Wikipedia:Help desk#Classes

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

Hi, I started editing Wikipedia about two days ago. I’m reading the guidelines and trying to learn properly. I’m also a digital artwork creator and have uploaded some of my creative work to Wikimedia Commons. As a new editor, can I help by improving articles or giving feedback, and is it possible to become a page reviewer later? ButterflyCat (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you so much, and welcome to the community! You absolutely can improve articles. You don't have to be a page reviewer to do that, such as by formatting pages per the manual of style, adding citations, or copyediting. You can also give feedback on talk pages of articles or drafts, or talk pages of users who create them. If you have a good track record for this, you can request the permission so you can "patrol" pages so they are indexed on search engines like Google! There are many things to do on Wikipedia, feel free to see the Dashboard for some tasks you can help out with. jolielover♥talk 11:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I’ll focus on improving articles and learning the process first. ButterflyCat (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ButterflyCat When you upload any work to Commons, you are agreeing to license that work under one of the Creative Commons licenses. I believe that allows anyone to reuse your work for any purpose (with attribution). There are other details (that I'm not too familiar with); if you are OK with this, then great. If not -- you may want to take your work down.

If I have misstated any of this, I'm sure another helpful editor can clarify. David10244 (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I will review the licensing terms again to ensure I am comfortable with the reuse permissions. ButterflyCat (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page reviewers review pages and edits; however they may edit. You don't have to be one, @ButterflyCat. What you are doing right now (editing, I assume?) is good enough. If you want to be extended confirmed later, then that's entirely different! Purplemaker (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pageview statistics appear not to have run this morning (UTC), 9 February. Has this been discussed or reported anywhere? TSventon (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: I guess you mean https://pageviews.wmcloud.org. There is a report today at meta:Talk:Pageviews Analysis#Feb 8, 2026 - Not showing numbers for views of any page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The report seems to be working today, 10 February. TSventon (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview statistics appear not to have run again this morning (UTC), 13 February and have been reported again at meta:Talk:Pageviews Analysis#Feb 8, 2026 - Not showing numbers for views of any page. TSventon (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For different types of English used in quite a few articles, we often use "'s" for singular nouns such as "Charles's" (which I've added to) from Rise of the Planet of the Apes (since this is an American film, for reference, one of the plot section quotes reads Charles's condition returns as his immune system becomes resistant to ALZ-112.).

However, I have a general question: on other articles, should we use the "'s" for singular nouns for different forms of English (i.e. British, Australian, etc.)? Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is an apostrophe, not a comma. Its placement is decided by how the possessive is pronounced as well as the variety of English in use. The Oxford Manual of Style says US English is more likely to support ... genitive possessives ... with British English tending instead to transpose the words and insert "of": e.g. "the effects of the catharsis" rather than "the catharsis' effects". There is more information the apostrophe article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, yes; see the WP:Manual of style (not the Oxford) at MOS:POSS. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira: Sorry about that. I've corrected the header. Also, Mathglot, thanks for the response on this.

Anyway, for the plural names of a family, should the "'s" format be used when they have an "s" in them like the Kongs in Donkey Kong 64 or the Flintstones from The Flintstones? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the plural of a surname when it's not possessive, there must not be any apostrophe, and an s must be added even if there already was one - if the name already ends in s, stick in an e for padding. "The Burnses were here yesterday, but the Flintstones, the Joneses, and the Smiths were not".

(Fred's actual family name is Flintstone, not Flintstones.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Assuming it is the family pet, not Fred's alone, thus the Flintstones's pet.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathglot (talk • contribs) 00:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are compliant with MOS if you code Kongs's and the Flintstones's pet, Dino, but if that grates on your ears, just reword to avoid it. Mathglot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Also, to @Mathglot: you might have forgotten to date your comment by mistake, so I've done the honors. We all make these mistakes from time to time. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that S Jones's edit's timestamp addition is appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the possessive/genitive singular, isn't the norm for most names ending in -s to just use an apostrophe by itself? That is, Charles' not Charles's. – Scyrme (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scyrme, no. Wikipedia uses the Wikipedia:Manual of style. See MOS:POSS. Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know Wikipedia uses the MOS, I just don't have every guideline and shortcut memorised. Looks like the MOS recommends that in cases where the final S would be omitted, the text should instead be rephrased so the suffix isn't necessary, though you're right that it doesn't omit the S when the suffix is used rather than avoided. Strange that the only exception is for abstract nouns preceding the word "sake", rather than just abstract nouns consistently. (I know it's to preserve common idioms; I still think it's strange.) – Scyrme (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(We could potentially cause Wikipedia to implode just by a little creative marketing of Japanese liquor, for Goodness Sake.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to add the following sentence to the Wikipedia article on the song "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You":

The main repeating bass line in the Led Zeppelin version uses the same sequence of relative note intervals and relative note durations as the main repeating bass line at the start of the verse of the 1966 Summer in the City (song) by The Lovin' Spoonful.

To my mind, just listening to the first 7 seconds of Led Zeppelin's version of "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" and the first 14 seconds of The Lovin' Spoonful's "Summer in the City" makes it very clear that the above statement is true. But I'm not allowed to just state that?

I found a Facebook post by some guy 3 years ago who made the same point (using less precise wording than my statement uses). So if I just included a link to that less precisely worded Facebook post, then I could add my above sentence to the Wikipedia article on the song "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You"?

Please let me know. Thanks a lot. Bjdpc (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No original research is a central policy of Wikipedia: we don't write based on our own thoughts and findings, but based on those of reliable sources. A "Facebook post by some guy" is not a reliable source. Unless some reliable source has commented on this, I don't think Wikipedia should include it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do not include random facts in Wikipedia articles simply because they are true. The question is not whether someone can verify that fact by listening to the song, but rather why we should mention such a random piece of trivia at all?

The need for reliable sources is twofold; firstly to verify the information, but also to demonstrate to us that the information is significant enough for reliable sources to have commented on it. For example, you'll notice that Wikipedia biographies don't tend to make a point of mentioning peoples' hair or eye colour even if these things are easily 'verifiable' merely by looking at their photos.

And as mentioned, some random facebook post is not a reliable source. Athanelar (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, the first time that a particular bass line which ends up being a major part of three major rock hits (Summer in the City, Led Zeppelin's Babe I'm Gonna Leave You, and Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4", in chronological order of release) is a significant piece of information. This is because whoever "first" came up with that bass line should perhaps get a little extra "credit", since it's probably more likely that they initially composed that bass line, and probably more likely that subsequent uses of it were due to those later musicians having heard the initial "hit" that used it (in this case, the number one hit "Summer in the City"), and then incorporated it into their own song later. (I realize that this may not have been true for Jimmy Page.) Thanks to Cullen328 below, I now have a reference for what I was saying. Now I just need to find a reference that also discusses "25 or 6 to 4" using that same bass line (in a very major way, even)! Bjdpc (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'Significance' is not our criteria for inclusion but rather 'notability,' i.e., whether a subject and information about that subject has been discussed in reliable sources. Notability generally should follow from significance; if a piece of information is truly significant, then one should expect that somebody would have written about it, as in this case. Athanelar (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is just false. WP:N is about article topics. Not what facts are included in existing articles. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N dictates we can only create articles about subjects that are covered by RS, by summarising the information available in those RS. QED, facts included in existing articles can essentially only consist of those things that are covered by the same RS that demonstrate the subject's notability (aside from the limited WP:ABOUTSELF case, but that doesn't apply here.) Any claim of a fact's 'significance' must necessarily be supported by a secondary RS, which is also part of the subject's notability. Athanelar (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you still have it wrong. While your first sentence is correct, the next one (starting QED) is false. Sources in an article by no means have to be among those that establish its notability; that is just wildly off base. Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find where well-known reporters from trusted publications thought this was important, like it got serious coverage in a Rolling Stone article or whatever, then there would be more of a chance of putting it in. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bjdpc, I found a 2016 book called Experiencing the Rolling Stones: A Listener's Companion that also discusses other songs of that era. Take a look at Note 19 that makes a comparison of these two performances similar to the one you made. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Cullen328. I really appreciate you finding that reference. Now I just need to learn how to insert that reference in my statement. (Sorry - I'm almost completely new to editing Wikipedia.) Is it trivial to do that? If so, could let me know what I should insert in my listing, and if not, could give me a link to the part of the Help section that discusses that. If so, thanks a lot. And thanks again for the reference. Bjdpc (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Help:Citing sources. Based on what the article Babe I'm Gonna Leave You already uses, you should use a template like {{cite book}}. So you would add something like <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |title= |publisher= |year= |page=}}</ref>, with the relevant information after each equals sign (last and first are respectively the author's last and first name), after the statement that you want this source to support. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m running for U.S. Senate. How to get my profile on Wikipedia? ~2026-93391-0 (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn’t made up of “profiles” like LinkedIN, Wikipedia biographies of living people are about people who have enough secondary and reliable sources to be written about (and must be notable enough), holding a public office can demonstrate notability but you’ll have to hold the public office first, and then you would also have to state your conflict of interest as the subject, meaning you can only put verifiable information on the article (which you can make via AFC although autobiographies aren’t advised). The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Profile ("A summary or collection of information, especially about a person") is a perfectly ordinary word for someone to use about a Wikipedia biography. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edit

