Wikipedia:Help desk#Troubles with publishing English translation

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

(This is my first time here at the Helpdesk, hope i do this right) The article starts with the sentence "The nightlife in Bangkok, the capital city of Thailand, has traditionally had a reputation for rowdiness, but in 2011 it was reported that the city's crime rate had decreased." That is just a piece of trivia and not the first sentence to a Wikipedia article. Similar things happen throughout the whole article, noting stuff like the price of Local vs Import Beer. How can i alert people to this, as leasing a note on the Talk page probably wont be noticed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmalzbrot (talk • contribs) 00:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could:

1. Do the research and fix it yourself.

2. There could possibly be a project/group that specializes in this topic that could fix it. 24.190.200.120 (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Future I Saw has {{AI-generated}}, which it does –a Mainichi Shimbun headline translated. I had used DeepSeek, ChatGPT, and LMArena and simply chose what was to my eyes the most informative, comprehensive one. Given the innate subjectivity, what would be best practice? Including the best two, three, or four? kencf0618 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translating a headline imho isn't a big enough issue for an article-level cleanup banner, although it is best if someone fluent in Japanese can double-check it. Citing ChatGPT as a source for the translation isn't needed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peetel Was the machine-translated headline the only reason you added the LLM tag? If so, that tag is usually and was created for substantial portions of the article's text being AI-generated, not for foreign-language sources being machine-translated, especially not just a headline. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added that based on the unabridged chatgpt citation, I assumed a wide section was LLM generated. Apologies if this is wrong, feel free to remove. Peetel (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saurashtra Update Weekly Newspaper has been published regularly for the last 10 years and its owner, printer, and editor are Mr. Isabhai Hussainbhai Darvesh (Yusufbhai), 2409:40C1:100A:EEBC:7427:C2FF:FEF7:910F (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a database of things that exist. There are criteria for inclusion, which we call notability. A Wikipedia article about a newspaper or any business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it is a notable organization. Writing a new article is very challenging, and it's harder even with a conflict of interest and paid status as you would have with your newspaper. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to merge the first two, but what about the 3rd one. To me, it looks like it describe exactly the same thing.

I'm not sure how to propose to merge all 3 into one. jcubic (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a better way, but I suggest just starting two different merge proposals, which would allow the two proposals/articles to be better discussed independently. GoldRomean (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m wanting to test the Wikipedia tabbed browsing feature that was added a bit ago on the iOS app. Is there a way to forcefully enable it even though I’m not in one of the testing groups? From D0nk M3m3s (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only way it is to possibly create a new account and delete the app but not sure if it will work Isla🏳️‍⚧ 00:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to access the page views of articles, but I'm interested in seeing what the most viewed pages that are not in mainspace. The reason why I am asking this question is because I am thinking about proposing WP:Contents for removal from the sidebar, but I'm wondering if the reason why it has the page views it has is because it is easily accessible on the sidebar. I don't really see a point in having a directory of articles when you can just search for articles especially since there is no directory for biographies. Hope you can help. Please ping me when you respond. Interstellarity (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: I only know https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews. Disable "Show only mainspace pages" and write wikipedia: in the search field to see currently four pages in the overall top-1000. file: also gives four but I doubt it's human views. help: and portal: give one. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter Thank you. I'll look into it. Interstellarity (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies are under Wikipedia:Contents/People and self. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing Małgorzata and I wasn't able to find a guideline for {{infobox name}} (e.g. where to write etymology, pronunciation...) and how to write pseudonyms (e.g. pipe tricks or not) in these lists. Could you help me?-- Carnby (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnby The full parameter list for the template is at the link you provided. It has examples in the documentation that you can follow. The parameters for the etymology are a combination of origin and derivation parameters whereas pronunciation is an individual parameter. You can use "what links here" on the template page to find more examples than are listed on that page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but must we write two times the surname pronunciation and etymology or only once? Is there a guideline about how to write pseudonyms in lists (i.e. with pipe tricks or not?)-- Carnby (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a professor of fish biology at a university, where I teach an upper division class on Fish Biology. Each year, 150 students will write original species accounts, including biology, life history and taxonomy of a fish species. Last year, we wrote these up as Wikis and posted them to Wikipedia. It was a great project that really improved the Wiki resource for the public, and allowed the students to improve scicomm skills. However, there was much frustration from students about the difficulty of using correctly cited images from the scientific literature. I could use guidance on how we can use scanned images from journal articles, which was difficult even when we used open source material, correctly cited. I also had a sense that fish editors were frustrated with the number of changes and additions that were being made. Is there a way I can work with editors to anticipate this effort and reduce confusion? Thanks. N. Mercedis (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, there was much frustration from students about the difficulty of using correctly cited images from the scientific literature, can you cite those material here, the images your students used? What caused the frustration?

You can not add scanned images without giving authenticity of publisher or creators of the material, also,such as their consent from their part that they are allowing you to publish it. Even if you have created those inages by your own consciousness, there is some clarification that are still required. Though, due to lack of any historical references, I am quite confused from your question.

As you said, the reasearchs were performed by your students, which classifies Original research, which is often condemned if not backed by verifiable sources.

I also had a sense that fish editors were frustrated with the number of changes and additions that were being made. A mature response for this would be that "its very classic thing". Wikipedia, with quite large amount of edits, often changes its article content from time to time, time spanning within minutes to year. so if your students' edits were removed or were dumped under new edits, that's expected.

Please answer if that's what you meant. Kangarooblock 09:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using images is copyright. Wikipedia generally needs images to be under licences that allow free re-use for any purpose, including commercial. If your students wish to take their own photographs and upload them to Wikimedia Commons under a suitable licence, then great. Other than that, use images already uploaded to Commons. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

..or use images that are already under an acceptable free licence per c:COM:L. These typically include images from open-licensed scientific papers, or with an open licence on sites like iNaturalist (note that not all of their images are under open licence).

If OP or their students are not sure whether a particular image or set of images are suitably licensed, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kangarooblock: Where does N. Mercedis say "reasearchs [SIC] were performed by [their] students"? They say nothing about edits being rejected for being poorly cited, and refer quite clearly to using "open source material, correctly cited" for media; why do you suppose that they do not do so for text? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sys64wiki: - and please fix your sig so that it displays your username. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think your consciousness tells you I am bit confused by op question but I tried to explain him as much as possible. Kangarooblock 15:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N. Mercedis, have you read WP:Student assignments? There's good guidance there for educators. Additionally, if your university is located in the US, you're probably eligible for the Wikipedia:Education program, which provides extra support to instructors and students. That includes providing structure that helps other editors understand that there's a student assignment involved. -- Avocado (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N. Mercedis: Thanks for your efforts. -Arch dude (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N. Mercedis: Copyright law is very restrictive, and we follow the law. The complexities are not somethin we made up: they follow from the law, and they really impede all of us. If the image is from a journal, we cannot in general use it. The hassles of getting a journal image under a suitable copyright license are likely too much for a student project. Your student might be able to get the original author of the journal paper to upload an original image to Wikipedia. If the journal published the image under a suitable open license, then the mechanics are still a bit complicated but are reasonably easy to handle if you use the Wikipedia:File upload wizard. If it's too cokmplicated, put a linmk to the free image into the talk page of your new article and ask for help. -Arch dude (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N. Mercedis: Articles on Wikipedia will be modified by other editors. This is fundamental to the Wikipedia philosophy and is radically different from the way science has been published in the past. If you are trying to teach students to produce papers for journals, then this is not for you. Instead, set up a web site that you can control and do not allow random editing. Your students can publish there with no interference. If your site runs the same Wikimedia software we use here, your students can easily copy their work from that site onto Wikipedia. Our "anybody can edit" philosophy has worked for 20 years and has resulted in by far the largest and (arguably) best encyclopedia that has ever existed. I hope you urge your students to monitor changes to the articles and discuss those changes on the article's talk pages to reach consensus with the "meddling" editors. -Arch dude (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: I see nothing in N. Mercedis's post which suggests they were "trying to teach students to produce papers for journals", or edit Wikipedia in "the way science has been published in the past", or that they are complaining that other people have edited their students' work. Their students are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I inferred this, possibly incorrectly, from "I also had a sense that fish editors were frustrated with the number of changes and additions that were being made. Is there a way I can work with editors to anticipate this effort and reduce confusion?" In any event, the students must learn how the Wikipedia "anyone can edit" philosophy is supposed to work. They should not be trying to change the behavior of all of the other editors. -Arch dude (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "anyone can edit" contradicted? The students are "anyone"; they edited, some other people didn't like that.

