with contrast. David10244 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

(This is for a colour-coded table in an article, but the same thing may apply anyway) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@PharaohCrab If you need to inform readers about something unusual or exceptional then use words not colours. WP:FOOTNOTES are the usual method: in this case {{efn}} might be helpful. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The gradient can create a white area in the middle, yes:

Example

MKFI (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@MKFI: Very clever, but still only decoration for the purposes of WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

But can it create a "nothing or transparent" area? I agree that the whole plan of inserting hard-coded backgrounds is a problem from the beginning, no matter what the colour choices are. User CSS on Wikipedia, or browser extensions or whatever, need to be able to access and modify the table backgrounds. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: yes, creating a transparent region is easy by changing the alpha.

Example

MKFI (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I can't read that - black text on a black background. Yeah, this entire method seems flawed from the beginning. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Standard of evidence for opening an SPI

Hello, I recently opened an SPI investigation as I was suspicious of an account. The account did turn out to be a sockpuppet, though not of the account I initially thought it was the puppet of. My question was, what is the standard of evidence needed to open a SPI case? Many SPI cases are based on relatively subjective analysis of a given users behavior so I would appreciate any feedback. Especially since the SPI page cautions against opening a case with no evidence. Thank you! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mustbeotherwise: I am not an SPI expert, but I think your report was fine. You had evidence and you presented it clearly and concisely. You don't have to identify the sockmaster with 100% certainty. You could ask the clerk who closed the case if they have any feedback on your report. TSventon (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at my report and your feedback! I sincerely appreciate it. I'll reach out to the clerk. Mustbeotherwise (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

My impression is that the main thing they need is solid literal evidence. If you show solid evidence that something is not right, I think (to some extent at least) figuring out what's not right is part of their job.

I think if you go there with real evidence but you turn out to be wrong, you'll soon get a better feel for how the evidence works, and make fewer mistakes. I expect they're mostly OK with that. It's pretty obvious that people rushing over there without very specific evidence is the constant problem for them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate it! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

How to make a minor correction

0n the Hunter College High School page, under Alumni, it mentions Esther Friesner, author, class of 1951. Esther was in my class, the class of 1968.Years after we graduated, I reached out to congratulate her about her books, which I enjoyed. Since I was in her class and I was born in 1951, I suspect that 1951 is the year she was born. But I know for sure that Esther Friesner, Science Fiction author, was in the Hunter Class of 1968. I could probably dig up my copy of the yearbook, "Annals" to prove it. Do I really need to create a user name and password to correct this??? That might be a deal breaker. ~2026-46297-2 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

1951 is given as her birth year on the article about her (I have added links in your comment). I will make that change. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46297-2: Thanks for the correction. You don't need a user account to edit most Wikipedia articles. You could just have clicked the pencil icon at Hunter College High School#Alumni. Normally I would say to include a published reliable source per our policies but listing her birth year was obviously wrong, 17 years later is plausible, and most of the other years are also unsourced. It's one of the rare cases where I would accept personal knowledge. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Oo-er, matron. That's going in my list of Unlikely Things Ever To Have Happened, along with the sad demise of User:Andy Dingley. :> MinorProphet (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Penrose triangles

i managed to construct a 3d Penrose triangle out of cardboard but when I try to post it some guy keeps removing it I uploaded a picture of it on to Wikipedia

The first 3D Penrose triangle created by Mr.Malfunction : The Master Of Destruction

MrMalfunctionTheMasterOfDestruction (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

What reason did the other person give, for deleting? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

In the Penrose triangle edit he thought it was AI and that my post wasn't helpful. MrMalfunctionTheMasterOfDestruction (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

What you constructed is an object which creates the illusion of a Penrose triangle when viewed from the correct angle, not an actual Penrose triangle. There are many sculptures that do a similar thing. – Scyrme (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I quote your talk page: If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. If you believe the edit filter disallowance was a false positive, please report it. ("My talk page" means User talk:LuniZunie.) You're free to take up the invitation. -- Hoary (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Why is this happening to the table

I'm trying to add a new row to this table but for some reason it insists there must be another column. I've tried adding redundant "|-" and opening visual editor to delete the column with the ? that way but I just end up having a ghost column with no cells yet still displaying, and then when I publish it pulls the 2 over to where the ? was when I hit publish. This is really annoying and from how I understand the markup the ? should be ending up where the 2 is. I can't figure out what the issue is.

Bafflement

No.	a		b
1	c	d e	f
			g
		j i
				?
2	x	x	x
3

Maltazarian (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian: Is this what you want:

No.	a		b
1	c	d e	f
			g
		j i
2	x	x	x
3

Each row must have at least one cell which is declared in that row. Your table has rowspan="4" in the "1" cell but no cells are declared in the last of those 4 rows so I reduced the rowspan by 1 for each cell which extended into that row. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, fantastic! Thank you, this is what I intended yes. Maltazarian (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah looking at it the issue was that I wasn't aware that each row had to have a cell declared, this makes a whole lot more sense now. Maltazarian (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Comma after fronted years in British English

Is a comma correct after a fronted year in British English (e.g., 'In 2011, William married Catherine')?

I've noticed that some British‑English pages omit the comma, while others — including several Featured Articles — include it. For example, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and George VI all use the comma after a fronted year.

I've been discussing this with another editor and I’m trying to get clarification on which form is actually correct. As far as I've ever known in British English, the comma is normally added after a fronted year, so the omission looks unusual to me.

Is there a specific MOS guideline that says whether the comma should be included or omitted in British English? Any clarification on this would be very helpful. Thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

ENGVAR does not regulate comma use. See the RfC that was held on the subject last year. Whether a comma should be included or not is determined by consensus through editing and discussion, regardless of the variety of English used. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 10:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful reply. ItsShandog (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Every classroom used for English writing instruction should have an LED display on the wall, similar to those "number of accident-free days" displays used by some industries, that shows the current worldwide number of English-language arguments about where to put a comma. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

No, a thousand times, no. Read Eats, Shoots and Leaves. MinorProphet (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

No to what? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

"In 2011 cases of food poisoning was evident."

"In 2011 cases of food poisoning increased by a third."

"In 2011 cases of food poisoning were up."

"In 2011 cases of food poisoning the patient recovered." TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

(My point is that sometimes it really is right to stick in a comma just because it will probably help.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

No to 'In 2011, William married Catherine', unless "In 2011 cases William married Catherine." was meant. Re-writing the sentence often improves matters. I'm a great fan of the Oxford comma, by the way... MinorProphet (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Lowell Police Department (Indiana)

How can Lowell Police Department (Indiana) be notable. MagicalPrince863 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely to be anything of the sort. For the criteria we use, read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --Orange Mike | Talk 05:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

If there is something encyclopedic to say about the police department of a town of less than 11,000 people, then the appropriate place for that content is almost certainly Lowell, Indiana. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Centering multiple images

I have resized images so the text they contain is the same size using Template:Multiple image. See here. This has made it obvious that one image is left-aligned; is there a way to align this to the center? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 09:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave The very first parameter in {{Multiple image}} is align. That will do the trick if you use |align=centre. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

... but maybe you meant to align just part of your multiple images? Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, yeah, just part of it. The align parameter puts it all in the middle of the page which isn't what I'm after. There is a box around the multiple images, I want the first image to be centered within that box. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave My suggestion by this edit is to make the first image fill the full width, which makes it easier to read. If that's not OK, you'll have to seek out an expert! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Haha, I may just have to. Thanks anyway, I put the images at different sizes so the font would be the same in each image. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 11:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Note that WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images suggests you shouldn't put text into images like that (as .jpg) in any case, as screen readers can't read them. You would have to put in a large "alt-text" for it to be acceptable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Topic list

Am I allowed to copy-paste this message to warn other people? User_talk:LateNightCoffee#contentious_topics

I tried to work out how to do it using a template, but I can't find the topic "Syrian Civil War and ISIL" on the list: Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#List_of_contentious_topics

Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

At the bottom of that notice there is a link to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL which is the relevant general sanctions page. That page also contains the relevant warning templates. SCW&ISIL appears to be a community-designated CTOP rather than an arbitration CTOP, and it's hidden in a different list at Template:Gs/topics/table. Athanelar (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice that last link was specific to the topic. I tried the first two and just ended up on the article about Syria and ISIL. Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It took me a minute to find too. I might modify the template to make it clearer. Athanelar (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Spouse: Peter Wallfisch (m. 1952–1993)

typo on birthdate.... sb 1925... actually 1924 ~2026-58692-0 (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

This counts for nothing unless you show reliable proof. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Also it says m. for married, that's not a birthdate TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Reliable source?

What happens if the most reliable source isn't classed as an reliable source?

I'm looking at improving the Neuralink article and I've come to a realization.

So much of the information regarding the company is on X. Most news comes out on X, not the actual Neuralink website, and all known implant recipients are discussing the implant with the world on X and among each other. There is information from the participants available on X that would greatly improve the quality of the article.

Here's the issue I've run into: X isn't considered an Reliable Source by Wikipedia as a whole.

What is the best way to improve the article when the most reliable source ISN'T an reliable source?

Thanks,

Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

While much information about this subject may (not surprisingly) appear on X, there must be information published, quite independently of X and any other Musk-associated entity, by sources that are considered both Reliable and Independent of the Muskosphere (to coin a term) – note that reliability depends in part on what information is being reported and how it relates to the subject; a source can be reliable for some information but not other information, depending on the use to which the information will be put in the article.

In this situation, you will just have to keep looking elsewhere than X (and etc.). Reputable science and technology journals and news magazines are bound to be reporting on this subject from time to time. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to look further into this. Thanks. Urbanracer34 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

For yourself privately, of course you're free to trust any source you want to.

Wikipedia's rules about sources are designed to filter out most lies most of the time, and it's inevitable that sometimes they're going to filter out someone who's telling the truth too. X is a platform where anybody can lie any time they want, no questions asked, and if you're Wikipedia then that's not a smart risk to take.

If the only news about a company is stuff they wrote themselves on X, they must be either very new, or non-notable, or just incompetent. If they're new or non-notable, Wikipedia prefers to wait until they're more well known. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I've had some time to reflect on this:

Neuralink posts news on X. The implant recipients are posting on X about their daily lives, most of whom have regained independence because of the implant. It has been truly life changing for these people.

The people posting about their lives with the implant ARE notable.

I feel we should let this through in this case... Using these posts on X as material to improve the article.

Could we bend the rules a bit to allow for this? Or are they set firmly in stone?

Thanks,

Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Set in stone. Nobody knows a thing about where those posts come from. Because they could be anybody, because there's no checking done, we have to treat them as total garbage. Sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Urbanracer34 I forgot to ping TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Thanks for the info. I understand where you are coming from. :( Urbanracer34 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested Move with 2 or more choices

I am working with a group of users who want to change the name of an article, but there are two or three target names. My question is how to set up the Requested Move. Should I start multiple Requested Moves, one for each possible title, or is there a way to set up one Requested Move with multiple new names? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

According to WP:RSPM, you should use the requested move template (once) and "replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered)." (my emphasis). You can then establish a consensus on where the page should move to. Chuntuk (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

How to create a dropdown section?

I want to organize the Early modern period article using dropdowns to make it easier to navigate. I can't seem to find the proper markup syntax. How would I do that? Lucevium (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "dropdowns"? Do you mean you want the sections to be collapsible? I've never seen anything like that done on any article.

If navigation using the table of contents is too difficult because sections are too large, why not add subsection headings? – Scyrme (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I am convinced that I have seen articles with collapsible sections, but I just can't remember which. In that case, I will focus on other improvements to that article's readability. Lucevium (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

A table can be made collapsible. I don't think a section can, except for subsections. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lucevium: Dropdown sections are a feature of the mobile version in narrow windows. Click "Mobile view" at the bootom of a page and make the window narrow to see it. It works for me on Early modern period. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. It works for me on desktop if I open the mobile version of the page even without narrowing the window (maybe it also depends on font size settings or monitor resolution?). Seems mobile users get a feature we don't get on desktop. – Scyrme (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I meant the sections are only collapsed by default in a narrow mobile window, at least for me. They are collapsible in a wide mobile window. Based on mw:Readers/Reader Growth/WE3.1.14 Expanded Mobile Sections there may currently be a test where users get different defaults. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I see. That explains it, thank you for the info! Lucevium (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lucevium: Regardless of the helpful replies above, be aware of MOS:DONTHIDE which discourages hiding content for accessibility reasons. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Skin stuck on MinervaNeue

My skin is stuck on MinervaNeue, despite me changing it to Vector 2022 (and other skins) multiple times; I'm not sure what's causing it. Is there any way to fix this? ^EF⁵ 15:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@EF5: I suspect you are viewing the mobile version of the site. Click "Desktop view" at the bottom of any page to switch to the desktop version where the skin selection applies. Did that help? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

"noindex" problem

I created the article 'Guanine radical cation' in November 2025. It has been over 60 days, but it is still tagged as 'noindex'. Could a New Page Patroller please review it so it can be indexed by search engines? Thank you Serbacc (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It will be indexed after 90 days if a new page patroller does not get to it in that time. There's currently a backlog of 16,607 articles at WP:NPP. Athanelar (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a WP:NPP backlog drive, so hopefully your article will be reviewed shortly. TSventon (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Changing picture on Beastie Boys page

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

---

I tried to change the first image on the Beastie Boys page, but I was unable. How can I do this? Musicbaron62 (talk) 17:08, 27 January 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.

Referencing errors on Upper Deck Company

Special:Diff/1335142503

Can someone please tell me how to make this a Citation, I am trying to Cite a Google Doc. Thanks.

Thanks, ~2026-59657-9 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Google Docs are not reliable sources. Please don't cite them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Can someone do a one-off bot or Python script or whatever to create around 1000 redirects?

For pages like List of storms named Harry, I've occasionally created redirects to them such as Storm Harry. However, there are over 1000 of them, and most do not have redirects which I think are warranted.

You can see the full list under Category:Set index articles on storms, and my own list of required redirects as redlinks on User:A bit iffy/sandbox2. I would normally just go ahead and create such redirects myself if it were 40 or 50, but with over 1000 it's unreasonable.

Is there a quick way to do this? A bit iffy (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @A bit iffy. Is this something that AWB could do? (I've never used it, so I don't know). ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You can ask for this to be done, at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Fabrizio Mori Africanist

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

---

Fabrizio Mori (Cascina (PI) 1925 – Trequanda (SI) 2010) was an italian archaeologist who worked in Africa, well-known internationally for his work on cave art of the central Sahara. INDEX Biography Scientific work Main publications External links

BIOGRAPHY Fabrizio Mori was born on 4th December 1925 in Cascina (Pisa) Italy. He obtains a High-School Classics Diploma at the Naval College in Venice. He then goes to the Naval Academy which on the 8th September is moved to Brindisi. At the end of October 1943, not yet 18 years old, he leaves the Academy to be a volunteer in the “I Raggruppamento Motorizzato Italiano”, the first group of the Armed Forces to be reorganised for the liberation of Italy. On the 8th December he takes part in the battle of Montelungo where five of his classmates from High School and the Academy die. He is decorated with the Military Honour “on the field”, is made an officer for his war effort, and is awarded honorary citizenship in Rocchetta a Volturno (Isernia). He graduates in 1954 in Political Science at the Cesare Alfieri Institute, University of Florence, with a thesis on the populations of the Sahara. In 1955 his interest in the Sahara area gives rise to the organisation of a first archaeological mission to the Libyan Fezzan, where he begins a series of research projects in the mountain range of the Tadrart Acacus, unexplored up to that time. His research, full of fascinating discoveries, permits him to start a career at the Sapienza University in Rome in 1969. Between 1972 and 1975 he teaches Prehistoric African Ethnology at the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy, a course which was set up due to his important research in the Libyan Sahara. In 1982 he is nominated Associate Professor of the same subject and then in 1989 he becomes, following a public examination, Professor of Prehistoric African Ethnology. In 1992 he is confirmed as Full Professor of Prehistoric African Ethnology, a role which he maintains until 1997. In 1980, after a break in his work on site due to family reasons, he resumes work in the Italian-Libyan joint missions for prehistoric research in the Sahara. In 1992 he founds at La Sapienza the C.I.R.S.A. (Centro Interuniversitario per la Ricerca sulle Civiltà e l’Ambiente del Sahara Antico), together with the Universities of Milan, Modena, Cassino, Pisa and l’Orientale in Naples. One of the prestigious appointments which he receives is the Presidency of the “Commission du Néolithique du Nord de l’Afrique et du Sahara” by the UISPP (Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques). In 2002 he is conferred a high honour by the Authorities of the Shaabia in the region of Ghat and Tadrart Acacus, for the scientific results obtained in that region over almost half a century of research and study, and also for the strong relationship built up with the Tuareg population who lived in the area of Tadrart Acacus, in Ghat and Aweynat. While carrying out his academic and scientific work he also works in civil commitment. In 1977 he founds the “Centro Lorenzo Mori” in Trequanda, Siena, which takes care of minors with difficulties. Later, in 2003, he founds, also in Trequanda, an Association named “Noutopia” which proposes the complete elimination of arms and violence in any form. His reflections on this topic are expressed in a book: F.Mori 2001. Nessun Bambino nasce cattivo. Bollati Boringhieri, Torino.

