Wikipedia:Help desk#Copyright Question

Hello. I am a younger editor, and I recommended wikipedia editing to a friend. As he does not have contacts with me other than school email at this point, though it will change, and the fact that wikipedia account creation is blocked at my school (persistent vandalism) and the fact I was unsure if he could make an account at home for his circumstances, I was too hasty and did not read WP:Sockpuppetry and the section that states that an account could not be shared by multiple people, and I made him an account. Now I am not sure if this applies, because I was planning on giving it to him and him changing the password, but now I have 2 accounts, one with nothing on it, and I am not sure if it violates the rules. This is why I came here, for guidance on what to do. Jayson (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this would fall under the category of "good faith edit" Jayson (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also came here because I am unsure of if he became a respected editor, then the account would be created from the same ip address I use and then people think it is a sockpuppet and it is not Jayson (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three options that I can think of:

1. Have your friend change the password as planned, and don't let them tell you the new password. Leave a note on your user page explaining what happened.
2. Don't make any edits using the account. Have your friend ask to usurp the account at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes#Private_requests https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes#Requests_involving_merges,_usurps_or_other_complications. Still a good idea to leave a user page note explaining.
3. Abandon the new account and have your friend make a request for an account the way it should have been done, at Wikipedia:Request an account. Meters (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, he will likely not see the email before someone else gives a second opinion. Jayson (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry the account has no edits on it, ConciliumHaven Jayson (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If he decides to go with a different username then he may change it Jayson (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... on further thought, option 2 takes at least two weeks, and I don't know that an IP can usurp an account in any case. Probably best to ignore that one. Meters (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was not even really considering it. I think I will either go with option 1 if my friend decides to, or have him create a new account and delete this one. Thank you for your help. Jayson (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted. Just abandon it. Meters (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

k. I guess it is up to him Jayson (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so careful. If all you did was set up the account and didn't actually use it, and if you then give the account to your friend as you described, I don't think it matters what IP address was used to set it up. The intent of the WP:Sockpuppetry policy is to prevent people from abusing the system (causing disruptions, evading a block/ban, etc.). As long as your friend resets the password and is the only one who uses it, then I think that would be fine. BetsyRogers (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When it's obvious no one is really doing anything sneaky or dishonest, then no one is going to worry about it. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody. Jayson (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayson: Hi, I don't think there is anything to worry about in this case. As WP:Sockpuppetry clearly says:

(...) In general, one editor, one registered account. Do not use multiple accounts (multiaccount) for malicious reasons.

It's not about how many accounts you create, it's about how you use them. If one uses multiple accounts to make an impression two or several people opt independently for something while it's actually just one person, which is deceiving other editors, then yes, this is strictly forbidden. OTOH using openly different accounts for different activities, like one for direct editing or discussing and another one for running a bot to make automated maintenance editions, is OK (especially if both accounts clearly disclose the connection).

Additionally, in cases like a school it may happen that multiple users working on multiple devices use actually a common gateway with a single IP address. So having the same address is not enough to fall under sockpuppetry category. Once you granted an account to your friend and not use it yourself anymore, there is no reason to consider one of you a sockpuppet of the other.

Happy editing! --CiaPan (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have good advice above, but I thought you both might also find WP:Guidance for younger editors useful. Welcome aboard! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I remember that editor Pigsonthewing. Well, I did read the guidance for younger editors. Thank you! Jayson (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got to say, I found this interaction to be quite heartwarming. With the amount of sockpuppetry we get, it's nice to see someone go out and try and do the right thing. Welcome to Wikipedia. We do have a lot of complicated rules, but try your best as I feel you have here. :) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking some questions about this. Wikipedia generally allows users to create accounts for others when they're requested, so there shouldn't be an issue here. Wikipedia actually has a few articles on creating accounts for other users, so this isn't unexpected and is sometimes encouraged if it brings new editors to the website. Have a nice week and thanks for bringing new editors! aaronneallucas (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well done @Jayson for being aware of the rules and asking for advice Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 21:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm trying to use the Template:Double image in an article I'm working on. I've followed the example from the template, but the two images I'm trying to put up aren't showing. Could someone take a look at it? What am I doing wrong? It's in this draft: User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz/Section 70 of the Constitution Act, 1867, in the section entitled "Legislative history"; I'm trying to insert images of Macdonald and Cartier. Any help would be appreciated. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! I just realised I'm trying to use a template from Simple English Wikipedia! <Emily Letella>Never mind.</Emily Letella> Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And because WHAAOE, those who didn't recognize the ref can read Emily Litella. DMacks (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And for those who don't recognise that ref: WP:WHAAOE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! DMacks (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

youz guys funny 😄 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that trump is targeted in his page yet Joe Biden is not. His health is briefly mentioned but the mass illegal border crossings, illegal alien crime rate rises, and the support of the LGBT indoctrination is not? Very biased that is why I will not be donating this year ~2025-38360-80 (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your generosity in past years. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• citation needed

Breaky01 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reality often has a liberal bias, as the saying goes. Quite frankly, the fact that those aren't mentioned means they either didn't happen or nobody worth listening to is talking about them. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-38360-80: Please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. OutsideNormality (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Talk:Ryah Nixon § Outdated Page

Hi! I submitted a conflict of interest request for a friend about a month ago. She's wondering when her page will be fixed as many people are now looking her up and the information currently on her wiki is incredibly out of date. It's Ryah Nixon. OneMoreFanBway (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OneMoreFanBway We don't consider WP:IMDb as a reliable source because it is user generated, like Wikipedia. However, playbill.com should be fine for non-controversial facts. If you could add sources from newspapers or magazines, that would be even better. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! What if the information comes directly from the person who is the subject of the article? There's no real source for that. Thank you! @Michael D. Turnbull OneMoreFanBway (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We allow certain information to come directly from article subjects provided it is published, for example via social media. See WP:ABOUTSELF. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay great thanks! I added sources. what is the next step for me to do to get it approved and changed? OneMoreFanBway (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking to remove and replace the entire page is quite drastic and much more likely to be rejected. People have the ability to propose changes, not rewrites. If it was me looking at that request, I would be strongly inclined to just put "No" and refuse to change a thing. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTOLOGOUT

I can reproduce this bug by using https://auth.wikimedia.org/zhwiki/wiki/Special:PasswordReset. Every time I visit this page, I automatically log out. ᒿ.ᒿ.ᒿ.ᒿ (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I visited that page, and am still logged in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason why he appears is probably because the IP he used was only banned by the Chinese-pedia website but has not been banned on other websites. L79 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the process to review a decision that may not have been fully thought out - removal of nationality parameter in infoboxes?

Recently, a decision was made, quite quickly, with a small number of user comments, to remove the "nationality" parameter from infoboxes, see the discussion at Template:Infobox person#Remove and truly deprecate nationality. This parameter had been around for years, and appears in the infoboxes of hundreds of articles about people, using several different infoboxes. It basically repeats the country in the intro paragraph, which is basically what a person's infobox is intended to do, to provide a quick and accurate summary of the person. Prior to the removal of the "nationality" parameter, the guidance within Wikipedia was to only use the parameter when appropriate, not necessarily in every case. That guidance made sense and was generally followed.

To be blunt, the decision to remove the "nationality" parameter did not fully anticipate its ramifications. The article Mark S. Smith is a perfect example where the "nationality" parameter is not only useful, it is necessary. The parameter still exists in the article's infobox text, but because it is deprecated, it is no longer shown to users. Smith was born in Paris, leading users to think that he is French, when in fact he is American. There are many other articles like that, where not displaying the nationality might lead users astray when a person from one country is born in another.

It's been suggested by some to use the "citizenship" parameter instead, but that can be problematic, since it is rare to find a verifiable source identifying a person's citizenship, which is more specific than nationality.

It is important to reconsider the decision to remove the "nationality" parameter and to restore it, with the previous guidance to only use it when appropriate.

The question is: What is the process to review a decision and request its reversion? Thanks, Truthanado (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a great deal more discussion than that, and the discussion you mentioned actually links to an earlier one.