Interesting debate on the meaning of profile, but an unhelpful digression for the user question

s 21:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC) Profile indicates it is made by the person, and made to be about the person in a promotional way, I have seen many many users on Wikipedia critique others for using “profile” or “my page” The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] "Profile indicates it is made by the person"—It does not. "made to be about the person in a promotional way"—It does not. See wikt:Profile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] "Profile" has more than one meaning. One of them certainly is something like (off the top of my head) "a collection of information about a person, often but not necessarily including their photograph, curated and maintained by that person or their representatives, to be displayed to the public". I didn't look at Wiktionary, but if one of its definitions isn't recognizably similar to that, then it's only because no one has added it yet. Absence from Wiktionary isn't conclusive. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Even if someone did add that definition to Wiktionary (feel free to try that), it still won't invalidate my statements and it won't demonstrate that that was what was meant in this case. WP:AGF has not yet been rescinded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I’m just stating what I have seen others say about the word “Profile“ it seems the original use of the word profile would fit, but what the word has turned into wouldn’t exactly (the meaning of “profile” in the public conscious appears different to the meaning in actual dictionaries, which does happen from time to time). The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The word has not "turned into" anything and it's original meaning remains valid. What you apparently misunderstand the word to exclusively now mean is not "the meaning of 'profile' in the public conscious", but one of several meanings, and far from the usual or commonest one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don’t misunderstand the word, I understand the meaning, but words do change in meaning, look at the French words which are slightly different in English, Sympathique isn’t the same as Sympathetic despite the latter coming from the former, among other words. I was just pointing out that profile can put a different idea into someone’s head, mainly due to internet profiles which have somewhat changed how we perceive the word “profile”. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Do not assume that the negative idea the word put into your head is the one meant by the enquirer, when other reasonable and positive interpretations are reasonably possible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] It’s not a negative idea, profiles work in certain places. Perhaps the user instead wants a picture of the side of their head on Wikipedia. We simply don’t know until they clarify. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You have repeatedly insisted, without a shred of evidence, that the enquirer wishes to do things which would be in breach our policies. Of course that's a negative interpretation of what they actually said Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I never said it was bad they wanted a profile, just that it isn’t really what Wikipedia is made of, I wasn’t taking them to be negatively wanting to do something, just correcting them that Wikipedia isn’t a form of LinkedIN which is a common misconception. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] By indicating they are a US Senate candidate, they strongly suggest they want a "profile" here to enhance their campaign, not improve Wikipedia. AGF hasn't been violated here. You may be correct about the dictionary definitions of the word, but that is not how many people use the word in my many years of experience here. Many people equate "Wikipedia article" to "social media profile". This may be incorrect, but it happens nevertheless. By describing this we're trying to steer people towards knowing what exactly articles are- summaries of what has been written about them, not necessarily what they want to say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The reason they want to be included in Wikipedia may be what you suggest, but even if so it does not mean that they want something "made to be about the person in a promotional way" or "curated and maintained by that person or their representatives", and it is an egregious failure to AGF to assume that they do when they have said or done nothing to that effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] All very interesting, but not useful for resolving the user question. Collapsed. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a mere candidate you would not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN, unless you already hold elective office or are more broadly a notable person- notable for something other than being a candidate. And even of you were, you or people associated with you shouldn't be the ones to write about you, see autobiography policy and conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article on a politician can only be drawn from how reliable independent publications have analyzed their career in politics. A candidate has no career in politics (yet). Wikipedia's article about any person is to document what the public already knew about their career. (Using myself as an example, the public knows nothing of my career, so there couldn't be an article about me. It's not a platform for me to tell about myself.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Getting elected will probably do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Getting elected to the United States Senate would definitely do it. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi how can i add the translation of this page in german in englih ? I don't think i have the editor right or how can i submit it to be translated ? thank you Jojoraebbit (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

de:Alex Márquez (Filmeditor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojoraebbit (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jojoraebbit.

The German article de:Alex Márquez (Filmeditor) is not sourced adequately for an English Wikipedia article, so a direct translation will not be acceptable. The one existing source may be usable, but it is presumably a tertiary source: we generally require at least three reliable secondary sources, each meeting all the criteria in WP:golden rule.

In English 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.

So in order to create an English article on Marquez, it will be essential to find at least two more sources which meet all the criteria, and then write an article based entirely on those reliable independent sources. It may be possible to translate parts of the German text, but if that includes information which is not in those reliable independent sources, those parts should not be in the English text; so it is likely to be more effective to treat the English article as a new article, and use Articles for creation. ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jojoraebbit, I agree with Colin. It may be necessary to ignore the German article (except for background, and maybe some references) and just write the article from scratch, rather than translate existing content. See Help:Your first article for how to proceed. Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried to update our charity page but it got rejected, all I did was upload the updated logo and description Chiva75863 (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all, welcome to wikipedia. I was the one that reverted your edit, because the language you used appeared to be promotional in tone. Dark-World25 (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm happy if you want to keep the text the same - all I did was change it to the description we currently use on our website home page. But the logo/image is our old one and needs to be changed Chiva75863 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, feel free to change the logo. Apologies for reverting that. Dark-World25 (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiva75863 As the logo you added does not appear anywhere on the charity's website (ie with the strapline), I have uploaded the updated logo as found on the website. I have also moved the article to the charity's current name, and reverted the odd change you made to add a "display title" to a redirect - but things like redirects are obviously complicated and difficult for a completely new editor to understand. I think the charity now has the correct incoming redirects - from the old/long name, and from the CAPS version. I note that the Charity commission still uses the long form of name, and does not even mention "Chiva" as a "working name" as is done for many other charities. PamD 15:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiva75863 And the text you added was copied from the charity's home page but not sourced to anywhere. The original version of the page, which I created around the time of that long-ago royal wedding, listed the "aims" and directly cited the charity's "aims and objectives" page. Over the years various edits had managed to separate those bullet points from any sourcing, and indeed they seem to have disappeared from the website, being replaced by the two paragraphs you copied. I've now replaced your paragraphs in the article, but showing clearly that the text is quoted verbatim and showing its source, the home page. PamD 15:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dark-World25 for info. PamD 15:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You say our charity page. You have two misunderstandings. Firstly, it is not "yours"; it is a Wikipedia article about a topic (in this case, some charity). Secondly, it an article, not a page.

