This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Help desk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Wasn't there some off-wiki service that allowed you to do this? Like wayback machine but only for Wikipedia. Fence127 (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
That was Deletionpedia, but it has been shutdown. MKFI (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
I tried 'wikibin', but it doesn't show categories which is what I'm looking for. Fence127 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
I want to view the actual page before it was deleted. Fence127 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
@Fence127: Which page and why do you want to view it? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
A category that has been G1 (patent nonsense) speedy deleted. I want to know what was on it. I remember reading it before it got deleted. Fence127 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
I edited it too. Fence127 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
[[File:Symbol redirect vote2.svg]]
''This category is for drafts that were moved to another namespace.''
==M==
[[Draft:Mokhtar Adbelatif Stadium]]
The only other edit was adding {{db-nonsense}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
I created a sandbox test with the wiki text in the box. Only the icon showed up way too big. That was the only issue. Fence127 (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
@Fence127: I don't know what your intention was but it appears you don't know how categories work or what move means. Draft:Mokhtar Adbelatif Stadium had not been moved before it was deleted and that's not how you place a page in a category. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Now I do. This was a long time ago. Fence127 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Move means rename and/or move into another namespace. Fence127 (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
@Fence127: Then maybe you could create a meaningful category today but I still don't know its purpose. Many drafts were moved to mainspace to become articles. Some poor articles were moved to the draft namespace. Some userspace drafts were moved to the draft namespace as a preferred location. Some draftspace drafts were moved to the userspace of the author. Some drafts were randomly moved by vandals or confused editors and maybe moved back. Which of these or what else would the category be for and why does it need a category? It's hard to tell when the only example is a page which was never actually moved. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're asking me. Fence127 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
@Fence127: You appear unhappy that Category:Draft namespace move redirects was deleted and said the only issue was the icon size. I'm trying to explain there were other issues which should be addressed if you want to create the category. If you don't then I'm not asking for anything. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
OK. I am just asking out of curiosity, not trying to restore the old page. Fence127 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Howard Keel
You did not write about his movie in 1962 “The Unsinkable Molly Brown” with Debbie Reynolds! It was a fantastic movie. This was a great movie featuring Mr. Keel’s singing and the great Debbie Reynolds. This was not included in his bio! ~2026-52204-86 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
The Unsinkable Molly Brown (film) was released in 1964, not 1962, and there is no indication in that article that Howard Keel appeared in it.
It was based on The Unsinkable Molly Brown (musical) of 1960. Again, Howard Keel did not appear in that initial production. He did appear in a touring stage production of the musical in 1971 and 1973.
You may have mistaken the movie's actual lead actor Harve Presnell for Howard Keel: they are not unalike. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
At Talk:Cathy Dennis#Date of birth and other claims there was consensus to remove the birth date per Cathy's request and WP:DOB. I thought the year should have been kept, but the editors working the page decided to nuke the whole thing.
The problem is that anyone using autowikibot will see a suggestion to add Category:Year of birth missing (living people). What is the best way to let autowikibot users know that this isn't a case of someone forgetting to add a DOB? Will they see a HTML comment?
Alternatively, should I just push harder to have the year listed? Cathy seemed to be concerned about her birthday being published, not her age. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
If the consensus was to remove everything including the year, then perhaps pushing hard to get it re-added might not be a good idea because the others involved might start wrongly accusing you of WP:IDHT. If the consensus was unclear on the year, however, then seeking further clarification should be OK. As for the autowikibot stuff, perhaps Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser (I think that's the same thing) would be the place query about that. Someone had to have created the bot and someone has to be monitoring it, Maybe "Request a feature" is the place to suggest such a change if needed; it's possible noone anticipated such an issue. Other than that, you could try leaving WP:HIDDEN notes in the text (near anywhere Dennis's DOB might be added and at the top of the categories section) asking those wanting to do so to check the article's talk page first. You might also want to suggest somehow fixing that discussion on the article's talk page so that it doesn't get archived (if the page is set up to archive). I'm not sure of the technical side of doing such a thing, but it would be helpful for the relevant discussion to always be on the article's talk page if you're going to make reference to in hidden notes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Featured Article edits
Is there any process for monitoring edits to FAs, to ensure they remain "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer"? I'm watching one which has had 66 edits in the last 24 hours. I'm not saying they're detrimental, because I don't know enough about the subject to give an opinion, but I notice one prolific, apparently good faith, editor is a registered user with no user page, less than 6 months on WP, and a talk page discussing their past errors with other articles. I'm feeling uncomfortable that a FA is being significantly edited without any monitoring. Masato.harada (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
It would be very surprising if no-one has that article on their watchlist.
Preventing things from being edited, "just in case", is regarded as being against core Wikipedia policy. An article can usually only get protected after there is clearly an ongoing problem with that article - not because there could be one later. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:18, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi Masato.harada. I'm a bit late to the party perhaps, but I respond anyway. Due the extensive review (at least compared to other articles) an article needs to undergo to be granted FA status, most of them probably have multiple stewards watching for anything that might detract from their FA status. Of course, this doesn't mean that they can't be vandalized or subjected to otherwise sub-standard editing, but it does generally mean someone will notice when they are. If you feel the edits you're referring to above are sub-standard in terms of relative Wikipedia policies/guidelines, you can of course WP:FIXIT yourself or revert back to last stable version per WP:STATUSQUO. You should leave an edit summary explaining why you did what you did and maybe even follow that up with a post on the article's talk page. If you're more of a WP:CAUTIOUS type, you can start a discussion about the edits on the article's talk page first, and notify others per WP:APPNOTE: I believe all FA have a template at the top of their talk pages telling who reviewed the article and when they did so. Just for reference, according to Category:Wikipedia former featured articles, there are quite a lot of articles which have been demoted from FA status; so, it's not like once an FA, always an FA. I'd imagine that most of these had nothing to do with random vandalism or bad editing and everything to due with different interpretations of or changes in the FA criteria over the years. It's sometimes helpful to remember WP:CCC when it comes to Wikipedia. Finally, someone not having a user page isn't really a good indicator of their contributions to Wikipedia. There are lots of users who have been improving articles regularly for years that have (for whatever reason) decided not to make a user page, and there are lots users who been editing for years who only seem to spend their time making edits in their user space: often the first thing they do is create their user page. I'm only making this comment because you didn't identify the specific user that led you to posting here (you don't need to do that). If that user is making bad edits, it almost certainly has nothing to do with them not having a user page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
OK, thanks to you both. I'm more comfortable now. Masato.harada (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
What is a 6 20 621962 W.cronkite earliest 15 minute broadcast worth
did cbs copy rite june 20 1962 broadcast in 1990 ~2026-52381-54 (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
This is not a general help desk, sorry 331dot (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
2027–28 United States Television Schedule
Can you please create a draft for the 2027-28 United States Television Schedule please. ~2026-52401-64 (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
This isn't the place to request an article, that's requested articles(which admittedly is severely backlogged). Also see WP:CRYSTAL. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
New article created despite an existing draft
I created Draft:Daktar Kaku on 27 September. Today, when I was about to move it to mainspace, I noticed that another editor had directly created Daktar Kaku on 28 September. Daktar Kaku is poorly developed, poorly formatted and has limited sourcing. Whereas Draft:Daktar Kaku is substantially developed, well sourced and well formatted.
When a draft already exists, editors are generally encouraged to work on the existing draft rather than create a separate article. In this case, the mainspace article was created after my draft. I came to know about it only when I was preparing to move my completed draft to mainspace.
What would be the appropriate way to proceed here? Should the existing article be replaced by the draft....or is there another procedure I should follow? BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 15:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
I would first attempt to discuss the situation with the creator of the article and try to collaborate. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
About a
How to download wikipedia aap,I can't download on my device,because its showing this aap is not compitable with your device,what should i do ~2026-52307-12 (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-52307-12: What is your device including version number or similar, and where are you trying to download the app? It's very limited what the app adds over the normal browser interface and it omits other things. You can do fine without it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
How do I create a map?
Hi, I'm just wondering how I create a map with pinpoints of different locations, for example the places someone who is missing was last seen. I've created some pages where I would like to add maps, but I'm not really sure how to do it. Thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Less than a week ago, ItsShandog, I could have written the same message (aside from the bit about the last sightings of the missing). Essential reading: WP:WikiProject Maps. You might use Template:Location map many. (The "many" in the name is to suggest the possibility of many markers, but the template works well for a single marker, and of course allowing many markers lets you add "workplace", "body found" or whatever.) You may well go dizzy when first trying to make sense of map construction. Certainly I did. But I took a break, resolving to return to the matter when wider awake. That worked. Best of luck with your cartographical adventures, -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 09:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. ItsShandog (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Corrections and Additions for my wikipedia page named as G V N Raju
I am GVN Raju, How to correct my date of birth, it was showing as 28th March 1964 and 26th March 1964. it should be corrected as 28th March 1963 as per my aadhar card. I also want to bring to your notice some of recent year achievements (with all press clipping proofs ) needs to be uploaded. please guide to whom I need to share.
I don't know why my addition to an article doesn't appear. It was my first time and I guess I could be missing a step. FutanariReiwa (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Hi @FutanariReiwa. I don't see any contributions from you. Did you press the Publish changes button to publish your edit? qcne(talk) 20:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Maybe I didn't. Is it possible that my contribution was saved somehow? FutanariReiwa (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I just made the edit successfully! FutanariReiwa (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Contribute button not highlighted
Tried incognito window, same behaviour.
I'd like to write an article about Bot Colony _Redux. Bot Colony, which had an article in Wikipedia for many years and was retired yesterday from Steam.
As I haven't posted a lot on Wikipedia, I could use help from an editor (not sure how Wikipedia responds to these inquiries, can you kindly reply? I'll check my profile and make sure the email address is operational ).
The Bot Colony _Redux article should point to the Bot Colony article. Bot Colony _Redux is a newly developed game intended to succeed/replace Bot Colony. The article should cover the development history, impact of the emergence of Generative-AI, differences from the original Bot Colony, new content (Riot episode, a Tutorial), support for 16 languages.
@Sensebased: I guess your heading refers to the text "Contribute" in a menu. It's a heading for the following links and never a link itself. It has misled others and I pointed out the poor design in phab:T419124: "Sidebar section headings in Vector 2022 are not visually distinguishable enough from disabled links". You are certainly allowed to contribute. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Sensebased as a relatively inexperienced editor is like saying "I want to learn to be a builder. I'm going to start by building a house".
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) 20:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
(I know your account has been there since 2015, but with only 72 edits in your history, you are still a new editor) --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Draft:2027 NFL season
Can You Please Fix The errors I Made On the draft 2027 NFL season page please. ~2026-52401-64 (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
The way to fix the errors you made is to cite the actual sources you are citing. Since you haven't done so, we don't know where the citations are supposed to point to.
Creating an article without first finding the reliable, independent, substantial secondary sources that are required (see WP:42) is like starting to build a house without surveying the plot to make sure it's suitable to build on, or checking that local laws allow you to build there: there is a very good chance that you are totally wasting your time.
Do we have a specific policy on the notability of people mentioned in the Bible? How about the Quran? If not. what would be the closest notability guideline? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
I think this is probably a policy gap where it would be sensible to have some kind of presumed notability. I would imagine that given the sheer volume of academic study of these texts, there must be significant coverage available for any and every named figure in them. Athanelar (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
[1] "Though this individual is a biblical character, without provide additional scholarship which verifies the individual's importance (i.e. Reliable secondary sources which deal with the individual), this individual is not notable. The New Testament isn't so important in a scholarly/encyclopedic sense as to warrant articles on each named minor individual. A list perhaps, which contains individuals in said book, but not individual articles."
[2] "The Bible and Qu'ran are significant enough, and covered by so many sources, that any person mentioned in either will be the subject of significant coverage"
The "Wikipedia rule" that comes to my mind first, when I read the article, is that Hul definitely does not meet SIGCOV inside the Bible. He is merely mentioned, twice, in genealogy tables. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
There is a lot of begatting in the Bible, and undoubtedly several figures who are hapax legomenona known by name only. The most famous of these would be, or so I assume, in the conflicting genealogies of Jesus. Shall research.
kencf0618 (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I would say if we did presume notability of scriptural figures then a notable exception would be anyone who is only namedropped in a genealogy. Athanelar (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
The Christian texts must be among the most-studied published works ever. Over the last 2,000 years there have probably been sufficient students of Christian theology to have analysed the Bible from end to end, many times over. This includes the apocrypha and other historical texts that, while related, are not normally bundled with those (Secret Gospel of Mark, anyone?). In these researches, these students have, between them, probably covered every single aspect of interpersonal relationships, not just the begetting. In the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge there's a wealth of published work that would satisfy WP:V, it just needs somebody to go and read it all. --Redrose64🌹 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
My mum became obsessed with Christianity at an early age. She even refused to marry my dad (who turned out to be a complete asshole) unless he was baptised as an Anglican, and subsequently named me, her oldest son, after Jeremiah. I feel the weight of thousands of years of biblical exegesis upon my shoulders - a bit like Atlas: thus woe unto the lot of you, and no mistake. MinorProphet (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
The result of the AfD for Hul (biblical figure) was no consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hul (biblical figure) ). I was surprised, given the sourcing and the only mention in the Bible being in a couple of genealogies. I can't imagine any name mentioned in the Bible or Quran (and maybe the Book of Mormon) that doesn't have some speculation in ancient texts or Bible/Quran religious dictionaries, so it appears that they are all notable. Oh well. I seldom edit any religion page, so Not My Clown. Not My Circus. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Are videogames that have no Wikipedia page allowed on lists? The pages List of ZX Spectrum games and List of Atari 8-bit computer games are full of them. If they don't have their own article it often means they're not relevant enough to be on Wikipedia. But if that's the case, should they even be on lists? AngelSparkles (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Per WP:LISTV, while I'm okay with a game that at least has a bluelink, I think redlinked games need to be supported by sources. DonIago (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
If "ZX Spectrum" has no article, then "List of ZX Spectrum Games" is definitely not allowed to exist at all. But if ZX Spectrum has an article, and there is reliable-sources proof that they really made Games A, B, and C, there is no literal rule saying that Game B must have an article to get on the list. But it's very often better to all agree to act as if that rule did exist, to avoid lists that are stupid.
However, even if everyone knows they also made Game D, Game D is absolutely not allowed on the list unless we have reliable-sources proof that it's by them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
I'll just note here, just for unneeded posterity, that the ZX Spectrum was a console that was really popular in the UK about 40 years ago. And the article is a WP:GA! It would definitely be nice to improve the sourcing on the list. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
(About my "avoiding lists that are stupid": it depends what kind of list it is. Some lists are not very long even if you do include all, so then you can.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:10, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
In my opinion, those lists could very well be removed, because Wikipedia also has the category lists. Category:ZX Spectrum games. All games are already in there and that page isn't cluttered with red links and wrong info. It looks much cleaner. Why have 2 lists with the same purpose. AngelSparkles (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
"Reliable sources applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.".
Everything on the list page should have a citation - regardless of whether there is an individual page or not - anything unsourced can be removed. Stooob (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Commons category
Is {{Commons category}} an external link and has to be placed below ==External links== in a wiki page..? --~2026-52848-82 (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Per the template documentation, this template should be placed at the top of the last section on the page, which is sometimes but not always ==Externallinks==. Certes (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
How to make repetitive edits
Are there any scripts or tools that allow me to make repetitive edits (especially to wikitables) without using AI? Before being warned, I admittedly used AI to reshuffle wikitables [1]. I don't want to use AI anymore but is it there any non-AI gadget that allows me to save time dealing with tables? Wikipediæ philosophia (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
@Wikipediæ philosophia: there is a help page, Help:Table, which lists tools in its external links section. You could try asking on the talk page there. I have found importing a table from Excel useful.
I have a few questions about an existing page, as well as a page I would like to create. I don't know where I can ask them because I am relatively new here, so I would be happy to have any kind of help and information that you have for me.
First of all, I want to be very transparent about my connection to the subjects I am asking about. I currently work for the company developing Maison Jacques Fath. Before editing anything, I would like to make sure that I follow Wikipedia’s rules about conflicts of interest and neutrality.
My questions are:
The link to the official website Jacques Fath was removed from the Jacques Fath page. Could you please explain why? And what are the conditions for adding it there?
Some photos related to Jacques Fath were also removed from the Jacques Fath page. I would like to know the reason for this removal and maybe a correct way to use some photos from the Jacques Fath’s archives?
The last question is about creation of a separate Wikipedia page for Maison Jacques Fath as a fashion house. My team and I have a large historical documentation about Maison Jacques Fath. Clearly we will follow Wikipedia’s rules about neutrality and about the encyclopedic character of the information that is posted here. Keeping that in mind, do we need to know anything else about creating a page on Wikipedia? Is it better to create a draft for a review for the Wikipedia users of Wikipedia admins before really posting it and reviewing it then?
Once again, given my professional connection to Maison Jacques Fath, I want to do things right and to be transparent from the beginning due to the respect for the rules. Yulia Pod (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure has most of the relevant information for editors in your position. I don't know why the official link and images were removed, but WP:ELOFFICIAL and Wikipedia:Image use policy may be useful. It may be that the images are copyrighted or not clearly identified as having a licence allowing their reuse in Wikipedia, but that's just a guess. Certes (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
As part of the collaborative nature of editing Wikipedia, when somebody makes an edit that you don't like or disagree with, your first step is almost always to open a discussion with that editor, usually on the article's talk page (see WP:BRD). This is also more likely to get you the answer than asking a random collection of editors why another editor did something.
But you may also get part of the answer from looking at Special:History/Jacques Fath . I suspect that the edit on 2026-06-17T01:25:18 by a bot called "CommonsDelinker" is part of the answer, given that the edit summary was
Removing French_couturier_Jacques_Fath_in_Paris,_c._1940s.jpg; it has been deleted from Commons by Krd because: No permission since 9 June 2026.
As for creating a new article, I suggest you start by reading WP:PAIDADVICE.
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. And that is even without the added complication of a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
This page is only for questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. Furthermore Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a guidebook. You will have to ask for advice elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
@Bennett Li11: This seems similar to the same things you posted at the Wikipedia Teahouse about this same person. It's not clear what kind of assistance you're looking for? You tried to help this user, but they responded poorly; that kind of sucks, but that's going to happen sometimes on Wikipedia. There's really nothing anyone here at the help desk can do to change that. Some people just don't want to be helped. You're not required to interact with those who respond poorly when you try to help them; you can simply move on and leave them to their own Wikipedia fates. If their poor behavior towards others continues and becomes a pattern of violating WP:BEHAVIOR that no longer can be ignored, it will end up being eventually discussed at one of the administrator's noticeboards and most likely result in the account being formally warned to stop or even blocked. My personal opinion is that you're being WP:TROLLed, and you should just follow WP:DENY. FWIW, the temporary account that was posting on your user talk page has been indefinitely blocked by a Wikipedia administrator named Eskog. If another account shows up on your user talk page to continue where that one left off, don't reply. You can remove the post if you want and just ignore the account. I suggest that you then inform Eskog or another Wikipedia administrator about the new account as soon as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
"Bad comments"? Bennett Li11, what you pointed out that they said was "How the hell are you helping me? How?" That's not something that many adult speakers of English as a first language would call "profane". Most would, I think, say that it was inoffensive. (It differs in likely offensiveness, though not in meaning, from "How the fuck are you helping me?". Indeed, it doesn't differ in meaning from plain "How are you helping me?".) -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 05:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello! I created a couple of pages for some lesser-known poets, and I'd welcome any advice about formatting the lists of their works/selected bibliography. I have just been doing APA citations, but it looks kind of messy. Also, since it's ALL the same person, I'm not sure if having the poet's name for each entry is best.
I took a look at some other poets' pages, but I'm not seeing anything that sings to me (as my mother says! LOL), so I would welcome any advice! ArnoldEli (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
THANK you so much for the suggestions, @TSventon!! I appreciate your help! ArnoldEli (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Species listing
Hello, I recently made the draft Dissomphalus, which is a genus of flat wasps. Do I need to list all of the species? Versions111(talk • contribs) 08:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
You may either list them, or say, "there are 42 species" (or however many there are). If there are hundreds, it would be better to list them (if at all) on a separate "list of species in the genus Dissomphalus" page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
I couldn’t find the whole list for Dissomphalus species. If there are, it can be outdated as a 2026 revision states that Dissomphalus has 639 valid species globally. (source) Versions111(talk • contribs) 06:57, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I would suggest listing only the most significant species. Here's a sample article which has such a list: Lamellibrachia. (The referencing within that section is good in principle although its implementation is not as good as would be desirable.) Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Can I make a list of Dissomphalus species mentioned in the citations? Versions111(talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I made the list page at my sandbox(and also AFCed the draft). Please send feedbacks. Versions111(talk • contribs) 14:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Recovering history before a move over redirect
I don't know if I'm asking this question the right way so please bear with me. I'm trying to figure out what lived at the title El Clon prior to a page move last week. I think it was most likely a redirect without substantial edit history and the page was simply moved over the redirect. I would like to verify whether that is correct and which page the redirect pointed to. If it was not a redirect or has the history, this would be helpful to know. Specifically, I'm trying to understand pageviews data that predate the recent move, which indicate that the page was not newly created by this move. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
It seems the entire history is at Arez_(wrestler), that is just one revision redirecting from El Clon to el clon (which has since been moved to El Clon (TV series)). The title got moved there as part of a round robin. You can track this through the logs at El Clon. There don't seem to be any deleted revisions. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
If I understand correctly per the move log then El Clon was presumably a redirect to El clon from August 5, 2024 until September 23, 2026. I now see the evidence of the round robin move, this wasn't apparent when just looking at the history of El Clon. This is helpful, thanks! —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Paul Falk, hatnote
Hi @A Wondrous Raven reverted my edit in Paul Falk (figure skater) article. When reverting edits, changes should be checked carefully. Why is there a hatnote in Paul Falk (figure skater), a title that already has a disambiguator to distinguish between the two, while there is no hatnote in Paul Falk (actor)? What do you think about this? Thanks in advance for the clarification. ~2026-52681-13 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-52681-13: Welcome to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 89. Your edit was reverted because a hatnote should be there for disambiguated articles. Note that there are many articles on Wikipedia, and edits of that sort are usually done by human hands; it doesn't look like anyone got around to adding a hatnote to Paul Falk (actor), which is something you could do to contribute to the encyclopedia. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 19:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Actually, the recommended practice (WP:NAMB) is to not add hatnotes to articles with titles that are not ambiguous. There nothing to suggest that the actor was ever known for figure skating. There are times when there is some residual ambiguity, even when the wiki article title has a parenthetical disambiguator (e.g., when disambiguating by year, we can't realistically expect readers to know in advance which year is associated with the topic they are looking for). older ≠ wiser 20:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
update bibliography
How do I add a new book title for an author's listing? Feldman Public Relations (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Given your username, are you in fact employed by on behalf of that author?
