Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

Watchlist

Dear all,
until a few days ago my watchlist showed entries first with a time period less than permanent, sorted by remaining days, and then the permanently watched pages in alphabetical order. Now it's alphabetical order only, the non-permanently watched pages are sorted in. How can I cange that back?
Thanks and kind regards, Grueslayer 07:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grueslayer, that appears to have been changed for performance reasons. I don't think you can change it back. Rummskartoffel 11:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rummskartoffel. It's a bit weird that the display scheme was changed without notice, and it's sad that an established feature is scrapped because of a handfull people with 10.000+ articles on their watchlist. But c'est la vie. Kind regards, Grueslayer 08:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being able to order my watchlist by remaining days is fundamental to the way I use it, allowing me to keep it to manageable proportions by viewing what is next scheduled to drop off and assessing whether to retain it for a bit longer. Not being able to do this is certainly going to become a "performance reason" thwarting my efforts. I can only imagine this is a commonplace way of working that will hamper many other users. And I'm curious to know how people with thousands of pages on a watchlist can monitor them effectively. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grueslayer and Mutt Lunker: As Rumskartoffel notes, this change was made for performance reasons. Can you elaborate a little on how you used this sorting? I can pass that on to the team who worked on this to see if we can do something to solve your issues. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For each page on my watchlist I make a judgement as to how long I wish to watch it for/think it requires scrutiny, setting the time period accordingly. When the list was ordered chronologically, starting at the top I could easily see which pages I had adjudged would be next to no longer require my scrutiny and either leave the page to drop off by the period I had set, extend the time period or remove it early, if I thought it already no longer need be there. This allows me to keep the list in more manageable numbers by prompting me which are least likely to be worth retaining. Now that the list is alphabetical, I have to check it in its entirety to see what is about to drop off, with the risk that I will lose some that I would reassess as requiring attention for longer, or missing out on those that could be sifted out early. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the performance issues are only suffered by a small minority with surely excessive and unmanageable watchlists, it isn't worth the consequences. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The performance issues are slow database queries which, alas, slow down a wiki for all logged-in users and not just people who have very large watchlists CParle (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Thanks. I have all articles I started and those where I'm the main author on permanent watch, all others where I participated something on limited watch. It's fine if they disappear from my watch list after the selected time, but the sort-by-date function works as an "exit" function for me: If I see an article on top of my watch list (because there's only a few days left) I either try to remember if there's anything "new" to add to the article, or in case it's an article where changes are common (e.g. a band, a football player, a political entity) I briefly look up if anything has changed in the past months. If not → the article can go from my watchlist. If yes → the information goes into the article. Without the sorting scheme I can just put articles on a 1 week watch to see if someone's objecting to my change, but changes after 6 months or so are not gonna happen any more from my side. Kind regards, Grueslayer 15:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming that Grueslayer and myself are fundamentally doing the same thing. I'm sure this usage was widespread with users and the change to enforced alphabetical order renders it barely feasible. We won't be able to exercise the same level of scrutiny any more, without considerably more time, effort and risk of missing things. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add me to the list of editors who were using the Special:EditWatchlist page in similar ways. In fact, your description practically mirrors how I was using the list before the change. Beyond this performance change, they introduced pagination and namespace filtering, which isn't working quite right (as I've noted in the phab ticket). Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks, this is really helpful. I'll take this back to the Community Tech team and we'll see if we can find a way to get you this functionality back. Just a note that pagination hasn't fully rolled out yet, we're testing it pending a full rollout. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to everyone commenting here, I have been doing essentially the same thing. I'm now doing this manually by ctrl+f'ing and searching "few hours" "2 days" and so on. It's way more tedious and confusing. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 11:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, Chief. (My watchlist peaked at 18511.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I created this wish https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist/W454 for re-implementing sort-by-expiry, just so we can get some idea of how important it is to people. As it says in the wish we can't re-enable sort-by-expiry as it was because the queries were just too slow, but we might be able to figure out some alternative way of doing it instead

If it's important to you (or to anyone you know), please support the wish! CParle (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CParle (WMF)! @StefenTower and Sarsenet: Please take note. Kind regards, Grueslayer 15:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grueslayer, Mutt_Lunker, StefenTower I wrote a userscript to reorder that may help you - See: User:KylieTastic/EditWatchlistByExpiry. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic, looks like watchlist pagination being fully rolled out has broken the script on my end. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 15:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarsenet: What happens (with the script on) if you change the pagination view from "first 50" to "first 500"? For me it shows the list as intended then! Still hadda try out more, but it looks like KylieTastic saved the day!! Kind regards, Grueslayer 15:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grueslayer ah yes, it does work! I currently have 1,177 on my watchlist (not sure of the specific namespace breakdown). Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 01:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I had not seen that go live. It still orders what is shown so by default 100 items, so will still work if you have no more than 500 per namespace and select those options. What a pain. KylieTastic (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I just checked and it's not just hidden data on the client side so for those with more than 500 per namespace there is nothing I can do - sorry. KylieTastic (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True. Damn. But it was well worth the try! Thanks for that! Kind regards, Grueslayer 16:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All is not lost. I watch less than 1,000 (currently) and your script works for the entries listed on each of two pages. That is still useful. Thank you! Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to work for me. For what it's worth, when about to publish the script, I was given a warning not to, saying it contained errors but I went ahead anyway. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the wikitext pound brackets?

What is the meaning of #[[#L1|^]] in Template:R? Is it a wikilink with special handling, or something totally different? Where is it documented? Thanks. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chatul: [[#L1|^]] links to a section or anchor called L1 on the same page and displays ^ on the link. See Help:Link#Section linking. In this case it links to a template-generated anchor. The first # is unrelated to linking. The template places it at the start of a line where it produces an ordered list. See Help:Wikitext#Ordered lists. More details at Help:List. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So that first # is just a bog standard numbered list entry indicator?

Is there a way to get multiple backlins for an annotation, or only for the base reference? Thanks. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter:, could you help with Chatul's follow up question? TSventon (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chatul: I don't think annotations are supposed to have multiple backlinks but there is no technical hindrance to just writing them like a=#[[#L1|^]] [[#L2|^]] ... which uses ^ for both links. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a manual process. I was hoping for something that automatically generates a backlink for each reference to the annotation similar to what <ref name=foo details=bar /> does. See m:SUBREF.^[a] -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ A better proposal, <ref extends=foo>bar</ref> was sacrificed on the altar of WP:VE.

What pronouns do animals use?

What pronouns do animals use? I see it/its on some articles, and they/them on others. It/its is much more common for invertebrates, and they/them are much more common for vertebrates, but there still is overlap in the use of pronouns. Thanks in advance. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Monkeysmashingkeyboards:, I don't know, I haven't asked them. I can't see anything in the Manual of Style, so I would expect we follow what reliable sources do. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life if no one here has an answer. TSventon (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't understand the question – but it's normal to use "it" for a single animal and "they"/"them" for plural animals, regardless of whether they have backbones. Maproom (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In English, some descriptions of a species may refer to it as if a single animal: "The Brown-spotted wigimacoop lives in South Narnia; it feeds on glorpleberries"; others use the plural. It's a matter of differing styles, with the former perhaps now dated.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#plurals does not address this specific(!) issue, and I haven't found it in other guidelines, but I'm also not aware of any particular requirement for consistency of treatment between different articles, and achieving it would surely be a mammoth task.

I wonder if this has been discussed in any of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Science, technology, and engineering WikiProjects#Biology WikiProjects? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's late to be answering this, but I think I may have part of the answer. It seems to me that because it/its and they/them are, in a particular way, the same kind of pronoun - the kind that's also used for inanimate objects, rather than the kind that's also used for people - it can be said that calling an animal it (for the singular) and they (for the plural) is already fully consistent and there's no real conflict to resolve. What editor 94.1.208.246 said about certain special ways of using the singular and the plural is an optional matter of style, and in my opinion any editor should be free to use those as they wish, as long as they use each style's grammar correctly and they avoid using both styles in the same sentence (and avoid frequent switching back and forth for no good reason). I don't think there's a good reason to maintain only one of these styles per article; neither style is controversial and the difference isn't very important.

The potentially tricky one is when to use personal pronouns to refer to an animal (he/his, she/hers), as can be done with an animal that a person relates to in a different way (including pets, but certainly not limited to pets). For an obvious example, if a person involved in caring for animals is quoted as calling the animals he/she, we definitely should not "correct" their words. But there are probably examples of ways different people relate to and talk about animals where an editor would not be sure whether to use personal or impersonal pronouns for the animals. I think those cases are uncommon enough that they can be dealt with one by one. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal pronouns for animals is a whole 'nother rabbit hole.