"Pages" are things on websites and social media. If that website and media are yours, then they are "your page". But that's not Wikipedia. Indeed, if you are closely associated with the topic that needs editing then, although others may edit the article, you probably should avoid editing it directly yourself, but instead make well-sourced edit requests at the talk page. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. Hope that helps clear things up. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a page; it even has links in the sidebar saying "Page information" and "Cite this page". It will be reviewed by "New pages patrol". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As Andy Mabbett has pointed out, Feline Hymnic, even according to Wikipedia's own terminology a Wikipedia article is a page. And, as you concede, "Pages" are things on websites and social media; so since Wikipedia's articles are things on on the website wikipedia.org, for Wikipedia to call them pages is hardly surprising. As for the claim that a page/article about some organization is not theirs, this would fly in the face of the Standard English use of the genitive. My page/article isn't the page about me, but this is ruled out simply because you have no reason to think that such a page exists. But it could be the page/article to which I recently devoted much time, the page I'm complaining about, the page I seem to be obsessed with, the page I'm helping push to FA. And if it did turn out that there was a page about me, "my page" could mean that too. WP:BLPN currently has mentions of "Siddiqui's article" (i.e. Aafia Siddiqui's article; en:Wikipedia's article on Aafia Siddiqui) and this subject's article" (i.e. Jamie Shea's article; en:Wikipedia's article on Jamie Shea); I'm happy to report that nobody has yet popped up to trumpet any delusion about some implication that Siddiqui/Shea "possesses" the respective article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pam D for updating it for me, and for everyone's advice. As a small charity I just wanted to make sure the information was up to date to benefit our support users. I apologise I am not very clued up about Wikipedia - I didn't mean to cause any offense to anyone or break any rules. I'm happy to close my account on here now the "article" is up to date. Have a great day everyone. Chiva75863 (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiva75863 Please stay around and if there is news about Chiva, or changes needed to the article, comment on its talk page giving references so that someone else can update the article/page. And now that you've dipped a toe into editing, perhaps see if there are other articles which you could improve or update, backed up with reliable independent published sources: perhaps your home town, interests, or HIV topics? PamD 16:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are non-administrators allowed to make public comments on ANI? And if so, how should it be formatted? (I hope I'm asking the question at the right place) TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 16:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but this is certainly a good place to be asking. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you have a relevant point to make, @TheClocksAlwaysTurn. I just use "Reply" as on any other talk page. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Just make a normally-formatted comment, like any other contributor to the discussion. Some people like to add '(Non-administrator comment)' or similar to their posts, but this is neither required, nor in my opinion particularly helpful. WP:AN and WP:ANI are for discussion of topics where admin intervention may prove necessary (i.e. to impose blocks etc). They are not places where admins alone determine for themselves how issues should be dealt with. Admins are given their tools to assist the community with ensuring the proper functioning of the project, but it is down to the community as a whole to determine, after discussion, what action may be required.

If you do post on the admin noticeboards, try to be concise and on topic, and to provide diffs etc when necessary. It helps a lot to get your posts taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may find {{Non-admin comment}} useful, in particular its documentation, as well as try to study the norms of the page. Wikipedia:ANI advice does not apply to this question, but may be informative. Do note that excessive interest in ANI is rarely found to be a positive. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an adminstrator who has been active at WP:ANI for many years, I want to say that productive comments by non-administrators are always welcome. Productive comments are those that analyze the actual evidence or present new evidence, that are based on a solid understanding of policies, guidelines and behavioral norms, and that encourage de-escalation of disputes and reasonable solutions, instead of inflaming matters. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking as a non-administrator who's been about on Wikipedia for a fair old time too, I'd have to suggest that we generally prefer comments by admins that 'analyze the actual evidence or present new evidence, that are based on a solid understanding of policies, guidelines and behavioral norms'... etc, though we don't always get them. I don't consider it particularly helpful to imply that admins are somehow immune from some of the problematic behaviour we see at WP:AN/WP:ANI. We really don't need 'us and them' distinctions on noticeboards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, I did not intend to imply that administrators never engage in inappropriate behavior there. Some of us ocasionally miss the mark. The question was about non-administrators commenting and that is what I tried to address, but your clarification is appreciated. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, why would you want to? ANI, otherwise known as the WP:CESSPIT, is a time-sucking drama board. I try to ignore it as much as I can but occasionally get pulled in against my will when necessary. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, digging into dreary nuts and bolts of problems and trying to be help make sense of things is something I find quite appealing. So it is certainly possible! And I like to believe I may have even been useful at times, though I can't deny the possibility it's just that I've never been quite objectionable enough to warn or sanction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just like drama :shrug: (It's me, I'm people) mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

on Horace Mann School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Special:Diff/1338002736

First time editing.

What specifically is missing a title?

I also can't get the map to update to the address I loaded, and now see a citation which goes to a different link than what I thought I pasted in. Under Enrollment, I pasted in an updated source, but that URL links to a citation number which goes to a different URL.

Can I get some pointers? Sorry to have misfired on all this.

Thanks, IterantFocus (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IterantFocus. According to the cited website, an appropriate title for the first reference is "School Name: Horace Mann School For The Deaf Hard Of Hearing". That should be placed in the "title" field of the citation template. You should fill as many fields as is practical. Some fields can be left blank such as the author fields for an unsigned article or the date field for an undated article, but the title is considered so important that the template generates an error message if the title field is left blank. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the direction! Ultimately when I looked in code instead of the visual editor I saw what I must have dropped out when I made my edits.

Is there any chance you can help me with why the map doesn't agree with the address? I don't see anything suggesting how it's pulling a dated address. Could it just be a caching issue? IterantFocus (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IterantFocus, I am not adept at mapping data. If another editor does not comment, please try Village pump - technical. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Template:Infobox school, it appears that you need to provide coordinates, not just a street address. It may be pulling an outdated address from Wikidata, but again, this is not one of my strong points. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was pulling the location from the "coord" template at the bottom of the page. I moved the coord template up into the infobox (not necessary, but it's easier to find) and changed the coordinates to match the address. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks so much!

I appreciate both the solutions, and learning more about how this all works. I hope to keep learning and contributing! IterantFocus (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a procedure for drafting a template?

I looked at WP:Namespace and it only lists Draft: and Template:, but not something like Template draft:. I'm unsure what the appropriate namespace is for an experimental template, particularly one which may otherwise get automatically categorised into a maintenance category as having errors due to its being incomplete.

I know I can sketch things out in a user sandbox, but it's difficult to experiment & troubleshoot without being about to insert the template into a user page to test if it works properly and responds to parameters as intended. – Scyrme (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Scyrme. Help:Templates#Examples suggests using the template sandbox. ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that suggestion is for if you want to try out the examples/markup used by that help page, rather than if you want to work on a new template. The template sandbox is good for short experimentation, but I was looking for something suitable for longer term project. (The sandbox is shared, so isn't reserved for a single project and gets wiped every 12 hours.) – Scyrme (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scyrme, you are correct. You can develop it in your user space, as a WP:User subpage. Mathglot (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't understand your point about difficult to experiment & troubleshoot . I test templates all the time that are in my user space; what difficulty are you having, exactly? You can create a test cases page with a range of tests, and refresh the page every time you tweak your test template, and see if that broke or fixed anything. Is that what you mean? Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: How would I insert the template into a test page? Usually to insert a template you would add {{TEMPLATENAME|parameter1=some|parameter2=thing}}, but since the template isn't in the template namespace that doesn't work. – Scyrme (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scyrme, just as you showed above, with the full pagename including namespace and full path where you wrote TEMPLATENAME. The software only looks for a template in template space by default when you do not provide a namespace, but when you do provide one, then it looks there. Here's one in my user space:

Feb 1312,398

Does that help? Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank-you! I didn't know it was possible to override the namespace for curly braces. – Scyrme (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I done edits on James Dean's page using p.m. because I thought it was preferred in American English but someone reverted it and said MOS:PUNCT and I can't see what they're referring to there as many pages use p.m. it isn't as common in British English but the page I done was American English any clarity on this would be helpful or if someone could explain what he was pointing out to me. Thank you ItsShandog (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TIME doesn't specifically mention it, but its acceptable examples show both a.m./p.m. and am/pm.

That said, MOS:RETAIN applies here; i.e., there's generally no need to make these kinds of stylistic changes to the form of English used if one style has already been established in the article. Athanelar (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I always was curious why not just use 24 hour time like the rest of the world? Most Americans understand it too, as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Americans with military experience are accustomed to it, but other Americans often stop reading at that point to decipher the "real" time. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"If you're lost, subtract 12" seems simple, but when I've "helpfully" said that, I've seen mostly blank stares in return. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, many Americans don't (or pretend not to) or complain about the use of what they call "military time". How much of this is genuine and how much is rage baiting I'm not sure. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've never experienced it as rage baiting. I've seen total incomprehension, and I've seen un-ironic "why bother learning fancy tricks when I'm already using the system everyone knows". But this is from Canadians, who are (at least by stereotype) less inclined toward rage baiting.