But here's my impression of generally what the problem is: VERY large numbers of people misuse the "nationality", pretending it means race or ethnicity. Wikipedia is making a big effort to prevent and prohibit identifying anyone's race or ethnicity, and a recent part of that effort has been to physically take away a slot that has so often been misused for that purpose.

If people in general weren't so keen to abuse the "nationality" slot in that way, then I'd agree with you. In any case, I get the feeling (from why it's been done) that it won't really be up for renegotiation. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers: "Wikipedia is making a big effort to prevent and prohibit identifying anyone's race or ethnicity"— I do not believe that to be the case. What makes you think it is? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the push is not to simply add race or ethnicity to a biography unless it is especially important to the reader's understanding. But people were becoming concerned that adding specific ethnicities to infoboxes and articles was being done for illegitimate reasons. On nationality in infoboxes, the main discussion happened in mid-2024 and there was some follow-through here. I also have seen an extensive discussion mentioning "tagging" ethnicities somewhere on Wikipedia but unfortunately I can't find it right now. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a reply to me, thank you, but none of it constitutes "a big effort to prevent and prohibit identifying anyone's race or ethnicity". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I agree. I'm trying to clarify what (I think) happened for @TooManyFingers. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you are exactly correct - thank you. I misunderstood the scope of what they were trying to do, but did understand the concept. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's not an ideal place to appeal community consensus - see Wikipedia:Consensus#FORUMSHOP. Things are different if you can propose a specific compromise or solution, but I don't think one is needed from examples you have given - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Nationality and citizenship in infoboxes seems to cover one of the possibilities you're interested in. Looking at the article Mark S. Smith, the article text makes it clear he is an American. Note that the infobox is different from article text - I think one concern was that the parameters could be more prone to misuse and lacked nuance which is sometimes appropriate. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthanado That's one of the problems with "nationality" -- definitions. You said "Smith was born in Paris, leading users to think that he is French, when in fact he is American". If someone was born in France, why isn't French the correct nationality?

I'm sure there is an explanation, but "nationality" can be vague, misunderstood, and misinterpreted. David10244 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jus soli#Europe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing I didn't know that; thanks. David10244 (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do i retrieve article list with query of insource:/\<ref\>htt(p|ps)\:/ ວາດານ (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ວາດານ Are you trying to find articles where there are reference tags immediately followed by a bare URL link? Your idea for an insource query doesn't work but this version does and gives over 800,000 hits. Good luck with cleaning these up! WP:REFILL may help on individual articles that interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is "The Public Records of the State of Connecticut", labeled in book as "From October, 1776, to February, 1778, inclusive," and described by the website simply as "volume 1, 1776-1778". It's been edited by Charles J. Hoadly, state librarian.

So: If I were to want to cite something to the page four of this, should I cite the legal document, or the physical book? That said, should the reference look like:

• 1776 Conn. Pub. Acts 4
• Charles J. Hoadly, ed. (1894). The Public Records of the State of Connecticut, from October 1776 to February 1778. Vol. 1. p. 4. Retrieved December 6, 2025.

I took the format for the first bullet point from the APA Blue Book, so I'm assuming it's accurate for what I'm going for, I just don't know if it's proper to cite that or the specific book. Or both? Any advice would be great. Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: Technically, Hoadly is not the editor but the publisher. I included the name of the act. Has it ever been repealed? The name of the firm of printers made me chuckle so I put that in as well, but it's probably out of place. You don't need to include the |access-date= parameter for a printed book or journal, it's mostly for {{cite web}}. As far as the specific style goes, I would say it depends on the type of article you are intending to use the cite in. If it's specifically legal, I would go for the APA one, but personally I think it's just a barrier to impress lawyers and keep the general public away. There's always {{Cite act}} but that seems a whole different minefield. I use the vertical layout for my cites, it makes it so much easier to spot mistakes, and there are many opportunities for making them. My attempt:

• "An Act for the Punishment of High Treason and other Atrocious Crimes against the State". The Public Records of the State of Connecticut, from October 1776 to February 1778. Vol. 1. Hartford, Conn.: Charles J. Hoadly: printed by Press of the Case, Lockwood and Brainard Co. 1894.

HTH, MinorProphet (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm working on a new/final version of Territorial evolution of the United States, and I was using that act as a reference for the name of the state changing. Thanks for the tip on access-date, that makes sense, especially when dealing with a trusted site like archive.org. As for whether it's been repealed, no idea.

If it were clean to combine the APA with a link to the book, ... that ... that could work, right? Would it be insane to set up a cite-book with the author being "Conn. Pub. Acts", the year being 1776, so I could use {{sfn|Conn. Pub. Acts.|1776|p=4}}... Then it should display as "Conn. Pub. Acts 1776, p. 4", and cleanly then link to the book? wanders off, pondering --Golbez (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: I've learned the hard way that you should only use cite params for their original and narrowly-defined purpose. The way round this is to use |ref= to create a custom CITEREF: |ref={{harvid|Conn. Pub. Acts|1776|}} and then treat it like an ordinary sfn: {{sfn|Conn. Pub. Acts|1776|p=4}}.
Result: "This is a ref to the famous act."^[1]  :> MinorProphet (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also silently added |ref=none to your original cite, otherwise it complains with an orange warning that there's no associated CITEREF because it's a duplicate. MinorProphet (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is advance uk label as far right that is wrong and given false information I thought u this web site was for real information ~2025-38902-95 (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the relevant discussions at the talk page for the Advance UK article. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because reliable, secondary sources describe it as such. Also, as someone with an interest in politics, I feel confident in saying that, at least based on the "ideology and policy" section of the Wikipedia page, it is objectively a far-right party mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

50 Arguments Why Anwar Shouldn't Be Prime Minister All feedbacks are appreciated! N niyaz (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a (double) redirect to 50 dalil mengapa Anwar tidak boleh jadi PM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the redirect and asked at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Anwar Ibrahim book for the article to be reviewed by someone who can speak the language of the sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For some months, I have been unable to run the #IABot, and cannot access other alternate archive links here as well.

Recently, I requested GANs for some articles. Those include the one Aima Baig; the problem is, however, I have found a recent dead link there, which have been active there for years: [1] [2]. I am saying this because I have been a major contributor for this article since it was created years back.

Can anyone please help, or suggest what to do now? Thank you! M. Billoo 09:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reported the issue on User talk:InternetArchiveBot? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: No, and the talk page you mentioned is admin-only. I have had raised the same query in multiple talk pages earlier this year, and users like Medxvo [3] and Significa liberdade [4] Special:Diff/1305932331, have responded.

But this time, the link I gave above is dead and apparently non-archived. M. Billoo 14:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page I linked to is a redirect; the target is editable; and incudes a specific link near the top, labelled "Report Problem". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was invisible on mobile version. Now found a similar concern: "High load/ lag times are making this great tool unusable for me". M. Billoo 19:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which part was not visible on mobile? That, too, may need to be flagged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect link. M. Billoo 13:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Raised at Template talk:Soft redirect#Mobile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have run #IABot on a few articles today, and it could not fetch all the references. However, I am still unable to run it on the above mentioned page, Aima Baig. M. Billoo 13:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tool which will convert old Google books references to the Internet Archive?

My interest is in pre-20th century history so books which are mentioned in Wikipedia articles are usually now available in toto on the Internet archive. I sometimes encounter older articles with dozens of Google books citations, many of which are dead or impossibly limited. I'd like to convert them to cite the book with a link to IA.

Humpster (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that User:InternetArchiveBot might do; it's a bot, but you can ask the operators, on its talk page. If you do, examples will be helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to use the text from articles for use in Youtube videos. I would like to convert the text to speech rather than text display. I have contributed several times. ~2025-39035-71 (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC) CC BY-SA 4.0 License[reply]

~2025-39035-71, it's OK as long as it's attributed to Wikipedia and published with the same CC BY-SA 4.0 Licence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, please see WP:REUSE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already donated $25 last week. Please do not send the reminder. ~2025-39022-97 (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

If you refer to the on-screen banners, please see Wikipedia:NOBANNER. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To enlarge on Andy's reply: it is impossible for Wikipedia's software to known whether any user has donated or not. Donations go to Wikipedia's parent organisation The Wikimedia Foundation and no donation data is shared with Wikipedia. Account holders can block the donation banners when logged in if they choose, but everyone not logged in or without an account will see them, and Wikipedia has no control over this. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lose Yourself
• Overprotected

I have noticed that some articles about singles starts with the sentence "X is a song by the musician Y" while others starts with "X is a single by the musician Y"

Is there a logic behind this? How is it determined whether an article should be about the single or about the song? Trade (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A single is a song. It happens to also have been released as a single. The release method doesn't make it not-a-song, so calling it a song is never wrong.

