Wikipedia:Help desk

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

How can i create a page for a person ~2025-34620-12 (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-34620-12 Please read Help:Your first article and our criteria for assessing whether someone should have an article at all (we call this notability). If the "person" you have in mind is yourself, best to forget the idea as we strongly discourage WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for the reasons explained at that link. In any case, if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines you would be better off editing existing articles for a while to gain experience. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the helpdesk.

Making a new article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. It requires a robust understanding of policies and guidelines like notability and neutral point of view, as well as technical skills like finding and citing sources and formatting your article in accordance with the manual of style. It's not something we recommend new editors try to do right away.

I would strongly advise that you first spend a while (at least a couple of weeks) participating in discussions here at the Teahouse and at noticeboards, asking questions, and editing already-existing articles to build the knowledge and skills I've mentioned above, and then come back to the article creation process later.

Like the rest of us, you're here because you want to contribute to an encyclopedia. Luckily, there are a lot of ways to contribute other than creating articles. You can copyedit (see gnoming), patrol the Recent Changes page to revert vandalism, get involved with a WikiProject you're interested in (like WP:AICLEANUP for me), read through discussions on boards like WP:ANI to see how disputes are handled here, etc. Athanelar (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to create a Wikipedia page. I am an experienced website editor and spending "at least a couple of weeks" participating in discussions seems like overkill. I just want to post one page. Lkmorrisseyndu (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then I recommend you simply read WP:BOSS and tell whoever asked you to make an article about them that it's not going to work out.

Being an 'experienced website editor' gives you no advantage here. As I said, making an article here is a complex task which requires a solid understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you've been asked to create a page about someone on their behalf, then you need to be familiar with our conflict of interest guidelines for example. You should also be aware that promotional content is forbidden on Wikipedia. And that's assuming this person is even notable enough to warrant an article about them; which 99% of the time people who commission an article about themselves are not.

You have no idea how Wikipedia works, and you're here to fulfill a commission rather than to build an encyclopedia. If you don't have the time to spare to learn to make an article properly, then you're not going to be successful at making an article, so you're going to end up wasting your time, your client's time, and our time for nothing. Athanelar (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JackSucksAtLife, the user Georgeykiwi stated that the now-deleted draft included a few reliable sources, but they were only mentioned by name. I recently asked for links to them and I received an answer really quickly, so here they are:

• "Inside Cameo's Stan Economy". GQ Magazine.
• "German Union IG Metall is Backing YouTubers Fighting Google". Bloomberg UK. August 14, 2019.
• "YouTuber Oszukal YouTube by Zdobyc Prestizowa Nagrode". Gry-Online.
• "YouTuber Ermogelt Sich Diamond Button". Gamestar.

If none of these sources constitute significant coverage of JackSucksAtLife, or the ones that do only cover him in the context of one event, then that would explain why they weren't enough to save the draft. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GQ looks okay. I can't assess Bloomberg (walled). Gry-Online and Gamestar are about him exploiting YouTube to get an award he was not eligible for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antibacterial potential of senna alata against Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from nosocomial wounds. ~2025-36090-42 (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you to find the journals required, nobody's going to do your research for you, but if you need access try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This page is for people who need help editing wikipedia. You might have better luck with a search engine like google or duckduckgo. If you still want help from a wikipedian, then the reference desk could prove helpful! mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-36090-42 I just placed your exact text into Google Scholar, which gave this result. Had you not already tried that? Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{TCMdb} https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/913841|41847/Dwain-Esper/

now redirect to https://www.tcm.com/

but they all say "powered by AFI"

so

https://catalog.afi.com/Person/41847-Dwain-Esper

exists

so, for all https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/*

there is a https://catalog.afi.com/*

Piñanana (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Piñanana. What is your question about Wikipedia? ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piñanana I think the question here is whether a bot can change the tcmdb template so that instead of hitting a redirect at tcm, that it goes to the page at catalog.afi.com . A note has been added to Template talk:TCMDb title about something that may be similar, but I am not sure.Naraht (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nardog and Jonesey95 are the most recent editors on the template and may be able to help.Naraht (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the TCMdb family of templates are hopelessly broken. I have tried to contact TCM a couple of times for help, but I have never received a response. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article about a well-known Irish musician, Martin McHugh, and added citations. There are three other Wikipedia articles on people named Martin McHugh, all listed on a disambiguation page. They are distinguished by parenthetical expressions following each of their names, for instance, Martin McHugh, (Gaelic Footballer). In creating the article about the musician, I followed this style practice, naming the article Martin McHugh, (traditional musician). Now that the new article has been created, however, I cannot locate it with a search unless I search for the entire name, "Martin McHugh, (traditional musician)", and the article does not appear on the disambiguation page with the others named Martin McHugh.

My question:

How to disambiguate the new article so that by searching Martin McHugh a reader will taken to the disambiguation page to see the listing for Martin McHugh (traditional musician) as well as the other three Martin McHugh articles? Ucumcoru (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added Martin McHugh (traditional musician) to Martin McHugh(the disambiguation page). I would question having the word "traditional" as a disambiguator as there are no other musicians described on the disambiguation page. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks. Can I simply delete the word traditional from the parenthetical expression?

If not, how to change the disabiguator to "(musician)"? Ucumcoru (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can Wikipedia:Move the article from "Martin McHugh (traditional musician)" to "Martin McHugh (musician)". TSventon (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the original question, I expect that the search didn't work because you search a cached version of the database, but the article is appearing in Wikipedia searches now. I don't know why searching for the entire name, "Martin McHugh (traditional musician)" was different. TSventon (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Ucumcoru (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, years should be added to human name dab pages. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a photo? I was looking at the Lych Gate page which does not include the lych gate of The Church of the Transfiguration in Manhattan. I have a JPEG that I can sent to you. Sincerely, Thomas Merjanian. Oldtom99 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldtom99 See Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:How to upload a photo but note that people are very strict with copyright. Polygnotus (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldtom99: There are already many images in the Lychgate article, so I'm not sure that another one is needed. The Commons category for the church contains several images that show the lychgate, including the one used in the infobox of Church of the Transfiguration, Episcopal (Manhattan). Deor (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just created my first-ever hidden note in a Wikipedia article, but the --> at the end is still visible in the Read mode. Because it's just before the lead, it will look a little strange to readers who happen on the article before I'm finished copy editing it. I can't see anything wrong with the spacing or the coding. Please could one of you helpful Help staffers check to see what is wrong? The article is Muhacir. Augnablik (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Hi! The reason you saw --> is because it was in there twice in a row. So the first one ended the hidden comment and the second one was visible. I noticed the comment contained a link to AI. Since AI is not a reliable source of information I deleted it. Polygnotus (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix information, Polygnotus … as for the note itself, I use AI as a diving board, so to speak, to begin further searching — never to support references — so that’s the only way I’ll be using the information in the note. Augnablik (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is seriously easier to just skip the AI. It's like having a witness in a court case who is known for frequent lying. A good judge would not try to correct their testimony and hope for the best. Throwing out that witness and ignoring their testimony is how it's done. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I’ve been trying to make a case for, TooManyFingers, is that AI searches can be a good starting place to get useful ideas and places to check out to delve further into a topic.