If you are, then you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor (see that link for how to do so), and you should not make any direct edits to articles connected with that author.
What you should do instead is to make an edit request - most easily with the edit request wizard - so that an uninvolved editor can decide whether to implement your request or to do something else.
Note that, since promotion of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia, there is not necessarily any reason for an article about an author to contain a full list of their works.
Rather, there should be a selected list, concentrating on those works which have been most written about by independent commentators. There is no reason to add a new title until it has been written about in that way (not just an announcement, but an independent in-depth treatment, usually a review in a reliable independent source). ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not know any of this.
I have done edits to correct things for other people as a favor for years. I am not paid to do these edits but I am in public relations. Feldman Public Relations (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
If the author is your client, you are a paid editor, you do not need to be specifically paid to make edits. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
If what you are saying is that you offer your professional services to your friends for free, okay, but it's still a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Dispute on husafell stone weight
good afternoon I've posted multiple sources to update the husafell stones weight and a user named pictwarrior keeps editing it without a source. I've tried to talk to them but they refuse to respond please hell M0UNTA!n85 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
@M0UNTA!n85: as you've already been told, you need to wait longer for them to respond. Wikipedia is slower-paced than social media, and it can take hours for someone to respond.
Podcasts aren't generally reliable sources, as they usually lack fact checking and editorial control. For example, we don't know if they checked the credentials of the PhD they interviewed. Podcasts are self published sources and should only be used in that context. As John wrote as I typed this, if a reliable source reported on the content of the podcast, that would be ok. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Is the following article sufficient for a proper source? It's the only one that's not a podcast or social media post but it's old and in Icelandic but confirms what we're trying to change it to. Thank you for the help!Þorsteinsson, Kristleifur. "Kvíarnar á Húsafelli og aflraunasteinn séra Snorra." Eimreiðin, vol. 29, no. 3, 1923, pp. 166-173 M0UNTA!n85 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Sources do not need to be in English as long as they are reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
thank you! I'll try to handle this on the talk page for the husafell stone from here. If the person writes over the edit and tries to use the source who can I ask to check and correct it? I am trying to avoid edit warring but am unsure how. M0UNTA!n85 (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
If a talk page discussion does not help to reach a consensus, see dispute resolution options. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Having some difficulty with a source used in the TI-BASIC article
I've made a few edits to the TI-BASIC article this year, including some to the section on editors and tools. Within that section, I noticed that the last paragraph cited an article in a publication titled "The Spreadsheet" from late 2004, but didn't provide an ISBN or ISSN. I have attempted to look for it over the past few months, but have come empty handed. I brought up my concerns at the talk page about two months ago, but no one has responded. The text itself was added back in 2016 (ruling out any possibility of it being an AI hallucination), and the editor who added it back has not made any edits since about a month after that, so I would not expect a response from them. I have also attempted to search for other sources that could be used to support the paragraph, but that failed as well.
Would I be crazy to just remove the paragraph since I have not been able to verify that the source exists and no one, not even the editor who added it (though, to be completely honest, I didn't think to ping them despite the apparent inactivity), or should I keep searching and waiting in hopes that someone responds with some more information? YOSHI128Ktalk! 16:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to remove the text but I don't think you'd be wrong to, either. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Anyone can do reverting, and Help:Reverting lays out some additional practical information. Rollback requirements are laid out at WP:ROLLBACK, but if I could put it simply: before granting the right we would be looking for some evidence that you can consistently revert properly. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Ah, that explains why I was confused:) I didn't realize that anyone can revert edits. I also couldn't find the “undo” option, so until now I've just been removing the edits and adding the correct version back manually. Is that because I'm using Wikipedia on my phone through the website? Furogh e Lotf (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't use the mobile interface, but I do know it's lacking in several useful features for people doing reverting. There is usually a link at the very bottom of the page which says 'Desktop view', but whether that's for you is not for me to say. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
If you go to the triple-line menu in the top-left and choose Settings, and enable "Advanced mode", you should see more options while browsing, which might include an "Undo" button when looking at a Diff for a change. Or at least, I see an Undo button, and I have Advanced mode on. Though certainly I find things easier on desktops (though that's true for me in general). — PeterCooperJr (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! That makes sense now. Furogh e Lotf (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Beefeater disambiguation
The disambiguation of Beefeater is a bit of a mess.
Beefeaters has the two primary topics (but not shown as such) and one of the others
Per MOS:DAB and WP:PLURAL I think Beefeater should have what is currently at Beefeater (disambiguation) and the other three should redirect there. I'm not sure what mix of moves and/or copy and paste would best achieve this. Perhaps someone could suggest - or do it! Cavrdg (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
When I ask Wikipedia the following question,I do not get the answer that I should get.
”What are the names of the first astronauts to reach the moon?” ~2026-53044-78 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
What do you mean by "ask Wikipedia"? If you are using an AI, you will need to contact whomever created the AI. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-53044-78: Wikipedia doesn't have an automatic feature to answer questions so I guess you used an external feature not controlled by Wikipedia. I don't know which answer you expected or got but maybe the feature interpreted "reach" differently. It could both mean orbit (Apollo 8) and land (Apollo 11). Human Wikipedia editors answer questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Membership?
I have been a contributor/editor of Wiki for some 10 years but have now found myself excluded for an unstated reason. I have tried to log in without success and seeking to arrange a new account is foiled as I'm told the original username already is in existence. Can someone please indicate how my previous status can be restored? JJPMaster is my current mentor. ~2026-52959-47 (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-52959-47 Usernames and passwords are case-sensitive, so make sure you have typed them both correctly when you try to log in to your account. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
It would furthermore be helpful if you'd tell us what your account is so that we can see whether you actually have any restrictions on the account. Athanelar (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Article about speedway riders deaths
Great article but I noticed you were missing a rider that rode for poole speedway however during the winter he rode in australia and died in a track accident. His name was GORDAN GUASCO. ~2026-52908-30 (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
It would help if you would tell us which article you are referring to. I'm guessing it is List of rider deaths in motorcycle speedway, and I think that the person that you are referring to is Gordon Guasco (not Gordan). It looks to me like it would be appropriate to add him to that list, so feel free to do so. CodeTalker (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Akshadev: It looks closed to me. What is the perceived problem you want fixed? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: When you click at that topic, it doesn't fold back (I'm not a native speaker of English, so I don't know how to explain). For example, if you will click at this discussion, it will get closed/folded up, but Talk:ISRO/GA5 won't. When you look at Talk:ISRO, you will see that the 2nd topic of 'GA Review' is already opened, while the previous one is closed. I hope you will understand now. There's one more thing, please close Talk:ISRO/GA4. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔 15:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Akshadev: It's called collapsing or hiding, not closing. You apparently refer to a feature which is only in the mobile version where a level 2 section can usually be collapsed/expanded by clicking the section heading. It's unrelated to whether the section contains a closed discussion. The feature is not active in previews so you have to save changes to see whether they have an affect. I made an attempt which didn't work. I don't normally use the mobile version and don't know the feature well. I don't want to fill the page history with experiments so I quit. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Akshadev: I spotted something else which might work and it did.PrimeHunter (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
When I'm editing using the source editor and I hit ctrl+F, the Wikipedia find-and-replace toolbar pops up, rather than my browser's "Find" bar. If I click outside of the editing window and hit ctrl+F, I can get my browser's "Find" bar, but this is a little annoying. Is there a way to disable the Wiki find-and-replace toolbar so that ctrl+F always results in the browser "Find: bar? DanCherek (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you! DanCherek (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
How to request an article move
Hi, could someone explain the proper steps for requesting an article title change on Wikipedia? Thanks! Furogh e Lotf (talk) Furogh e Lotf (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Moving a page and Wikipedia:Requested moves. Note that it is generally inadvisable to move an article without prior discussion if it it is at all controversial. Best discussed on the article talk page first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Removing the lie that islam has anything to do with the God of the Torah & Holy Bible
How can edits be made about islam being an abrahamic religion when it’s been proven NOT to be related at all to the God of Noah, Abraham, Moses etc and it’s been proven as a cult BY the teachings in its quran. ~2026-53227-79 (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
how can edits be made to remove islam from being falsely listed as a religion when it’s in fact a cult & that the God of islam (allah) has NOTHING to do with the God of the Torah & Holy Bible? ~2026-53227-79 (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources that directly support this claim? qkuldo(tell me about it) 07:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Islam is indeed a religion according to mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Also, Wikipedia does not recognize any religion as "The True Religion™". FYI, "religion" means large, routinized cult. Wikipedia does not work with the assumption that the Bible is true.
Also, frum Jews are allowed to enter mosques, but not churches. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You cannot claim to be anthropologists or claim to be humanitatarians. YOU have millions. Others live beneath the poverty line and try to survive against the odds but like evil politicians living off the hog try to squeeze the last drop of blood from them. ENJOY Life The rest don't. ~2026-53155-93 (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
We are not politicians. We are editors. The vast majority of us work here for free. We have no control over WMF money. If you don't want to make donations to WMF, nobody forces you to do so. Life is unfair, but that's not our fault. Our purpose is to bring mainstream knowledge to the world. It's not to support or oppose politicians. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Deprecated source
This is about . Which is the deprecated source? tgeorgescu (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
In this instance of the Havre, Montana article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havre,_Montana&diff=prev&oldid=1374425553, the section on the 2020 census starts with: "As of the 2020 census". However, the section on the 2010 census starts with: "As of the census of 2010". Furthermore, I have seen many other articles using the wording "As of the census of X", which seems awkward to me. Does anyone know why articles tend to use "As of the census of X"? Do you think this should be changed? Simas10 (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
As long as the sense is clear, Wikipedia does not normally mandate any particular form of words, and so there is no particular drive for consistency.
If you think that a change will improve an article, you are welcome to make that change - but be aware that another editor may revert your change, if they think it's not an improvement.
I guess you might bring this up at the talk page of the WP:Guild of copy editors, and see if there is support for making these consistent. ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
You can probably push the blame as far back as the Census of Quirinius. Modern countries also use a similar style, eg, the Census of India, but probably less so in the US as the word order is usually switched. I find the wording a bit more formal and wordy than it needs to be, but not particularly unusual. It's up to you whether you think there should be consistency within this one article - consistency can make for dull writing (see knobbly monster) - but I doubt this needs a wider change. -- zzuuzz(talk) 11:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
@Simas10 One reason that wording is used is because there is a template {{As of}}, which as that link to the documentation explains, adds the article's name to Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements so that editors can maintain up-to-dateness. The particular article you linked doesn't use that template, however. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your help everyone! Simas10 (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
If we had "The summary of the results of the census of 2010 of the city of Sooloope of the Province of Sooloopia-of-the-Sea", that would be ridiculous use of repetition of the use of "of" of various kinds, and should definitely be changed. But your example is not ridiculous at all, just very slightly awkward; it could be changed but it isn't important or necessary. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Is there a way to edit multiple pages at once?
Is there a way to make the same edits across multiple Wikipedia pages without having to edit them one by one manually? For example, by using a bot or another tool to apply the same changes to multiple pages. I'd like to learn how to do this properly and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~2026-53297-09 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
AWB or JWB can do this job. Unfortunately, like many powerful general-purpose tools, they have scope for abuse. For that reason, they are only available to editors with a record of constructive contributions. Certes (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
What Non free tag do you use for a Mugshot?
Hi, I was wondering which non‑free tag should be used for a mugshot. I know that some U.S. states place mugshots in the public domain, but others do not. I have seen some uploads that use the unique historic image tag, and I want to make sure that this is correct. For example, Scott Peterson's mugshot is public domain, while Christa Pike's is tagged as fair use with the unique historic image template. I wanted to double‑check the correct approach. The mugshot I am considering would be from Colorado. Any confirmation would be appreciated. Thanks. ItsShandog (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't know about the rules for Colorado (you could ask at the Commons copyright help desk) but you need to be aware of WP:MUGSHOT, which advises against using them except in limited circumstances. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Ok thank you. This mugshot would be of someone convicted. ItsShandog (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks like one can use this set of three together:
{{Non-free biog-pic}} is the usual go-to for replacing improper usages of {{non-free historic image}} (and for biographies in particular, almost all uses of non-free historic image are improper). —Cryptic 03:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I thought that one was more for someone who has died? ItsShandog (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Interesting question. There are no convinction photos per se. Prison photos, sure; mug shots are the beginning of the process. I'll see what's what on the state level. There may be municipal and county levels to this as well, but I don't want to get into that level of granularity, much less exhaustively research what Wikipedia already has on the wall. kencf0618 (talk)
Realized the wikimediacommons has a representative sample. I went through a few score, and Florida and California by far have the lion's share. There are a few for Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin with this caveat and that. Historical Societies would be a fruitful vein. kencf0618 (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, a major political movement artcle is badly written to mention neonazism often (which in effect promotes their presence) while avoiding information about the real history of split and other authentic groups to do the public facing purpose without hidden purpose (in effect, keeping the split alternative out of reader's mind, and vulnerable child readers minds), and comment on such needed changes are avoided.
The artcle lacks enough balance and is too light. I ask that the reasons why be reviewed, and the artcle be professionally written in a deliberately full way. That editing be reviewed. Twwwww (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Be aware that simply asking for the article to be "professionally written in a deliberately full way" is unlikely to have much effect; you should propose specific changes or improvements, citing sources - or make the changes yourself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mismanagement of talk and help desk
Summary:
Improper closure based on false premise, avoiding issues talked about, referring to the wrong context in nested issues which was stopped from working, in circular fashion and expecting too much. Also, all talk comments and actions, and artcle edits need report button, to deal with abuse by pretend authentic editors.
Copy-pasted discussion
"Latest comment: 3 hours ago
Discussion is on article talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, a major political movement artcle is badly written to mention neonazism often (which in effect promotes their presence) while avoiding information about the real history of split and other authentic groups to do the public facing purpose without hidden purpose (in effect, keeping the split alternative out of reader's mind, and vulnerable child readers minds), and comment on such needed changes are avoided.
d:Q136289031
Political reporting matter.
The artcle lacks enough balance and is too light. I ask that the reasons why be reviewed, and the artcle be professionally written in a deliberately full way. That editing be reviewed. Twwwww (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Your Wikidata link is related to the Wikipedia article March for Australia; you should raise you concerns with that on the article's talk page.
Be aware that simply asking for the article to be "professionally written in a deliberately full way" is unlikely to have much effect; you should propose specific changes or improvements, citing sources - or make the changes yourself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh wait, I see you have done. Please don't raise issues in multiple forums like that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)"
Sorry, this person is getting the wrong idea. They have not helped in directing me where to deal with editors and deliberately persistent content issues (over 8 months) who are not willing to be addressed in talk, and have not done it themselves either. Wikipedia is very poor to use to deal with such exceptions. This is about where ever political biase is potentially there, and potential harm to vulnerable chidren. Discussion was attempted and dismissed. I asked for investigation and into possible child harm where there are multi million dollar fines for foreign content providers under esaftey. This was not properly ended. This should be reported to the esafety commissioner, as people and Wikipedia hinder dealing with certain things generally, and provide no easy way to report potential child perception related things, bad articles and people blocking corrections and biasedly deleting correct information and corrections.
Wikipedia has reached such poor official information quality. I walked because of the misinformation malinformation and disinformation organisations were creeping in.
And if wikipedia was credible you would have only wysiwyg editing, not Scripting. Its no wonder there are so many people with problems on wikipedia trying to interfere with correct information. I am having trouble reading and not able to learn this scriptting due to brain damage. It is very discriminatory to expect disabled and normal people to handle these people and learnnto script, read, research, formulate changes and edit them in, which is for natural encyclopaedia writers.
Before the brain damage I didn't expect people to be skilled in cutting edge technical design because I was, not even a little. Wikipedia should not expect readers to do the job of natural born editors.
This place is full of issues, by issues with unbalanced ideals that you can't do much about. Wikipedia has too little time left. Anyway, that is all my vision is going funny. ~2026-53109-81 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Firstly, don't copy-n-paste old discussions; link to them. In this case, even that would be redundant, as you pasted it right below the original.
Secondly, Sign in before you post here.
Thirdly, "This person" has a name, and you should notify anyone whose actions you discuss by posting a short pointer to this discussion on their talk page.
Fourthly, I told you "you should raise you concerns with that on the article's talk page"; how is that not "directing you where to deal with editors and deliberately persistent content issues"?
Fifthly, as you had already posted there just before posting here, your post here was redundant.
And lastly, if you are here because you believe "Wikipedia has too little time left", you would be wasting your own time?
I will leave it for someone else to close this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
What does that article have to do with vulnerable children? tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Correction for SWAC
Good morning,
I hope all is well, is there a way we can get information corrected on the 1982 SWAC Men's Basketball Tournament. It was held in Baton Rouge, La. at the Centroplex Center and there were no quarterfinal games played on home campuses of higher seeds and no games were played at the Mississippi Coliseum.1982 SWAC men's basketball tournament. ~2026-53229-07 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it is you want changed, but the best thing to do would be to make your request on the article's talk [age, at: Talk:1982 SWAC men's basketball tournament.
It helps if you can give sources supporting the facts you wish to include. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Fabricated information and picture
The information about a person named Kesava Pillai of Kandamath provided here is fully fabricated, and it includes a cropped picture of a famous painting which is not of the concerned person. All information about the person's credentials are fabricated and false. Anyone can check the facts from reliable sources. OutroCanary (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
@OutroCanary The appropriate process for dealing with this would be to mark the page for deletion, supported by these sources you claim confirm that the page is a hoax. Do not remove information as you have done at that article and at Chenkal just because you allege that it's "false".
You may want to tag the page for speedy deletion under WP:G3 as a hoax if you have evidence for that claim, otherwise WP:AFD. Athanelar (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you. OutroCanary (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
AI summary
Near the top of my English Wikipedia page, there is a fairly large offer to summarize the page with AI. I don't want this message. Is there some simple way to prevent it from coming up when I open Wikipedia? Kdammers (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Are you sure this function isn't coming from your browser? Unless this is a new beta feature the WMF is rolling out to new users, I haven't seen any such option myself. Athanelar (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
I also haven't heard about this, and I am certain there would have been a fuss if the WMF had pre-announced a rollout of such a feature. And I'm, you know, relatively sure they would have pre-announced it. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
@Kdammers Please provide a link to the page you are referring to. Shantavira|feed me 18:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Better, a screenshot, since this likely isn't Wikipedia's doing. —Cryptic 19:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi. Why do I keep getting prompts to give money to Wikipedia when I regularly give by Direct Debit on a monthly basis? The tone of the messages is unbecomkng of the priniciples that Wikipedia tries to embody. CowboyJem82 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
CowboyJem82 Donation records are not tied to accounts for privacy reasons; the system has no way to know that you have donated money. You can turn off the donation requests in your account preferences. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Issues with the donation process should be emailed to donate@wikimedia.org. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Crux rounds
(a recent breakthrough revelation that I'd like to announce but not sure how on this cryptic style. Can a human please assist?)
i tried the teahouse but no response...
Crux rounds (a recent breakthrough revelation for the sport of volleyball. Which can create ideal variations, that I'd like to announce but not sure how on this cryptic style. Can a human please assist? ) ~2026-43988-01 (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
If you would like to be notified as to when someone responds to your questions, I strongly suggest creating an account so that you get proper notifications in the top-right corner of the page. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 04:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Summary: Sorry, but you can't get it onto Wikipedia, and you can't own it on the volleyball court; everyone who sees you do it is 100% free to copy your plan and method. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
INCORRECT LINK for a person goes to another person's page
but that link actually goes to Nathanial Charles Rothschild.~2026-53506-92 (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
It is not an error. James Edouard was one of the children of Nathaniel Charles. Because there is no article about James Edouard, it is appropriate to redirect his name to the article about the parent.
I have changed the redirect to go to the section that mentions James Edouard. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Technical function of watchlists after periods of absence
Hello! I'm curious about the functionality of watchlists upon returning from a period of absence longer than the maximum length of time after which such a watchlist can show edits made on a certain day. Less obscurely, watchlists show the edits made to a page within a maximum of three days by default; after adjusting one's personal preferences, this maximum can be expanded to 30 days. But this limit seems to produce the necessary limitation of hiding changes made on a day after such a period, which may be a common occurrence when speaking of relatively obscure, low-traffic, or time-sensitive pages one is still interested in. That problem would be exacerbated for someone who must take correspondingly long periods of leave for whatever off-wiki duties to which they're obliged to attend, presumably making them miss the opportunity to see those changes after that maximum 30-day window has passed.
Do watchlists truly function like this, or is there some resurfacing of unseen changes after the set maxima? If not, how would someone affected by this in the manner previously illustrated notice such edits instead? To explain my question more concretely, suppose an editor is busy offline and can only be active in spurts separated by several months. If they were to have, say, some time-sensitive discussion page on their watchlist whose latest edit ran back more than a month, would they lose the technical ability to see that when they return to check their watchlist? I'm hoping an editor who frequently interacts with watchlists or, better yet, currently has some forgotten items on theirs can provide some insight into this. Thanks! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Copy-paste up to 250 page names from Special:EditWatchlist/raw to Special:MyPage/sandbox in the source editor. Click the magnifying glass icon to the right of the toolbar. Enter (.*)(\n) in "Search for" and this in "Replace with":
Check "Treat search string as a regular expression" and click "Replace all". Copy this to the top of the page:
<div class="plainlinks>
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Last edit !! Page
and this to the bottom:
|}</div>
Click "Show preview" and then click "Last edit" to sort by that. It doesn't have the normal watchlist features. It's limited to 250 pages at a time (500 with their talk pages) because {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP:}} is an expensive parser function with at most 500 calls allowed. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thank you so much! What a satisfying and well-researched response. It's unfortunate, though, that there's no implemented way to see such changes without creating your own workaround; I wonder if this may be something worth looking into by those more comfortable with the technical aspects of the site, but I'd have no knowledge of the feasibility or even the attractiveness of such an endeavor. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
consensus on language inclusion
Yes, this is a duplicate question. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 11:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I would like to know if there is any consensus on translation inclusion of the infoboxes of pages on sports events. The discussion is here, and please discuss. I have previously asked in the Teahouse too. HEY! Hindi (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
magic prefixes?
