Wikipedia : Help desk/Archive 85

WPA

WEST

MIDLAND

SOUTH

Hi, I'm every few months seeing problems with formatting for this image. The words on the eastern part of the map consistently get cluttered, maybe as different editors tweak it. Do others see this as well? Presumably, different user interfaces can produce different graphics. Is there any best way to format the image so that the text is the least likely to end up cluttered? Wolfdog (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Template:Map of American English SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the east side of the image is cluttered because the real-life east side of the country is, in fact, cluttered! :)

I don't know any useful answers; I just think this is expected and not a surprise. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Now that I'm viewing it on my phone, I see that it does NOT look cluttered. Hmmm, so it may be something about mobile vs desktop view. Wolfdog (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Image with text formatting

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ENE

WNE

NYC

PHILA.

WPA

WEST

MIDLAND

SOUTH

ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Template:Map of American English

I brought this up about a week ago, but I'd like to ask my question (which I have since understood better) more precisely now: This map is perfectly legible in mobile view but seems to be cluttered to the point of illegibility (in the eastern region) in the desktop view. Is there some easy conversion fix from one to the other, or is this an inevitable problem? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Phishing

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I received an offer in My Yahoo eMail from a Bethany Gerdemann that claims to be a research administrator for Wikipedia offering an opportunity to take part in a paid research study about Wikipedia that I suspect is phishing as when I check in Wikipedia for a Bethany Gerdemann I find nothing. I'm a donating subscriber in Wikipedia so maybe that is why I was chosen: if this is legitimate? Is it safe to respond to Your survey? Sincerely; G-G. G-G (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Bethany Gerdemann genuinely works for the Wikimedia Foundation, which supports and hosts Wikipedia. Of course, your message may or may not really be from her. If it seems suspicious, I suggest you contact her using the details here to check. Certes (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @"snoopindawebber": Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation and its program manager for Design Research is indeed called Bethany Gerdemann: meta:User:BGerdemann (WMF). Here she is listed on a page which cannot be edited freely by others: https://research.wikimedia.org/team.html. They do offer rewards: https://design.wikimedia.org/uxr/connect/participate/. However, it's also possible a scammer misused her name, especially if you haven't previously signed up to participate in research. My first link shows an email address for her, added by herself. You could mail her to ask if the offer is really from her. A scammer may falsify the sender address in an email so don't automatically trust the original mail if the stated sender matches her listed address or another official mail address. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Entry about Me:

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Hello! I had a wikipedia entry made about me. I paid a service years ago for this. I didn't know I wasn't supposed to this. FYI: The entry appears entirely factual and has a lot of references.

Frederick Kroetsch

It now appears flagged for clean up. It says: "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." I am a filmmaker in Canada entering the third season of my TV-series. I need to have a Wiki entry.

What can I do about this? I am honestly overwhelmed by the Wikipedia editing format and can't do this on my own.

Thank you! Frederick Kroetsch (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but your best option may be to go to the article's Talk page (Talk:Frederick Kroetsch) and leave an edit request using Template:Edit COI (instructions can be found there for how to use the template), if there are specific changes you would like to see made to the article (requesting them in small batches may be more productive than a single post with a long list of requests). You definitely shouldn't edit the article yourself. You should also declare your conflict of interest in accordance with WP:COI. I would resist saying things like, "I need a Wiki entry." though. The "need" for Wikipedia articles is established by our notability guidelines. DonIago (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Adding to what DonIago said, you don't "need" a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, it's an encyclopedia which summarises what other sources say. That means that you don't have control over what is on the page, and it almost certainly won't portray you in the light that you would like. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 16:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Frederick Kroetsch There are actually very good reasons to not want an article here. If you have ever done anything that you are not proud of in your life and there is a reliable source that wrote about it, that is valid content for an article. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It's allowed to pay somebody to edit but the editor has to satisfy Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. That's why the message says "undisclosed payments, a violation". Beware that many who demand payment are scammers who do no or poor work while making false promises, and payment gives no absolutely no rights to control content. The payment doesn't go to Wikipedia but to users who are often unpopular. The vast majority of Wikipedia is written by unpaid volunteers. See also Wikipedia:Scam warning. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Authorship question

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia does not currently have an article about the Atlanta-Tbilisi Health Partnership Program, and I have been asked to write one. However, I was a principal party in one of Program’s initiatives, and I am uncertain of I am a suitable author. Emory University was a key player in the Partnership Program, and as the Director of the Health Sciences Center Libraries, I was heavily involved in establishing the National Information Learning Center, one of many different programs created under the Partnership Program. While the Atlanta-Tbilisi Health Partnership Program itself is not still in existence, many of its individual programs continue. They serve as a good example of international cooperation and successful non-military foreign assistance from the United States.

My question is not so much whether or not this article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but rather who can author it. If I am not an appropriate author, could the author be someone at Emory University who was not directly involved in the project? Or would it need to be someone with no institutional affiliation with Emory?

Thank you for your guidance. Duluth1945 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC) Duluth, MN

Hi @Duluth1945. You have a conflict of interest with the Atlanta-Tbilisi Health Partnership Program. We don't prohibit COI editing, but it is discouraged and you need to be very careful in how you edit. If you were to start the article, please go via the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process so that your draft article can be reviewed by an experienced reviewer. You'd also have to formally declare the COI. This would be the same with anyone else with some sort of affiliation with the program. qcne (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Duluth1945.

Thank you for being open about your COI.

I will add to what qcne said by pointing out that:

Creating a Wikipedia article is extremely difficult for inexperienced editors, and I don't advise any new editor to try it without first getting several weeks of experience in improving existing article, and understanding core principles like verifiability, notability, neutral point of view, and reliable sources, as well as how to interact with other editors in case of disagreement). And that is even where there isn't a conflict of interest.
Most organisations (like most people, companies, brands, schools, bands, etc) on the planet do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which are, mostly, that enough has been published about them by people unconnected with them to base an article on.
What makes editing with a COI particularly difficult is that it is likely that almost nothing you know about the Program is relevant to an article about it. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

article about me

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I understand there is an approach to handle COI by submitting basic facts and having Wikipedia edit it through an independent source. Is this correct? Pass386 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pass386 That's not really correct. We would need multiple reliable independent sources. I suggest you begin by reading the basic policies at WP:AUTO and WP:42. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It should be left to other editors with whom you are unconnected to decide whether you are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. It should not be the result of deciding that you would like to have one. See also WP:PROUD and WP:BOSS; personally I would not want a Wikipedia article about me as they are often far more hassle than some people think.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pass386: The above replies assume there is no article about you now. If you mean changes to an existing article then see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Requesting assistance with review of Draft:Senses of Fear

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! I submitted a draft titled Draft:Senses of Fear about 14 days ago. It has multiple reliable, independent sources and meets notability guidelines. Could someone please take a look and let me know if anything needs improvement before review? Thank you! Draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Senses_of_Fear Musicman7381 (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Musicman7381.

Asking for a pre-review is not usually very productive. Your draft was in the pile awaiting a reviewer deciding to pick it up - and, predictably, it has been declined.

It looks to me as if it was a very easy one to decline, because it makes a typical beginner's mistake with the sources.

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.

As far as I can see , you have not a single source which meets all the criteria in WP:42 - viz, being reliable, independent of Senses of Fear, and containing significant coverage of Senses of Fear. The closest to meeting those criteria are the two reviews; but though they appear to be reliable and independent, they have no more than a sentence or so about the subject of the draft, which is the band.

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) 20:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I think where i went wrong is i was more trying to get info on the band than the artist himself, if i just stuck with the artist then i would have been okay. on another note i have one more question so i don't mess up, i found a newspaper article on the artist it was just before he created the band, he was creating a movie, he was a director, in was published by the daily star here in NY, but its not online, i have the article can i upload it and use that as a citation to show his creativity, as a person? it does not list anything about the music. So in question if I just stick with researching the artist as a person would that be a better run also? So I guess two questions. Musicman7381 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Musicman7381.

You can write about the artist, the band, or any of their songs or albums, whichever of these meet Wikipedia's criteria for Notability; but you need to choose one of them at a time. Since notability is mostly about whether enough material has been published wholly independently of the subject to base an article on, it's perfectly possible that the artist is notable but not the band, or vice versa, or both, or neither, or even an album but not the band. If you want to write an article on any subject, this begins with finding the sources about that subject that each meet all the conditions in WP:42 - because if you can't find these, you'll know now to waste your time on that subject.

You may cite offline sources. If you use a template like {{cite news}}, it will accept the essential parameters such as title (of the newspaper), date, author, title (of the piece), page: that will allow a reader who wants to verify the source to obtain it (eg from a major library). Don't post an image of it - that's likely to be a copyright violation, and nothing on Wikipedia should ever link to a copyright violation.

It sounds as if that source might be useful for an article on the artist (though unless he is also known as a director, it's probably going to be only a side note in the article) - as long as it is independent, and not his words from an interview or press release. ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank You this helps alot. Musicman7381 (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Wayback Machine

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is there any way to get this (and others like it) saved by the Wayback Machine? When I try I get this which isn't what I'm wanting. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 20:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather I think that the problem may be that the URL you supplied is a search whose output depends on Javascript. I found that I can drill through to "real" results like , which the Wayback machine can certainly cope with. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I must be missing something but which part lf https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1991_2020_e.html?searchType=stnName_1991&txtStationName_1991=Cambridge+Bay&searchMethod=contains&txtCentralLatMin=0&txtCentralLatSec=0&txtCentralLongMin=0&txtCentralLongSec=0&climate_id=2400600&dispBack=1 is causing the problem? CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The part that starts from "results_1991_20e0_e.html?searchType=" and goes on to describe what the search terms are. This does not point at an existing page, but a search page created on the fly: the next user to execute this search could in theory get a different result. Even if you could archive this, it's not a great idea. Mike Turnbull showed how to get past that to an actual page that can be archived. M kuhner (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 03:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Article removed

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, I had an article removed only after 3 days of being published. I was provided an explanation. The article is about a book author and TV personality. What can and should I do? Michiels999 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Michiels999 that depends on why the article was deleted. What was the article? This is the only edit from "Michiels999". TSventon (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It was this article:

es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonás_Herrera&veaction=edit

Its in Spanish, I can translate it to English if you need me to.