Following worldwide news every day, I find that this use of AI is increasingly pointed out as one of its best in the academic, corporate, and journalistic worlds — drawing from what you might call testimonials from an assortment of practitioners. Not overlooking AI‘s limitations but working within them, just as was eventually done when the printing press and the calculator were invented, causing apoplexy about the possibilities for misinformation, lessening of traditional authority, weakened social structures, job displacement, and more. Augnablik (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, @Polygnotus, I went back to the hidden note to see where the duplicate --> might be, as I'd seen only one when I'd typed it in the template. The way I used your feedback was to try to type the note again, and even though I typed it just the same way I'd done before, this time there was no duplicate --> in the Read mode. Strange, but useful further discussion from @Bazza 7 and @PrimeHunter was opened up. Augnablik (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: But you are not the only reader of Wikipedia articles, and an article's text is not the place to be presenting such information, even if in a so-called invisible comment. Better would be to store such information in your own user pages; or document it on an article's talk page. The latter might give you a bonus of some engagement on your improvements from other editors. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: I agree it doesn't belong in the article. Editors are expected to know how to use a search engine. The url in [1] is also gigantic (715 characters) when https://www.google.com/search?q=who+are+muhacirs appears to do the same. {{Find sources}} can be used on talk pages and includes Google searches. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: You used VisualEditor in [2]. The user isn't supposed to type code but use buttons, menus and dialogue boxes, and let VisualEditor insert the required code. I guess you started by typing <!--. Then VisualEditor guesses what you want and opens a box (which can also be opened via the "Insert" menu") to insert an invisible comment. VisualEditor automatically adds the closing --> when you close the box. I guess you wrote --> inside the box so it became duplicated. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that’s exactly what happened! As I mentioned, this was the first time I’d ever tried working with a hidden note. Thanks, PrimeHunter. Your Wiki name fits your sleuthing skills very well. Augnablik (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazza 7, @PrimeHunter, okay, I see now that hidden notes/invisible comments may be less hidden than I thought of them as ... and I’ve moved the information from the controversial note to one of several “Wiki storage units” I’ve created elsewhere.

That note — to be clear — was only to keep handy till I finished the copy edit, and then I’d figure out how to make use of it. My more immediate task on the lead, of course, is to shorten it into a summary of highlights. But I also see the value of adding to the lead a little information about other related uses of the term Muhacir, to give readers a more complete picture; and that's where some of the information in that note will come in ... just to draw from when I include that idea (not the AI note) in my list of follow-up suggestions on the article's Talk page. Augnablik (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I revert more than one edit? I know I can do it manually; I’m asking about other ways. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025: You use the mobile version which has a limited interface. Click "Desktop" at the bottom of a page to switch to the desktop version which is documented at Help:Reverting. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even on desktop, when I try to do it, I get the message: “The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits…” I need more guidance. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025: That can happen when you are not reverting the latest edit and a later edit has changed the content you want to revert. The usual solution is to make a manual edit to sort it out. If you want to revert a series of consecutive edits which includes the latest then you can revert all of them at the same time. If you post a link to the edits you want to revert then we can say more. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: I want to undo this edit because the user mistakenly erased my contributions. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025: You could have reverted it normally when it was the latest edit but you made another small edit afterwards. Now you can revert both edits at the same time with Help:Reverting#Restoring a past version in the desktop version. If the later edit had a change which should be preserved (doesn't look relevant here) then you would have to do it manually after restoring the old version. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just don't know notable event as world general news? I add informathion in Portal:Current events. [3] СтасС (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@СтасС: That is not notable for a global encyclopedia. We are not a news site. Portal:Current events is for things readers around the World might look up later to see major events on a given day. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--СтасС (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asked, and answered. Please do not keep asking the same question, as the response will remain the same each time. Find a policy-compliant source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been trying to add a review and quotation to Stephanie Andujar wiki page. I cited the source and included all the details required. Please advise on why this is not acceptable? https://showtones.com/2025/11/10/bill-eisenrings-review-of-tango-in-the-rockies-written-and-directed-by-james-jennings-and-the-rubber-band-company-written-and-directed-by-meny-beriro-at-the-american-theater-of-actors/ EditingWizard125 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] See the edit summary where you were reverted. We don't cite random blogs. And please do not submit LLM-generated content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hello, @EditingWizard125. As @IsCat said in their edit comment, some technical features of the edit suggest that you used a LLM (I suspect they mean the garbage "date" parameter - that's not an error I can image many humans making) and, much more important, that you cited a personal blog as your source. Blogs are almost never regarded as reliable sources. As a procedural matter, when another editor reverts your edit, it means the other editor disagrees that your edit is an improvement. If you disagree with them, the first thing to do is to discuss it with that editor, usually on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] i added the quote where it was written from. I'm simply trying to add the actress' accomplishments from this year. So, blog articles can't be used at all even If I included the reference, url, and name and access date? EditingWizard125 (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anyone can write a blog. We need sources with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I can't add a quote from a writer because they choose to publish it via a blog? it doesn't say it's a blog. Showtones.com is a theater website. I supplied the link https://showtones.com/ EditingWizard125 (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] No, you can't cite the blog/website/whatever it is because it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines. Please READ what you have been asked to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hi, @AndyTheGrump. It says "Showtones: Bill Eisenring speaks on the next generation of the arts." No evidence of an editorial policy. You're welcome to ask about it at WP:RSN, but I'm pretty confident the consensus will be no. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] That was meant in reply to User:EditingWizard125. Sorry, Andy. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] https://showtones.com/2025/11/10/bill-eisenrings-review-of-tango-in-the-rockies-written-and-directed-by-james-jennings-and-the-rubber-band-company-written-and-directed-by-meny-beriro-at-the-american-theater-of-actors/ The link provided is the article written by Bill Eisenring. Are there any conditions that will allow a quotation from the site? I'm also learning what is acceptable, so please, the information I'm asking for is helpful but I don't need to be "scolded" about what i can post and can not. it's a simple quote that is about an actress and it's from a reliable source. EditingWizard125 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use 12 seconds of a gamer's gameplay on YouTube without asking the gamer? I'm sure about the 12-second duration. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

almost certainly not, without a fair use justification under Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines. Which would probably require that particular game-play sequence, by that particular gamer, to have been discussed in secondary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't include the gamer's video, commentary, picture, or any other content—just the gamer's raw gameplay footage. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need wikipedia's rules about this. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I linked Wikipedia:Non-free content. You should also probably read Wikipedia:Non-free content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Vastmajority20025. It sounds from your last question that you may be thinking that because it is lacking the things you mention it is somehow not subject to copyright. That's not the case. Anything you find published - in a book, in a newspaper, on the web, on YouTube, in a game, in a video, in a film, on a CD - anything, is copyright unless you can find a positive reason why it is not. ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that @AndyTheGrump—appreciate it.

Hello, @ColinFine. No, I don't think like that. Let me explain with an example: we can directly quote one or two short sentences from a book, journal, or magazine article without asking the author(s) or getting their permission—like in this featured article's reception section. I wanted to see if I can do the same with a gameplay video too or not? Because it seems like I'm allowed to do that. (About the direct quote, if it's otherwise, say so). Vastmajority20025 (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025: the policy for quoting test and using other non-free content is at Wikipedia:Non free content#Policy. It has one sentence about quoting text and then ten criteria for including other non-free media. TSventon (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have authored a new political economic system over the past 15 years. There is a free 700-page online reference at LandBasedCapitalism.org. During the spring and fall semesters a student consulting group, FACES, at the University of Illinois, studied the ideas and implemented a game based on the economic principles. I desperately need an investor to make implement the ideas. A set of Wikipedia pages (Land-based capitalism, the AFFEERCE business plan, the Elsie, and Trebling (optional)) would be invaluable. There are problems: 1) I am the author 2) The primary reference is the 700-page document, as this is a seminal work (although the document itself has many references, I doubt the Wikipedia page would get into such detail). The business plan is discussed on Facebook and to a lesser extent on X. I would be willing to donate up to $1,000 to Wikipedia to get these pages published. Perhaps a volunteer at Wikipedia can write the pages, giving an impartial account. I am open to any suggestions. Jeffgrau (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until your work has been analyzed at length in reliable publications that have no personal or working connections to you, Wikipedia is not the place for it. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] I'm afraid this idea is a non-starter, at least for the present.