E.g:

Pet hamsters usually get referred to as it/its, along with pet mice and other rodents("It just spontaneously combusted") This also applies to fish, and most reptiles.
Livestock seems to have pretty specific rules - milk cows and hens are referred to as "she," because they're raised for the products they produce(eggs and milk), while animals raised for flesh(beef cows, pigs, lamb) are referred to as it, or they/them. Bull cows that are used for breeding, as well as horses, which are pets in a sense, are referred to using gendered, personal pronouns.
Pet dogs and cats are usually referred to with personal pronouns, except when pronoun ambiguity arises(e.g I refer to my dog as "it" when he eats all the pizza when my dad is in the room).

Are there any metrics for "aliveness" for animals, that justify personal pronouns? monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've partly resolved this on my own, using personal pronouns for animals is probably based on emotional connection. I wouldn't mourn the loss of my hamster more than my dog, therefore I am more emotionally "connected" to my dog. I'm guessing there's a certain threshold for personal pronouns for animals. Meat livestock are literally raised to be killed, so it is emotionally difficult to develop a bond with them. On the other hand, dairy cows and hens have a stronger emotional bond because they are raised to "live," not for meat. So you can afford to be emotionally connected to them, as they aren't fated for the slaughterhouse. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I can think of for a spontaneously-combusting rodent is pixelated text "Somebody set up us the bomb!" TooManyFingers (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User page created on Indonesian Wikipedia?

I just received an email that a message was posted to my Talk page on the Indonesian Wikipedia. I don't speak Indonesian, and haven't manually created an account for it, nor have I made any edits on there. Why did I receive this message? The main public log also shows that my account was apparently automatically created on 6th July 2024, I'm very confused as to why it would be created at all.

Sorry if this is posted to the wrong message board, this seemed like the most relevant forum. TanyaK94 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TanyaK94: hi, Wikipedia sets up an account every time you visit a new Wikipedia while logged in, see Meta:Help:Unified login. Some Wikipedias then get a bot to post a welcome message, apparently including Indonesian. TSventon (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TanyaK94: The bot run may come much later like here. There is a suggested policy at meta:Welcoming policy with discussion at meta:Requests for comment/Welcoming policy to disallow such welcome messages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter@PrimeHunter: Thanks for explaining. I agree that it's uncomfortable to receive such a message when I wasn't even aware of having an account on the Indonesian Wikipedia, which made me worry that my account was compromised. TanyaK94 (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I was worried that my account may have been compromised somehow. It would have made much more sense to receive that message at the time my account was created there, instead of over a year later. TanyaK94 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also got that today. It says I registered in January and I 100% have not been on it recently. I guess the bot is just mass sending messages right now. Maybe it was delayed or something. You probably want to ask on Commons. jolielover♥talk 18:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image preview

I'm looking to change the preview image of a page (i.e. the image that appears in the preview when typed in on the search bar at the top of the page). How do I do this? I went to "page information" and the image that appears in preview shows there but when I go to edit the page information page, I don't see how to edit this specific image, as trying to edit that page just brings me to editing the general Wikipedia article, not the preview or its image. Helper201 (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context the preview image that is appearing for the page I'm looking to change is not the first image in the infobox on the page, so I'm not sure how to change it. Helper201 (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper201: Please always be specific when you search help. It's so important that we ask for it twice in {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Help desk}} but there is still a frustratingly large number of posters who waste time by concealing where they want help. There is no general way to specify the image but the selection by the software can be influenced in different ways depending on the circumstances. Which page is it and which image do you want? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: I’m trying to change the preview image of the page - Next Japanese general election - from the leader of the opposition (Yoshihiko Noda), to the Prime Minister and the leader of the largest party, Sanae Takaichi. The reason I wasn't specific is I didn't want someone else just doing it for me without me being made clear how to do this myself for future reference. Helper201 (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper201: There are very often circumstances which are important to helpers. There is some general information at mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice but I don't know whether it's up to date. The infobox uses {{CSS image crop}} to only display a small part of File:Shigeru Ishiba and Sanae Takaichi 20241211.jpg. I don't know whether this is detected and causes a low score for the image. Maybe File:Shigeru Ishiba and Sanae Takaichi 20241211 (cropped).jpg would change it. The page image cannot be tested in preview. You have to save the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter:, done. Thanks for the help. Helper201 (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dott Services

Request for Correction of Director’s Name on Dott Services Wikipedia Page

Courtesy link: Dott Services

Dear Wikipedia Editorial Team,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing to kindly request a correction on the Dott Services Limited article. The article currently lists one of the company’s directors as “Komi Reddy”, which is inaccurate. The correct name of the director is K. Ram Mohan, as reflected in the company’s official records, including its Memorandum and Articles of Association.

For accuracy and consistency with verifiable company documentation, I respectfully request that the name be updated from “Komi Reddy” to “K. Ram Mohan.”

Should you require references or official documentation to confirm this correction, I will be glad to provide reliable supporting sources.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued efforts to maintain accuracy on the platform.

Kind regards,

Daisy Aketowanga

(On behalf of Mr. K. Ram Mohan) DAISY AKETOWANGA (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DAISY AKETOWANGA: You're going to need to, since I'm tempted to just yank all of the names from the article for want of sourcing. And we do not take kindly to chatbot-generated posts; please write out your reply manually. (We don't care if your English is flawed so long as it is understandable.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 14:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @DAISY AKETOWANGA

First, you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor - that link will tell you how to do so.

Then, you should use the Edit request wizard to request a change to Dott Services - the request will go on the talk page Talk:Dott Services.

Note that the edit you request should be as precise as possible (perhaps something like 'replace "Komi Reddy" with "K Ram Mohan, who replaced Kome Reddy on ... "'; and it will probably not be carried out unless you provide a citation to a reliable published source for the information. (Normally I would say, an independent reliable published source; but uncontroversial factual information like directors' names may be verified from non-independent sources). I observe that the Observer article cited (which has disappeared from the internet, but I added an archive of it from archive.org) does indeed name Komi Reddy, so you will need a source for Mohan. ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fake offer from "associate editor"

I received an offer to revise my personal wikipedia from someone claiming to be an "associate editor" of wikipedia by the name of Donald Robertson. I'm assuming it is fake and will ignore it. Let me know if I misunderstood! Richardparncutt (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richardparncutt. There is no such thing as an "associate editor" on Wikipedia so that is reason enough to be cautious and suspicious. This is probably the opening gambit of an attempt to get money from you. Please read Wikipedia: Scam warning and Wikipedia:The truth about paid Wikipedia editing for some good advice. Cullen328 (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richardparncutt, this self-styled "associate editor" may have got one thing right if he suggested that the article Richard Parncutt was in acute need of revision. Not enough of it is referenced to sources independent of the subject of the article (you). But problematic though the article is, I found it a fascinating read. If some harmless (unpaid) drudge of an editor here has a basic understanding of the perception of musical structure..., the psychology of music performance..., and the psychological origins of tonality, then I recommend that they look at the article. -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who takes it on there's some good German sources referenced in the German version. Ultraodan (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardparncutt You could also make suggestions that would improve the article yourself: but please do so by making edit requests on its talk page rather than directly. More advice at WP:ASFAQ. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read (slowly) German, know enough about music to not completely miss the points being made, and have been fascinated-but-clueless about this very topic for a long time. I'll at least start and see how far I get. (I've also done more than my share to prevent local or regional shortages of rash statements - so I can sympathize with the other part too. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info

My brother is a recording artist for about 20 years. If you look him up on the web he shows up everywhere he has a google panel what can he do so a Wikipedia page can be created for him his name is Felix Andino his website is www.felixandino.com thank you for your time Angela Lebron (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Angela Lebron. We have strict criteria for inclusion for musicians, which you can see at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (music). If your brother meets that criteria, someone may write a Wikipedia draft article about him. If he does not meet that criteria, an article is not possible.