If those other editors are being unreasonable, why not try to change that behaviour? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding using images from published works, see c:Commons:Uploading works by a third party. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy with all respect I don't think you are supposed to act too smart and don't respect others contribution. Even if they are not dancing telling them to dance appropriately doesn't mean I am supposed to shoot myself, is it?

Also "Each year, 150 students will write original species accounts, including biology, life history and taxonomy of a fish species" refers to the fact he meant research that his students conducted and nothing I told him is useless or unilateral. Please for god sake behave like an experienced editor. Kangarooblock 15:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not; and I'd rather be "too smart" than "not smart enough". YMMV.

I can barely parse most of your post; it appears to be gibberish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am free to use sigs as long as they are not hateful or censored words. I appreciate your intelligence. Kangarooblock 15:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to second the advice from Avocado, to read WP:ASSIGN, and to make use of WP:Education Program. I see from your user page that you are at UC Davis, so as an instructor in the US, you are entitled to, and should definitely make use of, that program. It will be very beneficial to your students. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tryptofish! Yes, N. Mercedis, please do reach out to us at m:Wiki Education Foundation, at teach.wikiedu.org. We offer free support, just like you're requesting here, and would be happy to help you and your students. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to add Myka Relocate to 2025 in heavy metal music using Songkick and Eventbrite as references, I have been reverted twice. Would evidence of concerts performed by the band not be sufficient to prove a reunion, even if those sources cannot be the ONLY references in an actual article? Also, I have linked this discussion from three different talk pages. Is there any way that I can get more eyes on this section? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677, you have discussed the issue on the article's talk page. Let's hope that those who reverted your edits, TheSickBehemoth and SirZPthundergod9001, respond there. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Prudente. Kevinnnx93 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevinnnx93 What about it? Do you have a question? How can we help you? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the edit button and didn't understand any of what showed up. Can you better explain it to me, please? 66.186.109.202 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First off, ip, are you and @Kevinnnx93 the same person? If so, please try to only edit logged in so that we know who we are talking to and so that you get notifications when someone replies to you.

Second, it would help to know with a little more specificity what it is you don't understand, and if you are using source editing or visual editing.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you are editing the source code and don't understand the markup. The easiest way to switch between editing the source code and editing a what-you-see-is-what-you-get version is to click the pencil icon in the top right corner, which lets you toggle between the two. Select "visual editing" and you may be better able to understand what is on the screen. That said, I would recommend trying to get a feel for wikicode if you plan on sticking around.

Let me know if that helps. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time, I'm going to move the page Kevin Prudente to your userspace. It is not currently in any condition to be in the encyclopedia, and in your userspace you can play around with it at your leisure. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevinnnx93 Kevin Prudente Answer — Yes Kevinnnx93 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevinnnx93 You can now find it at User:Kevinnnx93/Kevin Prudente. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(A specific dummy: myself.) I want to cite a paper that is headed as shown. The citation will be simple and straightforward, aside from the hieroglyphs -- for me, an unfamiliar writing system.

The paper doesn't identify the glyphs: Gardiner assumes that his readers will be familiar with the glyphs that compose the word he discusses. As I look within his own sign list, I identify/misidentify the five as:

[Why the line break after the hieroglyphs?] (E9 Z7 G1 N35 A2 -- PNG files, via the "hiero" tag)

Likewise, as I look through List of Egyptian hieroglyphs, I identify/misidentify the five as:

𓃛𓏲𓄿𓈖𓀁 (again, E9 Z7 G1 N35 A2 -- but this time Unicode characters)

Those of you who are more accustomed to hieroglyphs (or are just wider awake) than I am can perhaps point out my misidentifications.

Even if I've got the hieroglyphs right, their arrangement is wrong. A second try with Gardiner's signs:

("Z7:E9-N35:G1-A2") Not quite right (even aside from the unwanted line break, the "coil-of-rope" glyph should be top right of the sleeping beast, not top centre); but an improvement.

I'd like a second try with Unicode characters, but I'm stuck. "Egyptian Hieroglyph Format Controls" (from Unicode.org, and not as cryptic as our own "Egyptian Hieroglyph Format Controls") provides "13434 EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH INSERT AT TOP END" ("top end" seemingly meaning "top right"), and "1343A EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH INSERT AT TOP". However, I don't understand how one might use these ... entities. And there may be a more fundamental problem. I fear that even if I did manage the successful use of these or similarly recherché resources of Unicode, they'd baffle later editors, who'd well-intentionedly delete them or screw them up.

Fixes, suggestions? -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: it seems to be cited here as

GARDINER, A. H. (1904): The word iwn3. In: Zeitschrift für Ägyptische. Sprache und Altertumskunde 41: 130–135.

Hopefully an expert will turn up, otherwise there is always WP:RDL. TSventon (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but TSventon, I've seen it cited with its title rendered complete with hieroglyphs, in both a book chapter and a journal article (neither of which was itself concerned with hieroglyphs). If the printing company for each could do it (even if only semi-legibly for one, and missing a glyph for the other), I imagined that Mediawiki could as well, and do it better. Let's try:

Gardiner, Alan H. (1904). "The word " (PDF). Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. 41: 130–135 – via Internet Archive. {{cite journal}}: hiero stripmarker in |title= at position 45 (help)

Well, a minor bonus: the unwanted line break is no more. "Stripmarker" is a new word for me. (BTW, I haven't mentioned the matter at WP:RDL but I have pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The <hiero>...</hiero> tag causes MediaWiki to create a series of hieroglyph images in an html table. As part of that creation, MediaWiki also creates a matching stripmarker for use as a placeholder. These placeholders (stripmarkers) are replaced with the html table of hieroglyph images just before final rendering of the page (after templates and modules have been expanded). cs1|2 emits the error message because it cannot see the content of the hiero stripmarker so the metadata that cs1|2 creates for users of reference management software (Zotero and the like), will be corrupt or incomplete.