SCIENTIFIC WORK From 1955 to 1964 he organises a series of missions on site in the Tadrart Acacus (Libyan Fezzan), gathering together various specialists, like the geologist Angelo Pasa, at the digs and reconnaissance. In this way he sets up a kind of multidisciplinary research programme whose findings have permitted the collection of important data on the chronology of the settlement in Central Sahara, and on various aspects of the prehistoric and protohistoric cultures, in particular on cave art. Moreover, he is helped by artists, such as Ugo Furlan, Piero Guccione and Lorenzo Tornabuoni, who carry out reproductions of the cave art paintings and engravings. This first phase of the research is made public, starting from 1956, through a series of articles and a book where the important results of the research are summarised and the interpretative hypotheses on the cave art in Tadrart Acacus are published (1965). From then on he is extremely interested in preserving the cave art and the paintings in particular, an interest that pushed him to request the collaboration on site of restorers from the Istituto Centrale di Restauro in Rome. Starting from the 1960s he sets up a series of exhibitions containing the reproductions of the cave art works, in the most important Italian cities (Florence and Rome) and abroad (New York, Washington and Tripoli), and he holds conferences in the most important European and American universities. As can be seen in his second book dedicated to his research in the Libyan Fezzan (1998), after 1965 his research extends to cover the Messak Settafet massif, which has thousands of sites with engravings. In 1985 he succeeds in having the Tadrart Acacus included in the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites.

The study and interpretation of the “phenomenon” of cave art calls for a double approach according to Fabrizio Mori.  The multidisciplinary investigations directed towards the discovery of the ethnic and cultural identity of the authors of the cave art in Central Sahara which, in his opinion, has a very long history ranging between the end of the Pleistocene and the Holocene, should be accompanied by reflections, in  anthropological and philosophical terms, on the “…”historical” function of cave art,  on the role that this activity  had in the evolution of the various cultures, as manifestation or “phenomenon” of an “aesthetic” attitude. Attitude that became one of the most relevant features of the human species, linked to those non-material needs that take up more and more space in the lives of the various groups” (1988-1989: 479). From the very first missions, the two lines of investigation were closely correlated, demonstrating that in the progress of research one cannot disregard the study of any element useful to the advancement of the research itself.”

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

-Mori F. 1956.Ricerche paletnologiche nel Fezzan, Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, XI, 211-29.

-Mori F., Ascenzi A.1959. La mummia infantile di Uan Muhuggiag. Osservazioni antropologiche, Rivista dell'Istituto di Antropologia, XLI, 125- 48.

-Mori F. 1961. Aspetti di cronologia sahariana alla luce dei ritrovamenti della V missione paletnologica nell'Acacus, La Ricerca scientifica,31: 204-15.

-Mori F.1964 Short conclusions on the discussion of the chronological problem of Saharan rock art, in Pericot Garcia L.-Ripoll Perellò E. (eds.) Prehistoric art of the Western Mediterranean and the Sahara, Viking Fund Publication in Anthropology, Barcelona, 39:235-240.

-Mori F. 1965. Tadrart Acacus. Arte rupestre e culture del Sahara preistorico. Einaudi, Torino.

-Mori F. 1968. The absolute chronology of Saharan prehistoric rock art. In: Ripoll Perelló E. (cur.), Simposio Internacional de Arte Rupestre, Barcelona 1966, Deputación Provincial, Barcelona, pp.291-294.

-Mori F. 1970. Proposition d’une chronologie absolue de l’art rupestre du Sahara d’après les fouilles du Tadrart Acacus (Sahara Libyen), Valcamonica Symposium ’70, pp.345-356.

-Mori F. 1971. Proposta per una attribuzione alla fine del Pleistocene delle incisioni della fase più antica dell'arte rupestre sahariana, Origini V, 7-20.

-Mori, F. 1974. The earliest Saharan rock engravings, Antiquity, XLVIII, 87-92

-Mori F.1976. Considerazioni sull'arte preistorica sahariana. Il Tadrart Acacus. In Civiltà preistoriche del Sahara e dell'Alto Nilo, CNR, Roma.

-Mori F.1984. Prehistoric rock art in the Libyan Sahara: the result of a long biocultural process. Symposium on Libya Antiqua, UNESCO, Paris, pp.148-152.

-AA.VV.1986. Arte preistorica del Sahara, De Luca, Roma.

-Mori F.1988 -1989. Funzione e senso dell'arte rupestre preistorica, Origini XIV, 479-483.

-Mori F. 1992a. La fonction sacrale des abris à peintures dans le massifs centraux du Sahara: L'Acacus, Origini XV, 79-101.

-Mori F. 1992 b. Le civiltà del Sahara: neolitizzazione ed antropomorfismo.In Lupacciolu M. (a cura di) Arte e culture del Sahara preistorico, Quasar, Roma: 9-20.

-Mori F.1998. The Great Civilizations of the Ancient Sahara. Neolithization and the earliest evidence of anthropomorphic religions, L'Erma di Bretschneider, Roma.

EXTERNAL LINKS

-Video Università di Firenze: “Sguardi sull’arte preistorica del Sahara”.

-Video by Lucio Rosa: “Fabrizio Mori un ricordo” (Studio Film TV).

-Video by Lucio e Anna Rosa “Il segno sulla pietra” (Studio Film TV). Angebea (talk) 17:33, 27 January 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.

Looking for a template

Apologies if this isn't the right place, but I'm moving on Sunday and am wondering if there's an alert I can put on my talk page? Something like those templates that go "on wiki break" or something like that. Swee☩ Amber|Bbyshrkbss2 18:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2 be safe out there :). See Wikibreak you'll get all the break Temp there. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Ahh, I found Template:Moving. Sometimes the answer is too obvious. Thanks! Swee☩ Amber|Bbyshrkbss2 18:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with editing

Hallo. So, i wanted to make some edits in a version of Wikipedia i'm blocked in?.Could any of you do me a favor and make those edits for me? Please. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Blocked users are not permitted to make edit requests, as having others edit on your behalf is a form of block evasion. Athanelar (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to tell anyone i requested it... ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Nobody here is going to help you evade your block. Athanelar (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

If you mean that you want to edit an en-WP article that has WP:PROTECTION, your alternative is to suggest changes at that article's talkpage. If the talkpage also is protected (this sometimes happens), you can make suggestions by following the directions at WP:RFPP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks more like they want to edit a Wikipedia in another language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Suggested Language on Sidebar

Wikipedia is constantly showing me Nāhuatl as a "Suggested Language" on the sidebar for every single page, whether or not that page has a Nāhuatl language article or not. How do I remove this? Screenshot example here from a random page. Please tell me how to turn this off...Thanks! ꦩꦤꦸꦏ꧀ꦮꦺꦴꦁ‎ 03:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@MosheA: Try this in your CSS:

.cx-new-interlanguage-link a[lang="nah"] {display:none;}

Or disable "Content Translation" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures if you don't use that tool and want to avoid all suggested languages without articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Or, as they say in Nāhuatl, tlazohcamati! ꦩꦤꦸꦏ꧀ꦮꦺꦴꦁ‎ 22:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Bad Actors

The main editor of the Joshua Claybourn page, IndyNotes, is so obviously Joshua Claybourn that it discredits Wikipedia to keep the article up. How can something be done about it? ~2026-53516-5 (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Tag the article with the appropriate tag (in this case, probably the COI tag) to inform other editors of the issue. If the editor repeatedly takes down the tag then you can post warnings to their talk page and mention the issue on the articles talk page.

Heres the COI tag for reference!

{{COI}} Mustbeotherwise (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-53516-5, here's a link with more instructions if it's helpful! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Please read that template's documentation, before using it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't mention a user here without notifying them; I'll let User:IndyNotes know about this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for informing them - Otherwise (Talk?) 17:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The concern raised here appears to misunderstand both the relevant policies and the actual editing history.

First, I am not Joshua Claybourn and am not connected to him. Editing an article about a subject one finds interesting, particularly a historian or public intellectual in your home state, is not itself evidence of a conflict of interest. Wikipedia policy is explicit that COI must be demonstrated, not inferred (see WP:COI).

Second, the removal of the "prior marriages" material was policy-compliant, regardless of who performed the revert. The information failed under multiple standards. Under WP:BLP, content about a living person must be handled with exceptional care. Marital history is generally non-essential unless it bears directly on notability or public work. No such connection was shown here. Under WP:V, the cited source did not mention the marriages in its body, did not identify specific records, and did not verify the claim. A citation that does not support the asserted fact does not satisfy verifiability. And under WP:UNDUE / WP:NOTSOAPBOX, elevating an unverified personal detail, especially one unrelated to the subject’s work, risks turning the article into a vehicle for grievance rather than encyclopedic coverage.

Third, the behavioral pattern of User:~2026-53516-5 is itself notable. This account's only edits concern this single biographical detail, repeated after reversion, followed by forum-shopping to a help desk. A second, uninvolved editor independently reverted the same material on similar grounds. That sequence strongly suggests that the reverts were based on policy, not personal interest.

Fourth, tagging the article with COI is not appropriate on the present record. COI tags are not dispute-resolution tools and should not be used absent evidence. Per the template documentation, tags should not be applied "speculatively" or as leverage in a content disagreement. If new, reliable evidence of a conflict exists, it should be presented clearly on the article talk page.

Finally, if there is a conduct issue to address, it is not self-editing, but single-purpose editing around disputed personal information. The appropriate next steps, if any, would be direct discussion on the article's talk page with policy-based arguments; if disruption continues, guidance or warnings regarding edit-warring and BLP sensitivity; and avoiding further off-wiki insinuations about editor identity without evidence. In short, the content was removed because it did not meet Wikipedia’s standards for living persons, not because of who removed it. Absent verifiable sourcing and demonstrated relevance, the material does not belong in the article, and allegations of COI should not be advanced.IndyNotes (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@IndyNotes, concerning your fourth point, I agree with you that the COI tag shouldn't be used unless the person creating them has evidence. When the user said the editor was "so obviously Joshua Claybourn", I assumed there was some evidence for this. In the future I will be more diligent in contextualizing situations before making suggestions. I appreciate your feedback and I will be more careful in the future. Thank you! - Otherwise (Talk?) 23:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

~2026-53516-5, see WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. If the only source for a marriage is a court record, it DOES NOT belong in a biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there a tag for an article/section which is rambling with no narrative?

From time to time I come across articles which I call shopping lists - a list of possibly notable events, but with no narrative, and no indication whether the list is complete. The article section I have in mind at the moment is Climate of Adelaide#Extreme weather events: extreme temperatures, heatwaves, droughts (2007–2026). It looks to me like a random collection of somewhat extreme weather events happening in Adelaide since 2007. There is some notable information in there, but it's a hotpotch, and too much for me to tackle in one sitting. So... is there an appropriate tag that I can drop there? I found Template:Overly detailed, which didn't seem quite right... but maybe it is? Adpete (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Isn't "a hotchpotch of unconnected events" exactly what does belong in such a section? You can't impose a narrative on weather events. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but that is what lists are for. And lists should be well defined (in this case, something like "list of record-breaking weather events in Adelaide since 2007"). I think the problem is that section is very ill-defined, and invites editors to add a section every time the weather makes the news in Adelaide. Is there a tag for that? Adpete (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Further looking suggests Template:Overly detailed is about the best there is. Adpete (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Adpete: There's also {{unfocused}} and. if you think it'd be better as a list, {{create list}}. – Scyrme (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Both good suggestions, thanks. I might take it to the article's talk page now. Adpete (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I cant upload a photo

Hello I am editing Charles Serhan's Wikipedia page at his request and trying to upload a photo but I am told I don't have permission and to upload via the Wikipedia Upload area but i cant see how to do this. Please assist. Namnam24 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The best way to upload media is to upload it to Wikimedia Commons first then insert it into the Wikipedia page with a [[File:(name of file on commons)|thumb]] link. Since you have a Wikipedia account, you should be able to login to Commons using it. There's a button to upload a file on the main page of Commons. – Scyrme (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Namnam24.

Please note that if you are editing Charles N. Serhan at his request then you certainly have a conflict of interest, and (depending on the nature of your connection with him) you may be a paid editor.

If you are what Wikipedia considers a paid editor, you must make a formal declaration as explained in that link, usually on your user page User:Namnam24. If you are not a paid editor, then declaring your COI is not mandatory, but it is good practice.

Either way, you should not edit the article directly, but should make edit requests on it, as describved in the COI link above.

As Scyrme says images should preferably be uploaded to Commons; but please see our image use policy. In short, images can be uploaded to Commons only if they are free to use - which for a recent image almost certainly means that the copyright holder has explicitly released them under a copyleft licence such as CC-BY-SA.

If you personally hold the copyright (which is likely to be the case if you personally took the picture, but unlikely to be the case otherwise), then you can release it under that licence in passing as you upload it.

If anybody else holds the copyright (again, likely to be the photographer, unless there has been a contract to transfer it), they are the only person who has the legal power to release it in the way that Commons requires. It would be easiest if they upload it to Commons themselves; otherwise, please see donating copyright materials. ColinFine (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Helping with editing

Hii how doi editmy Wikipediapage ~2026-60371-9 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean an article or your user page? If you mean your personal user page, you're currently not logged in so you don't have a user page. To make one, you have to make an account first.

If you mean that you want to make a new biographical article about yourself, you shouldn't. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Articles are written about people because their biographies are described in independent publications. – Scyrme (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

And thirdly, if you mean that there is already a Wikipedia article about you (which does not belong to you, and is not controlled by you, incidentally) that you would like changes to, please see AUTOPROB. ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Literary Articles

l want to write an article about a known literary personality of Kasur Punjab Pakistan. What are its requirements? ~2026-59040-9 (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-59040-9

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Note also that 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. --ColinFine (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Start by reading Wikipedia:Your first article. —Antonissimo (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Article for Object-PL/SQL has bias problems. Can someone who understands it rewrite it?

The article for Object-PL/SQL has serious positive bias with the worst example being the following section. I don't understand the topic at all, so rewriting correctly may be difficult. Could someone who does understand it please reword it?

"Autonomy, notoriety and importance of O-PL/SQL

The O-PSL/SQL isn't simply the use a version of a programming language but it's identified as how to use it, and it defines the autonomy of the theme. Each version of PL/SQL, starting from 7, brings so many innovations that it's impossible to treat such usages as sub-themes of PL/SQL. So big is that revolution that it establishes a real borderline between the language, that can be used as formerly, and the OO approach inside itself. It's just this approach that makes the theme important and the large-scale using has brought its notoriety."

References

Data Devourer (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC) Data Devourer (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll reply on the talk page. For future reference a better place to ask would be at one of the WikiProjects, in this case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

sfnq with no author

Is this right?

URL Source. Quote from that source. Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

No. But this is:

{{sfnq|''Reuters''|2025| q = French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed that French national Dan Elkayam was killed in the shootings.}}

test.

{{Cite news |ref={{sfnref|''Reuters''|2025}} |date=18 December 2025 |title=What we know about the shooting victims at Sydney's Bondi Beach Jewish event |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-we-know-about-shooting-victims-at-sydneys-bondi-beach-jewish-event-2025-12-15/ |access-date=18 December 2025 |work=[[Reuters]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251224191758/https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-we-know-about-shooting-victims-at-sydneys-bondi-beach-jewish-event-2025-12-15/ |archive-date=24 December 2025 |url-status=live}}

"What we know about the shooting victims at Sydney's Bondi Beach Jewish event". Reuters. 18 December 2025. Archived from the original on 24 December 2025. Retrieved 18 December 2025.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk thanks. Is the main problem that I need to wrap it in the "sfnref" template? I think the page has multiple Reuters 2025 articles, so I was trying to avoid "Reuters 2025" by itself. Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

1. Adding some of the title seems to break but I don't know why? Source. Quote.

2. Putting the full date with the "author"? Source. Quote.

3. When I put more than a year in the last field it adds a & symbol: Source. Quote.

The second one seems to work best? Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of the {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} templates is to create shortened footnotes. {{sfnq}} is a wrapper around {{harvnb}} which explains the error message mismatch. Using {{sfnp}} to add quotations from the source seems to me to be contrary to the 'shortened' intent of the base templates. This particular source is free-to-read and the referenced claims in our article are unlikely to be considered controversial, so quotations from that source are unnecessary. No need for the peculiar quotation in the long-form {{cite news}} template either: |quote=By Reuters December 19, 2025 9:41 AM GMT+10 Updated December 19, 2025; who cares about that? point by point:

1. {{sfnq|''Reuters:'' "What we know…"|2025|q=...}} does not match {{sfnref|''Reuters:'' "What we know…"|December 2025}} You fix that and the link will work.
2. yeah, that works
3. {{harvnb}} (and {{sfn}}) expect the last positional parameter to be a four-digit year or either of the no-date keywords nd or n.d.; all of these may have a single lowercase letter suffix to disambiguate an author's different works that were all published in the same year.