(1) Wikipedia forbids its being used for any form of Promotion.

(2) Wikipedia is not a host for Original research.

(3) Wikipedia does not employ any paid editors; we are all volunteers and never ask for or accept payment. (There is no system making this possible – donations to The Wikimedia Foundation, though indirectly supporting Wikipedia, are completely insulated from editing activities.) "Professional" editors exist, but they have less standing than volunteer editors, their work is treated with great suspicion, and the large majority have proved to be incompetent and dishonest, promising (or threatening) things they have no power to enact. Doubtless your query here will attract some offers, but PLEASE read WP:Scam warning.

Wikipedia articles are (or should be) for the most part only summaries of what has been published about a subject at some length in multiple Reliable sources wholly independent of the subject (see WP:42).

Only such sources (which have to be cited) can be used to demonstrate the fundamental requirement of Notability. ("Lesser" sources can be used to a limited extent to corroborate minor uncontrovertial data only.)

Your work can only be described in Wikipedia, in neutral, non-promotional terms, based on what appears in published Reliable secondary sources as described, not primary sources or those directly connected to you. Until enough of such sources are published, it is probably WP:Too soon for your ideas to appear here, and in any case Wikipedia can in no way help you to attract sponsorship as you propose. I hope this clarifies and helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not accept bribes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgrau The Wikimedia Foundation would be grateful if you gave them $1000, but it would have exactly zero impact on whether or not your content is accepted. We editors don't see the money. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a sandbox article and I need it to be published live (not in sandbox). The instructions are extremely confusing Lkmorrisseyndu (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know about the things you've written on there? TooManyFingers (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They stated here that they were 'asked to create a Wikipedia page' so the answer, to nobody's surprise, is improperly disclosed COI by somebody who's WP:NOTHERE anyway. Athanelar (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Lkmorrisseyndu.

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.

Being an experienced website editor is not necesarily of much help: it's like if you said "I'm an experienced automotive engineer, and I'm going to build a house". Your experience will help you in some ways, potentially hinder you in others, and you will be no more aware of some of the essential skills (eg surveying, compliance with building regs) than the general public. ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to disclose your conflict of interest regarding the subject matter first. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

I created a bot in Python who removed UTM parameters in all the articles.

So I want to know how can I run my User:FriboquenBot ?

Source of my bot: https://github.com/milomillow/friboquenbot VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vitorperrut555: If it's for the English Wikipedia then see Wikipedia:Bot policy#Approval process. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, @PrimeBOT can remove tracking parameters, which is run by @Primefac, although PrimeBOT has not removed tracking parameters in nearly two years. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helpful Raccoon Hmmm, interesting. :-/
But, even the bot has not removed tracking parameters by 2 years ago, I will create this bot and his account. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 21:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just be aware that you are required to get approval through Wikipedia:Bot policy#Approval process before the bot can make any edits. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That task is one of those that I run every year or two if/when I remember to do it. I'll see about getting it running in the next few weeks if I get time. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t login. I clicked on Forgot Password and DID NOT get the promised email to reset my password. What now? ~2025-36365-27 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you provide an email when creating your account? Did you check your email spam folder? Have you waited five minutes - an hour? Otherwise, just create a new free Wikipedia account and state on your User Page you used to go by [x] username but lost access. qcne (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reading Middleware, it had multiple "operating systems" (3 or 4) along the page, I edited and deleted them to make it left only one. Am I right by doing that? I just come to the Embedded system page and I just saw 4 Linux, since sometimes some external disambiguation pages link to a specific part of a certain page, I assume if this redundancy is intentional, it is to make someone that comes from those disambiguation or redirects to be less confused, but I'm not sure ~2025-36508-74 (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr the same Wikilink in the same page, delete redundant ones or not? ~2025-36508-74 (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"ORB" appears once (in "object request brokers (ORBs)"). It's a term that could well be unfamiliar to many readers of that article; therefore if it appeared again, in a different section, it could be worth linking to again. (A second link wouldn't be redundant, and would be worthwhile.) By contrast, it's hard for me to imagine that readers of the article wouldn't have at least some understanding of "Linux", so a second link to it would I think be redundant and not worthwhile. On the other hand, additional links to "Linux" cost few characters in "source" and not many bytes in HTML, so a few redundant links are harmless. Just don't go overboard with them. -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule of thumb is to link something at its first appearance and then not again; but as Hoary has said, if it's a particularly obscure concept or something it might be worth re-linking if it doesn't appear again until much further down in the article, just to save people having to try to scroll up and find the first mention. Athanelar (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely restating the perfectly good answers you already received:

Links that legitimately help readers are good. Links that don't legitimately help (because they explain the obvious, they're clearly redundant, or they link to the wrong thing) are always bad. If there are far too many links (even good ones), it's distracting.

Cut out all bad links, then try to make a fair balance between "helpful" and "distracting". TooManyFingers (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm enrolled in the anti vandalism academy, and in it I need to find two articles to correctly mark for CSD. However, I'm having trouble, as the vast majority of new articles seem to be fine. Does anyone have any advice on how I can best find articles to mark for CSD? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:pro-anti-air/CVUA/Wikieditor662, you have to tag "pages", which are not limited to just articles. There are lots of non-article pages created by new users that meet some CSD criterion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but even with that I'm having trouble, as most of these are talk pages or ones that have no reason to be deleted... Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hurry to get it done. Head on recent changes patrol and set your filters to only show you page creations and you'll no doubt catch something soon enough. Athanelar (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I've tried multiple times scrolling for long periods of time, and the only ones I found were "eh" cases, and most if not all of these CSD requests ended up rejected. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never found the article specific CSDs to be particularly worthwhile. Its usually better to draftify them, rather than CSDing them, in my experience. I would recommend looking for speedy deletions within the general category, especially G11, which can usually be found in userspace. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 05:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've marked this article for CSD User:Surinder Kaur Maan: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, hopefully that works! Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I wouldn't classify that as fitting G11. Its misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost (something that would formerly be under WP:U5), but I don't personally think it fits G11. For one, what is it actually promoting? G11 requires pages to only (exist) to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, but this doesn't appear to be promoting anything in particular. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 05:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, turns out the page was deleted (even though if it wasn't per my reasoning), but the talk page still existed so I was able to mark it for CSD per G8! Does that work? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No? The page was deleted per G11 (though I personally wouldn't have nominated it). Wikieditor662, user talk pages are explicitly excluded under G8, are are really only ever going to be deleted under one of the other general CSDs (G11, G3). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad.... Well, in the academy can I still include G11 since it was deleted under that reason? Or should I find a different article to mark under G11? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An admin agreed that it was speedy-able under G11 so I'd say yes. You could always get two different pages to be safe. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Is there a page on Wikipedia that when given a category will spit out a random article from that category or one of its subcategories? Rockfang (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockfang Try Template:Random page in category. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately it appears that template won't dig down into subcategories. Rockfang (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not on Wikipedia proper, but WP:PetScan can do this. Output > sort > randomly. —Cryptic 07:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m working on improving Wikipedia articles about travel destinations and want to ensure the sources I use are considered reliable. I run Australia City Guide, which provides information on cities, attractions, and travel tips. My question is: what criteria should I follow to cite a travel website properly without it being removed, and how can I ensure the content meets Wikipedia’s notability and reliability standards? ~2025-36491-67 (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-36491-67: There are no realistic circumstances where it would be acceptable to cite this source, and any efforts to do so would be treated as a form of spamming. Self-published websites are generally not considered reliable sources, especially not those that invite businesses to promote themselves. You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia if you completely avoid citing or linking to your website. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your site is the only one available to support a statement, you can post an edit request on the talk page of the relevant article, stating that you are the publisher of the website, and ask whether others would like to include the citation. But if that is all you are doing, or if you persistently do so when other suitable sources are available, you are likely to be blocked as a spammer. See also WP:CITESELF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:NOTTRAVEL. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. As such, we generally never cite travel websites. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my email was hacked and I can no longer log in with it, i.e. I no longer have access to the content I created as the user hskoppek. What can I do? Do I just leave it and potentially allow somebody else to take over my account? What is the Wikipedia policy on this? ~2025-36511-01 (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a person's account has been compromised, the account may subsequently get blocked and no further editing shall be made. See this page. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 08:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And for your other questions, you're free to create a new Wikipedia account, with a new email of course. In your new account user page, it'll probably be best to say something like "I've lost access to my former account User:hskoppok, so this is my new account". Therefore, you're linking the two accounts. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 08:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the password for your Wikipedia account but was asked for a verification code sent by mail then you can contact meta:Trust and Safety at cawikimedia.org. Don't reveal the password. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2025-36511-01 To add to the other comments: you do still have access to the content you created. All material in Wikipedia (even user pages) is fully public and anybody can read it. In most cases it is also open to editing by anyone. Editing other people's user pages is not normally considered good practice, but there can be no objection to your editing a user page of your own account that you can no longer login to. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia rules, at least how many sources needed for an article? Vastmajority20025 (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, we require a minimum of three to demonstrate notability (the criteria for a topic to have an article), but you should use as many as it takes to verify each statement in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on Andy's comment, of those three sources, each source must comply with all of the criteria described in WP:Golden Rule (read it, it's a short essay). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

