Wikipedia:Help desk

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

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

Ask a question

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

What is the correct English term for a small "fast-food kiosk" that sell dürüm?

I'm writing an article that largely circles around a small "fast-food kiosk" that sell dürüm and other fast-food kebab dishes, but I do not know what English term to use.

It's a small 4 by 12 metres (13 ft × 39 ft), permanently built, isolated, building in the middle of a pedestrian street/square. They have a few indoor and outdoor seats, but generally you order food to-go. In this particular context, the dishes are kebab, but other "kiosks" sell hamburgers, hotdogs, etc... Most of the dishes are considered full meals.

In Swedish we call them w:sv:gatukök, which links to English "snack bar". So while "snack bar" seems like an obvious choice, to my non-native brain "snack bar" sounds a bit off. I also rather avoid terms like "restaurant" and "fast-food place", because those sounds too large in size. – Christoffre (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Apart from Kiosk...food stall/street Stall might catch the gist of what you want to say. Lectonar (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Aren't food stalls/street stalls somewhat impermanent? This is a brick building with plumbing and all. – Christoffre (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I would use food booth/street booth for an impermanent structure. After some deliberation I think snack bar might actually come nearest to what you want to say. As a sidenote: in German we would have an Imbissstand/Imbissbude (which are impermanent) and an Imbissstube which would be a more permanent structure. Lectonar (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go ahead with "snack bar" then. In worst case, it can always be changed later. As for the sidenote: we use matstånd/matbod in Swedish for Imbissstand/Imbissbude, which I think are more or less straight translations of each other. – Christoffre (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Christoffre I had a look at the article and saw that you referred to streets and squares in Gothenburg with their Swedish name plus an English translation, e.g. "Kungsportsavenyen Avenue". That sounds odd to me, I searched in other articles and usually they just say "Kungsportsavenyen". Where there is no English article you can use an interlanguage link, e.g. Drottningtorget, {{ill|Drottningtorget (Göteborg)|sv|Drottningtorget, Göteborg|lt=Drottningtorget}}. TSventon (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I know it's tautological, but I did it to aid non-Swedish speakers. As there are several different names that sounds almost identical (e.g. Vasaplatsen and Vasagatan or Kungsportsavenyen and Kungsportsplatsen) I added "Street", "Avenue" and "Square" to help differentiate them. I know that to a Swede it looks weird with "Street Street" and "Avenue Avenue", but personally I would find it very hard to keep foreign names like Valdemariväljak and Valdemaritänav apart throughout a running text. – Christoffre (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@TSventon PS: I realise this didn't come across in my previous message, so I'll ask it explicitly; are you suggesting that I should follow your example, or do you think my current wording is acceptable as it is? Christoffre (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I as a native English speaker with no Swedish would have no difficulty in distinguishing Vasaplatsen and Vasagatan. In my head I might think of them as "Vasa Place " and "Vasa Street" or Vasa Gardens", while being conscious that those might not be accurate parallels. I see little point to these "aids". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll change all street and place names . – Christoffre (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I was giving my opinion that adding "Avenue" was unnecessary. When I searched for several street names to see what other editors have done in the past, I didn't find the extra "Avenue" or "Street". I didn't think that your wording was unacceptable, if I had would probably have changed it. TSventon (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you found it odd, then other readers would probably also find it odd. I wasn't all happy about it myself, as it felt a bit clumsy. – Christoffre (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

To me, your example is one of the easier ones for an English speaker, because VasaThis and VasaThat with different endings make it already pretty clear that this Vasa must be somebody important. :) (and that "gatan" and "platsen" must be different addresses, which is good enough.)

But in cases where it really isn't clear, and where readers would be confused, I would prefer to show it for the first time as the ordinary Swedish name followed by a full translation in parentheses. After that, just the Swedish.

I had a similar Wikipedia experience not long ago, in which I couldn't understand a two-word Slovak name - it looked to me like something quite special, but the two words are literally "Main" "Street". I did for it as I described above, and it seems OK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Christoffre Were you able to find at least three independent, neutral published sources that talk at length about this food stall? A summary of such sources is what you'll base your article on. David10244 (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@David10244 Yes, the food stall was talked about in all national media when it was hit by a tram. Christoffre (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

White text on a white background

I uploaded File:Evil Neuro logo.png (locally, since PD in US but not country of origin), and it was taken from this official website on a dark background. The png has white text and with the standard background for transparent text on pngs being white, half of it is invisible. What, if anything, should be done? 1brianm7 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7 Sounds like a task for the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab if you don't get a quick answer here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a good shout, I'll do that if somebody more knowledgeable doesn't end up here in a few days. (Thanks for also reminding me to re-send a request to the graphics lab that went unanswered a few months ago.) 1brianm7 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The real question is what conceptual solution you'd like. For example, it would be easy to conver the image's background from transparent to a solid color. I think the website might be using  #0e0c10 , but there's a lot of gradation and overlapping CSS layers. DMacks (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think my preferable solution would be to keep the files as PNGs with transparent stuff, since that is easiest for anyone seeking to reuse it, while allowing the text to appear in the article. If you look at the article I am using them in I have worked out a way to make them appear, but it is a little ugly and I would prefer if there was a way to only make the black background appear behind images. 1brianm7 (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

ArbClerkBot

See User:ArbClerkBot.

This is in regards to a question I asked at User talk:Izno#Word count question:

"When an arb answers you in your section, does the word counter count those added words?"

An example of this is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Guy Macon, Note the word counter at the top.

It has the word count at the top, but is it only counting the words posted by Guy Macon or is it also counting the words posted by SilverLocust and HJ Mitchell?

[ https://www.grammarly.com/word-counter ] says that the section has 515 words, while the box at the top says it has 477 words. If I remove the comments from others, it says 404 words. Well that was certainly helpful! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems like this would be a good question to ask the bot's maintainers (User:AmandaNP is active, User:bradv not active recently). From a quick glance at {{ACWordStatus}}, the data are handled by User:ClerkBot, so that one's maintainer would be a good person to ask (User:L235 is active). DMacks (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

That appears to be User:L235. I will ask them tomorrow. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The bot currently doesn't have a way to exclude those words, but the enforcement is handled by human clerks who do check. @ArbCom clerks: Would you find having some kind of template that allows a clerk to mark a section as specifically outside of a word limit to be helpful? E.g., you could wrap an arb's comments in {{word limit exempt}}. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

cc @Izno, mentioned above KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless arbs are getting really verbose in their replies I don't think it's that big of an issue as a clerk, in which case the arbs should probably be using the arb section instead of another editor's statement section. In this case it's clear even from an eyeball estimate that Guy Macon is under the word limit. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Sennecaster above, it's generally not an issue. I wouldn't mind having it, of course, and would use it if it was available, but it's not generally an issue to notice that an arb has made comments and eyeball the word count being below the actual limit. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

For someone like me who has autism, reading the words "it's generally not an issue" and "eyeball estimate" when talking about a program that counts a user's words failing to actually count the user's words drives me crazy and makes me want to avoid the page where it happens. Just so you know. Related: --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't have autism, and maybe as a result this type of thing doesn't cause me the same kind or amount of stress, but regardless of neurology, the suggestion that it's OK to make an already-stressful situation worse by both reminding people that they and others must not go over their allotted word counts and saying "The word-counter is broken, but we know how to eyeball it, so just trust us" seems like a poor way of doing things. It wouldn't be that much worse to just ditch the broken counter and let each individual eyeball their own contributions. With a broken counter, every "official eyeballer" is open to frivolous accusations of partiality, and the frivolous accusers can't legitimately be shut down because ... yeah, the counter is broken.