But am I missing the point of your question? TooManyFingers (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be two articles about "Song A" and "Single A", not even if there are differences between them. It should all go in one article that includes telling what the differences are. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is, is there a logic to explain why In My Life begins "In My Life" is a song, while Hallelujah I Love Her So begins "Hallelujah I Love Her So" is a single. I doubt there is any such logic. The string "is a song by" occurs 35,000 times in Wikipedia articles, while "is a single by" only occurs 2,000 times, so the former is more usual. "is a song by the musician" and "is a single by the musician" each appear once. TSventon (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. This causes a lot of issues on Wikidata. Sometimes the Wikipedia articles have to be linked to the item for the single, other times they all have to be linked to the item for the musical composition/song Trade (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: I see you are more active at Wikidata. I have linked the two examples you gave as that makes them more visible as well as more clickable. I am not aware of all the finer points at Wikidata, but see that In My Life (Q1324384) and Hallelujah I Love Her So (Q3372281) both claim to be songs. Lose Yourself (Q957616) and Overprotected (Q943715) deal with the problem by claiming to be instances of both song and single. TSventon (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not aware of all the finer points at Wikidata, but see that In My Life (Q1324384) and Hallelujah I Love Her So (Q3372281) both claim to be songs. Lose Yourself (Q957616) and Overprotected (Q943715) deal with the problem by claiming to be instances of both song and single." Technically speaking combining Lose Yourself (Q957616) and Overprotected (Q943715) into the same item violates the modeling structure that the Wikidata community have agreed upon for music long time ago. So really, it's just moving from one issue to another--Trade (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the truth of the matter, if you changed every one of those 2,000 "is a single" references into "is a song that was released as a single", they would all still be just as true as they were before you did that; this would have zero chance of harming or modifying the meaning.

But if the reason for doing that was "this classification system requires it", then it would be logical and relevant to ask why it should be necessary for future articles to conform to a broken classification system. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my fantasy nonexistent classification system, "song" is a type or category, while "single" cannot be that. "Single" is a box that's either checked or unchecked. But that's fantasy land. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all singles are necessarily songs. A single could also, for example, be a non-musical short speech. The term single derives from a time when the technology of sound reproduction (shellac or vinyl disks, cassette tapes) made it convenient and commercial to physically issue a song (or other recording) of perhaps 2 to 5 minutes as a separate entity. The equation of 'single' and 'song' arose colloquially, but technically one is the medium and the other is the message. Many songs are of course never released as singles. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Such cases are unusual on Wikipedia, and I wonder how many of those 2,000 are spoken or other non-music recordings. My wild guess is "none of them". But you're right nonetheless. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Trade: the problem is that Wikidata and the various wikipedias are separate projects with their own rules. Wikidata is structured and Wikipedia is less structured. Did you see the recent discussion at d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Music#Proposal to Breakout Conflated Singles and Songs? TSventon (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know what led to that discussion, and maybe I'd understand if I knew that, but on the surface it seems very similar to suggesting that race horses no longer be called horses, or that pines no longer be called trees.

  It's impossible to conflate things that really are the same. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Man vs. Baby is in my watchlist, but I've never edited it, at least not according to both article and talk page history - nor do I have any recollection of ever doing so.

The previous show - Man vs. Bee is in my watchlist due to two edits back in June 2022, so there's a connection, but no editing of the new article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaheel Riens: Man vs. Bee was moved to Man vs., then to Man vs. Baby, and then back to Man vs. Bee. If a page on your watchlist is moved then the new title is added to the watchlist so Man vs. is probably also there. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my name is TAIRU KPENE ATCHE i live in Saudi Arabia as Ghanaian, my brother who's name is NUHUM ABDUL AZIM Ghanaian travel for Qatar to Russia and join Russia federation army since 26 December 2024,I haven't heard from him until date so please I have all his documents, pictures including the contract agreement. TAIRU KPENE ATCHE (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does he have a Wikipedia account? GarethBaloney (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a general help desk for the internet, sorry. You should contact the Russian embassy to inquire about the status of your brother. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you, but I have been there and they just gave one contact wich is not going true they also gave me the link that one also is not going true TAIRU KPENE ATCHE (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to hear that, but there's nothing more that we here can do for you. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you and your brother are Ghanian citizens, you could also ask your country's diplomats to speak to Russia for you. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place in wikipedia to ask for verification of sources in an article that I do not have access to? For example, if it is a Finnish source without online access or something like that? Vastmajority20025 (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable sources noticeboard or the WP:Reference desk might be able to help, maybe? Athanelar (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ask Wikipedia:reference Desk as we cannot help with that here Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 21:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a Reference Desk issue.

If OP wants to see a copy of the cited source, they should ask at WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Vastmajority20025. I think you are asking how to get hold of a copy of a source that you haven't got. The Resource exchange is the best place to go to for that. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Access to cited sources must always be possible, but is not required to be easy (or cost free). For a Finnish offline source – let's say, a book or a newspaper article that has not been digitised – you might have to contact someone in Finland to consult the source for you, or even travel there yourself! (I've been, though not for research purposes, and recommend it.)

If the source were as I have described, you might be able to ask your local Public Library to check if the item is held by the National Library of Finland, and if it is for a copy of the relevant information to be copied and sent to you (probably for a fee). Sometimes, research is hard: as a professional editor (during the previous millennium) I sometimes had to travel fair distances (though not abroad) to museums, libraries and record offices to obtain information. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.30.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025: you can write a request in English at fi:WP:Embassy to request help from Finnish Wikipedia users. MKFI (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you ask to donate, don’t put a box with an X that doesn’t work, or tap maybe later which kicks you back to the top of the page. Tactics like that push me away from donating. You’re assholes for attempting to jam it down our throats. ~2025-39313-88 (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The people who can see your message are all volunteers. It's not us who's asking for donations, and we don't see a cent of it. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia which is run by unpaid volunteers. The fundraising is carried out and is under the complete control of the Wikimedia Foundation, a separate organization that provides servers and technical support to hundreds of independent free knowledge projects. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...hundreds of independent free knowledge projects including English Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to browse Wikipedia without the funding banner popup, see WP:NOBANNER for guidance. Athanelar (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish articles about people had a photo more often. Is there a reason why they don’t? GarySchmitz (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every modern photo is under the copyright of someone - often the person who was holding the camera, and almost never the person shown in the actual picture. Wikipedia has strict rules that all images shown must have special permissions granted to us by the copyright holder; if they don't want to give away all those permissions, or if we don't know who they are so we can't ask them, then that picture won't be accepted.

This is why there are more pictures of people from long ago; copyright on many of those has expired. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is because of WP:NFCC, particularly with living people. Wikipedia is a lot better than it was in the early days, when no pictures or poor pictures were commonplace in articles about people. However, there are still plenty of articles about people with no picture, because they cannot be grabbed from a web search as they would usually be copyrighted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it against the guidelines to nominate a redirect for deletion which was recently AfDed and consensus was to redirect? zglph^•talk• 06:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, logically, a 'redirect to X' decision at AfD is essentially the same thing as a 'keep' decision at RfD, so while I don't think it's against any guidelines per se, bringing it up at RfD would probably be a waste of editor time as the community has already signed off on the redirect existing.

If you want to nominate it for speedy because you think it meets a CSD then that mitht be different, but I probably wouldn't bother taking it to RfD so soon after the AfD result. Athanelar (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - The wikipedia page for Glenn Leonard is now redirecting, for some reason, to The Temptations page. I would like to get the original artist page restored. This page was active for years.

Can you help with information as to how we do this?