[Full text of article removed Athanelar (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)]

Michiels999 (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You should ask at Spanish Wikipedia. We have no control over that. - Walter Running for Starmer's job Ego 15:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Access to an account that has been created

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hi there

I would like to know how to access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jonas . He hosted the South African Music Awardshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Music_Awards. He would like to add his details to his account.

Many thanks ~2026-37351-81 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

~~He'll need his password, otherwise you'd just be wasting time~~. - Walter Running for Starmer's job Ego 15:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

~~This is unhelpful and misleading, Walter~~. There is no association between an article and an account, so no need for access to a particular account. (It's pretty clear from the URL that this user, like many people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, thinks that an article is part of an account. There is no User with that name either). --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Colin. Did you read the bit where it says he would like to add his details to his account? Feel free to unstrike my comment above. Thanks. - Walter Running for Starmer's job Ego 17:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no User:Martin Jonas. There is also no article Martin Jonas but there is a red link to it in South African Music Awards#Ceremonies and the poster may refer to this with "created". A biography or part of it can be called a life account so "account" could both refer to this and a false assumption that a biography is tied to a user accont. A red link does not imply that an article has or will be created. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I read that bit, @Roxy the dog. I also saw the URL, which attempts to refer to an article, not a user page. It was clear to me that the OP was not referring to an account that you can login to, but an "account" that was an article about him, as PrimeHunter says (I hadn't realised at that point that the article doesn't actually exist). New users often get confused between accounts and articles (I think they have a model in mind like LinkedIn). That's why I described your reply as unhelpful and struck it out. ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I can see why you think that way. I on the other hand think that the op meant account as in account, rather than account as in article. Sometimes the simplest way is the best. - Walter Running for Starmer's job Ego 08:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-37351-81.

Wikipedia does not currently have an article about Martin Jonas, and nor as far as I can tell has it ever had one.

Please read WP:BOSS and show it to him. ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

A ping for good measure User:ColinFine - Walter Running for Starmer's job Ego 18:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

"Imaginary" portraits

Latest comment: 1 month ago12 comments7 people in discussion

If the only option available is a portrait/statue of a person that was created centuries after the person lived for the lead image, is it better to have that or nothing at all? I'm asking for cases such as John Dowland (portrait to the right) or Judah HaLevi (statue present in article but not lead). I know for example, Jesus Christ has his current lead image created 5 centuries after his life, and that's a featured article. However, for Dowland someone said using the imaginary portrait isn't a good idea. I didn't ask anyone else about Halevi though. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I can't find any evidence either of the Commons uploads for the user who uploaded this image used as an example here are actually licensed in the way the user marked them. That may be an even bigger concern, in my opinion. (If my laptop wasn't broken (until a replacement arrives, I'm currently using an old one that is frustrating to type on because several keys regularly pop off), I'd go down a rabbithole to figure out if my suspicions are likely and potentially nominate them for deletion on Commons.) - Purplewowies (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The answer to the initial question is that decisions are made on a case by case basis. The policy at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images says Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, but doesn't give detailed rules for historical figures, so image choices are discussed on article talk pages. You can find extensive discussions about pages like Jesus in their talk page archives. TSventon (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Purplewowies: The File:John Dowland.jpg ~~you've added~~ above seems more likely to be incorrectly licensed than an intentional attempt at license laundering. Simple slavish reproductions of works that have already entered into the public domain aren't eligible for copyright protection in their own right, at least not under US copyright law. My guess is that the uploader (who was only active on Commons for just one day and only uploaded this and one other file) probably just didn't know any better and pick the first license they thought applicable. I recommend at least first asking about this file at c:COM:VPC before nominating it for deletion. Some one at VPC might be able to fill in the gaps of the file's provenance and figure out how to better license it. The other file the same uploader uploaded is a much more recent photo that might need c:COM:VRT verification at the very least. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC); edited post per reply given immediately below. -- 18:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added the image to this page, but that kind of thing was my suspicion, too (because I see it a lot with people who clearly just don't understand one license or another)--I just usually look into things a bit before I figure out what to do about them (and apparently this laptop has decided this is not my time to do that ._.). *makes to-do for if no one else gets to it first* - Purplewowies (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Images may serve different purposes in different contexts, but in my opinion, images in a biography should almost always be judged on whether they show accurately and in detail what the person looked like. There does need to be room for exceptions, but I think that in biographies the exceptions should be limited to images that are extremely famous in their own right (i.e. very familiar to a majority of the general public).

I would not necessarily want this "Dowland" picture entirely deleted from Wikipedia, because I'm unqualified to judge its value as art, but I think it definitely doesn't belong in an article about him, because it's not an iconically famous image and it doesn't truly look like him. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, I think the concept of using an imaginary placeholder image until a better one comes along is a bad idea. Using a bad-quality real photograph until a better one comes along is very different, and I do support that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

There is similar situation in Sapa Inca. The historical posthumous images often the only ones available, but some like File:Retrato de Huayna Cápac.jpg and File:Retrato de Túpac Yupanqui.jpg appear to be modern imaginary creations. MKFI (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Query regarding lede image of historical personalities

If labelled and cited properly, can we use depictions from modern artists or even portraits made by social media accounts/websites in the infobox of any prominent historical figure who does not have any contemporary art depicting them or any form of historical art related to them at all?

An example is some prominent chieftains of Punjab region like Jasrat Khokhar or Sarang Khan Gakhar.

Kindly share the relevant policy (not essay) because I couldn't find any.

Thank you and regards. WareWolf665 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi WareWolf665. I think that WP:IMAGEOR could be a potential hurdle to clear here because of potential issues related to accuracy. If there are no examples of contemporary art or historical art to reference, then it it would seem that you're basically left with one current day person's guess as to how someone appeared, which doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. There could also be issues with WP:AIIMAGE. I guess if the depiction is in and of itself a significant work that has been covered by reliable sources, it and content about it might be able to be added to body of the article; however, it would seem inappropriate to use in the main infobox. There are also issues from a copyright standpoint as well since pretty much any recent depiction (i.e., created by a known artist within the last 70 years) would almost certainly be still under copyright protection, which may place limitations on where it could be uploaded and how it could be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@WareWolf665: a similar question was posted a few hours earlier at #"Imaginary" portraits, so you can check the answers there as well. TSventon (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I have moved this question to be a subsection of the earlier question. TSventon (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm first user

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

sorry for my wrong and mistakes. about putting articles. Gerardomaxino (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Everyone makes some mistakes at first, so don't worry too much. Do you have a specific question we can help you with? {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 15:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are trying to write an article. I suggest reading Help:Your first article and coming here or to the Wikipedia:Teahouse for beginners if you have questions. TSventon (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Updating main name of page

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I need to change the main title for the Toccoa Falls College page to University of Toccoa Falls. How do I do that? Rstewart1 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

You should open a requested move so that it can be discussed and agreed upon whether to change the name or keep it the same. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 17:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how to do that from the link you sent. Can you help with specific instructions? I'm new to editing on wikipedia. Rstewart1 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

You should probably follow the instructions in this section specifically. Is there a piece of those specific instructions that is particularly confusing to you? Can you be specific about which part, if so? The guidance in that section seems straightforward to me, but I'm also not new on Wikipedia, so... - Purplewowies (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Helping an organization update its page

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, I'm writing on behalf of a nonprofit that has a Wikipedia page but a lot of the information is incorrect and it's also not really positioned in a way to articulate what the organization does and why. Is there a way to update the page with credible, referenced sources to describe what they do, their policy positions, and research data about their positions? ~2026-37068-57 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Please review conflict of interest, and, if applicable. paid editing. You may use the edit request process to propose edits to the article about the organization. Note that the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, not what it wants to say about itself or a mere description of its activities. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to update the page with credible, referenced sources to describe what they do, their policy positions, and research data about their positions? In short, no. This would be promotion. A Wikipedia article, especially an article for a company, should be a summary of what is written about the company in reliable sources completely unaffiliated with the company. The goal is not to tell us what the organization does and why. Athanelar (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-37068-57 One issue is that "their policy positions", as they state them in their own primary sources WP:PRIMARY are not usable as sources. Wikipedia wants to know what other publications have said about them. David10244 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Tagging a newly-registered editor in a delete/merge/move discussion

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I suspect shenanigans are afoot in a couple of split/move discussions; specifically the comments added by a newly-registered editor who seems familiar. I can't place my finger on exactly who they are, so no sockpuppet accusation for now, but what I would like to do is tag the comment in the discussion to highlight to the other editors that this is a newly-registered account. I seem to remember that there is a template for this very purpose but I cannot remember what it is. Can anyone advise please? Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you looking for {{Single-purpose account}}? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for. I'll make a note for the future. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@10mmsocket Shenanigans? Are you sure they are afoot? (chuckling) Thanks for the smile. David10244 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

recovery of draft article in Sandbox

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I created an article on Robert Shenk in the Sandbox and when I was in the process of trying to find out how to remove extra paragraph lines it disappeared. Please help me to recover, if possible. Rizos01 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Your sandbox, User:Rizos01/sandbox, redirects to Harry J. Psomiades, presumably an earlier draft that was accepted. You haven't created another draft in it yet. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I would suggesr using the Article Wizard to create a draft. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm in Miami Bitch title format issue

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since "I'm in Miami Bitch" is a song, not an album, it shouldn't be italicized in its title, but I'm not sure how to change it since there's no {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template for the page. Packer1028 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Packer1028: Some infoboxes automatically make italics by default. Fixed by . PrimeHunter (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Packer1028 (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

To Save our Wikipedia Page

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praxis Business School, Kolkata

Concern Team, This is to inform you that we are requesting for support/ assistance from Wikipedia teams because we have an educational institutes and we have created a page in Wikipedia with content which are all Genuine and have refference, but dont know why everytime the page deleted.