Note that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertising, and your brother would not own a Wikipedia article about him if one was written: he wouldn't even be permitted to edit it himself. qcne (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wikipedia is not concerned with "Google panels", which assemble information from a wide variety of sources. If your brother meets at least one aspect of the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, an article may be possible- but please read conflict of interest. He might want to read the autobiography policy as well as why an article might not necessarily be desirable. Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first. I suggest that your brother go on about the work of his career as if Wikipedia did not exist- if he is truly notable, someone will eventually write about him. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My picture in my profile

Please how I can add my picure to my profile Khogali Hind (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khogali Hind: We are not a social media website, and userpages are intentionally NOINDEXed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khogali Hind I think Jeske may have been confused by your use of the word "profile". Wikipedia does not have profiles. You can certainly upload a photo to your user page. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for instructions. I suggest you also read Wikipedia:User pages. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template/category to a match-case restriction to link suggestions linking to a page

I'm looking for something I can add to pages like The C Programming Language to prevent them from showing up when doing a suggested link edit especially because in the case of things like The C Programming Language, it prevents the article that actually should be suggested which is C (programming language). Apersoma (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Apersoma: I don't think that is possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apersoma there's a template or category or something that turns it off; I'll see if I can find it again. Mathglot (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Apersoma (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote not updating?

Why is wikiquote days behind? 24.254.81.81 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia and Wikiquote are separate projects, so there won't necessarily be anybody here that can answer you. I suggest asking at Q:WQ:VP. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please link an affected page and say what you think needs updating. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it is being updated now. I noticed before some times it is stuck on a day. I can go to the link for the date and find it there. But somehow it doesn't show up in wikiquote?

If it happens again I will link the affected page. 24.254.81.81 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate wikilink for a politician's political party

Hi all! Is anyone aware of a policy or guideline that discusses whether a state or local politican's political party should wikilink to the national party or their state's affiliated party? For example, should the infobox in an article about a Montana Republican state senator link to the Republican Party (United States) or Montana Republican Party?

I've looked everywhere I thought relevant and did not see any specific guidance. Jcgaylor (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they're only active in state/local politics link to the state party, if that article exists. Ultraodan (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia post

how do we make posts here Splooshsplatoon7 (talk) 04:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just did. Well done, and welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subscription

Dear Wikipedia, How have you managed to create such a wonderful humanistic resource, un-afflicted by commerce, with some premier minds dedicated to the project - and still precipitate a situation which alienates me and my ilk? I subscribe, I pay real money, I dont question or otherwise shirk anything less than 100% commitment - yet I cannot escape the cringy begger-fest of your funding drives. I dont want to see funding drives. I want to pay unencumbered by someone else's guilt. Why do you keep interrupting ME with begging? I pay to be left alone in this regard . I want a plug-in for Wiki on my browser. If you want more money - no problem - its yours. Re-engineered (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-engineered You can turn off the donation request banners in your account preferences. Click "Preferences" (probably at the top of the screen, the exact location depends on how you view Wikipedia), then Banners, then uncheck the "Fundraising" box. Presto, no more fundraising requests. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Re-engineered: "Preferences" may also be in a menu on a person icon at the top right, or you can go directly to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners. Thank you for your donations. They are not required to use Wikipdia and give no benefits. Unpaying users have the same preference options. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Re-engineered Also note that Wikipedia does not need more money. See Wikipedia finances. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say "un-afflicted by commerce"? If you want to see the affliction by commerce, just have a look at the draft submissions at Category:Pending AfC submissions, which are full of drafts written by people with conflict of interest hell-bent on getting an article about their organization published on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator check

I have been contacted by Eric Cantor as a wikipedia administrator. He is not among the administrators listed on your site. I was just wanting to verify that he is genuine. 2A06:61C2:B073:0:A904:A08F:A06B:1958 (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds likely that you are being scammed. Please see WP:SCAM for details; Administrators don't have any say over content and will never contacf you off-site. CoconutOctopus talk 11:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no administrator with that username. I don't know what the contact was about but if you have expressed interest in making or updating an article then it may be a scammer trying to get you to pay for no or poor service. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thirding that this is an actual scammer. (If an administrator actually cold-contacted you via off-wiki means, that would be grounds for not only the admin bit being pulled but an indefinite block as well.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 14:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews as reference to topic

Can book reviews be used as a source referencing your subject as anauthor? Linwoods96 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Linwoods96. A book review (provided it is reliably published as opposed to, eg Goodreads or Amazon) can be a useful source for what it talks about. Most book reviews talk mainly about the book, and so can be used to verify information in an article about the book.

Occasionally a book review will also contain significant material about the author, and in that case it may be used to verify information in an article about the author.

Does that answer your question, or have I misunderstood it? ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Linwoods96 Watch out for blurbs published within the book itself. These are not independent, so can't be used to establish notability, although they may help with aboutself information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And be aware that some biographical blurbs about the author may contain untrue information (often as an 'inside joke'), and are sometimes entirely fictional when the named 'author' is a pseudonym. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You have thoroughly answered me question. I appreciate it. 2600:1700:A7C0:41F0:4D17:C955:78B7:9756 (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Dame Louise Richardson portrait 2024 (cropped).jpg deleted

I uploaded the image in Louise Richardson's web page. When I uploaded, I did not note the Carnegie Corporation was owner of the copyright. Unfortunately, it was deleted by a bot I can't contact. How do I get the image back? thanks, Ronald Sexton Carnegie Corporation of New York Ronald Sexton (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ronald Sexton.

You uploaded the image to Commons, at C:File:DLR January2024 A.jpg.

At present it has neither been deleted, nor marked for deletion. You received a message on your Commons talk page c:User talk:Ronald Sexton from a Bot explaining that the copyright status was unclear, and telling you what you needed to add, and that it will be deleted if you don't do so.

However, you have described the image as "own work", asserted that you, personally are "the copyright holder of this work", and purported to license the image irrevocably in such a way that anybody at all may use it, or derive an altered version of it, for any purpose, commercial or not, without requiring permission.

Is the image indeed your own work, and you control the copyright? If so, then you should edit the file page (linked to above) as explained in that message. You should also understand what permissions you have irrevocably granted.

If not, you must either get the real copyright holder to agree to release it under that license - see WP:donating copyright materials - or allow it to be deleted.

Commons is very particular about the copyright status of materials uploaded to it.

(In some circumstances, Wikipedia - not Commons - allows non-free images to be uploaded, but the relevant justifications would not apply in this case). ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, @Ronald Sexton. I've just noticed that you are referring to a differently-named image. C:File:Dame Louise Richardson portrait 2024 (cropped).jpg was indeed deleted on 13 September, with a message saying "(No ticket permission since 13 August 2025)"

Most of my comments above still apply. ColinFine (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronald Sexton I presume that the deleted file was cropped from C:File:Dame Louise Richardson portrait 2024.jpg. You were warned by a bot that there was a copyright problem at C:User talk:Ronald Sexton#Copyright status: File:Dame Louise Richardson portrait 2024.jpg and you replied on your talk page, but unfortunately bots don't read talk pages. The talk page message suggests taking any questions to C:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. TSventon (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request for undeletion in Wikimedia Commons for Dame Louise Richardson portrait 2024.jpg. The Carnegie Corporation owns the copyright of this image. Ronald Sexton (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding title to the page etc

So first of all when i search up my article Sarah Grace it doesn't show. and when it shows it doesnt show the title american youtuber. number 2 she is a famous youtuber so i wanted to make a page so i need a lot of help. no 3 i want to verify the page and get help to cite and reference info and add it to google so that when i search sarah grace her wiki i there next to her photo. i need a lot of help Articlewriter1 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Articlewriter1.

You have created the article Sarah Grace, but new articles are not indexed by external search engines until they have been patrolled. Unfortunately, your article at present has no chance of being accepted by a patroller, and indeed is likely to get either moved to draft or deleted quite soon.

Unfortunately, this frequently happens when new or newish editors attempt the challenging task of writing an article without learning how Wikipedia works first. To take an analogy from housebuilding, it is as though you go "I know what a house looks like, so I will just start building one", without doing any of the essential preparation, like surveying, getting permits, or building foundations.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. What Grace or her associates say or want to say is almost irrelevant. What you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) know or think about her is irrelevant, except where it is backed up by reliable sources.

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) 22:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been "draftified" to Draft:Sarah Grace. You can continue to work on it there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May you please help me make it Articlewriter1 (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not a topic I'd be interested in working on.