The fact that it might not be that stressful for the arbitrators themselves is nice for them, but that ignores some important participants. Saying "It hasn't been a real problem" is false; it has been a real problem - just maybe not for every person. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Apologies, that was intended as it's generally not an issue (for the clerks), but I see how it could be confusing, yes. Perhaps if the template simply stated "This section contains x words. The word limit is 500." as a workaround, unless Kevin would like to code a template in to mark parts as outside the word limit. Either that, or not counting the comments of anyone listed at User:ArbClerkBot/Authorized users (all current clerks and arbitrators) towards statement length in the template? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The current solution (the clerks adding an extension to compensate for arb comments) is pretty good, as long as it is kept up.

I can't help wondering, what is an editor supposed to do if suddenly a box shows up at the top of their comment saying that they are over the word limit? They can't reduce the size, and even adding an apology will push them farther over the limit. Many people will end up thinking that they are going to be sanctioned for forgetting to manually count their words and that there is nothing they can do about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Participants in arbitration cases are much more likely than they usually would be to overreact, quibble over details, complain, fight, and so on. This is inadvertently baiting them to do so. Essentially, just in practical terms even if not a precisely accurate statement, having to do manual policing of people's word counts forces the arbitrators themselves to keep initiating petty squabbles that they can never really win. (Both because proving themselves right would waste time and because petty squabbling is not how arbitrators are supposed to act.) It's an unnecessary distraction, and it increases everyone's stress levels (some more than others of course, but yes everyone's).

I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand the lack of enthusiasm for a possible solution. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Official name

Hello, I wanted to ask what the official name of the Mayan underground city was ? I didn't find it. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This help desk page is for questions about editing Wikipedia.

Questions like yours may be asked at the reference desk. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, thank you!--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

If you find more information, Xibalba might be a place to add it. That's the article about the mythical underworld itself, but it has nothing about the earthly structures built in relation to it. DMacks (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, thank you!--Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Infobox problem

I'm trying to remove "Country Israel" in the infobox in these settlement articles:

• El Rom
• Ramat Magshimim
• Mevo Hama

But I cant figure out how to remove it. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Those use {{Infobox Kibbutz}} or {{Infobox Israel village}}; you have to change them to use {{Infobox settlement}}.

Standard disclaimer about contentious topics or whatever. LittlePuppers (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: You can set an empty |country= to remove the field, or use some displayed value to indicate a dispute but I don't know what would be considered acceptable. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Using "infobox settlement" didn't work, it just messed it up. "country=" did work tho.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Guidance on nominating article for deletion

Hello, I've been working on vandal patrols and AFD. I'm looking to get more involved in the nomination deletion process. By guidance of mentor I have come here today hoping someone could offer some insight or point me in the right direction to learn how to nominate an article. Any guidance would be appreciated. Staticspector (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Staticspector, the recipe appears (concisely, but with helpful links) in Template:AfD in 3 steps. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary Thank you very much I appreciate it a lot. Staticspector (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Consider using Wikipedia:Twinkle. It's a gadget that automates the technical steps when nominating AfDs and other similar procedures. It's also very useful when dealing with vandalism. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Are ESPN player profiles reliable?

I'm currently trying to find sources for the alumni section of the Evangelical Christian School article, and I'm wondering if citing an ESPN player profile, such as this one for Kam Jones is appropriate. More generally, in what situations are player profiles like these appropriate to cite? And are they considered primary or secondary sources? Schlieffenplan223 (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

They seem pretty clearly primary. If they're usable, then it's only for filling in boring facts that were missing from the better sources - not for increasing notability, and not for opinions (for example not the "scout grade"). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!! Schlieffenplan223 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Could they be used to substantiate dates of births and full names? The Scottie Barnes article uses his player profile as the only source for his date of birth. Schlieffenplan223 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that for this exact case, in practical terms, it depends if anyone is likely to question it. If they did question it, the defender's position would be pretty weak, but I don't see ESPN being motivated to lie about his birth date. So I'd say use it, but fold quickly and gracefully if it gets any doubt from anyone. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Does this mean that such player profiles fall under the "or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" part of WP:DOB? Schlieffenplan223 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I consider that to be true. If there is consensus that it's actually not, I would go along - I don't have a strong opinion about it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Awads = Awards

A string search on "Italian Music Awads" shows about 8 article references. Can someone do that mass change thing?~2026-32542-29 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

For just 8 changes, it would be easier to change them manually. Be bold! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I get 12 instances, all for the same reference, which has the typo. TSventon (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The target web page uses the spelling "Awads". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32542-29: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Original wording says: "For the sake of accuracy and indexing, the titles of referenced sources should not be corrected for spelling". The reference is Comunicato Stampa: 'Italian Music Awads', le nomination. It should not be changed if that url is used, but "Comunicato Stampa" means press release and without knowing Italian I suspect the site butchered it. https://www.dirittodautore.it/news/attualita/a-dicembre-gli-italian-music-awards-alice/ may be better. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Infobox Mapframe not working on gd.wikipedia.org

Hello, Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this. I've tried looking through the code myself but I can't see anything that's changed. Earlier this January I tried to make some templates on the Gàidhlig Wikipedia neater, and one of the things I did was to (attempt to) add interactive maps. I copied the code from the English Wikipedia for module:infobox mapframe and template:infobox mapframe and it seemed to all be working well, but I went to look back at it today and I noticed that the maps aren't working anymore and are just coming up with a screenshot of OSM and a message saying 'file not found' at the bottom. Here is what it looks like when you try click on the map on the page for Glasgow: and here is the link to the page for the module , template (both of which as mentioned are copy-pasted from the English) and one of the templates that uses the interactive map (the one for towns in Scotland): . If anyone at all could have a look at the code, I'd be very grateful. Taing, JSeke (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You might get more specialised help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Module talk:Mapframe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Two move requests

Hi, I’d like to point out that there are two move requests on Talk:Wero (payment) and Talk:Pedro Juan Caballero that haven't received enough input. Have they been flagged in all the relevant projects? ~2026-42761-61 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) might be a better place to mention this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Create Wiki page for Someone

I want to create a new Wiki article for Dorene D Whitney, because when she learned in 1990 that the collection of first ladies‘ gowns had been removed from the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of American History, she spearheaded a campaign to restore and greatly enhance the original exhibit; into what you see today. ~2026-42916-42 (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Did the press publish major stories where they went on and on about her as a person? (not just about the collection and exhibit, but literally about her) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

You can start by reading WP:Your first article. You might also like to look into WP:Women in red; that sounds like the kind of subject they would be interested in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is a lengthy, detailed obituary in the San Diego Union Tribune that appears to be staff written. The Washington Post also published several articles about her. I also see multiple mentions of her in a Google Books search. So, she may well be notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Carlow senior football championship

you are saying that the Carlow football championship is rathvilly and eirog are going into the semi final and the next 4 teams are going into a quarter final and the last 2 teams are in a relegation battle this can't be trough their is only 3 games played their is another 2 games left to play so nothing is finalised yet I think their is a draw this week to decide who plays who in the last 2 games ~2026-42586-05 (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If you are saying that the content of some article is incorrect, then go to that article, look for the link that it provides to "Talk", click on "Talk", go to the foot of the "Talk" page, and point out the mistake there. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-42586-05

 Courtesy link: 2026 Carlow Senior Football Championship

Are you talking about this article? -- Maresa63 ^Talk 06:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

How would one create a WikiProject?