When I go to foreign-language wikis, I am usually offered the option to translate them into English. I assume this is a Wikipedia service, yes? If so, I may have come across an Easter Egg this morning while translating a Danish page.

The Danish page has a "Kilder" section heading which the translater translates as "Sources". But in the Table of Contents in the Sidebar, it seems to be translated as "Clitoris".

Not sure why. I wondered if it was an Easter Egg?

Any thoughts?

Fob.schools (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fob.schools: Wikipedia has no such translation service. It's a feature in your browser, maybe a browser extension like Google Translate. I'm Danish. "Kilder" has multiple meanings in Danish including sources, springs (as in water) and tickler. It can be slang for clitoris. Machine translations try to guess from context. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1322676349

Reference help requested.

Good morning, regarding my contribution on the “shell companies” page—in the paragraph on the European Union—a label has appeared indicating possible citations using artificial intelligence. I have resolved the issue and corrected the URLs. There is no reference to artificial intelligence in the current version, and all citations refer to sources that actually exist. I would just like to know if the situation is now in order. This is the link to the reference page: Shell corporation#European Union. Thanks, Ioiods (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ioiods:I don't think that your linked edit relates to artificial intelligence. It is improving a {{Cite web}} reference, however it is still incomplete and shows an error message that it has no title. A more complete reference, including {{cite web |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |trans-title= |website= |language= |access-date=}}, would help the reader and help guard against link rot. TSventon (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your opinion and advice. Ioiods (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmendra is not a hindu he is a punjabi sikh whose name is kewal kishan Singh Deol not Krishan Singh Deol some Hindu Editing Troll Has Done This On Purpose. ~2025-32615-04 (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Dharmendra#Full Name/Birth Name. Note that, if you wish to participate in that discussion, you must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days).

Note also that you are required to assume good faith regarding other Wikipedia contributors.

I have left addtiional advice on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, someone put the Department of Government Efficiency title page in italics.

I have no idea how to change that. Can someone help? Selbstporträt (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selbstporträt, it shouldn't be in italics Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know. How do we remove them? Selbstporträt (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Selbstporträt: somebody added an extra infobox, which produced an italic title. I have added "italic title = no" to reverse that. TSventon (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Selbstporträt (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

want to donate. don't like giving my $$/information over phone/devices? no cheques? ~2025-36559-07 (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may mail a paper check; please see https://wikimediafoundation.org/en/give/#ways-to-give 331dot (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a page already up and running on the German version. de:Steve Elson

I would love to have a page on the English version as well. Is there an easy way to do this, or is it starting from the beginning on the English Wikipedia site? Thanks for any info you can provide. ~2025-36599-36 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a page about Steve Elson in nl:Wikipedia too. What you write above can be read in different ways; but are you saying that you are Elson? ¶ That important question aside, the German-language article cites two sources. One is this from allaboutjazz.com; it's a gushy little PR piece. The other is on Fandom and is simply unacceptable. An English translation of the German-language article would be unpublishable here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, we typically discourage 'translation' type articles from one wiki to another. It's much better to rewrite the article from scratch using the same sources, because non-English-language sources are allowed on Wikipedia.

Please be aware though that the different language Wikipedias are entirely independent projects that have very different content standards, and English Wikipedia, to my knowledge, has the strictest standards; so an article that is acceptable on German or Dutch Wikipedia may not be acceptable on English Wikipedia with the same sources/prose. Athanelar (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not "discourage" translation (sourcing issues in this case notwithstanding); we even have a page advising how it should be done: WP:Translate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid ambiguity: A fresh English article based on the two sources that are cited for the German-language article would be unpublishable here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, why would you "love to have a page on the English version as well"? Vanity? Publicity? SEO? Those are all prohibited reasons for an article to exist here.

That said, if you know of at least three sources about you that meet all the criteria in WP:Golden Rule, you can try writing an article from scratch via WP:AFC and submit it for review. The German translation wouldn't be acceptable. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit the cat page to include them having 9 lives. I can’t though and need help! Kowalskc15 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kowalskc15. The article Cat is semi-protected due to persistent vandalism. You can make an edit request at Talk: Cat. By the way and as should be obvious, cats do not have nine lives. That is folklore. Cullen328 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the nine lives folklore is already described in the section of the article called "Superstitions and rituals". Cullen328 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This was very kind and a quick response. Sorry to waste your time but I was doing some limit testing for a course im in for school and Wikipedia happens to be my test subject haha. Thank you anyways! I am going to be deleting this question momentarily. Take care :) Kowalskc15 (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, please do not delete the question, as it has been answered, and will be archived in due course. - Arjayay (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by 'limit testing,' but if you mean that you're trying to deliberately disrupt Wikipedia in order to test its response or something to that effect, please be aware we call that variously a 'breaching experiment' or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and it isn't allowed here and could result in your account being blocked from editing. If that's not what you meant, well; disregard. Athanelar (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No of course i dont mean that, limit testing is a very broad term. Outside of this simple question that I never actually wanted a response to, I had no intention of ever editing or creating anything lol. Which is exactly why I said I was going to take down the post at the start if you are able to read that far up you will see that. Anyways tho, thanks for the heads up! Kowalskc15 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Someone help me with how Pangli is notable to have an article? not offensive, I am a bit confused. The above village is in Chipwi Township, and the villages and towns listed in this article Chipwi Township have independent articles. So are all they notable to have separate article?. They all mostly single-line articles.