And Wikipedia is very useful page where we can post something about our institute which will make more confident for our students.

So request your support to help us to make this.

Our Institute Name - Praxis Business School

Looking for your response and support ~2026-37701-26 (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your business. If the articles are being deleted, that likely means your school is not notable, and therefore doesn't meet the criteria to have a standalone article. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 15:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It has been deleted. You can review WP:AFC for instructions on how to create a new draft to submit for review. Note that if you use AI or LLM chatbots to author any text whatsoever, your draft will be rejected and your account may be blocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-37701-26.

Like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

If there is ever a Wikipedia article about your school,

it will not belong to your school
it will not be controlled by your school
it will not necessarily say what your school would like it to say
your school's purposes for such an article will be of little relevance to Wikipedia.

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) 14:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

"Show changes" is showing preview instead

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

When I edit a page and click the "Show changes" button, it shows the preview instead. But when I press the hotkey, Alt+Shift+V, it shows changes as expected. It doesn't matter which page I edit.

Is this a known issue? Or is anyone else having this problem?

I haven't tried further troubleshooting yet, like clearing cache, since I'm in the middle of something.

I'm using the 2010 editor.

Thanks — W.andrea (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed it's not consistent. Maybe 10% of the time when I click it, it does actually show changes, but only if I do something else like scroll up a bit. — W.andrea (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@W.andrea: See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Show Changes Should NOT be a preview. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! — W.andrea (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Gyeongbu high-speed railway

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Jonathan WhoLovesEditing (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Jonathan WhoLovesEditing.

The message is quite clear: {{cite web}} requires the title parameter.

But, since you are citing a book, {{cite web}} is inappropriate - the only thing that it links to is a page selling the book, and we almost never link to selling sites.

What that reference should tell us is the title (of the book), publisher, author, date, ISBN and/or OCLC, and page number - a URL is not required, and should not be given unless it is to the text (eg if the relevant page happens to be available on Google books). If you use {{cite book}} it supports all those fields.

Remember that the sole and entire purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to enable a reader to verify the information the the citation is attached to: citing a whole book is not usually useful for this purpose.

I am, though, wondering what on earth there might be in The Economic History of India 1857-2010 that supports a claim about Korean rail services in 2011. Did you get the wrong reference? (Or did you make the mistake of asking an LLM for the reference?) ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry I used the automatic one and it auto did citeweb Jonathan WhoLovesEditing (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is this location marker so far off of the map, and how do I put it back?

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been trying to a location marker, labelled "Warriors", that is being displayed off the map in Draft:International Arena League . I have had no success, so I'm bringing it here. Why is this happening, and how do I fix it.

Issue may be more obvious on mobile. SenshiSun (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like you've got an negative in there for the coords that you shouldn't. I've removed it and it looks better. Amstrad00 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! SenshiSun (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Setting up a bio

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How do I set up a bio ~2026-38043-22 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Basically you don't, if it is for yourself, your company boss, your pop group etc. There are numerous guidelines that strongly discourage this, such as WP:AUTO and WP:BOSS. Who did you have in mind?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-38043-22.

Your use of the phrase "set up a bio" suggests that, like many people, you think Wikipedia is like social media or LinkedIn, where you "set up" a page for a person.

This is entirely wrong. The activity here is writing a well-referenced encyclopaedia article about the subject, based almost entirely on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject.

What the subject (or the subject's associates) say or want to say is almost irrelevant, and the subject ideally has no involvement at all in creating the article. ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Error in List of Highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada article?

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In the section of the article List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada for "Franchises and film series adjusted for inflation", it says, "{{Node-count limit exceeded|Node-count limit exceededNode-count limit exceeded {{Node-count limit exceeded|({{Node-count limit exceeded}})}}}}" after the DC Extended Universe. How can I fix this problem? And1987 (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@And1987: The page breaks Help:Template limits#Preprocessor node count. You can preview parts of the page and see the node count under "Parser profiling data" at the bottom of the preview window. A little testing shows the main reason for breaking the limit is 489 calls of {{inflation}} in List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada#Franchises and film series adjusted for inflation. They each have a node count around 1230 so this alone uses more than half of the limit for the whole page. The limit cannot be changed. Either the article or one of the used templates such as {{inflation}} must be simplified to reduce the node count. Moving the section to a separate article would keep both articles below the limit but I don't like that solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

A user named DCF94 suggested this on the article talk's page, "basically you have to start simplifying the entries on the franchise tables, for example put the total numbers for the Despicable me "Main series" + "Minions series", no more individual entries (check MCU or Bond franchises for example)." I tried, but I'm not good at doing it. And1987 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Would splitting 3 Franchises and film series not adjusted for inflation and 4 Franchises and film series adjusted for inflation into a new article make sense? TSventon (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

How to save/archive webpages that disallow crawlers?

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! I'm looking for recommendations on how to save or archive webspages that seem to block crawlers from the usual online archives. For example, I try to use Wayback Machine, Megalodon, Ghost Archive, Perma.cc and even tried my luck on the blacklisted Archive.today, and none was able to save/archive these pages:

Is there any alternative ways I can do to preserve these pages as sources? Thank you! SyFuel ^Ignite _Burned 02:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Fake History - Please correct

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Sir, I was reading the historical info regarding the church dedicated to Saint George on the island of Gozo (Malta) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_George%27s_Basilica,_Victoria. This article consists some very important NOT ACCURATE FACTS which should be corrected ASAP. The earliest written record of this church dates to 1450. There's absolutely no evidence of any Roman temple in the same site where this church is built on in the surrounding area. In fact, till date, no remains have been discovered. Likewise, there is no proof at all that this church was originally a byzantine one. In fact, no Byzantine church remains have ever been found on the island of Gozo. The first reference to a Gozo parish is from 1299, but that church was located behind the walls of the citadel, the old town of the island. There are no 1250 manuscript sources which mention this church or any other church on the island of Gozo. For a good history of the catholic church on the island of Gozo, please consult: J. BEZZINA, "A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN GOZO", MALTA 2025. This is the most recent and updated history of the local church on that island. While I hope this info is corrected, thanks for your great work and the Wikipedia experience. ~2026-37970-46 (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for bringing up your concerns. Accuracy is something that Wikipedia strives for, and inaccurate information should be addressed and corrected. However, this is the help desk, a place where users can ask for help with using or editing Wikipedia in general. It is not a place to seek help with a specific article, for which you should use their respective talk page instead. I noticed that you brought this issue up on the talk page for St George's Basilica, Victoria before coming here. You may wish to consider supplementing your message there with specific references to the parts of the article you think are inaccurate and links to reliable sources backing up your concerns. For more information about how to resolve disputes related to accuracy, see this page. It should give you information on what the best next steps are, and you can use what's linked to further explore the encyclopedia. Good luck! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Since you’ve made it this far, it suggests you have some familiarity with editing Wikipedia, so you can make corrections yourself. If you haven’t already done so, I suggest creating for yourself a Wikipedia User ID, and interacting as a logged on user. There is some information here. I see you’ve also posted this on the article’s Talk page, which is the correct course of action, especially if you think this is likely to be controversial. To encourage discussion, it is generally better to flag rather than delete, unless the contribution is clearly vandalism or manifestly wrong. All claims in Wikipedia that are not common knowledge must be supported through the citation system by verifiable, WP:reliable sources and there are many templates for doing this, such as {{cite web |}}, {{cite book |}} and so on. Chrisdevelop (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Applying Wikipedia's rules to non-mainspace pages

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In its lead sentence, Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that the manual only applies to "English Wikipedia articles," where "articles" are considered any page in the mainspace. This would exclude articles in every other namespace, including the project namespace, help namespace, and template namespace. Does this mean that you shouldn't try to align Wikipedia's help pages, policy pages, and templates according to the style guidelines outlined in the manual? If not, to what extent can someone use the manual to defend stylistic changes made to such pages?

Along those lines, to what extent can you apply and defend those applications of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to pages in other namespaces? I'm having trouble finding a clear demarcation in any of the linked pages. The issue is that such rules can reasonably be disregarded in many parts of Wikipedia; for instance, an essay is given more liberty for rules such as notability and every liberty for rules such as neutrality. But other pages on the project namespace can't reasonably disregard such policies, so are these rules applied de facto or treated in an entirely different way? Thanks! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Salmon of Knowledge Well clearly someone should not cite the style manual to defend stylistic changes made to non-article pages. Nevertheless it helps readability if the style is fairly consistent but it is not nearly as important to apply a strict style and not worth arguing over. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style doesn't say "only" articles. It's for reader-facing text in general including portals, category pages for article categories, and template text which is transcluded in articles. Article drafts should also try to follow it since they can be moved to articles later. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Logic for sorting by Surname or Forename in Family Categories

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Category:Williams family (New Zealand) is sorting some by first name and others by last name. Obviously this page should sort by First Name, otherwise they’d all be under W. Please refer also to the Talk Page. I also considered {{DEFAULTSORT:FirstName LastName}} but the Category states that the page should not be edited directly. How can this be made to behave consistently? Chrisdevelop (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Chrisdevelop I think that the intention is

sort by surname, if not Williams
sort by first name if surname is Williams.

See Category:Bell family for a smaller and more consistent example.

The category is sorted using sort keys, see WP:SORTCAT, so the sort keys should be made consistent.

It might be worth talking to Paora who created both categories. TSventon (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response! I will research and do as you suggest. Chrisdevelop (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Chrisdevelop: Regarding , you have to use the actual name you want to sort by like [[Category: Williams family (New Zealand)|Derek Williams]]. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed! Chrisdevelop (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Issues citing foreign-language Wikisource

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I've been running into issues using {{cite wikisource}} when citing a page on Chinese Wikisource. This is the citation:

中华人民共和国国家发展与改革委员会 (July 4, 2022). 国家公路网规划 (in Chinese) – via Wikisource.