I've seen wikipedia links to hdl:information (Handle) and iarchive:information (internet archive: archive.org) . Where would I find a list of all of these magic prefixes like hdl and iarchive?Naraht (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Issues with the donation process should be emailed to donate@wikimedia.org. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Crux rounds
(a recent breakthrough revelation that I'd like to announce but not sure how on this cryptic style. Can a human please assist?)
i tried the teahouse but no response...
Crux rounds (a recent breakthrough revelation for the sport of volleyball. Which can create ideal variations, that I'd like to announce but not sure how on this cryptic style. Can a human please assist? ) ~2026-43988-01 (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
If you would like to be notified as to when someone responds to your questions, I strongly suggest creating an account so that you get proper notifications in the top-right corner of the page. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 04:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Summary: Sorry, but you can't get it onto Wikipedia, and you can't own it on the volleyball court; everyone who sees you do it is 100% free to copy your plan and method. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
INCORRECT LINK for a person goes to another person's page
but that link actually goes to Nathanial Charles Rothschild.~2026-53506-92 (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
It is not an error. James Edouard was one of the children of Nathaniel Charles. Because there is no article about James Edouard, it is appropriate to redirect his name to the article about the parent.
I have changed the redirect to go to the section that mentions James Edouard. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Technical function of watchlists after periods of absence
Hello! I'm curious about the functionality of watchlists upon returning from a period of absence longer than the maximum length of time after which such a watchlist can show edits made on a certain day. Less obscurely, watchlists show the edits made to a page within a maximum of three days by default; after adjusting one's personal preferences, this maximum can be expanded to 30 days. But this limit seems to produce the necessary limitation of hiding changes made on a day after such a period, which may be a common occurrence when speaking of relatively obscure, low-traffic, or time-sensitive pages one is still interested in. That problem would be exacerbated for someone who must take correspondingly long periods of leave for whatever off-wiki duties to which they're obliged to attend, presumably making them miss the opportunity to see those changes after that maximum 30-day window has passed.
Do watchlists truly function like this, or is there some resurfacing of unseen changes after the set maxima? If not, how would someone affected by this in the manner previously illustrated notice such edits instead? To explain my question more concretely, suppose an editor is busy offline and can only be active in spurts separated by several months. If they were to have, say, some time-sensitive discussion page on their watchlist whose latest edit ran back more than a month, would they lose the technical ability to see that when they return to check their watchlist? I'm hoping an editor who frequently interacts with watchlists or, better yet, currently has some forgotten items on theirs can provide some insight into this. Thanks! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Copy-paste up to 250 page names from Special:EditWatchlist/raw to Special:MyPage/sandbox in the source editor. Click the magnifying glass icon to the right of the toolbar. Enter (.*)(\n) in "Search for" and this in "Replace with":
Check "Treat search string as a regular expression" and click "Replace all". Copy this to the top of the page:
<div class="plainlinks>
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Last edit !! Page
and this to the bottom:
|}</div>
Click "Show preview" and then click "Last edit" to sort by that. It doesn't have the normal watchlist features. It's limited to 250 pages at a time (500 with their talk pages) because {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP:}} is an expensive parser function with at most 500 calls allowed. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thank you so much! What a satisfying and well-researched response. It's unfortunate, though, that there's no implemented way to see such changes without creating your own workaround; I wonder if this may be something worth looking into by those more comfortable with the technical aspects of the site, but I'd have no knowledge of the feasibility or even the attractiveness of such an endeavor. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
consensus on language inclusion
Yes, this is a duplicate question. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 11:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I would like to know if there is any consensus on translation inclusion of the infoboxes of pages on sports events. The discussion is here, and please discuss. I have previously asked in the Teahouse too. HEY! Hindi (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
magic prefixes?
I've seen wikipedia links to hdl:information (Handle) and iarchive:information (internet archive: archive.org) . Where would I find a list of all of these magic prefixes like hdl and iarchive?Naraht (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
If I want to add citation in VE, using a template like {{Cite Q}} or {{London Gazette}}, I can use Cite > Manual > Basic, then type {{ to bring up the template dialogue.
This is hacky; is there a better way to invoke the dialogue, at that point? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:05, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
You can, at least, type <ref into the article to pull up the citation menu, but the keyboard navigation of that menu is mediocre. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 21:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you; but that's equally hacky.
Surely there's a way to do this without entering wikicode? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Draft 2027–28 United States Network Television Schedule
Can You Please Fix A Copule Of Errors In the Draft 2027–28 United Network Television Schedule Please. ~2026-53557-18 (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
I created this article based on a topic that is currently trending due to a recent incident. I’d like to hear your views and get input from other contributors as well. Do you think this is an appropriate topic for an article? Official06 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
@Official06, did you use an LLM to compose this article? There are several strong WP:AISIGNS here. Using AI to generate content for the English Wikipedia is not allowed: please see WP:NOLLM.
I'm also pretty sure you shouldn't have made this article in the first place, sorry about that. The Flydubai incident is related to a contentious topic and those can only be edited about by extended-confirmed users. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
(Personally I feel that having an article on this topic is premature, and any worthwhile info could be added to the main Flydubai Flight 1073 page—but I'm not a regular editor on current events, so don't take my word for that.) Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes you are correct my mistakes
But its not LLM Official06 (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
@Official06 Usually, any topic you can call "trending" is not a Wikipedia topic. We wait until "the dust has settled" and the trend has worn off.
Also, probably more important in this case, we usually reject articles about someone who committed one crime and was never known for anything else. There are probably exceptions if the person became permanently notable - still being written about many years later - but this doesn't seem like one of those exceptions. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Ordinals in dates
Hello! MOS:DATE states that writing something like ‘the 10th of September’ is wrong, because we do not use ordinals in dates. Does anyone know why this is? Thanks! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨) (any/all) 21:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think there's a reason deeper than "the MOS people decided that the way we write dates is the way we write dates". Manuals of style always have a couple arbitrary decisions. I could be wrong, though. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 21:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
If you try searching the MOS archives for "ordinals", you can find some very confusing, inconclusive discussions. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 21:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
At least a part of the reason is that Wikipedia used to be serious about a certain method for displaying the same date differently for each person based on how their preferences were set. The code for redisplaying the date did not handle ordinal suffixes correctly, so ordinals were prohibited. In my opinion, this is the same as prohibiting use of the word "the" on Wikipedia because some machine translator often used to mangle it twenty years ago. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
In any case, the ordinal numeral would be "tenth". You won't find "10th" in any dictionary. Shantavira|feed me 07:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
I think its cause this is one example of where you write something differently than how you say it. Likewise, I read an electronic display saying '23:50', but '11:50pm' orally. JuniperChill (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
CS1 error with a reference
Hi all, I came across Juan de Valdés with a citation containing a CS1 error.
However, after some attempts, I'm at a loss with regards to how to fix it. As far as I can tell, it's not liking the fact that the Subdomain contains hyphensunderscores, but that is what the url looks like verbatim. The site itself is no longer up, but as the archive link shows, the url was very much valid.
Any advice is appreciated. LkL-70547 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Paul Victor sent me an email offering to revise my Wikipedia entry for a fee of $600 and signed himself as Wikipedia editor. Please advise. Thank you! Bettina Aptheker ~2026-53530-98 (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-53530-98: Think of it this way: Wikipedia articles are designed to be edited by anyone, which means that what a paid contributor adds to an article can and will be changed at some point in the future. It isn't permanent. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 04:34, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
If Wikipedia has an article about you then please see WP:COI. You may wish to add a section to the article's talk page suggesting corrections or improvements. It will help if you can cite a reliable source. (For example, if we have your date of birth wrong, show us a magazine article with the correct date.) If suitable, editors will then make those changes free of charge. Certes (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Episode list threshold
Hello! Make some noise is entering its fifth season today and I thought I would ask, what is the threshold for when there are enough episodes/content in the synopsis’s etc to warrant a separate sub article about it? Like how for example Futurama has. ~2026-53713-57 (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Neither episodes nor content are relevant in determining whether there can be a separate article. The crucial thing is whether the subject (the season? I'm not sure from what you have said) meets Wikipedia's criteria for being notable - basically, that enough people, wholly unconnected with the series and its production, have chosen to write in some depth about the subject specifically, and been published in reliable places: see golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikilinking countries in articles?
I may have mis-remembered this, but is there a policy about linking to a country in an article text?
An editor made a change which was good faith, but I reverted as it introduced a WL to the same article right next to each other, and linked "England". I'm sure I saw a policy that suggested this wasn't necessary - but can't remember what it was? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
MOS:GEOLINK says For a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit. so in the example given the only word linked should be "Wakefield". Athanelar (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Major countries should generally not be linked. Which ones are major is a matter of opinion, but I like to think that most readers already know what England is. Certes (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
(For this purpose, in my opinion, "major" should probably be twisted to mean "most people with no connection to it still know about it" rather than measuring its area, population, etc.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
This request of mine might seem unnecessary, but I am doing it simply to keep the records organized. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔 10:58, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm confused. The article has passed GA last month and you've nominated for DYK as a result of that. And the fact you posted the comment a week after it passed GA JuniperChill (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
@JuniperChill:, the OP wants to close Talk:ISRO/GA4 as unsuccessful, not Talk:ISRO/GA5, which was closed as successful. I don't know whether that is a useful thing to do. TSventon (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Please I'd like to ask the community regarding this edit on the Osu caste system entry if that edit looks neutral or biased following how the sentences were changed and rephrased, because the editor kept calling it a "neutral edit". (Nwa Mbata) (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
@Mbataw: I looked at the history of the Osu caste system article and the same content has been added and removed four times, which is a Wikipedia:edit war, even if it happened over weeks rather than 24 hours. I suggest looking at Wikipedia:dispute resolution and starting a discussion on the article talk page focussed on the content. I saw you posted on Dolpina's talk page, but that did not resolve the dispute and they removed your post, which is allowed on their user talk page.
I looked at the edit and it had several sources and may or may not be an improvement to the article. TSventon (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
I see your points, but the few period of time I've interacted with the user, I don't see them willing to cooperate. Just as I left a message on their talk page and regarding the ANI which was unresolved.
Here is another one on Traditional marriage in Igbo culture where they kept adding "citation needed" templates on specific entries even when the sources cited at the ending verifies those claims. It was also discussed on the talk page but they kept reverting. (Nwa Mbata) (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Unfortunately dispute resolution on Wikipedia is quite cumbersome as there are no managers to take the final decision. There are admins, but they focus on behaviour, not content.
Looking at Osu caste system, you and Dolpina are edit warring about whether it still exists. I know nothing about the subject, but it might be worth discussing a more nuanced lead, as with Caste system in India. TSventon (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
I cited all my claims, all in neutral language, but if you look at his edit history Mbataw seems to have a bone to pick with me and always seems to gatekeep what he feels are igbo articles. After he was unbanned, I told him why that was bad and not productive for Wikipedia. Hopefully he has seen reason. Dolpina (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
I really hope your comment here is of good faith because your tone and language seems otherwise. Best! (Nwa Mbata) (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Everything I say and say here are in good faith. I cant lie on what I feel and patterns that may be occuring, that will be pretence not in good faith. Hopefully you don't have such bias and if you do, you have fixed or are fixing it, thanks. All I do is sourced, its best to look at sourced content and facts, not emotions, personal issues or claims of neutrality that isn't there. Nice talk. Dolpina (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Please delete my draft
Hello, I am the creator of this draft: [Draft:Abdullah Shuaib]. I would like it deleted. Could an administrator please delete it? ~~~~Assekoas (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
There's no need to do so. Drafts are automatically deleted after 6 months of inactivity. If you really want it deleted now, place the template {{db-g7}} at the top of the page to flag it for author-requested speedy deletion and an admin will do it shortly.
Please be aware that if you're planning to delete the draft so that you can start over and evade the rejection, this is considered disruptive editing and will not work. Athanelar (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Whats the longest it can take for a page to be reviewed?
I am wondering because pages I have created in the past were usually reviewed within a few hours or within a day. This one has not been reviewed for about three days, so I am wondering how long it can take. Thanks. ItsShandog (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
I guess you're talking about new pages patrol, since you don't seem to have submitted any drafts for review recently?
The answer is that there is no maximum: reviewers pick up articles to review in the order they choose.
If you look at WP:NPP, you'll see that there is currently a backlog of over 27 000 articles, and the oldest on the list is over 9 years old! (Yes, I'm shocked at that, too). ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
@ColinFine: there is usually a reason for really old entries. The page Cover Me Badd was started on 21 January 2006, draftified on 10 September and undraftified (?) on 3 October. It appears to be ten years old, but isn't really. TSventon (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
ItsShandog, there is an element of luck in how long it takes for new pages to be reviewed. I have experienced frustration myself, when I had to wait for my new article to be reviewed.
No problem, thank you for the advice, but whether or not I am approved is another matter lol. ItsShandog (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Obviously bad articles are usually checked and rejected (draftified or deleted) quite quickly; obviously good ones are usually approved not quite as quickly, because the patroller still has to check all the references, etc.; articles that look borderline, or difficult to check for various reasons, will tend to get put to one side until a patroller feels up to the effort. In the meantime, one is free to keep improving the article, and doing so might make it a more attractive (i.e. less effortful) task. In any case, all new articles are automatically approved (and opened to web crawlers) after 90 days if they haven't been patrolled. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Lord Dunsany novel
incorrect publisher attribution dilemma
I have just left a post and request for help at Talk:The Curse of the Wise Woman about an attribution of that novel's First Edition publisher, which I am certain is incorrect (and is contradicted by the Infobox image and caption), but which has apparently reliable, though I am certain erroneous, cited sources.
I would be grateful if anyone interested would read the post and make suggestions there (not here). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS and notability
concerns raised about disappearance and killing articles
I would like clarification on the use of WP:NOTNEWS in relation to articles on disappearances and killings. The articles I have created have multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage, which appears to meet WP:GNG. Another editor has stated that disappearances and killings of unknown individuals are not suitable for inclusion under WP:NOTNEWS. My understanding is that WP:NOTNEWS applies to routine or trivial news reports, not to topics with sustained coverage.
There are many existing articles on disappearances and killings, so I do not see how WP:NOTNEWS would apply in this case. The editor raising this concern created their account yesterday, stating an intention to propose deletion for all articles I have created on these subjects.
Can someone confirm whether WP:GNG takes precedence when significant, independent sources exist, and whether WP:NOTNEWS would apply here? ItsShandog (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
@ItsShandog You're more than experienced enough to know not to use AI to generate questions like this, please don't do that.
WP:NOTNEWS refers to cases where the event is unlikely to have lasting impact into the future. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style... Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. In other words, there may be plenty of significant coverage about the event now, but it must be considered whether that translates to lasting importance (i.e., does the event lead to a major lawsuit against the police, or a new law being passed, or are the circumstances of the event particularly unique and enduringly noteworthy, etc)
It is an unfortunate reality that a lot of people get killed on a day to day basis and not all of those killings deserve an article here even if they get some news coverage. I am suspicious of any account which cropped up yesterday and immediately announced an intent to go on a mass deletion campaign of your articles though. Athanelar (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
I have sent a question to your talk page. ItsShandog (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
New form of government
Hello, would anyone be interested in helping rewrite Contocracy without generative AI? Contocrat Fan (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
I guess that an example of a contocracy is the twelver sect of Shia Islam, led by Muhammad al-Mahdi who has now been in a state of occultation for over 1100 years. Maproom (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
The page for Johann Strauss II says he died in Vienna, Austria, but the page for Coburg, Germany says he died in Coburg and was buried in Vienna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-54000-39 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
I'd go with the Johann Strauss II one as it's referenced; the other isn't. The Austrian Tourism agency says it's Vienna (at Igelgasse 4 (now Johann-Strauß-Gasse 4-6 in Vienna’s 4th district)); Vienna's tourism guide agrees.
Feel free to remove the dying bit from the Coburg page (or find a reference supporting it). Bazza7 (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't explicitly say he died in Coberg. In the section Lived at Coberg it says "Johann Strauss (1825–1899), he lived the last 13 years of his life in Coburg, and buried in Vienna" [sic]. This could do with copy editing, which I'll leave to you since you raised the question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
The envy of another language's article
I don't often browse anything but the English WP, but today I did. And I envy their substantial article on a topic that is more of a list on the English WP. I was wondering if there is a group or some individuals who could help an English page through the assistance, for example, of a French or German page of the same name?
I have done it once or twice, but when the article in question is 60 kB, I am interested in some assistance.
So are there bi-lingual wikipedians who like that sort of thing? I actually looked up a prominent author/editor of the page that I am envious of, and he is vehemently opposed to the English language. So there's that! I like to saw logs! (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
This is a volunteer project and everyone does what they can. It's hard to answer your question without you identifying the specific article.
I have encountered articles on topics in other Wikipedias that don't exist here, and once I tried to rectify that (it's how Paul Trappen came to exist here). Generally the English Wikipedia covers more subjects more completely, but one can find the reverse in some cases.
Just take care about sources. Other Wikipedias aren't as strict about source quality or AI slop. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
The sources seem pretty normal, and in fact, there are numerous English-language secondary sources printed at Oxford, Cambridge, New York, and they dominate the non-English sources. It is roughly an "A" equivalent in that language. Again, I am envying it.
Hi Uruiamme. Each Wikipedia project has its own policies, guidelines, and volunteer editing community; so, even though there can be a bit of overlap in terms of all three, there can also be some important differences. Given that English Wikipedia has the most articles and the largest community, its policies and guidelines tend to be applied more rigorously than perhaps is done on other projects. There doesn't need to a one-to-one correspondence between articles about the same subject on different Wikipedias; so, differences like what you've described above are probably more common than not. It's important to remember, though, that English Wikipedia articles need to meet English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regardless of what might be done on some other Wikipedia. As long as you keep that in mind, you should be fine. Lots of English Wikipedians are are proficient on multiple languages, and some may even edit on other projects. You can sometimes find them at a Wikipedia:WikiProject or via Wikipedia:Translators available. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
... he is vehemently opposed to the English language.
He should have lived much earlier: "Come on everyone, this is ridiculous! A new language? Seriously? Just because we moved to a different island and it's pretty big? What, Ingvaeonic not good enough for you? Traitors!!!" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:11, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
One thing you can do is put {{Expand French}} (or ...German) on the list in this wiki.
Also, look on the list's talk page for the WikiProject(s) under whose purview it falls, and use their talk pages to ask for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
What to do in case of a miscommunication relating to page protection
Yesterday, I submitted a request for the page Antisemitism in Australia to be protected due to the fact that it falls under CT/AI, as is stated on the talk page. However, the admin who responded declined for the following reason: "Just because a topic involves Judaism or Jewish people does not mean it falls under WP:CT/PIA." This is a miscommunication on my part, as I did not make the reason I requested page protection clear enough, and now I am not sure what to do because I don't want to send another request, as that might be seen as a malicious attempt to circumvent policy. What should I do? (Also, this question might belong on the teahouse but I'm not sure, sorry if I posted this in the wrong place) ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 01:51, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
For future reference, and Jéské Couriano's correct point notwithstanding, the answer to your question is you contact the declining admin on thier talk page and discuss the issue there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:02, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Searching own contributions
I looked in Help:Searching and was impressed to the point of being overwhelmed with the powerful search options available, despite, or because of which, I didn't find what I was looking for, namely restricting the field to my own contributions.
Here's the story: Sometime, maybe ten years ago I created or substantially edited an article about a performer (actor or musician) who died on tour in some tiny town in the north of Tasmania and was buried locally, sometime around 1900 perhaps. His friends and admirers promised to fund a headstone and I thought to include the cemetery in a contemplated visit to the "apple isle". I have shaken the sieve but found nothing. Searched Trove and my watchlist but nothing jogs. Now I'm hoping someone with skills and knowledge might help me onto the right path. Doug butler (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks Cryptic; if only I had a better memory! But no, I think the article would have been a simple biography, and if there were some way of searching my watchlist then I'd try for headstone, death and Tasmania and, failing that, try some synonym for headstone. Without that restriction the field would be too broad. Above all, I'd hate to be the cause of any editor wasting time on a wild goose chase. Doug butler (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
The method I'm using can't see article text directly, just the metadata that lets categorization and WhatLinksHere work - the excerpts in my sandbox can only be fetched after the initial list is generated. If you don't remember any of that that's likely, I suppose the other thing I can do is give you a list of the pages you edited in a given time period sorted by number of edits, without culling by category or page links. That's going to be a lot longer - 2013-2019 is 8506 different pages. Slightly more manageable at 2422 if restricted to pages in a category containing "death", which all biographies should have (even if it's just Category:Year of death missing). —Cryptic 01:36, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
I clicked on the xtools link, not having any idea what I might find or what I was doing, but was confounded by a message that "You have chosen not to allow "XTools" to access your account. "XTools" will not work unless you allow it access. You can go back to "XTools" or manage your connected apps." Then I got caught in an endless loop and the only way I could escape was by closing my WP link. I do maintain a little list of "stubs and starts" on my user page but that yields no clues, and I'm not even confident of its completeness. I may yet stumble across it, but please do not give it another thought. Doug butler (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
If it was a page you created, it would appear in your page-creation log, which you can narrow down by date-range. But that seems to omit pages that were created at one title and then moved to a different one, which is a pattern I see a lot in your history. However, that means the action would appear in your move log. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
I think I found it: Grattan Riggs. Next stop Strahan, Tasmania to check whether the headstone is sufficiently legible for a photograph. Thanks for all your help. Doug butler (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working on Multi-club ownership which cites multiple PDFs. I want to archive these to prevent link rot, but I'm not sure how to go about it - should I download the files and upload into archive.org, or is there another way? Is there a bot that can automate this? Thanks for the help. Timmeh59 (tlk|cntrbs) 09:09, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
If the PDF files are online, and not behind a password or paywall, you should just be able to submit the URLs directly to the wayback machine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
You're right apologies, I didn't test with multiple links - I think there is a different issue here. All of the PDFs archive correctly, apart from this one from the official German Bundesliga website which returns: This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. From a Google I assume this means they are blocking archive access to their website - is there any solution to this? Timmeh59 (tlk|cntrbs) 13:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
I am wondering if it is acceptable to use a scholar’s image from a Google Scholar page? His email was verified at the account, so it seems to me that he was ok with the image being public.