(Note: Canadians whose daily language is French use 24-hour time, both habitually and officially.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wit TMF. It's genuine. I got used to 24-hour time elsewhere, and when living in the U.S. (or communicating with Americans) I would get blank looks when using 24-hour expressions. Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do think 12 hour should be the default for articles that have ties to US/Canada, seeing as they (outside the military) almost exclusively use that. Its common in the UK where my phone says 17,00 and the shop sign saying that it closes at 4,30 pm on Sundays. Its a normal life in the UK using both systems simultaneously, just like having to deal with mph and metres. And times are said in the 12 hour format (even when reading form 24 hour) except in the context of railways. JuniperChill (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm visiting Singapore at the moment, and noticed that while everything is metric, residential real estate is still referenced in square feet. They also use 24-hour or AM/PM simultaneously.

I disagree that 12 hour should be the default for US/Canada articles. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TIME first bullet-point does specifically mention that either with or without periods is acceptable. I think MOS:STYLERET is the more specifically relevant guideline about not changing from one to another acceptable style without good reason, and MOS:DATEVAR is good precedent too for being consistent within any one specific article. DMacks (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I've been having long-time problems with a user using multiple IP addresses. Their most recent edits regard Bosnian footballer Ermin Bičakčić. They have removed relevant content (contract info about him signing for a new club, an image, as well as a separate part about his new club because the "club is not relevant enough and [he] is nearing the end of his career", which is an incredibly subjective and illogic reason). He has also changed the access-date and language format which is currently in use in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia. They have done this to multiple former Bosnian national team players' articles. Evidently their main account has been blocked due to some reasons, and for years they've been evading furhter blocks by using multiple IP addresses. I do not intend to edit war with them, while trying to discuss anything with them on any players' talk page is, unfortunately, not going to work (I've tried before). They are just incredibly stubborn, and their edits are not contributing to anything. What should I do? Bakir123 (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakir123 The sequence of edits, all from different temporary accounts, suggests that if this is a single individual they are "clever" in having their device(s) associated with different accounts. The simplest thing to do is to request page protection at WP:RPP. The somewhat more complicated thing would be to take it to WP:ANI but I don't think that would help much in this instance given how many accounts are involved. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. Thanks! Bakir123 (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the post is not making live and its under sandbox for days! Mavelogicbuilder (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mavelogicbuilder That's how things are meant to work: your sandbox is entirely for you unless you take action to submit its contents as a draft article. I have added a template to allow you to do that. However, this would be an instant "fail" as your draft has no inline citations, so fails the verification policy. Please read Help:Your first article carefully, as well as the advice about conflicts of interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, this would be an instant "fail" they did in fact go ahead and instantly submit it anyway, by the way. Athanelar (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mavelogicbuilder.

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.

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) 16:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted anyway, obvious AI slop, unreferenced promo for a non-notable company, and a likely undisclosed COI. @Mavelogicbuilder please read the comments above carefully Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all

Today I noticed an edit on a page where the reference had '?utm_source=chatgpt.com' at the end of the URL. This makes me wonder how many contributors are using AI chatbots as ways to collate information and sources for Wikipedia.

1. Does anyone know of any studies on this?
2. Is there any way to search the raw wikitext of Wikipedia to see how many times URLs with some kind of sign the source was suggested by AI? Eg ?utm_source=chatgpt.com
3. Are there any bots on Wikipedia which would remove these signs eg removing ?utm_source=chatgpt.com from the reference URLs?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. There's this great piece by WikiEdu

2. User:Gnomingstuff has lots of great tricks for scraping for AI-generated content. I think they have pings off but you could ask at their talk page.

3. No, nor would we want one; AI editing is discouraged and under steadily-increasing restrictions, and fingerprints like this are important tools to catch it.

You might be interested in WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup also. Athanelar (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

John Cummings, 2) Yes: this search link will do what you want, and gives a number of 3,156 presently. Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ROLEXMEENA (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ROLEXMEENA: Could you provide more information? Like at least linking to what you mean by "Hindi Wikipedia articles"? We're on the English-language Wikipedia so there are no articles in the Hindi language here. Are you talking about the Hindi-language Wikipedia? Or do you mean something else? – Scyrme (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ROLEXMEENA: I see you also edit Hindi Wikipedia, helpers here will mostly know about English Wikipedia. You may not have permission to move a page, see the last section of hi:विकिपीडिया:स्थानांतरण. If you have more questions you could ask at hi:विकिपीडिया:चर्चा स्थल. TSventon (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ROLEXMEENA: Please give an example page and check that you are logged in. Does hi:Special:MovePage/खरही, पाटी तहसील give a move form? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1338179357

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Turtleturtle00 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you use the "cite web" template, you have to include |title=Our Football Page - using whatever is the real title of that webpage. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The title Orne (river) seems ambiguous, since Orne (Moselle) is also a river. Should the disambiguation be more specific? ~2026-10033-19 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-10033-19 Each of these two articles has a WP:HATNOTE to the other one and there is also Orne (disambiguation), so I don't think that there is a problem. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. However, the title Orne (river) is still inherently ambiguous, since Orne (Moselle) is also a river, and the disambiguator "river" does not distinguish between them. Hatnotes and the disambiguation page help navigation, but a more specific disambiguator in the title would be clearer. ~2026-98545-5 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved them to River Orne (Normandy) and River Orne (Moselle) (and provided Orne River (Normandy) and Orne River (Moselle) as redirects, since there is no particular reason to use one or other order in articles about France). ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine Also, River Orne is currently a redirect; should it be converted into a disambiguation page, since it can refer to both Orne rivers? ~2026-10003-22 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; and Orne (river) should redirect to the disambiguation page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected it to the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I put a request in the abortion article talk page for a change in the paraphrasing which I believe is most consistant with the rules. Someone replied with an essay which I believe wasn't relevant, so I explained that. However, other than this there hasn't been a reply. Abortion is a very prominent topic, and I'm sure many people are watching that page, so how come there haven't really been any replies to this? And how should I proceed? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I commented. The lack of positive responses to your idea could be for different reasons, but it's certain that you don't currently have the option to go ahead. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I chimed in, for what it's worth. You should still leave it to consensus in this case and it is currently against you. I would advise maybe contributing somewhere else since that article is hell on earth to manage and we tend to be extra protective of it because people with agendas like to very subtly change things to fit an agenda, and this is arguably one of the most important articles to keep free from that mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind helping out with the article, however, I assume only the top sources are required for such an article, and I'm not sure if I'll have access to those.

Also, do you have evidence that a large amount of people are secretly manipulating the article on purpose for an agenda?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Help, I attempted several times to login using my User Name: "GSR Soc" and password without success. I requested a "forgot password reset" expecting advice sent to my email but received nothing. I checked 24 hours later - still nothing. Please can you assist? Many thanks :) ~2026-99853-4 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-99853-4: There is no user account by that name. This is the English Wikipedia, a Wikimedia wiki. Is that where you think you have an account? There are many unrelated wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they mean User:GSRsoc? Capitalization and spacing matter in user-names. DMacks (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it worked - many thanks :) ~2026-10121-01 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is such wrong remark about Mohammad Reza the Hing Of Iran. it is important that you a fat check - the intnerview with Oriana Fallaci that it is referred to in the wikipedia .

the interview about women was as follow, not what you allowed to be read here - nothing about dispicable claim of sex object. pleaser correct .

During a 1973 interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, she challenged him directly on his comments about women. In that interview, he made statements suggesting that women had not produced major creative or political achievements comparable to men. Fallaci strongly objected and confronted him. ~2026-99083-6 (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-99083-6, That is already in the article, or words to that effect, in section Mohammad Reza Pahlavi § Onset of the Cold War. Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I think what they mean is they object to the preceding bit Mohammad Reza often spoke of women as sexual objects who existed only to gratify him because they interpreted it as being what she vehemently objected to his attitudes towards women refers to.

However, I'm unsure whether that's the intended interpretation. It may be that the reference cited mentions both that he objectified women and that he was confronted in an interview about his attitudes towards women, but not that he necessarily objectified women in the interview itself or that Fallaci confronted him about objectification, rather than about asserting that women had not produced major creative or political achievements comparable to men.