However, because of how URLs in Chinese are represented (this is the original link), English Wikisource returns an error related to the representation of Chinese characters when normally it should redirect to the respective language Wikisource (based on this question in the help desk archives, where someone had a similar issue linking to a foreign language Wikisource). Is there any way I could fix this? Yaoshiiscool (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Are you sure you're using the {{cite wikisource}} template correctly? Indeed, when inserting the URL of the Wikisource page you want to cite into the wslink parameter, the source editor renders the Chinese characters in such a way that you can't access the right page. However, you should only be inserting the title of the page you want to link, not the URL. This is quite counterintuitive given the name of the parameter, but I think you'll find that the citation works properly with the its value as simply 国家公路网规划. For more information, you can read the documentation for the template. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! It is indeed counterintuitive that copying the URL/link portion of the title does not work (which usually isn't a problem, I assume, except in a few languages), whereas copying the title does. Yaoshiiscool (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@ ~2026-38051-45 (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Editing is not publishing

Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments7 people in discussion

<ref>https://www.foxnews.com/travel/researchers-find-compelling-evidence-possible-noahs-ark-remains-country</ref> Researchers find 'compelling evidence' of possible Noah's Ark remains in one country Noah's Ark theory gains momentum as soil tests reveal organic remains

I can not add this new crucial development into any of Wikipedia archives in correlation to Noah's Ark

Why as it is public verifiable information,

Explain why I can not publish ~2026-37684-19 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Please ignore this spammer. Their spam is being reverted and they have been reported to AIV for vandalism. They are only pretending not to know that they are spamming. They were warned and then blocked for 31 hours for exactly this only recently so clearly they are knowingly trying to waste our time by asking questions that they already know the answers to. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

That Fox News article is laughable see WP:FOXNEWSSCIENCE . Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Organic material found in soil? Hold the front page!

--DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Was it ever confirmed that they knew their submissions were based on an unreliable source for science? Based on what I can see, all they got were boilerplate warnings. SenshiSun (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

To put this in slightly different terms: it's not just about this being Fox News (although, given their track record as desribed at WP:FOXNEWSSCIENCE, that doesn't help), any news organisation would be a bad source for information of this nature. News organisations are rarely good sources for content about subjects like science, medicine, history, or any academic discipline really: they are written by non-experts, for a non-expert audience, with non-experts as editors. Nobody in the chain has any expertise in the subject matter at hand, and they are very easily swayed by 'what will attract eyeballs from their particular demographic'. News orgs are useful for current affairs, and that's about it. A good source for content of this nature would be a paper in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, where the researchers in question report on their findings, which are subject to the scrutiny of other experts working in the field. That wouldn't be an ideal source, since it would be primary, but it would be a start. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Given WP:EXTRAORDINARY, this would definitely need WP:SECONDARY...published reporting and "scrutinty by other experts working in the field", not just the publication that could some day be scrutinized. Science journalism is hard to get right, and popular press usually doesn't (but it does make for many good xkcd items). DMacks (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Aside from the bad source material, I think the biggest problem is that you never attempted to talk on the talk page. You saw that everyone disagreed, continued without arguing your case, and tried to stampede to get your way. Do you see why you were blocked??? Donnie ⓃⓄⓋⒶ 22:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

What's the right mechanism to debate/request deletion of a dubious MOS essay?

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

MOS:Always end your sentences with a dot reads to me like nonsense, but I wasn't sure whether speedy deletion was the right way to go – perhaps it's supposed to be funny, or possibly the author genuinely thinks they're making a useful contribution. What's the right approach/mechanism? Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not actually part of MOS. Actual WP:MOS pages are located in the Wikipedia: namespace. The author has placed it in the MOS: namespace but that is only intended for redirects used as shortcuts to actual WP:MOS pages. I don't think this would qualify for speedy deletion, both because too much time has passed and I don't see a criterion for speedy deletion which would apply. An alternative to deletion would be to move the page to user space, add {{essay}}, and treat it as a WP:USERESSAY. Otherwise, I think Andy is right that WP:MFD is the appropriate venue. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 19:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Govinda (actor)

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Upkeep777 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Done, first and last name parameters in citation template are looking for the first and last name of the person who wrote the article. Replacing the generic names removes the error message. Cmr08 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Missing Saved Pages

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion

All the pages in my saved reading lists suddenly disappeared. I'm using the Wikipedia iOS app. I'm logged into my account, but my lists are gone. Can you help me recover them? Lock46 (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Lock46.

Reading lists are a feature of the Mobile app, not of the Mediawiki software, so there may well not be anybody here who can help.

It is possible there is somebody at WP:VPT who can; otherwise see mw:Wikimedia Apps/FAQ/iOS. ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, this isn't the best place to seek help with that sort of issue. This is the help desk, where Wikipedia users can ask about how to use and edit Wikipedia. As Lock46 indicated, there's few people with the technical ability needed to help you out here. However, you can reach out to the community that develops and maintains Wikipedia's iOS app by creating a task on Phabricator, the platform we use for collaborative software development. There, you can open a help request with which those directly involved in developing the mobile app can assist you. For specific instructions, you can visit this page, which should give you enough information to resolve your issue. Good luck! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I emailed Wikipedia support (ios-support@wikimedia.org) but haven't received a response for days. The sudden deletion of over a thousand pages is truly frustrating. It's a waste of time and effort. A major platform like Wikipedia shouldn't have such a bad critical mistake. Thank you for directing me to the right place @ColinFine@Salmon of Knowledge. I will check the platforms you shared. If nothing comes of it, I will likely delete my account and stop using it immediately. Lock46 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

There is (intentionally) no way that you can delete your account. If you decide to stop, you just stop. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Investigation

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I need help filing a sockpuppet investigation. The edit filter keeps blocking my submission to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations as "potentially unconstructive" even though it's a legitimate report about two temporary accounts (~2026-37641-95 and ~2026-37802-71) showing suspicious coordinated behavior on Talk:List of Masonic Grand Lodges in Europe. Can an admin help me file this or bypass the filter? Socratis1357 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Talk:List of Masonic Grand Lodges in Europe.

It occurs to me (a long-term IP/TA user) that if the same person, editing without an account (as anyone is entitled to do) is editing from two different devices (for example, a workplace device in their lunch hour and a home PC in the evening), they may inadvertantly appear to be two 'sockpuppets' (or 'meatpuppets') if they do not think to positively identify themself as the same person (which is why I adopted my pseudo-signature, as seen below). I have no opinion as to whether or not this is the case in this instance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Files not displaying, except in preview

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion

At List of national flags by design, the files throughout quite a bit of the article, including all of the lead, appear to be redlinked (not sure if that's the right term for a link to a non-existent Commons file?). However, all of the files really do exist, and when I preview the article from the editor, everything shows properly. For what it's worth, I've only read this article on mobile (I currently do not have a computer handy), with the issue being the same on two different (Chromium-based) browsers, whether I am logged in or not.

Why is this happening? Is it showing the same for anyone else? And how do I fix it?

Thanks for the help!

—Crow Basket (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Crow Basket. It looks like the article was the subject of several edits on June 11, one of which could've introduced a syntax error that's causing the files to not display properly. A red-link for a file usually means either (1) the file no longer exists (i.e., was deleted) or never existed, or (2) there's a syntax error somewhere. Since the two lede images File:UN Members Flags2.JPG and File:Flag parts diagram.svg still exist, my guess is that someone introduced a syntax error when they made an edit or there's a bug that's preventing the files from being displayed properly. The other files being used inline with Template:flag shouldn't even be being used in prose like that per MOS:NOICONS; those "flag" templates should orobably just be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I replaced the inline flag templates, but of course the original issue remains... going back through the edit history, the issue identified here remains pretty consistent. In this random version of the page from 2025, the files are still not showing for me. It's suggested on the article's talk page that it could be because of template limits; I honestly have no idea about any of that, but I feel even though it appears to be happening in the past for me, it must be a recent issue.

—Crow Basket (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

You might want to raise this issue at WP:VPT, where people with a more technical eye will see it ScienceD90 (she/her) (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Crow Basket: The bottom of the article says "Page was rendered with Parsoid". The new Parsoid parser has a limit of 1000 images per page. See phab:T430854. It works with the old parser when you add ?useparsoid=0 to the url, but I don't think you can request that the canonical url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_flags_by_design should use the old parser. Old revisions in the page history are always rendered with the current software and templates so it doesn't really show how the page looked at the time. It shows how it would look now if you restored that revision. Parsoid fails ungracefully by making red upload links, probably because it doesn't detect that the images are at Commons. The normal behaviour would have been to make blue links to the images if they cannot be displayed. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

2024 Filton Elbit Systems break-in – editing help

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Link: 2024 Filton Elbit Systems break-in

Hello, a number of the reports make claims with are legally inaccurate and incorrect and are employed as secondary references. This creates an issue as the article is not neutral in its explanation and application of the law. Indeed a serving MP also misunderstood the reporting restrictions which were in place for both trials and the basic separation of duties between the jury and the court is not fully understood or explained by the articles, who omit details from the public judgement and therein distort the public's understanding of the application of the law. The judiciary has provided a press summary which summarises the verdict but this doesn't appear to have been reported. One editor has highlighted my use of in-line or book quotes and where I previously added the mitigating factors to the sentencing they have now all been grouped together in the wrong order under sentencing which understandably is confusing for the reader. Please advise how best to add legal judgements and remarks to the article which aren't quoted by articles employed as secondary sources and incorrect reporting of the law in England and Wales?