Thank you! ~2025-39402-58 (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2025-39402-58: It was turned into a redirect by TheGreatestLuvofAll. You should discuss this with that editor on their talk page as a first step. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire content of the body of the article was:

Glenn Carl Leonard (born June 11, 1947, in Washington, D.C.) is an American R&B and soul singer best remembered for serving as the first tenor/secondary lead singer of the Motown quintet The Temptations from 1975 to 1983.

and the only source, which was malformed, was:

<ref>{{cite web|url={{AllMusic|class=artist|id=p5616/biography|pure_url=yes}}|title=Biography: The Temptations|last=Ankeny|first=Jason|publisher=[[All Media Guide|AMG]]|access-date=14 May 2010}}</ref>

It was flagged as being poorly sourced and not demonstrating notability. As such, it is not suitable to be restored.

Your best approach would be to draft a new article, using the WP:AFC process, then submit it for review, at which point, if suitable, it would be moved over the redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information! ~2025-39402-58 (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am very frustrated by the fact that various editors of page Opinion polling for the 2026 Israeli legislative election make errors when adding opinion polls, do not appear to watch the Talk page where such errors are sometimes pointed out, and if the errors are drawn more forcefully to their attention, make further errors when fixing them. Two kinds of errors are frequent:

• Entering figures for numbers of seats for individual parties which do not agree with the figures in the source being referenced
• Incorrectly calculating the total for a group of parties (Government parties or Opposition parties)

There is not much that can be done about the first kind of problem other than (repeatedly) asking the editors to take more care.

Re the second kind of problem, is there a tool that could be used to generate the totals or to check the totals?

Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am aware of - it would make a good suggestion for our community wishlist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone guide me in correcting my error on this page for reference #7? Camille_Lessard-Bissonnette Thank you in advance... Rheta10 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out the issues...sorry for the false alarm. Thanks. Rheta10 (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was wondering if a specific role was needed to make translations on pages, if not, where is the page to do so?

Thanks, Elijah Wilder (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you want to do: we have pages needing translation, essentially proofreading. for already translated articles. For further info see also: Help:Translation and Wikipedia:Translation. Lectonar (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly translating pages from English to either Hebrew or Spanish. Elijah Wilder (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would need to ask at the respective Wikipedias. Lectonar (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a specific permission I need to be able to perform those actions? Elijah Wilder (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know; more info at Wikipedia:Translate us...it's mainly about how to properly atttribute. Lectonar (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! Elijah Wilder (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more thing. Is there an official process to be added to this or am I free to add my name if I am going to help with translations? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Intertranswiki Elijah Wilder (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least it is not mentioned, so feel free to contact one of the users listed there as members directly....but the project is about translating foreign language articles into English, not vice-versa. Lectonar (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Elijah Wilder (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an official process, it's probably at the place where you're putting your translations, not where you're getting material to translate from. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijah Wilder: if you want to find the equivalent of an en Wikipedia policy, you can look for pages linked to the en page via Wikidata. Wikipedia:Translation is linked to pages in Hebrew and Spanish. If you need more help, Wikipedia:Help desk also has equivalents in Hebrew and Spanish. TSventon (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of "app" that can tell me if I have not entered an edit summary? How do I get it and how do I install it? Can some expert editor install it for me? Thanks for technical help on this. --California Broker (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi California Broker go to Preferences, select Editor then click the box for "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)" and Save. - Arjayay (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see: Reminder: You have not provided an edit summary. Edit summaries help other users understand the intention of your edits. Please enter one before you click Publish changes again, or your edit will be saved without one. Thanks. --California Broker (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry to bother you guys again I was wondering if I had to sign up to be a Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol volunteer or if I could just install the gadgets needed and start patrolling. I have read though the articles for it and want to double check before performing any actions. Elijah Wilder (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Elijah Wilder, thanks for volunteering to patrol recent changes. You can start anytime you like. No need to sign up somewhere. Perception312 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of New Page Patrol which does have a requirement for extra permissions. RCP is as above completely voluntary and does not Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! Elijah Wilder (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to make sure I am doing this right. If I see a recent change that breaks the rules, I revert it and issue a warning? I don't want to make a mistake with this. Elijah Wilder (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijah Wilder yes, that is correct for help on how to issue a warning see WP:Recent changes patrol Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 19:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By According to wikipedia rules, am I allowed to delete my conversations with other users in my talk page? Vastmajority20025 (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vastmajority20025 Yes, although archiving is preferred, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Personal talk page cleanup for the detail. TSventon (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that removing a conversation, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Removing a warning is the same as acknowledging it.

I'd recommend setting up archival on your talk page as above as it really is best practice. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Ely Cathedral this evening, I have recorded and referenced the death today of a member of their clergy.

The page that contains the reference does not give individual URLs for their news articles, and I am aware that I would need one of those in order to archive the source page.

How do I create an archive from a website like that, so that it can be viewed once the article on the source page (here) is changed?

Thank you, Dane|Geld 18:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you'll need to do is to archive the page (this is sometimes done automatically, but in this case, best done manually) on archive.is, or wayback machine, etc. you can then put the link and date into the reference. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lee. I have completed the archive process with archive.is, so my next question is this: how do I edit the article now, to include the archived content, please? The ref number on the article is 101. Dane|Geld 18:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Scratch that, I've successfully added the archived data, following the pattern of other archived entries on the article. Dane|Geld 18:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I run the Michigan Rock and Roll Legends website. The owner of one of the photos I used in Dick Wagner's biography on the site has requested that it be removed. I deleted the photo as soon as I received the request, but I see that it comes up as the third photo under Michigan Rock and Roll Legends in a Yahoo Search for Dick Wagner. How can I get that photo removed? ~2025-39471-28 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have made a copyright violation, although which 'Dick Wagner' article are you talking about as they are many Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 19:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Wagner would be a good bet, since he's a rock musician from Michigan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-39471-28 We can't help you with things unrelated to Wikipedia, sorry. You might want to try the WP:Reference desk. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 20:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-39471-28: The third photo for me is https://michiganrockandrolllegends.com/images/Dick_Wagner_Maestro.jpg (deliberately not linked here) which is still on your site although not on https://michiganrockandrolllegends.com/hall-of-fame/artists/325-dick-wagner. If that's the photo then delete the actual file. Yahoo will automatically revisit the site at an unknown time, detect the image is gone and remove it from their search results. At https://help.yahoo.com/kb/SLN4530.html they say "up to 10-12 weeks". Yahoo Search gets their data from Bing. https://www.bing.com/webmasters/help/refreshed-webmaster-tools-7c7d2533 may be useful to speed it up but I haven't tried it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this edit where someone had added in a list of course requirements for a school. It's copied and pasted (copyvio report) but I'm not sure whether to report it for RD1 since it's clearly a list of publicly available information. I've reverted it anyway as it's clearly unencyclopædic. Advice would be appreciated. lp0 on fire () 19:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Report it Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 20:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done lp0 on fire () 20:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite letters of reccomendation and concert flyers prior to the creation of the internet? Page denied due to resource issue? Help how to fix! Sarahroseromero (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither meet Wikipedia requirements for published independent reliable sources, and accordingly they are of no use at all in establishing notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See {{Cite letter}}.

We need to know more about where you saw "Page denied due to resource issue?" and what you were doing, to help with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Page denied due to resource issue" appears to be a "lost in translation" version of "Draft declined for lack of sources", rather than an error message. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is newspapers.com on TWL? I seem to recall something about it but I can't find it. That being said I don't use TWL very often so I may be making a mistake or misremembering. Thanks! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chorchapu:, yes, you have to apply, so click on available collections, rather than my collections, and you should see it. TSventon (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I think I've figured the application thing out. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm directing this message to Wikipedia. Please re check all the history pages and the sports pages because they are inaccurate academically. It's a free bold tip! Thank you for listening!