Best practice for citing works that have a title with hieroglyphs is to manually cite without using a cs1|2 template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your learned advice, Trappist the monk. I've adjusted the reference accordingly [in the article, not above]. (I took the opportunity to link not the six-page article but instead the 150+ page volume; because even if six pages are all that are wanted, 150+ are what the inquisitive will get.) It's a lot less ugly now. Still, it has me admiring the skills of the compositors/typographers of Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde [de] -- though of course they had only a few kinds of script to accommodate, not dozens. -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC) [Added clarification Hoary (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)][reply]

My first rearrangement of the Unicode characters was not a success:

𓏲

𓃛

𓈖

𓄿

𓀁

Perhaps I could experiment with negative margins; but doing so would risk a real mess with some alternative font. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is what you want, but I recreated the text in the provided image using CSS.

The code: The word <span style="font-size: 0px;">E9 Z7 G1 N35 A2</span><span style="display: inline-block; max-width: 2.5em; user-select: none;" aria-hidden="true"><span style="position: relative; top: -0.2em;">𓃛<span style="position: relative; top: -0.2em; left: -0.1em; font-size: 0.8em;">𓏲</span></span>𓄿𓀁<span style="position: relative; top: -0.9em; left: -1.4em;">𓈖</span></span>. OutsideNormality (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have produced an article in my sandbox User:Jhessler/sandbox

and would like to know how to move it along---there is no "move" button visible in my tools.

Thanks Biomap (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have linked to a draft posted to the sandbox of another account- do you operate both accounts? New accounts cannot directly create articles(this is why you can't see the Move button). Typically a draft is submitted via the Article Wizard from Draft space, the preferred location for drafts. We can move it to draft space for you. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great if you could move the draft forward Biomap (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biomap I will; do you operate both accounts? (which then would beg the question as to if you are the scientist) 331dot (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Draft:John W. Hessler. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The usual advice regarding WP:COI, WP:BOSS and WP:FAMOUS applies here. Also, in its current form, this would not come anywhere near being accepted as an article. See WP:YFA for more advice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done all of the hard work, maybe too much, now I have to get references which are hard to find due to not much press. I just want my fans to know who I am and what I'm doing now, I have recorded 4 records, many singles and now have a music podcast show in Las Vegas and in my 89th Episode.

So my question is what is the minimum to get started and I will add the references along the way?

Thanks, Dean Von, Dean Von Music Media -- Deanvonmusic (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deanvonmusic: The minimum requirement for a Wikipedia article is that the subject must be notable, by our definition, not yours. If you are not notable, then we cannot have an article about you. See WP:AMOUNT. -Arch dude (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dean, please have a read of WP:MUSICBIO, especially the first one. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The links that you are adding are to your social media, YouTube etc. If you are notable then other people will have written about you, but a quick google search here turned up nothing for me. I see that others have already told you this so I'm not sure why you're asking again.

Furthermore, regarding your comments here regarding "censorship", Wikipedia is a private website. We are not a web host and have no more obligation to host your biography here than you would have an obligation to host me if I visited Nevada as a tourist. Valenciano (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deanvonmusic! I am afraid you made several common mistakes.

• You created a Wikipedia page about yourself — although it's not forbidden, it is strongly discouraged here, because such pages almost never meet Wikipedia standards. Please see WP:YOURSELF for detailed explanation.
• You created a Wikipedia page for your fans for them to know who you are — this is what we call self-promotion here at Wikipedia, and it is strictly forbidden by our policy. Please see WP:SELFPROMOTE for more info.
• You created a Wikipedia page WP:BACKWARDS by writing on the subject (that is, yourself) first before finding WP:Reliable sources to establish notability of the subject. By the way, please note Wikipedia has its own definition of 'notability', described at WP:NOTABILITY, and it is must-know before you create of substantially modify any article at Wikipedia.
• You created a Wikipedia page without familiarizing with Wikipedia rules and requirements, so the page doesn't meet criteria for a Wikipedia article. As a result, it has no chance to get accepted and published in main space in its current shape.

This is very discouraging, I know. Please don't feel crushed, many Wikipedia users experienced something similar in their beginnings. If I may suggest you next move, just leave the page as it is for now, step back and browse through the links I posted above.
Also, see again the blue-and-green message that User:KylieTastic posted at your Talk page last November. Section Getting started links to some most important information, necessary for each successful Wikipedian. Good luck! --CiaPan (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I have done all of the hard work, maybe too much, now I have to get references". That is a clasic case of trying to create an article backwards. Unfortunately, you haven't even started on the hard part of the work. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a spamusername block on this account, as his talk page reveals a belligerent determination to commit promotion and autobiography, meanwhile declaring that he is not committing autobiography and promotion. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed TPA as he doubled down on his disruptive attacks. I almost feel like he was creating entertainment for himself and his fans. It's very interesting how someone can say they aren't promoting themselves and then go on to say how they will promote themselves. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:John B. Friedman

Hello! I'm creating a Wikipedia page for an author I've worked with in the past. It's in my sandbox. Many of the articles he wrote were print and are now difficult to find online references to. Will it be okay if I don't have a citation for every single one? When I'm ready will I be able to move this to it's own page so it's public and not in my sandbox? Thanks! Lbirdsall (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lbirdsall: You shouldn't be citing anything he wrote anyway. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see the comments in the section above - many of them apply here. --CiaPan (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are major issues here, Lbirdsall. Three lesser ones: (i) No need to SHOUT. (ii) Italicizing is easy. (iii) Very few books have "forwards" (although I have spotted one or two); many have "forewords". But please don't despair: your proposed subject does merit an article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I need to do a formatting pass, but I'll definitely address these :) Lbirdsall (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could try answering a question, Lbirdsall. You don't need an independent source for a claim that such and such an article was published. As an example, “Harry the Haywarde and Talbat his dog: An Illustrated Girdlebook from Worcestershire,” in Carol Fisher and Kathleen Scott, eds., Art into Life. Collected Papers from the Kresge Art Museum Medieval Symposia (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, l995), pp. 115-53. provides evidence for its own existence. However: (i) It's not as helpful as it could be. The book surely has an ISBN; please provide it. If the paper has a DOI (less likely), provide that too. (ii) It's unusual for an article about an academic to be equipped with a list of their papers (as opposed to their books). Better just to list the papers that are most widely cited or otherwise unusually important. (iii) If this is copied from somewhere (and "l995" looks like an OCR error), the source should be acknowledged. -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, some other points: Concentrate on providing citations for each statement in the prose parts of your draft, describing the subject's life. It will not be published without them!

For lists (numbered or otherwise), use the tool in the editing panel, don't number (or bullet) them manually.

What does the initial " B." stand for?

Pay attention to the errors showing on your existing references.

I've added a {{Reflist}} template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct that the citation tools that the source editor has on desktop are not available on mobile? How are people adding citations on mobile without manually typing the full templates? Thanks! Helpful Cat -talk- 02:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite correct, Helpful Cat. See Wikipedia:Enable_mobile_version for instructions on switching your mobile to desktop mode. Maproom (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, what I meant is that the citation tools aren't available in the mobile version. But switching to desktop mode on mobile is a good idea. Helpful Cat -talk- 11:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone else who sees this: I realised that citation tools are available in the mobile visual editor, so another option is to add citations via the visual editor, then switch back to the source editor to add a ref name. (Unfortunately the Wikipedia:Citation expander gadget doesn't seem to appear on mobile either, even though it can be activated in mobile preferences) Helpful Cat {talk} 20:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there have been at least 2 cases of full-protected articles, so I have a little idea. Each time someone protects an article so that only certain users can edit it, the admin needs to go and update a page which says:

x semi-protections x EC protections x full protections

where x is the number of protections at this level. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 08:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such a requirement is news to me......where is that written down? 331dot (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this post. I'll make the page in my userspace and link it in my next post. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 08:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Starfall2015: Do you mean an all-time count which includes expired protections? Here are the currently fully protected mainspace pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's done automatically, it doesn't need to be manually done by admins, a time consuming endeavor. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know - I will rebrand it as a stat watch using the magic words.