Greenpark79 (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry, but I'm having a bit of trouble parsing your question. Are you asking for help dealing with an article that cites sources you think misinterpret the law? If so, the most important factor would probably be whether those sources are reliable. Check which outlets made what statements through whom, and if you find that the source isn't authoritative enough to justify its inclusion, you should bring it up on the article's talk page. However, if each source is indeed reliable, and those reliable sources simply report something that you disagree with, I don't think you'll be able to contest that with much success. Wikipedia articles are really just meant to summarize what the most reliable sources say. Forming your own conclusions and putting them in an article would constitute original research and won't be accepted, even if they turn out to be more accurate than the cited sources. "If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat [...] which is a Good Thing." Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The article itself relies upon a number of news reports which misunderstand the law in their reporting and application of primary legislation. The article has been written around those articles and not the direct law put forward in the judgement nor the press summary is referenced.

For example one article by Novara explicitly states that the judge hid a connection from the jury but it fundamentally misunderstands what has occurred. The jury are the arbiters of facts in the case and must deliver a verdict with the court providing the sentencing. Hence there are restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. A secondary point is that it misunderstands the usage of reporting restrictions. Thirdly the wikipedia article quotes directly from its co-founder that the court had applied a manipulated court process. This is wholly untrue and undermines the independence of the judiciary and its ability to function. It is wholly unreliable reporting and is in fact a form of activism and misrepresents the law.

Obviously I don't wish to point out every single erroneous legal claim but for public understanding of the law and this case it is a genuine concern. But what do to about sources which don't understand or refer to the law correctly? Greenpark79 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

You're right that those are valid concerns, and they would undermine the legitimacy of the articles that cite those sources. This is a tricky issue; even though there's no policy that expressly prohibits citing primary sources, you can't synthesize, analyze, or extrapolate anything from those sources, as that would violate our policy on original research. However, if you're sure what the sources say are patently misleading, and you have reliable sources and a good argument to defend that, you'd be justified in deleting the affected portions of the article and explaining your rationale on the article's talk page. From there, it's unlikely for someone to revert your changes given our general alacrity in removing inaccurate information. If someone does, you can always go through the various dispute resolution processes available for situations like that. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Complex source nature

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments6 people in discussion

So I have at hand what is technically a book source, or a series of them, compiling news and topics from any given timeframe. It is by all means a magazine, but much larger (hundreds of pages in the form of a hardback book) and released just once a year. Yet it is also not an academic journal. How do I cite such a source when using "book" would mean listing, in one case, 40 authors and the editor in chief, where using "journal" would lie about the target audience and nature, and where citing it as a news article would lie about the form of the source as a book?

(For reference the series is in Finnish and called "Mitä, Missä, Milloin")

Finfixer (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I would cite it as a book, list the first two or three authors and editor, and then add “et al”. If that is not possible, cite it as a news source. PinkPanther27 (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with cite book, I think editor and authors are optional, but an ISBN would be useful. I searched for Mitä, Missä, Milloin in en Wikipedia and found examples such as <ref>{{cite book|title=Mitä-Missä-Milloin, Kansalaisen vuosikirja 1980|publisher=Otava|year=1979|page=165|language=fi}}</ref> in Mariehamn. TSventon (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding whether you should cite the work as a book, magazine, or journal, Mitä, Missä, Milloin is referred to as a book by several sources, such as Helsingin Uutiset and Otava. Based on this, it'd probably be best to cite it as a book. However, listing 40 authors would indeed be impractical, although it's technically possible because there's no limit to the number of authors you can list in the {{cite book}} template. If the book is just a collection of pieces by various authors who don't contribute to the book as a whole, you may wish to list only the editor-in-chief or someone with a similar role. If the authors of each piece somewhat contribute to the whole book, then following PinkPanther27's advice may be best. Ultimately, I suggest considering the specifics of the book and judging from there. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this thing separate pieces by separate authors, such as being chapters each by its own contributing writers or more of a collection of individual items, rather than than a unified book covering many topics with a monolithic set of authors? If so, presumably there are editors of the whole work but any given cite would point to a portion that has an identifiable specific set of authors. The cite templates have separate fields for those separate roles (conceptually, there would be no reason to list authors who are in the book but did not write anything being cited for the specific detail). DMacks (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Finfixer: We have guidance for this case, but I've forgotten where to find it (I'll look now). If I cannot find it, I would cite the individual article, giving the article's title and author, and then cite the book, giving the book's editor:

<ref>{{cite book|last=|first=|title=|...}}, in {{cite book|editor=|title=|...}}</ref>

The goal here is to provide the correct information to the reader in a useful form. The exact name of the template you use to do this is secondary. -Arch dude (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

POETRY

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

U SHOULD INCLUDE... NELLIE ISABELLE STEWARD COOPER FROM YOUNGSTOWN OHIO USA .. SEE ON POETRY.COM AS 210 POEMS ALONG WITH PHOTOS BY ME.... JOHN M CCOOPER... HER NICK NAME IS IZZIE COOPER THANK U .. GOD BLESS... ~2026-38297-48 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you're in the right place. This is the help desk, where people can seek help with using or editing Wikipedia. It's not a place to suggest the creation of new articles. For that purpose, a registered account must submit a draft of a proposed article to be reviewed by other Wikipedia users, who will either accept or deny the article into the mainspace. To be accepted, articles must be notable enough such that multiple reliable, independent sources discuss it, among other criteria. However, you mentioned taking photos of the person you're wanting to create an article about. This might mean that you're connected to that person, violating our policy regarding conflicts of interest. Because of this, you won't be able to create or contribute to an article about the subject without explicitly disclosing your connection with them. If you still wish to have it created, you can go through the AfC process or list it in the requested articles page. For more information about article creation, see this page. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, Salmon, one does not have to be a registered user to create and submit a Draft (read the first two sentences of Articles for creation), even if having an account makes it a little easier. An IP/TA user (I've been one for approaching 25 years) can use AfC, the Article Wizard, and so on as well as any account holder: I just wish more account holders who have just achieved the minimum requirements to create articles directly would instead do the same; it would make life easier for them and the editors who deal with them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Wokeness

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This is troll bait. Let us leave them. Pass. (Exeunt.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 16:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia so liberal and yet expect use to donate to it? ~2026-38052-37 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Teahouse#Left-wing_bias for a recent (closed) discussion. We don't need another discussion here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

We don't 'expect' anyone to donate. The Wikimedia Foundation (not Wikipedia) asks for donations. They appear to be getting plenty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Masculine Identified Lesbians

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We would like to post information on the term , organization and founding entity. I have reviewed the posting under a similar term, but I believed that this term and concept deserves fully description and founding organization and founders. Please let me know if such a posting will be acceptable. Dr. Wilhelmina Perry ~2026-38266-19 (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

If this is about an organisation called "Masculine Identified Lesbians", rather than the general concept of masculine identified lesbians, and you are a member of or in some way associated with that organisation you should read WP:COI, especially regarding declaring a conflict of interest, and follow those guidelines.

In accordance with those guidance, the appropriate process for creating a new article is to begin a draft (see WP:DRAFT) and submit it via the articles for creation (AfC) process when you feel it's ready. Another editor will review the draft and either provide feedback on how to address any serious issues with the article if there are any or they will accept the draft and move it into article space.

Before starting a draft, you should read the general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG) to confirm that the topic of the article passes the general criteria for inclusion, since otherwise the draft will never be accepted and even if it were published the article would eventually just be deleted via the articles for deletion (AfD) process. There's no sense in putting effort into writing an article that doesn't pass WP:GNG.

Even if you have no conflicts of interest to declare, if you don't have much experience with creating new articles it is generally best to create a draft and follow the WP:AfC process anyway, since there may be guidelines which you're unaware of which articles must follow and the feedback you receive will help with resolving those issues. The process isn't complicated and WP:AfC provides instructions on how to begin a new draft, etc. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Not able to publish my edits

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I tried changing something on England at the FIFA World Cup but after clicking publish changes, it said "Your changes have not been published. In response to an ongoing pattern of abuse, an automated filter has prevented this edit. Don't worry, your work has not been lost! The full content of this edit has been saved, but it will not be visible to readers unless you take further action. Please go to the report page and follow the instructions. An experienced editor will review your changes, and provide assistance. Report error". I then clicked report error and explained what I was doing and when adding the report, the exact same error popped up. Even clicking on it three times does the same thing. I think I am stuck in an indefinite loop. I can't do anything. ~2026-38159-72 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

This TA doesn't have any logged filter hits. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 18:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

They are referring to these filter hits. Possible LTA, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. They should be able to edit now (though I don't think the changes they were trying to make were useful either). OhNoitsJamie ^talk 20:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

revert infoboxes

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. Took notice that infoboxes are now borderless. Is there some setting/option to turn it back? Thank you. ~2026-37739-70 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-37739-70: They are supposed to have borders. Try to bypass your cache. Use Ctrl+F5 in Windows browsers, not F5 or the reload button alone. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Still same. Can post/send you screenshot? ~2026-37739-70 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Tried to upload screenshot, but dont have enough rights.--Mada101abc (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Problem solved, had to modify CSS in appearances. Just surprised and confused, why those infoboxes changed to borderless.--Mada101abc (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mada101abc: That shouldn't be necessary. If you need it to get borders then you may be missing other CSS and maybe also JavaScript. Please post a link to an example article where you see a borderless infobox if you are not logged in. What is your browser and operating system? Did you bypass your cache while on a page with a borderless infobox? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, it started without any change on my side. One day it was fine, other day it turned borderless. Thought wiki did some changes in template visualisation. Still have screenshot from that (Iran War), where I can send it? Browser is Chrome, Win10. Mada101abc (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mada101abc: I asked for a link. Iran War redirects to List of wars involving Iran which doesn't have an infobox at all. Maybe you mean 2026 Iran war. I see borders there in Firefox but I tried Chrome and it varies whether there are borders when I load the page multiple times. I don't know why. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, its probably Chrome problem. Some of infobox (animals) is now on left side of screen, while in Firefox, they are as should be. Strange. But thx for help. Mada101abc (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

America’s 250th Anniversary

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Its seems that WIKIPEDIA has nothing on the 250th Anniversary of America’s Founding on its landing page. That seems quite remarkable. ~2026-38051-71 (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

That may be because per Wikipedia time, it's already July 5th... I'm not sure what the main page looked like before midnight UTC. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38051-71: Wikipedia:Main Page history/2026 July 4 was dominated by it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Merging two sections of an article broke the sources

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In this edit I was trying to merge the "Early life" section of Twomad into the career section, as "Life and career"; however, this broke the sources for some reason. Can someone help? NP (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@NP2026: <ref name=":1" group="P"> was changed to <ref name=":1">, and <ref name=":2" group="P"> was changed to <ref name=":2">. If it cannot be handled in VisualEditor then switch to the source editor on the pencil icon at the top right. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Why photos in articles are blurred?