Not sure what the policy is here. Thanks! babbage (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
We need more than "it looks like he was okay with it"; there needs to be an explicit statement that the image was released with a copyright compatible with Wikipedia's(allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution). I don't know a lot about Google Scholar itself, perhaps such a statement is elsewhere, but I don't see it on the page you link to. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
To see whether you can (and how to) upload someone else's image to Commons, see c:COM:THIRD. Alternatively, ask the subject to read WP:A picture of you.
Images can be hosted here under fair use criteria in some circumstances, but that probably doesn't apply in this case, if the subject is living. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, thanks. The subject is deceased, but I will refrain from using the image. babbage (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
I think I found AI slop in an article, but I am confused as to where I can report it.
I believe the edit found here introduced AI slop into the "Paraset" page - the way the items are broken down looks like the usual AI style.
So I go there, read it, and it directs (not in a redirect sense, of course) me back to the original page I came from. That page seems to deal with reporting users for AI use, however, rather than articles. So now I'm more confused than before. Could anyone please tell me how I can report this article, rather than a user? Or better, take care of the problem for me? ~2026-54237-94 (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
If you want to "report" an article, the best way is to put a maintenance tag on it, in this case {{AI-generated}}. That'll automatically place the article in a category of articles containing suspected AI generated prose, a category which can be browsed by those interested in doing AI cleanup.
Or, if you're reasonably confident that the content is AI generated, you can just revert the edit or remove the content yourself. I've gone ahead and just reverted to the most recent revision before that editor touched it; if they have an issue with that they can dispute it with me.
If you're interested in doing so, I would suggest reporting this editor to the AI noticeboard so that their other contributions can be checked. People rarely use AI once and never again. Athanelar (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
donations and log in
I was subscribed to an annual donation but I did not change my new debit card in time. Meanwhile I also changed my email address and cannot access my wikipedia account.
My wikipedia home page is Sibley-Hoyt House.
Please respond. Thanks. Ronald K. Gay ~2026-54179-11 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Your donations to the Wikimedia Foundation are entirely unrelated to your Wikipedia account, so any issues you're having with donations need to be handled separately to any account issues. Athanelar (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-54179-11 Was your account by any chance User:SolomonSarahS? I have realised that when you said My wikipedia home page is Sibley-Hoyt House you seem to erroneously think that the article Sibley-Hoyt House was "your homepage", and given that account's extensive editing of that article, I assume that would be you? Athanelar (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
I'd be more likely to suspect User:Ronkenric given the name similarity? - Purplewowies (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
In the wiki page linked, there is a source credited as Ormrod, p. 287, however I cannot find the source anywhere online and I was wondering if I could have the source verified or properly cited?
The full source appears to be cited as Reference 7 - England: Edward II and Edward III, written by W. Mark Ormrod. Why it isn't in the bibliography is confusing; I'm gonna look the book up real quick. (The full cite's missing ISBN/OCLC# anyway.) —Jéské Courianov^_^vLook outit's Jimothy! 16:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
For future reference, if you ask at WP:RX someone will, if they can, look up the source for you and either check a claim is correct or send you a scan of the relevant page or pages (but not whole books). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
@Macegriffin: We do not require sources to be online but yes we do need the full ref. From the full ref, you can go to WorldCat to find out which libraries have physical copies. Your local library may be able to get the book for you via interlibrary loan. It's sometimes faster to just buy a used copy for not much money. -Arch dude (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
@Macegriffin: I can see Google books, The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 6, C.1300-c.1415, Rosamond McKitterick · 1995 Page 287 "It was probably in France that Isabella began her affair with Roger Mortimer of Wigmore" . TSventon (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
How do I put a film page title in italics?
I'm trying to create a page about a recent film, but I'm not familiar with how to format titles in italics. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Am I allowed to create an essay about editing Wikipedia as a user subpage? WP:SP is vague on this issue so I'm not sure. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 10:10, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that is in fact where a lot of essays belong, see WP:USERESSAY. Athanelar (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Donation
I tried to give Wikipedia $100 but it said I had to give an email address I don't give out my email address so I guess you're not going to get my money ~2026-54389-84 (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-54389-84 I suggest you create a separate email address (I have several) which you can give out more freely. They cost nothing. You may also be interested to read about Wikipedia finances before you donate. Shantavira|feed me 14:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
مرحيل
مرحبا عملت فورمات لاجهازي وفقتن معلومات حساباتي كلها ارجو المساعده بي استرداد حسابي نسيت معلوماتي الشخصية هذا بريد إلكتروني ~2026-54374-84 (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
From Google translate: "Hello, I formatted my device and lost all my account information. I need help recovering my account; I have forgotten my personal details. Here is my email address:"
Hello, ~2026-54374-84. If you are talking about your Wikipedia account, then you can recover your account only if you set up an email address attached to the account, and have access to that account.
If you are talking about something other than a Wikipedia account, then I'm afraid we cannot help you. This is the help desk for English Wikipedia, and nothing else.
Google translation of my reply: مرحبًا ~2026-54374-84. إذا كنت تتحدث عن حسابك في ويكيبيديا، فيمكنك استعادته فقط إذا كنت قد ربطت عنوان بريد إلكتروني بالحساب وكان بإمكانك الوصول إلى ذلك البريد.
أما إذا كنت تتحدث عن أمر آخر غير حساب ويكيبيديا، فللأسف لا يمكننا مساعدتك؛ فهذه هي صفحة المساعدة الخاصة بويكيبيديا الإنجليزية، ولا شيء غير ذلك.--ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
The same reason I was unable to mark Michael Bridgford absent in the Iowa 1st district debate. ~2026-53422-39 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-53422-39: Change 2 to 3 in colspan="2"| Participants. If it still fails then save your attempt somewhere like Wikipedia:Sandbox so we can see what is wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@AngelSparkles Thank you. I have fixed this by reverting the page to the last working version. Shantavira|feed me 17:39, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@AngelSparkles: If you want an alphabetical list with a table of contents with letters then you have to manually insert |- id="A" in the first row with A and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Text to speech aid for those with diminished eyesight
Is there a process for listening to Wikipedia articles? While not blind, many of us older ones have eyesight problems. The NY Times has a 'listen' option at the top of every article. I do not see that on Wikipedia. Is it in the future? Or is there an app that you can refer to that a reader can download for using on Wikipedia? Thank you.
In general, it's better for websites to be made accessible to assistive software (including software that reads a website out loud to you, called a screen reader) rather than having bespoke plugins that are specific to the individual website.
While we're not perfect, we do our best to make Wikipedia easy for such tools to access and it's certainly better than 99% of websites in that regard.
Your web browser or mobile device might already have the tools you need to enable it to read any website to you. Can you tell us what you are using to browse?
I am using Safari on an iMac. Latest version. Is there a screen reader embedded in Safari? I do see several in the App Store at Apple for the Mac. I did not know what to call them and previous searches came up blank. Screen reader did the trick. I will try them. And the RNIB page has some good basic info. Thank you. John Servais (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Reference help requested.This edit was reverted due to my lack of knowledge how to produce proper referencing. I wish to have the edit restored with a proper reference to the book by Alan Watts's daughters.
Thanks, Ben Best:Talk 13:13, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
It seems, based on the errors, you used the nonexistent parameter "Chapter" instead of "chapter" (note that the latter, the one you should use, is all lowercase). For the 1st citation, you can just input the first and last name of the person without linking it, as the author is the subject of the article. For the 2nd citation, for 2 authors, you can use the parameters "last2" and "first2" for the last and first name of the 2nd author. I will try to readd the citations too. Hope this helps! qkuldo(tell me about it) 13:41, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
I have fixed an older error by adding a full reference for Watts 1970. TSventon (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Impersonation
In the past couple of days (while I was away from home), I was notified by Wikipedia to the effect that someone had asked for a temporary password for my account. I was advised to log in using my password if it wasn't me. I could not do so immediately. Tonight I did log in and received a code to confirm that I am the account holder. This should prevent someone else impersonating me in the future, but I would like to check whether any edits have been made in my name while the temporary password was in use. Is there a way of doing this? I have done a search of 'recent edits', though when I tried to filter results to limit them to changes made in my name nothing happened. Have I missed something? Koli (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Koli: Edits by your account can be seen at Special:Contributions/Koli. This question was the first edit in five years. Your account also works at some sister projects but Special:CentralAuth/Koli shows no edits at all there. The temporary password was only sent to the address you have stored at Special:Preferences. It was probably never used. Anyone can request it is sent at Special:PasswordReset. It may just have been somebody who didn't remember whether they once created an account called "Koli". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. That's reassuring. Koli (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Account
which date was it that edits done over an IP for put into a temp account ~2026-54793-58 (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Please see WP:TA; this was implemented on November 4, 2025. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
How do I make a Wikipedia article
I’m new to Wikipedia and I’m trying to make an article but I don’t know how. Sevenare (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
We strongly advise against starting a new article until you have experience in editing existing articles - it very often results in rejection, and frustration. If you really want to do this though, see Help:Your first article. And take particular note of what it says about establishing Notability in published reliable sources, since that is the most important point in demonstrating that an article is appropriate at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Policy on using images of self?
I have noticed an increasing number of self-images being added to articles by a single unregistered editor, who appears to be a cosplayer using self-images of themself dressed in costume to illustrate fashion etc. I have reverted some of these because they were low quality or destroyed the article's formatting. This is not vandalism or conflict of interest, but seems more like self-promotion. Are there possible implications for WP's neutrality if unconstrained? Is there a policy on this, or can an editor add as many self-images to WP as they wish? Masato.harada (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I can't think of places other than an article on cosplay where such images would be appropriate. We'd expect articles on fashion to be illustrated with appropriate actual items, and they certainly shouldn't be used to promote the uploader. Is the editor using a single temporary account? If so, you should probably attempt to discuss with them. Meanwhile, you can certainly revert if you think them inappropriate, with a request to discuss on the talk page. And for the benefit of the rest of us, can you show us a few examples? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks like you've spotted and reverted Renaissance fair, and others. It's anything done by ~2026-54162-89. Masato.harada (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I've found at least some of the photos in question, uploaded to Commons - see this upload page: None of the photos which were in use added anything of merit to articles (apart from anything else, they are of very poor quality) so I've reverted them all. Are there similar photos that you've found, not on the page above? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I've only looked at the WP pages to which images were added by that user, which are currently reverted. Haven't look at Commons. Masato.harada (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Looking at the Commons file details, there might also be copyright issues - the uploader is the subject of the photo, rather than the photographer, who would normally be the copyright holder. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Can I leave it to you to (gently) explain the issues on their talk page? You're more experienced with the policies and issues here. Looks like a new user. Masato.harada (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Where is this tag being defined?
In_Dream#Weekly_charts has a dead link tag, but the source is archived. I tried to remove it, but the citation is done automatically through a template. I can't find where the tag has actually been placed and change the url-status. I also can't find where the archive link's been inserted, but it seems to exist EmergentAnarchy (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@EmergentAnarchy: the template is {{Album chart}}, it draws data from Module:Music chart/album.json, including ref_suffix "{{dead link|date=March 2019}}" for chart "Irish Albums". I can't explain this, but hopefully another editor here or at a Wikiproject can. TSventon (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. Still trying to work out how to edit it for this article. EmergentAnarchy (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
flovent
Le diskus es-t'il recyclable je retourne le diskus a la pharmacie de ma région et il le place au vidange pour une réponse [email redacted] merci a vous
According to what guideline is such pages notable: Colombia at the 2027 Pan American Games
1
I presume they are notable, but I can't find any guideline (or at least interprete the guidelines that I have in a way) that would make them notable. Is it simply considered a subpage of the main Pan American Games page (in this context)? Thanks, Bastobasto (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
No, in order to have an article, the subject (not the article) must be shown to be notable.
People keep trying to create articles on future sporting competitions: with rare exceptions, they are all WP:TOOSOON.
There is no such thing as a "subpage" in article space: every article should stand on its own. ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
If Wikipedia ever changed its standard for this, I would strongly hope that the change would be the opposite kind: "no page for a sporting event is allowed to exist until seven days after the final match" would not be unreasonable. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:16, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Trouble with article merge discussion
I'm having trouble with a discussion I tried to start about merging two articles.
There are two articles that I was contributing to that are on very similar subjects. While I was researching I found a lot of compelling evidence that they were both, in fact , words for the same thing, I added the "proposed merge" tag to them and explained why I thought it would make more sense for them to be one page with a redirect instead of two separate pages.
Then a couple days ago I got a message explaining that because of some policy change I was supposed to propose a merge in the deletion discussion area not as a tag. The person who fixed my error helpfully moved the stuff I had posted to the right place.
The only problem is that the people who have responded in the discussion have voiced concerns saying that we shouldn't get rid of the article because the topic meets the relevance criteria. (I don't disagree)
I have a feeling people are seeing the big title that says proposed deletion and not the tiny subtext that explains that it'a a proposed merge.
If everyone was saying that we shouldn't merge the articles because they didn't think it made sense to do it . I would be totally fine with that but, It seems like everyone who has responded is just deeply confused and has not read the explanation of what is actually being proposed.
It also seems like one of the people who responded thought I was talking about completely different articles they were talking about jelly fish and mongooses and I'm not really sure what either of those things have to do with the merge I proposed .
Is there a way to clarify the title of the discussion so people can tell that it is discussing a merge
and is there a way to make it more clear what articles we are discussing?
The two articles are Ichneumon and hydrus both are relatively short low urgency articles having to do with medieval zoology. Aberrant construction (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I saw at least one person telling you that whatever we modern people may think, ancient writers treated them as being different, and they named a famous individual author who mentioned each of the animals and clearly did not think they were the same thing. Are you very sure it can't be you who's misunderstanding, rather than everyone else? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
It's completely possible that I don't understand what they are saying. I don't see any comment that says that which who wrote the thing you are referring to?
the two comments I can see are this one
" Oh no, mongoose and hydra are entirely different animals, even in mythology. "Hydra" was thought to be a serpent , unlike the actual hydra, of course."
that links to the page for the Egyptian Mongoose- and a type of jelly fish and does not once even mention the name of either of the articles that could merge
the other one is
"the medieval ichneumon is a standard subject in bestiary scholarship, cited here to JSTOR, the Biodiversity Heritage Library and Perseus."
and this one that talks about it being a "standard subject"
but the citation to the Bio diverstiy heritage library is to page about wasps that is also confusingly called "ichneumon" https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/180022#page/1/mode/1up and I cant find anything about it on perseus although the site keeps making my computer crash so I cant be sure.
I'm not confident in my assumptions at all, what do you see that i'm missing? Aberrant construction (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
What you're missing is, unfortunately, the only thing that matters: evidence. For Wikipedia to even accept a mention of what you're describing, you would need to show where reliable reporters have literally said "These two animals are the same thing". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:49, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm a little confused, did the multiple links and quotes from reliable sources not count or did you not read them?
- https://topostext.org/work/747 - primary source from Gaius Iulius Solinus where they are conflated "When an enhydrus, another kind of ichneumon, notices this, it infiltrates the crocodile and plunders its guts"
- https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ammianus_22_book22.htm - primary source from Ammianus Marcellinus where the author says expressly that they are the same "And when the hydrus, which is a kind of ichneumon, perceives this, it penetrates into its mouth, which the bird has caused to open, and descends into its stomach"
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/230876?seq=3- modern work observing the phenomena published by the university of Chicago. "He may be identified as ichneumon, enhydros, hydrus, trochilos, even Hydra. "
In the discussion page I wrote a long proposal with even more evidence. Do you feel that I need more reliable sources or just more evidence in general?
I appreciate that the topic is complicated but I really have done quite a lot of research and have a fair amount of evidence for what I'm saying. But if you see any obvious gaps in the evidence please share them.
Once I have a consensus I would be happy to just add a section to both articles explaining the reasons why they are referred to interchangeably. I honestly just stumbled across this while I was doing research for something else and proposed this thinking that the two articles were a mistake but if Wikipedia is passionate about keeping both I'm totally fine just making a stronger and more obvious redirect between the two.
If you have opinions about the question of whether or not they should be merged, please join the discussion page, I was more wondering how to move the discussion out of the science and technology section because as far as I can tell it would make a lot more sense in the "philosophy and religion" or the "history" section of the AfD. Can you see a reason it should be in science? Aberrant construction (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I wasn't able to read the sources because I don't have that account, and instead of quoting the relevant parts, you tried to summarize which is quite unhelpful. I suggest you go back to the move discussion and provide this actual evidence which you neglected to mention before. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:41, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
(In general, saying "I have evidence, here's a summary" is the same as saying "I'm making up the whole thing". When you have evidence, it's much better to just show it directly.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:44, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I will do that in the future. Thank you for your feedback. I am still trying to figure out the tag issue, does anyone know why this would be under science and technology? Aberrant construction (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I think it is under science and technology because the title mentions "medieval zoology", I don't think it matters much. Perhaps if you had suggested a merge the other way and thus mentioned "legendary creature", it would have gone into fiction and the arts. Or even indiscernible or unclassifiable topic as a compromise. TSventon (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, if this is something you've discovered, Wikipedia rejects it. Wikipedia would need authoritative quotations from published literature that explicitly declares they are the same thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:24, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree I can add the actual quotes from the sources but I both linked a referenced both primary and secondary sources that say exactly that. Aberrant construction (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Why is St. Helena Island famous?
Not a question about Wikipedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
+ Al Overview St. Helena Island is famous as the remote South Atlantic exile site of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who lived there from 1515 until his death in 1821. W Wikipedia +1 Key
Why is St. Helena Island famous?
+ Al Overview
St. Helena Island is famous as the remote South
Atlantic exile site of French Emperor
Napoleon Bonaparte, who lived there from 1515 until his death in 1821.
Don’t think Napoleon lived 300+ yrs. Should b 1815 to 1821
~2026-54684-96, our article on Napoleon has the correct dates (and never even mentions 1515). We are not responsible, and indeed have no control over, AI overviews produced by others. Perhaps you could report it to Google, or wherever you saw it? LittlePuppers (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a Chatbot, and doesn't answer questions. It has (human written) articles on subjects, like our article on St. Helena, which gets the dates for Napoleon's exile there right. There are inevitably errors on Wikipedia too, but we can't be blamed for chatbot hallucinations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
1. Wikipedia didn't produce that answer; AI produced it.
2. I personally agree that the current kind of AI is a stupid system, and I also take it further by saying that AI is in general a stupid idea. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:29, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The writer Ted Chiang (author of, amongst other things, the story expanded into the film Arrival), recounted a remark in a conversation to the effect that 'Artificial Intelligence' was "A poor choice of words in [a date in the 1950s]." The actual coiner in 1955/6, John McCarthy, reportedly admitted that he chose it partly because it was a "catchy" label to help attract funding and distinguish the work from Cybernetics. Due to the field's increasing stigma, a prominent NON-scientist has recently proposed renaming it 'Super Intelligence', thus demonstrating that he doesn't begin to understand it (no surprise there).
My proposal is to to rename it 'Simulated Intelligence', but I lack the traction to get this into the public discourse. {The poster formerly known ad 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm sure we all have our own opinions on the merits - or otherwise - of LLMs, but per WP:NOTFORUM this isn't the place to discuss them. That they hallucinate, and cannot be prevented from doing so, is documented fact and all that needs to be noted here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Workshop Technology
What is fitting shop. ~2026-54496-24 (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
The help desk is for asking questions related to editing Wikipedia. You may ask this question at the reference desk. TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 13:36, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Firstly, by gaining experience of Wikipedia through making many small edits to existing articles. Once you have mastered that, see WP:Your first article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:12, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
In addition to Andy's answer, I would like to say that if the subject of your proposed article is yourself, your company, or anything else that you are closely associated with, then your chances of success are extremely low.
Also, if your purpose in creating an article is to "tell the world" about something or somebody, that is called promotion, and is not permitted.
I am happy that you want to edit Wikipedia, but I'm hoping that you will spend your time doing things that benefit Wikipedia as well as giving you enjoyment, rather than things which will probably benefit neither you nor Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Requesting deletion in an exotic Wiki project
I'm a fairly experienced Wikipedian, but today I'm a little stumped. I have no idea how to request deletion in a rare language Wikipedia. Apparently, this is an attempt at self promotion. I was led there while patrolling Commons for speedy deletion selfies.--Tupungato (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
@Tupungato For an obscure wiki you might be able to contact one of its admins directly. That said, I can't find a list of admins for chwiki on the metawiki category with lists of various projects' admins, so it may have no admins, in which case I believe admin functions can be carried out via a request to the stewards at metawiki at meta:SRM. Athanelar (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Thwre's also meta:GSR for uncontroversial deletion requests if you think the article counts as uncontroversial spam. Athanelar (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
According to ch:Espesiat:ListUsers/sysop, its only user with the sysop group assigned is the abuse filter, so I'd say the likelihood of no admins is right on the money. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Do suspected sockpuppets become too "stale" to report?