As of this post, there are 7,021,546 articles on the English Wikipedia. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 13:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

books 41.122.131.205 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ask your local librarian? What books are you looking for? 331dot (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or try a bookstore (or clarify your question). Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Unusual requests. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 08:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want them for editing Wikipedia, see WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to reduce frequent changes being made by multiple editors that keep inadvertently introducing significant factual accuracies where precision is required

On a fast evolving page, well meaning and often mostly helpful edits are being made, but in doing so the precise, accurately referenced wording is being changed so that it becomes erroneous. Sometimes this is changes made by users who have simply made assumptions themselves about the facts (and even more or less admit it), sometimes it's using lower quality sources that are inadequately accurate, often it is changing wording without realising that they are changing the meaning and the difference is legally very important. Overall the page relates to a contentious issue so is subject to single revert per day restrictions and is Extended confirmed protected. Since legislation has a definitive governmental reference to cite, there is no doubt at all about its wording, but editors make changes without the significant effort of reading the referenced legislation and multiple times over in a few days the changes have also deleted the references when they change the wording. It is extremely time-consuming gently and politely restoring legal accuracy to this section, and the changes are being made so frequently that correcting it risks breaking the 1RR. It's an important source of information for people needing to find a quick summary of what can and can't be done without breaking newly imposed and very serious offences, so maintaining accuracy is important. This part of the article is not the contentious content, and mostly the contentious topics are being successfully edited with reasonableness and a degree of discussion to resolve differences of opinion without edit warring. The difficulty I am having is maintaining the accuracy of the non-contentious part. Politely explaining the corrections is usually sufficient to dissuade the same editor from immediately reintroducing the same error, but within a few hours another factual error will have been introduced by an editor.

Is there a way to add extra protection to a part of an article?

Thanks SciberDoc (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know which article you are talking about- but if you can make a case that extended-confirmed is insufficient protection, you may ask for admin-only protection at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Palestine Action, which would also come under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict editing restrictions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am trying to make edits (add new book and new podcast plus some references) to my professor's wiki page... every time I make the edits, someone deletes them. Can you advise? Kirstiehepburn (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirstiehepburn Hello and welcome. Your account edit history indicates you haven't edited Paul Dolan (behavioural scientist) since 2021, but an IP edited it the other day- if that was you, remember to log in when posting. Those edits have been restored.

You should disclose a conflict of interest if you are editing about your professor. If they are giving you class credit for your edits, that would be considered paid editing that needs to be disclosed as well. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I work for him - it isn’t a class credit scenario. Thank you for your help. Noted on conflict of interest declaration. 2A02:C7C:D37D:2D00:AC58:9E69:35E7:ED56 (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for him, that is also paid editing, and you MUST comply with our policy on such. You may find WP:BOSS and WP:About you useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please log in when posting, so your posts are properly attributed to you. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kirstiehepburn. Whether or not you count as a paid editor, you clearly have a conflict of interest, and should not therefore be directly editing the article, but instead should raise edit requests, so that an uninvolved editor can make the decision.

Several of your edits added external links, which are almost never acceptable in text. One linked to a search result, which are not acceptable as a citation. ColinFine (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a lot of text to Health effects of electronic cigarettes from Electronic cigarette. Is there an easy way to repair the cites as it would be a lot of effort for me to do it manually? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good question actually and there is a nice trick for it. Why don't you use source editors and copy not just fact but refs too that are written in front of the piece. Like this

Napoleon was born in Corsica in 1769.<ref>Some Source</ref> [[User:Sys64wiki|Sys64]] (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do use the source editor when merging Chidgk1 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are US politicians called American? America is North and South of which the US is a small part. 2001:8003:482E:8B00:B8C4:542B:FF7B:D2B8 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Americans for the answer to your question, "Americans are the citizens and nationals of the United States of America", which includes politicians. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live in America or have anything to do with it in recent time but from historical references, I think you might be confusing "American" with American islands or more politically put "The Americas", which are continents. American is a term used in United States of America, because no other country in the very continent despite many similarities uses America in anywhere in its formal title, so US proudly takes the term for itself and its citizens. More importantly since Usians or Unitedian does not seems a good word to specify nationality they used American which seems to be more logical and resembles classic naming term such as Russian for Russia and Indian for India, and is not just used by politicians but whole population that live their with US citizenship.

For example Spanish speakers sometimes say "estadounidense" to refer. And also, because this is very old term.

PS that's what my historical knowledge says. [[User:Sys64wiki|Sys64]] (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We Canadians, the Mexicans, etc. do not like to be called Americans, most especially these days. Also, we don't refer to USSR politicians either. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen, I have a request. The following link lists the visitor numbers of all museums worldwide. If you look at the ranking, something is mixed up or incorrectly programmed. The visitor numbers are not correctly listed in the ranking. I would be very grateful if someone could fix this. Thank you very much for this and for your voluntary work. 

List of most-visited art museums. TOOBWI (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TOOBWI: What you linked is an older revision of the article. You can find the current revision at List of most-visited art museums. Is the problem still present in the current revision? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes i think so, look after 26. 117.237.4.84 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see it now. You can sort the list by rank by clicking the "Rank in 2024" heading, (that should probably be the default sorting here) but there are still other problems with this article. Some ranks are seemingly missing. Also, the section and table headings both mention 2024, yet some of the numbers actually in the list are from 2023. This article certainly needs some attention from an interested editor. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had professional headshots and to make a business profile during SXSW March 2025 in Austin,Texas at the Wikipedia House. I have yet to recieve any updates on when it will be live? Belivelyco (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has no edits other than this one. Can you link to the draft? (perhaps you made it while logged out) I will note that we don't have "profiles" here, not a single one. We have articles. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody took pictures of you for Wikipedia, I would think you would need to contact that person. I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia provides no such service.