I don't have access to the reference so can't check which interpretation is closest to what it states, nor if it provides the extra detail about the nature of his statements in the interview provided by 2026-99083-6. – Scyrme (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible. Let's wait and see if they clarify. Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OP, please note that we do not refer to anyone as a "Great King" in discussions among Wikipedia editors. This Pahlavi's title was "Shah" in reliable English language sources. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weeeeell, if someone wants to call Mohammad Reza Pahlavi "Great King" on a WP-talkpage, I can't think of a guideline etc against it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be advised against though since it very clearly states your lack of neutrality mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I might start calling all articles I talk about as "Great King". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through the naming conventions and I noticed that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) wasn't in the subcategory for the arts, so I added it. When I went to remove the base category I couldn't find it anywhere on the page nor could I use HotCat to remove it. Is there any reason for this? Drowssap 18:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's being applied by {{Subcat guideline}}. – Scyrme (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I went ahead and fixed it for you. You can compare the diffs in the history to see what I changed. – Scyrme (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this: Special:Diff/1338359292/1338360993? --CiaPan (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Encyclopedia Britannica's list of abortion laws by state changing all mentions of "woman" to "pregnant person": https://www.britannica.com/science/US-abortion-rights-by-state-2236312

I heard an editor started replacing the phrase "pregnant person" with "pregnant woman" in almost every instance, while repeatedly saying "standing for the truth" in edit summaries. They were then given a 31 hour block: Special:Contributions/Oifwejiofwje

Aside from WP:NOTACTIVISM applying to this specific case, what are the guidelines on Wikipedia for using these terms? ~2026-10030-84 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else mentioned at the TH; we simply use whatever the reliable sources discussing the topic use. Athanelar (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As Athanelar said, we should go with what the source says. In this case, I think at least some of the edits were appropriate (I haven't check all of them), but it was clear they were making these edits willy-nilly in a WP:RGW sense, not because they had checked the original source in each one of those cases. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all at Wikipedia and thank you so much much for creating the Thomas Edison Film Festival page. I am deeply grateful!!! My name is Jane Steuerwald, the TEFF Director/Executive Director of the Thomas A. Edison Media Arts Consortium. Today I tried to create an account so I could either add to or verify information on the Thomas Edison Film Festival page. I hope I did this correctly, but honestly I am not sure. Is there anyone there who can assist me? BTW - On a personal note, I have been a monthly supporter of Wikipedia for a number of years, and am a huge fan of what you do. I am deeply honored that this page was created. With sincere gratitude, Jane Steuerwald TEFF Director (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TEFF Director I'm going to post some information on your user talk page about your username. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TEFF Director: The "View history" tab on Thomas Edison Film Festival shows it was created by User:Djflem in 2023. There are other contributors but Djflem wrote nearly all the current content and can be contacted at User talk:Djflem. They have over 100,000 edits and I don't know whether they are still interested in this article but that's what I would try if you want to discuss the content. If you have more general questions about editing then you can ask here. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit the article directly, but make suggestions for changes, with supporting sources, on its talk page, as advised in our WP:COI and Paid editing policies. You may use this tool to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apology. I didn't understand this. I was just making a correction to the site - TEFF does not accept feature films - only shorts. I also have read in a number of comments that since I am the director of TEFF I should not be making any changes. Again, I am so sorry - my only agenda was to correct some minor errors in our policies. FYI - we have a page on FilmFreeway too in case anyone is looking for accurate information about the history, mission, and practices of TEFF. Last question - should I change my user name? I created an account with a user name of TEFF Director. I assumed that that would be desirable as I am not pretending to be someone "neutral." One thing is certain - I will completely refrain from making any direct corrections to the site, and once again, I really am grateful that the page has been created. We are a modest non-profit arts organization with lots of heart - no red carpet aspirations. And I want to keep it that way. Thank you for listening and for your help. Jane Steuerwald, TEFF Director. TEFF Director (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary; you're new here and came and asked for advice. There's nothing wrong with that.

Yes, you should change your user name; see the links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Do you have any recommendations for a user name? Do people use their "real" names or something made up? My approach is always to be honest about who I am but if the is not advised, I can adjust. Your advice is appreciated! Jane TEFF Director (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It can be your actual name (first, or last, or both, or a nickname), a made-up name, a goofy phrase, etc. And it can include your affiliation along with your name (or whatever else you make up). But it can't just be an organization-name or job-title (a shared "WP:ROLE" account) because the policy is that each account is tied to one person. In the future, someone else from the same organization or with the same job-title might want to edit here. DMacks (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I just changed it to Jane Steuerwald. May I keep my same PW? TEFF Director (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be advisable to keep it (unless it's insecure or otherwise rendered useless). Does the film festival have a website where it states that it only accepts shorts? I'm pretty sure that would fall under our "about self" exception and be usable as a source mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does it require a special role Gladcape2013 (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request it at WP:PERM/R. However, before you request, it is unlikely you will be granted rollback if you do not have:

• At least 200 mainspace edits.
• At least a month of patrolling Special:RecentChanges
• A track record of consistently notifying editors when reverting their edits.
• No recent history of edit warring.

Wish you all the best! ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 02:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT HAPPENED TO WIKIPEDIA??? For years I have used AND CONTRIBUTED to Wikipedia. Now I click on my favorite link to Wikipedia and I am taken to a news page but no option to look up info. I use Wikipedia several times a week and consider it a treasure of information. After ½ hr of searching and clicking links I can not find the "old" Wikipedia. What happened? Where is it? Do I need to descend to google search again for info?

Geoff Kloster Gck80 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the question mark at the top and you are prompted for search terms, just as always. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your favorite link was, or how long ago you used it last. Do you mean that something drastically changed in the last few days? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gck80: Depending on circumstances like screen size, you may have to click a magnifying glass icon to get a search box. If the change was in 2023 then you can get back to the old Wikipedia when you are logged in by selecting "Vector legacy" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Please post a link to the page your favorite link leads to. The English Wikipedia is at https://en.wikipedia.org. That link says en.wikipedia.org in case something outside Wikipedia changes the url for you. Many other websites show our content but sometimes close or change. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

try wikipedia.org instead of en.wikipedia.org mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I would like to add the birth year for a living person.

Caveat: I realize none of the following are acceptable, but sharing to let you know what I know. Their state's voter reg rolls are public and it lists the actual birth date. Their wedding announcement in the NY Times lists the age of the person (which I realize only marks their age on that day, and doesn't reliably narrow down the birth year). Their college lists their graduating year (again: not reliable). Their Public Facebook Page lists their college and graduation year as well as high school and graduation year (and there's a photo saying "Me at 18 in 1980"). Also, a Facebook post by them corroborates their wedding anniversary and age at that time. And every year on the same date they acknowledge birthday greetings on Facebook--which is the same date on the voter reg rolls.

Again: I understand none of those meet your standards. But what would? If the wedding announcement in the NY Times says the person was 25 in May 2005, would I have to find articles referencing them and their age as 24 in, say, January--and then 25 in April? Or what would be sufficient documentation? Thank you. Limeginger (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Converting simple things like this into abstract theoretical questions makes them more difficult to answer, and might reduce your chance of success. Please start by saying exactly who you're talking about. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that Limeginger has asked any "abstract theoretical questions". I don't have any opinion on the (non-) issue and am disinclined to research it. I'd tend toward ignoring the matter of birth date, guessing that if it interested other editors then some of them would unearth more precise facts, eventually. However, a date span seems possible -- and it could be explained in a Template:Efn. (Does some issue hinge on this person's birth date?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this is for the infobox, I'd just use {{Age as of date}}, based on the NYT source. If you wanted an exact birth date, you could do a routine WP:CALCULATION if the Facebook posts are from a verified profile (per WP:ABOUTSELF) and give you a birthday. So if they say on FB their birthday is (e.g.) 1 April, and you know from NYT they were 25 when they got married in May 2005, then it's a pretty routine calculation to say they were born 1 April 1980. Nil🥝 00:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

please fix the broken image on this page Xenoblade Chronicles

thank you

Brayden ~2026-94934-8 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "broken" images. Could you clarify which image? ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 04:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have made this sort of error-report. And for the second time, someone has promptly responded that they do not see the problem, and that your message does not have enough detail for someone to help figure it out. Please make sure you are specific when reporting a problem. Otherwise a lot of people might wind up wasting a lot of time and benefitting nobody. DMacks (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy standoff says directing Bundy to pay over $1 million in withheld grazing fees but in reality the grazing fees themselves were like 40-50k and the rest was penalties and interest accumulated over the years. “The fees themselves are probably only about $40,000 to $50,000,” Whipple said. “But then of course it keeps doubling, then with the IRS and the government entities, you’re talking about an entirely different figure.”[2] The $1m number makes the government seem unreasonable when he actually had to pay a far more manageable sum but refused for decades. Polygnotus (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Polygnotus. What is your question regarding Wikipedia? ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Polygnotus

If you have an idea for how to improve a Wikipedia article, the best thing you can do is edit it yourself. The second best thing you can do is raise your concerns on the article's talk page. In this case, you would want to make a new topic over at Talk:Bundy standoff.