If you are unsure of how to proceed, feel free to ask here for further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please help me with the project Articlewriter1 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Articlewriter1. Unfortunately, if the sources you've cited are the best you can find, it doesn't look like Sarah Grace is yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article. You can read more at WP:Notability. Valereee (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

electric kool-aid acid test: Help

I'm looking at the page for Tom Wolfe's book The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. There are a couple sentences on the page that I don't unnderstand, or can't find the source for. Here are the lines: "The failed meeting with Leary marks a greater failure to unite the counterculture from East to West coasts. This becomes one of the turning points in the book, indicating that the new generation of “hippies” had officially outpaced the old Beat Generation in style and philosophy." A source only appears well below it as: "Fremont, "Books of the Times." The source doesn't make sense to me, and I can't locate it by searching anywhere. And I'm wondering if it's correct. Can you help? Thanks. 174.91.206.74 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, the sentences you quote are part of the "plot" section of the article, also known as the plot summary. The plot summary should be based on the book, Tom Wolfe's The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, so it doesn't have to have citation footnotes. If you have more questions about those sentences, you could ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. TSventon (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the text actually appeared in with the article? Where is the "plot section"? Because it isn't in the article itself... 2607:FA49:5845:2400:99C2:609C:F149:9160 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand how to use that help desk? It seems to refer my back to this message board... The issue is that I don't see the text in the body of the article... 2607:FA49:5845:2400:C13:2940:66E1:BB70 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this. This is not a plot summary issue, this is what a reviewer said about the book. When the original proquest link stopped working someone just removed the url, but didn't look for the actual location of the New York Times book review. I've updated the reference. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryGrandma: the sentences quoted are in the "plot" section of the article. It is very possible that they are based on a review, rather than the book itself. TSventon (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see the text in the article/review...? 2607:FA49:5845:2400:99C2:609C:F149:9160 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Donation Requests at the Top of the Page

This is not a question... more of an existential crisis, really. I've caved and donated money I don't actually have to Wiki more than a few times, but I guess I just want anyone to know that the $1-5 donation range has a significant % of people who are already forgoing food to keep the lights on... or keep the gas tank full so they can run the heater periodically during the wintertime. Neither circumstance is foreign to me. I grew up in an environment that warned me to be wary of Wikipedia, because nothing here is a real source. I was told to trust the bookshelves of my tiny, failing confederacy of 3 towns in the least populated state in what we currently call the United States of America. When I got into a very prestigious college on scholarship, one of my classmates looked up my hometown on Google maps and said "you're joking, right? Your public library looks like a public toilet!" I've always been poor. I thought learning and working to lift communities would change my circumstances. I don't know when I stopped actually believing that, but I still desperately want it to be true. I've never had expendable income... a discretionary budget? Whatever it's called. I can tell you that the $3.10 I just donated is a single bag of lentils and 2/5 of a bag of rice, which is what I've been eating almost exclusively for months. I don't want to ask why Wikipedia continues to plead for help, because I want to plead for help but I stopped believing that would amount to anything a long time ago too. I don't want to ask why this is necessary, because I know... I want to ask why 4 days worth of calories are my contribution to an attempt to keep historical accuracy alive, and why 1/10 of that was a transaction fee. I want to ask the future if they see me, because I don't have much faith that even a 51% majority of the knowledge this platform was designed to preserve will survive this wave of windmill-shaped anti-intellectualism ... and I'm much more certain I won't. I hope some aspect of what I've existed as and worked for survives, even if I don't. What are we even doing anymore? PedestrianBlueSocks (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @PedestrianBlueSocks.

I'm sorry for your crisis. I think many people are in a similar position at present.

Please be assured that, while Wikipedia invites donations from those who are able and willing to support it, there is absolutely no requirement or expectation on anybody to do so - and at present, the Wikimedia Foundation is not in any great need of financial support.

The facilities are provided free to anybody, and no donation is required.

Now that you have an account, you have the ability to turn off the banners soliciting donations, at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners, so that you won't see them any more. ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to donate money. The regular editors here have donated hundreds or thousands of hours of their personal time to Wikipedia, time out of their life that they won't get back, and that has value too. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monthes of hard work gone

Because of some terrible mistakes, I've been blocked from editting, what can I do to fix this? But on top of that, because of this there undoing all my controbutions to Wikipedia throughout the monthes, which is just heartbreaking, what can I do? And for some reason I can't get the reply button to appear. Elihu Esparza (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user above made dozens of articles with false citations or citations from books that had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. They ignored all of the notifications they were given. Jon698 (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not blocked from editing (but you will be, if your previous behaviour persists); you are blocked from editing in the main article space. You can still edit talk pages, and can draft articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to submit draft via Articles for Creation

Hello,

I am trying to submit a draft article titled Krishna Sharma P. via Articles for Creation (AfC), but every time I paste the draft and click “Publish draft,” the page simply refreshes without creating the draft. I have tried multiple times, cleared caches, used different browsers, and followed all the AfC steps, including:

Completing the user COI disclosure.
Using my userspace (User:Creation3987!GO/Draft Krishna Sharma P.) to paste the draft.
Using the Article Wizard and practicing in my sandbox.

Despite completing all steps, the draft does not appear anywhere in my contributions or in AfC submissions. Could someone please advise why this is happening or assist me in successfully submitting the draft? Thank you for your help, Creation3987!GO (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Creation3987!GO. I've had two other users report this issue to me separately over the last two days. I think it might be a bug. Pinging @Primefac who may be able to help. qcne (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Creation3987!GO. I was going to say much the same as qcne: I replied to a similar message yesterday, at WP:TH#Unable to create Draft. I suggest asking at WP:VPT, where the technical people hang out. ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 2600:1700:F1A0:2080:5894:5F14:78B8:5438 (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine,@331dot Qcne and I had a bit of a conversation about this on discord, based on that phab:T408975 now exists. My current understanding of the problem is that if you use the 2010 editor to publish a page, you will not be shown a CAPTCHA and the page will just reload. (which is what Creation3987 ran into) Sohom (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks for this information. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation3987!GO Try using the Article Wizard to create a draft. It puts them in Draft space, the preferred location for submissions. And remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor with persistent lack of sources

By accident I've discovered an editor who has a years-long history of nearly a thousand additions to Wikipedia, many of which are unsourced or inaccurately-sourced. (The inaccurately-sourced items are often ones in which the material must be from some other source, since it's not in the cited one.) Substantially all of the person's edits are the same kind, adding the same type of incorrectly-sourced information to the same narrow category of articles. The information itself all seems likely to be true, we just don't know where it came from.

What do I say or do in such a case? TooManyFingers (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TooManyFingers.

The first step is to engage with the editor. They may not know they're doing anything wrong. Are there already messages about it on their talk page? If so, have they responded to any? (It may be a case of WP:CANTHEARUS rathen than WP:ICANTHEARYOU).

If they have been warned repeatedly, and either don't appear to be aware of this, or are aware but continuing the behaviour, then WP:ANI is the place. Read the rubric at the top of that page before posting there. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered the long history after two new such instances happened in the past couple of days, which I did leave messages about on their talk page. They've maybe not had time to respond to those yet. I haven't yet mentioned "Oh, by the way, it seems you've also done this nine hundred times in the past", which to me seems like the difficult part, and is why I came here. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of my talk page messages was actually more general in nature, saying it's necessary to cite the source of everything you add. But my messages are mere hours old, so of course there's no response yet. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been going on for years, then WP:AN not WP:AN/I, I would say; but first stop is the editor's talk page. Another approach (not an either-or) is to pick one or two of the most recent ones, find a paragraph or two in each one that is unsourced and remove them, with an edit summary mentioning 'unsourced', and linking WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:INCITE, with explanation in the edit summary solely about the article in question in each case. Mathglot (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I began by using your "Another approach ..." method, but I didn't link the appropriate pages for them to read. I think I'll see what the person says, give them the links to the information, and see how it turns out; if they don't respond by beginning to remedy the problem, then I'll take your first advice. It is 5-6 years and nearing a thousand additions, but they haven't done anything that will be so difficult to repair, and seem to have caused no real serious damage (unless it's all copyvio). TooManyFingers (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see now (on the editor's own talk page) that they were gently alerted two years ago about their habit of unsourced additions, and that on the same day (14 July 2023) the editor asked at the Teahouse "why was one of my edits reverted". They were told the reason, and what they needed to do about it. They didn't try to reinstate the reverted edit at all. Over the next few days they made a few edits with sources properly cited, and then there's a gap of several months. When they returned in 2024, it was back to no sources. My personal impression is that this is a basically reasonable person but who thinks proper sourcing doesn't apply to them or doesn't matter.