I think I may have seen a potential further sockpuppet of a blocked user who already has a number of confirmed sockpuppets. My guess is based on their highly-specific subject matter and their similar general talk page content and behaviour. This one went through a change of username in the past, and has not edited in over a year. I've never reported a potential sock before, so (a) should I? and (b) where? Thanks. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:58, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The 'where' is easy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. The 'too stale' question is harder to answer, and there really aren't firm rules. Instead, ask yourself a question: is investigating this past sockpuppetry going affect content, and will blocking the socks benefit Wikipedia readers? Bearing in mind that investigating socks takes time, it's clearly better to prioritise active socks, and only report the older stuff where it might lead to someone being blocked for things they are doing now. Which comes down to judgement, where opinions may differ. 00:10, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
In this case, very recent block evasion by them (using a TA) was how I found it, so I guess I'll go ahead. Thanks. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:27, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
The vandalism was done in this edit. I have reverted it. CodeTalker (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-54927-39, if you create an account and become autoconfirmed, the next time you see vandalism like this, you can use Twinkle or a similar tool (Ultraviolet, Huggle, Redwarn, etc) to revert it yourself quickly. Don't forget to warn the offending editor on their talk page! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 01:40, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Status of Draft: NetWeaving
I'm ChiefNetweaver1, the creator of the NetWeaving concept. I submitted Draft:NetWeaving for Articles for Creation review and disclosed my conflict of interest. Because this process is new to me, I'd appreciate help confirming whether there is anything I need to address.
The draft has been showing "Review waiting, please be patient" for some time now, and I haven't received a decline, rejection, or notice that a review has started. I understand reviews are handled by volunteers with no fixed timeline, so I'm not asking for priority or expedited review.
I'd simply like to confirm two things:
1. Is there any feedback, notice, or follow-up on my draft — on the draft itself, its talk page, or my own user talk page — that I may have missed and should address?
2. Is there anything else I need to do on my end while the review is pending (for example, keeping the draft active or providing clarification)?
I welcome any guidance on next steps or how best to proceed in the meantime. Thank you very much for your time and help.
ChiefNetWeaver1 (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
The template does indeed say Review waiting, please be patient It also says This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,982 pending submissions waiting for review. and you submitted it for review about two weeks ago. So... review waiting, please be patient. You will be automatically informed on your talk page when any action is taken on your draft.
That said, I have in fact gone ahead and declined your draft (which you will have been separately informed of on your talk page) because at the minute it does nothing but tell us what you would like us to know about your creation.
The link enwiki:Fred North is already used by Item Q26761627 ["Frédéric North"]. You may remove it from Q26761627 if it does not belong there or merge the Items if they are about the exact same topic. They do indeed appear to be about the exact same topic. Any compelling reason to remove it from Q26761627 and use Q121365479 instead? - Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 01:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, could someone please suggest some useful tools or gadgets that I can use to improve my editing... I would also appreciate recommendations on areas or projects where I could contribute more effectively and help improve Wikipedia. Kartheek1025 (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Could pe questanable quote from relatable sourse be used for a big and undeniable statement in the article, if this take in the sourse pretty short and subjective, and doesn't have any detailed explanation? That's bakened only by that it was written in relatable sourse. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
You cannot add your own explanation; something that is small with no explanation in the source must stay small with no explanation in your article too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@Solaire the knight: I believe the relevant policy here would be WP:DUE, if by questanable [sic] you mean something that is espoused by a minority. I suspect most editors won't agree with its inclusion, especially if it doesn't have much context behind it. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 13:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I just found sus that in one article's section entire take based only on one short mention from the sourse. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
They might be just making things up, but they also might have a real source for this other stuff and they just didn't do a good job of putting citations in. It's better to ask them where that part came from. It's not good to just rip it out without checking. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:16, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Few questions on notability for awards
First, do awards being given count as routine/trivial coverage? Second, I presume the sites of said awards are considered non-independent? Thanks, Bastobasto (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Generally, if an award is in itself notable (i.e. there is or could be a Wikipedia article about it) then it can be regarded as significant in determining notability. But you're right that the awards own website is non-independent - which doesn't mean it can't be cited, for factual data like the date or the category of the award; but an independent source would be better, and more likely to justify mentioning the award. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone please change seaside resort to seaside city because it has city status and when I tried making the edit, it wouldn't let me. Greenfrog26 (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editorial Review Drafts
Hi - I submitted an article for review and wondering how do I see the progress of that article. I also created a Wikipedia account, as prompted, immediately after "publishing" my article for an editorial review. How will I be notified of any feedback from my article? SilverCedar28 (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I see it now. When it gets reviewed, a notice about it will automatically be sent to your own Talk page, and it will be shown at the top of your actual draft as well. Whatever things they add to your draft, never ever remove those yourself - it makes you look bad if you do, plus they put it right back anyway.
Have you checked to see if your article shows at least one out of the nine items at WP:NATH? It helps if it does. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Trouble using the Interlanguage link template
I tried adding a wikilink to the English language article Alexander Katan to a different title German language article (de:Karl Josef Gross) using the relevant template I found on Help:Interlanguage links: English article title[language code]. But when I published the changes it was not converted to a red hyperlink text with a link to the German language article but instead was the modified template verbatim: "{{ill|Karl-Joseph Gross|de|Karl Josef Gross}}". I'm unsure what I did wrong and what I should do to correct it.
I was using the visual editor VioletEscalator (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Would it be possible to go back there and, using thr source editor, add in just your link?
Probably the visual editor "helped" you by adding mistakes to the code. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
The VE used the template {{tlxi}} which displays the template call rather than calling it. I have removed the tlxi| from the front of the template call, and it appears to work.
I have no idea why it did this, or whether it is correctible in VE, since I never use the VE. ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@VioletEscalator: VisualEditor has its own way to add template calls. See Help:VisualEditor#Editing templates. Most of our documentation is for the source editor. If you want to add source code then you can switch to the source editor on a pencil icon at the top right of VisualEditor. You can switch back to VisualEditor on the same icon. If you try to paste source code into VisualEditor then it tries to display the code instead of running it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Long book title
Hey all! Just finishing up a draft in my sandbox for the book The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence. Just wanted a second opinion on how I should handle the article name. Looking at WP:SUBTITLES I think it should probably be The Department (book), but since I was unsure figured I'd ask here! Sleepytimecat (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
One way of managing this is to observe what (if anything) the majority of reliable sources have done with the title. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Most shorten to The Department, so shall use that! Sleepytimecat (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict), yes "The Department (book)" sounds good, it might have to be moved again if someone writes "The Department (novel)". I had a look at the draft and fixed a few typos. TSventon (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Amazing, thank you for the copy edits! Sleepytimecat (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
An interesting side note is that very long book titles were common in the 19th century. For example, I recently cited an 1867 book called Bean's History and Directory of Nevada County, California: Containing a Complete History of the County, with Sketches of the Various Towns and Mining Camps ... Also, Full Statistics of Mining and All Other Industrial Resources. Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Cullen, that title is abbreviated, omitting the Names and Occupations of Residents. TSventon (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
A side-side note is that back in 1867 books weren't issued with (often colorful and attractive) covers around their boards (if they even came with boards when sold new). Thus the job that today is done by the publisher's blurb somewhere on the cover would instead be done on the title page. A bibliographical convention of today (for books that don't also have a colophon) is that what's on the title page and looks like the title, is the title. However, I wouldn't assume that the 19th-century publisher, seller, or potential buyer of Bean's History thought of the book's title as extending beyond "California". -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 21:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Slight issue with Gale Template
The links that Template:Gale direct to still bring the right document, but I'm unable to actually view the contents of that document. For example, when accessing an article through my library's portal, once I open it in Gale the "get link" button gives this: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A823812351/ITOF But when I use the Gale template with the corresponding ID, the link becomes this: GaleA823812351 On the second link, I'm directed to the correct article, but to actually view it I'm prompted with an "Access from your library" button. Pressing it has the website ask for my location (which is disabled on my machine), and it then shows "Document Not Available The document you requested could not be found".
I'm unsure if I should use the Gale template with the "id" parameter in my Template:Citation or have the "link.gale.com" URL as the "url" parameter. The template seems like it would be more appropriate in general, but the URL is what is actually working for me in terms of viewing it. In the article I'm currently editing, the relevant citations currently have both the url and the id parameters, which seems a little redundant to me. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
How to cite this "Gazeteer of Berkshire County", late 1800s?
I found a broken citation for this, using the "cite journal" template, and when I went to correct it I realized that this doesn't seem like a "journal"... those are for academic or routine publications.
So what is this object? I don't think it's "news" - it's *sort of* a "book", but more like a compilation. Thoughts? Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Hornpipe2 you can use cite book, I think it is described by the lead of book. The main thing is that cite book should give you the fields you nee like page numbers and publication date. TSventon (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
{{cite book|section=Part Second: Business Directory: Adams |title=Gazetteer of Berkshire County, Mass., 1725-1885 |date=1885 |page=[https://archive.org/details/gazetteerofberks00chil/page/3030]|section-url=https://archive.org/details/gazetteerofberks00chil/page/2/mode/2up |quote=Cheshire Crown Glass Company. |access-date=5 May 2014 |editor1-first=Hamilton |editor1-last=Child |publisher=Printed at the Journal Office}}
Child, Hamilton, ed. (1885). "Part Second: Business Directory: Adams". Gazetteer of Berkshire County, Mass., 1725-1885. Printed at the Journal Office. p.30. Retrieved 5 May 2014. Cheshire Crown Glass Company.
Thanks all! I've updated the article. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Editing other user's sandbox
Is it possible to edit other user's sandbox when the other user allows it? I was recently in talks with the other user in their talk page, who wanted me to collaborate on one of their sandboxes. While I would like to work on it, I'm asking this question to make sure whether there is a policy that allows it or does not, since I myself cannot find any information about it; as far as I can find, only the information about editing one's own sandbox is visible. Junsik1223 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
You're allowed to edit anything you want, people don't own their sandboxes. There's no area of Wikipedia which can be considered "private" or walled off from other editors; it's considered improper to edit somebody else's sandbox or draft without specific permission, but since you've been given specific permission here you're entirely welcome to do so. Athanelar (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@Junsik1223 When I was a newcomer, I drafted an article in my sandbox and added some categories to it. Someone came along and removed them without prior permission from me, quoting WP:DRAFTNOCAT in their edit summary. That helped my learning! Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I would hesitate to add a picture of a cat to my user page; I'd anticipate it being replaced by a picture of the Official Wikipedia Cat, and me being warned about WP:NOUSERCAT. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:34, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
the Official Wikipedia Cat, I presume, being one (or all?) of the infobox images for Cat. Athanelar (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I have seen some editors making difficult SPI edits with mobile edit. When I try to collect, save copy paste, I am not able to work as good as using PC. How do these editors do such difficult edits with lots of texts with mobile edits. ~2026-54570-03 (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-54570-03 As no-one has answered here, your best bet may be to politely ask on the talk page of one of the editors you have noticed doing this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Edits
Hi! I made an edit to a Wikipedia page about UFO Sightings to add the one that happened in my town of Farmington, NM, which was already on our towns Wikipedia page. I am unsure if I cited wrong or what but it did get undone. Could I get some help on how I am actually supposed to do it? AetherTheFurry (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
It wasn't undone, it's still listed. It looks like someone fixed the formatting of the citation. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Error Message: "Trying to add an email address to this page"
@~2026-54934-99: You tried to add a citation to https://biortc.com/biortc-director-appointed-professor-of-neuroscience-at-newgate-university/ with an email address in the field last which is for the surname of the author. It happened because you used a citation tool which detected the HTML source says <meta name="author" content="..." /> where ... is an email address. That looks like poor coding by the website. Remove the email address before saving. Do you want a copy of your attempted edit? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Writing Article
How do I publish information to be scrutinized An Original American (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Writing a new article is not recommended as the first thing a new user does; you are essentially asking "how do I build a house that will not fall down". If you wouldn't first attempt to build a house without learning about construction techniques and how to install plumbing, you shouldn't attempt to write a Wikipedia article without first gaining experience and knowledge about how Wikipedia works by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as using the new user tutorial.
If you still want to attempt to write an article now, please first review Your First Article and then gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage that meet the criteria listed here; you may then use the article wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Margaret Owen disambiguation
Its the 1st time that it happens to me that I didnt find in Wikipedia something about an important person.
Recently there was in the news that Margaret Owen was recently arrested just for displaying a cardboard sign. She has an OBE for her important contributions to human rights.
https://honours.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/stories/margaret-owen-obe/
In the margaret owen disambiguation page looks like she is not there
Margaret_Owen
Im too novice to say if its an error in the disambiguation page or the page about her directly does not exist, HELP!! Maverick528 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Margaret Ann, Mrs. Owen. For services to Human Rights, particularly Widows Overseas.
A single line in a long list is usually not enough to be included in a disambiguation page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
/* Margaret Owen disambiguation */ Reply ~2026-55304-06 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
If she made important contributions to human rights, it seems very likely that those would have been reported in some news media, appropriate journals, etc., and of course reports about her arrest in reputable newspapers would probably count towards notability. You need to keep looking for sources on which an article can be based.
(Disambiguation pages only list existing articles, not additional people with no articles as yet. List articlesmay include people who don't yet have an article but are good candidates for one, in which case they can be red linked.)
A casual online search on Margaret Ann Owen OBE yielded a first page of items specific to her, so I think it likely she qualifies for an article: the Women in Red Project may be interested. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230./195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Its full of mentions of this person out there, for example in BBC (I guess you can trust BBC news?)
And the United Kingdom does not give the OBE award to "random ppl".
I think there are biographies of "less important" ppl here in wikipedia, so Im a bit surprised that the biography of this woman is not here ...... Maverick528 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Has a major publishing house put out a biography of her? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
That BBC article contains one sentence that merely mentions her name and otherwise says nothing at all about her. Surely there must be media coverage that discusses her in more detail? If not, it does not seem likely that she meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. We need sources that actually say something substantial about her, not merely mention her name. CodeTalker (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Im not doing any extensive online research, I only originally wanted to point out that this bio is missing, if she is "wikipedia worthy" or not, I dont know but I suppose there are more qualified ppl than me here, I spent 2 hours trying to figure how to make a request for inclusion en the Woman in red project but I coudnt..... Maverick528 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
@Maverick528 Sometimes, there are subjects about whom an article could be written, but no volunteer has taken it upon themselves to create and submit a draft.
Editors here are all volunteers. There is no "editorial board" that looks for articles that are "missing". A volunteer has to, first, be interested in the subject, second, understand the complex requirements for creating an article in Wikipedia, and third, be able to find independent, reliable, published sources that talk about the person in depth.
"Important" people usually, but don't always, have independent publications that write about them in depth.
Then, that volunteer can start the process of creating a draft, with appropriate references, to be submitted. David10244 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice answer. What I see here is a problem. Editing existing articles isnt too difficult. But if you think a new subject must be added and you know you are not good enough to do the task yourself, I dont see a user-friendly mechanism for a noob to request inclusion. And if the goal of wikipedia is to be a source of all knowledge available, looks like there are subjects where there could be nobody interested in creating the page, because you must find as you said somebody that volunteers at least to do a proper draft following wikipedia standars, somebody that has to be at least a bit knowledgeable about the subject and is not directly involved with it........ Maverick528 (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
There is such a method, but only theoretically. Wikipedia being strictly a volunteer effort, nobody is obliged to work on the request list, so it has become a backwater of thousands of abandoned ideas. You would technically still be welcome to add your idea; in your grandchildren's old age it might still be sitting there to remind them of your ever-hopeful attitude. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Language Sub-Populations
I am conducting research to determine population densities within a major metropolitan county in California.
Does Wikipedia or some other research site have demographic data which estimates the number of languages, other than English, spoken within a specific geographical area?
Then, I would need to determine the languages spoken by age group and the number or percent of population of speakers for each language identified. ~2026-55303-85 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
If that county happens to be where you live, I suggest you go to the biggest library in the county and ask them where to look for this type of thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a 'research site'. Our articles are based on citations to published sources, rather than any research conducted by contributors. You will probably do better to use a browser search engine to find this sort of primary data, if it exists. AndyTheGrump (talk)
It marks a block of preformatted text and prevents the parsing of templates. Further details: Help:HTML in wikitext#pre. Certes (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Set skin for mobile only?
How can I set my skin as Timeless on mobile only? I tried going to the settings in mobile, but that had the opposite effect, and now I have Timeless on desktop and Minerva on mobile. I'd like to have Vector 2022 on desktop and Timeless on mobile. Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈 11:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@Helpful Cat: I don't think that is possible unless there is a way to load the Timeless skin or something equivalent in Special:MyPage/minerva.css and Special:MyPage/minerva.js, but that may cause problems. The skin setting in preferences is only for desktop view. Mobile view ignores the setting and uses its own skin Minerva. Timeless is just one of the skins you can choose in desktop view. You can switch between mobile view and desktop view at the bottom of pages regardless of which device you are on so you could choose desktop view and change skin in preferences to Timeless when you are using a mobile device but then you have to change the skin back to Vector 2022 when you switch to a desktop device. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I see, thanks! I think what I'll do for now is to switch back to Vector 2022 in settings (to have Vector 2022 on desktop), and I've installed this user script to easily switch skins, so when I'm on mobile it's two clicks to switch to both Timeless and desktop mode. That lets me access desktop features on mobile relatively easily, which is the main reason I wanted to use Timeless on mobile. Thanks again! Helpful Cat🐈 14:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Merging a draft and live article
I'd like to merge Draft:Will Reeve into Will Reeve. I've done lots of article-to-article merges but not draft-to-article merges. Do you have any tips for going about this in a way that will maintain author attribution as required for copyright? Clayoquot (talk|contribs) 02:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi Clayoquot. I don't think there's anything special involved here. Basically, you'd just be adding existing new content to an existing article. If you're the creator of the draft, then there's really no need (at least to best of my understanding) for you to attribute yourself. If you're "merging" content created by someone else, then I think you just need to comply with WP:CWW. Even if the draft ends up being deleted and becomes a WP:RED link, its page history will still be there (just no longer publicly visible) for attribution purposes: an administrator, for example, would be able to see it.One thing, though, is that merging content from a draft that was declined by an AfC reviewer for not being Wikipedia notable into an existing article might not be the best thing to do. The existing article was boldly created in the mainspace (i.e., it never underwent any type of third-party notability assessment) just a few days ago. If the draft which seems, at least at first glance, to be a bit more fleshed out with more sourcing was deemed to be insufficient in establishing Will Reeve's Wikipedia notability, then perhaps the existing article also has the same concerns. The fact that it exists doesn't mean it should exist; maybe it's just never underwent a proper assessment. So, instead of just merging content from one page into another, it might be better to see whether WP:OVERCOME is an issue and look for reliable sources clearly showing Reeve is Wikipedia notable (independent of his Wikipedia notable dad). If Reeve wasn't seen as being Wikipedia notable in December 2021 for all the things he had done up until that time, then it seems unlikely the coverage generated by his announcing last month (September 2026) that he was diagnosed with testicular cancer but is now cancer-free would be the thing to put him over the top in terms of Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
why would anyone donate to a site with corrupted information? Ilhan is just one example of so many. ~2026-55431-65 (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
There is no obligation to donate here. "Corrupted information" is, however, more likely to be found on other websites. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Do you have a genuine question, or are you just here to rant?
If you think that something in a Wikipedia article can be improved, you're welcome to do so - making sure you comply with Wikipedia's policies about verifiability, reliable sources and neutral point of view, of course. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Donation is totally optional; you are very welcome to read and edit Wikipedia without donating. If you have found a problem with the Ilhan article, please fix it by editing the page or raise the matter for further discussion by creating a new section at Talk:Ilhan. Certes (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Seeing total views on articles you've edited?
Hello,
I'd like to see how many views have been accrued across all articles I've edited in the past. Currently, I can only see views in the past 60 days on my homepage. Is there a way to expand this period to include all of my contributions across Wikipedia? Oro Temp (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think there's an easy way to do that. If you really wanted to, you could download the large Wikipedia clickstream datasets for each month since you started editing and write some software to correlate that with your edit history, perhaps only counting views since the month you first edited each page. But it'd be a lot of work for you, for your computer and for the servers. Certes (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Account access recover
Hello! I would like to recover login to my account but I don't have an access to my old email
If you are unable to access the email address attached to the account, you will not be able to regain access to the account. You may create a new account and identify it as a successor account on its user page("I am User5678, I was User1234 but lost access") 331dot (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Alternative dark CSS for Timeless
I know mw:Skin:Timeless/DarkCSS exists, but it changes many things apart from implementing dark mode, such as fonts and colours. Has anyone created any alternatives? Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈 00:05, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
SE learning aids
Do you have any recommended learning aids for longtime VE users who’d like to overcome acute aversion for using the SE and develop at least advanced intermediate SE skills? Augnablik (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Turn on the syntax highlighter in the source editor. Lifechanging. Athanelar (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@Athanelar, although I didn’t know about the highlighter — and it wasn’t quite clear at first how to turn it on — I did succeed. It’s a nice touch and I’m happy to know about it, but this longtime VE user (yes, me) needs a bit more. What, I don’t know.
To me, the SE with all the — what I think of as “code clutter” — is really distracting from writing and editing. I had no problem using markup while learning basic computer coding, but to write and edit articles I just feel the need to see the flow of the text across several paragraphs at the same time.
If you have a few more little tricks like the Syntax highlighter to share, it might help. But can you also recommend some user-friendly learning aids — perhaps including tutorials, videos, quizzes, and essays? Augnablik (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@Augnablik: Try using User:Cacycle/wikEd. I haven't used it in a while, but there was a button I remember pressing to collapse references into blocks to reduce the amount of code in the editing window. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 14:51, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
From a glance I gave to the article at the link you gave me, @Tenryuu, it seems no longer supported although still okay to use. I'll go back to it and read more, but ... wouldn't reducing the amount of code mean that an editor could inadvertently delete some of it when working in the editing window? Augnablik (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Augnablik: I tested it out on another wiki, and the button I was thinking of is called "Simple view", which collapses references, tables, and templates into blocks that expand upon mouse hover. It'll be fine as long as you leave those blocks alone. WikEd also offers syntax highlighting if you're concerned about code blending in with prose. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 14:28, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Augnablik in case you have missed this, turn on preview with the "Preview" button on the top-right corner. I almost always have it on, because - like you - I want to see the flow of text without all the clutter, while enjoying the ease of typing and navigating of SE. LkL-70547 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
No, @LkL-70547, I didn't miss the Preview option ... though to me, using it is still a bit klutzy ... better than nothing, but:
I can't avoid seeing all the coding in the window I have to work in whenever I have to use the SE.