I have trouble writing with a smartphone too, although I've never tried editing Wikipedia on one. If you have a personal computer of any sort, try editing Wikipedia on that device instead. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 22:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus you have made over 41,000 edits over the last 3.5 years, and since you are a fairly experienced editor, I don't understand why you are repeatedly posting this off-topic content here. You have asked no question in what you posted. What are you hoping will happen? CodeTalker (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the film Aelita truly the primary topic, given the existence of Alexey Tolstoy's Aelita (novel), from which the film was adapted? ~2026-10162-66 (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The primary topic is not necessarily the original; it's the one that the majority of people are looking for when they search on that name. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-10162-66 Good question. Some guidance at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can any admin provide me a copy of old page of Paul van Rietvelde please if possible? I want to copy content from it to the current article. zglph^•talk• 16:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFUND. Polygnotus (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message regarding my recent edit to the Samastipur page. I understand that my addition of the "Digital Media" section regarding Samastipur News was reverted. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia and my intention was to add relevant local information, not to spam or vandalize. Could you please guide me on why this specific addition was considered non-constructive? Was it a lack of reliable citations (references)? Or is it an issue with the notability of the media outlet? I would appreciate your advice on how I can improve the content to meet Wikipedia's standards, or if I should provide third-party sources (like major newspapers) to verify the information before adding it again. Thanks for your help. Samastipurnewsedit (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One major problem is that you cut out very large chunks of the existing article and gave false edit summaries (not slightly-mistaken ones, but giving a completely wrong impression of what you were really doing). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1338557529

You can help me sort it. Thank you. Or maybe send a guide on how to.

Thanks, Obinna Tony (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Obinna Tony.

For Ref 29 (which you added), {{cite web}} needs a title. You need to specify the title, | title = "Dr. Nkiru Balonwu, a social entrepreneur passionate about improving the realities of women and girls in Africa"|

For 14 and 16 (which I don't think you just added) the problem is that the author's last name is given as "editor", which is not satisfactory. Ref 14 has author "Vanessa Obioha", so it should say |last = Obioha |first = Vanessa". Ref 16 has no author credited, so the last argument should be left blank. ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Colin Fine. I will start working on it. Obinna Tony (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one of your references:

refinedng.com https://refinedng.com/dr-nkiru-balonwu-a-social-entrepreneur-passionate-about-improving-the-realities-of-women-and-girls-in-africa/. Retrieved 2026-02-15. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

You've omitted the title. You need to add |title=Dr. Nkiru Balonwu, a social entrepreneur passionate about improving the realities of women and girls in Africa

(And the website is "RefinedNG".)

Incidentally, this source alarms me. It tells us for example: Balonwu is a strategic communication and stakeholder engagement specialist. This means nothing to me and I can't help wondering if it's intended just to obfuscate and impress. If it does mean something, then what? -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, it appears to mean that Balonwu's job is to talk to customers on the phone. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

talk to customers on the phone: This is the English language as I know it! Thank you, TooManyFingers. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seemed more plausible than "Army radio operator who is also a highly-skilled matchmaker among vampire hunters", even though to my mind vampire hunters are the true stakeholders. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing obfuscate and impress. Hahaha.

I will be implementing your suggestion now. Thank you. Obinna Tony (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I've replaced your use of {{Blue}} with {{Para}}, which incudes semantic "code" markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Andy Mabbett, {{Blue}} is poor markup: it's semantically vapid; and on top of that, fiddling with just one of color and background-color and ignoring the other is very poor practice. -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think History of the United States (1980–1991) should not be start-class anymore. Is it good enough to qualify for C-class? If not, what is it missing? Lucevium (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to upgrade it to C, Lucevium. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you so much! Lucevium (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For future occasions, the tool WP:RATER is very good for recommending, adding or changing ratings, among other things. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Friends have a local business that used to be affiliated in part with a national chain. Some time ago, they split ways. The national chain posted on a wiki page and on Yelp that the store was permanently closed, which is blatantly untrue. Can I go in and re-write the malicious disinformation? Dlewis925 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlewis925: There's a conflict of interest issue here, so you should instead use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/COI to request an edit to the article. It would help if you could provide independent sources for any information you want added or changed. However, if the article currently states that the store was closed but does not provide any sources about that, then you wouldn't need a source to request that claim simply be deleted from the article. Additionally, if you definitely know it was someone affiliated with the chain that has been editing the article, then they should have declared a conflict of interest. It would help if you could link the article here so other editors could investigate. – Scyrme (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlewis925 It would be helpful if you'd let us know which Wiki article you're talking about. Athanelar (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's blatantly untrue then you can fix it, regardless of CoI (which should still be declared, on your edit summary or on the article's talk page).

Anyone who challenges you for doing so may be directed to WP:COISELF, which says "An exception to not editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "untrue statement" cited to some published source? If not, it seems easily removeable by anyone, even COI. If it's cited, then an alternate cite is required to dispute it. DMacks (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at template:infobox person#Parameters template and it says that height should be noted if it's "relevant" to a person. What do they mean to what specific people? TyronesEditsPages (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only use it when a person's exact height is important to what is said about them in the article. If they're an actor, saying "he was very tall" in the article is already enough - we don't care about the exact number. If they're a boxer or a basketball player, knowing that they're 6' 7½" can matter a lot. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So in this case, athletes, models, and other special cases that height is needed in a infobox then. Thus basically means that some infoboxes don't need to have their height listed if it's not useful like a chef or a singer for example. TyronesEditsPages (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can you assist me for above mentioned sub ~2026-10358-64 (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You would presumably have to contact the school in question. There's not much Wikipedia can do about this. This is generally for help with Wikipedia issues. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This page is for people who need help editing wikipedia. You might have better luck with a search engine like Google or DuckDuckGo. If you still want help from a Wikipedian, then the reference desk could prove helpful! mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone! Just a minute ago, I published a draft of an English-language translation for the Spanish-language article on the Virgin of Urkupiña, es:Virgen de Urkupiña. But it looks like I can't publish it, because publishing is limited to extended confirmed editors. How can I get the translation published? Thank you !! Duffmorton (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on this, Duffmorton, but I suggest that you do a lot more work on it before proposing it as an article. As an example, Draft:Virgen_de_Urkupiña#Feast currently lacks any clear referencing. Why should the reader believe what it says? -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have fixed the issue described above, submit your draft article for review using the process outlined at WP:AFC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Duffmorton.

One of the reasons (the main reason, I think) that the translation tool is not available to inexperienced editors is that many, perhaps most, articles in other Wikipedias are not referenced adequately for a new article in the English Wikipedia. (English Wikipedia is one of the strictest - perhaps the strictest - about this).

Consequently, only experienced editors (who in theory should understand the criteria for notability, reliable sources, and verifiability) are allowed to use the tool, and anybody else needs to put their version through review at articles for creation.

Unfortunately if the source article is not satisfactorily sourced, then that generally means that it has been written backwards, and needs to be rewritten from scratch to make it acceptable to English Wikipedia.

I have added a header to your draft which will allow you to submit it for review when it is ready.