I presume that it article in question is 2025 Bondi Beach shooting. That article uses one {{sfnq}} template but no {{sfn}} or other {{harv}}-family templates so WP:CITEVAR would suggest that the {{sfnq}} template is out of place.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I intended to use sfnq if there was sfnp in there it was a typo. Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Uyghur form of "lam-alif" ligature

Recently, User:Haidezaki Ahmad uploaded File:Lam-Alif in Normal and Uyghur Calligraphies.png and File:Rarities of Lam-Alif in Uyghur.png, claiming that Uyghur uses a form of the lam-alif ligature (لا) where the final form resembles the isolated form (the "crossing" form in some fonts). The source for both images is the same YouTube community post of a relatively unknown channel.

While this form is indeed rare, no source is given that this form is used exclusively in Uyghur (in fact, I recall seeing it in an Arabic text, but can no longer locate the source). On the other hand, most fonts for Uyghur that I have come across, in particular those by the Uyghur Computer Science Association (Uyghur Kompyutér Ilimi Jem'iyiti, UKIJ), have the لا ligature perform identically to Arabic (all UKIJ fonts have the final "non-crossing" form, but isolated form shows variation between the two).

Unless Haidezaki Ahmad provides a source that I do not know about, that proves this "rare" form is commonly used in Uyghur, I propose to delete these two images. It is also unknown whether Haidezaki Ahmad has acquired permission from the aforementioned YouTube channel to use the images. OosakaNoOusama (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@OosakaNoOusama: This isn't really the venue to propose the deletion of images in general, but these two files were upload to Wikipedia's sister project Wikimedia:Commons; so, there's really nothing to delete from Wikipedia per se. If you want to nominate the files be deleted, you will need to do so over on Wikipedia Commons per c:Commons:Deletion policy. Be advised, though, that files tend to only be deleted from Commons in cases when they violate c:Commons:Licensing or c:Commons:Scope; they don't typically get deleted for the reasons you've given above.

A file existing on Wikimedia Commons doesn't automatically mean it has to be used by any of the different language Wikipedia projects. On English Wikipedia, the files are being used in the articles Arabic alphabet and Uyghur Arabic alphabet; so, you can discuss their encyclopedic relevance or overall accuracy at Talk:Arabic alphabet or Talk:Uyghur Arabic alphabet. You can pick one of the two talk pages to discuss the files, and the add a link back to the discussion (the template {{Please see}} works good for such links) to the talk page of the other article. This will keep all of the discussion in one place; thus, avoiding redundancy and confusion. I also suggest you notify the uploader of the file and whoever added the files to the article by posting a message on their user talk page as a courtesy to give them a chance to explain their position. You could further add a notification about the discussion to the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed at the top of each article's talk page. This will let others who may be knowledgeable about the subject matter know about the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

FA on main page was recently DYK

The current featured article, The Ladies' Journal, was a DYK less than 6 months ago. Is that unusual? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know whether such a thing is unusual, but the article was upgraded to FA-status after its DYK appearance. I don't think being selected as one disqualifies an article for also being selected as the other. Stuff that appears on the main page in any shape or form almost always doesn't just show up there randomly but is the result of some discussion. If you want to know more specific details try asking one of the coordinators listed at Wikipedia:Today's featured article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

As long as it's not "Oh no, someone has made a mistake", then I'm happy. I just knew I recognized the story. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

How long does it take for a list to update?

Hi all,

I'm working on a split at the moment, from Puffing Billy Railway to Gembrook railway line. Step 5 is to check for other pages that include links that need to be rerouted, using the Special:WhatLinksHere tool. I've temporarily broken the link to the old article name in the template that appears in most of the results, how long will it take for WhatLinksHere to update its results (from 229, I expect at least 50 of those are false positives) so I can check the remainder and then repair the template?

Anothersignalman (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Itll be when the individual pages are purged or otherwise get edited, I assume Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Anothersignalman: There is a job queue which does it automatically. It usually takes from seconds to hours. User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js produces source links on Puffing Billy Railway PrimeHunter (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, so if I check back in say two or three hours it might be done then? Anothersignalman (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually nevermind, that source links tool is much better, thanks :) Anothersignalman (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

So there's no quick way to refresh the data that goes into WhatLinksHere, and I need to go through all the pages manually? Darn. Anothersignalman (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

You could try asking the owner of a null edit bot if they could do a null edit run for you. - X201 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

...

Name change

The entry for Elaine Bernstein Partnow, aka Elaine Partnow, should be reversed. It should be Elaine Partnow, aka Elaine Bernstein Partnow. How can this be executed? EPartnow (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

So you are Elaine Bernstein Partnow? 331dot (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

You should initiate a requested move. See WP:RM for more information. – Scyrme (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion about a reverted edit

hello, earlier today i made an edit to this page Rosanna (song)

"This song won the Grammy Award for Record of the Year at the 1983 ceremony."

is incorrect

the *album*, not the song, won the 1983 Grammy for *Album* of the Year.

the edit was reverted by JalenBarks.

can the reversion be appealed?

thank you ~2026-62529-2 (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-62529-2. According to the official Grammy website here, the song did win "Record of the Year" for 1983. Is it possible that you got that information wrong? Did you find another reliable source saying something different? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

ah gotcha thanks! sorry for the bother. ~2026-62529-2 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

To answer the more general point, in future please follow the WP:DR process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Son of Kasur. Prof Zafar Mansoor

Please don't post drafts for articles here at the Help Desk

Son of Kasur ... Prof. Zafar Mansoor Writer:-- Rehana Tabassam

Prof. Zafar Mansoor is a Senior Pakistani Poet, Short Story Writer, Critic and an eminent Academician of Kasur. He was born on First January, 1942 in Faridkot British India and migrated to Kasur, Punjab, Pakistan with his family in 1947 at the time of Partition. He got his early education in his home town from Government High Scool & Government Islamia College, Kasur. He graduated from Government Islamia College Civil lines, Lahore in the year 1963 & joined Government Amerson College Multan for further education. He did his Masters in Economics from Punjab University in the year 1969 and did his MBA from AU AJK in the year 2000. He joined Education Department as a lecturer and served in different Colleges of Punjab on different Academic & Administrative posions for about 40 years and finally retired as a Principal in Gujranwala in the year 2014.

Zafar Mansoor is a well known poet, Short Story Writer & Critic of Pakistan. His literary writings are being published in the top level literary magzines i.e Funoon, Takhleeq, Tehrerain, Mah-e-Nau etc. & in almost all the frontline Newspapers of Pakistan for about 50 years. In the year 1976, he compiled the first ever book of history of Kasur entitled ' Kasur, Ek Shehr, Ek Rawayat' published by Packages Ltd. Lahore under the supervision of District Administration, Kasur for which he was awarded with a cash prize & Appreciation by the Kasur District Administration. In the same year, he compiled his first book of poetry entitled ' Jalta Bujhta Manzar جلتا بجھتا منظر' (Under publication). In the year 1978, he was elected Secretary of Halqa Arbab-e-Zauq, Kasur and remained on this post uptil 1984. In 1979, he started writing a weekly literary Column in the daily ' Magrabi Pakistan, Lahore entitled
"Kasur ki Adbi Sargarmian قصورکی ادبی سرگرمیاں" and continued it till 1984. He also served as the Vice President of 'Majlis Bulleh Shah, Kasur' from 1978 to 1984. In fact from 1978 to1984 he was the center of almost all the literary & cultural activities of Kasur. 

In the year 1984, Zafar Mansoor shifted to Lahore and started partcipating in the literary and cultural activities of Lahore. He started writing literary column entitled 'Aks عکس' in the weekly literary edition of daily ' Imroze', Lahore in the year 1986 and continued it for several years. He remained associated with Radio Pakistan and Ptv Lahore for a long time as writer, presenter & host of literary programmes specially Mushairas and participated in different other literary, educational & social programmes of Radio Pakistan & Ptv Lahore. During this time, he was Joint Secretary of Halqa Arbab-e-Zauq, Lahore and aslo remained Member of Executive committee, Halqa Arbab-e-Zauq Lahore. He alo participated in the annual elections of Halqa Arbab-e-Zauq Lahore as Secretary. In 1992, he shifted to Gujranwala and joined a local college as principal. During his stay in Gujranwala, he activly participated in the literary, educational & cultural activities of the city & remained closely associated with Halga Arbab-e-Zauq, Anjman Taraqi Pasand Musannfeen & other Literary Societies of Gujranwala. In the year 2014, he retired as a Principal and is leading a retired life with his family in Gujranwala. He has also written a book of criticism of Urdu Literature entitled 'Naqd-o-Nazr-e- Qadeem- o- Jadeed نقدونظر_ قدیم و جدید' & compiled a book of his poems entitled ' Ishtbah-e-Nazr اشتباہ_ نظر' (Under publication) He is a life member of Academy of Letters Pakistan, Halqa Arbab-e-Zauq, Pakistan Writers Guild, Punjab, Lahore & Anjman Taraqi Pasand Musannfeen Pakistan. He has the honour of being awarded many literary and educational awards including Life Time Achievement Award confered by SGC, Punjab, Pakistan.

References:- 1- "Kasur ek Shehr ek Rawayat" published by packages Ltd Lahore under the supervision of District Administration Kasur 2- "Sukhan Waran-e-Kasur سخن واران_قصور" by Prof. Latif Asahr (Kasur) 3- "Adbi Directory Zila Kasur ادبی ڈائرکٹری ضلع قصور" by Dr. Riaz Anjam (Kasur) 4- 'Halqa Arbab-e-Zauq' by Younis Javaid (Lahore) 5- Poets of Pakistan (Website Acadamy of Letters Islamabad Pakistan) 6- Members' List " Halqa Arbab-e-Zauq Lahore, Kasur, Gujranwala 7- Members' List (Pakistan Writers Guild, Punjab) 8- Members List 'Anjman Taraqi Pasand Musannfeen, Pakistan 'انجمن ترقی پسندمصنفین پاکستان' 9- Monthly ' Funoon, Takhleeq, Tehrerain, Mah-e-Nau etc ( Literary magzines of Pakistan) 10- Daily 'Jang, Nawa-e-Waqt, Mushraq, Magrbi Pakistan, Imroze etc.

~2026-59040-9 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? —Antonissimo (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

the system ~2026-59670-7 (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-59040-9/~2026-59670-7. Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for some general information about Wikipedia; that particular page also contains (blue) links to other more detailed Wikipedia information pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I have left some introductory links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Does plagiarism require an admin to delete history?

I recently noticed that a section of Cognitive model was plagiarised (copy-pasted) from a paper. I deleted the plagiarised material and my edit summary explains what was plagiarised and in what revision. I don't know whether the plagiarised content should be deleted from past revisions as a copyright violation or how to notify an admin if indeed the article history does need to be cleaned. Can anyone here help? – Scyrme (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme See this policy page for what to do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme Short answer, yes. Revision deletion should be requested by placing {{copyvio-revdel}} Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. It's now been dealt with. – Scyrme (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Agrius cingulata

Agrius cingulata Hello, everyone! I need a link(s) for the first paragraph (first sentence). Please, add it to section "Description". Help me, please. СтасС (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear what you want to link to, and from which text. Please clarify your request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I want you to add a link (reliable sources) in this text (first paragraph in the section "Description"). Here: "The imago has a wingspan of 3+3⁄4 to 4+3⁄4 inches (9.5–12 cm). Its robust body is gray brown with pink bands. The abdomen tapers to a point. The hindwings are gray with black bands and pink at the bases" It's not enough link(s). Do you understand me?--СтасС (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Partly; what do you want the link to point to? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I need links on two sentences: "Agrius cingulata, the pink-spotted hawkmoth or sweetpotato hornworm, is a moth in the family Sphingidae. The species was first described by Johan Christian Fabricius in 1775" and "The imago has a wingspan of 3+3⁄4 to 4+3⁄4 inches (9.5–12 cm). Its robust body is gray brown with pink bands. The abdomen tapers to a point. The hindwings are gray with black bands and pink at the bases".--СтасС (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

By "links" do you mean citations (references to external sources/publications)? If so, you can add a {{citation needed}} tag at the end of the sentence to request that other editors provide a reference. – Scyrme (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @СтасС.

Finding good sources is the most important, and often the most time-consuming, part of creating an article. It is also the most important part of editing an article, (unless you are just working on copy-editing or formatting).

So, it's great that you see the need for sources for that article. But coming here and asking the Help Desk "I need somebody to do this major piece of work on this article" is not likely to have much success. ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@СтасС For the first tag of "citation needed", did you look in Fabricius's 1775 Systema entomologiae and discover that A. cingulata isn't in there?

Was it you who placed the citation tag, or someone else? I have a pretty strong suspicion that it's unnecessary. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

What should I do about this?

When I was reviewing User:Oluwaseunonala12/sandbox, I clicked on reference 16 to look at the website and verify the info but it took my browser to a red screen that was along the lines of this website may be trying to install harmful software on your computer, I'm not going back to see it. I'm wondering if I need to remove the links or leave a warning on the user's talk page, I don't want someone to get malware reviewing a draft. Please ping when responding, and thank you, 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 23:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSNON. I don't know whether it applies in this particular case. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricane Wind and Fire I corrected two links - please see if you still get the warning. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I still got the warning. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 00:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

USA / Yanks / America

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

---

Good Evening.

I urge you to accept USA, the States and Yanks, where you use America, American, Americans.

America / American in reference to USA, the States, Yanks, is the result of PR and cultural appropriation. It leaves out the rest of the New World, as well as a large part of Europe. I have not researched Africa, Asia, Oceania, as to USA, the States and Yanks.

In Australia, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada, one commonly refers to "us" as Yanks, and the USA as "the USA" or "the States". If they use America they are doing so to not annoy the chauvinistic term for Yanks and USA.

In Italy, Spain, they will describe emigration to America when they speak of Argentina, Chile, Brazil, et c. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rica

In France, Canada is part of emigration to "Amerique" ("America") - https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rique

In Germany, same - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika

In Italy - https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/America

In Portugal - https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rica

In Poland - https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameryka

In Russia ("Америка") - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0

America / American is the result of PR and cultural appropriation, and leaves out the rest of the New World, as well as a large part of Europe.

USA, the States, Yanks, is more universal. I urge you to accept USA, the States, and Yanks, and allow people like me to edit articles with USA, the States, Yanks, as appropriate.

Thank You. Klukie56 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 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.