They seem to have not been back since I messaged them. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Korman

|alt = Black and white photograph of Gordon Korman, author of young adult fiction, speaking at the National Book Festival in September 2011. The photograph depicts Korman in profile view, facing left and speaking into a miicrophone. His right hand is raised to approximately shoulder height, palm facing the audience, with fingers slightly closed as if grasping an invisible ball

This from Korman's edit page and how do Ì find it?? DMc75771 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an alternative caption to a picture added to the infobox (previously without one) on 16:03, 15 February 2018 by User Mliu92 (from the page's Revision history) which can be found at File:National Book Fair 2011 - Gordon Korman (6179874966) (2) (cropped).jpg.

Evidently that first picture was later replaced by the one now in the article, but the alt caption text was not deleted. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. Should àlt lìn̈es be left? DMc75771 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use characters like "Ì" "à" and "n̈" in your posts, in English text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the above reason, I've removed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dendera light – adding photos

Dendera light

This article currently contains only one photograph of a very small section of a crypt wall. I have two panorama photos of two long sections of a crypt wall, showing complete scenes. But I don't know how to add these to the existing article.

Could someone please either: (a) explain in minute detail how to do this, or (b) add them to the article if I e-mail them to some nominated eddress?

Thanks, Daniel DanielFFF (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These panorama photos - are you the photographer yourself? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielFFF (I only ask that question because if you personally took the pictures, then you own the rights to them and the process is therefore a bit simpler.) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielFFF If indeed you were the photographer, then there are two basic steps. 1) Upload the file(s) at c:Special:UploadWizard, which adds them to the repository at our sister Project, Wikimedia Commons. Then 2) follow the steps at Help:Pictures to incorporate them into the article. Thanks for the suggestion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IJN Hatsuyuki and Shortland Island

Possible link between the IJN Hatsuyuki page and Shortland Island page. What do I do?

Hi! I'm a new-ish Wikipedia member, only recently joined - but I've been using the site as a reference for my personal projects for years. Anyway, I'm getting off track. I noticed a link between the Shortland Island and IJN Hatsuyuki pages. I've tried asking on the WikiProject:Ships page but it was removed, so I'm asking here. I've already made the needed edits, but if I need to, I will take them down. Thank you so much! Dry Rails and Smooth Running! - J Class (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it wasn't removed. It just didn't get any replies for 21 days so a bot archived it. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumably" is a serious flag that the information does not belong on Wikipedia. We don't do any presuming, so unless this presumption is literally given in black and white in the sources, it will unfortunately have to be cut. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Just An N&W J Class hoping you see this. The relevant information about this kind of situation is at WP:SYNTH, but mainly the requirement is that editors not point out probabilities we have recognized. We only include probabilities that have already been intentionally pointed out by the authors whose work we're referencing. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a new article on gujarati singers

I’m a blogger and I’d like to publish an article about the Gujarat singers on your platform. It is important because he is the live singers from gujrat had gradually increased in past 4 years Could you please confirm whether I’m allowed to create or contribute a page about a singer here, and whether I must include full citations (with proper sources) for the article? Also, are there any specific guidelines I should follow regarding 'blog posts' vs encyclopedia style entries on Thanks!” Suwaatche (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Suwaatche, and welcome. You are allowed to, but I would discourage you from attempting it until you become more familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I you decide to move forward anyway, please follow the step-by-step instructions at Help:Your first article carefully, paying particular attention to the question of WP:Notability of the topic, and the use of WP:Reliable sources to establish the WP:Verifiability of the content you wish to add. Also, please read WP:COI and declare any connection you have with this singing group. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When singers become well-known, reporters from major publications want to write featured stories about them.

Singers who are not so well-known must get into an interview first, or else the reporters might ignore them.

Wikipedia has articles about the kind of singers who are the subject of featured stories, but not interested in the kind of singers who need an interview or a press release to get themselves noticed. Being able to show that a singer is the subject of many featured stories is therefore the best thing you can do. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, interviews, as primary sources (e.g. the subject talking about themselves) do not count towards notability, as Wikipedia defines it. The relevant notability criteria can be found at WP:MUSICBIO. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As to your last question, we generally don't accept citations to blogs unless the blog is maintained by a notable journalist or scientist in the blogger's professional field of expertise. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation Box Not Visible on Mobile Wiki

Why is Navigation Box Not Visible on Mobile Wikipedia? Palmamazo (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Phabricator ticket T124168 for progress on the mobile issue. Moxy🍁 14:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How should this (potential) problem be handled?

Hi, I was reading Augustan prose and I noticed something I think is a problem. There's a sentence that begins like so: "Montesquieu's 'essais' were available to English authors in the 18th century". The problem is that I'm pretty sure whoever wrote this meant Montaigne, not Montesquieu. I'm by no means an expert, but Montesquieu isn't known for his essays and was writing in the early-to-mid 18th century, whereas Montaigne is overwhelmingly associated with the form and was writing in the 16th century. But what's the right way to handle this problem? I don't know of any inline tags that allow you to write something like "do you mean Montaigne?" Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! 2603:7080:A507:A8E1:B0CA:BA89:DE1C:1C0C (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the sentence in question had an inline citation, I would've suggested going and looking what the source says. Seeing as the entire article has literally zero inline citations and is tagged as possible original research, I don't think a cleanup tag for a single sentence is going to help. Rummskartoffel 16:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP 2603, good catch. I tagged the article {{unreferenced}}, and started this discussion on the Talk page, linking back here from it. On the one hand, per our WP:Verifiability policy, you are free to challenge or remove any uncited content, but given that this article was created in many years ago in the early days of a now respected senior editor and admin, let's hold off on any mass deletion there until we see how it goes. Otoh, you are free to amend or remove content that you think is incorrect, ~~or at the very least, tag it inline with {{dubious}}, and I would encourage you to do so.~~ Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not with {{dubious}}, that is apparently reserved for sourced material that is nevertheless sketchy; this is unsourced, so not the right tag. Maybe just an inline {{citation needed}}, then. Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Font when editing source text

Something went wrong and the font used when editing source has changed for me. It changed in both Firefox and Chrome to something hard to read. I looked at Help:preferences, and it mentions "Options → Content → "Default font" Advanced " but I don't see that anywhere.

How can I set the font for when eding source? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubba73 The Wikipedia part is set at the drop-down at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. The browser in use will have further options as described at the Help:Preferences page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't see a drop-down there. Where is it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just below where it says Editor Edit area font style: Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "Editing"? I have three choices for font there: monospace, serif and non-serif, but they don't make any difference when editing source for an artucle. The font is smaller than it should be and some things are underlined when they shouldn't be. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubba73: You can try code like this in your CSS:

#wpTextbox1 {font-size:20px;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you perhaps accidentally turn on (or off) syntax highlighting? In some skins, it's a pen icon on the toolbar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally did something, since my screen went wild. It was probably that - I'll see. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, turning on "improved syntax highlighting" gets it closer to the way it was, but the font in the window for editing source is smaller than I like. Is there a way to change that? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubba73: I just gave you a way to change it. If it doesn't give the wanted result then you can remove the code or try another size. It may affect other text boxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tried it and exited out to make sure it loaded. I tried font up to 30 bit it only affects the headings when editing the source. It doesn't affect the other text. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubba73: Syntax highlighting changes the required code. Try this:

div .mw-editfont-monospace  {font-size:20px;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I replaced the line you gave me previously with that, but it doesn't make any difference. (I tried replacing 20 by 28 to be sure.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that when editing, I want to see plain black text. It is highlighting things in different colors and underlining things. Also, if I start to put link brackets around something, it changes it to blue before I finish. I don't know what setting is causing that. What is it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are a person who does not like, and does not want, syntax highlighting.

Have you accidentally switched from "source editing" to "visual editing"? On my screen, that change is controlled by clicking a pencil icon. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like the syntax highlighting at first, but now I see the benefits of it. The problem is the small size of the font - which is hard to read with my vision. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that a new font got installed on your machine? Program installations (or updates), as well as system updates, can install a font, and that font can start being used by your browser. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bubba73: There are different syntax highlighters which may interfere with fonts. See WP:HILITE and try to disable any that are active if you prefer plain black text anyway. Then try this which makes different attempts to increase font size and override other font settings:

#wpTextbox1 {font-size:20px !important;}
div .mw-editfont-monospace  {font-size:20px !important;}

If it still fails then what is your browser and what is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Is it possible to edit the categorization of a bunch of pictures by one edit? DeVrolijkeSchrijver (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeVrolijkeSchrijver: Only if the category is template-generated but there are sometimes faster ways than normal editing. Which change do you want? Be specific with links. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about images here on Wikipedia, or on Wikimedia Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bug prevents new users creating pages

FYI: There is a bug preventing new users from creating new pages with external links

Per this Phabricator ticket, there is a bug preventing new users from creating new pages which contain external links, due to an issue with CAPTCHA. The user will get no error on clicking Publish page... but it will refresh and nothing will happen.