The fact that you talk about "professional headshots", and a "business profile" makes me wonder if you have been scammed by somebody claiming that they could create a "profile" for you. Please see WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine Is there any way to see if Wikipedia had an official booth at SXSW? 331dot (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea - I had to go searching to even find out what SXSW was. But even if it did, does that sound like the kind of service that would be provided by Wikipedia? ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the website, there didn't seem to be anything official Wikipedia/-media-related. Scam it is... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine and others, see https://www.wikiportraits.org/, Category:WikiPortraits at SXSW 2025 and Amateur photographers hope to fix Wikipedia's 'terrible' pictures. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Obviously I, like others commenting here, had never heard of this. So the headshot is likely to be real. But @Belivelyco also talks about "make a business profile". That doesn't sound like anything sanctioned by Wikimedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPortraits organizer here -- indeed, we had a photo studio at SXSW for both outreach and to capture notable people for Wikipedia, as part of the broader WikiHaus where we hosted panels, an edit-a-thon, etc. with the WMF and affiliates. But no "business profile" or anything of the sort was offered. The most we did was teach people how Wikipedia works and how articles are made. Likely a misunderstanding. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Belivelyco Are photos you're asking about here?: Category:WikiPortraits Studio at SXSW 2025 Note that there are several pages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for Wikiportraits. Thank you! 2603:8080:D800:477:E8F6:FBB5:51A:AB95 (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While most photos have been uploaded, note some photographers are still finishing their uploads so some may still be missing. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster Per independent coverage, I think it would be fair to mention (and redirect) Wikiportraits somewhere in mainspace. Do you think it fits at Wikimedia_Foundation#Affiliates? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: We are funded through WMF grants, but are not an official affiliate (yet). We plan to apply at some point, but I know the affiliate application process is going through some changes right now. If you think a redirect is appropriate, our main wiki page is at commons:Commons:WikiPortraits. I just set up Wikipedia:WikiPortraits as a redirect. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster I added something at Wikimedia_movement#Thematic_organizations. We'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I work for Clean Oceans International. Our current Wikipedia page is very outdated and we tried to change it yesterday and were blocked. We need someone to change it and we don't care who that is, as long as the information is correct. Who can we get to edit our page? We have the language we would like to use. All we want to do is update some of the information and take out some information and all references since they are outdated. I had to ask this question anonymously (not signed in) because the Wikipedia page won't even let me ask a question since we are "blocked". This makes it extremely frustrating to get our questions answered. We don't want to promote anything other than correct information about our organization. Can you please help? 2601:647:CE82:7DD0:5DD4:9C49:C93B:848E (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you create an account, make the required paid editing disclosure on its user page, then you may make a formal edit request(click for instructions, or use the edit request wizard), detailing changes you feel are needed. Please propose incremental changes, one at a time, not a wholesale rewrite, as this will increase the chances a volunteer will invest time in reviewing your requests. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You were mainly blocked because your chosen username represented an organisation. Please read the explanation in the blue box on User talk: Clean Oceans International, and comply with the instructions there.

Having changed the name (or created a new account with an acceptable name), and made the mandatory paid editing disclosure, you are welcome to submit edit requests for changes to the article.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia wants the article to be accurate according to reliable and mostly independent published sources, but your preferred working is not necessarily Wikipedia's. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. The explanation and instructions on the User talk: Clean Oceans International are confusing, hence us coming to this forum... So - we can make an edit request on our own behalf? As long as we follow what you said above?

We don't want to break any rules, we just want the information to be accurate - with wording that represents COI accurately and would love for people that have no affiliation with us to be able to understand what it is we do and represent.

But, we will look into your suggestions and try that way - thank you for your time! 2601:647:CE82:7DD0:B0C9:4780:9E0A:B389 (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can make requests on the talk page of the article about your organisation. See Wikipedia:Edit requests for more. You may use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to generate such requests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. The first thing you must do is to stop using that account - which you have done, but it's best if you either change the name on that account or (since it has only two edits in its contribution history) abandon it and create a new one. The blue box tells you how to do either of those things, and gives some information about acceptable names.

Then once you've renamed the account or created a new one, you must make the mandatory declaration of your status as a paid editor on your user page - that link tells you how to do so.

Once you have done both of those, then you may make edit requests for changes to the article. It helps if your request is very specific "Please add X after Y" or Please replace Z by W in the section headed "A". Getting your request acted on will depend on a volunteer editor seeing it and deciding to look at it, so keeping it simple and precise will help (don't try and make multiple changes in an edit, unless they are all clearly part of the same issue).

Finally, for anything you want to add, it is much more likely that an editor will comply is you cite a reliable published source - and, for the most part, a source entirely unconnected with COI.

Note that, as this is an encyclopaedia, we are just as interested in the past as the present. If some information in the article is out of date, we won't necessarily remove it: we may just change the tense to the past. (But we might: if it's routine information eg about personnel, then unless the people are notable in their own right or did notable things with the organisation, there may be no encyclopaedic reason to keep them in the article.

I hope that helps. ColinFine (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help Sam's video (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What help are you seeking? It would help to know the article or page involved. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What page do you need help with editing? CoconutOctopus talk 20:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sam's video.

This might not look like the help you are asking for, but:

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already learned how Wikipedia works using the tutorial, I need to create my first article Sam's video (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam's video Please follow the Wikipedia:Article wizard qcne (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have left some useful links, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how to reset the listen to my topic in my watchlist? Brublancc253 (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you meant to remove watching an article, simply go to the article page and untick the star or watch this page. if by topic you mean "stopping receive notifications from an ongoing discussion", look for subscribed in the same discussion paragraph near the tile and click unsubscribe. [[User:Sys64wiki|Sys64]] (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear officer pls advise on how to have proposed deletion comment/s on page ? 103.51.163.126 (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, what i mean is to get rid of deletion comment/s on page ? 103.51.163.126 (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the page? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Tan Chin Hwee, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Chin Hwee. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking about the article Tan Chin Hwee, then: (i) Improve the article, by citing reliable sources, independent of the subject and of each other, that say a lot about him. (ii) Mention (concisely, and just once) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Chin Hwee that you have improved the article. (iv) Participants in the AfD, or enough of them, will decide that the article should survive, and the AfD will be "closed as keep" and the template(s) will be removed. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cook and Ron Herzman

I am probably in the wrong place with this, as I mainly edit over at WP:DE and don't know where to bring this to attention in WP:EN. The issue is that this article mixes two persons. It was probably written as kind of an advertisment article for The Great Courses as to give a CV for both professors that have created an audio course for this series. The commercial aspect of the original article has been removed here. I think the article should be forked, but don't have the time to do it. Is there a place at WP:EN to raise this issue? Thanks in advance Blausonorisch (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blausonorisch, there's very little in the article about Herzman. (I do not deny that he's notable. I simply haven't even started to investigate the matter.) Currently William R. Cook redirects to Bill Cook and Ron Herzman. I suggest reversing the redirect (for which you'll need the help of an administrator) and revising as necessary. Herzman will thus lose his half of an article; but (sources, energy, etc permitting) anyone would be free to create a proper, informative article about him. However, wait a little and see if you get a better suggestion (it's been a long day and I'm sleepy). -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there are a lot of pages titled incorrectly as "100 metre freestyle" which goes against MOS:SUSPENDED instead of the correct "100-metre freestyle" which is standard grammar and how the Olympics themselves write it. Obviously, this would be a time-consuming process to do manually. Is there an automated tool to speed it up? Valenciano (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. [[User:Sys64wiki|Sys64]] (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valenciano: Don't make mass moves without discussion. There are thousands of articles. I suspect the titles were chosen for a reason and there would be opposition to moves. My searches of olympics.org give more results without a hyphen. You can post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. If there is consensus then you can post to Wikipedia:Bot requests. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter forgetting the hyphen is one of the most common mistakes in English these days, up there with spelling "their" as "there" or putting a grocer's apostrophe in possessive "its", so I suspect it's been a mistake that's been duplicated over time, but ok, I'll raise it at the Wikiproject. Valenciano (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DiGard Motorsports

I'm thinking yes. If you think so too, then please do so. Looking for 2nd opinion. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC) (I have been sporadically involved in editing/maintaining this article about an old NASCAR team.)[reply]

If you are thinking, then its wrong thinking, because I dont think, and nobody else will, that there are enough citation there. If you have not done already, read WP:Citing sources, to refresh you memory, cheers! [[User:Sys64wiki|Sys64]] (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many paragraphs and the whole section DiGard_Motorsports#The No. 22 Miller car and Bobby Allison are still missing cited sources. I have removed the wikilink from the header here and placed it below where you had the URL, User:Guroadrunner. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are interested in correcting the title or name of our organization’s Wikipedia page — what are the potential steps of doing so? Pmckay2126 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pmckay2126.