Check your pages. They are modified and inaccurate academically. They are written in codes but they are like published by canibals. ~2025-39247-85 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @~2025-39247-85 but this is an extremely vague and borderline incomprehensible "tip". Can you give us some specific examples? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone, including you, an edit. If you see a mistake, fix it. But do make sure you have reliable sources for anything you add. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back when I was a first-year anthropology student, I can remember reading an academic work on allegations of cannibalism (sadly, the author escapes me), which noted just how often such claims concerned some disliked 'other', almost invariably unaccompanied by anything resembling evidence. Some things never change... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least this adds to the pool of possible names for Wikipedia's house band. "Published by Canibals" is a bit long to fit nicely on a t-shirt though. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found the work mentioned I above: William Arens' 1979 The Man-Eating Myth : Anthropology and Anthropophagy. Needless to say, Arens' claims regarding the rarity (or non-existence) of culturally-acceptable cannibalism have been disputed since, and by most accounts debunked, though I don't think anyone disagrees with his suggestion that allegations of cannibalism have often been made to simply project negativity. In the interests of good faith, I'm going to assume that the OP's intimation was just that, rather than an actual allegation of cannibalism by Wikipedia contributors. Quite how one might detect this particular gastronomic preference through writing style escapes me... AndyTheGrump (talk)

OK. I call dibs on football. Category:WikiProject Football articles has 500,000+ pages but some of them aren't actually articles so this should be easy. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them cite academic sources? I know that academia tends to throw its nets wide when trawling for subjects (bad metaphor, since trawlers don't throw nets...) but is there actually published peer-reviewed work on Huddersfield Town's single-appearance Joseph Wigmore? I rather doubt it. Not unless he subsequently ate someone? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I heard he was dating that woman who Daryl Hall and John Oates sang about. In fact, she probably wrote our article about him. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TooManyFingers At least the OP made it easier to fit on a t-shirt by misspelling Canibals with only one n.Naraht (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I expect there's a market for books like The Canibal Codes: The Do's and Don'ts of Eating Your Relatives. MinorProphet (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MinorProphet Was The Canibal Codes written by Dan Brown, by any chance? David10244 (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that one is actually by S. Green. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers They were fine young can[n]ibals. David10244 (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on Nick Fuentes is bias and absurdly far left. If you're not going to write a neutral documentary, then don't cry for people to donate to your lame site. ~2025-39495-55 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. Feel free not to donate. Or to read Wikipedia at all. Plenty of people do both, though whether the WMF (which actually solicits the donations, rather than Wikipedia) actually needs the humungous pile of dosh it is sitting on is a matter of debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American political commentator and a far-right white nationalist, activist, and live streamer. He hosts America First, a livestream promoting Christian nationalism, white supremacy, misogyny, anti-LGBTQ views, and antisemitism including Holocaust denial." do you feel is not supported by citations in the body of the article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One might indeed ask whether Fuentes would deny any of that. —Antonissimo (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what kind of person it takes to search for Nick Fuentes on Wikipedia, see the donation banner at the top of the page, and get so pissed off at the combination of those two things that they have to come and tell us about it. Athanelar (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, the kind of person who reads text like that I quoted, and thinks "This is someone whose reputation I must defend". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Andy. David10244 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded photos that I took about Gillett, CO but never saw them published after my submission a couple of months ago. I checked multiple times and did not see them published. I was wondering why they disappeared into a black hole and were never used. Thank you, Neno1815 (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one of yours?

Gillett Coal Bridge TooManyFingers (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neno1815, You've uploaded several photos to Commons, but that doesn't in of itself amount to a submission to add them to the article. I suggest you raise this on the article talk page, or even consider adding one yourself (see Help:Pictures). The article is a bit short to justify a lot of images, but maybe adding one more might be justifiable - I'd go with the historical 'Coal bridge' one, rather than your own photos, which don't really illustrate the town. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple images on Commons, Neno1815 can add {{Commons category}} at the foot of the Wikipedia article which will link to the category page on Commons (to which I have just added their images). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a Commons category exists for an enwiki article, the cat is usually automatically linked in in the "Tools" menu. No need to add any tag manually. DMacks (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tools menu is not part of article content; {{Commons category}} is.

That's why {{Commons category}} "is used on approximately 890,000 pages, or roughly 1% of all pages"; including many featured articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that this list shows when you contributed your photos. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

c:Special:ListFiles/Neno1815 may be more convenient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'd never seen that TooManyFingers (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:rp lets editors add page numbers to footnotes, so the same citation for a whole book can be reused. Is there any similar template for timestamps, so the citation for a documentary or other audiovisual source can be reused? Thanks! Helpful Cat {talk} 04:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same template! Just use |at=00:00 as the parameter for a timestamp. Nil🥝 06:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks! Helpful Cat {talk} 06:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That screed had absolutely nothing to do with editing Wikipedia and none of the editor's contributions improve the encyclopedia in any way. I have blocked them accordingly. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Even though it is collapsed by default, I actually tried to read that. I didn't get very far.

I do feel sorry for him, though. David10244 (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Why_was_BFDI_not_on_Wikipedia?#Archiving_messed_up. If you can help, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if I was allowed to assist with WP:Task_Center#Answer_an_Edit_Request and if so, do I use a tool for it or do I go through, review it, and manually make the edit if it fits/follows the guidelines and policies. Just want to make sure I am doing this right. Thanks, Elijah Wilder (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijah Wilder You're allowed, but stick to what you know, you don't have that many edits. For one thing, I'd stay out of WP:PIA stuff and similar. As with everything else around here, if people have opinions on what you do, they will tell you. Take the time to read WP:ERREQ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this discussion as it is clearly not about editing wikipedia Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 16:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Example: [9] John Braham (MP) shows as a blue link on 31 December 2011 in the Suffolk article (first table, year 1417) even though the John Banham article was not created until September 2025. Am I correct to deduce that article history views reflect the current status of wikilinks not their prior status at the date of the article history? Rupples (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rupples yes, you are correct. In my experience, the history uses the Wikicode of the article from a previous edit, so article links may change from red to blue or vice versa, and image files and templates may no longer exist. TSventon (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional explanation. I initially thought the history was an exact mirror of the article at one point in time, so I expected to see a red link up until the date the new article was created. I see now the links aren't frozen, as such. Rupples (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples: Yes, an old revision of a page shows what the code of that page would produce today so you know what you get if you revert to that revision. Template:/meta/color was deleted in 2021 so the 1640-1832 section is messed up in the 2011 revision. Wikipedia does not have a way to see what a page actually looked like at the time (except Wikipedia:Main Page history). The Internet Archive at https://web.archive.org/ (not affiliated with us) has taken snapshots of many articles including this one which does show a red link before September 2025. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @PrimeHunter. I regularly use Internet Archive for source finding/creating archive links and it just didn't cross my mind it holds past copies of Wikipedia articles, so that's useful to know. Also, it has clarified the difference between article history and a snapshot. Rupples (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After starting to research cryptocurrency topics, I found the CEX.io page, which is written in Russian and reveals the topic of that exchange. After that, I started writing the article itself, and at the stage when I wanted to publish it, I saw that this article existed before, but it was merged with GHash.io and redirected, which is wrong, because they are not the same. How to correctly carry out the separation procedure to restore the old address of the main article, and could I download and add content?

CEX.io was previously at this address [10]. VollyM (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@VollyM: The redirect is not "wrong" just because it links to a different subject. CEX.io was deemed by editor David Gerard to fail Wikipedia's notability criteria, since there was minimal independent reporting of CEX.io in mainstream, non-crypto-focused sources that wasn't just discussing GHash.io, so CEX.io was redirected to the most closely related article. The Russian Wikipedia is a separate project with its own rules on what articles are acceptable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I logged in but my donation does not appear connected to that login. I've had an ongoing monthly contribution for years. I am cancelling the credit card being used so need to figure out how to do that. \ Xenarosa (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xenarosa. I am afraid us volunteer editors can not help with donation-related issues. Please contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly at donate@wikimedia.org. qcne (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenarosa: See also https://wikimediafoundation.org/give/manage-your-donation (which also gives that email address). You are right that accounts are not connected to donations. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to use QRC's in philatelic exhibits to link additional information about the subject matter of stamps being used in the display. Is there any copyright or other considerations that I need to be aware of? I'm just starting to play with the idea, so also wondering about the best way to do this. Thanks. Fred Danes (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Danes: This is a help desk for the encyclopedia Wikipedia. Your question appears unrelated to us. Wikipedia does not give legal opinions but see QR code#License. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use QR Codes to link to Wikipedia articles; please feel free—there is nothing we require of you if you do. You may wish to do so by making use of QRpedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to vote to make pictures featured but I can only do it by replying to someone and than editing that reply can someone please help me. Gstaveeiffel314 (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - How can I help editing and reviewing articles in Arabic language to make edit suggestions? Since it is my native language.