I'm surprised we don't already have a WikiProject for Vocaloid. There are a lot of notable songs that are missing articles - I've created two this weekend, Melt and Monitoring. With Billboard Japan's routine coverage of Vocaloid, it's easier than ever before to find decent sourcing for notable songs.

I feel like a WikiProject might be a good idea. ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject. Wikiprojects only make any sense if there are sufficient people interested in the topic to make them viable. You will need to find them, and then make a proposal - we don't create Wikiprojects just because they seem a 'good idea'. And frankly, I have my doubts that you'll have much luck with such a narrow topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair, thank you. It seems it's been proposed twice, looking at the history. Once ages ago when it was still a very new thing and the second two years ago, but only had three interested people and it was suggested it might be better as a task force. I think I'll work in this area on my own some more and get more used to engaging in the site proper before thinking about anything serious. ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Doing good work on a good topic is already serious. :)

I believe that Wikiprojects really only work well when they have a membership that is very large, or when every single person is strongly dedicated to the project, or both. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

can user accounts be merged here

there exists a mediawiki extension called usermerge.

does wikipedia have such a functionality? MetroY2K (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

No, accounts cannot be merged. The only way two accounts can be connected is to post statements identifying two accounts as related. 331dot (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Mission

Ahmed Hussein aims to make quality educational guidance accessible to students through both classroom teaching and digital platforms. His mission is to encourage lifelong learning, inspire academic excellence, and help students achieve their educational goals by combining technology with effective teaching practices.

i need to create my real article so can you help me Ustdka (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This is going nowhere fast. Please see Your first article. If you want to tell people about yourself online, the best options are places like Facebook, LinkedIn and Wixsite. Wikipedia does not exist to do this sort of thing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Our mission is to create articles which are summaries of reliable, independent sources discussing topics which meet our notability requirements. This is unfortunately not compatible with you advertising your own 'mission' here, however noble. Athanelar (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Photo not updating

The file Jorge Odón mostrando el funcionamiento del OdonDevice has been replaced on Commons, but the local copy hasn't yet updated. Is there a specific operation that must be performed, or will this happen automatically? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: It's updated for me, both at File:Jorge Odón mostrando el funcionamiento del OdonDevice.jpg and Jorge Odón. I didn't do anything but see commons:Help:Purge for tips. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

Thank you. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Misuse of domain

Hello, I found the following domain is likely under misuse by an unaffiliated party in a manner that may be harmful to your organisation:

http://wikipedia.ai/

What is the appropriate platform to address this issue to? ~2026-38802-05 (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38802-05: It does seem to be against wmf:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation Trademark Policy#4.7 Can I use a Wikimedia mark if I use a different top-level domain? I have mailed the address at wmf:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation Trademark Policy#6.1 Reporting misuse. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I ham also done this, and got a response that they will be investigating this. I also asked the volunteer who responded if I could get a pizza for my contribution. So far the answer is no... ~2026-38802-05 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Red maintenance category

The article in question is the Futagawa-Hinagu fault zone. I added a citation but didn't quite get the doi right and this generated a tag saying "(inactive 3 August 2026)" and also it put the article in the red category "CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of August 2026", which is presumably supposed to be a maintenance category. I fixed the doi link, which now works fine, but the tag is still there, as is the non-existent category. I'm confused - how do I get rid of the tag and the category? Mikenorton (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I removed |doi-broken-date=3 August 2026 from reference 8 as the doi is no longer broken. TSventon (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @TSventon:, so it was a simple as that, I assumed that it would be automatically fixed once the doi was corrected, I should have tried just deleting that. Mikenorton (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Some things on Wikipedia are surprisingly automatic. Once I learned that, they didn't surprise me anymore. Instead, the non-automatic ones became a surprise - until the novelty of that wore off. Now I'm in a steady-state moderate surprise mode. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Lol... MinorProphet (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Substitution formatting on "Yes. We are biased" page

At WP:YWAB I have this wording:

"An alternative is to use {{subst:WP:YWAB}}, which will automatically add in the content of the essay. Be sure to add your signature and an appropriate edit summary."

If I go to a user page and follow the above suggestion, the included text created a new section with a new section title.. If I use it at the bottom of an existing section, that's fine, but if I try to create new section I get double sections, and if I try to create a new section, I get double sections.

See tests at the bottom of User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. to see what I mean.

Is there a way to about this? Maybe by substituting just the content without the section header?

Or maybe I can write better instructions. I already tell the user to add a signature and an edit summary. Is there a simple instruction that will avoid the problem?

Feels free to edit the YWAB page directly if you have a good solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon The template seems designed to add a header itself but not your signature. Hence it is best to use the source editor, which may have been all that was available when the template was written. You need to add {{subst:WP:YWAB}}~~~~ Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The note to subst YWAB was added in 2019, which is after both the new section button and VisualEditor were available. (Unless you are referring to a form of the editor I don't use and don't know about...) - Purplewowies (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Using the new section button without adding a title will prevent the second header in that situation (though not including a title will trigger the edit summary reminder for people who have that enabled). It may still be worth using an onlyinclude or some noincludes for other reasons (or to prevent the second header for people who don't realize that's going to happen), most notably that any subst of YWAB will add a hidden comment to the page it's substed to saying that you need to agree to release contributions to it as CC0, which makes sense regarding YWAB but not as a statement regarding an entire page it's substed to. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The signature suggestion worked great. Thanks! It is now in the page. Next I am going to try the techniques from the WP:NOINCLUDE help page. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks like it worked perfectly!! The section is now a line of bold text, the bogus CC0 addition is gone, and it still has a signature. Please look at User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. and User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.#Yet another test and let me know if I missed anything.

I really appreciate the help. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia page

I have a Wikipedia page (L.W. Sumner) which I would like to update, but I don't know how to proceed with this. When I tried to add content, my edits were rejected and archived. ~2026-36251-41 (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Please use the edit request process to propose edits. Please also see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-36251-41. 331dot pointed you to the autobiography policy. I point you to the particular section of that that is relevant here: WP:AUTOPROB. ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Help Updating Larry Dierker's Wikipedia Page

Larry Dierker's Wikipedia page needs updated with awards received since last update in Later career and his personal information. He has remarried after his wife of 42 year passed away. Here is the updates for those two sections. I am his current wife, Lynda. I do not know how to go about doing this so I'm hoping you can assist. Dierk49 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dierk49 You should make your suggestions at Talk:Larry Dierker, perhaps using the edit request Wizard so that others will see them. The vital thing is to provide relaible sources for any new content. However well you know Dierker, we can't take your word for new content. Please read the policy on this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Given your user-name, I've left some advice about CoI editing on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Citing sources

Hi,

Can you please let me know how to cite different pages of the same publication?

As it stands now, I have to repeat the full bibliographical information, changing only the page number...