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Anyone has the same problem here? Why some photos looks normal for me, but some not (For example the Wikipedia admins icon)? Any solution for fix this? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vitorperrut555: Please always link pages you refer to or give an example. Where do you see that image? It's a drawing and not a photo. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Example includes this essay and some articles like Forza Horizon 6 VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 01:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to see exactly what you're seeing, but the images in Forza Horizon 6 may look blurry to you for a simple reason: they're both there under a fair use exception, and as such, we use low-resolution images in such cases to be in line with WP:NFCCP. My apologies is if I've misunderstood what you mean by "blurred" here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs Nah.. It doesn't matter if it's fair use, but this also happens with free-licensed images. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 01:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Vitorperrut555: the admin icon is a small raster image (117 × 118 pixels), presumably intended for use only at thumbnail sizes, so it looks very rough when enlarged by the Media Viewer. Depending on your window size, something like 99% of the pixels you see in the displayed image will have been interpolated by the MediaWiki software.—Odysseus 1479 01:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It appears you have "Enable Media Viewer" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and refer to the large image versions you see when clicking on an image. Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators displays File:Admin mop.PNG which is only 117 × 118 pixels so it's always going to be blurry when something like Media Viewer displays a much larger version. SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) images like File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg in Wikipedia administrators can be scaled in size without loss of quality but not PNG images. Forza Horizon 6 displays copyrighted images with a non-free use rationale where we aren't even allowed to host high-resolution versions. See WP:IMAGERES. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

. Forza Horizon 6 displays copyrighted images with a non-free use rationale where we aren't even allowed to host high-resolution versions. See WP:IMAGERES.
I already know that

This glitch also occurs with free images, like CC-BY or Public Domain. My Internet is good, but unstable. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 01:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

As I said, please always link pages you refer to or give an example. In Media Viewer you can click "More details" at the bottom right to see the resolution of the original file. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Non-admins and G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! I have a question about criteria for speedy deletion, specifically G4. WP:G4 is about pages that are identical or nearly identical to a deleted page. But as a non-admin, I of course cannot see deleted pages. When I come across a new version of a deleted page, particularly when the deletion wasn't recent, should I tag for G4 and have an admin check whether it is similar or not, or should I assume that unless it's a recent deletion, it's probably not? This usually comes up in the context of AFC when I get a warning that something's been deleted before. Most of the time it's been deleted as a redirect to draftspace because the page was draftified, but every so often there is a previous AFD, as in the case of Draft:Krista Ayne. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! G4 violations are typically handled at the discretion of administrators. Users who don't have access to the contents of deleted pages, to wit, anyone who isn't an administrator, checkuser, or oversighter, won't be able to directly confirm whether any one article is similar enough to a deleted article to justify its speedy deletion. Please note that the purpose of this criterion is only to restrict the recreation of pages that were identified as having significant issues not yet addressed. For something to be deleted under G4, it would have to be "substantially identical" to a page deleted as of "its most recent deletion discussion," per WP:G4. An article being merged or redirected wouldn't necessarily mean you can't recreate it, and an article having been previously deleted also wouldn't necessarily mean you can't recreate it insofar as you address the reasons why it was deleted. If you want to check whether a draft of yours may be affected, you can search through any one of our XfD processes for a potential deletion discussion of it. Depending on whether the draft seems to address its reasons for deletion, you can ask an administrator to check if it actually meets G4. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Content translation help

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. Yes, I have looked at the guidelines for this but I would like a little more help. I will not name the topic, but there is an article I would like to create that has a larger article in another language. If I do not know the language I am translating from using machine translation, but I have a decent understanding of the the topic involved and will double-check sources in other languages/heavily edit the output. Is this allowed? Ilov3gam3z (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I think at that point you’d be better off just writing the article from scratch. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Ilov3gam3z, editors who translate articles are expected to have a reasonable level of fluency in both languages. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

login problem

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

pw reset won't work, I was able to login last year-whats wrong? ~2026-38250-21 (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

There have been various technical problems with logins recently. Please raise this at WP:VPT with some more details, or contact ca

wikimedia.org.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Adding new page to site?

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hi We have a project in post-production about Bruce Lee and will be going to Regal cinemas Brue the challenge is the movie title. How can we post to the site thank you Nik hspfilms.com ~2026-38012-55 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

You don't. This is an online encyclopaedia. It covers topics which meet our notability criteria, as demonstrated through significant coverage in independent published reliabe sources. It isn't a provider of free publicity. Before you go any further, read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:Username policy - you will not be permitted to edit anything with a username that represents the name of a company. And neither do we permit shared accounts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump To be fair: they didn't register an account under this/any company's name. They just linked to a not existent userpage of a not existent account. -- Maresa63 ^Talk 08:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd missed that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

To add on to what AndyTheGrump said, as Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia that focuses on notable subjects, more often than not this means that the subjects have been recognised by independent, reliable sources after being unveiled to the public. In the case of your project, that would most likely mean the article is supported by multiple reviews from reputable sources, with the article itself written by someone who isn't connected to your production company. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38012-55: See also Wikipedia:Notability (films). You made a confusing link to the non-existing User:Hspfilms.com. AndyTheGrump means you would not be allowed to create a user account with that name. I guess the film is actually called Bruce the Challenge, not "Brue the challenge". There is already a 2016 film by that name. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Ne postoji srpsko hrvatski jezik

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

ne postoji srpsko hrvatski jezik ~2026-38405-78 (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a help desk for the English-language Wikipedia. It isn't a platform for debates about Slavic languages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

How is Bass Highway connected to OpenStreetMap

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

{{maplink|frame=yes|type=line|id=Q684989}} correctly generates for Bass Highway (Q684989) (see map to right), but I can't see an OpenStreetMap id on Bass Highway's wikidata item page. Mapping for Midland Highway (Q1931978) also works, but it has the OpenStreetMap relation id on its Wikidata page. How is Bass Highway connected to OpenStreetMap? I cannot see any recent changes to Wikidata. I thought that OSM needed to be linked from Wikidata (and visa versa) for mapping to work. I came across this while create the map at Transport in Tasmania#Road transport. Maybe I am missing something obvious. Commander Keane (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Commander Keane: I was also confused by this originally. mw:Extension:Kartographer actually goes directly to OpenStreetMap and looks for an entry where OpenStreetMap itself has stored the same Wikidata item as the article. See mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer/OSM#How to add Wikidata ID to OSM. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have misunderstood the concept/requirement of Wikidata linking to OSM. Commander Keane (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Query regarding contentious vios

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is the most relevant place on Wiki to report any editors for persistent WP:CT/SA violations? Thanks and regards WareWolf665 (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:AE is the general place for reporting CTOP violations. Athanelar (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Robert Paul Boxie III

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Robert Paul Boxie III is the third African American Bishop to come out of a former Spiritan parish in Louisiana. Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Lake Charles, Louisiana was funded in part by St. Katharine Drexel and the U.S. Spirtants (Congregation of the Holy Spiritans). According to the Congregation of the Holy Spirit (Province of the U.S.), 15 Spiritan pastors and others staffed the parish until 1989. Sacred Heart School and then church were founded for the African American community during Jim Crow and segregation. ~2026-38170-80 (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, temp account. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-38170-80. I'm guessing that you think there should be an article about Boxie in Wikipedia.

If Boxie meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (which mostly means that there has been enough material published about him that neither he nor any of his associates have had any involvement at all in, to base an article on) then there can be an article about him.

You are welcome to post a request at requested articles; but, in all honesty, the chances of a request being picked up from there are remote.

If you want there to be an article about him, then the most effective way is to create it yourself. But creating a new article is extremely difficult for new users.

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.

If you have any connection with Boxie, then Wikipedia regards you as having a conflict of interest, which makes it even harder to write an article about him.

Note that what you know about him is of almost no relevance to a Wikipedia article, whoever you are.

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) 16:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Rabindranath Tagore Family

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rabindranath Tagore family or father was of Brahmo Movement - however his family is described as Brahmin in Wikipedia. ~2026-38439-42 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-38439-42. If you have an improvement to suggest to an article, the article's talk page is the best place to suggest this - Talk:Rabindranath Tagore.

If you look through the archives of that Talk page, you will see that this has been discussed long ago. I do not know enough about the subject to know whether you are bringing up something new, or something that has already been discussed at Talk:Rabindranath Tagore/Archive 1#Brahmo, again! and Talk:Rabindranath Tagore/Archive 2#Tagore's Nationality (and connected Pirali epithet). ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

President's Medal for Gallantry (India)

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Прошу прощения, что пишу на русском языке.
Я создаю статьи в русской википедии про государственные награды Индии. При подборе документов я нашёл вот это (архивировано ). Я создал (возможно и наверняка с ошибкой) элемент викиданных d:Q140440563 для этого источника.
В данном источнике утверждается, что President's Medal for Gallantry является единой медалью для следующих служб Индии: Police Forces of Sates/Union Territories/Central Police Organizations (CPOs)/Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Security Organizations; Fire Service (organized and administered by the Central Ministries or Departments, State Governments, Union Territory Administrations, Municipal and other Autonomous Bodies, and Public Sector Undertakings); Prison. Administration, Home Guards and Civil Defence in India.
Возможно я плохо понимаю английский язык и содержание статьи, но статья President's Medal for Gallantry (India) является ошибкой и должна называться President's Police Medal for Gallantry. Или данная статья должна быть полностью переписана как единая награда для всех указанных служб.
Прошу прощения, если я написал в ошибочном форуме. Ниже перевод сделанный с помощью LLM. VladimirPF (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for writing in Russian.