Thanks in advance. Hesham001 (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hesham001. You will have to ask on the Arabic Wikipedia, which is its own project, with its own administrators and its own policies and guidelines. English Wikipedia Teahouse hosts have no special knowledge of that project. Good luck, though. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hesham001 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a Notification in a foreign language from Programmerbot: (quote) Programmerbot sizning munozara sahifangizda xabar qoldirdi. [UZ] Foydalanuvchi munozarasi:~2025-33904-40 (endquote) What does it mean? Thanks, ~2025-39624-56 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC) PS: From the preview it seems that my ID has changed from what it was only an hour ago.[reply]

Google translates the message from Uzbek as "Programmerbot left a message on your talk page. [UZ] User talk". It probably means that you clicked on Uzbek Wikipedia for some reason, a temporary account was created there and a bot left a message on your talkpage there, see uz:Foydalanuvchi_munozarasi:~2025-33904-40. TSventon (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I assume these are your edits or were made on your device: Special:Contributions/~2025-33904-40. A temporary account is automatically created when you edit. If our software cannot recognize you when you edit again then a new temporary account is created. If you view any page at another Wikipedia language or Wikimedia wiki then your temporary account may be created there. Special:CentralAuth/~2025-33904-40 shows several such accounts. At the Uzbek Wikipedia you got a welcome message from a bot and were notified of this. Just ignore it. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this username inappropriate User talk:AydenHoltonIsAGay. Should be added a tag? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 01:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The account was blocked indefinitely, in part for that reason, less than 20 minutes after you posted your query, so you were not wrong, and may have prompted the block. Thanks for raising the issue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if there is a page that lists the most edited pages in the last 30 days that is not exclusively articles. This can mean Talk pages, Wikipedia namespace pages and that kind of nature. I know there is a page for total amount of revisions for pages from all namespaces, but I’m looking for one that just does last the last 30 days. Interstellarity (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the top 1000. Surprise, WP:AIV and WP:ANI still top the list. —Cryptic 02:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard of number 3, User:AmandaNP/UAA/Time, before. TSventon (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that a bot is updating that page every 10 minutes. I can't see the point of that and maybe the admin User:AmandaNP can tell us why they need it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression that the time stamps are used by the software that determines when blocked users become unblocked again. But I have no idea how any of that really works. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can i make wikipedia article about islamic/christian/any other religion scientific foreknowledge

arabic wikipedia has islamic scientifc foreknowledge

• ar:إعجاز_القرآن
• ar:الإعجاز العلمي في السنة النبوية

Stackper (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the first article already has an English equivalent, I'jaz. I think Islamic attitudes towards science should be the only page to cover such a topic (in relation to Islam) as I don't see a major difference between the contents of this page and the contents of the Arabic page (second one) to warrant a different article. You can add to this article if you wish, just be sure that it is all sourced to a reliable source, and doesn't offer undue weight to certain beliefs. jolielover♥talk 06:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The former pair are already linked as equivalent, via Wikidata, in their respective interlanguage-links menus (headed "Languages" on the English page). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what about bibical scintfic foreknowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stackper (talk • contribs) 06:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism_of_the_Bible#The_Bible_and_science. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm. That has potential for becoming an article. jolielover♥talk 11:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and science is it allowed to add scintific miracles in bible here Stackper (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stackper Not without a reliable source. The Bible is not a reliable source. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stackper I do not mean to be insulting: based on your replies here, I am not sure you have the English-language competence to edit the English Wikipedia. A complex and sensitive topic such as this would require a native or fluent level of written English ability, which you are not demonstrating.

There are lots of other language Wikipedias, ones which you may be more comfortable contributing to. qcne (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would like to create an article, however upon checking there is something called "notability". Is there a tool or process I can use to check whether a business or individual is considered “notable enough” before I start creating a draft article? I want to make sure I’m following the rules correctly and not creating pages that won’t meet the standards. What’s the best way to evaluate notability ahead of time?

Thanks for your guidance. ~2025-39760-98 (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, evaluating notability is one of those things you just have to learn with time, and that's precisely why we don't advise that new editors try to make a new article until they have some experience on Wikipedia.

You can read the general notability guideline for an indication of what we're looking for, and the golden rule for what a good source of notability looks like. Athanelar (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for people there's WP:NPERSON and for businesses WP:NCORP Athanelar (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-39760-98. A good rule of thumb is to find three strong sources that each meet the criteria set out in WP:GOLDENRULE. If you can find three sources that each meet that criteria then the topic is potentially notable. If you cannot find three sources, then probably not.

There are no tool, it is all judgement based. However, writing a new article is the hardest thing a new editor can do as you will not have experience assessing sources and understanding notability yet. I would recommend spending a few weeks improving existing articles first, in order to gain experience with our policies and guidelines. qcne (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just started getting this "new contribution" section being inserted at the top of my user contributions page.

There's NO WAY this is going to encourage me to use the translation tool to create a new page. Can we please revert this change? Fabrickator (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrickator: Disable "Content Translation" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been editing a lot of categories. And am slightly confused by the guidelines around including topic categories as elements of set categories.

WP:SUBCAT seems to indicate that elements of subcategories should obey an is-a relationship with the parent category. To me this implies that a set category like Category:Presidents of the United States should include the article George Bush but not the topic category Category:George Bush.

Nonetheless, it seems this guidance is not widely followed. I topic categories being included in set categories all the time. For example check out Category:Counties of Guangxi. It includes several topic categories about the individual counties as subcategories.

Is it okay to remove these topic categories that are erroneously included as part of set categories? Should I bring it up on category talk pages or should I just remove them? For example, was this edit appropriate?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Qiannan_Buyei_and_Miao_Autonomous_Prefecture&diff=prev&oldid=1326608796 Benboy250 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I'm asking if WP:SUBCAT's advice here is out of step with practice or if I'm misinterpreting it or if actually its just being incorrectly ignored by editors. Benboy250 (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the specific guidance in WP:SUBCAT that you are discussing. Your example sounds like a case of WP:EPONYMOUS, which explicitly makes it up to each topic-area or other local-consensus how to handle it among several common options. DMacks (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for the info, that's really helpful! Benboy250 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have an account.

I need to register it so I can access semi-protection articles to improve them. Gabe1213 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabe1213 Your account will become autoconfirmed after you have made >10 edits and been registered for >4 days. There is no need to do anything else to expedite access but if you like you can suggest edits on the talk pages of articles in the meantime. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ohhhh, I thought it was one or the other. Gabe1213 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabe1213 Please make sure that all improvements you make, to any article, are accompanied by in-line references to WP:Reliable sources. Semi-protected articles might also be marked as WP:Contentious topics, and for those articles, you need to be especially careful. David10244 (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed KOXO is in "Silent", please edit change from silent to "Weigel Broadcast Group" licensed last November 26, 2025 by FCC for Portland OR - Low Power TV station. Browncat88 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Edit requests. If you're trying to request an edit to an article, you need to go there and say exactly which article you're requesting the change on, and what change you're requesting (in a simple "Change X to Y" format) Athanelar (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and tell us where you found that information, so we can include a citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a remix, Browncat88. If you're requesting an edit to an article, first go to that article. This will have a link labeled "Talk". Click on "Talk". At the foot of that Talk page, start a new discussion thread (just as you have done here), and say exactly what change you're requesting (in a simple "Change X to Y" format), and specify your reliable, published source for that information. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need help ,and i need someonethats going to belieave shit that i cant even explian...Look Listen to me...Im a crimanal...im needing help ~2025-39841-71 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-39841-71 This is a help desk for editing Wikipedia, nothing else. Please contact local law enforcement if you are a criminal: we cannot help. qcne (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But contact a defense attorney first. —Antonissimo (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in the United States, call 988 or txt 988. This is the mental health emergency number, and they can help you or tell you how to get help. Do this now. Do not wait. If you are not in the US, try to search "emergency mental health help" in your browser. -Arch dude (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ask to delete Dr. Peter Lacker from the filmography in the TV Show on L.A. Law, Episode I'm in Nude for Love. Dominic Chianese is not playing as Dr. Peter Lacker. Robert Ellenstein plays as Dr. Peter Lacker. I find it on IMDb. I got it right. ~2025-39997-74 (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source on Wikipedia, because it can be edited by anybody. See WP:Citing IMDb Athanelar (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean that IMDb is always wrong.