I notice that the draft begins with a template from Spanish Wikipedia which does not exist in English Wikipedia. You'll need to investigate whether or not there is a corresponding template in English Wikipedia, and if so change its name and arguments appropriately. ColinFine (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Template:Infobox Catholic apparition is the closest equivalent here for es:Plantilla:Ficha de virgen. Opus 113 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to everyone for your guidance... hopefully, I can get some of this straightened up! Duffmorton (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the guidance! Right now, I'm trying to put in more sources and other changes. Is there a way for me to use (for now) only a few well-cited sections of the original Spanish-language article as the basis for the translated English-language article? And if I do this, can I save the rest of the translation somewhere? My hope, here, would be to set things up so that I or others can return later to obtain sources for the remaining sections of the article and eventually get them into the published English-language article. Duffmorton (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:CulverHist's only contribution to Wikipedia is to add citations to their website chrisbungostudios.com, a user-generated directory of film and video filming locations (with some commercial aspects). I'm not sure if this is appropriate. Any advice? Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has already warned them (since your post). If they persists after that, either WP:AIV (which covers spamming that is in-progress) or WP:COIN (for more long-term issues). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1338648327

I am not able to fully comprehend your directions.

Thanks, Endofworld123 (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC) Kindly help.[reply]

@Endofworld123: See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himanta_Biswa_Sarma&diff=1338657327&oldid=1338654886 Polygnotus (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello experts, I'm bewildered by the advice in Help:Table and Template:Table alignment concerning how to specify the alignment of text in a column when you want it to differ from the default that has been specified. In my case, narrative text in the table is left-aligned by default but in 5 columns I want to apply "text-align: center;". None of the advice has worked for me – on past record, almost certainly because of me! I would be grateful if someone could visit User:SCHolar44/Yinkanie and advise or correct – also on any other poor coding that's evident (I'm an eager learner). Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 12:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44 See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASCHolar44%2FYinkanie&diff=1338657736&oldid=1338649779 Polygnotus (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous, @Polygnotus!! I had no idea. I hugely appreciate your generosity in sharing your skills. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 23:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why can I no longer find the link to each day of the month's list of quotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-10479-36 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-10479-36. Wikiquote is a separate project from Wikipedia.

You'd do better asking at q:Wikiquote:Village pump. ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article, Abraham Lincoln, has an ImageMap in the Emancipation Proclamation section with poly lines identifying the people depicted in a portrait. One of those people is Lincoln himself, and it seems like there is a dilemma here: If we make Lincoln's name at the end of the relevant line a wikilink, it will be a circular link, but if not, the ImageMap extension throws an error reading "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6." @SchroCat removed the circular link ([3] - revision shows the error message), and I reinstated it to avoid the error ([4]), but I'm wondering if there is anything that can be done to avoid both these problems in the case where an ImageMap depicts the subject of the article it's being used in. Opus 113 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Opus 113 You can use a section anchor link, like [[Abraham Lincoln#Emancipation Proclamation|Abraham Lincoln]], or link to [[Emancipation Proclamation|Abraham Lincoln]] (he is holding it). Polygnotus (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. The first one at least has the advantage that readers who click the link won't lose their place in the article - if there isn't a technical way around this issue, maybe that is the thing to do. Opus 113 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My teacher tells me I need to join their class on wikipedia? RatsAreTheBestNMSR (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The teacher should have provided you with a link or the name of the class. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question, RatsAreTheBestNMSR? -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RatsAreTheBestNMSR: Maybe you can find it at Wikipedia:School and university projects or a page linked there. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that current events articles often get a lot of !keep votes right after they happen, and then eventually progress into !delete or !redirect. I have made the mistake of WP:RAPIDly nominating articles for deletion before, and know that when this happens, it's more likely they'll be kept than anything else. About where is the time an article no longer meets WP:LASTING, if it stops? Cutlass^Ciera 00:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard-and-fast rule, but wait until the rate of editing does down. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing article (1) Roundhay, which includes a section Roundhay#Oldest surviving film, describing a film shot there which "is believed to be the oldest surviving film in existence", with a link to article (2) Roundhay Garden Scene. Another user has repeatedly marked the statement in article (1) as needing a source. However, article (2) contains several sources for the statement and, in my opinion, a source does need to be shown in article (1).

Is there a general rule on this? If every article which linked to a second article had to re-cite the sources from the second article, then WP would rapidly be swamped by excessive citations. The opening paragraph of the WP:Citation overkill article says "If a page features citations that are mirror pages of others, or which simply parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to the article's reliability and are detrimental to its readability." Masato.harada (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Masato.harada: You don't need to cite every source from the second article, you just need to provide suitable citations for the claims made in the current article. While readability of an article is a valid concern, the reader is no more obliged to read the list of citations than they are to actually read the cited sources. If you decide to apply your logic and ignore the requirements for providing cited sources, you will be likely to find your edits being reverted. Fabrickator (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ksa ~2026-10683-57 (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[Google translation: "How long will this change of topics continue?"]

Which change of topics? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

مرحبًا! هذه هي الويكيبيديا الإنجليزية، يجب أن تسأل عن الويكيبيديا العربية (كن أكثر وضوحًا بعض الشيء، على الرغم من أنني أشك في أن كون سؤالك باللغة العربية يجعله أكثر تحديدًا) (أعتذر عن اللغة العربية السيئة، فأنا أستخدم ترجمة جوجل) mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am Deaglán de Bréadún and I want to update the information on my Wikipedia profile/description. How can I get access to my Wikipedia profile in order to make a change? Tagairt (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were clearly logged in as User:Tagairt when you asked that question. Please see Wikipedia:About you. You should not edit the article about yourself; you can request changes to it using our Edit Request Wizard. Please be sure to give a reliable source for each change you request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note for @Tagairt and anyone else seeing this that I have nominated that article for deletion as the subject does not seem to be sufficiently notable for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

H ~2026-10749-52 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about a Wikipedia/ Wikimedia scholarship (if so, for what), or something else?

We can only help with Wikipedia/Wikimedia matters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how to donate ~2026-10761-62 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-10761-62 Thank you for wanting to donate. This is the link that tells you how to donate, but you may want to read up on Wikipedia finances first. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i have found this user at new pages and it doesn't like fine user page for me. User:Alloyofallmagic. Soothingalgae (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, a user page should be a place to tell others about yourself, so it seems to be okay. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks for the reply! Soothingalgae (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERBIO tells us userpages should not contain Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia. While it is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary and superfluous to use one's userpage as a list of identity labels, I would say it's neither 'inappropriate' nor 'excessive' and so nothing needs to be done about it. Athanelar (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay! Soothingalgae (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how do i close my question? Soothingalgae (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No need to. Athanelar (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you Please Fix an error i made please Super Bowl Fan (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you could be bothered to specify it, Super Bowl Fan, then it would be a lot more likely that another editor would be bothered to fix it. (I could, however, revert the entire set of your edits. Shall I do that?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 35-word, large-red-text error message at the foot of the page was a handy clue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can Wikipedia assist in contacting the author(s) of this Scientific journal?

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00054033.pdf

I would like to clarify what the authors are referring to when they mentioned the "Eastern Hathor Basin" (page 43/ PDF page 9/19). Looking at the map of Ganymede, and based on the latitude and longitude given of 69° S, 265° W, I think what they are calling "Eastern Hathor Basin" is actually Hathor Basin itself, and they mislabeled the crater. Therefore, the correct name of the subject should have been called "Eastern Teshub Basin". (see map below)

The authors names are Pierre G. Thomas | Olivier P. Forni | Philippe L. Masson.