The workaround is to use the Visual Editor or publish a blank draft and then make edits onto it.

This should be fixed by Monday.

We're seeing quite a few new users report this across various channels, so I thought I'd make an FYI here. qcne (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not able to get into my account!

I do NOT own another device to get into my account, I can not get logged in!! 70.51.93.169 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Do you see an error message? Did you forget your password? 331dot (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request help creating draft page - page creation restricted

Hello! I'm trying to create my first article on English Wikipedia about Association Touhou, a Slovenian cultural organization. I've properly disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page. My account can edit existing articles (I just successfully edited Klenovnik Castle), but I cannot create new pages - every attempt just refreshes without saving. I believe my account has page creation restrictions due to having no previous edit history on en.wikipedia. Could an experienced editor please create the draft page Draft:Association Touhou for me? I have the complete article text ready with proper citations and formatting. Once the page is created, I can edit it myself. Alternatively, if there's a way to remove the page creation restriction from my account, that would also work. Thank you for your help! DrustvoTouhouSI (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AUTOCONFIRM, if your account is four days old and you have made ten edits, you can create a page. Alternatively—and this is probably the best course, considering your WP:COI—you might consider creating a WP:DRAFT and letting more experienced editors evaluate it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrustvoTouhouSI: You may have been affected by #Bug prevents new users creating pages but I see you have since created the draft. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I figured it out, worked when i switched to visual editor. Now I'm waiting for the draft to be published :). The bug is only in code mode. DrustvoTouhouSI (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a merge

How does one get an erroneous merge reversed and the original article restored?

I've just discovered that the Arcsine transformation article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arcsine_transformation&action=history was merged into the Arcsine distribution article a few years ago. This transformation is widely used in many areas of research (a little further detail about the context on the talk page of the article merged into, Talk:Arcsine distribution). People looking for the original article, or following the various links to the Arcsine transformation article both within Wikipedia and from numerous places on the internet will be left with none of the information they need and instead will be served a brief page full of information of no value to them. Note that the article its merged into is very quiet, only two talk posts in the entire history of that article, including the one I have just made (no surprise, its a pretty niche article compared to the one that got merged into it) - so there's little chance of even a single reply there, let alone any consensus. How do we undo it and get the old information restored? Glenbarnett (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

was this maybe at another title? Arcsine transformation was never an article, it's always just been a redirect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks, my apologies that explains why I couldnt get back to the history and thought it was just gone. I must be confusing it with information that was on one of the shorter sub-pages relating to it. In that case, how do I make it not redirect and actually start editing the Arcsine transformation page with some useful information? Its worse than nothing now. If I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arcsine_transformation&action=history and click Edit there will that do it? Glenbarnett (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Bare in mind that writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. You may find it easier to start up a WP:draft article in your WP:sandbox and then move it to the target area once written. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a very helpful suggestion. I'm not new to editing articles, but this will be a bigger project than I've undertaken before. Glenbarnett (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking my neck out here as Captain Obvious, but if you remember an article on Wikipedia that did contain the information you found useful, that information is likely still findable - even if some of it was deleted, it will be in the edit history and able to be retrieved.

The history of the existing article you've already mentioned is not a very complicated one, and doesn't (on the surface) seem to have involved any massive deletions of material. But I also think it's unlikely that you would remember a good useful article that never existed. I wonder if its information DID get merged, but to some other article? TooManyFingers (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or could it just be Binomial proportion confidence interval#Arcsine transformation which was easily found with a search? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Alan Sinclair - Editor now uncontactable

I have paid the fee to Ben Matthews (Wiki Editor) for reviewing my entry. He has made a few changes but NOT completed he entry. He s not responding to his email and the company I paid the funds into (syntax quill) have a tel number that is also not working or disconnected.

I need to know what is happening? Professor Alan Sinclair 2A00:23C5:6F08:E701:D9BA:C2D9:9DF5:7F32 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have been scammed, nothing to do with Wikipedia. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCAM, sadly. Please note especially Wikipedia:Scam warning#Reporting scammers. You can also find useful advice at WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SCAM page doesn't say this, but it's essentially true: Any time anyone comes to you offering to edit Wikipedia on your behalf, it isn't a good idea. If you know them or work with them, then they have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be touching an article about you; if you don't know them, it's a scam.

If you or someone who knows you comes to Wikipedia to make requests for changes (rather than doing any editing themselves), that's all right.

This is needed to prevent unscrupulous people from using Wikipedia to advertise themselves. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a hyperlink to the page this scammer "Ben Matthews" was working on, on Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne The name of the page is in the question header, presumably Alan Sinclair (scientist). Madam Fatal (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was created in 2017? qcne (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The scammer was hired to do updates, but didn't do them or didn't finish the job. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I recently nominated Dina Marciano for deletion as it was purely promotional article. However i didn't paste the notice of deletion prior to it to the author's talk page. Can any admin please mention who created this article so that i send them the notice? zglph^•talk• 15:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zglph, you can see a list of all contributors to the article by looking at its History. ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i can't see its history it is deleted now. zglph^•talk• 16:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then chalk this up as a mistake to not make next time

(and take a little comfort knowing if it was deleted this quickly there probably wasn't much they could have done about it anyway.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

anyways my message was to an administrator. zglph^•talk• 16:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Sorry. Yes, an admin should be able to give you that information. ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zglph The user was HuskyBusty, they haven't edited since April Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Is there a help page somewhere that explains what should be in the Background section of an article page?

I've searched for this, but the results are all about the "background" shading on tables and other graphics.

2405:6E00:630:E8C6:ACE1:C45F:35B:6B69 (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would help it if you asked a narrower question about the specific issue you are trying to address. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that there is necessarily a Background section in an article. I guess it might be used when an article is about a particular event which is part of a more general situation. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me, a "Background" section usually gives a long and involved answer to a question like "Why would an event like this even happen?" or "What were the unusual circumstances that led to this?". There's normally no need for a "Background" section, because that material can usually be finished in a couple of sentences - but it helps if the background turns out to be a long story in itself. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a help page somewhere overview of what each section of a page is for? There's a few that are in nearly every page:

Background
History
See also
External links

Some are obvious, but Background is confusing. 2405:6E00:630:E8C6:80A7:202E:BF5A:32A5 (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add something to a Background section and a more experienced editor objected. I probably misunderstood what that section is for, but maybe they just didn't like what I added. I was hoping there was a help page somewhere that clearly says what belongs in a Background section, so I know if I should modify what I added to fit better, or just give up and find a different page to work on. 2405:6E00:630:E8C6:80A7:202E:BF5A:32A5 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no exact rule for Background, and there might not even be a Background section in a lot of articles. Some people might consider them unnecessary or useless. But if you have one, it is likely to describe [earlier events or earlier conditions] that caused or enabled the main topic.

Here's a possible example: imagine an article about a dike that was built around a city to protect the city from floods. If that article had a Background section, it would probably tell how bad the floods used to be before the dike was built, and about people in the past who always wanted to do something about the problem. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have made an edit and another editor objects, you can either accept their objection; or follow our dispute resolution process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements has some general links which apply to all articles like See also and External links. Background and history depend on the topic and many articles have no reason for them, e.g. an animal species. Which type of article do you have in mind, e.g. biography, organisation, event, place, conflict, or something else? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Query

Not sure why I'm so squeamish about this - but I am writing an article about an architecturally notable house but feel uneasy about including the name of the property developer that built and designed it as they are BLP and not notable themselves, and have just sold the property. That individual has given interviews to The Guardian, and featured in several magazines and discuss the house on their personal website. Should I just include their name despite their BLP status and lack of notability? My prose feels constrained with not naming them. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @No Swan So Fine. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't name them. Lots of living people get named in passing in articles. ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the building is notable, then it isn't right to omit the designer's name. Just don't use the article as a way of telling the story of the designer - stay focused on the building. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Value

I am not yet credited with value 102.91.5.214 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I'm afraid I have no idea what you are asking about.

Does it relate to Wikipedia? If so, then please explain more clearly.