We need to know which page(s) the first poster refers to, so that we can see what sources (if any!) are cited there, and check them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Romance peoples is a redirect to Romance languages. I want to begin a move discussion about redirecting it instead to Latins#Latin peoples and regions.

Since all discussion about Romance peoples redirect page has to go on the Romance languages talk page, I attempted to put in the move request using the following (from WP:RSPM#Single page move on a different talk page):

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

But I keep getting this message in red letters: "Request to move a single page must be placed on that page's talk or the page its talk redirects to"

I don't understand what's going on... Evaporation123 (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're talking about changing where Romance peoples redirects to. That isn't a page move, but rather something you can bring up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Sorry if I've misunderstood your concern! DonIago (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was it. Thank you for your help! Evaporation123 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! For a few days, I am trying to test how an image looks like with the quote, but I am unable to format it properly. Please see Urain Ge and 141 Schools for Peace and suggest if someone has a better idea or template.

A few external examples of how I want it to look like: [11] [12] Thank you! M. Billoo 09:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before solving the technical problem of how, I think it's important to figure out whether it should be done at all. While those do grab reader's attention, I think they are not in keeping with Wikipedia's style-guides, such as MOS:PULLQUOTE and MOS:CAPTION. DMacks (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Quote box}} is usually what editors use, but do make yourself aware of the guidelines linked above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an article "Rousers" and can't tell if it was accepted or in review? Is it stuck in my "sandbox"? Any help would be greatly appreciated?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jeridoconn/sandbox&oldid=1323769504 Jeridoconn (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jeridoconn, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I've added a template to the top of your draft, there should now be an option to submit it for review by clicking the blue button. Happy editing! Nil🥝 11:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

could you please tell me how to use wikepedia Lockie148 (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Lockie148. That is a very broad question. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia of topics that meet our criteria for inclusion: our articles are mostly free for anyone to edit, as long as the edits comply with our policies and guidelines. Check out Wikipedia:Everything you need to know, an easy way to understand our most important policies.

Did you have any specific questions? qcne (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lockie148: If you mean as a reader then there is a search box or search icon at top of pages. See more at Help:Searching. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago I created a page for Solatube International. I noticed it is no longer there. Can anyone tell me why? It had plenty of citations. Thanks! Bethmcrae (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you are referring to the page previously deleted at Solatube it was procedurally deleted for the reason "the article is promotional, all non-promotional content is duplicated in the light tube article". You can request the article to be restored at WP:Requests for undeletion - I would advise requesting a copy be undeleted as a draft, and working on it through the Articles for Creation project as it is likely it would not survive in its current state. CoconutOctopus talk 14:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bethmcrae: See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. You were notified at User talk:Bethmcrae#Proposed deletion of Solatube before it was deleted in 2017. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4 Star Records

I have posted on the talk page for this article, but suspect from my lengthy experience of such matters, that my query will sit there for months/years without a response. I am not sure if a change to the title of a category needs an admin to effect it. Would some kind soul care to take a look. Many thanks. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just posted a request for this on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, based on the simple mismatch between the category name and the main article name. They have nearly 300 such items to get through, but it should happen eventually. Thanks for pointing this out! TooManyFingers (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your prompt actions. Much appreciated. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this doesn't apply to all donors, but personally I am like a beautiful woman: the more I am hounded and urged to do something, the less likely I am to comply. I believe I donated once or twice when I had a bank account with money. I can tell you right now that I'm receiving too many emails asking for donations; and yes I understand that the holidays are likely when you guys do most of your fundraising. Thank you for all your hard work and services, but please reconsider email subject headers like "My 4th attempt to reach you, ___" opening to a face shot of Jimmy staring into my soul. Please by all means forward this to Jimmy if you can/want. There is a bridge and a disconnect between the physical and virtual world; if I were to see a person, some sort of volunteer, outside of a grocery store ringing a bell with a Wikipedia collection bucket, you bet I would put in a few dollars. However when it comes to virtual donations, debit, credit, etc.... I intentionally make it so that I am not tempted to purchase media, subscriptions, engage in micro-transactions, or the consumption of any other sorts of "non-tangible" goods. Thank you for hearing me out. -J ~2025-40057-63 (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Us volunteer editors have no control over the Wikimedia Foundation's donation drives. But I can say that a lot of us editors do agree with you. I would recommend feeding back your thoughts to the Foundation directly: donate@wikimedia.org qcne (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-40057-63 You can alternatively make your point at User talk:Jimbo and might even get a reply there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I have edited the article "Rungis International Market", as it is in no way "international", but "d'intéret national" which mean "Nation wide".

But I don't know how to edit the entry name.

Best SBOINSAR (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made to the article are not supported by either the French or English web sites of the market organization, and have been reverted. Discuss on the article's Talk page with other editors at Talk:Rungis International Market. General Ization ^Talk 20:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SBOINSAR: Your alleged name "Rungis Nation Wide Market" has no Google hits and no chance of being accepted when the Official website of the market is linked in the article and shows in the red bar at the bottom that Rungis International Market is the real name. Do not add made up names to Wikipedia. Our content is based on published reliable sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: In fairness to the OP, it appears (from a 2014 comment on the article Talk page) that the name of the market changed from the one the OP is proposing more than 10 years ago to the one currently reflected here (so the OP's proposal does not appear to be a "made up" name, but is no longer correct). General Ization ^Talk 22:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The former page name was Marché d'Intérêt National de Rungis. The OP called it Rungis Nation Wide Market in the article [13] which was apparently an attempt to translate a former French name of what is called Marché International de Rungis today. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OP's proposed name was a literal translation of the former name (Intérêt National in this case being idiomatic). General Ization ^Talk 23:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I don't mean to sound too bothersome but the peer review for Dorfromantik (board game) has been dormant for over a month. Without any feedback it's very hard to improve the article so some input would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chorchapu I'm not familiar with the mechanics of peer review but the request has now been moved to the archive (see Category:October 2025 peer reviews). I don't know whether you can put it back into the active stream or maybe contact the editors who made suggestions by pinging them to the article's talk page and taking it from there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that. Well, the advice given was not sufficient for my goal of FA-status so should I open a new peer review? Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a contributor to the Italian Wikipedia and would like to point out that the title of the entry for Bonconte I da Montefeltro is incorrect, as his name is Buonconte da Montefeltro (it:Buonconte da Montefeltro (conte)). Thank you to anyone who can help correct this and move the page. ~2025-40131-23 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the article talk page. TSventon (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need Help with Someone, I am not getting through to them ... User_talk:K-popguardian they deleted a Page (or redirected it) (Lucia Field) and they are not understanding why it's wrong to do it ... Jena (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jena Fi: what K-popguardian did was a common process called blank and redirect, see WP:BLAR. They didn't think that Lucia Field is WP:NOTABLE, so they redirected the page, you disagree, so you should explain why Field is suitable for an article on the talk page. TSventon (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok but I will wait... I don't think they will do it again ... and reading the talk page ... they are having some problems with Wikipedia Jena (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jena Fi: I absolutely will do it again, especially now that its been explained as a common practice by @TSventon:, unless you can professionally and properly explain to me WHY this page should stay, without making any personal attacks on my wikipedia record, JUST focusing on what's allowed and not allowed on Wikipedia. - K-popguardian (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to tell you before ... you have to discuss it with people before you do it, Lucia is the Blue Wiggle and she is Anthony's Daughter.. that is why she is notable Jena (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jena Fi: An article has to be more than two pieces of trivia. As I mentioned in the redirect reasoning (which I'm starting to think you didn't even read), not only was her article ridiculously small but there's only TWO non-primary sources on the entire thing. There's a reason why Kelly Hamilton doesn't have a page but someone like Philip Wilcher does. The coverage of these individuals' careers is what ultimately matters most, and by extension, artices focused on said individual and not the group as a whole. Otherwise the entire article really is just "Lucia Field is the daughter of Anthony and the Blue Wiggle." And AGAIN, saying this for the third time now, I made it a REDIRECT to acknowledge that she might be more notable in the future but seeing as she's the wiggle with the least amount of information on wikipedia, she does not meet the criteria to have a page. And it's really bothering me that all you've done to justify this is tell me "don't do it again", complain about me to the help desk, take aim my wikipedia record, and doing everything but proving her notability. This feels more like something you're doing as a fan and not because you know this article meets criteria. - K-popguardian (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: Just taking a quick glance at Lucia Field's page, do you think she's WP:NOTABLE enough to have a page right now? - K-popguardian (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passer-by, but as someone active in reviewing new pages/drafts, this doesn't presently pass WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources. Do more exist? Not sure, but currently there's not enough to meet independent notability under WP:NBANDMEMBER. // hekatlys [talk] 02:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically this image File:Sea Power game logo.png (fair-use image, can't display) Opecuted (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps this not copyrightable because it is simple text