Profile image

i want to update my profile image as i don't have one displayed. Can someone please upload it for me in my profile. I am the artist of the page and i have a personal image which i own ? BALLY SAGOO (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

BALLY SAGOO, what you call "my profile" is the article Bally Sagoo. You've already asked for the change, at Talk:Bally_Sagoo#Request_to_update_photograph. I note that (i) the article says you're 61 years old; (ii) the info on the file says that the photo is two weeks old; (iii) the person in the photo looks less like a 61-year-old, more like a 61-year-old's son or even grandson. So the request looks dubious. -- Hoary (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I went with it, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@BALLY SAGOO See Wikipedia:A picture of you. I recommend Wikipedia:A picture of you#Your own website, but as you can see, there are several ways. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that this article meets WP:GNG, it is very thinly sourced. And it is totally implausible that the new photo is a 61 year old, unless it has been AI enhanced in some way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

For whatever reason, it looks reasonably like the pics at https://ballysagoomusic.com/about/. Maybe he has a good skin regimen. But yes, current sourcing makes one wonder if deletion is the way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I added this image thumb. Zuck28 (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. That uploader may also be required to prove ownership. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

chapter authors’ article titles with its hyperlinks on the publisher’s websites

Hi, editors. Is it okay to add the above info to the authors’ existing page? Yugongyishanusf (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand your question. What are you hoping to add? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

If you're going to link, I think it's generally preferrable to use more stable links (could break if publisher changes their website) and avoid any appearance of commercial intent (focusing on the publisher rather than the publication). Better to use ISBN, DOI, or similar stable identifiers that provide more widely useful linking and index access. DMacks (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Changing recovery email issue

I just went to log-in on a new device. I was asked to verify my login by entering the verification code sent to my email address. This alerted me to the fact that my recovery email address is no longer correct and I need to update it - the old address is redundant. I went to change the email address from where I was logged in on my phone. However, this triggered a login request to do so. Which of course is asking for the verification code. So I am stuck in a loop where I cannot update my recovery email without getting a code to my old email which no longer exists. How do I proceed? Kwib (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

See Help:Extension:EmailAuth. If you cannot access the recovery email address, you can contact cawikimedia.org. It is also worth noting that since December 2025, all Wikipedia users can have Two-factor authentication. This is much better than email verification, so it would be worth having this if you get back into the account.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Your advice was spot on and I have resolved the issue. Kwib (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Siddharth Kara

Special:Diff/1335527008

Reference help requested. Thanks, ~2026-17931-4 (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what formatting error you are referring to. Could you please provide assistance in correcting the error you have noted? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-17931-4 (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I think they are referring to "access date requires URL". That warning tells you exactly that: for both references with the warning, the parameter "access date" has been given, but the parameter "URL" is still empty. There is no URL for the access date to be tied to. Fill in the URLs (and update the access date if necessary) and the warnings should go away. Barbalalaika 🐌 17:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Templates appearing in mainspace categories

Usually if a template is inappropriately appearing in mainspace categories, which is quite common, you can simply edit the template and remove the mainspace category from the bottom of the page like I did here. However when trying to remove Template:Foreign relations of Bangladesh from Category:Foreign relations of Bangladesh I am unable to do so. The categories are not at the bottom and even when editing the template documentation to remove the categories the template remains in the mainspace category. Does anyone know why this is? AusLondonder (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be in there on my end (unless I overlooked it). Have you tried purging the page cache? – Scyrme (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah that must be it. Weird, I did refresh a couple of times. Only happens when I have to edit the documentation and not just the main template page to remove the categories. AusLondonder (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Refreshing the page doesn't purge the cache. If you open the "Page" menu on the top right of a page there's a link there to "Purge cache". Is it still in the category on your end after doing that? – Scyrme (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks yes it is gone now. I've removed hundreds of templates from mainspace categories and the template is gone from the categories immediately after editing and without having to purge. But it happened twice today with the two templates which required documentation edits so I'm guessing that is why and I'll keep in mind to purge next time. Thanks. AusLondonder (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: If a category is added by transclusion and you edit the trancluded page, in this case a /doc subpage, then you have to make a null edit of the transcluding page to update the category page right away. A purge only updates the purged page itself and not the link tables which control listings on category pages. The update should happen automatically at some time but it varies how long it takes (see Help:Job queue). PrimeHunter (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Editing revisions

Good evening. Why is it possible to edit previous revisions of pages? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

There are reasons to click edit on a prior revision and then click Publish; typically to remove vandalism. Clicking Publish when editing a prior revision saves it as the current revision. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, when you "edit" a previous revision you are not editing the past version in the history. Publishing edits on a past revision will replace the current revision, not the revision listed in the history. Editing an old revision is equivalent to copying the source code of a past version and pasting it over the current revision of an article or page. – Scyrme (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Question about BANREVERT

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason; such reverts are also exempt from being counted under the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made in violation of a block or ban (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons."

What is understood by this phrase? "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made in violation of a block or ban (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)"

The reason I'm confused is that I was under the impression all banned editing has to reverted. ~2026-66498-6 (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Edits by banned or blocked editors generally should be reverted, but can be allowed to remain if they are minor changes(like typo fixes), or if the community sees value in keeping a particular edit. Another editor can restore a reverted edit on their own ability if it was otherwise proper. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

To look at it another way, why would we want to restore obviously unhelpful things like typos or vandalism just because the editor who noticed it first happens to be evading a block/ban? Not everything a banned editor does is necessarily a problem. That said, whether the edit counts as "obviously helpful" is to be decided by editors in good standing, not the ban evading editor. – Scyrme (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

FwHaydo Page

Could somebody please make an FwHaydo Page? Thanks! Kivi36 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Very unlikely to happen. To meet the WP:Notability requirements for a Wikipedia article, a subject needs to have, as a general rule, at least 3 pieces published about them that all fulfill all the conditions summarised at WP:Golden rule.

My cursory search on the subject strongly suggests that this very minor social media 'personality' is very unlikely to meet those criteria, so at best this proposition is WP:Too soon. However, I am open to being proven wrong. If I am, then some volunteer who is both capable of creating an acceptable article (one of the more difficult tasks on Wikipedia), and motivated to do so will need to tackle the task. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Add to existing or new sidebar?

I want to include a list of Jewish organizations / movements (which can be largely based on the currently existing Category:Jewish movements and the categories within it) into a sidebar. I'm thinking between adding it onto the currently existing Jews and Judaism sidebar (can be seen to the right), or adding an entirely new sidebar for it. Which one should I do? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Why is the currently existing setup not enough? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe the current sidebar already contains a list of movements or organizations. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I didn't correctly connect in my mind [the categories already exist] with [... but they currently can't go into the sidebar]. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries! So what do you suggest should be done? Or should I use my own discretion? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

If you think links to Jewish organisations should appear on all (or most) pages about Judaism, it makes sense to modify the existing template rather than creating a new one and adding it to however many hundreds of pages. If it's only going to appear on a subset of Judaism-related pages, a new template would be the way to go. I'm not going to offer an opinion due to my lack of expertise in this area, and lack of detail in what you propose. However, this is quite a high-profile area, so I would suggest you seek consensus before making any changes - maybe in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, with a note left in Template talk:Jews and Judaism sidebar (or vice versa). Also create a mock-up in draft space so people can see exactly what you're suggesting. I suspect a sticking point might be "which Jewish organisations go on the sidebar list and which do not?" Chuntuk (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

If you think links to Jewish organisations should appear on all (or most) pages about Judaism I actually don't think so, articles like Judaism or Jewish History probably don't really need Jewish organizations appear in that. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chuntuk I've asked at Wikiproject Judaism and have gotten no responses a few days later. Does that mean they don't mind me creating it? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Catherine O'Hara Page

Please update Catherine O'Hara Page as someone updated her page and stated that "she snuffed it" on today's date. Please take action to block this user from any further updates as this is extremely distasteful. ~2026-66584-8 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-66584-8. Thank you for reporting this piece of vandalism. It was reverted less than two minutes after it was made, and there have been many hundred edits to Catherine O'Hara since.

That was the only edit made by that Temporary Account, so there's not much point in taking any action. ColinFine (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion vs non-inclusion – Privacy of public figures

I hope I’m asking this question at the right place, because it’s the first time I am in a similar situation. Last November, I created an article about operatic soprano Mariam Battistelli. As you can read for yourselves, many of the sources listed mention her birth year, and with a more thorough research I managed to find one stating her full birth date and legal name. Over the past days, I contacted the subject in search of a licensed image of her to be included in the lead section, and while she provided me with one, she also requested that one of her given names and her birth year be removed from the article – which I complied with, with the information being now readable only in comments within the HTML code. However, I am wondering if I did the right thing, since WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:PRIVACY seem to be a little contradictory on the matter. On the one hand, I safeguarded the subject's privacy, but on the other I removed publicly available and perfectly sourced information regarding a public figure. I’d like to hear the opinions of other users. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLPKIND is relevant here.

Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.

There's no reason we should make a point to include particular biographical information if the subject has expressed a desire that it not be there. It'd be one thing to remove mention of a notable scandal or something, but if it's just a name, who cares? The encyclopedia is not harmed by doing this small kindness. Athanelar (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It also depends on things like how high profile the individual is and how easily the information is found or how widely available it is; we wouldn't remove Donald Trump's date of birth even if he asked because that information is widely available. I think you did the right thing in your case. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for weighing in. Yeah, I was most dubious about the non-inclusion of her birth name year because, unlike her full name, it’s widely reported. But putting things in perspective I agree it isn’t much of a loss considering that the subject’s relevance is strictly limited to her field of work. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Even though the name was widely reported, its real importance to readers is low. When something is widely reported and also important, it's different.

(Sometimes, "important or not" has grey areas; luckily not this time.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed I typed “birth name” when I meant “birth year”. Just saying for the sake of precision. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

What template should I use for a context/scope note at the top of a page?

I have two articles talking about the same general thing; the first explicitly covers 1900 to 1958, the second 1955 to present (intentional slight overlap). Each has a paragraph from the other with {{main article|name}} included, but I'd like something to put at the top of each explicitly defining the scope that says something like, "This article covers [time period]; for [before/after], see [this page] instead". My instinct was {{context}} or {{further reading}} but neither of those do what I'm after. Are there any suggestions for what template I should use? Anothersignalman (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding the ask, but could the articles not be titled the same but with the years included to disambiguate them? E.g. "History of Foo (1200-1600)" and "History of Foo (1601-1900)"? DonIago (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really, because the two portions are different enough that they need different titles. One is Gembrook railway line, operated by the government and talking about the history and services, while the other is Puffing Billy Railway, (originally) operated by volunteers using recycled equipment, talking about the history of the railway preservation movement through to present-day operations. They just happen to share geography and (at a guess) about half the assets. It would also conflict with the normal naming scheme for articles like these. Anothersignalman (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

If templates like {{about}}, {{for}}, {{for-text}}, {{distinguish}}, {{main}}, or {{further}} don't work, you could use {{hatnote}}. – Scyrme (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I think {{about}} works best for the example you gave.

This page is about [title] from [year] to [year]. For [title2] from [year] to [year], see title2.

– Scyrme (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I was after, thanks :) Anothersignalman (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding External Links

I translate German literature into English. Recently I have been adding external links on Wikipedia to the translations ony my website for authors such as Wilhelm Jensen, Detlev von Liliencron, Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach, and several others. Now, however, it looks like I am being blocked, and I am accused of being a spammer! All I am doing is trying to make modern English translations of German stories accessible. One of my webpages is the following: https://www.michaelhaldane.com/German%20Short%20Stories%20of%20the%20Late%20Nineteenth%20and%20Early%20Twentieth%20Centuries%20A-G.htm ~2026-67746-3 (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

(i) What is the username that seems to be blocked? (ii) Adding numerous links to a single website needn't be spamming, but it does sound like spamming. How is what you're doing not spamming? ("What I'm linking to is beneficial" or similar isn't a satisfactory response.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

(i) I did not enter my username to edit. I remember my password for Wikipedia but not my username. I received a message on screen saying that my behaviour was like that of a spammer and I could be blocked, and my edit was not accepted.

(ii) It is perfectly usual to add links to translations of author's works in the External Links section. I make no money from this. I am simply offering a link to what is, in some cases, the only English translation available of a particular story. The link is not irrelevant. The only thing I am trying to promote is awareness of the author in the English-speaking world. I honestly do not see how that could be considered spamming. ~2026-67746-3 (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

"Promoting awareness" is exactly equal to advertising. Non-requested advertising is exactly equal to spam. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

A=B, B=C is not a convincing argument. It is not advertising. It is trying to make a contribution to knowledge - is not that the point of Wikipedia? I myself often use the External Links section to access an author's works; it is in invaluable resource. Was every link provided in that section requested? ~2026-67746-3 (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped: "an" invaluable resource. ~2026-67746-3 (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I honestly do not see how that could be considered spamming: oh, very easily. By which I don't mean correctly or fairly. Detlev von Liliencron is an example of an article with a link to your website. The link is described straightforwardly; its presentation isn't at all promotional. But what you could and I think should have done was instead to write on Talk:Detlev von Liliencron that you had made these translations, that you thought they would be appreciated by some readers, but that as you were the translator/webmaster you'd leave their possible addition to some other, disinterested editor. If you started on the wrong foot (though with the best intentions), it's not too late to adopt this approach. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I see. I honestly did not realise; if I were to wait for another editor, I might have a very long wait indeed! But this is a very fair and helpful reply, and I appreciate it. ~2026-67746-3 (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes you indeed might. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, creaky, faulty, and slow-moving. But you can help yourself. First, get a username and use it, consistently. This will nudge people who might have a question toward thinking that if they took the trouble to write to you you'd be likely to see the question and reply to it. In your message on a particular writer's talk page, perhaps mention that you also have links for other writers that might similarly be of interest. On your own user page too, perhaps mention that you have translations available -- but be careful to avoid the risk that even the grumpiest editor would interpret this as self-promotion. (A user page is not for a CV.) Consider recommending good translations that aren't by you. Make helpful edits that are unrelated to translations. Et cetera. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and your time. ~2026-67373-4 (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there a tool to find circular links?

I checked the first dozen or so of links in List of dams and reservoirs in Turkey and found and fixed - is there tool to check the rest? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: If you open the menu in the top right of a page labelled "tools" there's a link called "What links here". When you check the boxes to "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" it'll give you a list of all the redirects which arrive at that article. It doesn't label which ones are circular, but it does at least narrow down the list of links to check. There are currently 67 redirects to the list. I checked a couple and the ones I checked were all used in the list article, redirecting back to the same list. Unfortunately I don't know an automatic way to just check if redirects are used at the destination, but hopefully this is more helpful than nothing. – Scyrme (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: If you install Anomie's link classifier, the circular redirects are given a different colouring to the others and are easy to spot. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

This is very helpful, though it goes a bit too far with recolouring links (it recolours even normal links, making them darker, which doesn't work well with dark mode). I had to make my own copy of the .css sheet to reduce the amount of recolouring it does.

I also replaced a few of the circular redirects in the list with interlanguage links, though I didn't do all of them. My understanding is that since a change last year, the bot no longer replaces interlanguage links where there's only a redirect rather than an article. It may be more helpful to replace the circular redirects with interlanguage links if the redirects are used elsewhere on Wikipedia, since at least if a reader ends up at the list they can find the Turkish-language article about the dams. Then again, if the plan is to have the redirects themselves be deleted entirely (not just not linked at the list), then feel free to remove the interlanguage links too. – Scyrme (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme I always use dark mode - yes you are right inter language links are much better than deleting Chidgk1 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chidgk1, not what you were asking for but related: Template:No self link. If used, it will suppress a circular link but not a link to another article. Meadowlark (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Need help translating spanish pastas on YouTube

hello, I'm here just saying that I'm having problems with videos being english and some Spanish and I really wanted to know if there's any actual english translation that could help me? Mymikey23 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a help desk for questions related to using Wikipedia. It is not a general help/advice desk. Athanelar (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

again where I should comment that? JJMikey (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@JJMikey, you could try the reference desk, but I'm not sure if they will have an answer either. They'll likely have a go at finding an answer though! Meadowlark (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sortable table headings

Incident date	Name	Heading
2024	10	100
2022	0	1,000

Is there a way to make the sort arrow go unde the column heading to save space? So the column can be narrower. Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee: See Help:Sortable tables § Sort under template. If space is at a premium, then Help:Sortable tables § Optimising tables for a narrow display in the same article has suggestions. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. It's for tables where the data is narrower than the heading, and the column ends up wider than it needs to be. I've added an example.example Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Academic sources

First I knew that academic sources are considered best in Wikipedia. Then I found peer reviewed. After that when I search from google books and google scholar, some users say these are not reliable as the publisher is not reliable even though appearing on google scholar and books. I am not PHd student or professor from any top university. What is the full process to find sources.

Some users quote some google books whose content is not visible and hidden by google. How do they access them?

JSTOR is better than google scholar? ~2026-67322-6 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-67322-6. Only answering your middle paragraph: sources do not have to be available online. As long as a reader can in principle get hold of a copy (eg by subscribing to a service, or ordering it from a major library) that is good enough. So a link to Google books is almost always a convenience for readers, not an essential part of the citation; and if the snippet is not available, then it perhaps isn't much use.

The resource exchange and the Wikipedia Library are ways for editors to get access to online works that they cannot otherwise read. ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

~2026-67322-6, your third paragraph: Google Scholar does not bring you academic papers. Instead, it provides links to where you might get them (if you are authorized, or have paid, to do so). A small but nontrivial minority of the papers can be accessed freely (you need no authorization and need make no payment). If you can use "the Wikipedia Library" ("TWL", see above) then you can use JSTOR in order to download many (but not all) of the papers that it hosts. If you hope to use TWL, I recommend that you get a username and make plenty of constructive edits, consistently logged in under this username. JSTOR has dud papers (as examples, it includes papers that provide psychoanalytical "explanations" for phenomena). Google Books has a rather higher percentage of duds than JSTOR has. I tend to use both, judiciously, when I'm attempting to research something. -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Reliable source

Is FamilySearch.org a reliable source? WVWG9652 (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

No. See WP:FAMILYSEARCH. In general Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is the go-to place for this info. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Well I found this: https://web.archive.org/web/20160313044148/https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VG5C-CV4

And it lists California Death Index. WVWG9652 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

You have just been told to read WP:FAMILYSEARCH. Read it. It makes it absolutely why we don't cite it as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I just did and I understand. WVWG9652 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Chance of my Draft being accepted

Will my draft, titled Draft:Goodman Mfg. CK/CKL be potentially be accpeted into the mainspace via the AfC process? Also, could someone help me with finding more references for me (e.g. Articles in HVAC industry magazines or journals that discussed or reviewed the "Survivor" series or early CKL models, Articles analyzing the shift in coil design, Articles from non-Goodman, reputable, and independent HVAC experts analyzing 10 SEER units from the 1998-2006 era , major consumer report, a lawsuit, or a news article detailing the unit's significance or widespread failure/success, articles, books, or, if applicable, in-depth, third-party, specialized industry analysis that discusses the specific Goodman CK/CKL models ) and putting them in my draft? I do not want to risk my draft being rejected or deleted. BilltheBison (talk) (User who use train) 02:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I doubt it can be considered encyclopedic in scope. Perhaps 1/4 to 1/10 of this information could go into a paragraph in the main Goodman article. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, @BilltheBison, please be aware of WP:SUMMARY, WP:NOTCATALOG, and WP:SURPRISEME.