Thank you. IapetusCallistus (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IapetusCallistus. "Wikipedia" is a a collaborative editing project made up of WP:VOLUNTEERs from all over the world; so, there's really no "central office" per se which could aid you in contacting the authors of this paper. One of the volunteer editor's could, I guess, decide to try and help you out (I guess), but you're probably better off trying to contact these people yourself via the Laboratoire de Geologie Dynamique Interne, UniversitP de Paris XI, Orsay, France. Given that the paper was published in 1984, there's no way to know for sure whether any of the authors are still at that university or even whether they're still alive. You could try googling their names to see whether you getting any hits; you might get lucky and find more recent information about one or more of them which contain more current contact info. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Université de Paris XI was subsumed into Paris-Saclay University in 2019, so the original laboratory and the department it belonged to no longer exist. I think the equivalent department today is the Paris-Saclay Geosciences Laboratory, which now occupies the same buildings (Bâtiment 504 et 509) of the Orsay campus, but based on the staff listed the original authors no longer work there. I doubt anyone would have any luck in contacting the current staff about this. If the original authors are still active with another institution, even if their contact info were publicly available, it's unlikely they remember much about this after over 40 years. – Scyrme (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. Awwww.. bummer. I guess I'll have to wait until 2031 before ESA Juice mission arrives at Ganymede for more information. IapetusCallistus (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. IapetusCallistus (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking your question about the name of the feature at WP:REFDESK/Science. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I will try that now. Best regards IapetusCallistus (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How yo make a wiki page of someone ~2026-10829-59 (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After a considerable search for reliable, secondary, in-depth sources independent of the person. And after a lot of thinking. Who are you thinking of writing up? (Your boss? Yourself?) -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary is correct that finding (and citing) significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is by far the most important step in writing an acceptable Wikipedia article. Once you have those sources, pretty much all you have to do is neutrally summarize what they say. Please read the help page Your first article for additional advice. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Very carefully if they're dead, extremely carefully if not. mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I want to propose splitting a stub article across 2 different articles and then deleting the original page. The page is First XI, which I would propose splitting between Glossary of cricket terms & Glossary of association football terms. I'm not sure this warrants a full article on its own & it cites no sources.

Is there a standard practice for doing this, both a split & request for deletion? Also, how should redirects be handled? Most links to First XI come from sports-related pages so can be redirected to their corresponding sports glossary, but some redirects are neutral between sports (see most here [5]). As I type this maybe this is evidence against the split.

Thanks! Timmeh (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First: your terminology is off, to 'split' an article is to create a new article from a section of an existing article. Combining one or more articles together is called a 'merge'.

Second, there's no need here for any complex procedure. You're free to boldly WP:BLAR (BLank And Redirect) the First XI article if you think it's sensible; if someone disagrees they can just revert.

Personally, I would probably merge the content and point the redirect at Starting lineup rather than one of those glossary articles. Athanelar (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

India won the match. while, its wrongly mentioned as Pakistan in the Wikipedia. Kindly correct it ~2026-10936-23 (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

T20 ICC Mens World cup ~2026-10936-23 (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please raise your concern on Talk:Men's T20 World Cup, and offer any sources you have there. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm trying to set up a page for my client, Event Concept. I don't work there and added in loads of links but I'm not sure they are taking.

Could you help please? Thanks Lizzie Elkin (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Elkin First, as you are editing about a client, the Terms of Use require you to comply with the paid editing policy and make a formal disclosure on your user page.

The trouble you are having is that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your client, like its activities and offerings. That is the wrong approach. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is usually critical analysis and commentary as to what sources view as important/significant/influential about the topic, not what it views as its own importance. Most companies on Earth actually do not meet the criteria to merit a Wikipedia article, just as most people do not.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your client; this explains why it is very unlikely you will succeed at what you are attempting, especially as a new user without prior editing experience. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here, and it's harder with a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I was looking at my list of pages and I noticed someone had attempted to tag a link as dead on the article Some Kind of Wonderful (film).

It is for a fansite devoted to the film and has a lot of information on the movie. It also appears to have been added a LONG time ago to the article.

The website appears to be permanently down, however I found a mostly intact copy on the Wayback machine.

How can I edit this into the page without going against the RFC about the Archive, if it pertains to this instance?

Thanks,

Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Urbanracer34.

I'm sorry, but if the deadlink was to a fansite, it was almost certainly not a reliable source, and should not have been cited in the first place. The citation, and any information in the article which depends only on that citation, should be removed. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine Hello! It is in the external links section and wasn't cited in the main article as far as I can see. How do I change the link from a dead link to an archived one? Urbanracer34 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Urbanracer34.

By changing the parameter url-status in the citataion to url-status=dead. If there is an archive-url parameter pointing to the archive, this will cause the citation to show that link as "archived at". ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine Hello! I think we're getting our wires crossed. I want to make the link under "external links" point to an archived copy. How exactly do I do this step-by-step? I don't recall doing this before. Thanks! Urbanracer34 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, @Urbanracer34, so it's just an external link, not a citation. My answer related to a citation template such as {{cite web}}.

Simply replace the URL with the URL of the archived copy. If you like, you can make the display text (after the pipe) explain that this is an archived copy, but I don't think there's much need. ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine I got it fixed! Thank you for the guidance! Urbanracer34 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Urbanracer34: The RFC is not about archive.org or the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org), but rather about archive.today - an unrelated website operated by a different owner (which has several mirror sites including archive.is). You can continue to use the Wayback Machine freely without issues. – Scyrme (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Scyrme Thanks for the clarification. I thought they were linked somehow. Urbanracer34 (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since one year now, i am trying to add an infobox to the article of "Angeln", the region where the name of England and the English language ultimately derives from, and therefore, although pretty small, a very important region. The infobox includes four pictures, and summarizes the main geographical facts about Angeln. It can be seen in the previous version of "Angeln". However, everytime i insert it, it is being deleted again. What can be done about that? Greetings Ephesos21 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ephesos21: you asked a similar question last year, you could refer to the answers at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 67#Expansions to the article "Angeln". TSventon (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but back then I asked about all the changes in general. This time I'm only asking about the infobox. The only way I can add content to the article is by discussing everything individually, so I'm asking specifically about the infobox for now. The infobox only contains four images and summarizes the obvious facts about the peninsula. Is there any justification for deleting an infobox if someone adds one to an article? Ephesos21 (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about the infobox last year and the answer was, please follow the process at WP:DR. Note that the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article, see MOS:INFOBOXUSE. TSventon (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it's strange that none of this seems to bother you. As a regular user, you could also support my changes. You can compare my version with the current one, and it's quite obvious that my version is a significant improvement. Generally speaking, it's odd that someone would try to delete an infobox, because nothing is more informative than such a box. It's absolutely baffling why anyone would find my version worse than the current one, unless they're deliberately trying to make the region look as bad as possible. Ephesos21 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the other person what their arguments against an infobox were, but I haven't received a reply. How long do I have to wait before I can insert the infobox? Ephesos21 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say about 24 hours. Nononsense101 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ephesos21, instead of worrying about an infobox, you should work on improving the referencing of the article in compliance with the core content policy Verifiability. That article is in terrible shape and any editor would be perfectly justified in removing vast quantities of unreferenced content. Once the article is properly referenced and complies with core content policies, then you can think about optional things like infoboxes. Cullen328 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone add hatnotes at the top of the article Juan de Mena pointing to Juan de Mena, Paraguay, Juan Castañón de Mena, Juan Pascual de Mena, and Juan Mena, or create a disambiguation page? ~2026-11013-81 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

University Press of New England's website has been usurped. In cases like this, what should be done with the "official website" in the infobox? I can put |url=none, but is it incorrect to say that they don't have a website when they previously did? Placeholderer (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholderer You could try using Template:Website defunct? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That template still makes a link. If it was usurped rather than just becoming a defunct/dead link, it may not be safe to keep the link. – Scyrme (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Website defunct for now, but I do think it would make sense to have a distinct template for usurped urls, such as could warn users who click on them before continuing to the site (speaking as someone who clicked on the UPNE link). I see there's Template:Usurped but that's explicitly for archive urls so not applicable here Placeholderer (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Bangladeshi and I want to come to your country and work in your company. Can you help me in any way? If you can help me, please let me know. Please help me. ~2026-10987-46 (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Help desk for editing the English language Wikipedia, which is a worldwide volunteer project. Wilipedia is not a company in the traditional sense. "Your country" is meaningless here since Wikipedia editors live in hundreds of countries. We cannot offer emigration assistance. Good luck to you. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ~2026-10987-46,

This is the help desk for Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia written by volunteer editors.

We are not paid anything for our volunteer efforts, and we do not have a job for you.

We have many articles about companies all across the world, but none of those companies are affiliated with us in any way. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 07:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]