Piñanana (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's some texturing going on in the text, so I'm playing safe. —Opecuted (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The texturing going on in the text is not in the image,

it has to do with displaying an image with "transparency" Alpha compositing

other images on commons that have "transparency" exhibit the same phenomenon

Piñanana (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They mean the pattern on the white text itself, not the alpha checkerboard pattern. It's much more visible against a dark background. —Cryptic 15:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox has a way of doing this (see, for example, Template talk:Infobox/Archive 19#Forcing a bg color on images with transparent bg), but {{infobox video game}} doesn't seem to pass the parameter through. —Cryptic 15:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi My little sister wants to make an account on Wikipedia but cant since the Wifi at her Starbucks is blocked due to maybe being vandalized by other people. She is in no way wanting to cause any issues, she wants to just have an account made and do whats right for Wikipedia. If there is anything or anyway you can please help this would be very helpful. I do have her email and name and info present if needed, Thanks for your time. P.S. I am new at trying to find the right area to post questions, please be patient. MacLego45 (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

does she have internet where she lives?

Piñanana (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinanna,

Yes she lives in an apartment that produces internet just like her job. Both spots are blocked due to people not behaving im guessing. She is new to Wikipedia as well and just wants to join like I am as in account. MacLego45 (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let her start an account on Wikipedia with your internet and device

Piñanana (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKPUPPET

Piñanana (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SLEEPER

Piñanana (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we live in the same Apartment complex. I tried with my iPhone, but it says no account can be made due to being blocked by something called disrupted editing. I wouldn't even know where to start on editing. I just like reading and all. She likes to write and do history stuff. She lives next door to me. The Apartment is Hud Apartments so it free internet to all who live here or better way to say its added in the rent. Im just trying to get her an account made like I have done years ago. Sorry to be such a bother, it's just been really strange on how and where to fix an issue. thanks. MacLego45 (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This above my expertise, wait for a more experienced user

Piñanana (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for helping. sorry for any confusion or issues. also what does sockpuppet and sleeper mean. I saw WP: Sleeper and etc. thanks MacLego45 (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you read them, they might help

Piñanana (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks just figured out you can click in them like links. thanks for helping. MacLego45 (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Request an account or making an account from other projects (i.e. commons:), since they can be used to login here too. —Opecuted (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The latter not if the local block is set to disable account creation. Last time I checked local blocks with "account creation disabled" not only prevent manually creating new accounts via Special:CreateAccount but also the automatic account creations when you log into a new project for the first time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

en:Aly Khan and pl:Maciej Mielżyński (powstaniec śląski) have related content

there is no pl:Aly Khan

I need to find a en.wikipedian who speaks Polish, to find a pl.wikipedian who understands Polish nobility honorifics and culture and history to clarify pl:Maciej Mielżyński (powstaniec śląski), Sybilla Szczeniowska Sorondo (Sybilla Emilia hr. Mielżyńska h. Nowina), Marek Szczeniowski, and Aly Khan

see: pl:Dyskusja:Maciej Mielżyński (powstaniec śląski)#Sybilla Emilia hr. Mielżyńska h. Nowina

Piñanana (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piñanana If you want to improve Poland-related content on the English Wikipedia, you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland; you will need to be more clear about what you're asking. Any discussions about editing the Polish-language Wikipedia should be held at pl.wikipedia.org, although you should avoid editing or discussing on that project if you don't speak Polish. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pl:Wikipedia:Ambasada is available on Polish Wikipedia, for non-Polish-speaking Wikipedians to use (just as we have WP:Embassy for non-English-speakers). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

want to find Category:User pl-N users that have made contributions in the last month

"needle in a haystack"

Piñanana (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can immediately grab the attention of some of the Polish speakers. If I play some music by Chopin, they'll quickly agree I'm doing it wrong, but disagree among themselves on how best to improve it. (While they discuss that, I'll sneak out the side door.) :)

Unfortunately, this trick might now only work on a small minority. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piñanana: This searches the category by the most recent edit to the user page so it finds some of them but probably also has false positives where somebody else edited the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an easy task for someone to do by a Wikipedia:Request a query. DMacks (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to create my own website? ~2025-40142-91 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-40142-91. This is the help desk for Wikipedia editing only. Please use an internet search engine to find information on how to create a website. qcne (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Alternative outlets for some free tools and services. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is a bot for archiving URLs of an article, would you give me its address? Vastmajority20025 (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To view its archive, click on the View History tab at the top of any article. No bot is involved. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not strictly true, you can set it a bunch of pages and it'll run as a bot. See User:IABot. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025 Which kind of archiving do you mean? Are you looking for an automated way to add archive.org links onto the external links in an article? TooManyFingers (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers, I mean a tool that you request that I want to archive URLs of standard wikipedia citation templates of an article (by "standard wikipedia citation templates" I mean like the URL you put in Template:Cite web. My friend said it exists, but didn't know its address—maybe it existed but now it's gone.

No @Shantavira, I don't mean I wanna see an article's history tab.

@Lee Vilenski, I didn't find what I wanted in the bot you gave, but thanks though. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[14] is the page we are talking about, which is the one you want. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a move to draft by mistake, somebody help me to revert my edit? Sorry for the inconvenience AlphaCore talk 15:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the move to draft, @AlphaCore. I don't think this needs to be reverted? qcne (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Qcne The article was created years ago, so, per policy, it can't be draftified after 90 days, right? Awaiting response AlphaCore talk 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

its not really the same article that was created years ago. Could have just changed it back into a redirect, like it is now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you:) I think the draft got a redirect but not the main space one. AlphaCore talk 15:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was wondering if I did this | Edit Request correctly. If not, what could I have done differently? It is the most recent request on that Talk page.

Thanks, Elijah Wilder (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Wilder, the edit request seems clear to me. It points out that in Necrodes, the taxobox states that genus is in family Staphylinidae, whereas the source cited states that it's in Silphidae. Correcting this (maybe after evaluating the source) would require a change in the taxobox template, something I'm not able to confidently do myself. Maproom (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I will undo what I have done so someone else can review it. Based on what I read and saw, I didn't see the part where they asked for X to be changed to Y. Thank you for replying. Elijah Wilder (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made the article Seloam Lake, and want to list in on List of Lakes of Nova Scotia. The lake crosses both Halifax County and Guysborough County, so where do i put it? TIA, Versions111 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both? Athanelar (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is mostly for the sake of having the numbers, so don't worry too much. there's also probably a better place to ask this, but shh

do y'all see the term "spa" being used more often to refer to sockpuppet or single-purpose accounts? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPA stands for single-purpose account. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA goes to single-purpose account Athanelar (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]