Thank you for your help with this.

Meli EnasKaimakliotis (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

You can use the {{rp}} template along with named references. It'd look something like this^[1]:42 where the number after the colon is the page number produced by {{rp}}. Athanelar (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@EnasKaimakliotis The template to do that is {{rp}}. Full details at that link and see also WP:NAMED Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

EnasKaimakliotis, if the publication is only used a few times, you can simply list the range of pages in the named reference. For example, pages 7, 15, 20-22. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The new sub-referencing system should be available here soon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Mailing Address

I need to know Wikipedia 's mailing address to send a donation since I do not use a credit card. ~2026-42721-65 (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There are details at https://wikimediafoundation.org/contact/ . TSventon (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Also see https://wikimediafoundation.org/give/#ways-to-give 331dot (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for wanting to donate. I suggest you first familiarize yourself with Wikipedia finances. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I had the address but I lost it. Please give it to me again so I can make another donation. ~2026-43015-60 (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It is best that you check the instructions on the Wikimedia Foundation website, I could tell you to send cash to my personal post office box, but hopefully you wouldn't trust me. TSventon (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Removal of verifiable text and associated policies

On Effects of pornography on young people, click page history and you'll see recent large removals of content by a single user dating to April. On the talk page Talk:Effects of pornography on young people#h-Recent mass removals with little/inadequete explanation-20260424013500 they say the removed content was made up (Talk:Effects of pornography on young people#c-The_Other_Karma-20260424201400-~2026-25050-19-20260424013500), when in fact much of it was attributed to secondary sources and reviews. I've checked some of the removed content and sources themselves and they are in fact verifiable and back up the article text, so I don't know what the reason for removal is.

I've read the verifiability policy and based on the messages by this user in the talk page Talk:Effects of pornography on young people#h-Recent_mass_removals_with_little/inadequete_explanation-20260424013500, I don't know if this is appropriate application of policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Is that how burden of proof works when the removed text is already verifiable and attributed to sources/citations that back up the text?

This user has a history of certain behavior on this article, where a few months ago they added a section written entirely by LLM, Talk:Effects of pornography on young people#h-Added_LLM_template_tag-20260224054100, denied it, but was then refuted by another user and the section deleted for that reason Talk:Effects of pornography on young people#c-Mathglot-20260227030500-~2026-12493-41-20260225135500, Talk:Effects of pornography on young people#c-Mathglot-20260227211400-The_Other_Karma-20260227124700

This was a while ago and they were unblocked in January(User talk:The Other Karma#h-Unblock request January 2026-20260111155400) but I think it should be included for wider context of recent behavior, I found that this user was blocked a bit ago due to prior editing behavior on this same page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1200141983#The_Other_Karma_is_now_demanding_that_content_they_added_to_the_article_not_be_removed

I was wondering if anyone could help communicate in this discussion Talk:Effects of pornography on young people#h-Recent_mass_removals_with_little/inadequete_explanation-20260424013500 and clear things up regarding policy & the recent mass removals of verifiable content.

Thanks ~2026-42836-30 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is your question? On the talk page I see a discussion that has been stale since May. What stops you from discussing with the other editors about the concerns in question? On the other hand, User:The Other Karma's claim that someone must explain every single statement, how it is supported by sources and get their approval that they "find that the source is reliable and directly supports the content of the source" is dubious to say the least. One does have to actually state their specific objections to removed content. And whatever happens, please don't edit war like you did on that article. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

My question was "Is that how burden of proof works when the removed text is already verifiable and attributed to sources/citations that back up the text?"

I recently found this article again, and upon rereading the past history, much of the points of contention seem to hinge around policy and policy application, so I thought it'd be better to ask for outside help on policy than returning to the discussion first.

Yes, I accidentally edit warred a few months ago and try not to again which is why I'm asking for further help on how policy is applied here.

"One does have to actually state their specific objections to removed content." Thanks on clarifying that ~2026-42836-30 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-42836-30 There are editors in that talk page discussion who are certainly trying to do the right thing. Because I wasn't involved, I find the discussion somewhat hard to follow, but my very hasty knee-jerk opinion is that back then, both you and The Other Karma were only causing trouble and neither of you was helping. Again, I was not there at the time and it's not easy for me to understand some of those messages. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There's something in your writing here that to me is a bit of a ... not a red flag exactly, but unfortunately a common type of weasel words. You keep claiming "verifiable", and you never once claim "reliable". Verifiability is very easy to manage - an extremely low bar to be setting. But verifiability to non-reliable sources is worth nothing. Worse than nothing in fact, because it wastes time and energy. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, I said "when in fact much of it was attributed to secondary sources and reviews" that corroborated the removed text, which I think falls under RS and verifiability. The stated reasons for removal were never once reliability, just "verifiability", which is why I focused on that, but much of the removed content and sources were both reliable and verifiable. ~2026-42928-43 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Referencing structure

Need advice on changing out referencing structure in order to improve quality and range of citations.

I am new to editing wiki pages and accidentally "broke" a reference link by erasing it (and up came the error code). I thought I could just undo my mistake but could note find a way out in the source code mode. My larger goal had been to beging replacing entries within a very mixed list of "references" (not all reliable references, or are incomplete or unintelligeable and need fixing). The original builder of the page (on Yarimburgaz Cave) used a special template for the references so that improving the completeness of existing citations and adding essential new ones is really difficult. Ideally I would recommend removing the original list of references and their in-text citations and rebuilding it, including of course as many of the original reference as possible if appropriate. Maybe I am undertaking the impossible or setting myself up more problems down the line? My goal is NOT to undercut earlier work on the page but rather to improve-expand the range of sources. For now, I have just made a list of citations to add or replace/improve at the end--that is, outside of the numbered reference list. It looks pretty weird but is more accurate. Thanks for any advice you can share with me on this problem. AcmeContraptions (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Yarimburgaz Cave -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:42, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Those look like normal citation style 1 templates with named references. Maybe you'd do well to learn about those first before summarily removing them. WP:CITEVAR says: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change. This is a common theme in Wikipedia practice when it comes to arbitrary stylistic choices, for example also in the choice of English variety (WP:ENGVAR). -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@AcmeContraptions There's a problem here; you yourself have been adding references by a method that is not accepted at all on Wikipedia. Please see WP:PAREN for the explanation. Note that I'm not criticizing the material, just telling you the style has to be changed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Ridgeback Brand Page Updates

I would like to amend and update the information on the Ridgeback brand page as it has outdated and incorrect information on the page at present.

I have supplied the updated information and amendments for the page with references in the 'Talk' page and declared that I have a conflict of interest as I work for the company that distributes the brand.