I am creating articles in the Russian Wikipedia about state awards of India. While selecting documents, I found this (archived here ). I have created (possibly and most certainly with errors) a Wikidata item d:Q140440563 for this source.

This source states that the President's Medal for Gallantry is a unified medal for the following services of India: Police Forces of States/Union Territories/Central Police Organizations (CPOs)/Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Security Organizations; Fire Service (organized and administered by the Central Ministries or Departments, State Governments, Union Territory Administrations, Municipal and other Autonomous Bodies, and Public Sector Undertakings); Prison Administration, Home Guards and Civil Defence in India.

Perhaps I do not understand English well and the content of the article, but the article President's Medal for Gallantry (India) is a mistake and should be called President's Police Medal for Gallantry. Or this article should be completely rewritten as a unified award for all the mentioned services.

I apologize if I wrote in the wrong forum. Below is a translation made using an LLM. VladimirPF (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @VladimirPF.

The best place for this discussion would be on the talk page: Лучшим местом для этого обсуждения была бы страница обсуждения: Talk: President's Medal for Gallantry (India) ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Error accessing Edit Statistics

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At the bottom of the User Contributions page, there is an Edit Statistics menu item that provides a detailed summary of my user activities. I have used it for several years to keep track of my Wikipedia activity and contributions.

Starting Yesterday, 1-Jul-2026, and continuing today, 2-Jul-2026, the Edit Statistics link no longer works. Whenever I try to use it, after a few minutes, an error message appears "Wikimedia Cloud Services Error
This web service cannot be reached. Please contact a maintainer of this project.
Maintainers can find troubleshooting instructions from our documentation on Wikitech."

Is this a temporary error that will eventually be corrected, or a permanent error that means I will need to find an alternative way of checking my overall activity? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Truthanado: It's part of XTools and has been reported at phab:T430876. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved.I can access the Error statistics. Truthanado (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

When I log in to donate money to Wikipedia I fill in all boxes but there is no "send" button to push.

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

When I log in to donate money to Wikipedia I fill in all boxes but there is no "send" button to push. Nothing happens. ~2026-38354-34 (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Could you provide some additional information so that we can help you better? At what stage in the donation process are you missing buttons, and with what method are you trying to pay? Typically, you'd donate from this portal, on which you should see a box on the right-hand right with a "Donate now" button. Clicking it should lead you to multiple payment methods, from which the rest of the process is straightforward. There are many ways to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, such as with credit cards, PayPal, Apple Pay, bank account, or cash via mail. If any one of those don't work, you can always see if another method is available and go with that one instead. If you're still having trouble, you can visit WP:VPT for help by more technical users or contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly at donate@wikimedia.org. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Before donating I suggest you acquaint yourself with Wikipedia finances. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Catastrophic issue on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election – where to report?

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I try to add a poll to the page by editing the section, adding the poll, previewing, then saving the page. After saving the page, I see that only that section had saved, and that the rest of the article had been deleted, removing over 128,000 bytes. I have undone the edit and redone it manually while editing the whole article to stop this from happening again.

Is this a known bug? Is it to do with the huge size of the article? Where do I report it – phabricator? When I edit the article I get a notification on the top-right that mw:Help:Extension:CodeMirror is not working due to the article length, and the load/save time is very long. This may also be a sign the article needs splitting. Thanks, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, JacobTheRox!

The article is about 380,000 bytes long (the page info). Wikiedia has many longer articles (Special:LongPages) which behave quite well, so I suppose the length is not the reason of your problem. Not the main one, at least. I have no idea what it could be though. --CiaPan (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Nice to meet you!

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am not good at english so excuse me. I want to cite a webpage but I don't know how. can you Please help me? Thank you very much! ~2026-38301-53 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. You would probably find it helpful to read Help:Referencing for beginners. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 12:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Template:anbl in name pages

Latest comment: 1 month ago8 comments3 people in discussion

In the surname page Körner, I have seen for the first time that all persons are listed in the style of e.g. {{anbl|August Theodor Koerner}}. While this looks meaningful, I do not find it mentioned in Wikipedia:Name pages or also Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Should it be done this way now? Is it optional? Or still not recommended for some reason? --KnightMove (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@KnightMove: It's optional and can be replaced if it gives a poor result. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thank you. Additional: Is setting this template into existing name pages (without other changes) ok, or would this be an unwanted "edit of taste", as we call it in German Wikipedia? --KnightMove (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@KnightMove: I don't edit in that area but my rule of thumb would be to only do it if it gives a better result than now, and check each call to see the result is meaningful for that person. Some editors may be annoyed that the descriptions cannot be changed easily. It's a relatively new template from 2024 so many editors may not know it. It's OK to have a mix like using it when new people are added. Sam Sailor added it to all existing entries in Körner (I think the edit summary should have said that), but has also used it to add single people like . Maybe he can say more including whether others have reacted to his edits. A larger discussion could be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy if your interest in the template is name pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@KnightMove, @PrimeHunter: Thanks for the ping. {{Annotated biography link}} works very well on name pages if the short description of the article linked in anbl is in good shape. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Style advice and Wikipedia:Name pages aren't exactly up to date. Name pages and DAB pages are often confused. According to a 2018 discussion, {{Annotated link}} is not used on DAB pages, so I assume this is grandfathered to anbl, and do not use it on DAB pages including hndis pages. Best, Sam Sailor 15:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Thanks for the explanation. Would you consider edits only setting the template like this one ok or rather not advisable? An advantage is that you instantly spot errors in the short descriptions and can correct them. --KnightMove (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@KnightMove: 1035045484 is the last revision with Wikitext entries. Judging from how it looked when you posted your comment, I made this and this tweak to the short descriptions. What do you think about Hirscher now? Best, Sam Sailor 12:46, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! --KnightMove (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement?

Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hello,

I found myself on the North Carolina Forest Service Wikipedia page, and when I pulled up the history of the NC forest service page on the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services website (https://www.ncagr.gov/divisions/nc-forest-service/about/history), I noticed that some of the sentences on both were exactly the same. I did not see any clear copyright notices on the state government website, but I decided to bring it to attention anyways just in case.

Advice?

Villaida (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The history seems to have been added here by an IP editor on 29 October 2013 1:50 PM with the edit summary "NCFS representative added detailed history of the agency and changed wording to show the primary response of the agency as wildland fire control." TSventon (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Villaida. That site says

"Unless otherwise noted on an individual document, the State of North Carolina grants permission to copy and distribute non-image files, documents, and information for non-commercial use, provided they are copied and distributed without alteration and appropriately cite to the source".

Unfortunately, the "non-commercial" part is inconsistent with Wikipedia's requirements, and therefore, you are right, it is a copyright infringement. See WP:COPYVIO for how to proceed. ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine

Since the copyright violation edit took place in 2013, should I use the template for when the copyvio has been there for a while and/or the template for if there is a specific section that is problematic? 16:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Villaida (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

You might want to see if this is a reverse copyvio. The earliest archive on the Wayback machine is from 2024. I'm not sure how to find possible earlier copies with different URLs. -Arch dude (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It is sometimes possible to find older versions by trial and error: this looks like a 2013 version: https://web.archive.org/web/20130918194936/http://www.ncforestservice.gov//ncfs_history.htm . TSventon (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

ColinFine, Villaida has added a copyvio template and I have listed the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, ~~but I can't get a date header for some reason~~. TSventon (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing without resolution

Latest comment: 30 days ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. So I've had a dispute with another editor here Talk:The Alternative (Denmark)#Infobox. I tried to ping other editors of the page on talk to get more responses but no resolution came about. I then took the matter to the Dispute resolution noticeboard and got nothing. The other editor involved, FellowMellow, constantly ignored Wikipedia guidelines I brought up that they are breaking, such as WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:RSPYT, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and WP:ONUS. Whenever I have tried to remove the information they have added they edit war it back in, which is flagrant violation of WP:ONUS. They have been allowed to get away with this behaviour as no one seems to be addressing it. I'm honestly tired of going through these routes of pinging others, starting the talk page discussion, explaining to them multiple times in said discussion and edit summaries and going to the Dispute resolution noticeboard without anyone acknowledging or doing anything about them breaking these guidelines and just allowed to carry on acting like this. Helper201 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Helper201, if you've already been to dispute resolution and that hasn't helped, and you're not getting any useful action on the talk page, and you're quite sure you've done your best to work with the other editor, the next step is to make a report at WP:ANI. From the quick look I had at the talk page earlier, though, neither of you have really tried "calmly explain your position to the other editor", and I'd certainly suggest that before heading to ANI. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Asilvering thank you for your response. I have tried to explain this to the other editor multiple times on the talk page and via edit summaries. I'm honestly really not sure how I could this any differently. Helper201 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

My read of the discussion is that you start out pretty hot. Lots of people get defensive if you start with comments phrased like this one, so it's not really surprising that the other editor responded impatiently in kind. If you'll take some advice, I'd suggest that in the future you do more explaining of your own position and less pointing at guidelines, especially "so-and-so broke the guidelines"-type statements. (They're guidelines, not immutable laws, anyway.) I do think that calmly explaining your position without accusing the other editor of doing something wrong is worth trying. If they just say the same thing again, well, you tried. There's always ANI. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, the main thing to remember about ANI is this: they are going to blame you for not doing enough to fix the problem yourself; therefore, go fix it yourself. It will be more fun. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Asilvering and TooManyFingers thank you for your responses. The reason I appeared to start out "pretty hot" is because I explained my reasoning to this editor multiple times before via edit summaries, which were being read and responded to in their counter-summaries. See the edit history of the relevant page. They continuously reverted my edits at every turn, reinstating their disputed content, despite WP:ONUS being very short and clear on this matter. I think it’s pretty understandable given that the way my initial talk page comment appears the way it does. I have tried to explain on the talk page to them multiple times why the edit should not stand, not just because of onus but for other reasons too.