And because the Preview window is smaller than the editing window when I use the VE, I don't get to see the flow of the text all that well.
Then, too, in my experience the Preview window doesn't seem configured to follow along with wherever I am in the editing window, so I have to keep adjusting the two windows to show the same thing.
Because you're the only one of the editors who's replied to my question and identified as someone who wants "to see the flow of text without all the clutter," may I ask whether you always felt happy using the SE, or if not, how did you adjust? Also, did you ever use the VE much? Augnablik (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Augnablik I have always been on SE. With my programming background, I'm quite clumsy writing on anything that's not plain text - when I press the arrow key in VE, will it go to the next paragraph, the next line, an image, or expand some window that's gonna take 5 seconds to load and break my flow?
If I'm editing something that involves more than a few paragraphs (which is when the preview is the most useful), I do make my browser window larger, so that the preview will be the same size as an entire article is when I'm reading. But other than that, I'm afraid I don't have much to say other than "get used to it". LkL-70547 (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
As LkL has said, between the syntax highlighter and the preview window you should be much alleviated in terms of 'code clutter' since you can easily see where the prose is in between the references and such and reference that to your preview window. Other than that, I don't know of any specific resources. All I did was just keep working with it until it became natural. If you see a template or a wikitext tag that you aren't sure what it does, search it up, read the documentation and come back. Try writing something in your sandbox entirely in the source editor to get a feel for citations and footnotes and headings and such. I find it way easier than the VE. Athanelar (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@Athanelar, when you say you find writing "citations and footnotes and headings and such" in the SE "way easier than the VE," when you did do that sort of thing in the VE, I'm surprised you wouldn't have found going to the Insert option to insert a template you could simply fill in much easier than the SE. What am I missing here? Augnablik (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the only thing you're missing is that different people with different habits can have different definitions of "easy", or different likes & dislikes that they accidentally include in their judgement of easiness.
Possible example: "VE is easier for citations" - "Sure, until something non-standard is impossible for VE, or until something gets messed up" - "But how often does that really happen?" - "With SE it never happens" - "The features in VE are nicer" - "Too bad they aren't as reliable" - [they continue this until 3AM]:)
You can see in this exchange that nobody is really right, nobody is really wrong, and the two in my imaginary discussion are both unlikely to change their minds. My own logic has two parts: VE can't accomplish more than SE, only equal or less (which is currently true); and SE doesn't bother me enough to make me switch (which is just personal preference). My other personal preference would be to improve SE enough to make everyone forget that VE existed. (Or to improve VE so immensely that it can easily do 100% of what SE can do in every case, but that seems like fantasy right now.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
In my opinion, the source editor's best learning aid by far is to intentionally stop going back to the visual editor even if something goes wrong. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers, I would agree with your instructional strategy for something like learning a new language so I could live in a new country. But all I want to be able to do with the SE is just be able to use it well on certain occasions and for particular reasons. Like if I want to check something in an article's underlying code. Or if I'm reading an article with directions about how to do some Wiki procedure that the writer completely focused on doing it in the SE with no reference to how it would be done alternatively in the VE.
Perhaps I should still set aside a certain time frame to follow your suggestion as a way to really get to that level of proficiency, but just not "live permanently" in that new country. Okay, I'll think more seriously about it than when I first read your suggestion. Augnablik (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
My idea of "best way" is not anyone's idea of "only way"! In reality, there are two ways to edit: "This works OK for me" and "This is no good". As long as you have the first one and not the second one, everything is fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:03, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Athanelar, @Tenryuu, and @LkL-70547, @TooManyFingers, thanks for all your suggestions. You gave me some very helpful insights, even if not the "magic bullet" I was seeking. Receiving different ideas from four editors with SE expertise made the conversation really come alive for me—which, interestingly, helped lift some of the sense of isolation I'd come to feel in dealing with this issue.
PS: I just did an online search to see what would turn up if I asked there for instructional aid recommendations and found a few things I hadn't been aware of. So, onward! Augnablik (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@Augnablik, would you mind sharing with the class? I also spend my days in SE (I grew up writing HTML for my dumb kid fandom websites on Geocities and Angelfire, so both the code and the emotions of extreme frustration followed by pride are familiar...) but you can never have too many tricks that someone else found useful and passed on! Meadowlark (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@Meadowlark, are you asking about specific learning aids I was referring to when—at the close of my previous message—I mentioned finding a few that I hadn't been aware of? If so, how about I send you some on your Talk page because I doubt the other four contributors to this thread would be particularly interested in them. Augnablik (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@Augnablik - apologies, I missed your ping somehow. Please do, I would appreciate that greatly! Meadowlark (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I don't understand what means "check archive-url= value". The link is working. What should I do? I'm editing Niuvanniemi hospital pages. Kindly Ms Sari Kiiskinen SaKaHeKi (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi SaKaHeKi. You probably should take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners for some general guidance on how to properly format a citation. It looks like you're just doing the bare minimum, which is better than nothing, but doesn't really provide readers of the article with enough information about the sources you're citing. It also looks like you using the same URL for both the |url= paramater and the |archive-url= parameter; generally, you should use archive urls for |archive-url= and original source urls (even dead links) for |url=. There's some guidance on this in WP:DEADLINK.Are you by chance connected to the hospital in some way? When the first thing a newly created account does is edit a relatively obscure article, it's often because there's a connection between the account and subject of the article. It's not expressly prohibitfor an account to do such a thing, but it's a lot easier for others to help them avoid running into problems if they're transparent about ay connection they might have. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I still don't understand what should I wrote "archive url" field? If it not could be the same as url-field. Yes, I've a connection to the hospital, I'm working here as a secretary to the director. And he has asked me to do some changes to English page. And I certainly did. I should change only the photo to the model, but unfortunately I remove all the the other information and now there's only a photo. Could you just return the model (like in Finnish page) which there were before? And then I try to add only the new photo. And as the newly created account, I've created my account 2024, so I think it's not new one any more. SaKaHeKi (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
First, and most important, if you are employed by the hospital (even if editing Wikipedia is not a primary part of your role), you are what Wikipedia regards as a paid editor: you must make a formal declaration of this (see that link for how and where to do this) and you should not directly edit the article in most cases. Rather, you should use the Edit request wizard to make {{COI edit request}}s.
Wikipedia wants articles to be accurate, according to what independent reliable sources have said about the subject. It has little interest in what the subject of an article wants to say, and especially no interest in what the subject wants people to know or not to know: that would be promotion, which is forbidden in Wikipedia.
To answer your question about url-archive: that parameter is provided for when a website has been archived by a site such as archive.org. As long as the original site still exists, the url parameter will be used, and the archive-url parameter will be ignored; but if the website ceases to be accessible for whatever reason, somebody can add url-status=dead to the citation, and it will then link to the archived version. So an archive-url parameter should be specified only if there is an archived version available.
I have restored the infobox that you removed when you added the new image, and replaced the image in the infobox by the newer image (which I presume is what you wanted).
As far as Wikipedia is concerned the choice of image is of no importance, compared to the serious deficiency of having no or few independent reliable sources. Please see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not correct:
As long as the original site still exists, the url parameter will be used, and the archive-url parameter will be ignored; but if the website ceases to be accessible for whatever reason, somebody can add url-status=dead to the citation, and it will then link to the archived version.
When both of |url= and |archive-url= are present, the source's title in |title= will be linked by |archive-url=. Adding |url-status=dead does nothing. If you want the source's title to be linked by |url=, use |url-status=live.
Thank you for restoring the infobox. I should do the same to Finnish page, but it didn't work. May I ask you to do the same also to Finnish page, add the same image?
You wrote archive url parameter should be specified only if there is an archived version available. There is no archived version, so what should I wrote there, because that field is forced to write something?
I'm confusing you wrote "you should directly edit the article", do you mean "by article" I should not edit my organization page?
I have only edited the text, added a new link to the hospital report, and modified the address of an existing link. I have done this kind of thing before, no promotion meaning. So does this standard editing really needs formal declaration? ~2026-55339-17 (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Apparently I was wrong about archive-url - please read what Trappist says. But the part relevant to your problem is that you should not use archive-url unless there is a separate archived copy of the site.
I'm afraid that there is no such thing as "my organization page". The article Niuvanniemi hospital is Wikipedia's article about the hospital. It does not belong to the hospital, it is not controlled by the hospital, and it is not for the benefit of the hospital, except incidentally.
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.
Almost anybody in the world may edit that article except you and your colleagues. Your involvement is limited to making edit requests, as I said. The particular edits you made may be innocuous, but you, inevitably, will have the hospital's interest in mind when making them, and that may not be in harmony with Wikipedia's concern with neutrality. If the article says what the hospital wants people to know, then it is promotional.
You are breaking the terms of service of Wikipedia by editing without having made a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor. ColinFine (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
And in answer to your request that I correct the Finnish article: no, I'm not prepared to edit an article in a language I barely know. You'll need to ask for help in the Finnish Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi again SaKaHeKi. First, thank you for being transparent about your connection to Niuvanniemi hospital. The additional information you provided has made it easier for others to try and help you. I've added some general information to your user talk page about some of the things ColinFine has pointed out above. The information I added contains links to relevant English Wikipedia policy and guidelines pages containing more detailed information that you might find helpful. Please take the time to look at this information before making anymore edits to the "Niuvanniemi hospital" article because a failure to comply with relevant English Wikipedia policies regarding paid editing could lead to your English Wikipedia account being blocked.Now, I don't know whether the same information is available for Finnish Wikipedia (each language Wikipedia is a separate and distinct project with its own policies/guidelines); so, you will need to ask on Finnish Wikipedia to find out what its policies/guidelines are. Since both English Wikipedia and Finnish Wikipedia fall under the purview of the Wikipedia Foundation, though, I'd imagine that there's also a Finnish Wikipedia version of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure that you will need to comply with if you intend to edit on Finnish Wikipedia because this policy is a Wikimedia Foundation policy, not just an English Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi SaKaHeKi, Did you really take that picture, yourself, today, as stated on its page on Wikimedia Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:41, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, the picture which is now on the English page, I don't know when and by whom it has been taken. Yesterday there was different pic which ColinFine changed. Why the picture has been changed? ~2026-55339-17 (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Just for reference SaKaHeKi, your conflict of interest and paid-editing status don't matter as much to Wikimedia Commons as it does here on English Wikipedia. What matters most to (Wikimedia) Commons is the copyright status of the content it hosts. The reason Andy Mabbett is asking whether you took the photo you uploaded is because the copyright holder of the a photo is typically considered to be the person who takes it. So, if you didn't take the photo yourself (and someone else did), you can't really upload it to Commons under the type of copyright license you used. If, by chance, you didn't know any better and just uploaded a photo taken by someone else by mistake, then that doesn't automatically the photo needs to be deleted. It might still be possible for Commons to keep the photo but more information about it is going to be needed to determine that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The picture, which should be in English and also in Finnish page, has taken in 3rd June 2026 by some else. So what should I do now? ~2026-55339-17 (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Nothing. I removed your image because it was very low resolution (of the order of 125 Kb compared to the current image's 5.5 Mb); and of apparently dubious provenance; as your above comment confirms.
Alternatively, provide a better (much higher resolution) image with correct metadata, that meets the requirements at c:COM:THIRD.
I know who has taken the picture, so is there any change to use it? It looks fine even you said the resolution is very low. And now I locked in. SaKaHeKi (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Firstly, you would need to have the owner of the copyright in the image follow the process at c:COM:THIRD, to make the image available under a suitable licence. That owner could be the photographer, or the hospital, depending on the circucmstances.
Secondly, you would need to ask them to provide a copy at higher resolution (preferably the highest available). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
If I got the better picture, what should I do after that? SaKaHeKi (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi yet again SaKaHeKi. If you're able to find a better photo that satisfies c:COM:L (also see c:COM:Third), then upload the photo to Commons as a new file (don't update the file you've already uplaoded). Once you've done that, use WP:ERW (English Wikipedia's COI edit request) to make an edit request and propose changing the current image to the one you uploaded; don't try to change the image yourself. One of the Wikipedia volunteer who respond to such request will review it and make the change if they think it's an improvement. I don't know the edit request process for Finnish Wikipedia; so, you will need to ask about it at Finnish Wikipedia.Now this next part is very important. You've still yet to properly declare you connection to the hospital on your user page; this is something that you need to do as soon as possible, i.e., before you do anything else on English Wikipedia. The longer you wait to do this, the greater chances of your account being blocked by an English Wikipedia administrator. If you're not sure how to properly declare your connection, follow the guidance in WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. Please understand that even though you might not be being directly paid to edit English Wikipedia per se, the fact that you've been instructed by your boss (a director of the hospital) to update Wikipedia on behalf of the hospital means that you're almost certainly subject to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure; so, it's best to make sure you're in compliance with this very important Wikimedia Foundation policy if you want to avoid running into trouble here on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
My page needs updating and improvement I would like to engage/hire someone
User already asked this at the Teahouse. Please ask a question at only one venue to prevent duplicating user effort. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 19:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
My Wikipedia page needs serious updating. In the last year, I've received emails from persons saying they worked for Wiki but were actually scammers. I would like to engage/hire a professional or high-level, experienced official Wiki volunteer. Thank you for your help!
Marguerite Feitlowitz Mfmushroom (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
You're quite right not to engage anyone who expects payment for editing your Wikipedia page – it's always a scam. I suggest creating a new section on Talk:Marguerite Feitlowitz explaining what needs to be added or changed. Citing reliable sources would really help. Hopefully, a volunteer will make the necessary changes in a neutral tone. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has some good advice, especially the General COI section which shows how to mark your article and Wikipedia account as connected. Certes (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@Mfmushroom: Please ask your question at either the Help Desk or the Teahouse, not both. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 19:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I have closed—again—the duplicate discussion at The Teahouse. Please do not reopen it again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I will point out that the question was asked first at the Teahouse, but fine. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 09:05, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Mfmushroom Please remember that A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.. When you say your article "needs serious updating" that may well be the case, but it is also often the case that the updates the subject of the article thinks are needed are not the updates which are necessarily actually needed. Athanelar (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
IABot
I've been attempting to use the IABot for archiving URLs, but it doesn't seem to be acknowledging the URLs that are actually dead on pages I have tried to use it for. I also tried to run it for specific pages, but it timed out and I had to use the "multiple pages at once" feature. Any suggestions on how to get better results? JPHC2003 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Could someone explain how to request permission to use an image from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons? The image would be used for something like a book cover. Thanks ~2026-55658-73 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-55658-73 Most images on Wikimedia Commons are licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 license (some are under different licenses, the page for the individual image will specify). You can see the details of that license here but in short, you're allowed to use those images for any purpose you want, including to profit from them, but you are not permitted to place your own copyright on them and you must properly attribute their origin. Athanelar (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi ~2026-55658-73. In addition to what Athanelar posted above, try taking a look at c:COM:REUSE. It's important to remember that files uploaded to Commons are simply being hosted by Commons. Commons will only host content that is either within the public domain for some reason or has been released by its copyright under a type of copyright license that meets C:COM:L. In the latter case, you should be fine as long as you comply with the terms of the relevant license, but any particular questions about a license should probably be addressed to its copyright holder. Pretty much the same applies to Wikipedia as explained in WP:REUSE. Unlike Commons, however, Wikipedia allows non-free content to be uploaded and used; since there are more restrictions placed on this content, and it's often uploaded by someone other than its copyright holder, you may need to contact the copyright holder directly to see whether they mind you using their content in the way you want use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
ThiruVani Civilization
Tamizhy civilization Oldest World old Tamal, I researched answer becames Tamal is one of the first Language source and education method inthis World, Iam authenticity writter ppmagadevan alies ppmahadevan
Discussions are not decided by a counting of votes, they are determined by a weighing of arguments along with Wikipedia policy. The closer closed the discussion as "no consensus" because they felt no argument outweighed another. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@331dot I understand, but it is not appropriate for a single editor to make the decision on their own; the views expressed by participants throughout the discussion should be taken into account as a whole. That is why I am also asking here whether you consider the closure to have been appropriate. Thank you. ~2026-54304-41 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
What makes you think that the closer did not take views into account? 331dot (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
I did not say that the opinions expressed were not taken into account. However, I do not think it was appropriate to close a discussion in which the majority of participants were in favour of the move with a "not moved" outcome. At the very least, the discussion should have been relisted, since the consensus seemed to favour making Trust (social science) the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That is why I am also asking other editors for their opinions on this issue. ~2026-54450-86 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
"Majority" is only relevant if every person's argument was of equal validity. If a majority want it to be done wrong, then the minority who want it to be done right should prevail. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers I was simply trying to understand what the right course of action would have been. It probably would have been appropriate to relist the discussion for further input, which is still an option, and I will consider reopening it. ~2026-54450-86 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
There is a difference between a "not moved" outcome and "no consensus"; the former meaning the consensus was to not move it, and "no consensus" meaning that it was not possible to determine the consensus after a weighing of arguments. Again, it's not a vote, but a discussion. If you feel that the consensus was improperly judged, that is a matter for WP:AN to review. I don't think that it was, but that's just my opinion. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
I would urge you to not disruptively reopen the discussion. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@331dot I meant that the issue can always be discussed again in a new thread; that is an available option. In any case, thank you for pointing me to WP:AN. I will ask for opinions there. ~2026-54450-86 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@331dot, for information, WP:AN have responded that WP:Move review is the correct place to challene a move. TSventon (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. 331dot (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm no authority, but I'm pretty certain that the right course of action in this particular case is to recognize and understand that the closer made an obvious right decision. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:34, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Basically, most people can do anything on WP, and if you don't like it, you can argue your tits off for all eternity via WP:ANI and appeal to Jimbo and end up none the wiser. They who shout loudest often win. MinorProphet (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Profanity bleeped in source
What should be done when the source material censors out profanity? Wikipedia has a policy of not censoring quoted material. I stumbled across a quote by the rapper Favio in Drill music where he says the N-word, but the publisher (TMZ) bleeped it out, and thus the quote also is censored in the Wiki article. Should quotes be true to the source, or true to the actual words said? This is more of a philosophical quandary than anything, lol. afever — 01:16, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Per WP:BOWDLERIZE: In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited overrides this style guideline, where it is necessary to indicate that an alteration is carried over from a quoted source, " [sic]" or "[thus in the original]" or a similar phrase, within single brackets, may be used.In solidarity,🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333(They/them • Talk • Contribs) 01:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
So basically the best thing to do is to put the exact text as in the source accompanied by a {{sic}} template? 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 08:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Exactly, yes. This avoids quoting them as having used a word they refused to use. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Help, editing coding is screwed up
Hello. Started editing today, I edit in Monobook, and the coding is in some kind of mode that makes it very difficult to edit. Things that have changed include the addition of line numbers along the left side of the edit, very large section headings (when I type "Help, editing coding is screwed up" the result is very large type compared with the editing type, and a great deal of blue links which jump to something else when typed over or comes up as weird coding. Any suggetion on how to turn this back is welcome, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
how
I don't know for sure, but it sounds as if you may have syntax highlighting turned on: this is an option in the preferenced in your account. ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
ColinFine, thank you, you are a wizard. I have no idea how that was turned on from last editing to now, but it was. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
It got turned on for me too. It looks as if the powers that be have decided that syntax highlighting is good for us, and we all have to turn it off individually in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Certes (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I personally love syntax highlighting, makes editing in the Source Editor so much easier! qcne(talk) 11:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
It has its uses, and I'm sure many editors happily use it, but the quibble is with it being imposed on everyone unexpectedly and without consensus. Certes (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The preference must be initially set to something; there's no such setting as "neither with nor without". The decision for which way to set it initially was obviously not mine so I don't know what the reasons were. But when anyone says they don't like syntax highlighting, the very first answer is always to tell them how to switch it off. In my opinion it's worse if some people never find out we have syntax highlighting available, in your opinion it's the opposite, but the fact is it has to be one of those ways. I don't think it's even remotely fair to call it "imposed without consensus" when there's a switch to turn it off.
(Compare this with the image carousel "feature", which was not equipped with a visible Off switch.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@Certes After reading further, I think that by whatever kind of accident or luck I never even saw the thing you're talking about. My preferences may have been set differently to begin with, or other variables may have varied, but in any case I think I completely misunderstood you and I'm sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:16, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I also misunderstood, in that the temporary change was rolled out in error rather than as a conscious decision. Certes (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Just noting that I am another who had syntax highlighting irritatingly turned on without warning. For a moment, I was afraid my account had been compromised. Deor (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
...and another here. This is so amateurish. What is so difficult that implementors of such changes can't include, for a short time, a message saying what's been updated (and how to find out more, and how to disable unwanted new features)? Bazza7 (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Above, I strongly disagreed with the idea "imposed without consensus", and I still disagree with that. But I do agree that there should - and easily could - have been a temporary notification on the editing screen (not just in some publication) saying syntax highlighting has been implemented and the switch is just over there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:57, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! (I was never going to figure out how to fix this by myself but here is the answer and I didn't even need to ask.) RJFJR (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
This was in fact mentioned in tech news, which some editors subscribe to via their talk pages, just so that they can be made aware of this sort of change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Reminds me of "It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'" from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (But that said, I think I like the result.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Now fixed, per the same link. Certes (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
SpaceNews' reliability
Hello everyone! Is SpaceNews a reliable source? Is it appropriate to cite a SpaceNews article in a Wikipedia article? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔 02:36, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The "Stellar Dispatch" section is apparently all press releases. Press releases are always biased and there are many ways they should not be used. The articles outside of that section, the ones that have a real byline with a real journalist's name, look good to me - but you should ask people who work on space-related articles a lot. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:52, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
It appears to have a decent editorial staff and publication history, so I would assume that it's fairly reliable unless shown otherwise (excluding press releases and the "sponsored" section). Do note per WP:RS, Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything.... Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement. Some science people may be found here, or (if you don't get a response here) at one of the science wikiprojects; or perhaps at WP:RSN (the only prior discussion there is this, which isn't really much of a discussion or recent). LittlePuppers (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Apologies, I missed "you should ask people who work on space-related articles a lot." Is there anyone here with an interest in space-related articles who could provide a precise answer to my question? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔 03:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I think with two (three including you) who agree it looks good as long as you stick with the main articles and stay away from "Sponsored" and "Stellar Dispatch", you are pretty safe to start using it. (You even CAN use the press releases of Stellar Dispatch to prove minor points such as "In October 2021 the company claimed they had solved the problem".)