Please can someone let me know if the updates and amendments are ok and acceptable to publish or if I need to change anything? You can view the updates and amendments on the Talk page here: Replying on Talk:Ridgeback (brand) - Wikipedia

Many Thanks M1d358s90n (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

M1d358s90n, it seems that Talk:Ridgeback (brand) has been untouched for 16 years. You did, however, edit the article itself. The result is grotesque. Sample: For little explorers, Ridgeback Kids bikes bring fun and confidence with every ride. Hop on a Ridgeback and ride with a smile! -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 10:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes the page is currently outdated, which was why I was trying to update it with current information and references. I thought I had added the amendments to the Ridgeback Talk page for feedback rather than editing the article itself and I had followed the instructions for doing this from Wikipedia's help pages. Please can you let me know what I need to do to adjust this so that the article is up to date and acceptable to be published on Wikipedia? M1d358s90n (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

M1d358s90n, I first returned the article to the state it had been in back in mid-June. I then removed unsuitable (and uninformative) lists, and did some other work to the article. The result is a very feeble article, but not a risibly bad one. Please read, digest, and (where appropriate) implement what's written in Wikipedia:Edit requests. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know, I will have a look at Wikipedia:Edit requests and implement what is written in there to try to update the page so it is a stronger and factual article. M1d358s90n (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi M1d358s90n. I've added some information about Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure to your Wikipedia user talk page based on what you've posted above. I suggest you carefully read through it before making any more edit requests for Ridgeback (brand). You might also want to take a look at WP:BOSS and explain what's written there to those at your company who might be asking you to update the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thank you for your reply and the information on Paid-contribution disclosure. I thought I had disclosed that I have a conflict of interest at the start of my proposed updates and amendments to the article that I added on the 'Talk' page as suggested in the Wikipedia Edit COI instructions page here: Template:Edit COI/Instructions - Wikipedia by using the following source code: {{edit COI|R}} and therefore this was compliant with requirements and terms and conditions of Wikipedia. I have now added the suggested source information about my employer to my user talk page so this information is disclosed in a way that I believe is as per the guidelines but please do let me know if I need to add anything further to be compliant. Please note I am not being paid directly by anyone to contribute or write articles for Wikipedia however I am employed by the company that distribute the brand that the article is about. M1d358s90n (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Your general salary as an employee is sufficient to make you a paid editor, it does not require specific payment for editing or instructions to edit. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @M1d358s90n. Note that, from Wikipedia's point of view, an article that is out of date in places, but is a neutrally written summary of independent reliable sources, is hugely more valuable than an article which is up to the minute, but unsourced or sourced only to places that report what the subject has said.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. M1d358s90n (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@M1d358s90n If you have properly made the COI declaration, and if you now make Edit Requests (Edit COI) as mentioned above, then an uninvolved editor will review your requests. If the requested changes have a neutral, encyclopedic tone, AND if you have supplied reliable, independent sources for each factual statement that you want to add or change, then your proposed changes have a good chance of being implemented. Please see WP:42. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for verification of an architecture entry by an expert editor

A few days ago, a warning about potential AI content was added to the entry on Antonino Cardillo, an Italian architect. This warning likely stemmed from accusations against the original page creator of using AI for writing on Wikipedia. However, the entry on Antonino Cardillo has since been thoroughly revised and appears to accurately reflect the sources cited. Could an expert editor please verify this information? ~2026-42847-21 (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Revised AI material is still AI material. The only solution for AI is to delete it all and start over - no revising. (If certain parts of an article were never AI, those don't need to be deleted.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The amount of effort needed to clean up material generated by an LLM is an order of magnitude greater than the effort needed to generate it. This is why you never use it in the first place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers and I share your concern. However, I need clarification. The initial article by the user accused of using generative AI has been deleted and the entire entry rewritten months ago. Furthermore, the tag is now applied to something that no longer exists. This diff shows 177 intermediate edits by 29 editors between the last edit by the accused user and the current version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonino_Cardillo&diff=cur&oldid=1325570565 ~2026-42847-21 (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Was the tag applied to some AI material, 177 edits ago? How much AI material was there?

Yes, I am saying that the 177 edits by 29 editors were likely wasting their time, revising and revising useless trash that is still useless trash. I hope to be wrong but I'm not going to hold my breath. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

As a disinterested observer, I think you are being over-strict in your interpretation of WP:LLM (which is still evolving, and is a guideline to be "generally followed" (as it itself says): see the other policies and guidelines linked from it).

Unchecked AI-derived text and references that were not reverted at the time (or soon after) should certainly be checked and probably reworded (if actually accurate) or expunged (if wrong, hallucinated, etc.) but surely an entire Draft/Article doesn't have to be nuked from orbit if it is now in an acceptable state, just because AI once figured in its history.

What if an editor created a draft using AI off-Wiki and carefully checked and amended everything in it (including, probably, structure and style) before posting it? We would never know, and it wouldn't matter because what was actually posted would be perfectly OK.

All this is of course far from settled, and I expect others may have differing views (which, please express), but I think we should be pragmatic and, on a case-by-case approach, work with what we now have (as articles) rather than exterminate them all on principle. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You're right that technically I am being over-strict. The number of people who submit an AI article, see it get declined, make minor pointless modifications while claiming they've fixed it, and submit it again, in my opinion outweighs a few moments of minor discomfort for someone who really has done what's needed and whose article is quite likely to be fine. And my level of over-strict is not very far over.

It's pretty similar to the dance we do regarding people writing about themselves, where the advice given here on a daily basis is stricter than the literal rules (though sometimes the responses are written to give the responder some plausible deniability on going beyond the rules). Once in a while there's a complaint that that autobiography advice doesn't exactly match the policy, but there seems (in that case) to be a general consensus that advice geared to better outcomes is preferable to the strictly-policy kind of advice. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

"Is there any text left from the problem editor?" is a question of fact and can fairly easily be answered: I don't think we should guess.

When LLMPRODs (deletions of suspected LLM articles) are declined, I make it a point to check if that was correct, and a fair proportion of the time it is. Cunard is particularly fond of declining the LLPROD, deleting all of the text, and rewriting from scratch, and one can find no fault with that. M kuhner (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

If the original text is gone, the issue should be gone too. You can check this with the very useful tool mw:Who Wrote That? by going through the article and trying to find lines remaining from the problem editor. (Much easier than looking at diffs!) I have several times seen an article with LLM origins that doesn't contain anything from that version at all anymore, or just harmless material such as section headers.

You could also ask for help at the AI noticeboard which has a lot of very experienced LLM-hunters. M kuhner (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @M kuhner. I checked with Who Wrote That? and there are no residual lines of the original version. The text has been entirely rewritten in subsequent changes. Is it correct that I remove the tag myself, or do you prefer a more experienced editor to do it? ~2026-42847-21 ~2026-43292-62 (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You did the checking work (thank you!) so you can certainly remove the tag. M kuhner (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Recreating deleted article with better sourcing

I'd like to create a new article on Jessica Orsini, a transgender city council member from Missouri. There was an article about her, but it was deleted back in 2016 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Orsini) for lack of sourcing to indicate notability. I've found some much more detailed sources that I think would support an article: , , , , for instance, but I'm a little confused about the right process to recreate an article (and I don't want to run afoul of Wikipedia policy). Is it better to go through a deletion review for the original article, create a new one wholesale, or another option? --Sashimi-b (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sashimi-b: I haven't looked at your sources, but if you want the content of the previous article you would want to make a request at WP:REFUND; I expect an administrator there would restore it into draftspace, and then you could do with it as you will. Alternatively, starting from scratch would also be fine. LittlePuppers (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Sashimi-b. If the original article was deleted for lack of adequate sourcing, then it is likely that it was written backwards. While LittlePuppers is right that you could get the original article undeleted and work on it, if it was indeed written backwards then starting from scratch will probably be more effective use of your time and effort. ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sashimi-b the sources you list seem very local, I am not sure they establish notability.