Please ping me when replying to this. So I can get notified. Thanks AlphaCore talk 22:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaCore: articles on English Wikipedia will not always meet current notability guideline, particulary articles which are as old as Pangli, created in 2008 . I believe that the relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND, which begins Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. I don't know if Pangli is legally recognised, so I don't know if it is notable. There is a current discussion on the guidance at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/workshop. TSventon (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the dreaded geostub. As per WP:NGEO WP:GEOLAND pretty much any town or village is notable enough for here, but 99% of these articles are forever one sentence stubs. There are many such examples for Iran and Germany. GarethBaloney (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaCore I'm guessing that the discussion over "Who, and what, is notable?" must have been one of the biggest discussions in Wikipedia's history. And I'm guessing again, that no reasonable cut-off was found for declaring a place non-notable.

I myself come from a place that in my opinion is truly non-notable, and has no Wikipedia article. There is another place near it, even less notable, that does have an article, consisting of two sentences and a "citation needed" tag. Both sentences are boring. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GarethBaloney@TSventon@TooManyFingers Yeah thanks for all your replies. i was inactive couple of days. Yeah I was in a dilemma for this topic. I see many AfDs and most delete votes. But WHen I see these, I am not sure. Anyway going to the discussion.

Thank you :) AlphaCore talk 20:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering if there's a directory for icons that can be used in flag templates? Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 10:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosaece I think you'll find that at this Project page and the linked pages from there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... a pretty full list is at Regional indicator symbol. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merhaba 2026 nin 11. ayina kadar banlanmisim neden banlandigimi ogrenebilir miyim wikipedia da hicbir etkilesimim yok ~2025-36795-98 (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: this edit was reverted. I have reinstated it, because it is a plea for help. Translation:

Why was my IP banned? Hello, I have been banned until the 11th month of 2026. Can I find out why I have been banned? I have no interaction on Wikipedia.

Please will a knowledgeable person offer assistance? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you are able to edit, it appears the IP address that you are using is not blocked. IP addresses can be shared among many people, and they can be frequently reassigned to other people. As you've not interacted with Wikipedia before, then it's likely the IP address is used by other people, and it's likely they've caused some disruption. The reason for the block is almost always stated in the block message. You can also look it up at Special:BlockList. If you need help interpreting the block message, I'm sure we can help with that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uninformed and sleepy guess: The IP might be blocked on Turkish-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for a source similar to WorldCat but for video games—reliable, not user-based, and that includes information about video games, especially their release dates—but I didn't find any. Can you tell me if you know some? Vastmajority20025 (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025 Try looking through the archives at WT:WikiProject Video games or ask again there because that's where those editors interested will be watching. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look at Early Dynastic Period (Egypt)? There's a small circle overlapping the text at the left side of the introduction, and I can't clear this area. Mousing over it demonstrates that it's File:Red circle 50%.svg, which appears just once in the article — in the middle of an image caption from the article's final text section! And when I remove it, I get template parameter code {{{3}}} that I can't remove at all. Although it's on a very small scale, something's gone badly wrong, and I can't figure out how to resolve it. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS, the template parameter appears at the same "elevation"; it's not associated with the introduction. Compare its location in [4] (diff of removing the circle) and [5] (revision with circle removed); the diff has much more top-of-page vertical content because it shows the changes, but the code is near the top of both. Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

special:diff/1324451685. Seems like {{Continental Asia in 3000 BCE}} was interpreting Early Dynastic Egypt, with contemporary cultures c. 3000 BC as its first parameter, which is supposed to be one of: center, left, or right. — DVRTed (Talk) 18:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: It's an annotation at Early Dynastic Period (Egypt) § Egyptians in Canaan and Nubia. As a parameter to {{Continental Asia in 3000 BCE}}. I don't know what it's meant to signify or where it's meant to be placed on the map included in that template, so I've commented it out until someone can fix it properly. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: @DVRTed beat me to it in an edit conflict, so I've undone what I did. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A friend asked me recently how many people have read an article I've written. I had no idea other than going through them and checking views...is there some xtool or something that I can figure out my most-read articles? Thanks for any help! And Happy Turkey Day to those who celebrate. I'm in a brief period between juggling things in and out of the oven. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/userviews. Data goes back to mid-2015. Murdaugh family is the clear winner with some 7 million views, followed by Trial of Alex Murdaugh at about half that and List of regional dishes of the United States at 1.1 million. —Cryptic 19:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yow! Lol, that is definitely not the article I'd have hoped was most read! :D Thanks! Valereee (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to locate the author details for the article on The last Judgement by Michelangelo ~2025-36913-42 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles generally do not have a single author. You may consult the article edit history, in this case, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_Judgment_(Michelangelo)&action=history 331dot (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Last Judgement (Michelangelo) was created by a user called Eyrian, according to its info page Athanelar (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean who contributed to our article The Last Judgment (Michelangelo)? - so far there have been 1,064 edits by 448 different editors. In order to see the full details you need to create an account and then look at the Page statistics at the Revision history of the page - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to cite the article in an external work then see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order to see the full details you need to create an account XTools does not consistently ask for a login in my experience - sometimes it does, while other times it lets me through even without logging in. I'm guessing it only does that if the server is overloaded. OutsideNormality (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm working on a draft article about Benjamin Franklin Plumbing (User:Andy_MarCom/sandbox) that has been declined, most recently with the explanation that sources don't meet the four criteria: in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent.

I believe I have sources that DO meet these criteria, and I'm seeking input on whether the reviewer's assessment is correct or if I should continue pursuing this article.

MAIN SOURCE IN QUESTION:

Entrepreneur Magazine (January 2024) "These 5 Brands Are Conquering the Franchise Industry at Warp Speed. Here's Why." URL: https://www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/these-5-brands-are-conquering-the-franchise-industry-at/4671...

This is a ~2,000-word analytical article by journalist Clint Carter examining franchise brands with exceptional growth. It provides substantial coverage of Benjamin Franklin Plumbing including:

• Specific revenue growth ($500M to $940M, 2019-2023)
• Strategic details of the post-acquisition turnaround
• Business metrics (43 new locations added, $1.1M average unit volume)
• Franchise 500 ranking improvements (not ranked → #286)
• Direct quotes from CEO Mark Dawson about the strategic plan

MY ASSESSMENT OF THE FOUR CRITERIA:

• ✓ In-depth: Multiple paragraphs of substantive analysis, not just a brief mention
• ✓ Reliable: Entrepreneur Magazine (established 1977) is a major business publication with editorial oversight
• ✓ Secondary: Journalist analyzing business strategy, not a press release or company announcement
• ✓ Independent: Editorial content by Clint Carter, not company-produced or sponsored

The most recent reviewer (Bobby Cohn) stated the sources don't show the subject qualifies, needing sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent.

MY QUESTIONS:

1. Does the Entrepreneur Magazine article meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations (WP:NCORP)?
2. If not, which of the four criteria does it fail, and why?
3. Is it problematic that the article covers three brands together rather than focusing solely on Benjamin Franklin Plumbing?
4. What additional sourcing would be needed to establish notability?

The company has:

• 260+ locations across North America
• $196M in systemwide sales (per Franchise Times)
• 24+ years of operation (founded 2000)
• Was part of a $300M acquisition covered by business press

I want to make sure I'm interpreting Wikipedia's standards correctly before continuing. Thank you for any guidance you can provide.