You dedicate an entire subsection to telling us the size of fuse required for each model of this air conditioner, for example. That is far too high and specific a level of detail than would ever be needed in an encyclopedia. Athanelar (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Would it be possible for my draft to be accepted? BilltheBison (talk) (User who use train) 19:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

No. But some very little bits of it might go into a different article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Use of an Autobiography as a Reference

Hi, is it okay to use a person's autobiography as a reference for a Wikipedia page about them? They are primary sources, yes, so I'd be allowed to use it, right? WP:BLPSPS makes it sound like I can, but it is worded a bit foggily. Sevenstxrsquid 🌊 22:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Did the person write it themselves? AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an autobiography if they didn't. As for whether information from an autobiography can be used in an article, there is no simple yes or no answer. For simple non-promotional matters, maybe, but even that can sometimes be problematic. The proper place to ask such questions is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, specifying the source being cited, and the specific text it is proposed to be cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh. I should've researched what autobiography means. AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

In principle, true. But plenty of what are marketed and referred to as autobiographies are ghostwritten; and increasingly so, I imagine, thanks to LLM ghostwriters. (Not that this changes much, as the ghostwriter -- whether or not an LLM -- wouldn't be independent of the autobiographee.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

And ghostwriter means...? AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

See Ghostwriter – Scyrme (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, well then...I guess that raises the issue that the autobiography doesn't have to be by the person themselves. AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Technically it does. If it is actually by a ghostwriter, and doesn't say so, then it is a biography masquerading as an autobiography.

However, the practice is so common (because "famous" people often don't have the time and/or ability to write their own autobiography) that it isn't usually regarded as a serious deception, and more often than not the 'ghosting' is fairly obvious and the ghostwriter's identity scarcely concealed and widely known.

For Wikipedia purposes, since the ghosted work is obviously written with the subject's active input, it is in practical terms as much a primary document as a real autobiography. so it can be used to corroborate that the subject states certain things as fact, but cannot contribute to demonstrating the subject's Notability. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Sevenstxrsquid 🌊 03:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

On behalf of everyone who helped @Sevenstxrsquid, you are welcome. AdmiralCarl (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Well ... sort of not by them.

"I want there to be a book about me but I'm not willing to write it myself" just sounds way too familiar somehow. Not sure where I might have experienced that type of thing before. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Our articles is not meeting your policies

Hi, Got your message that some of our articles is not meeting your policies , felt so disappointed for this

Just want to know in which particular article it happened ? and what we can do to rectify the same

so that we can continue our page on WIKIPEDIA Pravin lakhe (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the now-deleted content from your user talk page. You wrote a promotional essay, not an encyclopedia article. Please review the five pillars to learn more about Wikipedia, and use the new user tutorial. New drafts may be created and submitted via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia accounts are for a single person, not a group or couple. There is no "our", only a page that you may have written. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hubble's Law page

Grist for a blog, perhaps. Not for an encyclopedia, and certainly not for this page. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From the following, do you realise there is a GRAVE and fundamemental mistake made by ALL cosmologists in ASSUMING the Hubble Constant RECIPROCAL at around 13.8 billion years is the age of the universe? It is in fact is the maximum time / distance from an observer to the “Hubble horizon” determined in range by the redshift, that at 13.8 billion is the furthest that can be observed!!!! The redshift limited Hubble time / distance “horizon barrier” thus is the maximum redshifted observable horizon. It is NOT the age of the “unobservable universe” that lays beyond the Hubble horizon of 13.8 billion. From this NO ONE can know the age of the universe, which could be infinitely large, old, or whatever your favourite "personal favourite guess" may be???!!! So,do you agree from this reasoning it is IMPOSSIBLE to know how old the universe REALLY is?? I have not the "bottle" to correct the Hubble Law page, but do you agree on the point I make? ClownBojo (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Your use of words in all-capitals, multiple exclamation marks, and your blatant use of leading questions, do show how your thoughts are going right now. You're saying things that only make sense inside of your own thoughts. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Please carefully read again what I say and try to understand why the assumption of the Hubble reciprocal of 13.8 billion is NOT the age of the universe, but relates only to within the hubble horizon distance. The same Wikipedia errors are duplicated on the big bang pages by misuse of the v = H0 x D statement when it comes to the age of the universe assumptions. Only the observable universe inside the Hubble horizon can be known. Anything occuring outside and beyond the hubble horizon is unseen and therefore remains unknown. ClownBojo (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on this is of no relevance to Wikipedia. We base article content on what published reliable sources have to say - and for astronomy, such sources would be those of the relevant scientific community. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a single reference to a source. AdmiralCarl (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

xkcd:3155 ? Cabayi (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Please carefully read again what I say and try to understand why the assumption of the Hubble reciprocal of 13.8 billion is NOT the age of the universe, but relates only to within the hubble horizon distance. The same Wikipedia errors are duplicated on the big bang pages by misuse of the v = H0 x D statement when it comes to the age of the universe assumptions. Only the observable universe inside the Hubble horizon can be known. Anything occuring outside and beyond the hubble horizon is unseen and therefore remains unknown. ClownBojo (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

What we are telling you is that your original research or opinion is not relevant. Wikipedia summarized published reliable sources. If you have sources that give your viewpoint, please offer them at Talk:Hubble's law. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Just input what I say into any AI platform. GROK himself says I am making a valid point. The following equation is a very good way of knowing Hubble's Constant:- 2 x oneMpc x C/Pi^21 = 70.9449 km/s/Mpc. The reciprocal of that is 13.778 billion (Hubble horizon). This way is supported by AI, and AI is far better than crudely trying to measure H0. AI is therefore proving a much more reliable source than outdated error prone Wikipedia dominated by stubborn mindsets. That's not the way to do science these days. You should put that H0 value of 70.9449 km/s/Mpc into your Hubble's law page as the accurate calculated value of H0 as the reference value. ClownBojo (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Since you're not listening to us I have nothing more to add. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

ClownBojo, you seem to completely misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not a forum for discussing your personal theories. This is an online encyclopaedia, based on published sources, and that is all it is. Since you have done nothing whatsoever here except waste people's time with things which are utterly irrelevant to the project, I suggest you find somewhere else to peddle your theories, before we decide to oblige you to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Especially Grokipedia is not a reliable source as its knowledge goes as far as human knowledge does and have you ever heard of hallucinations? AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Film budgets in infoboxes

Do film budgets in infoboxes include advertising costs? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Not according to Template:Infobox film. DonIago (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

NPP Reviewing: Does this page qualify for an article/list

List of twin teammates in sports this seems like a really niche article, more like something that a kids book would have, does Twin teammates in sport qualify for a list in itself? Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Like any article, the notability criteria for lists is whether the list represents a category/concept which has been discussed in secondary sources already; so the answer is whether you can find any sources discussing the phenomenon of twin teammates in sports. If not, deletion is appropriate. Athanelar (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Well I did do a simple search and some articles talk about the phenomenon, not many but some, the articles unfortunately doesn’t list any sources at present. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Notability is based on whether sources exist, not whether they are included in the article at present. If there are enough sources to, in your judgement, substantiate the topic, then there's no grounds for deletion. Athanelar (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, good to know Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't read sports much, but I've never seen that topic covered. I have seen a probably-notable amount of coverage of one set of twins who had a good and quite long career playing next to each other on the same NHL team, and I expect that any relatively successful set of twins in any sport is likely to be covered as well, but seeing different sets of twins covered separately like that doesn't support this topic.

If there are books or major articles (reliable ones) called "Twins in Professional Sports" or whatever, where they write about this as a general phenomenon, then yes. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Making English city districts coextensive with their namesake cities

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

---

On the City of Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, York, Doncaster, Wakefield, and Salford districts’ pages, it states that they consist of their namesake cities and other places, when actually those places became part of the namesake cities when the districts were formed, just like when Greater London was formed, many areas outside London became part of it. Because of this, I believe it would be a good idea to make these districts coextensive with their namesake cities. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

HamzaTheGreat2007, I read this three times but still didn't understand it. So I chose one of the seven at random and looked for something that might be called Wakefield district's page. Wakefield (UK Parliament constituency) (itself a confusing article) tells me that this constituency no longer exists but is split between Wakefield and Rothwell and Ossett and Denby Dale. Then there's Wakefield and City of Wakefield. I'm now even more confused (and the confusion may or may not be what you're complaining of). Now, I may have a below-average IQ, but I suspect that I won't be unusual in being baffled by all of this and unsure of the cause of the bafflement. Perhaps you'd be better off introducing your suggestion with a description of the mess (in your view) around any one of the seven, and posting the reworded suggestion to the talk page of whichever single "WikiProject" seems most relevant (and not moribund). -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@HamzaTheGreat2007 I think I understand. I very much wonder if I'm wrong, though.

It makes sense to me to say that in fact those parts that were absorbed by the larger cities no longer have the names they once had. But to make a retroactive declaration (as it were) that those names never existed and should be expunged from the descriptions in the articles, doesn't make sense to me. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

There are entirely separate articles, for example, on Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; on Milwaukee (town), Wisconsin and on Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the city). There is no reason not to have different articles on the different entities. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This is different, because these districts are not counties, rather they are city districts inside counties, and also the town of Milwaukee was absorbed into the city of Milwaukee in 1955. My point still stands of merging these city districts with their namesake cities. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying, @HamzaTheGreat2007, and I lived in Bradford for 25 years. I think you may be proposing a merger of the articles Bradford and City of Bradford, and similarly for the other cities. If that's the case (or it's anything like that) I suggest raising it on the talk page of one of them (and put a pointer to it in the talk page of the other). See Merging for more information. ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am suggesting for a merger of the cities and their namesake districts. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

And I already have suggested this in the talk page of these city districts’ articles, but I have received no response. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

We have separate articles for London and Greater London, even though they now cover the same geographical area (are coextensive). If you want a formal discussion, I suggest trying one example and using the WP:Merging process. Or accept the feedback from here and don't attempt a merger. TSventon (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The difference is that these city districts’ pages state that they consist pf the namesake districts and places outside the city, when in reality, those places are part of the city proper. Because of this, the cities’ pages should be edited to have the same area and population as the districts. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources which say that the smaller settlements in the City of Bradford are part of Bradford proper, and so on? In my understanding Greater London was formed in 1965 to include most of the London conurbation. The City of Bradford and the other metropolitan boroughs of West Yorkshire were created in 1974 as parts of a national system of local government and they don't necessarily correspond to different conurbations. TSventon (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

• HamzaTheGreat2007 is correct as far as York is concerned (I can’t speak to the others). In 1996, the district of York was abolished and replaced with a new, larger district of York, which incorporated a number of the surrounding parishes. Those parishes became part of York when the new district was formed. That 'City of York' page is a figment of someone's imagination - there is no district named "City of York", the name of the district is "York". --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 you doubtless know more about York than I do. It seems that York and City of York have previously been merged and demerged, so I would recommend a discussion before merging them again. I assume the name "City of York" comes from City of York Council. TSventon (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@TSventon. The council styles itself as "City of York Council". It's a terrible error to assume therefore that there must be a district named "City of York". — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Does this mean the city districts’ pages will be merged into their namesake cities’ pages? HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@HamzaTheGreat2007, they will be merged only if somebody merges them and either the merger is unopposed, or the consensus in a subsequent discussion is to merge. ColinFine (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

So is there anyone who can merge these pages or can there be a discussion for them to merge? HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I strongly oppose all these mergers. Theres been longstanding consensus that these cities are distinct from the districts they form part of. Eopsid (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I still believe they should be merged because there are many areas that were historically in the home counties of London until Greater London was formed, but even after that, many people have still referred to them as being part of those counties, even though they really are part of London. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Very strongly oppose. Maybe It's Because I'm a Londoner, of the transpontine variety, even. :> MinorProphet (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I am a Londoner myself, and I have been to many places that were formerly part of the home counties until Greater London was formed, and they do not feel like the rest of London, yet I still accept the fact that they are part of London. Therefore, I still stand with merging these city districts’ pages. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Further making English city districts coextensive with their namesake cities

On the City of Preston page, I suggest merging it with the Preston page for the same reason as the other city districts I mentioned before. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

If you want to propose an article merge, follow the instructions at WP:MERGE. – Scyrme (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

So this is a continuation of #Making English city districts coextensive with their namesake cities. That was hard to comprehend; and, once comprehended, not persuasive. If you want to persuade, simple repetition won't suffice. Also, this is the "help desk", but it's not clear what, if any, help you are after. -- Hoary (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I am suggesting for the City of Preston district page City of Preston, Lancashire to be merged with the Preston page Preston, Lancashire HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

One is a settlement that has existed since the middle ages, the other is an administrative area that has existed since the early '70s, and may change again with another government re-org. I think it is better to keep them separate. Yes it’s confusing that the admin district has “City” in its name. Here in Australia we have City of Shoalhaven having its main city Nowra. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This is different as Nowra is not a proper city just like St Albans in England. Preston, however, is a proper city, which is why the Preston page Preston, Lancashire should be merged with the City of Preston page City of Preston, Lancashire HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

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

article

I prepared an articleen english on the "history of Compitese", an area in the province of Lucca, Italy, where many Italian immigrants to the United States originate. It has now become an area popular with English and Northern European tourists seeking relaxation and peace. I also wrote the Compitese entry in the Italian Wikipedia. Who should I submit it to in order to obtain a publication authorization?Romualdo Giovannoni (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Romualdo Giovannoni.

I have added a header to User:Romualdo Giovannoni/sandbox which allows you to submit it for review. ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

txRomualdo Giovannoni (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Romualdo Giovannoni How did you produce this translation? Your writing style in this comment is clearly different than that in your draft. If you used an AI tool or translator to produce the translation, you should know that machine-translated articles without proper human review are generally not allowed. "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing."

I suspect that this is the case because I see phrases like It should be noted before any narrative which, other than being inappropriate in tone (see WP:NOTED) sounds just clunky enough that it could be a direct translation from Italian. Athanelar (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I had to adjust the tone to match the basic knowledge of English speakers, so I simplified it a lot. I’ll try to correct the form and present it again, but whom can I present it to? I didn’t use an AI translator — I studied English for eight years, perhaps badly — so if you point out the parts of the translation that sound awkward to you, I’ll be able to fix them more quickly.Tx. Romualdo Giovannoni (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

"Compitese" in English

I wrote an article in English on Compitese( Lucca). Who should I send it to? It's the translation of my similar entry in Italian.Romualdo Giovannoni (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:Articles for creation has instructions on how to submit a draft for review. – Scyrme (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Creating an account

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

---

Hi there I’ve tried a few different user names to create an account and it keeps coming back with user id invalid. Why wouldn’t Binz32 work? ~2026-71055-3 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Replying at WP:Teahouse#Trouble creating user id Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:46, 1 February 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.

Adding separate quotes for instances of named references

I've got this article I'm working on (Spelling Reform 1) and in it, there are named references sourced by PDFs. These PDFs are very long, and so per WP:Footquote, I'm wanting to add quotations to the references.

In a recent edit, I split the citations up to add these quotes, but DuplicateReferences doesn't like it and anyway, for each new reference created I'm having to repeat all the same information other than the quote and page number, which isn't ideal.

How can I go about this properly, like keep the named references as a single reference, but add different page numbers and quotations for each instance where the reference is used? Newbzy (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

One solution would be to put the quotes in footnotes (for example using {{efn}}).

You could use {{rp}} to show the page number, and put the {{efn}} inside that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking into the future, this is a great use-case for the sub-referencing feature currently being developed. DMacks (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick doubt on Film Notability for Future Films

Hey,

I am quite familiar with film articles, however, I am bit confused about future not released films.

If a film is covered in some reliable sources and not having a confirmed release date, is it eligible for an article? Because even the principal photography completed, some won’t get close to a release due to post production issues and other circumstances.

so If a film not having a release date and no notable production, is it eligible for a standalone Article ?

If yes/No why? Or exceptions whhat?