If it does not relate to Wikipedia, then we cannot help you, as this is the Help desk for Wikipedia specifically. --ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a list column

I linked a county name on list of museums in east Texas. Some how I must of caused the cols to get skewed must of deleted something needed. DMc75771 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Down at the bottom of the article, there's a line saying you were the latest one to edit the article. Click on that. You'll see the history of what's been done, with your latest change at the top - and beside it is an "Undo" button.

When you use that button, you'll be taken to a page showing the undo action you're about to take. Near the bottom of THAT page is a line called "Edit summary", with a bunch of stuff already typed in it. Keep all of that stuff. Go to the very end of the line, after all of that, and add on your little explanation of why you're undoing something. Then hit the Save button. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help creating Wikipedia page

Where can I find Simone to help create a wiki page? This process is very technical and i do not have the right skills seemingly. 209.55.99.66 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is to spend time editing articles that already exist, to improve them. Don't try creating a page until you have a lot more experience. When an inexperienced editor creates a page, it usually doesn't get accepted, and they give up - a frustrating waste of time for everyone. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I second what TooManyFingers has said. I would add that Wikipedia has quite strict rules about what is a suitable subject for an article (see notability) and a lot of people that come here and immediately start trying to create an article waste a lot of their own time because they have chosen a subject that is never going to merit an article. ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to revert to revision

Hello, I would like to request that the page be reverted to the version from 02:28, 1 October 2025 (see [permalink](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MyBudget&oldid=1314375912)).

Reason: Subsequent edits by MyBudgetAustralia appear to introduce promotional language that is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.

Thank you for your help! QuantumNomads (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuantumNomads, you can DIY; here's how. Look in the history for the version to which you want the article to revert. Opt to edit it. You will get a warning that you're about to edit an old version. (Yes of course you are: don't let the warning scare you.) Actually your "edit" will simply consist of saving, with an informative edit summary (e.g. "Reverting to version of 02:28, 1 October 2025 (before addition of promotional language)"). -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: QAExplorer/sandbox

Hi I noticed that my recent article submission was marked as declined, and I’d really appreciate some clarification on the reason. I believe the feedback provided might not fully reflect the context — this was the first article covering Keploy, so there weren’t any existing references to cite. All the resources I included are reliable, and I even referenced GitHub and Crunchbase, which shouldn’t be considered deprecated. It would be really helpful if you could share more specific feedback or examples of what needs improvement so I can make the necessary updates and resubmit it. Thank you for your time and understanding. QAExplorer (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @QAExplorer. If there were no existing references to cite, then there can be no Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia article is a summary of reliable, published sources. Nothing more. In this case, an article on Keploy is not possible. Sorry. qcne (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QAExplorer First you must remove all citations to Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite other Wikipedia articles(see WP:CIRCULAR) because Wikipedia is not a reliable source as it is user-editable(as you are doing!).

Once those are removed, the sources that are left just document specific information, they don't provide signficant coverage of this tool and describe why it is notable. I don't think an article about this is possible at the present time. Wikipedia is not for merely documenting existence- it must indicate importance as independent sources describe it(not us, in our voice). 331dot (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in Wikipedia

Dear sir/ madam With due respect i want to state that i want to edit a wikipedia page by the name of Masarat Alam Bhat. May i know do i need sources of the same and do i have to upload sources too. Thanks Mukhtar Baba (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mukhtar Baba

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.

In short, your article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about the subject, and not much else. You should generally not upload sources, but cite them - see WP:REFB. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mukhtar Baba I assume you are referring to our article on Masarat Alam Bhat. Yes, you need to cite reliable sources. Please see the instructions here. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the link User:Shantavira mean to use was WP:REF! Note, @Mukhtar Baba that you certainly don't need to upload sources but that they must have been published somewhere so that readers can, in principle, verfiy that they support what you summarise from them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bot tag query

In an article I'm working on, I was more than surprised a few days ago to find that 11 of my references had been flagged by a bot with alerts about citation issues. When I saw {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} on the tagged references, I went back to each of them to check whether I'd used a template other than the one the bot mentioned. But I found that all the reference had been created with the correct template.

Then I noticed that all the {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} tags mentioned CS1 maint: url-status (link). So I checked each of the references again to check if I'd missed typing live in the URL status field. But again in each case I found that I'd done so.

Please tell me what I'm supposed to do to satisfy the bot. Augnablik (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: Please link the page. Always link any page you want help with. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped to avoid having to do so. Augnablik (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: Most problems can have multiple causes and depend on circumstances so always link the page from the beginning. "link" in the message goes to Category:CS1 maint: url-status which explains the problem here. url-status=live is for use in combination with archive-url=. If the citation has no archive link then don't say url-status=live. If you just want to say that the link works then you can use access-date= to give a date it was working and still supported the statement it's referencing. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I haven't read any of the page and don't know what it's about if it makes you feel better. If you really wanted to hide something then you could have posted an example reference with the issue. Helpers should always know the code which caused a problem. Otherwise there are just too many possibilities. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest, PrimeHunter. I trust you. I just didn't want to have that location out in such a public arena. Too late now! The references to which the bot added tags are 1, 4, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 29, and 31. Augnablik (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait ... if I wasn't supposed to put live into the template, then I'll undo that and see what happens. I'll also remove the link I gave you earlier till I know for sure if you've solved my problem. So please bear with me a few minutes till I get back here with the verdict. Augnablik (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: I don't know whether you used a tool to create the citations but the page has never been edited by a bot. The message is made automatically by the citation templates depending on parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is too weird, PrimeHunter: I removed live from one of the references, and after publishing it, took a look at it ... and saw that not only was the {{cite}} gone from that reference but so too from all the other 10 where it had also been!

This does not compute. 😗 But you do seem to have solved my problem. Many thanks! And just for luck, I'll remove the code from the other references too. I could have sworn we were supposed to put live on all templates involving an URL. Augnablik (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: I still see the other nine. The messages are hidden by default with a CSS rule at Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css#L-103.They can be made visible with another CSS rule shown in Category:CS1 maint: url-status. I have similar code in User:PrimeHunter/common.css but you don't so you were never supposed to see the messages. You also said they appeared suddenly. I guess the CSS to hide them was not loaded correctly by your browser but now it is again. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the other nine now. But I really don't understand all this about CSS, and why some people like you have the code but others don't. Especially if we ought to see what sort of {{cite}} messages end up in our references, because I'd assume they might get us into trouble with editors on patrol.

🥐 Another Danish pastry for you, PrimeHunter! Augnablik (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: We don't want readers to see them. Registered editors can choose to see them by adding this to your CSS:

:root .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */

PrimeHunter (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I’d have no idea at this point in my Wiki career as to where to put that.

But I’m still wondering why all editors don’t automatically see the coding in their references — because surely if they don’t take care of it when it ends up there, other editors on patrol would connect with them about it, wouldn’t they? Or are there editors who quietly do that sort of work behind the scenes? Augnablik (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: "your CSS" is a link where you can put it. Most registered users never make any edits. It would be possible to automatically display the messages if editors become autoconfirmed or extended confirmed but that's about protected pages and we generally don't change the interface for that. The messages are not classified as errors but less important maintenance messages. It's not something others would normally tell the editor about. Articles (not userspace pages) with the issue are automatically added to Category:CS1 maint: url-status. I don't know whether there are editors or a bot who monitor it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Glad to get this mystery cleared up. Augnablik (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change to IP addresses

I note that all IP addresses are now appearing in the format ~2025-31123-XX - and that this format does not offer the Geolocate option, which is extremely useful when keeping track of meat/sockpuppets. Who thought this was a good idea? and where can I ask for it to be reversed? - Arjayay (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout. Nil🥝 12:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a demonstrative need for it (such as tracking sock puppetry), you can consider requesting Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer permissions. Nil🥝 12:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't going to be reversed- but you can apply for the permission to view IP addresses, as noted. It's a privacy protection measure. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see them, but neither can the Heritage Foundation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ImageMap help

Hi all. If anyone knows about the ImageMap Editor, I could do with some advice. I followed the Meta information page, but most of the links don't seem to work, and the couple that do are "miles" off! Yet they were okay when I generated them. The page is John Fressh by the way. Any help gratefully received :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on BMW M70