• 1: Columbia Missourian, a student produced newspaper in Columbia, Missouri, I can only see two sentences
• 2: Columbia Missourian again
• 3: thevitalvoice.com: I don't know whether the website is a reliable source
• 4: Daily American Republic, which seems to be a newspaper in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, county seat of Butler County, Missouri, population about 42,000. TSventon (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Resign from Wikipedia

I am being charged amonthly fee forWikipedia. I do not want to be a member please cancel my account as I never oened an account. thank you....Joyce George ~2026-42899-10 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't charge a fee to use it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you set up a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, and wish to cancel it? See Wikipedia:Contact us - Donors for how to do so—the volunteers who edit here do not handle donations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

question

Can I make my own page as an author Jem1042026? (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jem1042026? Do you mean you want to draft your WP:autobiography? This is strongly discouraged for the reasons given at that link. In all the years I've been editing here, I've never seen anyone do that successfully and I've seen many new editors try and fail, to everyone's annoyance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Please be aware that you are now likely to be approached by scammers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Help with posting and fixing links

Hi, I am trying to post an updated expansion and improvement of History of the Jews in Southern Africa but I get the message: "Warning: An automated filter has disallowed this edit because it adds a link to archive.today or a related domain. Please use an alternative archiving service (such as the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine at archive.org) where possible." First time that I have encountered this in nearly 24 years of editing! How do I fix that? See Talk:History of the Jews in Southern Africa#HELP wanted. Thanks in advance for all your help! IZAK (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

IZAK, I will reply on that page. LittlePuppers (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Instead of this:

https://archive.today/20130130103926/http://www.nyasatimes.com/malawi/2012/11/30/israel-to-assist-malawi-in-agriculture-slovan-in-hydroelectric-power/

use this:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150402164212/http://www.nyasatimes.com/2012/11/30/israel-to-assist-malawi-in-agriculture-slovan-in-hydroelectric-power/

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

AfC draft with incorrect name

I am reviewing a draft for AfC which has "draft" at the end of its name (Draft:Skomer guillemot study draft); the published article should not. If I use the automated acceptance script the published article will retain the "draft" name. How should I proceed? I'm an AfC newbie and haven't had to deal with this before. M kuhner (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

M kuhner, When you accept it, the script should give you the option to change the name. Even if it doesn't, though, (or if you forget) you can always just move it, either now as a draft or after you accept it. The worst case scenario is an extra redirect somewhere. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Is it okay to make random subpages on my user page?

So, I was wondering whether it was okay to make random subpages inside my user page like for example: "User:Wikigurvb2/Randompagehere" or somthing like that. Wikigurvb2 (talk) 02:56, 05 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Wikigurvb2: Yep. (Exclusing obvious mischief.) LittlePuppers (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Wikigurvb2 That depends entirely what you intend to use them for. Wikipedia is not a free web host and your userspace shouldn't be used to host personal materials unrelated to Wikipedia. It can be used to host however many lists, essays, works-in-progress etc related to Wikipedia as you like, though. Athanelar (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I was only intending to use them as tests to experiment with wikitext and make the colored userboxes with images to use them on my profile. Wikigurvb2 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Totally fine, yeah. Athanelar (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm saying the same as the others, just shorter:

You can, but only if they'll believe you when you say "This is my Wikipedia material". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Disappearance of Mary Jacqueline Levitz

Hello,

For 30+ years a very high profile socialite's disappearance did not have a page on Wikipedia. I wrote the page and it was approved. I then did more detailed research adding significant links and content only to find "hall monitor" "Editors" versus people who could meaningfully use my data even shared one on one with them to enrich data. Each chose to spend more time removing credibly sourced data.

I pasted the below data to the editors who can use the dato to do meaningful edits instead of simply controlling data making the article low brow and not complete.

Images #1–#4 are not included: another portrait would duplicate the non-free use; Image #2 has a commercial watermark; Image #3 requires the photographer’s free-license authorization; and Image #4 is a copyrighted Google image.

After the portrait exists under the exact filename above, open the article’s Edit source interface and use this complete replacement code: Jc191 (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're asking or what help you need here, and you seem to have left an AI's response to your prompt in at the bottom. Athanelar (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks like Jc191's edits were reverted as not written by a human. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 06:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This is seemingly about "Disappearance of Mary Jacqueline Levitz", which has a history of reversions. Its talk page has a number of WikiProject templates, but not a single attempt at explanation or discussion. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

What's the most appropriate reward for good audio recording?

This one is great: c:File talk:EN-BattleofCapeHenry-article.ogg#This is quite an exceptional Recording

is there a specific barnstar or could there be one created? - Scarpy (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

commons:Template:The Audio Barnstar? MKFI (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:SPOKEN suggests Template:Spoken Barnstar. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Domain issue

https://alternic.com/buy-domain/wikipedia.io

As you can see, there is a Wikipedia domain available for purchase. This is a problem, isn't it?

If anyone here finds this helpful, feel free to order a pizza delivery to my home. ~2026-38802-05 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

User talk:~2026-38802-05. ~2026-38802-05 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

No, not a problem. If someone buys it and tries to pass off a site as being Wikipedia, or Wikipedia affiliated, the WMF will have it shut down. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

https://alternic.com/buy-domain/we-still-dont-have-any-pizzas.io is also available for purchase. I suspect they will offer to sell you any unused .io domain you can think of, trademarked or not. It's only a problem if someone buys and abuses it. Certes (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

That one is unused. https://wikipedia.io redirects to https://alternic.com/buy-domain/wikipedia.io so they apparently registered it to try to profit from reselling it. That sounds problematic. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, explain how it's a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

wmf:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation Trademark Policy#4.7 Can I use a Wikimedia mark if I use a different top-level domain? says you aren't even allowed to register the domain. I am not a laywer but selling anything with a trademark like "wikipedia" in the name also sounds bad. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

(For example in a "Look, Wikipedia assets are being sold off" kind of way, or whatever else.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this may be a problem worth reporting. wikipedia.io has actually been registered rather than just regurgitated in the boilerplate "<whatever you typed> is for sale!!!" response. The domain seems to be exploiting Wikipedia's reputation in order to advertise Alternic's wares (domain names which they will register for you or are already cybersquatting). Certes (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Strike "unused": Alternic seem to offer every .io domain for sale, even if it's in use and would be unavailable at any price. For example, https://alternic.com/buy-domain/nic.io offers to sell me nic.io, which is the domain of the official registrars for the .io gTLD and clearly not theirs to sell. I don't think we want a Wikipedia domain to redirect to these people. Certes (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I've mentioned the issue to legal-tm-vio, who will take any appropriate action. Certes (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Akinima community

How do I start to give more information about Akinima community to Wikipedia.

Historical background Afubel (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Afubel.

There is not really a concept of "giving information to Wikipedia" other than editing an existing article, or writing a new article.

Are you talking about Akinima, in Nigeria? (The rest of my reply assumes that you are).

You may edit that article to add information - but only if you have reliable published sources for anything you wish to add. Your own knowledge or experience alone are not acceptable (because a reader has no way of checking them).