Thanks for your time to respond my query! AlphaCore talk 16:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Am I reading your question correctly, can you create an article about a film if it doesn't meet the relevant notability requirements? Cabayi (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cabayi My answer was and is No. I just need to clarify it. My question was if a film has done its principal photography but the release is not confirmed is it eligible to have a standalone article at that phase ? AlphaCore talk 17:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Your question did not make it clear that you were asking for confirmation of your own judgement, It looked to me as if you were asking about an article you intended to create.

As well as the points raised by TooManyFingers I'd also consider the number of films which remain unreleased, either as a tax write-off or as a consequence of realising that if the film were released its actual value would not match its notional value in the production company's accounts forcing the producers to take an accounting loss. Cabayi (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

If an unreleased film has major coverage - big long stories that actually tell a lot of material about it, not announcements, not hype, not interviews - then it might be possible. For example if the shooting of it had highly publicized major events. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Perfect, thats what I wanted. Because I was bit confused of Koragajja (film) AlphaCore talk 17:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to dive in because I'm no expert, but unfortunately the entertainment industry in that part of the world has built a huge sub-industry of hype and lies. It can be hard to tell what's really going on and what to report. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

(In other words, almost always no.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually sometimes yes. See, for example, Category:Unreleased films and Category:Upcoming films, as well as Category:Cancelled films and Category:Unfinished films. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@AlphaCore: Koragajja has been draftified once, so the next step if you think it is not notable would be an AFD nomination, which has just been done. TSventon (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

No_original_research explanation help

Hello, I hope its a proper place to ask about that I'm trying to ask.

I had read Wikipedia:No original research twice, but still failing to understand how it should work in some cases. I have some hypothetical example that should be easy to clarify some of them if explained.

Suppose there is some rather old (lets say early 90s) and obscure video game, let call it A. Reasoning for choosing a video game as a theme for the example: i) while being of low importance, such articles are still obviously exists in Wikipedia; ii) they are reasonably easy to be accessed by somebody, who want to actually verify something about them, unlike some other possible examples of a similar kind. To clarify: I don't have some particular game in mind, and I could try to reformulate my question using some other, non-game related example if it would be of more help.

So there is some hypothetical Wikipedia article about that game A. That article contain some description of it, including, for example, amount of levels in it; suppose it say A have 40 levels (levels here are merely for example, if it matter, they could be changed to amount of playable characters there, or amount of types of weapons player could use there, etc; while I think that amount of something is a good example for this question, again, if it for some reasons not good, I could try to think about some other example). This claim about 40 levels is supported by citing a some publication printed about the time of the game release in some game-dedicated magazine, one that is count as a reliable_source. The game A's manual doesn't contain the information about amount of levels in it at all (maybe it very short overall, or developers thought its not a something to reveal to a player outright, etc.). But the game A itself actually contain 30 levels only, something that could be verified by playing it, and, to make it more reliable, by some people who reverse-engineered it (optional). Erroneous info in printed magazine could be due to mere error of their own, some misunderstanding in communication with a game developing company, difference of final released version of game with some demo sent to a magazine, etc. Still its very unlikely the source in question would bother with retraction of false info of so low importance after so long time passed, even if would get some request for.

The question is then: there is a factually incorrect data in an article, supported by a reliable source, and there are ways to verify that the data in question is erroneous, but how to prove it? Game A is obscure, and other reliable sources didn't bothered to write about amount of levels there in their articles about it (or picked up the same wrong amount), so there is no way to put a correct reliable citation about it; its manual also provide no needed info. Anybody could play game A and then write down amount of levels there, but as I understand it would be precisely that "original research", that shouldn't happen. There is possibility that information about real amount of levels is present on some internet forums/blogs/some_other_social_media dedicated to old games, but as I understand it would fail reliable_source requirement, and in any way could be the same "original research", because somebody could just play the game A, verify the actual amount of levels there, write it down in some forum, then cite themself.

So the case is: i) there is a reliable source with the wrong information; ii) there is no reliable source with the correct information; iii) its trivial to show that information in a cited reliable source is wrong by doing original research. As latter is very discouraged, do I understand it right that article in Wikipedia would have to contain a verifiable wrong information, as long that information was published in reliable source and wasn't retracted, and no other reliable source bothered to publish a correct information? (and in this case there would be a conflict of 2 equally good sources then, additionally complicating it?) And even the fact that the correct information could be easily acquired is of no help at all, unless it somehow would find a way into a whitelisted source pool (that is unlikely for obscure old info to do without really dedicated effort by somebody). The case I used for a question I think is also very different from examples in Wikipedia:No original research regarding Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, because, unlike them, it is about obscure information, that could be reasonably easy verified on its own with some effort, but had nobody "reliable", who published it yet.

It would be really weird to have an official guideline preferring to have an article with an actually wrong, but backed by a technically reliable source information, versus an article with an actually correct information; so there should be some workaround for it, just not clearly explained in Wikipedia:No original research, so if somebody would spare some time clarifying it, would be really appreciated.

Sorry, it turned out to be way more wordy than I planned, as I tried to write it clear and precise; if I missed something of importance in example still, I would try to clarify if needed. If its not proper place to ask such question, please, redirect me to a better one (I thought about Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, but it looks like as a place for a real, not hypothetical cases).

Thanks in advance. ~2026-67684-5 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

If you are going to come up with hypothetical questions, making them concise is more likely to get a response. Trying to disentangle that though, WP:NOR says we can't put original research into articles. What it doesn't say however is that we can't omit something from an article because we have reasonable grounds to suspect that though the source may be generally reliable, it is quite likely wrong for this specific thing. And note that WP:OR "does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources", meaning we can, and commonly do, engage in WP:OR when evaluating sources to see if they are reliable for specific content - this is an essential part of the editorial process, and not something that can be farmed out to WP:RS, since they aren't engaged in making evaluations according to Wikipedia's policies etc. If we don't have a reliable source for something, we simply don't mention it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for response.

I tried to write short version first, but it kept looking too abstract and vague for me no matter I tried without detailed example provided (I'm not so good in English), so I worried it would result in numerous clarifying questions in attempt to understand what is I'm about.

Do I understand you right, that in this example it would be possible to "omit" (thus remove) from the article the mention of 40 levels present in game A (but not add correct info about 30), despite it supported by a cited reliable source, because " we have reasonable grounds to suspect that though the source may be generally reliable, it is quite likely wrong for this specific thing"? This is what I'm asking about, because to show it we could only provide an "original research", that wouldn't be discouraged then? Precisely: one cannot use original research to add something to an article, but could use it to remove something from an article, even if it backed with reliable source? I thought it would seen as very disruptive action, so, probably I got it wrong now?

Not sure I understand part about evaluating right too. I understand that it would be possible to discuss it with others in Talk pages; I'm not sure how would it help in this example, unless somebody would be able to publish a correct info in reliable source as result of this communication. As I understand, even if somebody would show in Talk page that their original research is more correct than published source to others, it wouldn't make that research less original.

"If we don't have a reliable source for something, we simply don't mention it." < To clarify, because maybe I still failed to ask a question I'm about despite being wordy: I'm asking "What is a way to deal with a reliable source, that is put in a good faith, but turned out to be wrong, if it obscure enough to not have a good sources published that would disprove it, while it possible to disprove it with some simple check of actual object the article is about." So there is reliable source, its already mentioned, but its factually wrong; its too late to "simply not mention it" already. ~2026-67684-5 (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-67684-5 Perhaps the essay WP:When sources are wrong will help you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I replied to a wrong user below. ~2026-67684-5 (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

You've probably heard of "cherry picking", in which someone quotes only the little parts of a source that support their idea, hoping everyone will ignore the fact that most of that source, and everything in the other sources, doesn't support their idea.

Well ... "reverse cherry picking", ignoring little parts of one source because they might be wrong (but the source is generally reliable and the rest of it is good), can be OK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this article is definitely answer some questions I had about conflicting sources, but not much in scope of this one, sadly, other that the thing you summarized as "hoping everyone will ignore". So recommended way is to fix information to a correct one, and hope that as its about obscure thing, it would go without scrutiny, and in case it happen to bring attention, convince administrator to close eyes on it, by proving that the change is actually to a better, even if achieved not permitted way.

Some extra attempt to formulate it (I don't like that I had to use game as example, my point was to emphase on an "obscure and unimportant" part, but something what I tried to ask could been lost in it):

There is a Wikipedia article about some landmark X located in public accessible place at Y, again, one obscure enough, backed on a some article from reliable source from years ago about its existence. Later, but years ago, that landmark was destroyed, its not exist anymore ("later" is not recently, I understand there is special routine about recent events, I'm not about it), but as its obscure, nobody bothered to make any article about its destruction in reliable source. But, anybody could go to the place that landmark was, and verify its not exist anymore (and somebody even did it, but places they are published it is not reliable enough). Wikipedia:When sources are wrong still have no good explanation how to change "there is X located at Y [1]" to "there was X, located at Y, but not anymore" without an external source confirming it, despite its trivial to produce such source by themselves; it only account a cases of new, conflicting to original source [1], new source [2], updating it with correct information.

If that question not too concise enough for the place, or inappropriate for some other reason, tell, please. I'm very curious about it, but its not worthy of any possible nuisance at all. ~2026-67684-5 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Please don't waste people's time with hypothetical questions if you are looking for answers to a real one. And if you have a question regarding a real article tell us what article you are referring to. We are volunteers here, and are only likely to respond positively if you make some effort to get to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

NOR doesn't mean "never research anything," it means "don't include your own research in Wikipedia articles." Looking for sources in the first place is technically 'original research'.

Excluding information from a particular source because your research leads you to believe that the source is unreliable about that particular piece of information is not a NOR issue.

NOR applies to situations like "I went out and interviewed the subject of this article about their life and want to include that information" or "I measured that building myself and it's this size." The point of NOR is that information like this is difficult to verify, because the only way anyone could check it would be to interview that person themselves or measure the building or what have you. That's why things have to be sourced to reliable, secondary sources: because then anyone can verify it by just checking whether the source says what you claim it does. Athanelar (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I was asked to stop with it, but will dare to answer to clarify still. If it is wrong, tell, please.

I tried to precisely create examples that are essentially not about case of "information like this is difficult to verify", but about "information that is relatively easy to verify, but not important enough to have a source about it already, while have a source that is wrong about it very same time" instead.

Again, you really mean by "Excluding information from a particular source because your research leads you to believe that the source is unreliable about that particular piece of information is not a NOR issue." that one cannot add new information, that have no backing from a non-NOR source, but removal of some information backed by a reliable source that is in article merely basing on own original research is fine? Other user wrote something along that line, but not confirmed I got it right. ~2026-71679-5 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Utilisation of my videos on wikipedia

Hello, just minding why on a recent video, I can see on the stats analytics the fact that some views are from Wikipedia.

Could you please explain how this is working? Perhaps here's the title « Le VRAI problème chez Anyme (Racisme)"

I would like to know why I see some views from Wikipedia here, and I don't see my creation on the website on the Anyme023's page.

Thanks! -Kaiko ~2026-71409-3 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There was a similar question recently at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive 77#Youtube views coming from wikipedia? Cryptic suggested that, if your analytics give the exact urls people are going to, or at least prefixes of them, you can find [an answer] very efficiently with Special:Linksearch. TSventon (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I searched the title at YouTube and found the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZacmi-ykRc. I cannot find any links to it in the English or French Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

High Blood pressure

American Heart Association's 2025 Update for TM for High Blood pressure

I want to ask you first before editing the following. The American Heart Association updated its recommendation in 2025, from 2017, for Transcendental Meditation for high blood pressure. The current reference Wikipedia has under Transcendental Meditation from the AHA is from 2017. It is therefore out of date.

I propose under Wikipedia: "Transcendental Meditation," after references [9] [10], to add the following:

The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology have updated their 2025 High Blood Pressure Guideline — and they recognize the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique as an evidence-based method for lowering blood pressure.

This is the first time any meditation technique has been included in an AHA/ACC hypertension guideline. TM may now be recommended alongside lifestyle changes and medical therapy.

The TM technique is the only meditation procedure cited, with evidence rated moderate to high quality. Other meditation and mindfulness practices were not included due to weaker data.

This AHA/ACC guideline represents the nation’s most authoritative high blood pressure treatment recommendations.

Reference:

JACC Journals › JACC › Archives › Vol. 86 No. 18  14 August 2025

2025 AHA/ACC/AANP/AAPA/ABC/ACCP/ACPM/AGS/AMA/ASPC/NMA/PCNA/SGIM Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

If I have your permission or further guidelines for refinement, I will make the edit.

Sincerely,

Will Davis Will M Davis (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Will M Davis, if you want to propose a change to the article Transcendental Meditation, then go ahead and propose it, at the foot of Talk:Transcendental Meditation. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

From your reply, I edited with my update. Will M Davis (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Special:Diff/1336159518

Special:Diff/1336159518

When will Citation Bot be online?

Thanks, Ahri Boy (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

What displays as laodong.vn https://laodong.vn/van-hoa-giai-tri/anh-trai-say-hi-chieu-lien-tiep-2-tap-trong-tuan-1380475.ldo. Retrieved 2026-02-02 lacks a title. Every cite template requires specification of a title. Also, it gives "laodong.vn" as the author. But a domain name can't be an author. There are other examples here too of generic names being presented as authors. If a web page doesn't specify one or more human authors, then simply skip the "first", "last", and "author" attributes. -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

List of articles related to project Australia that are protected etc

Interested in finding out what articles related to Project Australia are causing problems. Thank-you Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 09:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Wakelamp You should be able to do this using PetScan. You could find the intersection of Category:WikiProject Australia articles and Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected pages, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I am having difficulties as it is returning 0 values

WikiProject Australia articles, Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected pages Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 09:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Template for article draft as userpage

Is there some sort of templated message I can send to new users about creating an article draft as their userpage?

Hi all,

As you can see over at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, it would appear it's a pretty regular occurrence for new users create article drafts on their own userpage.

This message (along with this image) pops up when someone tries to do that:

Please do not draft new articles here—to do that, create a userspace draft.

This is your user page, a place to introduce yourself to other editors to help them understand your contributions. It is not a personal website, and may be deleted if used inappropriately. Please be mindful of your privacy when deciding what to share here.

Rather that re-type "Hello, User talk:Example, when you created User:Example you would have noticed that this message appeared..."

Please do not draft new articles here—to do that, create a userspace draft.

This is your user page, a place to introduce yourself to other editors to help them understand your contributions. It is not a personal website, and may be deleted if used inappropriately. Please be mindful of your privacy when deciding what to share here.

... is there an existing template-y (and hopefully non-WP:BITE-y) sort of message that could be sent in this sort of thing happens? I've looked at Wikipedia:Template index, and can't find one. (Admittedly, my search may have not been as thorough as I'd like to think it was.)

Thanks!

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There's always {{uw-userpage}}, but it's true that this template isn't directly specific to your case. However, the fact that userpages are not encyclopaedia articles or article drafts are the first two items addressed in the bulleted list, so if I didn't know better I'd say this template is your best bet (it's intended for talk pages of course). Newbzy (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know of a user-talk message to send them about it, but {{Userspace draft}} might be a good tag to put on the userpage itself. DMacks (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Newbzy and DMacks: thank you both! And also thank you to this helpdesk - this now answered question was made by an admin with ~60,000 edits and ~1,000 articles created. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

User creating another user?

Sometimes in user creation logs, you'll see that it states that a user created another user account. How does the log know that? Does one not need to sign out in order to create another account? thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 18:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Users with the WP:Account creator user group are able to make accounts without needing to sign out, which the log knows and logs. I hope this answers your question! dot.py (alt) 18:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's it. The log in question I saw was a blocked user creating other accounts (which were later blocked as socks). thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 18:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Normal users can make up to 6 accounts per 24 hour period via Special:CreateAccount. Account creator allows users to make more than that. Skynxnex (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I just checked, it looks like you don't actually need the account creator user group, you would just need to go to Special:CreateAccount. Account creators just aren't limited to the 6 accounts/day limit. dot.py (alt) 18:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Logged in users can create accounts using Special:CreateAccount, and it will be logged that they created a new account from their account. Typically used for creating bot accounts or for ACC purposes. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This is also done by some of our less sophisticated sockmasters. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can create a new account while being signed in. Account creators can bypass the 6 account/IP/day limit. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

New Article

Hello. I'm trying to request a new article, about myself and to say that I'm confused, is an understatement. For instance, there is no such button as "Publish changes" only "Publish page". Hoping someone can help. Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

"Publish" in our context simply means "save and make public", as all edits are public.

Are you attempting to create an article about yourself, or just request one? 331dot (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Request one, preferably. Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, you can request one at Requested Articles(if you're not there already)- but it is backlogged to the point of uselessness; any request you make will not be acted on for some time, if ever(and that's assuming you meet the relevant criteria for inclusion).