If you are a employee (or volunteer or intern) at the organisation, then Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor if you make any edits in respect of an article about or connected with the organisation: this means that it is mandatory for you to make a formal declaration on your user page - see the link above for how to do this.

Once you have made the declaration, you may request edits to the article - you should not edit the article directly.

For edits to the content, you should make edit requests on the article's talk page. Changing the title of a page is called moving the page, and usually you would post at requested moves; but because of your conflict of interest, I recommend that you still raise an edit request.

Please note that Wikipedia uses the common names of entities, rather than their official names. This means that if your organisation has changed its name recently, but most or all of the independent reliable sources on which the article must be based still use the old name, then we would probably not change the name of the article - though it could certainly have the new name in the lead section of the article, and could also have a redirect from the new name to the old. ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmckay2126 If you tell us what WP-article you want to change to what new title, someone here might do it (I assume your org-website will hint this is a good idea). You can also suggest this at the article talkpage, but there is no guarantee anyone will see it. Another option is asking on this page: Wikipedia:Requested moves. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and insight!

All of that info is extremely helpful.

I am an employee at Credible and hoping to help the organization change its title from Credible Labs to simply Credible.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_Labs

https://www.credible.com/

How difficult do you foresee that change being? Pmckay2126 (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. Should be straightforward, except that, as Arch dude says, it's not the most obviousl thing people would be looking for, so I think it should be moved to Credible (company) or something like that.

A more significant problem I see is that looking through the sources, I didn't notice any which were all three of reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the company (see WP:42). Most of the news reports were routine business reporting of financial offers, acquisitions, and the like. Without several sources which meet all the criteria, the article does not establish that Credible meets Wikipedia's criteria for WP:NCORP ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now I look, Credible (company) exists, and is a redirect to Credible Labs. So I'm going to put in a Move request - but I still have doubts as to whether the article is adequately sourced. ColinFine (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insight, @ColinFine, and all of the help. It is all very much appreciated! Pmckay2126 (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmckay2126: Sorry, but Credible is currently a redirect to credibility, and I feel that your company's name is not the most common use of the word. We can and should change the redirect into a disambiguation page. -Arch dude (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight, @Arch dude. Pmckay2126 (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a move to Credible (company), currently a redirect --ColinFine (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank You very much, @ColinFine. To confirm, the URL would be Credible_(company)?

Also, is the _(company) appendix common for organizations?

Appreciate all the help. Pmckay2126 (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The requested move is at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. If successful the Wikipewdia url will end with Credible_(company). The _(company) appendix is fairly common for organizations, but most company articles don't need an appendix. TSventon (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pmckay2126. It's called a disambiguator - see WP:TITLEDAB. Where there are several articles about things (or people) with the same name, all (or sometimes all but one) of them have a term added in parentheses, just to distinguish them.

Arguably, this shouldn't have it, as we don't have an article called "Credible", only a redirect; but as Arch dude explained, people searching for "Credible" are most likely not looking for your company.

The article would greatly benefit from the addition of some sources where somebody wholly unconnected with the company has chosen to publish information in significant depth about the company. Can you suggest any such? ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @ColinFine. We understand why a disambiguator for “credible” would be necessary and also why there may be issues with using the URL “credible” since our brand is also a commonly used word.

It would be great if the “credible”redirect could be removed and we could move our page to that URL — especially since it isn’t being used; however, the second-best option would be credible_(company).

We appreciate all your help. Pmckay2126 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has been used 546 times in the last year [1] but we cannot say whether they were looking for Credibility, Credible Labs, Monetary policy credibility, or something else. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have completed the requested move to Credible (company). I have no opinion on other things in this discussion thread such as the quality of the article's text. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sooban Talha

i would like to know why my draft Sooban Talha is being rejected 1234sooban1234 (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1234sooban1234, that draft is highly promotional and on a non-notable person, and I think you wrote it about yourself. Also, note the sentence "While he has built a modest following, there is currently no coverage by independent or mainstream media sources"--that last part, there is currently no coverage, means we can't have an article on it. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks.

  i will try my best to create real articles. 1234sooban1234 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@1234sooban1234: No sources, no article, no debate. We can't cite random YouTube videos or any social media. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I delete drafts? Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafaelthegreat: If you created the draft yourself, {{db-g7}} is your friend. Otherwise, you'd take it to WP:Miscellany for deletion or wait for the draft to time-out. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Rafaelthegreat. If it is your draft and you are the only significant contributor, then please follow the advice at WP:G7. If it is someone else's draft, why do you want to delete it? Only administrators can actually delete pages, but you can request deletion based on the specific circumstances. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No @Cullen328, I am not deleting someone else's draft. But thanks for for the advice! Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 19:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts that meet a WP:CSD can be tagged as such. Otherwise you can always list them at WP:MFD. However, because drafts are automatically deleted per WP:G13 after six months of inactivity and because there exposure is so minimal, it is usually best to simply do nothing. So sure if it is eligible for G7 feel free to tag it as such, but otherwise it should most likely be ignored. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please send invite 38.122.223.18 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What event are you talking about? GoldRomean (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup shows two events July 12, in San Diego and San Francisco. Your IP address is in San Francisco so I wonder whether you are referring to Event:Bay Area Wiknic 2025. It has a "Register for event" button. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My English page "Supriyo Bandyopadhyay" was moved from mainspace to draft by someone named HRShami. I have no idea why (I do not know HRShami) and I would like it moved back to mainspace so that a Google search can discover it. Please help.

Supriyo Bandyopadhyay Sbandyopa (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have checked the article in question and there are no contributions from you whatsoever, so it is not your English page, unless you are the person on the article itself. The article is moved to the the draft by the author of the article because of "paid article". If you want more clarifications you should talk to HRShami directly. Have a good day! ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like HRShami is draftifying all the articles they’ve been paid to create. You can submit it for review to become published by placing {{subst:submit}} (Template:AfC submission/submit) at the top of the page. GoldRomean (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming they moved them to draftspace since they were operating as a UPE the time they created the articles, and they now want to send them through AfC as they should have. Their block log corraborates this. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that the editor in question Sbandyopa have to declare his COI first before resubmitting the article for review himself, seeing that it is very likely that he is the person in question. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is exactly why you don't hire PR agencies to create your article. You should have just waited until someone created it independently, or have followed the COI editing guidelines every step of the creation process to create it yourself. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even aside from the matter of payment, this draft is problematic. An article about a person must be based on sources that are independent of that person. -- Hoary (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I created this article as part of my undisclosed paid editing. I have moved it to the draftspace so that I can improve it before submitting it again to AFC as I should have done in the first place. HRShami (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please email me if you wish to improve this page in any way. Sbandyopa (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbandyopa Just a note, practically all unsolicited emails you might receive about the draft are from scammers who make false promises and take your money for nothing, see WP:SCAM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is noted. Sbandyopa (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created Template:Full stop thinking it would work, but Template:Dot is a middle central dot, so I don't know what to do. In Template:Hatnote group, full stop dots don't appear when needed, such as here, after Template:Main, for example. But there were other templates that needed dots that I noticed. Web-julio (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that not all hatnotes are actually sentences. The ones that are already do have a period, but the ones that aren't do not have a period. MOS:CAPTION has some guidance about punctuation when combining sentences and sentence-fragments. So either each hatnote needs to detect whether it needs a period based on determining whether it is in a hatnote-group or hatnote-group needs to detect whether each hatnote has a period and add one if not. DMacks (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Web-julio: That template name is confusing. Many English speakers use "full stop" to mean a "period". {{Full stop}} is currently a redirect to {{·}} and should either be renamed to better reflect its purpose; or simply deleted as {{dot}} and {{middot}} already exist for the same purpose. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Web-julio: I agree. May I delete it as an author request? It could also be converted to actually produce a period but I don't know use cases where you couldn't just write a period without a template. I have posted to Template talk:Hatnote group#Any way to get punctuation? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I requested. But I thought there existed, so it could be retargeted. Web-julio (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm translating Private Music (Album) into French, but I cannot seem to add the album cover into the french infobox. How do I do that? Uncognic (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much help us here at enwiki would be with regards to stuff on frwiki, I'd suggest asking on frwiki. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 02:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncognic, fr:Wikipedia can't employ files hosted by en.Wikipedia. (By en:Wikipedia I do not mean Commons. It's not at Commons for a very simple, copyright-related reason.) You cannot add the album cover there (which is why you also won't see it at pt:Private Music (álbum) or ru:Private Music). There's no point asking at fr:Wikipedia or anywhere else. But if you have further questions about an article in fr:Wikipedia, please ask there. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Uncognic. To explain a bit more about Hoary's reply: the aim of Wikimedia projects is to provide a resource that may be freely reused by anybody for any purpose, so Wikimedia Commons accepts only freely-licensed materials.