If there is something that you think is important enough to add, but you haven't got a source, you could add a suggestion to Talk:Akinima, in case somebody who watches that is able to collaborate with you and find a source. Alternatively, you could put a note on WT:WikiProject Nigeria to ask if anybody there wants to work with you. ColinFine (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, No published article, only our oral knowledge.Thanks. Afubel (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

i am afraid we cannot accept text on Wikipedia which is only based on oral knowledge. We require published and reliable sources for all statements. qcne (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, we shall then make efforts to get all of the work published. Afubel (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Book Question

Is it ok to cite books on Wikipedia that has snippet view, omitted preview or no preview at all? TheAnomynousEditor (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

As long as the exact part you need is visible, yes. The book exists, you saw the part you needed, and others can go see it too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Wait, if the book that can’t be previewed can it still be cited? TheAnomynousEditor (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. (Obviously, you have to be able to access the book.) See WP:OFFLINE. We require material to be verifiable, but that doesn't mean you might not have to go to a library to do so. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

As long as you really have seen the exact part of that book that you're citing, it doesn't matter how you saw it. If you saw it in a library, and you have the exact page number and so on, then even if it's unavailable online you're still OK.

But of course if you've never seen that part of the book, you can't use it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TheAnomynousEditor Any article is a summary of what the reliable, independent, published sources say. In order to summarize those sources in your own words, you must have the source "at hand" to refer to, as you create the summary. If that is met, then all is good. Be sure to include page numbers, publication name, etc, in the reference that you include in the article. David10244 (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@TheAnomynousEditor In other words, if you can't preview a book yourself, then you can't summarize what it says... and you can't use it to verify something in an article. David10244 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Chicken à la King

Special:Diff/1367893170

What is the right place to put a corporate author?

Thanks, Macrakis (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

According to the documentation at {{cite book}}, you should use the author parameter. This is of course for CS1, different citation styles will be different. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Why is it allowed to make articles on the Wikipedia namespace?

When I accidentally checked a page on the Wikipedia namespace that doesn't exist, I realized that I was allowed to make the page myself, despite it being on the Wikipedia namespace. So, I must ask, why is it allowed to make pages on that namespace.
I mean, someone could just make a page on the Wikipedia namespace advertising something or making a scam, and would confuse a lot of people because it literally says Wikipedia in the title, so I think it's a bit dangerous to have the namespace just open to random people to make articles.
And sure, no other namespace has been restricted like that, and that page would instantly get deleted by other editors along with the person who made that page, but still. Wikigurvb2 (talk) 22:45, 05 August 2026 (UTC)

@Wikigurvb2: The Wikipedia namespace is not part of the encyclopedia and not included in search results by default so few people would see the page. Spammers don't bother creating pages there. It might never be seen by a reader before being spotted by an editor who has it deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You seem to believe that the Wikipedia: namespace confers some kind of "official" status on a page, but it doesn't. Projectspace is just used for any and all meta content; which yes, includes "official" pages like policies and guidelines, but also includes things like essays, even humorous ones. Athanelar (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I meant that people might confuse Wikipedia namespaces for official content, not that I actually thought that. Wikigurvb2 (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You're right that they might, if they found it. But in fact what happens is they don't find it. Or, close enough to that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The average layman also very often believes that our articles are "official" or centrally written/controlled in some way. Trying to get WP:Randy in Boise to understand this website's basic structure and function is a familiar struggle to anyone who spends any length of time in the help forums, and isn't really worth stressing too much about. Athanelar (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Pages in the Wikipedia: namespace are not articles; they are pages where editors exchange information to improve the encyclopedia. The last creation, 20 minutes ago, was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Ascent (2nd nomination), where editors will discuss whether our article on the video game Age of Ascent should be kept. Very occasionally, an inexperienced editor thinks that the prefix means "official article" and creates Wikipedia:My Garage Band; this soon gets either moved to the main article namespace if it is worth keeping or deleted if not. Certes (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

a question about Wikimedia. I donate since a few years to Wikipedia

a question about Wikimedia. I donate since a few years to Wikipedia. For my research it would be nice when I also could search in Wikimedia. However I am 76 years old and have difficulties in finding a link to Wikimedia. Please give me th ~2026-43415-72 (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Give you what? pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Instead of asking for a link, which might not really be what you need, it's probably better to give an example of what kinds of things you'd like to search for. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, @~2026-43415-72. Wikimedia projects are relatively contained from one another (WikiData can bridge a few gaps); if you want a list of the big Wikimedia projects, you can go to https://www.wikimedia.org/. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The only Wikimedia project with "Wikimedia" in the name is Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org. Maybe that's what you want. It's often just called "Commons", but not "Wikimedia" alone. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43415-72 Are you trying to search for something in Wikipedia? David10244 (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Battle of Vimy Ridge

Special:Diff/1368040998

Thanks, Nicebear12345 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I see your citation on that page is formatted incorrectly, you can find information for how to fill out the template at {{cite web}}. Alternatively, you can read the beginner's referencing guide. Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any other questions though, I'll check that faster than this help desk pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I at least improved it ... the main point is that to cite a web page you have to fill out much more information than you originally did. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

No, you were always supposed to use that much information when filling out a citation, it's just only now that the bot caught your erroneous citation. Anywho, please update yourself on the policy and fix your citation, thanks! pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

By the way, is English your first language? I noticed some oddities and irregularities with your edits which are consistent with non-native speakers. pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

(Note that I'm the third person in this discussion, not the first.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

(oops) pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Remove Disambiguation

Hello,

I have written an article to replace an erroneous disambiguation. I need to remove the disambiguation, but when I search for it, I only get sent to the article that is in error. If I include the word disambiguation in my search, I get an error message saying the page does not exist.

How do I access the disambiguation page so I can remove the erroneous referral?

Thanks,

Robin (oneroomschool) Oneroomschool (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Which one? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Both Alder Grove and Upper Corral Oneroomschool (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Alder GroveAlder Grove and Upper CorralUpper Corral both redirect to Colfax, California, which does not mention either of them. No articles or disambiguation pages link to either of them. The redirects should probably be deleted. Certes (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Both were previously in the article before it was rewritten by Oneroomschool. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah. Then we probably want to keep them as {{R from former name}} and consider reinstating the removed text, especially if it can be reliably sourced. I still don't see how disambiguation is involved, though we might add Alder Grove to Aldergrove as a See Also. Certes (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

...and it does seem reliably sourced: https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/1655912 Certes (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As I understand it, Oneroomschool is of the opinion that modern Colfax is not the same thing as Alden Grove, Upper Corral and Illinoistown, and therefore they removed the references from the article, and now are asking how to remove the redirects ("disambiguation pages"). -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The redirects should be UPDATED. They are NOT former names of Colfax, as the new article about Illinoistown describes. They are former names for Illinoistown, NOT Colfax.