NO source can be declared 100% always reliable - think of the normally fine Der Spiegel and its former rogue reporter Claas Relotius - but I think SpaceNews's main articles should be treated as good to use in general. At some point someone will always argue about anything anywhere, and we must always hope that intelligent reasonable discussion will prevail in such cases. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I didn't mention my reasoning with the press releases, so in case it wasn't obvious, here it is:
While press releases are never a valid source for notability, and rarely-or-never a valid source for news, they are valid to show "they really did make that statement", so if that's all you need, go ahead. When citing a press release, always use in-text attribution such as "the company claimed in a press release" or other words politely making it clear that Wikipedia can't be sure they were telling the truth, just that they said it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I follow Space subjects obsessively. SpaceNews is a reliable source, perhaps one of the top five and far more accurate than the general press. Like all other reliable sources, you must distinguish between factual reporting, opinion, and press releases. -Arch dude (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Using unreliable sources
Hello. I want to ask whether use of unreliable sources is permitted when no reliable source is availabile for something. If so, under what policy?
Example, I've been editing articles related to TV shows for a while. All reliable sources that used to publish viewership and ratings for these shoes have shut down.
Can an unreliable source publishing these numbers be used on Wikipedia? Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Linkin Prankster, the answer is "no". If content like this is not originally published by a reliable source, then it does not belong in this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
If all the reliable sites for [something] really have shut down, then unfortunately it's true that Wikipedia will never be able to mention that [something] again - at least not until someone creates a new reliable source for it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
If the reliable site's pages are archived at the internet archive or other valid archive site, then the information on those pages can be used. The information does not suddenly become unreliable when the site shuts down. You will need to reference the archive URL. -Arch dude (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
This is certainly true. The problem would only be with new informaton that hasn't ever been in a reliable source. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I've written Template:German title hatnote which accepts two parameters for titles e.g. {{German title hatnote|Prinz|Markgraf}}. I'd like to extend this template to accept three parameters e.g. {{German title hatnote|Prinz|Markgraf|Herzog}}. How can this be done without repeating the list of titles and their translations a third time? They are already repeated twice. Joe vom Titan (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
ok i need some help with smth rq
How do i go onto that part of editing where you can see articles with spelling errors, articles needed, promotional content needing to be removed, etc so like it gives you categories like the ones i said and you can remove them via clicking on them and editing them BulgarianinCatalunya (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@BulgarianinCatalunya Perhaps you would like to try this link to WikiProject Cleanup Listings, which is based on tags people have placed on articles. The list has the advantage you can focus on topics that interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
That's the technical help page for experienced editors that describes the "Homepage" feature I referred to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:28, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I wanted to push this translation live but I receive a message that I'm not allowed since I'm not experienced enough. Then the page was published as an userpage: Page published at User:RonVanDenBoom/De Zaan
I would like to have this page published as the 'regular' English version fo the page, not as a user page. How can I proceed and have this published?
From just a quick look, it seems likely to me that the references you've used are failing to show that De Zaan is a notable company in the way that the English Wikipedia defines that. There may exist better references that you haven't used yet. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Collages of victims and NFCC rules
If an article discusses several victims, can a collage made from separate copyrighted photographs of those victims be used under NFCC? The collage would not be an original group photograph but a composite created from individual images. I am also unclear about how the "historical photograph" non‑free rationale works. It is normally used for the lead image of a biographical article, but what happens if the photograph is placed in the body of the article instead and it is an article about an event in which they died? The "other non‑free" template says the image should illustrate the subject in question, but I am unsure how this applies when an article refers to several people rather than one subject. ItsShandog (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I have uploaded plenty of single images of people whose articles are about their disappearance or killing, and the image is usually placed in the infobox. I have always used the "historical photograph" rationale for a single image of someone who is deceased. I am now unsure how this works when the image shows several victims of an event. I know there is no strict limit on non‑free images in an article, but if it is impractical to upload several separate images and the composite image is placed in the body of an article about the event in which they died, I am not sure how the rationale applies. They are deceased, but the image would not be used at the top of the article. ItsShandog (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi ItsShandog. You probably should ask about this at WT:NFCC. In general, collages of non-free images tend to not be allowed per WP:NFG since they tend to be user-created (not copyright holder created). As for "historical photgraph", these tend to be photographs which in and of themselves have been the subject of sourced critical commentary for some reason (e.g. some major award one) as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC. A photo isn't historic simpley becauce it's old. FWIW, all non-free content needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but there tends to be more leeway given to infobox images than images used in the body of an article. So, a non-free image of deceased person intended for use in the main infobox of stand-alone article about said person for primary identification purposes tends to be easier to justify in terms of relevant policy than perhaps trying to use the same image in another way or in another article altogether. Again, there's lots of nuance (case-by-case assessment) involved when it comes to non-free content use; so, it's probably better to ask about it at WT:NFCC. Finally, the license templates often used for non-free content are really just boilerplate templates intended to cover the most frequent types of non-free use; they were created by some Wikipedian and are as official as anything else on Wikipedia, i.e. not very. What matters the most is whether a non-free use meets Wikipedia's non-free content use policy regardless of what the license might say. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I will ask there. I just get confused by it, because what if a collage is already made when you save it, or if the page is about the killing or disappearance of two people and there is a side‑by‑side image of them. ItsShandog (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Collages that you can prove were already joined that way in the source, are treated very differently than a collage you put together yourself. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:52, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Restore previous version is blocked by forbidden-site error
I want to remove multiple LLM edits from Kayan, Baghlan as part of cleanup for an AI noticeboard case. However, restoring to the non-LLM version is blocked because it contained an external link to a now-blacklisted site. Is there any straightforward way to clear this up, so that I end up with a version without the LLM text and without the blacklisted site? The blacklist error message says that I need to edit out the link first, but because I am restoring, not editing, this isn't possible. I would rather not undo all the intervening edits one by one if I don't have to. M kuhner (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there's a problem. Just edit the revision you want to save, remove the offending link, and save it. What am I missing?
Also, if the site isn't on the blacklist but is instead triggering a filter, it may be possible for an administrator to save an edit with that link. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh! The warnings about "don't do this" that appear when you try to edit an old version were apparently so effective I never thought of doing it that way. Thank you. Will give it a try. M kuhner (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Actually I thought the recent version rewritten on 13 October looked pretty good, far better than this attempt by Gnomingstuff to remove AI, which looks to me like it actually retained the flowery AI prose, while the current version is more neutral and direct. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I will do a full check on this one, then, as it seems complex. This is a tough case with probable sockpuppets involved. M kuhner (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Guidance on a restricted LinkedIn account and failed identity verification
An AI generated request for tech support with LinkedIn is a first for the helpdesk. Athanelar (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello,
I’m looking for general advice about the legitimate next steps for a restricted LinkedIn account. The original account has been restricted for about two months. I’ve tried identity verification through Persona several times, but it has not succeeded, and the verification upload link provided by LinkedIn is not working. I’ve also contacted LinkedIn Support and requested manual verification.
Could anyone suggest appropriate next steps or point me to a suitable resource? I understand that Wikipedia cannot restore or intervene in a LinkedIn account, and I won’t post personal documents, account credentials, or other sensitive information here.
I realize this may be outside the scope of Wikipedia’s Help Desk, which is for questions about using Wikipedia. If so, please feel free to point me to a more appropriate venue.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dolce far niente
Hi, what do you think about the encyclopedic merit of the article Dolce far niente? There are very few sources, and little information can be found. Should it be proposed for deletion? ~2026-55687-32 (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Seems to be a pretty transparent WP:NOTDICTIONARY issue, for which it was already deleted 20 years ago. I've listed it at AfD. Athanelar (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree, it's a phrase that became sort of famous just as a phrase and there's nothing to say about it that you wouldn't already find in a dictionary. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:45, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
@Chidgk1, can I recommend this older version: User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences? It might not be as neat and tidy, but it runs by itself. It plops down a box just above the refs in the article with a list of duplicated URLs - you can then copy those and ctrl+F/find within the article text until you've tracked the duplicates down. I can confirm it's working for the article you want to work on, if that helps! Meadowlark (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
This is an area where I've been working a lot recently.
There are times where this doesn't work (for example if sources are part of a template or transcluded from other articles), but it helps a lot. Fleedre (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
That's a very (!) interesting workflow. — DVRTed (Talk) 14:20, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm a new editor and I've kind of cobbled it together from looking at other people's summaries - if there are other tools or methods that accomplish the same thing, I'd love to try it out. Fleedre (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Help me
I need two help:
How do I know that a page is patrolled by NPP or not? Any script that shows whether it is Reviewed or not.
At AfD, I have seen editors talking about "red mark", "green mark" sources. Please tell me which script shows sources in those colours.
Thanks in advance. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 04:16, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Not WP:RSP. There is a script which highlights reliable, non reliable sources in the article's reference list. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:20, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
On your first question, I asked this before and got some answers (no script, though). Helpful Cat🐈 05:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
May be in Preference settings where reviewed page shows with a Green tick mark. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I think we're talking about different things. That fulfils your second question about marking sources, but doesn't answer your first question about NPP. I'm not aware of a script that shows whether an article has been patrolled by NPP, although such a script would be great! Helpful Cat🐈 09:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Yet I am not founding the script that identifies a page is NPP REVIEWED or not. I am pretty sure that there must be a script. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 10:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Why is this a subcategory of "Category:Works about violence against women" when the category is about rape irrespective of the gender of the victim? ~2026-54123-75 (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-54123-75: It's far more common against women and I guess the huge majority of articles in the category are about women. Subcategories are a way to find related articles and should not be interpreted as claims. Category:Works about rape is also a subcategory of Category:Works about violence and Category:Works about sex crimes so it can be found by users going through the category system without entering gender-specific categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, to be fair, there is no equivalent Category:Works about violence against men. If there was, I'd say it would be reasonable to make this a subcategory there as well.. DonIago (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
But the category description explicitly state that it's gender-neutral. Making it the subcat of an explicitly gendered category goes against that ~2026-54123-75 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Belonging to categories that don't match each other is not automatically an invalid situation. "Works about rape" must stay in the "Works about violence against women" category because it is frankly stupid for it to not be there. It can and does also belong to other categories that are not like that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Glynn Edwards
you have an article about Glynn Edwards but it doesn't mention that has was also a producer and produced programmes such as Tizwas. ~2026-55979-48 (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-55979-48: That was a different person, named Glyn Edwards, with a single n. (Also the programme's name is "Tiswas".) JBW (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Possums
What should I feed it? ~2026-55809-67 (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
See Talk:Active Denial System. No archive, and has content dating back 20 years or so. Has been persistently attracting forum-type posts, which archiving might discourage a little. I'd try to do it myself if I wasn't chronically sleep-deprived and liable to mess it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I set it up; hope you manage to get some sleep! —Leaf.Sheap⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 15:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter The discussion took place many years ago, in 2010. Similarly, Calvados (brandy) receives more views than Calvados (department), yet it was recently decided to turn Calvados into a disambiguation page. The same applies to Luis Suárez. In this case, Francis Bacon (artist) also receives a significant number of views and is an important subject in its own right. I have posted a new discussion. ~2026-55615-43 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Combine 2 disambig pages if they have unique interlanguage links
Does anyone normally call an island just "Frigate"? I was surprised to see the frigate bird mentioned on the second disambiguation page, but they made it clear some people really do call the bird simply "frigate" - OK, fair enough. Just wondering if this merge is a great idea or if the merge-ability between these is maybe unclear. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
It's normal practice to list Foo Island, Lake Foo, etc. on the dab for Foo. Certes (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
As Special:PrefixIndex/frigate shows, there are loads of articles starting with the word "Frigate". Most of them are not listed on the Frigate DAB page and I don't see why you need to repeat the "Frigate island" DAB there. Maybe Frigate Island caecilian needs to go on Frigate Island, despite not being an island! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused - where are the interlanguage links? I don't see any ... Oh those! That menu on the side where you get the same article in many different languages. Those are not called interlanguage links, because interlanguage link is a template for when you need to make a wikilink to something but it's only available in a foreign language.
IF I was merging the two DAB pages (which I probably wouldn't), I would copy those other languages, delete them from where they are, and instead add them to our individual articles on each island. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:52, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I (reasonably, I hope) assumed that two different features of Wikipedia would not both be called the same name, and that if by accident or bad luck that were to happen, one of them would surely be renamed.
Can't we just rename both of them "Notability" to prevent confusion?:) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
ok, thanks everyone! Retselik (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Swindon Railway Village
I want to create an article about the Swindon Railway Village. When I search for 'Swindon Railway Village' I am directed to 'Swindon Works' and am told that an article called 'Swindon Railway Village' already exists, whereas it is just a paragraph in the Swindon Works article. The Railway Village was built to serve the Works but is a separate entity. If and when I could get a Swindon Railway Village article published I would need to edit the Swindon Works article to contain just a brief mention and a cross-reference. The Railway Village deserves a separate article. It would sit over articles about 'Swindon Mechanics' Institute', 'Health Hydro', 'Victorian Turkish baths, Swindon' and 'St Mark's Church' but would provide more detail about the Railway Village in general and about other notable buildings in the village. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm struggling to follow that advice. I'll maybe look at that again tomorrow and see I can fathom it out. Nothing seems to be straightforward on Wikipedia. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello I can see that when I searched for my state representatives that are elected they're information is on Wikipedia but I'm also an elected official and I don't see me on Wikipedia ~2026-55923-95 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
To add a couple of things to what JohnLaurens says: WP:NPOL says that politicians elected at some levels are assumed notable, but it's not clear from your description whether or not you would meet that criterion. If not, you would be notable only if you met the general notability guidelines, which are about what has been independently published about you.
Also, if you are notable in Wikipedia's sense, that means there could be an article about you. Whether or not there is an article depends on whether a volunteer editor has chosen to write one: nobody in the entire world is entitled to have an article, because articles are for the benefit of Wikipedia and its readers, not for the benefit of the subjects of the articles.
If you meet the criteria for notability, then there could be an article about you. But I'm afraid there is no effective way for you to get that to happen. You could put a request at requested articles; but such requests are not often picked up. You are permitted to write an article about yourself, but strongly discouraged, as hardly anybody has ever successfully written an article about themselves, and you're likely to be wasting your time on an unattainable goal (see autobiography).
You are permitted to ask one of your staff to try and write one, but they would need to declare themselves as a paid editor, and the chances of an inexperienced Wikipedia editor successfully writing an article are low, even without a conflict of interest. I suggest you read WP:BOSS.
Finally, now you have posted this, you may get offers to create an article about you for money: such offers are almost always scams.
My advice (to anybody who wants to get an article about themselves into Wikipedia) is that you will save yourself a lot of frustration and probably wasted effort if you forget about Wikipedia and get on with your life and career. If you are notable, then eventually somebody unconnected with you will choose to write an article about you. ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
My page
how do I make my own page i have been looking for 30min but can't find it help me Random guy4322 (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi. Do you mean your own User page, which is a page that explains who you are as a Wikipedia editor? Just click on this link to go to your currently non-existent User page, then add your content and click Publish page...qcne(talk) 16:38, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
thank you very much that's what I looked for!! Random guy4322 (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Can someone please fix picture posted for Karoline Leavitt?
Karoline Leavitt's picture is upside down on her page. ~2026-55770-83 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I noticed on the Bosch (Company) talk page, that for some reason a message wasn't being archived. Two questions on this 1) why wasn't the bot archiving it, despite later messages being archived and 2) is it okay to manually archive in these instances, as I did, despite archive pages stating "Do not edit the contents of this page". Presumably that excludes instances like these? Thanks. LateFatherKarma (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@LateFatherKarma: 1) Maybe the bot didn't like that Talk:Bosch (company)/Archives/2022 already had a section called "COI tag (September 2022)". 2) It's OK to edit archive pages for some purposes, just not to add new posts to old discussions or create new discussions. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
19 October 2026
It is okay to welcome new accounts regardless of their identity using Twinkle? Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
You may welcome whoever you wish, but we generally recommend that you welcome people after they have made an edit rather than just when they open their account.
Be aware also that welcoming people involves inviting them to contact you if they need assistance, so if you welcome thousands you may be inundated with requests for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:06, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@Rajdhani Fan Person: Many accounts are first created at a sister project and then you have to wait until they make an edit per meta:Welcoming policy which became global policy in May 2026: "A wiki is only allowed to post welcome messages to users if their account was originally created at the wiki, or the user has at least one non-imported edit there." Special:CentralAuth/Rajdhani Fan Person shows a plus at en.wikipedia.org so a welcome right away was allowed in your case. We don't normally do it but you used the requested account system and was welcomed by the account creator. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that even if it's allowed, many people don't like it and don't want it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Bias in Articles
Does anyone know how to report bias in an article to an administrator of some sort? ~2026-56080-59 (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
what is biased about it?? Munich g. lll (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Administrators don't deal with such issues; content is overseen by the consensus of the community.
As always, it would be easier to advise on a specific case, but in general, raise the matter on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as all sources of information have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. It is possible to read an article and disagree with everything presented; this is fine as long as the sources are being accurately summarized.
If the sources are not being accurately summarized, please detail how on the relevant article talk page. If the sources are accurately summarized, but in error, you will need to take that up with the sources directly, or offer more current sources with what you deem to be more accurate information. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Why do you guys allow misinformation
I don’t know why there’s a description of grapes coming from the Middle East now it didn’t it didn’t come from the Middle East. It came from Georgia that could because that’s where wine originated from you can look that up Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is not Middle East and then you guys are talking about oh Islam has a lot to do with it. It doesn’t the Romans and the Greeks were the ones who spread it all around to the Mediterranean. What are you guys talking about? Why are you guys misleading and miss lying about it? They did studies on it. It’s been proven. Dude. ~2026-55438-65 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Please discuss your concerns about an article's content on its associated talk page. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic; we try to get things right, but we don't always. We rely on volunteers. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The first section of Grape#History seems to be a good summary of the cited references. Wikipedia editors are not "misleading and miss lying", they are merely summarising already-published sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
"Georgia" as a nation is a concept that developed in the last thousand or so years. It did not exist 10,000 years ago. Similarly, the boundaries of the "Middle East" are vague and poorly defined. Boundaries of today do not really apply to 10,000 years ago. Even if modern Georgia is excluded from the modern Middle East, it is on the border. The ancient winemaking sites in present day Georgia are part of the Fertile Crescent, a Middle Eastern concept. Cullen328 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
From our Wine article: The origins of wine predate written records, and the details of the first cultivation of wild grapevines are uncertain. The earliest known traces of wine were found near Tbilisi, Georgia (c. 6000 BCE). The earliest known winery, from c. 4100 BCE, is the Areni-1 winery in Armenia. The subsequent spread of wine culture around the Mediterranean was probably due to the influence of the Phoenicians (from c. 1000 BCE) and Greeks (from c. 600 BCE). As for Islam (founded only 1400 or so years ago), what the heck has that to do with anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-55438-65 "We guys"? Most articles are written by several different people, and we don't all speak with one voice. The references are supposed to keep the authors from straying too far from what is generally accepted. As mentioned, the wine article does mention Georgia. David10244 (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Health Hydro title
An article on the Swindon Health Hydro has been published but with an unhelpful title. It is very much a part of the Swindon Railway Village and it would be helpful if the title could be changed to 'Swindon Health Hydro'. There are a number of Health Hydros around the world. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy link:Health Hydro. The first line of the article says that it is in Swindon. If there are other articles that it might be confused with, you can add a WP:HATNOTERudolfRed (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I want it to include the word Swindon partly to make it searchable both in Wikipedia and via search engines. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Why does that matter to you? It sounds as if you are engaged in promotion, which is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. (Note that "promotion" has a wider sense than in general use: if your purpose is telling the world about your subject, or what you put into an article or draft is telling the world what you/your subject want people to know about it, then that is promotion, whether it is commercial or not). ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
With its present title and the word Swindon in the opening paragraph it will still be findable for people searching for its full name.
@Mydaemonthirst One current problem is that en:Wikipedia has a redirect page at Swindon Health Hydro which goes to Victorian Turkish baths, Swindon, not Health Hydro. To my eyes, these two articles cover very much the same topic! Is there justification for having both? Each article uses an image captioned "Medical Fund Baths and Dispensary Viewed from Faringdon Road, 1905", for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
There are very real reasons for having two separate articles.
The Health Hydro article is about a building that held medical facilities, a pharmacy, two swimming pools and wash baths, as well as Turkish baths (from 1906). The hydro was built in 1891-2.
The Victorian Turkish baths, Swindon article is about Turkish baths alone and the story starts in 1860, when the GWR gave the go-ahead for the Medical Fund Society to create Turkish baths. The story of Turkish baths in Swindon is part of a set of articles about Victorian Turkish baths in general and in their various locations. There were Turkish baths operated by the MFS in Swindon for forty years before they were opened in the Health Hydro in 1906.
They need to be two separate articles in order to tell each story coherently. There is inevitable overlap because, from 1906, the Turkish baths were located in the Health Hydro.
This is an issue that has been raised multiple times and played its part in delaying the publication of the Health Hydro article. Please let the matter rest. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Did some of the source material treat both of them in the same article, making it necessary to select the passages that were appropriate to cite in each of the two Wikipedia articles?