Andy MarCom (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link intended is https://www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/these-5-brands-are-conquering-the-franchise-industry-at/467126 (note the "26" at the end). The introduction to the page informs us: every year, we reach out to the companies with some of the biggest growth stories to ask one question: “How’d you do it?” So it comes as no surprise that what the article says about Benjamin Franklin Plumbing is on the say-so of Mark Dawson, described as CEO of the company.

1. Does the Entrepreneur Magazine article meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations (WP:NCORP)? WP:NCORP is a requirement for article subjects (as evidenced via reliable sources), rather than a requirement for article sources. But toward this end, it does say what's required for sources. And no, the article does not meet these.
2. If not, which of the four criteria does it fail, and why? It's not independent; and, obviously, it's not -- it can't be -- multiple.
3. Is it problematic that the article covers three brands together rather than focusing solely on Benjamin Franklin Plumbing? In the section "How These 3 Brands Jumped a Collective 548 Spots", the article deals with three companies/brands. (The article as a whole deals with more than three.) Yes, it's problematic, as it's not clear how the claimed achievements are shared among "Benjamin Franklin Plumbing, One Hour Heating & Air Conditioning, and Mister Sparky (an electrical company)".
4. What additional sourcing would be needed to establish notability? I am unfamiliar with this subject area (one reason why I normally wouldn't presume to review the draft) and lack the time and energy to click on the links in the numerous references that you provide. However, if you'd care to nominate the two best among the sources, then somebody here (perhaps myself) will look at them and comment on them.

-- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy MarCom, two other points. First, User:Andy MarCom/sandbox, which you created on 11 November, is about the same subject as Draft:Benjamin Franklin Plumbing, which you created on 6 November. We can't have two drafts on the same subject. May I delete the earlier one (or do you want to salvage something from it before it's deleted)? Secondly, I notice that all your edits so far have been about Benjamin Franklin Plumbing. This suggests to me that you are related to the company. Please read, digest, and promptly implement what's prescribed in the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(My comment is a little off-topic, but there are far too many situations on Wikipedia that would benefit from the words "read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest".) :) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPTRIV applies here. All kinds of companies get into these sorts of listicles reporting on their growth and performance and such-like, but these things don't demonstrate your company's notability.

Essentially, when we say "is this notable?" we're saying "why should this article be about this particular company and not any other?" If you could essentially write exactly the same article about a different plumbing company just with some words and figures changed, then it's not notable. You've said that the coverage which demonstrates notability is:

• Specific revenue growth ($500M to $940M, 2019-2023)
• Strategic details of the post-acquisition turnaround
• Business metrics (43 new locations added, $1.1M average unit volume)
• Franchise 500 ranking improvements (not ranked → #286)
• Direct quotes from CEO Mark Dawson about the strategic plan

But why does this demonstrate any notability compared to Example Plumbing with $300m of revenue growth, 36 new locations, $1.5m average unit volume, ranked #287 and with quotes from CEO John Plumbingson about their strategic plan? Athanelar (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that the writer didn't realize that Wikipedia is a history book - not a prospectus and not a marketing platform. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy MarCom: Corporate notability is, in a way, simple to state:

Your company's notability is its reputation among only those who could never benefit from either its profitability or its services.

In a very rough analogy: the notability of the music stores in your city is pretty much exactly what plumbers in Australia think of them, and your company's notability is pretty much exactly what musicians in Australia think of it. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

search "First Look Image" on wikipedia gives 244 Results

search "First Look Image" on internet gives Results about film-making or astronomy

how to document this noun ?

Piñanana (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for help with Wikipedia, not for help with language. It's possible that Wiktionary people may have something to say about it - I don't know.

My own opinion: this is not a noun, and it doesn't have any defined meaning. (except what is obvious from the definitions of the three separate words) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A very small percentage of words (e.g. fuck) and longer strings (e.g. Honi soit qui mal y pense) are documented in Wikipedia. Vastly more are documented on Wiktionary. But if it's compositional (as TooManyFingers suggests), then it's not clear that it merits documenting any more than do "grubby old keyboard" or "East German film camera" or "overpriced wilting flowers". -- Hoary (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piñanana The reason that "first-look image" (note hyphen) is a frequently-used term seems to be because it has a specialist meaning in the movie industry. For example this piece in Variety magazine. I doubt that it merits a specific article in Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be mentioned in Film promotion. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had no idea of this meaning. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested its addition to Wiktionary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The astronomy results are about First light (astronomy), but I don't think a redirect would be appropriate here. MKFI (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any centralised places to discuss which categories templates should sort to? Was looking at the various monthly cats in Accuracy disputes, but Category:Accuracy disputes from February 2012 is pretty flooded from uses of {{Rayment}}, and it's an impediment to anyone trying to work on any non-Rayment "accuracy disputes". I would like to request it be sorted into some other category, either an existing one or a new one of its own, but I don't have specific opinions as to where (other than "not here") and would like to get other people to comment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to discuss on the template's talk page, but you could post a short, neutral pointer to that discussion at WT:WikiProject Categories and WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This man retired. How he can assume office when no notification by govt ~2025-36959-58 (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which man? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2025-36959-58. What is your question about Wikipedia? ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote in the talk section on The General Slocum & I wanted it to be deleted. Cmarieansel (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as that other editor identified by a number really was you, then you have successfully deleted what you wrote and everything is as it should be.

I didn't look, but if the material you deleted contained legally sensitive matter such as someone's name and address, then you'd need administrative help to wipe away all traces. If it was only a mistaken or useless message, it's already done and nothing to worry about. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Anyone who intentionally searches the history log of that discussion will be able to see that you wrote and deleted something, and they can go and see what you wrote if they intentionally click on it, but people using the discussion in the ordinary way see nothing.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I was trying to log into my Wikipedia account the other day, I realized that apparently the password I thought was the correct one was not the correct one. I tried a few different versions of the password, but none of them were correct. I then went through the process of resetting my password. I entered my username and email into their respective boxes before clicking the button which should've sent an email to me to reset my password. I never got that email. I checked all my folders, including spam, and didn't find it anywhere. I tried again the next day. No email. I tried one final time today and still got no email. This is why I came here as a last resort. Hopefully somebody can help. Thank you in advance to whoever can! ~2025-37113-08 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back to the "forgot password", and put only your email - leave the username completely blank. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-37113-08 sorry, forgot to ping you TooManyFingers (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wat is the function of

{{SHORTDESC:Main page of the English Wikipedia}}

? - Erik Baas (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Short description. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place on Wikipedia where I can suggest new features? I have a suggestion for the Wikipedia Android app. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:Village pump, and choose whatever category seems most appropriate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See mw:Wikimedia Apps#Get involved (that's a different wiki, but your account for this one will work there also). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, I am 77 years old and approaching death. Some years ago I invented an electronic circuit entirely on my own. It is a high voltage generator useful to High Voltage (many kilovolt) Physicists. I find I must pay page charges to get it published. I do not have funds to do this. (I hold a PhD in Electrical Engineering ) I simply want to get it into the public domain, with my name on it as the inventor. It is quite fundamental in nature. I simply want credit for it as the inventor. Nothing more. CAN I PUBLISH ON WIKIPEDIA?? It seems logical. However you have all sorts of COI comments which I CANNOT FOLLOW. Please comment. I have a 2 page pdf of the device, a Marx Bank of a special design. Very novel, solving some fundamental design problems.

