Wikipedia:Help desk#Help

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how to make page ? :

en:RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ajijic has {{cleanup}}

what is hatnote for translate from es.wikipedia ?

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

I think you mean Template:Expand Spanish.

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

fr de nl... mostly have no sources

Cannes Ibiza Lake Tahoe

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

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

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

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

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

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

When editing an article to add a spouse to an article, it said "That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest". I was the spouse, so what conflict could I have? AFB-Fr62 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Conflict of interest details a lot of this. "... contributing to Wikipedia articles about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." If you are/were the spouse of the subject, you still have a certain closeness to the subject and would fall under the COI guidelines, regardless of intentions. Potential edits should be posted on the talk page of the article for a neutral, third-party to review beforehand. • Quinn (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest means you aren't 100% committed to Wikipedia, because you're also committed to the subject of the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You asked in the right place, on the article's talk page, but we need to see a citation for the fact that you wanted added. Simply saying "Lousiana Vital Records Registry" is too vague; can you give a specific web link (URL), or the details to allow us to find the relevant record? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear I’m new here can we be friends Johnhypolord (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can be abele to meet with friends Johnhypolord (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you make valuable and reliably referenced improvements to articles here, you will find yourself interacting with other editors, who will be amiably disposed towards you. It's unlikely that you will ever meet any of them, face to face. But if your purpose in Wikipedia is to make friends, you are at the wrong website. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Social. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, that was very helpful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coincidence.

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

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

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

Re 'the US has freedom of press and speech' see here. [3] Compare to most of western and central Europe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Courtesy link: First Step (Faces album)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the City of Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, York, Doncaster, Wakefield, and Salford districts’ pages, it states that they consist of their namesake cities and other places, when actually those places became part of the namesake cities when the districts were formed, just like when Greater London was formed, many areas outside London became part of it. Because of this, I believe it would be a good idea to make these districts coextensive with their namesake cities. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HamzaTheGreat2007, I read this three times but still didn't understand it. So I chose one of the seven at random and looked for something that might be called Wakefield district's page. Wakefield (UK Parliament constituency) (itself a confusing article) tells me that this constituency no longer exists but is split between Wakefield and Rothwell and Ossett and Denby Dale. Then there's Wakefield and City of Wakefield. I'm now even more confused (and the confusion may or may not be what you're complaining of). Now, I may have a below-average IQ, but I suspect that I won't be unusual in being baffled by all of this and unsure of the cause of the bafflement. Perhaps you'd be better off introducing your suggestion with a description of the mess (in your view) around any one of the seven, and posting the reworded suggestion to the talk page of whichever single "WikiProject" seems most relevant (and not moribund). -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HamzaTheGreat2007 I think I understand. I very much wonder if I'm wrong, though.

It makes sense to me to say that in fact those parts that were absorbed by the larger cities no longer have the names they once had. But to make a retroactive declaration (as it were) that those names never existed and should be expunged from the descriptions in the articles, doesn't make sense to me. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are entirely separate articles, for example, on Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; on Milwaukee (town), Wisconsin and on Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the city). There is no reason not to have different articles on the different entities. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is different, because these districts are not counties, rather they are city districts inside counties, and also the town of Milwaukee was absorbed into the city of Milwaukee in 1955. My point still stands of merging these city districts with their namesake cities. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying, @HamzaTheGreat2007, and I lived in Bradford for 25 years. I think you may be proposing a merger of the articles Bradford and City of Bradford, and similarly for the other cities. If that's the case (or it's anything like that) I suggest raising it on the talk page of one of them (and put a pointer to it in the talk page of the other). See Merging for more information. ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am suggesting for a merger of the cities and their namesake districts. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I already have suggested this in the talk page of these city districts’ articles, but I have received no response. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have separate articles for London and Greater London, even though they now cover the same geographical area (are coextensive). If you want a formal discussion, I suggest trying one example and using the WP:Merging process. Or accept the feedback from here and don't attempt a merger. TSventon (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that these city districts’ pages state that they consist pf the namesake districts and places outside the city, when in reality, those places are part of the city proper. Because of this, the cities’ pages should be edited to have the same area and population as the districts. HamzaTheGreat2007 (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources which say that the smaller settlements in the City of Bradford are part of Bradford proper, and so on? In my understanding Greater London was formed in 1965 to include most of the London conurbation. The City of Bradford and the other metropolitan boroughs of West Yorkshire were created in 1974 as parts of a national system of local government and they don't necessarily correspond to different conurbations. TSventon (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• HamzaTheGreat2007 is correct as far as York is concerned (I can’t speak to the others). In 1996, the district of York was abolished and replaced with a new, larger district of York, which incorporated a number of the surrounding parishes.[4] Those parishes became part of York when the new district was formed. That 'City of York' page is a figment of someone's imagination - there is no district named "City of York", the name of the district is "York". --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolmxl5 you doubtless know more about York than I do. It seems that York and City of York have previously been merged and demerged, so I would recommend a discussion before merging them again. I assume the name "City of York" comes from City of York Council. TSventon (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy link: Turkey red.

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

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

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

Fig. 33a in GEB:

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

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

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

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

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

it the "skeleton" of INT. "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

Hello, @ADChild.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 7.1 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. I suggest checking with the local government in wherever the Westminster you ask about might be. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Euler's identity

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

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

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

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

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

@CodeTalker:Try this in your CSS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per WP:RUSUKR. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 13:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Russo-Ukrainian war#War crimes and human rights violations. ~2026-51127-4 (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] If you think information in that article is incorrect, you should note in the at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian war which information you think is incorrect and why. Athanelar (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] "Russian authorities and armed forces have committed multiple war crimes in the form of deliberate attacks against civilian targets, massacres of civilians, torture and rape of women and children, and many indiscriminate attacks in densely populated areas... The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (OHCHR) has documented the murder of at least 73 civilians—mostly men, but also women and children—in Bucha... In 2024, the UN Human Rights Office reported that Russia is committing severe human rights violations in occupied Ukraine, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, crackdown on protests and freedom of speech, enforced Russification, indoctrination of children, and suppression of Ukrainian language and culture... Russia has also systematically attacked Ukrainian medical infrastructure... Many Russian soldiers confessed of raping, looting and torturing Ukrainian civilians and soldiers in intercepted phone calls..."—I suggest you take this up with the Kremlin, not here. But thanks for making sure it doesn't drop out of people's minds. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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