Because it is often so difficult to find freely-licensed images, English Wikipedia allows non-free images in certain cases, as long as they comply with a strict set of criteria. Such images must be uploaded to English Wikipedia, not to Commons. The image in question is one of those.

Some other language Wikipedia also allow non-free images, but not all. It seems to me that French Wikipedia does not - see fr:WP:PDE. ColinFine (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at a page, Construction of Berlin Brandenburg Airport, and there seemed to be an attempt at a proposed deletion (PROD) because the article is largely a stand-alone duplicate of the main article's construction section. But the actual text of the PROD template was improperly pasted with nowiki tags, resulting in it showing up as plain text as follows:

{{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=The content of aticle is as it is available on the main article on Berlin Brandenburg Airport > Construction. This is page is nothing but just another copy from the original article.}}

It's the latest edit to that article, and it's been live since May, far more than the 7 day period for most PRODs. I've been wondering what happens next in this case, with my mind jumping between:
- Delete the incorrectly formatted PROD template text without replacing it with a proper PROD, and
- Replace the incorrectly formatted PROD template with a proper one

I could see replacing it with a speedy deletion template, though because this was originally PROD-ed there may be enough contention here.

Thanks in advance for your input! MooseMike (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MooseMike: - I'd replace the incorrectly formatted PROD with a correctly formatted one. Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to made a correction about a page on Wikipedia about an online university. The information is wrong and outdated.

Please let me know how I can provide you the updated info.

Actually Washington International University is one of the pioneer modern academic learning system that started in the United States, which is a common methods by most Universities in the U.S and Europe nowadays.

The programs offered by this university were highly academic assigned with a highly experts/ professors. Students had to finalize their study programs with academic learning material, books, researches and the final Thesis.

There are innumerable high level leaders from around the world who studied in Washington International University and received their degrees.

I would like to contribute a longer article and updated information about the positive side of Washington International University. Please let me know how I can do that and and how you or I can edit old page on Wikipedia about this university.

Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_International_University BestCiel (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a basic question, are you somehow related to this particular university? If yes then you come into WP:COI conflict criteria, read the page and make appropriate advance. In regard to edit, you can read WP:Editing. Sys64 message this user 09:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are some basic needs you need to keep in mind while editing page, ONLY when you are in COI:

• you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
• you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{edit COI}} template), so that they can be peer-reviewed;
• you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
• you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;
• you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.

Sys64 message this user 09:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @BestCiel.

First, as Sys64 says, if you are connected with the university, you have a Conflict of interest. If you are in any way paid or employed by the university (including as an intern or volunteer), Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor, and you must make a formal declaration (see that link for details).

Once you have made your declaration, you may raise edit requests for changes to the article: make them as specific as possible, don't put multiple changes into the same request, and your requests have a much greater chance of being carried out if you include a citation to a reliable independent source, for any information you are seeking to add.

You say you would like to contribute a longer article about "the positive side" of WIU. Such an intention is fundamentally off-purpose for Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article should not give "the positive side" (or "the negative side") of its subject: it should be a neutral summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, in reliable publications - and little else. (see WP:42). If many of the appropriate sources are positive, the article will reflect that. If they are predominently negative, the article will reflect that; and if they are mixed, again the article will reflect that.

What the article should not reflect, at all, is what the subject says or wants to say about itself, or what the subject's associates say.

If you choose to write an article about WIU (which seems inappropriate, because there is one already) you would need to effectively forget everything you know or think about the university, and summarise what the independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine, Actually they have sworn that they were graduate of University and did not find it pleasing enough to tell us here. Now they have made copyright edits which have been both reverted and scrutinized. I have warned him but if he continues to do this, I think a block is needed? See his talk page, [[2]] Sys64 message this user 00:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Pará state division plebiscite contain use dmy dates. lead section and Plebiscite development section has dates in mdy format and all others are in date month format. does an editor required to change all dates per template in article except in references, infoboxes, etc.? jiki (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if dmy dates are in use, it should be consistent throughout the article, including in references. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, WP:MOSDATE allows yyyy-mm-dd to be used for archive-date and access-date in references irrespective of any DMY or MDY direction for that article, and those should not be changed. -- 92.21.137.132 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiji-Jiki Note that the template documentation says After an article is tagged, periodic script runs clean up formats, correcting any new introductions since the last edit using the script, and updating the tracking date parameter in the template, so there is a bot that should handle the changes needed for consistency if a human editor doesn't notice which type of format is supposed to be used. There is another subtle change that the template fixes for readers. For example, if a reference uses |date=2022-05-19 in an article with the use dmy dates template, a reader will see 19 May 2022 in the references section even though that isn't used in the underlying code. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I want to make a medal table for FIFA U-20 World Cup, FIFA U-17 World Cup, FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup, and FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup, the same way as shown in CONCACAF Gold Cup records and statistics for example. But the countries now have to link to the men under 20, men under 17, women under 20 and women under 17, so the templates used for men, "fb", and "fbw" for women don't work here. What are the correct templates? PeruvianCocaine (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PeruvianCocaine: See {{fbu}} and {{fbwu}} . PrimeHunter (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thanks! Hm, I tried them out but it doesn't look like they can be used in tables because they create errors. PeruvianCocaine (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PeruvianCocaine: I don't see any attempt to use them in your saved edits. If you tried a preview then did you remember the age parameter? If you want more help then save your broken code somewhere so we can see what goes wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: I tried it and used "Show preview" so you can't see it. But I'll try it again at FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup. Please check it. I tried using "fbwu" as a template but it doesn't work. If you use "fbw" it does work. PeruvianCocaine (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PeruvianCocaine: I see the problem now. {{fbwu}} has an age parameter but {{Medals table}} doesn't have a way to pass it on for |flag_template = fbwu. I made a wrapper template {{fbwu17}} which doesn't itself have an age parameter and that works.[3] But a bunch of wrapper templates for gender-age combinations doesn't seem like a good solution. I will ask if {{Medals table}} can get en extra parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Ok, thank you so much for your help! Much appreciated. I reckon you suggest I'll wait with creating the tables? PeruvianCocaine (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PeruvianCocaine: Yes, I suggest waiting to see if there are replies a Template talk:Medals table#flag_template with age parameter. {{fbwu17}} works for now so you don't have to remove the already made table. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Ok, thanks. PeruvianCocaine (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how can this be amended? It states " Kingsway College of Further Education (later known as Westminster Kingsway College), which was a community and vocational school for students with difficulties" which is not true. FE colleges are simply post school educational facilities which include vocational education. They usually include some special needs provision but this is usually small by comparison to the size of the institution. the govt website states "Further education (FE) includes any study after secondary education that’s not part of higher education (that is, not taken as part of an undergraduate or graduate degree). Courses range from basic English and maths to Higher National Diplomas (HNDs)" 62.30.13.19 (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you tried bringing this up on the article's talk page? Perception312 (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the wording "which was a community and vocational school for students with difficulties". DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, thank you. The removed text was a poor summary of the Guardian source, so it made sense to remove it. TSventon (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I publish a area code for town in el Dorado Co California somehow it now the edit preview. Kys.... DMc75771 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