Please advise. MaxArtusy (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @MaxArtusy but the short answer is "no" because Wikipedia does not allow the publication of original research. By design, this encyclopedia only reports on what has already been published elsewhere in reliable sources. You may get some help by reading WP:alternative outlets. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that maybe the best thing to do, if you are concerned that failing health might cause your work to be lost, is to find someone you trust to do what's right - and who understands your work well enough to help you decide what to do next.

I would urge you to at least make sure that your 2-page PDF has been printed on ordinary paper, not by some expensive publishing scheme; anyone with access to a printer can put that on paper for (I'm guessing) two dollars at most. That way, if anything happens to your computer, your PDF of the device itself doesn't disappear. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to login for almost a month and can't seem to get any help as to how to correct the situation. ~2025-37213-17 (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-37213-17 This is the Help Desk for Wikipedia, which does not use age verification. We can't help with your logins on other websites. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I wish to use is already in the article. I want to used it in another paragraph but do not want to create the same reference twice. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Staunton See WP:NAMED for use of what we call named references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did any new change happen in Wikipedia.

1. Now page creation is not easy. Released movies are in draft.
2. I cannot see my contributions with IP address in top of page. That option is gone.

Edits don't show full IP 6 address of users like past. Noi geolocation , no IP details check like WHOIS is showing.

What else changed in two years? ~2025-37195-37 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-37195-37: Unregistered users have been unable to create articles directly for many years. It requires an autoconfirmed account. They can use Wikipedia:Article wizard to create a draft and submit it for review. See more at Wikipedia:Drafts. IP addresses are now hidden for privacy reasons. See Wikipedia:Temporary accounts. IP edits from before the change can still be seen at Special:Contributions. Wikipedia:Get my IP address has a link to show your current IP address. It may have been different in the past even if you use the same device and Internet connection. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm seeing the preview of my edit(s) on my sandbox, on top of it shows this message:

“This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the User sandbox template”.

Do I supposed to do something with my sandbox? Vastmajority20025 (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025: I don't see that in previews of User:Vastmajority20025/sandbox. Is it really there you see it? The tags on your edits indicate you use the Android Wikipedia app. Does it only happen in the app and not a browser? I don't have an Android device for testing. It doesn't happen for me in the iOS app or a browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @PrimeHunter, I tried it on pc, and since you said it's not showing itself on iOS, so it's only happening on Android. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you report this at WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025: What happens if you preview {{NAMESPACE}} at User:Vastmajority20025/sandbox in the Android App? It's supposed to say "User" there and be blank in an article. It's not a template (in spite of the similar syntax) but a variable in the software itself. If it's blank on a user page then it's the underlying cause of the problem in {{User sandbox}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: I replaced user sandbox template with {{NAMESPACE}} and the dialogue is gone, but now when I save the edit, it's just written user there. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025: user is correct. If it also correctly said user (as opposed to nothing) in the Android App preview then I don't know what causes the template error there. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1324786224

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Gutam2000 (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Gutam2000. I have "fixed" the reference problem by removing the section on the Alumni organisation. This is a WP:ROTM adjunct of many educational establishments, and doesn't merit a section in an article. , much less an mage of its logo. ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the best citation format for international treaties? My guess is Template:Cite act, but I know there's a whole category of them. If it is cite act, how is article/convention/section/subsection/paragraph/etc. handled? (For reference, I have used the USCFR template over on the mobile phones on aircraft article and was anticipating something like that.) I tried using the aforementioned template in the Buyo Maru incident section of the Dudley W. Morton article – which is the source of this question – but there's probably a better way of handling it. (Note that I didn't add the reference, but I did include the original research template as I wasn't sure whether the interpretation expressed in the article was a strict reading of the treaty or not.) –Noha307 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a biography of someone long dead, is a color painting or a b&w photograph preferred? Is there any policy on this? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adakiko: are both images public domain? There is some advice at Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images to articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images but no blanket preference for paintings or a photographs. TSventon (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: Thank you for your help! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request here, but it had no responses and has been archived. What do I do when this happens? Do I need to follow up? Or does it mean the admins decided to ignore it and I should just let it be? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose just do it again with the diffs embedded into the main question. GarethBaloney (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So just open a new discussion and bring up the one that was archived? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GarethBaloney and Wikieditor662: Wikieditor662's report was archived with no action after they added diffs. I am not an admin, but I think that means that admins did not see a need for admin action at present. The report had some responses: the reported editor apologised and a senior non admin editor gave them some advice. TSventon (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So leave it be? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, in general, and as a new participant at ANI, if your thread at ANI is archived it is best to leave it be unless the problems continue or resume. (If you become an expert you won't need my advice on ANI.) TSventon (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research the timeline template covers all of the text on my two Android phones in Firefox and Opera and spreads across the screen width in Desktop view. Don't have any computers so can't test the article anywhere else.

Here is what it looked like before I hid the template https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Biologics_Evaluation_and_Research&oldid=1309948853

Tried to fix this by editing the template width and set it from 25 to 150, but no joy, so I guess the problem is somewhere else.

I have zero experience with templates so I didn't try anything else. Any help would be much appreciated.  == Peter NYC 23:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the template itself to how it was before your attempted fix, and then placed a "clear" template ({{-}}) below it, in the article.

Should look OK now. Whether it is suitable for the article, whether it should be a template, and whether it is sufficiently accessible, are matters for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but in mobile view that didn't work on my phones. In desktop view the text doesn't flow correctly even after I added a float:right. Maybe adding styles might fix the template but I don't know enough about templates.  == Peter NYC 17:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joachim_Stohr_photo.jpg

I uploaded this recent picture "Joachim Stohr photo" of me to wiki commons for unrestricted use (CC-zero license tag).

I would like it to be placed on my wikipedia page Joachim Stöhr

but I am not sure whether I can put it there myself. Can somebody please upload it to the wikipage for me? I would greatly appreciate help. Thanks JoachimStohr (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for providing the photo, JoachimStohr. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help. I have another question. There is also a wikipage in German (my native country) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_St%C3%B6hr_(Physiker) that is old and incomplete. Is there a way to replace this old page by a translation of my English language wikipage into German?

I appreciate your help! JoachimStohr (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Three options that I can think of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was searching for a news website in order to put in my {{cite web}} template. When I finally found it, I came across a problem:

The website that I chose was: https://apnews.com/article/yagi-vietnam-storm-flooding-landslides-fdc1ab23b354b8b63a9c92213c3ec316. The title of the page is Vietnam typhoon: Death toll rises to 64 as bridge collapses | AP News, as specified in the <title> tag. However, the title of the news (the one that is directly visible) is actually Vietnam storm deaths rise to 64 as a bridge collapses and flooding sweeps away a bus.