Reference help requested. Hello! I've unfortunately created a referencing error on the BMW M70 page. Unfortunately fixing it is a bit beyond me. There was a dead link tag on a link that was no longer dead, and I was trying to remove it. For reasons unknown to me the number of sources and thus their numbering within the page was different in read mode vs edit mode, so that created some issues. I believe I got through most of it (although if you could fix the text on source 15 that would be great). However, there is currently an error on source 13/15 that seems to require some source editing that is beyond me. Help would be appreciated. Thanks, Colinkb (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ive made some changes, was that what you were looking for? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source numbering is automatic. Normally, when you edit, it's only on a certain part of the page. During that time, sources found in other parts of the page are not "seen" by the editing window, and can't be counted by the automatic numbering. This means, when you edit, the numbers look all wrong, and you need some other method of remembering which source is which. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Robson

I believe someone has edit her Wikipedia page as it wouldn't necessarily Linda, and has my friend involved Simon Dwain Kalavazides, he is partly sighted and very vulnerable and find if Linda it isn't him, please investigate it thanks. ~2025-30950-14 (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editor. The subjects of an article are not permitted to edit articles about themselves, so Linda Robson should not be editing the Linda Robson article. Otherwise, do you have a specific question? qcne (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be important to add that the subject's friends, family, and associates are also not permitted to edit. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the article in question. In recent days it was heavily vandalized, but is now more strongly protected against that, and has been cleaned up. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Vichay Phommachan to Laotian Americans Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Americans

Vichay Phommachan, Deaf Laotian-American entertainer, dancer, and actor ~2025-31316-07 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there already a Wikipedia article about this person? TooManyFingers (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding an article, so it's currently not possible to do that. Otherwise we'd end up having to add every person in the world to that page (or another page like it). TooManyFingers (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aygun Kazimova

Hi everybody!

I am brand new and not the most technically savvy lady. I'm trying to learn the ropes and I was suggested this article because of its promotional language. There are a few lines that say lots of nice things about the subject but I have had no luck finding citations - which I just learned to add thanks to the helpful Adventure game tutorial. Is there some where I can learn how to add those little "citation needed" notes at the end? I don't think its my place to remove content yet because someone with more experience might have better luck finding a suitable reference. The tag might help draw attention to it.

I do plan on doing other clean up of the wording where I can. I know enough not to "tag and run" as they say. USnoozieULoozie (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's all the information about Template:Citation needed.

Try to not overuse it in one place; if you find very many places in one article that need it, tag the whole section once (or the whole article) instead of putting a lot of irritating little tags. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What programming languages can be used to create a Wikipedia bot and an anti-vandalism tool?

Hey,

I'm planning to create a two tools to Wikipedia:

A multi-task bot (Python or Java)
An anti-vandalism tool, but designed as a CLI (terminal mode) program who can also in the low-end PCS.

So.. What programming languages can be used to create a Wikipedia bot and an anti-vandalism tool? Any API? Need a approval? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 23:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See mw:API:Action API for the APIs of MediaWiki. You can use any programming language that can talk to the internet for that. Bots need to be approved at WP:BRFA. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the change to the way that IP addresses are dealt with as "usernames" mean that you can have IP address looking usernames?

(Checked WP:USERNAME, no info)Because IP addresses would show up as usernames in histories, registered usernames could not look like legal IP addresses. Now that we have the temporary account setup so that usernames would show up as ~2025-99999-87 mean that we can now have a username look like 101.202.44.55? Conversely, are usernames that look like they could be (or eventually be) they are the temp filenames are banned? So we would not be able to have a username of ~2027-11111-11? Naraht (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that neither one is allowed, but I really hope that anything even slightly resembling the new temp names has been disallowed. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I just edited a page regarding the first U.S. president to visit Canada. The approximate time was 9:15P.M.eastern time (a few minutes ago). For your records, the united stares of america is made up of 3 branches of government; the legislative branch (congress), the executive branch (the president and commander-in-chief) and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court). These 3 b3abches operate 'of, for, and by the citizens of the United States- that is why there is voting of members in all 3 branches. Please note that i wish not to set up an account with wikipedia.however, facts should be published. That is the only reason I am sending you this information. Remove any cookies you have for me as i do not intend to establish a working editorial relationship with wikipedia or its affiliates. ~2025-31363-62 (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your edit was incorrect - the US President is Commander in Chief of United States Armed Forces and federalized United States Militia, not ' Commander in Chief of the United States' - I have reverted it. As for cookies, see Meta:Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy, and note that uninstalling cookies is something you need to do yourself - I don't think this is something that can be done remotely, though maybe someone will correct me on this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rowspan

Chronic laziness has led me to avoid the creation of tables wherever possible. Now that I want to create one, "rowspan doesn't work", by which of course I mean that I have made some mistake that prevents rowspan from working. What stupid mistake can you find in the table at User:Hoary/sandbox? (Incidentally, the asterisks are intended to display as asterisks, not to indicate list items.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want colspan instead? Visually I'm not figuring out how you actually want it to go. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it for you. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh. Thank you, Children will listen! -- Fogeys will goof (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I'm not really sure what the table is trying to say. I presume the text inside the parentheses is supposed to be the idiomatic translation of the sentence, and the one listed under the "English" column is the literal one, but Jules a vite appris ses rôles translates literally as "Jules has quickly learned his lines", not *Jules quickly has learned his lines. I'm not a native French speaker, so I could be completely wrong here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Children will listen, in the "English" column are (grammatical) English sentences and (asterisk-flagged) ungrammatical not-quite-English sentences. Entries in the right column aren't presented as English translations of those in the centre column. Does this enhanced (?) version make it any clearer (or is it merely a migraine-inducing technicolor nightmare)? (Incidentally, I've hardly looked at the text surrounding the table; I am not to praise/blame for it.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Jules has quickly learnt his lines." is supposed to be an example of an "adverb, [followed by a] tense-marked verb", but the adverb "quickly" is actually after the tense-marked verb "has". Is this intentional? Same goes for *Jules quickly has learned his lines., which is the other way around. This also contradicts the text that other languages (such as English) do not allow the adverb to intervene between the verb and its direct object, but of course, it might be because "have" is a special kind of verb. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, Children will listen. It seems that my mind is in something of a fog today. I don't know whether that's the doing of the boost of Covid vaccine I received yesterday, talk of an enigma as a conceptual anchor, or just plain old senility. I do notice that the table now contradicts part of the text that immediately precedes it. I'll read up on the matter and hope soon to make the explanation more accurate. -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nitish Nirmal

Nitish Nirmal Is an Indian actor Lhhivugigi (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating this actor Lhhivugigi (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lhhivugigi WP:BACKWARD may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we ping temporary accounts?

Successfully, that is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] A better proposal, <ref extends=foo>bar</ref> was sacrificed on the altar of WP:VE.

[a]

v t e Wikipedia help pages
*Visit the Teahouse* or the Help desk for an interactive Q & A forum. FAQs (?) Reference desks (?) Noticeboards (?) Cheatsheet (?) Directories (?) Village pumps** (?)
About Wikipedia (?)	Administration Purpose Principles Policies and guidelines What Wikipedia is not Disclaimer (parental advice) Making requests Who writes Wikipedia?
Help for readers (?)	FAQ Books Copyright Glossary Mobile access Navigation Other languages Searching Students Viewing media
Contributing to Wikipedia (?)	Advice for young editors Avoiding common mistakes Etiquette Simplified Manual of Style Simplified rule-set "Ignore all rules" "The rules are principles" Style-tips Tip of the day Your first article (article wizard)
Getting started (?)	Why create an account? Introductions by topic Graphics tutorials Picture tutorial IRC (live chat) tutorial VisualEditor user guide
Dos and don'ts (?)	Accessibility Biographies Biographies (living) Categorization Consensus Discussions Disambiguation Images Leads Links Lists References Tables Titles (of articles)
How-to pages and information pages (?)	Appealing blocks Article deletion Categories Citations/references Referencing for beginners Citation Style 1 Cite errors References and page numbers Convert Diff Editing Minor edit toolbar edit conflict Find sources Files Footnotes Image deletion Infoboxes Linking (link color) Logging in Merging New page review Page name Renaming pages Redirect Passwords Email confirmation Reverting Simple vandalism cleanup Talk pages (archiving simple archiving) User contributions WP search protocol
Coding (?)	Wiki markup Barcharts Calculations Characters Columns Elevation Hidden text HTML Lists Magic words Music symbols Sections Sounds Tables Templates Transclusion URL Visual files
Directories (?)	Abbreviations Contents (Encyclopedia proper) Departments Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Guidelines Manual of Style Policies Tasks Tips Tools
Missing Manual Ask for help on your talk page (?)