If you truly feel that you meet the relevant notability criteria(like musician or writer or academic or just a person) you are free to attempt to create an article about yourself, though its inadvisable; please see the autobiography policy. You would need to set aside everything that you know about yourself and limit yourself to summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you. Most people have great difficulty doing that about themselves, especially without prior Wikipedia editing experience. But, if you want to try nevertheless, you may create and submit a draft via the Article Wizard. It is rare for people to succeed in writing about themselves, but it does happen.

Be advised that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That's helpful. Yes, I meant the criteria and it would be helpful to have everything in one place. Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ideally, the best place for you to have all information about yourself in one place is a personal website or social media account that you own and control. You will not have exclusive control over any Wikipedia article about you, and it may say things that you might prefer not be said as long as they appear in an independent reliable source and are not defamatory. Most people fail in attempting to write about themselves, but you are free to attempt to submit a draft as I advise. I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial first. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll sleep on it. Thanks. Echo-Reverb (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Meet, I meant to say (no pun). Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Please note that almost everyone who comes here for help is quite confident that they meet the criteria, and yet they very often don't meet them - often not even close to meeting them. The usual problem is Wikipedia:Notability. Within that category, common problems are

• sources that don't tell the subject's entire history
• sources that are influenced by the subject

We have to stick very close to being only a restatement of what's already in the sources. For example, the subject is allowed to fill in for themselves "My birthdate is February 2", but not allowed to fill in "I'm a well-known painter". For that reason, we need sources that truly speak for themselves - we have to be confident that if we just plopped the three best sources onto a table, readers would have the full story just from that.

And while sources that appear to have possibly been influenced by the subject (or their publicist or associates) are not completely useless, they are much closer to useless than subjects usually expect. They can't be used at all when it comes to telling your story - they can't be one of those "three best sources" mentioned in the previous paragraph. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m pleased to say that a colleague has stepped in and will now be taking up the challenge. He’s set up a few pages previously and although we discussed it many years ago, I didn’t want to burden him, however, he thought I’d never ask. Bless him. ~2026-73285-7 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Just a note that if the person writing about you also works about you, they will have a Conflict of interest. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, however, Sean doesn’t work for or with me, he’s a fan, but it just feels more comfortable to say colleague. I generally refer to individuals as “my good friend and colleague”. It works for me. ~2026-73285-7 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

He will still have a conflict of interest. Editors have no need to contact the subject of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

And, @~2026-73285-7, Sean will still have the challenge of

• finding the independent reliable sources about you that are required to establish that you meet Wikipedia's criterai for notability (most of us don't); and if he cannot find them, telling you so, and not spending any more time on this project;
• setting aside everything that he knows about you except from those sources
• making sure that almost everything in the article is verifiable from a reliable published source that is wholly independent of you: not only not written or published by you, but not based on an interview or press release from you or your associates or organisations. (Some limited information may come from non-independent published sources: see primary)
• fairly summarising what those sources say, even if he disagrees with them or knows that you will disagree with them.

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. ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

If you had got someone who had never heard of you, AND was happy to write for free, AND you provided them absolutely no information but just left them to look it up for themselves, your sense of relief would be justified. But the situation you've described is, from Wikipedia's point of view, really no different from having you do it yourself (or only barely different). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

submission of biography

A year ago I hired a wiki writing firm to assist with a biography of my Father. They were supposed to submit it to Wikipedia for review. They never did that and now they are not able to be contacted. I believe I was scammed and I REALLY wanted to speak with one of your representatives. I am not real computer literate but I have spent so much time and money on this project, I do not want to scrap it. Help, please. ~2026-72700-6 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a common scam. See Wikipedia:Scam warning. Sugar Tax (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As you suspect, you were scammed. Please read the scam warning. In that regard, there's not much we can do to help you. You can contact your bank and have the charge declared fraudulent. You could contact your local authorities but there's probably not much they can do.

We can't do much to write the article for you; this is a volunteer effort, not a business. Writing a new article is challenging, but you can try by using the Article Wizard. I'd suggest using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The overwhelmingly important detail is that whomever you hired has no actual affiliation with Wikipedia itself. It's a third party that is totally independent, and you'd have to work with them directly (or with whatever other financial or legal services are relevant). So that's why we can't do anything...not because we aren't sympathetic or frustrated by this sort of situation. DMacks (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I have a copy of the biography. Where can I submit it for Wikipedia review and suggestions? KANINGRYTA (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@KANINGRYTA Visit WP:AFC , which is a submission vehicle an inexperienced or inexpert user will often use. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. However, you should first formally disclose your conflict of interest on your user page(User:KANINGRYTA) You should make sure that the draft is a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about your father, and that it has no personal knowledge. You need to show that your father is a notable person(there are also narrower criteria for certain fields, like musicians) 331dot (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-72700-6@KANINGRYTA In addition to what others have said, please forward your entire conversation with this 'wiki writing firm' to the reporting address at paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org so appropriate action can be taken against these scammers. Athanelar (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Just a caution: when sending your entire conversation, do not omit, edit, or redact anything. Send every bit of it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ages of subjects

I’m a small donor and use you quite frequently. You used to say the subjects age as well as date of birth, (but I’m quite awful at math) and having to figure out someone’s age spoils my enjoyment. I’m 79 and although that’s not an excuse, I’d love if you could calculate someone’s age like you used to. Thank you so much Cherrill Faruzzi ~2026-64869-5 (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you specify a certain article where this is an issue? 331dot (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-64869-5: We usually state the age if the article has an infobox. We haven't changed practice so I guess you just happened to recently see some articles which never stated the age. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Articles that do this (eg. Stephen Fry) often use a template, {{birth date and age}}, to automatically calculate the age from the date so it stays up to date as time passes. However, the template has to be manually added to each article; sometimes editors neglect to include it. – Scyrme (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

If you happen to read on a mac, you can press command+space to bring up a search bar that also works as a calculator. I'm bad at math too, it's a life saver mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Incendiary updates made by new users that appear anonymous

Recent updates made by user ~2026-672111-2 appear as a political opinion labeling a public news person by using inflammatory descriptions. The update was made by a user who newly created an account and has made a single update making it look like they are anonymous. Wolfgan20 (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Wolfgan20, I think there's a small typo in the username and you probably meant this edit here. It was indeed problematic and I reverted it. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Those are our new temporary accounts. The WMF thought exposing non-logged in editors IPs was a privacy issue so they implemented them a few months ago mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Question about what should i know

Hello Can you please give me a brief list of things that a experienced user should know? Anya2025 11:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMER for a good introduction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Embedding an Animated GIF in an Article

I was trying to add an animation to an article. I have since reverted this edit, since the GIF was not animated unless you click on it. I have seen animations work without enlarging them on other articles. How can I make the GIF play all the time? Emgram (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The File:Homotopy lifting gif.gif file on commons has a comment "Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated. The limit on Wikimedia Commons is width × height × number of frames ≤ 100 million." DMacks (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much Emgram (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Use of Facebook as a citation

I am seeing a lot of articles with this. For example, Leonid Chernovetskyi, has a citation to https://www.facebook.com/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fchernovetskiy

Should this be deleted or moved to the External links section or marked as citation needed ? Meltedrock (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Facebook and other social media accounts do belong in External links. Facebook as a reference can be used sparingly, for example, "John Jones announced his candidacy for mayor of Swan Lake on Facebook." The sentence "John Jones is active on Facebook" might be true when the sentence was inserted, but it might not be true later, so I'm not crazy about using a Facebook page to support the article saying someone is active on Facebook, as Leonid Chernovetskyi does, sloppily, viz "Leonid Chernoverskiy belongs [sic] remains active on social media, including Facebook". The External link should be templated, viz:

* {{Facebook|Fchernovetskiy}}

which on Leonid Chernovetskyi will display as

• Leonid Chernovetskyi on Facebook

Anomalocaris (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

However, in this case, that shouldn't be added to Leonid_Chernovetskyi#External_links per WP:ELMIN. His official website would be enough even if it didn't link his FB, which it does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and @Anomalocaris Meltedrock (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Meltedrock: I believe WP:ELMIN is saying that ordinarily there should be only one official website. I don't think it's deprecating the listing of social media sites in External links. We might not want to list the Facebook page just because the subject of an article has a Facebook page, but if the article specifically notes that the individual is active on Facebook, it seems to me that it's fine to include their Facebook page in External links. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

"Normally, only one official link is included. ... However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites."

If there is no firstnamelastname.com website, then it's fine to pick one social media, FB, insta, whatever, to do the WP:ELOFFICIAL job. Raegan_Revord#External_links and Johnathon_Schaech#External_links are examples. If the EL-section has a list of several subject social media, it's time for weeding. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Please also see WP:NOSOCIAL - Arjayay (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Which is under the heading "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, the article Leonid Chernovetskyi indicates that he is notable mainly as a politician and businessman, and the article does not suggest that he is notable as a social media influencer or that his Facebook page has any significance, so I agree that External links should not include his Facebook page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

How to make an article

I tried to make an article via the sandbox and it got reset even after I published it. PLease help me. Calvinnnn5 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: . Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Calvinnnn5.

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.

Starting writing an article in any other way than finding sources which each meet all the criteria in WP:42 is usually a waste of time.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Calvinnnn. In addition to ColinFine's excellent advice above, please read the following linked subsection of a larger topic: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which includes a decision Wikipedia determined in 2017: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist."

There are around 15,000 Middle Schools (so named) in the USA alone, and probably more than 100,000 Middle Schools or their equivalent Worldwide.

(Some countries have few or any because they structure their education system differently.)

Very few Middle Schools merit an article in a global encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and when they do it's usually because of something exceptional about them. Ordinary Middle Schools have no reason for Wikipedia to include them, and your article, now a Draft, does not suggest that your School is any different. Sorry, but it's very unlikely that an acceptable article about it is possible. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

AI in editing

what constitutes an AI, more specifically can we use text editors such as grammerly Ducklan (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to one of Wikipedia's biggest ongoing debates.

Consensus as it stands is that AI chatbots like ChatGPT should not be used to generate entirely new articles. Using them to generate comments in discussions is also heavily discouraged and a ban is being discussed.

Grammarly does utilise large language models and so should be used with caution, as it's been known to overcorrect and change the meaning of text.

For full guidance, please read WP:LLM Athanelar (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I would much rather read someone's bad grammar. Not everyone is at the highest level in English, and that's fine. If people get your meaning almost all the time, then it's probably enough. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

They're extremely strongly discouraged, because there is no need to let them corrupt your writing. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Smaller font size of a wikilink within an image’s caption

Smaller font size of a wikilink within an image’s caption

Hello,

does anyone happen to know why the wikilink in the caption of this photo on Armin Mueller-Stahl’s wikipage is displayed in a smaller font size?

(Safari, iPhone 12 Pro, iOS 26.2.1)

Greetings, Molekularbiologe (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The thumb caption of images is smaller in size, but I myself have no idea why. AdmiralCarl (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Strange. It's not smaller on my end, though I'm viewing it on a desktop computer. I tried viewing the page on "mobile view" too, but it was still the usual size. I checked the history of the article to see if anyone edited to fix it, but no one had edited it after you posted. I checked the source code of the article Armin Mueller-Stahl, but there's nothing unusual about the caption. The link highlighted in your screenshot only has the typical Wiki formatting for italics.

Perhaps it's an issue with Safari or iOS?

If it's still smaller on your end, maybe someone at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might know what's going on here. – Scyrme (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The entire caption is already smaller of course, but then the italic link is extra small. I suspect Safari, but can't prove it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

qustion

hello

what is different between [WP] and [MOS] ??( i have seen in summery of edits)

where can i use them ??

should i memorize them??

i don't know how to use them please help me to know about how to use . Anya2025 20:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Anything listed as WP: is those in Wikipedia space. This is a redirect to something like WP:NOT being Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

MOS stands for Manual of Style, so the style guide. These generally link to pages within our Manual of style, which is the prefix Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For instance, MOS:CAPS links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters.

In general, these links being sent to you are to show policies and guidelines that apply to Wikipedia. There are a lot, but you should try and follow them as best you can. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much 🌹 Anya2025 20:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

"WP:" and "Wikipedia:" are prefixes for the Wikipedia namespace. You can see a list of all the namespaces and more information about them at Wikipedia:Namespace. – Scyrme (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

These namespaces are a kind of categories. When you use one of them, you should memorize that it exists - for example, now you know that WP: and MOS: both exist. And knowing they exist, it's also good to get to know what kind of stuff is in them, so that when you want to look for something you'll know where to start.

But don't try to memorize all the items that each one of them contains - your head would explode! :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much 🌺 Anya2025 06:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Indenting in the Visual editor

I know that in the Source editor, we use colons to indent text the equivalent of one tab stop, but I prefer to work in the Visual editor and haven't yet figured out how to do it there. Guidance, please—also the associated short cut, if there is one. Augnablik (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

From my knowledge, that is not possible in visual editor, unless you use spaces. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 21:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@AdmiralCarl Do you mean that leading spaces have a special function in Visual, or do you mean just adding spaces by hand on each line?

Different screens or windows have different line lengths, so adding spaces by hand isn't really useful unless all your paragraphs happen to be very very short. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

No, as in just pressing the spacebar repeatedly.... AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 22:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Like they said, adding repeated spaces at the start of a line doesn't work if the text is long enough to wrap around to a new line. I also think it would get on other editor's nerves if you did that in ordinary text. Usually padding things out with spaces is only done in templates in the source code to make them easier to read. I know if I found an article that started a sentence with repeated spaces I would just delete the spaces or revert the edit as unhelpful. (Edit: I'm also not sure how that would actually look in the source code - what would the visual editor convert it to?) – Scyrme (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I gave the visual editor a try while logged out and it seems you can indent text in the same menu at the top that you use to add a bulleted list. The icon looks like three stacked lines with bullet points on the left. It only appears when editing articles, not in Talk page replies. That same menu also lists the keyboard shortcuts as Tab or Ctrl+] to add indentation and Tab+Shift or Ctrl+[ to remove indentation.

However, on my end those options were greyed out and I couldn't actually use them. I don't know why. Maybe those options are only available to logged in editors or have to be enabled in preferences? I honestly don't know. I don't personally use the visual editor when logged in. (In fact I don't even know how to switch to it; I can't find the option, so I suspect I disabled it in my user preferences at some point. When I click "edit" it goes directly to the source editor for me.)

Maybe Tab or the options in the bullet point menu work on your end? If they're also greyed out on your end and no-one here knows why, maybe the editors over at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might have an idea as to why they're listed but not enabled. – Scyrme (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Going directly to the source mode is done through the preferences; I enabled it but I don't remember where... AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Update: I found the relevant preferences. Turns out you have to both check the option to "enable the visual editor" and also set the "editing mode" menu to "show both editor tabs" (I had it on "remember my last editor").

Situation on my end in the visual editor in is the same when I'm logged in. The options are listed, including shortcuts, but they're greyed out and I can't actually use them. – Scyrme (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You found them, nice, and thank you, now I can change that option. AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up at several points on my question, Scyme. I'll address your comments from several messages at the same time here.

— I noticed that the bulleted icon you mentioned occurs at the top left only in Source edit mode, whereas in Visual it appears in the Tool bar. Could it be that the indentation tool was once operative but no more? That seems counterintuitive.

— And when I did use the icon, like you I found the two options greyed out as you did.

— As for using the Tab key, that wouldn't indent an entire paragraph, only its first line. This reminds me, though, that some months ago I had a somewhat similar conversation as this one with my mentor, although he rarely uses the Visual editor; and what he suggested was to use the Block feature among the Paragraph tools. That indents the paragraph from both the left and the right, however, not just from the left. It's not quite what I'm looking for.

Still hoping, so now I'll follow your advice and go with my question to VP-T. Augnablik (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Where do I go from here?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Stephen L. Hurst

Hi there, I created an article and was given feedback that the article didn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. I redid the article and some comments were made but I can't tell exactly where things stand and what to do now. Is there anyone or some place I can turn to for help? Many thanks. Nico Tenpasten (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome!

At the beginning, you say Hurst is a biopharmaceutical executive, attorney, and venture capitalist. Who has published those facts about him? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply and questions/instructions! I like your name too. I thought this information could be inferred from Mr. Hurst's documented background, but if it can't I've listed a few resources that can corroborate these facts.

1. biopharmaceutical executive--> he co-founded Mind Medicine (MindMed), Inc. a biopharmaceutical company, served as Executive Vice President of Operations and General Counsel at Inhale Therapeutic Systems.

Potential sources:

https://people.equilar.com/bio/person/stephen-hurst-definium-therapeutics-inc/451761

https://psychedelicreview.com/person/stephen-hurst/

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/21578203?embedded-checkout=true (PAYWALL)

2. attorney--> received a Juris Doctor from Golden Gate University School of Law in 1984, is a registered patent attorney.