Which title is the correct one to put inside citations? EmperorChesser 08:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EmperorChesser! IMHO each is OK, use the one you consider more informative. News websites often modify titles of already published articles, sometimes along with updating the main contents. If it does matter some day, someone will update it, if it does not don't worry. --CiaPan (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very kind answer! I would consider my decision before I make and publish my edits. Have a good day! EmperorChesser 10:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ EmperorChesser: The second is obviously better. Do not startle or astonish the reader. The citation title should be exactly the title that they first see when going to the source. Also, AP News is a news source so don't use {{cite web}}, use {{cite news}}:

{{cite news |last=Ghosal |first=Aniruddha |date=September 9, 2024 |title=Vietnam storm deaths rise to 64 as a bridge collapses and flooding sweeps away a bus |work=AP News}}

Ghosal, Aniruddha (September 9, 2024). "Vietnam storm deaths rise to 64 as a bridge collapses and flooding sweeps away a bus". AP News.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"agency=AP News" by choice, or even "publisher=AP News". Clarityfiend (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. |agency= is for naming a news service when that service's article is the reproduced in another publisher's work/newspaper/magazine/journal, etc. Because this source is delivered by AP News in their own online location, |work=AP News is correct. |publisher= is not needed because the name of the publishing corporate entity is substantively similar to the name of the work and because we are citing the work, not the corporate entity.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EmperorChesser: I agree it's clearly better to use the title which is actually displayed on the page. If you use the title tag in citations then omit parts like " | AP News" when the citation already says AP in another field. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ngl, I decided to choose the second one. I know that the "title" here means what is displayed on a website's header, but IMO the second one has more info, so it's better. EmperorChesser 15:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a non-English article title includes elements like -ye or al-, should we write them exactly as they appear, or in some other form? (Examples: Mardomak-e Cheshm-e Hasud in Persian and Talib fi al-Madrasa in Arabic). according to Wikipedia's rules, are we allowed to write forms like almadrasa (as in the second example), or must we keep the separation al-Madrasa? Vastmajority20025 (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the title of a creative work. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025: we would generally follow the Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Translations says use the WP:COMMONNAME. I checked the Arabic example and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic#Definite article says that a hyphen should be used. TSventon (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vastmajority20025:, I saw "special occasion" and thought that this related to Wikipedia:Did you know, if your question relates to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries you could ask at their talk page. TSventon (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New here! I am planning to contribute to a number of articles on ECB instruments to prepare for an exam (and to try and get a grip on wikipedia editing). This article: Support to mitigate unemployment risks in an emergency, seems to me, to need the widely used acronym, "SURE," in the title. It is slightly unintuitive to find at the moment, given ECB and EU proclivities for acronyms. I have already added the acronym into the introductory paragraph, but I am not too sure if changing the title is appropriate here. Are there standards or recommendations on title changes which might apply here?

Also, the article contains a number of statements and charts which are outdated either in content or tense structure, but I cannot undertake all of these changes in one sitting and, in turn, there will be contradictions between statements and certain charts. While I hope to eventually undertake all of these changes, is there a standard for making edits incrementally, when they might read as incoherent compared to other sections in the interim?

MrSam100 (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or solution in such cases is not to change the title, but to use disambiguation, and have added it to our page at Sure for that purpose.

Yes, you can make your edits incrementally—use edit summaries to let others know your strategy (e.g. "update table - will update prose in next edit"). And please don't leave the page in a confusing state between editing sessions, such as overnight. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSam100: The guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms in page titles. We don't write both full name and acronym in the title. I don't know which of them is best known here but the article is not the primary topic for "Sure" or "SURE" so it cannot be called that. It might be called "SURE (EU programme)" if it's almost only known as SURE but we don't like such titles when the full name is an option. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I saw this warning on Talk:LGBTQ rights in Amazonas and I had doubts about whether the article violated the principle of neutrality. Questionadora ávida (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics are ones that have caused many disagreements and that have attracted many people who want to force the article to state their own opinions. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Questionadora ávida: "contentious topics" is blue in the warning (assuming you have a normal browser and screen). That means it's a link you can click to see more. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do Wikipedia articles cite sources in MLA style or Chicago style? ~2025-37397-24 (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-37397-24: Several styles are used but it should be consistent within the same article. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation style. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a noticeboard or similar where we can report content from Wikipedia to another website being improperly copied from Wikipedia without the necessary URL to the original as required under the Creative Commons license? I thought we had something of the sort, but can't find it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#How to list new mirrors, which seems to be a list rather than a noticeboard. TSventon (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but not what I'm looking for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It now appears that the issue of improper attribution has been noticed, and will presumably be rectified, so I'll not need to take further action for now. Thanks to whoever it was at you-know-where for actually taking notice of your own 'contributors'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore my last comment, since it clearly hasn't been rectified. Anyone have a suggestion as to where this should be reported? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shot in the dark, but maybe WP:AN? Athanelar (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lower down the same page: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like sending a Wikipedia:Standard CC BY-SA violation letter is the way to handle this, to start with. If they don't comply, I may consider informing ArbCom, given that the website in question is being run by a Wikipedia contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit surprised there isn't a noticeboard to just report this, rather than it just being a "sort it yourself" thing. I don't know if there is a group of people who would be interested in actioning these, but seems more sensible than people not reporting it when they see it as they don't want the backlash. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the section I linked to makes clear, CC violation letters and DCMA takedown requests are only valid if sent by the copyright owner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What it says is "You can only file a lawsuit (or file a DMCA take down notice) if you hold a significant copyright interest in one or more articles...". Anyone can send a letter. A letter isn't a takedown notice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Seems crazy that the same person who sees non-attributed content has to be the same person who asks for it to be attributed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I should have said "DCMA takedown requests are only valid...", not CC violation letters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an email, and will see what happens. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my 2025–26 Young Africans SC season & 2025–26 Simba SC season article, the league standings template comes with all the league details. Moyojnr (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Moyojnr. What is your question? ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello,@ColinFine my article 2025–26 Young Africans SC season & 2025–26 Simba SC season On the competition side, the problem is that instead of showing the league position of the team, it shows the information of the entire league.? Moyojnr (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Moyojnr. The problem is probably in how you're using a template. But since you still have not identified which section of the article, or which template, the problem is in, I cannot look further.

No doubt "on the competition side ... the league position of the team" is meaningful to you, but I cannot match it up with anything in the article. ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about the league table at [6], which shows just five teams to me.

I have to say though, these articles seem like they have far too much in depth stat-CRUFT. Is a single season for a single club in the Tanzanian Premier League notable? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:50/50 club (baseball)

Under "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", there is an unexpected link to Talk:50, perhaps because the article title has a slash, idk. Anyone know if there is a fix for this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, that'll be why: subpages are disabled in article space, but are enabled in Talk space. That page I linked to acknowledges the problem (see WP:TITLESLASH) but does not suggest a way round it. ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even an uncommon thing in titles. Certainly some date ranges and the like. I wonder if there's a technical way to rename titles so they use a slash where we can't use a dash. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth a post to Wikipedia talk:Subpages Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fix when the parent page exists and we don't want unnatural names to avoid that. phab:T41395 requested a fix in 2012 and links three later requests. I once added a hatnote to Talk:9 which gets traffic from talk pages about the 9/11 attacks. Talk:50 has 7 page views in the last 30 days so I don't see a need here. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be reasonable to name this article 50–50 club (baseball), but I haven't looked closely at the sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the most common name but I don't think the subpage issue should be a factor. Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:50/ shows many other false subpages which haven't generated traffic to Talk:50. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Befuddled of Wiltshire here. I've just made a page on the 1849 painting by John Everett Millais, James Wyatt and his Granddaughter Mary. I can't find a version of the original on Commons (there is an 1850 copy painting which I have found and used in the article) - I think possibly because it is in the private collection of Andrew Lloyd Webber rather than held in a museum or art gallery. As Millais died in 1896 the painting is out of copyright, and I have found a version here: [7] sourced from [8] but I can't for the life of me work out how to upload this to Commons - what criteria to use. Could anyone help me please? Thanks Stronach (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found it reproduced here [9] where it says it is copyright Lord Lloyd Webber - but is that the photograph of it is his copyright, or the painting itself? Stronach (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stronach I'm fairly sure you should do it like File:Sir John Everett Millais, 1st Bt by Charles Robert Leslie.jpg, see the "warning" in the summary section and the Licensing template. This discussion [10] may be applicable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I don't understand it, so will leave well alone, I think. Thanks anyhow. Stronach (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]