Please take a look at the so called "sources" they cite in the infobox on the page for their claims of "animal rights" and "animal welfare". They don't support these claims at all. They just redirect to the YouTube channel of "KTVB". I cannot understand why this editor is allowed to get away with such clear breaking of this Wikipedia policies. Helper201 (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The editor is "able to get away with it" because the behaviour hasn't been reported at ANI. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be reported for other editors to help and intervene. If you'll please have a look at the sources you'll see one of the issues very quickly. Helper201 (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If your dispute is whether the youtube channel is RS for "animal welfare" in the infobox, there is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If it is edit warring, there is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

When the sources redirect to a YouTube channel's homepage its not evidence of anything besides the existence of that channel, and that is not what the sources are being used to support. Helper201 (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Resent article submission

Latest comment: 30 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I drafted and submitted an article about Dr. Robert Shenk a few days ago. Please let me know its status. Thank y Rizos01 (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

This has already been answered at the Tea house, please do not ask at both venues. TSventon (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, TSventon, that was about the status two days ago. The status could have changed since. Two days ago, 45dogs wrote: You need to hit the submit button at User:Rizos01/sandbox in order to add it to the AFC reviewing list. So what's the status now? The draft still hasn't been submitted. You, Rizos01, need to hit the submit button at User:Rizos01/sandbox in order to add it to the AFC reviewing list. And then, what will happen? Most likely nothing will happen for weeks, as AFC has too many drafts for the number of reviewers. Very likely, nothing will happen for months, as the referencing system, though permissible, is curiously unhelpful, presenting obstacles to editors who might otherwise review this draft. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Неверная информация в статье википедии.

Latest comment: 30 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Здравствуйте. Мои родители владельцы компании NOC, о которой есть информация на Википедии (NOC (software)). Они задаются вопросом: «как можно изменить информацию на верную?». Доказательства о том, что они являются владельцами, можем предоставить. Будем ждать вашего ответа. ~2026-38591-42 (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello! First of all, this is English Wikipedia so please speak in English if possible. If you want to use Russian, Russian Wikipedia is the best place to go.
Proof of ownership is not required, but any information that is added must be backed up by a reliable source (most likely a newspaper in the case of a company). If you can find a source for the changes you want made, you should make an edit request on the article's talk page. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 11:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi 👋 what is the process work with yours company

Latest comment: 30 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

contact me with safe route ~2026-38759-67 (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. You are encouraged to create an account but this is optional. Wikipedia articles are created free of charge, but only on notable topics. If you are trying to contact a company which offers to sell you a Wikipedia article, this is a scam; please do not respond to them but follow the advice in that link. Certes (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

It depends on what you want to do. WP:BOSS and WP:COI are worth reading.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Brulé

Latest comment: 30 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Could someone change Brulé, which currently redirects to Sicangu, to redirect to Brule instead? The term has multiple meanings, so it should point to the disambiguation page. ~2026-38447-58 (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! This isn't quite the right place to request edits. Rather, the help desk is meant for general questions about using and editing Wikipedia. For the most part, though, it's encouraged for users to be bold in making the changes they want to see regardless of their level of experience with Wikipedia. If you see something that could be changed for the better, you're fully encouraged to make that change insofar as you're not being reckless. The redirect page isn't under any form of protection, either, so you should be able to edit it without any technical obstacles. If you meet any other obstacles from that point, feel free to come back and ask for some help. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

TA editor, I see that you have started a requested move discussion at Talk:Sicangu. There was another requested move discussion in 2024, so some evidence that the 2024 move was wrong or that facts have changed would be helpful. TSventon (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Why do you use lazy words?

Latest comment: 29 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

"Many Wikipedia articles on convergent evolution describe lookalike species as 'completely unrelated.' For example, the Cook's swift article states it is 'completely unrelated' to house martins, and the Mole article says golden moles are 'completely unrelated to true moles'. Given that all these animals are placental mammals or birds that share a common evolutionary ancestor, isn't using the word 'unrelated' scientifically inaccurate and misleading? Why does Wikipedia allow this phrasing instead of using terms like 'distantly related' or 'homoplasy'?" ~2026-38730-08 (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38730-08 There is no "Wikipedia" making edits, just people. According to policy, the language we use should be backed up by the cited sources (see WP:Verify). Since this encyclopedia is editable by anyone, you can be bold and alter anything you believe to be poor language. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think there are at least three possible reasons for what you're describing. The first one is exactly what you said. The second one is that fully correct and complete explanations very often hinder or prevent understanding (e.g. the strictly and absolutely correct version of an article on quantum mechanics contains only the two words "Nobody knows", and the similarly correct article on humans must begin at the beginning of the universe if it begins at all). The third one is that conventional understanding of words can differ from their technical understanding, and using words in their conventional sense is often the correct approach.

But: Using technical words that have no conventional sense, and using them incorrectly, is certainly a problem when it happens. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue with technical words and jargon in a general sense is that in order to defend their use, you need to be able to define them correctly. See also the false equivalence between "theory" and theory. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 19:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

This is RaeAnn Mateo aka Robyn Griffith

Latest comment: 29 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Kristan Hash warrant ~2026-38688-28 (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

What's your question? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Horribly screwed up references

Latest comment: 29 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

As the title suggests, there's something quite wrong with the references in the article Zong massacre. There's a bunch of "Invoked but never defined" errors, one of which contains almost the entire content of one of the sections with in it. (Does that make any sense? Idk, you should just check it out for yourself). I've tried a couple ways to fix it, but to no avail. Although I somehow moved the error to a different citation? I'm really quite lost. Do any of you folks have any idea what the bloomin' heck is going on? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing, the reference currently numbered 21 has been given a name that begins with two curly brackets. I suspect that that is A Bad Idea. I think some other references may have bad names as well. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Ahhh, that makes sense. I'll try to clean that up. Thanks! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I tried renaming the reference to get rid of "{"s and removning some "/"s, but neither of those seem to have worked. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

There were a lot of refs like this; I think I've fixed it in this series of edits. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, given that these bad refnames were introduced by a 23-year-old admin account in December 2025 using a semi-automated tool, I suspect this was either some sort of bad find-and-replace or else a bug in ProveIt... - Purplewowies (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, thanks so much! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Image with text formatting

Latest comment: 29 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Extended content

ENE

WNE

NYC

PHILA.

WPA

WEST

MIDLAND

SOUTH

⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 18:23, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Template:Map of American English

I brought this up about a week ago, but I'd like to ask my question (which I have since understood better) more precisely now: This map is perfectly legible in mobile view but seems to be cluttered to the point of illegibility (in the eastern region) in the desktop view. Is there some easy conversion fix from one to the other, or is this an inevitable problem? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Wolfdog

<span style="padding: 1px; border-style: solid; border-width: 3px; border-color: hex code">text</span>

Potential fix ! Easier to separate because of the concentration of East US dialects

I also suggest changes, WNE can have a black background for more legibility if retaining the text color yellow

Where do I apply that bit of coding? Wolfdog (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Wolfdog Will this do ? (Actually made some intermediatary changes but still)

{{Image label begin|image=USA location map.svg|width=600|float=none}}
{{Image label small|x=0.93 |y=0.125|scale=600|text=[[Eastern New England English|<span style="padding: 1px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-color: #008080">{{font|color=#008080|size=120%|'''ENE'''}}</span>]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.87 |y=0.148|scale=600|text=[[Western New England English|<span style="padding: 1px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-color: gold; background: black">{{gold|{{large|'''WNE'''}}}}</span>]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.8765 |y=0.182|scale=600|text=[[New York City English|<span style="padding: 1px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-color: gray">{{gray|{{large|'''NYC'''}}}}</span>]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.835|y=0.205|scale=600|text=[[Philadelphia English|<span style="padding: 1px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-color: navy">{{navy (color)|{{large|'''PHILA.'''}}}}</span>]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.6|y=0.15|scale=600|text=[[Inland North|{{font|size=150%|color=#e80000|{{nowrap|'''INLAND NORTH'''}}}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.768|y=0.198|scale=600|text=[[Western Pennsylvania English|{{large|{{maroon|'''WPA'''}}}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.345 |y=0.063 |scale=600|text=[[North-Central American English|{{font|size=180%|color=#f39|{{nowrap|'''NORTH CENTRAL'''}}}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.15 |y=0.16 |scale=600|text=[[Western American English|{{font|size=370%|{{green|'''WEST'''}}}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.48 |y=0.2 |scale=600|text=[[Midland American English|{{font|size=275%|{{brown|'''MIDLAND'''}}}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.53 |y=0.3 |scale=600|text=[[Southern American English|{{font|size=320%|color=#c70|'''SOUTH'''}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.43 |y=0.36 |scale=600|text=[[Texan English|{{font|color=#c70|Texas}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.09 |y=0.295 |scale=600|text=[[California English|{{green|California}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.7 |y=0.287 |scale=590|text=[[Appalachian English|{{font|color=#c70|Appalachia}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.93 |y=0.155|scale=600|text=[[Boston accent|<span style="padding: 1px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-color: #008080">{{font|color=#008080|Boston}}</span>]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.045 |y=0.084|scale=600|text=[[Pacific Northwest English|{{green|Pacific </br>Northwest}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.844 |y=0.263 |scale=600|text=[[High Tider|{{olive|Chesapeake &<br/> Outer Banks}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.93 |y=0.095|scale=600|text=[[Maine accent|<span style="padding: 1px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-color: #008080">{{font|color=#008080|Maine}}</span>]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.585 |y=0.403 |scale=600|text=[[New Orleans English|{{gray|New <br/>Orleans}}]]}}
{{Image label small|x=0.84|y=0.235|scale=600|text=[[Baltimore English|<span style="padding: 1px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-color: navy">{{navy (color)|Baltimore}}</span>]]}}
{{Image label end}}

Preview :

ENE

WNE

NYC

PHILA.

WPA

WEST

MIDLAND

SOUTH