Potential sources:

https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/114975

3. venture capitalist--> Hurst is a General Partner at 1864 Fund, a seed-stage venture capital fund in Nevada.

Potential sources:

https://pitchbook.com/profiles/person/208414-72P. (PAYWALL, but I have a PDF of this page). Tenpasten (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Paywalls are fine, but Pitchbook is not independently written - the information comes from the subject himself (or from his staff), and is therefore inadmissible on Wikipedia. At least that's my understanding of how Pitchbook operates - please correct me if I'm wrong. All these things need to come from independent sources, not influenced by the subject or his associates. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

All of what I've said is related to Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability - plus an excellent summary at WP:42. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tenpasten

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. ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Later on, you say:

During his tenure, he played a role in raising over $700 million in investment capital and helped out-license multiple clinical development projects.

But as a citation you give Hurst's own advertising. Wikipedia requires independent published confirmation of every salient fact. We can't take Hurst's word for any of his accomplishments. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh ... Draft:Stephen L. Hurst TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Things that are not accepted on Wikipedia, except in support of mundane statistics such as date of birth:

• Material that appears to have originated with the subject or his associates, regardless of who ultimately publishes it
  • This means anything that seems to come from a CV, a media bio, a press release, an interview, an industry/trade publication, social media, blogs, a corporate or personal website, or a service for business such as LinkedIn or similar
• Material for which a published source is not cited

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia not letting me post?

I keep trying to submit and I write the exact words on the CAPTCHA and it keeps rejecting me and not letting me publish, this is literally an assignment for one of my courses and it simply just making my life more complicated for no reason. Ivy2020uw (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

When you have entered the word, do you then click the 'Publish' button some way further down (which is the correct procedure) or do you click the 'Refresh' button next to the CAPTCHA box (which is incorrect)? The latter is a common mistake which I have made myself before now; the 'Refresh' is for asking for a new CAPTCHA challenge because you could not read the previous one. Hope this helps, but if not ask again with more details, like exactly what you're trying to do. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

If your teacher has set you an assignment involving editing Wikipedia, please instruct them to reach out to WP:WikiEd if they haven't already, as WikiEd actively works with schools to design sensible coursework involving Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I was declined for a reason that does not make sense

 Courtesy link: Draft talk:Wiknic

An unknown reviewer said "Even for events hosted by the English Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia is not a reliable source." even though the subject of the article isn't hosted by English Wikipedia, but instead Wikimedia. Also why did they say it's not a reliable source? This person is incorrect. Jaxx99 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

They are not incorrect, and this is official policy, as the English Wikipedia indeed is not a reliable source and must not be used as one, see Wikipedia:Circular. AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Wiknic

@Jaxx99: Wikipedia is not a reliable source - even for incidents involving itself - and if it does directly involve Wikipedia/-media, Wikipedia would be a primary source with regards to it. Your draft also cites nothing what-so-ever, which would doom any article regardless of topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

To add, please do not put a section for the References if there are no references. AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It would also fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability criteria unless discussed in depth in independent reliable sources - which seems unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry as this was my first draft I made. I will fix it because I'm a beginner to Wikipedia articles and didn't know this obscure rule. Jaxx99 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

That's okay, no one knows everything. AdmiralCarl (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jaxx99, and welcome to Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

That's precisely why we consider it inadvisable for newcomers to dive right into article creation. Get some experience editing for a while first and you'll understand the obscure rules much better. Athanelar (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Notability check: Mollie Garfield

I want to get another opinion on notability before I get into making an article on Mary Garfield Stanley-Brown (wikidata:Q75766697; the daughter of James A. Garfield, wife of Joseph Stanley-Brown, and mother of Margaret Stanley-Brown). Besides mentions in biographies of her father, I found:

• A profile on the US National Park Service website: https://www.nps.gov/people/mary-mollie-garfield.htm
• One paragraph on the Smithsonian website: https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/mollie-garfield-papers-8174/biographical-note
• An article in the Archives of American Art Journal: doi:10.1086/aaa.45.1_2.25435100
• A book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mollie_Garfield_in_the_White_House/utYEAQAAIAAJ

Normally I'd say the book would bring it over the line, but it was written by her own daughter. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: hi, if you don't get an answer here you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. More sources would be useful, have you done (or asked somebody to do) a newspapers.com search? TSventon (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

There are mentions of her in newspapers, but the only secondary coverage is in obituaries, which is still routine. And I've found that WiR is more concerned about the number of articles created than the quality of sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

My opinion, for what little it's worth, is that she is not wiki-notable enough to be worthy of an article in her own right. What did she do beyond being somebody's daughter/wife/mother and collecting some autographs? Chuntuk (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Properly placing citations in a list.

I am wondering if the current citation at MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility Valley units and Courtyard units is placed properly. All the information in the Valley units and Courtyard units are supposed to be under the 3rd reference, but I'm not sure if it currently reflects that. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't edit in this area, so I've not changed anything, but I'd put the reference immediately after "the Valley/Courtyard units are:" rather than against one or all of the items in the bullet lists. That's what's done where you have a single source for who somebody's children are and you list them out in a bullet list (that's what's done by me, anyway) and this is a similar case. Chuntuk (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

How to cite PDF with no title?

I recently made an edit to a page and used a court filing PDF as a source. But I'm getting an error: "Missing or empty |title". I'm not quite sure how to fix that since there isn't really a "title" for this PDF. I really wanna learn to do this the right way, so any help would be appreciated. The edit in question occured at 22:26, 4 February 2026 on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna%27s_Archive&action=history

Thank you in advance. Charliefish (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

From what I see at Template:Cite web under Usage, if there is no credited author, you can put |author=<! -- not stated --> for it's parameter, and, after testing in my sandbox, turns out you cannot do the same for the title parameter unfortunately. Therefore, I think a title must be there if you want that error message to not appear, I'm not certain though. AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I've given it a title - could also be "NVIDIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT" if that's more suitable. Not having an obvious title means we should try our best with what is there. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Verification request (The Times)

Can someone with access to The Times (British newspaper) please verify the claims referenced to it in the article Husain Al-Musallam? I want to make sure the claims are correct. Thanks. Janhrach (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I tried The Wikipedia Library, but unfortunately that only gives access up to 2014, and the references queried are from 2017. TSventon (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Janhrach. Please ask questions like this at the resource exchange. ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The next time, I will. Is it okay (from the copyright standpoint) to request several articles from a well-known newspaper? Janhrach (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You can, but editors will probably object if they think you are over-doing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

How would someone search all their contributions to English Wikipedia for a specific word or phrase

Hi all

This is a slightly odd question but is there a way to search all of my contributions on English Wikipedia for a specific word, phrase or set of words?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikiblame lets you search one page for exactly which edit introduced a word or phrase to that page.

You can do an edit summary search on yourself, for what you wrote in those.

But I don't know how to search all of Wikipedia at once. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@John Cummings I wrote "word or phrase" above, but searching for one word is probably a bad idea - it would find too many false positives. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi TooManyFingers (great user name), thanks very much for your reply, unfortunately this hasn't worked. The edit summary tool didn't pick up pages I knew I had used the word on and Wikiblame isn't really the right tool since I want to look across all pages I've contributed to over 15+ years. If you have any other ideas or places I could ask please let me know :) John Cummings (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Since no one else has responded here, I suggest taking your question to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). That gets looked at by people more knowledgeable than I am. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

False birth origins

Need help as many of Estonias notable people birthplaces are changed to USSR even though we were not recognized as a ussr state worldwide! Can there be a autobot or autobanner on people who change them to be born there? ~2026-79894-5 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-79894-5. There was a discussion and a consensus to put the birthplaces as the Soviet Union during the occupation years. You are free to join discussions on this, but please do not continue changing the birthplaces. See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes Thanks. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

In this argument about people's place of birth in Baltic countries at that time, both sides always lose the argument. There is no way either side can ever win it, because the other side always has a perfectly good response to everything. So on Wikipedia we have to shut down the argument and forbid continuing it, make some decision that's reasonable, and stick with it. Which is what we've done our best to do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

user names

I have two accounts: bizdata-usa and peter lyons hall. Please REPLACE and consolidate the content for bizdata-usa with Peter Lyons Hall. Thank you. Bizdata-usa (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no way for us to do that. The best thing for you to do would be to put a notice on the userpage of both accounts explaining that each one is linked to the other. Athanelar (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Random in Portal?

Is there a tool similar to Special:RandomInCategory but for a random article in a specific portal? Zatoicy (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

really stupid question

Hello, I am wondering what the little image next to an article when you search something up is called? CharlieRidesRollerCoasters (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

CharlieRidesRollerCoasters, I think you mean the lead image (MOS:LEADIMAGE). TSventon (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@CharlieRidesRollerCoasters: It's called the page image. See mw:Extension:PageImages. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Bot/tool to automatically add sidebar?

Template:Jewish Organizations

I've recently created the sidebar (seen to the right) of Jewish organizations, and I want to add this onto some relevant articles. However, there are dozens or even hundreds of articles in some of its sections, which I don't want to add manually. Is there a way to use a tool or a bot to automatically have it added to every article that's within a specific category? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Why a sidebar and not a template to go, far less distractingly, at the foot (like for example Template:Restaurants in the City of New York, as seen at the foot of, for example, The Coffee Shop (New York City))? -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The lists here do seem excessively long for a sidebar. Sidebars have to share space with images and other templates, but expanding the "American" section, would likely displace most them from their intended location on the page. Usually sidebars are selective in what they include, rather than comprehensively trying to replicate the contents of a category.

Many sidebars link to a relevant category for a more comprehensive list of relevant articles (eg. {{Philosophy sidebar}} or {{Taoism}}, which have an explicit links to their main categories in the "above" or "below" links, or {{Human history}} which links to its main category in the "part of a series on" preamble at the top). This helps avoid the problem of trying to include everything.

If the intention is to have a comprehensive list organised by topic or region (as opposed to just an alphabetical listing in a category page), you can also make a "List of..." or "Outline of..." article and link to that in a prominent position in the sidebar/navbox, like {{Philosophy sidebar}} (sidebar) or {{Geography topics}} (navbox) do. – Scyrme (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's far too big and loosely connected for a sidebar. It has 411 links! Some of it could be split into multiple navboxes. Don't use header markup ==...== in templates. The sections are added to the table of contents so I removed the transclusion from this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

There are precedents for large/complex navboxes. For example, {{philosophy topics}} has full, large collapsible subsections organised by branch/topic, era/history, and region/geography. I know many editors prefer smaller navboxes too, but at least when navboxes get too large it's less intrusive than an overlong sidebar. Nothing on the page gets displaced far from where it's intended to be. In general, navboxes are less prone to causing arguments over what warrants inclusion in the template and what articles should use the template. Might be the way to go if Wikieditor662 is very adamant about not cutting the links down much. – Scyrme (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Can it be both, where a navbox has more items, while the sidebar has only the most notable ones? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. That's basically the current situation with {{Philosophy sidebar}} vs the navbox {{Philosophy topics}}. That said, sometimes if a sidebar and navbox are very similar an editor may list it at WP:TFD arguing that one of them should be deleted. – Scyrme (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I added it, as can be seen in Template:List of Jewish organizations, however, now I have the same problem: how am I going to add the navbox to all of these articles? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You would probably need a bot or script to do it. I doubt there's a ready made, public bot available, since an automatic way for any editor to flood a whole category with a template is something that could easily be abused.

There may be a way to use WP:AWB with a script or something to speed up the job of doing it manually, but I've never used it so I could be wrong.

If no one else here knows of a way, you may have better luck asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). – Scyrme (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

on finagling the what links there function

is there a function or gadget that can automatically set incoming links and transclusions to be hidden for that option, to leave only redirects? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Consarn: "Page information" under "Tools" has a link on "Number of redirects to this page". That may be a little easier than starting with what links here and then hide transclucions and links. If you want then I could make a script to add "Redirects" above "What links here" so you have both options. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

huh, it seems i've... actually missed out on that option due to moremenu. whoops. if you don't know of any such gadget or script that already does that, i would appreciate the alternate solution consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Consarn: Add this to your common JavaScript:

$( document ).ready( function() {
  mw.util.addPortletLink(
    'p-tb',
    mw.util.getUrl('Special:WhatLinksHere/') + mw.config.get('wgPageName') + '?hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1',
    'Redirects', 't-redirects', 'Show redirects to this page', null, '#t-whatlinkshere'
  );
});

PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

that'll do. danke, herr doktor consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 10:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

responses on new submissions

I have just submitted a proposed (self-biographical) article and been given a temporary account reference number. But how will the decision on this submission be communicated: I haven't provided aby contact details. ~2026-82364-2 (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be posted on the talk page of your temporary account. Your draft is currently significantly malformed however and has no chance of becoming an article: I would suggest you create an account and read up on our article standards before trying again; namely WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:PROUD and Help:Your first article. Athanelar (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

"Sorry the file cannot be displayed"

In the article "Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station", under the heading "Environmental protests", when clicking on the image labelled "Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, from the east, with a train of coal being unloaded as it passes at walking pace through the building at middle right" an error message is now displayed "Sorry the file cannot be displayed". This never used to happen up to about a month ago, there does not appear to be an edit to cause this, and I do not know why it is happening. How can this be corrected, please? MaltaGC (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Works just fine on my end, maybe ask at WP:VPT Athanelar (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have just tried using the Microsoft Edge browser instead of Avast Secure Browser where the problem was occurring and it is OK! So I went back to Avast Secure Browser which has been giving this problem and again it displayed "Sorry the file cannot be displayed" so I hit <ctrl>F5 to reload it and the error message disappeared with the image now being displayed correctly. It is now OK and works every time. MaltaGC (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

French station

Hi! The page Val d'Or station exists, but unfortunately neither Saint-Cloud station nor Template:Transilien Line L are picking up the link. Could someone help? Thanks! PalleyCov2030 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I created a WP:REDIRECT from Le Val d'Or station, which has fixed the issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

واتساپ تلگرام و اینیستا یوتیوب

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

---

من چگونه میتوتنم مثل دو ماه پیش از برنامه‌های گوشیم استفاده کنم~2026-78245-5 (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This help desk is solely for asking questions concerning using the English-language Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 4 February 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.

New here

I just joined Wikipedia for the first time. Any tips on making and editing articles? Also what should I first do as a new member on Wikipedia? NoriAndris (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

First tip is don't even think about creating new articles until you've grasped the basics, and got a bit more familiar with how the place works. Beyond that, see Help:Introduction, and Help:Editing, and then find yourself something that suits your skills and interests. Take a look at articles on subjects you know something about. Could the wording be improved? Are there grammatical errors? If you are reasonably confident in your English-language skills, it isn't hard to find articles that could do with a bit of copy-editing. Or maybe the article needs more (or better) sources: this is a bit trickier, since we have fairly strict rules about what we will cite in articles - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Getting a firm grasp of our sourcing policy takes a bit of time, but it is an essential skill if you want to contribute new content. More generally though, my advice is to find something that interests you, work on that, and don't let yourself get bored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

If you want suggestions for ways you can contribute, Wikipedia:Task Center may be helpful. – Scyrme (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I have left some useful introductory links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hi, I want to start an AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussion for the article École d'Informatique d'Électronique et d'Expertise comptable but the AfD discussion page link doesn’t seem to exist, and search returns no results. What to do? Weichan123 (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Weichan123 To fix the discussion page link please see full guide @ Afd footer CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Weichan123 The easiest way to start an AfD is to use WP:TWINKLE, which handles all of the relevant filing and tagging in a single button press. Athanelar (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Weichan123, the discussion is up and I have contributed. It is a good idea to search for reliable sources when you nominate for AFD per WP:BEFORE, I couldn't find much. TSventon (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Question about pronunciation in articles

Hi, it's me again. I added the Tamil script and pronunciation of a subject in this edit. Is this MOS-compliant? I couldn't find any info in it for putting text in the original script like that. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 05:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the MOS in my head the way some people do, but I like the way you've done it and I see nothing wrong at all. MOS:FULLNAME is what governs this, as far as I know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe the bad example they give for Gaddafi's name is not being criticized for using a non-English writing system, but criticized for being a huge unreadable mess. Yours is simple and well done. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

the Manual of Style states: Avoid the use of Indic scripts in lead sections or infoboxes. Instead, use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides, which are more international. Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script. I think this is an okay exception as it is a biography about someone from Tamil Nadu, who speaks Tamil, and likely has an accepted Tamil spelling of her name. -- Reconrabbit 15:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

To clarify this, as per WP:INDICSCRIPT the Tamil script is not acceptable, but the Tamil IPA is. - Arjayay (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. -- Reconrabbit 16:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks - I never knew that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand, thank you all for the advice. I will add only the IPA to Indian subjects going forward. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 18:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)