"What the sources have joined together, let no editor put asunder" ... or words to that effect. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
While it's true there is no such literal policy, these two articles seem almost tailored to have WP:MERGEREASON apply to them in multiple ways. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
public internet
Hello, I am using shared public wifi right now. If I logged into my wikipedia account on this public wifi and somebody else using the same wifi uses it to vandalize wikipedia would my account be terminated as well because we share the same IP or am I just overthinking this? ~2026-55903-60 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Your account will not be terminated. Accounts often share wifi, for various reasons. CMD (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
As CMD said, accounts often share WiFi networks. But if you're planning to edit lots on that public network, you could always leave a note on your user page explaining that you're editing on a public network. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 02:59, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Some people also like to have an alternate account for use on public wifi if they edit on public wifi a lot. See WP:PUBSOCK. Athanelar (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
submitted drafts
Has their ever been a draft created and submitted on the life of men in ancient rome
Hey this is Mr. Cartoon Maker, an hour ago I made the foolish mistake of trying to edit someone elses page in a negative light, did I know its was wrong yes, did I still do it yes. I am terribly sorry for what I have done and if able I would like to have a second chance and edit for positive and informational reasons only. Mr. Cartoon Maker (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
You you have received warnings, but you have not been blocked. Conduct yourself appropriately going forward, and you'll be fine. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:13, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I know there might be some sockpuppetry controversy, but many major sources featured this store for being the last physical media video store in NYC. This should definitely be notable enough. I want to revise the article to remove AI content, focus on major sources, and resubmit.
I don't know the full history of this article, so I can't give complete advice, but one part is very clear: revising it is a really bad idea. If anyone successfully gets it done, it's only going to be after they Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:28, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
How long does it usually take to approve access at TWL?
Just curious, as I applied for Newspapers.com access about a week ago to improve articles like YVR–Airport station. Thanks, --ABx11 (she/they) 01:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
@ABx11 Anecdotally, when I applied for Newspapers.com access in the summer, it took about 2 weeks to be approved, so I'd expect something similar. Sashimi-b (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Awardees of the Humboldt Prize is not updated to reflect recent awardees. ~2026-55946-85 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @~2026-55946-85, if you know of articles that category should be added to, I would encourage you to add it yourself! CMD (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-55946-85: There are currently 2303 recipients and only 126 pages in Category:Humboldt Research Award recipients. Only existing Wikipedia articles can be added to a category. Add [[Category:Humboldt Research Award recipients]] to the bottom of the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Taslak inceleme isteği: Ali Ata Kavame
Merhaba, tr:Kullanıcı:Aert.12/deneme tahtası sayfasında Ali Ata Kavame hakkında bir biyografi taslağı hazırladım. Kendisiyle mesleki bir bağlantım olduğunu kullanıcı sayfamda belirttim. Bu nedenle maddeyi kendim taşımak yerine deneyimli bir editörün incelemesini ve uygun görürse madde ad alanına taşımasını rica ediyorum. Eksik veya düzeltilmesi gereken noktalar varsa memnuniyetle düzenlerim. Teşekkürler. ~~~~Aert.12 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Translation: Hello, I have prepared a draft biography of Ali Ata Kavame on the tr:User:Aert.12/deneme tahtası (sketch board) page. I have stated on my user page that I have a professional connection with him. Therefore, instead of moving the entry myself, I would like to request that an experienced editor review it and, if deemed appropriate, move it to the entry title field. I will gladly make any necessary corrections or edits. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Aert.12 Hi, this is a helpdesk for English Wikipedia. As your question seems to be about a draft at Turkish Wikipedia, you need to ask there. The Turkish equivalent of this page is tr:Vikipedi:Danışma masası.
Merhaba, burası İngilizce Vikipedi için bir yardım masası. Sorunuz Türkçe Vikipedi'deki bir taslakla ilgili gibi göründüğünden, orada sormanız gerekiyor. Bu sayfanın Türkçe karşılığı tr:Vikipedi:Danışma masası'tir. TSventon (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Support with COI request
Hello, I am looking to get some changes to the Wayflyer page through. As I have a COI, I did expect a wait time, but it has been 5 weeks since I proposed the changes. Should I be trying to request an editor to review?
I believe I am working in line with COI policy. I have disclosed my conflict, and the changes proposed are uncontroversial. The page today has lots of inaccuracies, and is not properly sourced. I have proposed a factual representation of the company with plenty of third party sources.
Is it possible I could be allowed to directly edit the page instead?
Hi @JacquelinemccarrickWF. Gently, we are all volunteers and so it is unlikely that anyone wants to take the time out of their day to do a substantial re-write of an article, the subject of which you are employed by, for free. qcne(talk) 12:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back - that's what I had expected, but I am wondering if I could just be allowed to edit directly, given I'm following the COI guidelines? The article is already written with third party sources JacquelinemccarrickWF (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Unless you have a set of sources to cite which meet all the criteria in golden rule and establish WP:CORPDEPTH, then the article is unsalvageable, and neither you nor we should waste any more time on it. ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi Colin, appreciate the extra guidance. I'm striving to do this by the book and keep it as easy as possible for the reviewers to accept changes with minimal lift on their end.
One of the current sources fits the checklist:
Carey, Brian (20 December 2025). "Wayflyer keeps feet on the ground after big loss". ''The Times''. A business column analysing the company's model, its €48m loss following a customer default - independent commentary drawn from filed accounts rather than company statements.
I'll need to get behind paywalls to find more that fit the criteria. Thanks for the pointers. JacquelinemccarrickWF (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @JacquelinemccarrickWF. I appreciate that you are trying to do this by the book, and I thank you for that.
Have you considered the possiblity that what you are trying to do is unachievable? Most companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because nothing they've done or been involved with has been noteworthy enough for independent commentators to write about it in depth. Please read WP:PAIDADVICE if you haven't already.
I tagged the original article for probable lack of notability, and another editor has followed that up by nominating it for deletion. It might survive, if somebody finds suitable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@ColinFine obviously I'll be biased, but I genuinely do thing deletion on notability grounds is harsh. It's a major Irish success story, one of 9 unicorn companies, and is mentioned on this page List of unicorn startup companies, where most companies with current unicorn status do seem to have a page JacquelinemccarrickWF (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I have examined all the sources I can access and they are genuinely all rubbish sources that do not meet our criteria at WP:ORGCRIT. We shouldn't keep articles on Wikipedia with rubbish sources. Perhaps some better sources will appear in time. qcne(talk) 17:50, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @JacquelinemccarrickWF. I understand that you think that our notability policy is harsh. However, that is a fundamental of 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.
If substantial independent sources do not exist (i.e. few or no independent commentators have been moved to publish substantial commentary or analysis on a subject) then no article is possible, however popular, or famous, or influential, or virtuous the subject. ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
It's perfectly possible that some of the articles about other companies that you mention should not exist: unfortunately Wikipedia has thousands of articles that are sub-standard (in many cases created before we we were so careful about quality): see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
The other point is that your word "harsh" suggests that you have a (very common) misconception that a Wikipedia article is in any way for the benefit of its subject. Of course, in many cases the subject does get some benefit, but that is incidental: it is of no consequence to Wikipedia whether or not the subject of an article derives any benefit from that article (or indeed derives any disadvantage from it: see WP:PROUD). This is part of what makes editing with a conflict of interest so difficult. ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
@JacquelinemccarrickWF When a company representative uses the words factual representation of the company, it really means "what the company wants people to hear". This is often strongly opposed to "what has been said by independent reporters", and is the main reason that COI editing is restricted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:37, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
If the article survives the deletion proposal, you need to break your request into much smaller chunk; see WP:COIEDITADVICE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:21, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Working on something which requires me to use AI to mimic Wikipedia text
There's a problem with our current AI signs page (I'm not going to say what it is here because I'm worried about BEANS) so I want to create an expansion of the list in my userspace. The problem is that in order to collect data, I want to use AI to create mock Wikipedia articles and analyse them for similarities. This has two issues: firstly, I don't have a spare website which runs MediaWiki code lying around anywhere, so I can't test source code, and secondly, if I try to create it off site, then there will be no templates and possibly less formatting options for the AI to cluster around. This will leave a blind spot large enough to render my project useless and the only way to get around it is to put the tests in my userspace, and I don't want to get banned for AI use or have my project immediately speedied without even starting. Is there a way that I can do this without the page getting deleted or me getting banned? ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե(Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 00:11, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I've had access to the above app for years and often use it.
A few hours ago, I went to log in and was told I'd opted not to use it, which isn't true. My page claims I still have access to XTools 1.0 and 1.2 but won't allow me to reenter.
Can anyone help?
Thanks in advance. Hushpuckena (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Okay; thanks! Hushpuckena (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Page size
The function isn't working. All it does is highlight the text without providing any stats. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
As noted below, Wikimedia Toolforge is offline. Other services may also be affected. This is likely a result of that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
@Acipencer: Not exactly sure what you mean by "use", but it's generally used for making test edits; some people decide to create article drafts in there. WP:ABOUTSAND has more info. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 14:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
check downdetector
for some reason, people are getting blocked from accessing Wikipedia and other Wikipedia products. the main page works, but you cant open any article.
can anybody tell me why this is happening? Xboxfan38 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
On Thursday, October 15, I was editing as I ordinarily do, but I found myself in an unfamiliar editor, where each Wikitext paragraph was numbered, and there was an enhanced find-and-replace feature like one expects in a word processor. I found it a bit clunky, but the next time I edited, I had the usual editor. I would like to know if there is a way to get this new editor, or to choose between editors. In case it matters, my skin is Monobook.
Then today, a new weird bug. My computer uses Windows 11 and my browser is Mozilla Firefox. For years, my editing habit is to edit and then Show preview, and then, if Show preview reveals that additional edits are necessary, I use the Back button to go back to the editing page and edit some more. Maybe once in thousands of edits, something goes wrong and my edit is lost, but this is extremely rare. But today, all of a sudden, a lot of the time, when editing a User page, when I press the Back button after Show preview, instead of going back to the editing window, I go back two screens, to the page before pressing Edit. This doesn't happen for every User page, but for any User page where it does happen, it happens every time. Please don't say, "You're not supposed to edit that way; you're supposed to continue editing on the Show preview page's editor, not to use the back button." Because my method has worked with high reliability for decades, and it worked until today. I am seeing this problem only when editing User pages, and it doesn't happen on every User page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's quite common to find situations of "The unofficial way no longer works". It's perfectly fine to continue using the Back-button solution, as long as you know it was never guaranteed to work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The latter issue may have fixed itself. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC) It's back! Anomalocaris (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The numbering was because syntax highlighting had been turned on by default. You can turn it on or off again in your preferences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
According to mw:Page Previews, if a logged-out user wishes to re-enable Page Previews, they can be enabled via the Edit preview settings link available at the bottom of any wiki page.
(It will probably say "Enable preview settings" instead of "Enable previews")
Information for logged in users is at mw:Page Previews §Logged-In Users. If that doesn't work it might be a problem with JavaScript or something. Hope that helps – Mullafacation『talk』 18:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Some things were disabled today due to PHP2Shell. It's possible Page Previews was one of them. It currently works for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Is xtools down?
Tried with a VPN and proxy and can't seem to access it. It's not registered on most downdetector stuff so I dunno. Kinda worried because of the PHP2Shell thing which might have nuked the site. Any news on what happened to it? It was working fine like two weeks ago. Asking cause there's no alternative to really view user stats. Elytrian (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Xtools is down on purpose right now because of the PHP2Shell thing, yes. It will be down until it can be patched. Athanelar (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I figured. Thankfully Wikipedia's production APIs still work. Elytrian (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
How do you fix some citations or I don't know what to do to fix the problem, so Help please
I published a page COMSEC Custodian to go with the page I was reading where the item was listed in red. When I was done it asked for a citation which I thought I listed but the page is still missing some information that I don't know how to fix. This is the 1st page that I've tried to publish. Hopefully someone knows how to fix my issue. The page with the red link is Controlled Cryptographic Item. Drkrd1 (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've copied the appearance of Controlled Cryptographic Item, which is nothing like a Wikipedia article (and I have applied a number of cleanup tags to it).
You begin by finding several places where people who have no connection with the subject or its associates or organizations have chosen to publish in-depth commentary or analysis of the subject (see WP:42).
If you cannot find several such independent sources, then you'll know that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. (I suspect that this is the case for the article I've tagged, but I haven't gone looking for acceptable sources).
If you can find several suitable sources (remembering, again, that little that is published by the organisation is relevant) then you need to effectively forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those independent sources say about it.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. I realise you create your account nearly twenty years ago, but with only seventeen edits, you are a new editor. ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Following on from the above, it looks as though you used an LLM to generate the text of the article you created; this is not allowed on English Wikipedia, see WP:NOLLM. As AI doesn't understand the core policies ColinFine has described, the articles it creates are generally flawed in similar ways to what you've found, and take a lot of work to bring up to Wikipedia standards. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
That was the first one I'd ever tried to do when I was reading that original article and had the word and read. I just clicked on it. And it took me to the page that opens up, and I guess I'm not sure if you call it the create an article page. But after I entered the information in, I wasn't copying or pasting anything, I was just trying to make sure that I guess to try it for the first time to make the when I was working on cross-reference to the article that I started with. But it still was giving me errors. So I kind of got lost on how to fix it. And that's why I posted the. Request for help. Like I said, this is the first one I'd ever tried to do. Drkrd1 (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I have no idea what an LLM is. I just typed in what the job was about. Cause I was cross, referencing what I did. Typing in the information that it was asking for concerning the original article that I was reading, the job title that's in the article that I printed is what the job title was called in the original article. But it was in red. So I knew that that meant that there was no webpage for that particular phrase or word And what the job title was called, that's all I was doing so I have no clue what an LLM is and I didn't use anything else to help me type what was in the box.
Sorry for the long reply. Drkrd1 (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I forgot to add in the above statement. I've been on Wikipedia for at least 10 years. So I'm well aware how it works. This is just the first article that I tried to create, but I've been making corrections on articles for as long as I've been on Wikipedia.
Just the original article that I was reading. It had a specific job title. But the word was in red, which I knew meant that it didn't have a page for it so I clicked on it. It took me to the page where you create the article. I just couldn't figure out how to do some of the things that it was asking for and I read the instructions and still couldn't figure it out. Drkrd1 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
When to attribute
Maybe a more appropriate question for WT:NPOV, but often I will be confronted with a source doing analysis, e.g. this event was caused by this, the identity of this writer was probably this person, and it is unclear to me when this should be attributed (according to X, the writer is probably) or stated in wikivoice (the writer is probably). Has there been guidance published on this, or prior discussions I can read? Whonting (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks @TSventon. Most of this examples don't appear applicable (these aren't, for example, matters of whether something is good or bad). The closest I see is:
N According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word pocket comes from French.[4]
Y The word pocket comes from French.
Applied here, should I understand that I should be writing "the writer is probably" rather than "according to X, the writer is probably"? Whonting (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
The kind of question I ask myself: How sure should we be that this source is telling The Truth?
In your recent example of the entry for a well-known ordinary word in a reputable dictionary, the answer is "Very sure". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Along with: Did this source intend to tell The Truth, or intend to express an opinion? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:38, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you mean by opinion here? I would assume that if what you mean by "The Truth" is "Not Lying", that would be all reliable sources (by definition). Whonting (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Ah. Sorry, you're right. Does "an absolute truth vs. an individual opinion" cover it? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Whonting, looking at your recent edits, if I found a single scholar who has identified a probable author of The Queens Closet Opened, I would probably attribute their opinion. Following WP:INTEXT, if you are "summarizing a source's position" you "may" attribute, but if "reliable sources are in consensus", you should not attribute. TSventon (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks @TSventon. I'm a bit sidetracked and looking at The Court and Kitchin of Elizabeth, which is mentioned in The Queens Closet Opened. I can publish briefly what I have - The Court and Kitchin of Elizabeth. I understand the point on reliable sources being in consensus, but yeah - the decision is whether to include information by summarizing it as source's position, or as a fact verified by an RS, without attributed. I'm not sure what considerations should be taken into account when making that assessment. Whonting (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
@Whonting: I had a look at The Court and Kitchin of Elizabeth, it is probably a work in progress, but at present it is heavily dependent on a single source. Also that source is a PhD thesis, which should be used with care, see WP:THESIS. Do you use Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which is down at the moment? Politicizing Domesticity from Henrietta Maria to Milton's Eve (pp 119 – 139) Laura Lunger Knoppers, 2011 is published by Cambridge so it may be available through TWL. Google books has more sources, I didn't check them all. Ideally it is best to find at least three in depth sources before writing the article.
Looking at your attributions, my comments (others may disagree) are
"the scholar Catherine Fields writes of the text's presentation" fine, introduces a quote
"According to Fields, Milbourne was likely", fine, this is a probability, not a fact
"Fields takes as a possible reference to the English proverb" the proverb is quoted by Knoppers as well, p 119, so I think the reference can be taken as a fact and not attributed
"described in a book written primarily by Anne Willan as "I would skip "in a book written primarily" as Willan is the main author. Also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Attributing and specifying biased statements says it is better to give factual details than biased statements. "Vicious" is not a biased opinion, but possibly not needed as the proverb about the monkey demonstrates the point. TSventon (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks TSventon. I think my question here, on whether there are reading materials I should be aware of has been answered, so I'll leave this thread here. I've left some replies to the substantive issues on my talk page, although I am happy to leave the matter of whether to attribute or not as vibes based. Whonting (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I guess there's maybe sort of a "vibe" aspect, sort of, maybe,:)
but I think it's usually clearer than that. Vibe and context are certainly not the same thing, and I would sincerely hope it's usually context. "Vibe" seems too much like relying on just your own feelings in order to reach a conclusion. Context is not necessarily traceable to any particular word in a source, but that doesn't make it less valid or less specific, just less visible. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Push-pins and the arrondissements of Paris
I've been working backwards through the bibliography of Georges Simenon's redoubtable Inspector Maigret, and I've come across an issue which to best of my knowledge hasn't been addressed: The Mystery of the Vanishing Push-pins. By way of providing the reader a sense of place—not everyone knows how Parisian geography works—maps of several scales usually do the trick. E.g., Maigret and the Informer. Click on the conveniently labeled Arrondissements of Paris or Place Adolphe-Max, however, and the numerals and the push-pin vanish, respectively. Not only is this is an annoying digital artifact, making and uploading a screenshot of what's already extant is cumbersome. In Maigret and the Dead Girl jurisdictions are an introductory plot element. How does one illustrate this without imitating Rube Goldberg? What about when and if the arrondissements are the plot point and jurisdictions come into play? kencf0618 (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
There are times when the best answer is "without using a map". I can't say if this is one of those or not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Thw first answer is "definitely not with a gallery section" because see WP:GALLERY. I have no interest in fixing it myself but maybe you can if you're proverbially "in the area" anyway.
If it would help the reader's understanding, appending a (perhaps annotated) image of a map of Paris' jurisdictions or arrondisements near the relevant text is certainly something you can do. I wouldn't use the actual street map feature because it's really just supposed to be used to identify the location of a place in its infobox. Athanelar (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
A gallery with maps ranging from small scale to large and a few salient photos are the best way to present this information; it doesn't interrupt the text and it leads the reader's eye.
Some obviously shall require more work than others! kencf0618 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Gallery is not OK; please see above. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. I think that applies here. I see what you're saying, but one or two images tastefully presented alongside the prose will do the job of explaining the geographical context of the story perfectly well for the encyclopedic audience. A full gallery section probably would help for illuminating the finer details of what happens in the story as in, helping a reader be more engaged with the plot, but that's not necessarily our goal. Athanelar (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I might even venture to reverse those words and say that's necessarily not our goal. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Citations?
Hi there community. I am trying to add what secondary school people attended - these are generally Australian based sportspeople and existing pages created by other users (I am just adding the school they attended). As per advice, the citations I have are the relevant schools official website, outlining key alumni, however the details are removed by users citing "poorly sourced". Could someone recommend how the schools official website can be used? regards in advance. AvonRSC (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
You haven't actually added a citation; if you cite the school's website, that needs to be written as a reference, please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Does anyone know how I can achieve this table result in wikitext?
Image not needed anymore, see the resulting table. Requesting deletion now
Bonus points for knowing the context (feel free to change the licenses of the image, or speedy delete it once this is resolved). Thanks! Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 04:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Hason-LEK-SIN: I guess you don't actually want surrounding columns. If you do then it changes. Below I added a height in the TFA cell to prevent the TFA/ITN overlapping row from rendering with height 0 in some browsers.
Yes, I don't need the surrounding cells. Thanks for the table! Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 08:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@Hason-LEK-SIN: I may have misunderstood your intention, but note that, in article pages at least, you should not be using tables for layout. See MOS:NOTABLELAYOUT. Bazza7 (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
It's for use in one of our internal pages (particularly our Village pump), not in one of the article pages/encyclopedia proper. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 09:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Is the Wikipedia Library down?
I haven't been able to access it for more than a day. Serendipodous 10:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, TWL is one of the casualties of the ongoing PHP updates due to the PHP2Shell incident. Athanelar (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Editing out improper unsubstantiated material
Greetings,
I'm attempting to edit the page of Blues musician Michael Coleman whose page has many improper statements and opinions. 
His story needs to be right; his page is in need of overhaul.
I was his bandmate and manager the last 12 years of his life.
His page is a disgrace to the legend he was.
Respectfully-Ben Diamond ~2026-56151-53 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-56151-53 If you were his bandmate and manager, you have a conflict of interest. This means you must register an account so that you can properly disclose your conflict of interest on your userpage. It also means you must not directly edit the article about Coleman, but must instead submit your requested changes as edit requests. Thank you. Athanelar (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
We always want every article to be as accurate as possible, but please remember:
Every single fact about someone in an article should be cited to a publishedReliable source, so that readers can, if they wish, consult the source to verify what it actually says. We are very strict about this – even if you personally know something to be true, it can't go in unless it has been published. If however it's in and not cited (as you imply), it can and should either have a valid citation added, or be removed.
A core policy of Wikipedia is to present information to readers neutrally (see WP:NPOV). This means including information (if it has been published) that might be negative, as well as positive, in a balanced way. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and must not be used as a means to promote, or enhance the image of, or otherwise benefit the subject of the article.
Published opinions of qualified commentators are, if attributed to those commentators, valid inclusions provided they are not cherrypicked to provide an unbalanced view. Taken overall they should reflect the balance of opinions in all published sources. No opinions should be presented "in Wikipedia's voice" as if they are established facts. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy link: G. V. N. Raju --Finngall talk 16:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Previous discussion: WP:HD#Standards and guidelines for video game lists 
Courtesy ping: Pictwarrior
Resolved
User already asked this at the Teahouse. Please ask a question at only one venue to prevent duplicating user effort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC) 
– Mullafacation『talk』 18:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word pocket comes from French.[4]
The word pocket comes from French.