kybu DMc75771 (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DMc75771, your edit has been reverted. You were trying to add Area code 856 which is an area code in New Jersey to Kyburz, California. Please explain why. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I've noticed that all the hundreds, if not thousands of tournament pages seen on List of association football competitions use different names for headers. It's mainly about 3 ones. For example, what do you call this table:

Rank	Team	Part	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
1	India1	14	62	39	15	8	108	38	+70	132
2	Maldives	12	50	25	11	14	98	52	+46	86
3	Bangladesh	13	46	18	12	16	52	47	+5	66

It's called "Overall team records" on most pages but I've seen people use "Summary" or "All-time table" too. It's a points system so maybe something like "All-time points records" or something would be better?

Nation	Champions	Runners-up	Third-place	Fourth-place	Semi-finalists
India	9 (1993, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2009,[a] 2011, 2015, 2021, 2023)	4 (1995, 2008, 2013, 2018)	1 (2003)	–	–
Maldives	2 (2008, 2018)	3 (1997, 2003, 2009)	2 (1999, 2021)	–	4 (2005, 2011, 2013, 2015)
Bangladesh	1 (2003)	2 (1999, 2005)	1 (1995)	1 (2021)	3 (1995, 2009, 2023)
Afghanistan*	1 (2013)	2 (2011, 2015)	–	–	–
Sri Lanka	1 (1995)	1 (1993)	–	1 (1997)	3 (2008, 2009, 2015)
Nepal	–	1 (2021)	1 (1993)	2 (1995, 1999)	3 (2011, 2013, 2018)
Kuwait3	–	1 (2023)	–

^This one is usually called "Teams reaching the top four" but what's the default name? And lastly:

Team	1993	1995	1997	1999	2003	2005	2008	2009	2011	2013	2015	2018	2021	2023	2025	Total
Bangladesh	×	SF	GS	2nd	1st	2nd	GS	SF	GS	GS	GS	GS	GS	SF	Q	13
Bhutan	Not part of SAFF				GS	GS	SF	GS	GS	GS	GS	GS	×	GS	Q	9
India2	1st	2nd	1st	1st	3rd	1st	2nd	1st	1st	2nd	1st	2nd	1st	1st	Q	14
Maldives	×	×	2nd	3rd	2nd	SF	1st	2nd	SF	SF	SF	1st	GS	GS	Q	12
Nepal	3rd	SF	GS	4th	GS	GS	GS	GS	SF	SF	GS	SF	2nd	GS	Q	14
Pakistan	4th	GS	3rd	GS	4th	SF	GS	GS	GS	GS	×	SF	DQ	GS	Q	12
Sri Lanka	2nd	1st	4th	GS	GS	GS	SF	SF	GS	GS	SF	GS	GS	DQ	Q	13
Former team(s)
Afghanistan3	Not part of SAFF				GS	GS	GS	GS	2nd	1st	2nd	Part of CAFA				7
Guest teams
Kuwait4	×													2nd	×	1
Lebanon4	×													SF	×	1

^This one is usually called "Comprehensive team results by tournament", is it the correct name?

For examples, please see National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, Africa Cup of Nations and SAFF Championship.

Consensus about these should be reached to avoid future conflicts, because one person might use this and another one uses that and in my opinion it doesn't look very professional if it's all different but mostly, it's easier for everyone if we just stick with defaults. Now pages are constantly being changed because there's no consensus and everyone changes it to what he likes. Can there please be reached default settings for this? PeruvianCocaine (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC) PeruvianCocaine (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @PeruvianCocaine. That sort of consensus is reached by being discussed at an appropriate place, where interested editors are likely to see it. I suggest WT:WikiProject Football ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get help with login pin number for application process Matswenyego (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you're asking - what application process are you having trouble with? CoconutOctopus talk 17:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how to delete account 24bozz (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to delete an account, as legally all edits must be attributable to someone. You may stop using and abandon your account. If you intend to never return, an account in good standing may be vanished. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to improve the WP:Contents page and then all of a sudden, I get reverted. I understand that this is an important tool on Wikipedia since it helps with undoing vandalism and undo any mistakes that I make while editing. I don't understand why someone would use the revert tool to undo a good faith improvement to Wikipedia when they can just build on the work that I already did on the page. I'm all for reverting good faith edits where the chances of it being built upon by subsequent edits is not looking good, but I'm hoping that I can get a good explanation of why editors are so quick in reverting. Interstellarity (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought you to WP:ANI, because before every major edit, which you are doing in WP: Contents you need to discuss it. This is a violation and you need to answer this there. Sys64 message this user 01:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed on the Contents talk page, not ANI. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 01:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes but he is making blatant edits, which requires some answers to administrators. Sys64 message this user 01:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being WP:BOLD is not a chronic, intractable behavior problem that needs "and block them if needed" Sophisticatedevening🐞^(talk) 01:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please move to ANI page for other discussions. please note i said if needed which means only and only if it is required, and that is because I overlooked multiple edits without understanding much more. I think I was not going to deal it personally hence I am quite not comfortable with talk page discussion without an administrator involved, per war. Sys64 message this user 01:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sys64wiki, a suggestion. En:Wikipedia has many articles that are defective in one or more ways. Work on improving these articles. Give yourself a year-long break from advising people on what to do, and from bringing people to WP:ANI. That's because your advice, however well-meant, too often (A) is hard to understand or (B) is seemingly based on misunderstandings. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Sys64 message this user 02:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are some specific editors who have taken a tone of digging deeper and looking at specific comments made by user that are not appropriate. Granted, I am not perfect (and nobody is), I would suggest these users to leave this job to checkusers and bureaucrats, as they understand much better what this means and its use instead of some naive editors who have anonymity towards others. Thank you! Sys64 message this user 02:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sys64wiki: Pointing out your inappropriate, BITEy Teahouse and Help Desk comments from yesterday is not "digging deeper" into your edit history to find something against you. I'm unsure why you'd want us to "leave this job to checkusers"; I haven't seen anyone accuse you of socking or something of that sort. — DVRTed (Talk) 03:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I have no idea why (presumably I, due to my comments at ANI), am being called naive and I have not accused Sys64 of socking either. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]