Thanks Oneroomschool (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, in that case you should have a look at Help:Redirect to learn how to work with redirects. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I've already deleted the redirects from the Colfax page. Do I have to undo them, or is there another way to find the redirect pages? Oneroomschool (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

As Help:Redirect states, you can get to the redirect page itself by searching for that title (or clicking a link, e. g. Alder Grove), and then clicking the link in the little "redirected from" notice at the top of the page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't get a "redirected from" notice at the top of the Colfax page. Please give me the link for Upper Corral. I used the one you gave me for Alder Grove (thanks!) to make the correction. Oneroomschool (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You can make one yourself too, like this: Upper Corral. Another way would be to enter the URL yourself, from any Wikipedia page, you could just change the part after "/wiki" to the title of the article. You might also benefit from having a look at Help:Editing -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand my request. There is already a redirect for Upper Corral, which goes to the Colfax, California page, but the Colfax page does not have a "redirected from" link at the top so I can't get to the Upper Corral redirect page. Can you just give me a link to the Upper Corral redirect page like you did for Alder Grove? Oneroomschool (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I just did. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed it. Thanks for your help! Oneroomschool (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the case. nationalmap.gov lists Illinoistown as a former name. Illinoistown, California says otherwise, citing a huge book without a page number, paywalled sources I haven't purchased access to and a guy from the local historical society. I think we need a third opinion from a subject expert. Certes (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I also quote this article, which gives you your third opinion. https://colfaxhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/illinoistown-was-not-renamed-as-colfax-1.pdf Oneroomschool (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The belief that Illinoistown was renamed Colfax is a myth that refuses to die, but has been, and continues to be, quoted in various source. Oneroomschool (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, no comment on whether this is accurate. However, Illinoistown, California does state that it was annexed into Colfax in 1980, which might also explain why its (supposed) names are also listed under Colfax by the USGS. Indeed, their entry is dated 1981, maybe coincidentally, or maybe not. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If you search https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ for illinoistown historical, you will get a result separate from Colfax. The fact that Illinoistown was annexed by Colfax in 1980 does not make it a former name of Colfax. Oneroomschool (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

new article

 Courtesy link: User:Kishoreselvaraj1987/sandbox

I want to publish the article which I was created Kishoreselvaraj1987 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately it cannot be published until some very major changes are made. Wikipedia will not accept an article about a church unless the church is what Wikipedia calls notable. This notability basically means that impartial reliable reporters who are not friends or members of the church have published major stories of the church's history. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

There may be a basis for an article here, however it needs to be able to meet WP:NORG, and should also be checked for grammar and impartiality - perhaps try and avoid emotive language. I'd suggest a review of the article, checking against Wikipedia's encyclopaedic standards and formatting, as well as finding references. Also, the main topic of the article should be the first paragraph of the page. Happy editing! Kalvay (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kishoreselvaraj1987.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Page deleted not found in deletion logs

I page I frequently visited is gone. I am not the creator or editor, but it is concerning it was deleted. The article title was “Zeytuntsyan”. Can someone tell me the reason it was deleted? ~2026-43443-69 (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Is it about Perch Zeytuntsyan, the Armenian writer who also became the country's minister of culture? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ZeytuntsyanZeytuntsyan still exists and has not been deleted. It is now a Wikipedia:redirect to Perch Zeytuntsyan. You can see the previous version in its history, the explanation for redirecting it was "pretty article, but it's really just a glorified dictionary definition. There is no evidence of notability for this name. Redirecting. Can be spun back out once it meets WP:NNAME." TSventon (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Prior to the change, the article had no inline citations whatsoever. The only external reference provided verified (if the source was Reliable) only a single fact: this is not acceptable in the English-language Wikipedia: you might like to read WP:Golden rule, which briefly explains the minimum requirements for an article. Hope this clarifies. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Help infobox

I need help with the infobox in Sahrawi Republic. It currently shows Tifariti as the provisional capital, but it is in the capital-in-exile parameter, which is incorrect since it is within Western Sahara. When trying to fix it, it gets mixed with Laayoune (as both the capital and the largest city), -like this- and I don't know how to make it right or split both. Can someone help me with this? Thanks. Regioncalifornia (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

is there a way to find the subpages of a page?

I use a script to make subpages for AINB cases. Sometimes they should be speedy-deleted as they aren't actually going to be used, but if I don't remember the exact name, I can't find them to tag them. Is there any way to list the subpages of a page? M kuhner (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner: Yes, Wikipedia:Subpages#Finding subpages describes various ways to find subpages. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! That's exactly what I needed. M kuhner (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner: I use User:PrimeHunter/Subpages.js. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Appearance column.

How can I permanently hide the annoying and space-wasting "Appearance" column? ~2026-43491-67 (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43491-67: I'm not sure of the details but I think that if you are not logged in then the setting is stored in your browser where it may be lost if you clear cookies or something, but if you make an account then it's stored in the account where it's remembered. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for other reasons to make an account. It's free and easy. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The [Hide] button hides it, but that preference probably only remembered when you use the same temp-account (in this case, "~2026-43491-67") or if you create an actual account (as I am "DMacks"). If you use any sort of browser-privacy, incognito mode, or a different device and only have a temp-account, the session data could get lost each time you close the browser window. DMacks (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Template:Infobox national volleyball team

Hi there. It seems that we can't edit the world championship at u17 level in Template:Infobox national volleyball team. The link in world championship show the senior event, not u17 (both men and women). Can anyone help me solve the problems? Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Stevencocoboy: FIVB Volleyball Girls' U17 World Championship and FIVB Volleyball Boys' U17 World Championship were introduced in 2024 and the template needed an update. I think should do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks. The title is right now, but it seems that the appearances (first year) in world championship still have the same problems, the link is show the senior, not u17. Can you solve this problem? Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

membership

how do i become a member, contributor, and make a new entry? ~2026-43460-38 (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You can create an account with the button at the top of the page; see Help:Logging in for more information. You don't need to log in to edit most pages (which can be done by clicking 'Edit source' in the top bar), but any new articles you create will have to wait for review. See Help:Your first article for guidance. Quivalence (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-43460-38.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Resetting Password

This message appeared when I tried to recover my password: Your IP address is blocked from editing. To prevent abuse, it is not allowed to use password recovery from this IP address ~2026-43546-69 (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

This is nothing against you as an individual. It only means that someone who has abused Wikipedia happens to get their internet service from the same company that you do. I don't know the easiest way to solve it, but someone here will. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The easiest would probably to just get another IP address, i. e. use another network for resetting your password. Mobile network, public wifi, work/university/school... Otherwise see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

For technical issues, ask on WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Reverted text

I wanted to add text in (true stuff) but it won’t let me

John Monash Science School does not have air conditioning. This is because they value the environment, and have spent their money on their excelling Issues Studies curriculum, where students receive free signups to the Australian Geography and History competitions. Furthermore, to support the schools’ success in environmental science, they have spent around $10,000 on a rock collection bought from China, a highly regarded item. ~2026-43514-19 (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

The text is being reverted by other editors due to not being backed by reliable sources. As an encyclopedia, it is Wikipedia's job to summarise what reliable, secondary sources say, and content that is not reliably sourced is likely to be removed. Additionally, content on Wikipedia must be notable, and whether or not a school has air conditioning is not really considered notable/important enough for inclusion, sourced or not. ~ crtbob (talk • contribs • talk) 12:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-43514-19. Contrary to @Crtbob, I think a school choosing not to have aircon for environmental reasons could be notable - if somebody has noted it. If you can find an article in a newspaper or magazine that discusses this (and isn't just repeating what the school says in a press release) then it is possible that it might be appropriate. I suggest you first look for such a source, and then if you can find one, bring it up on the article's talk page, to see if you can get consensus. ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, your text is not neutral in tone they value the environment... excelling Issues Studies... the schools’ success... a highly regarded item. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

None of the above is suitable for Wikipedia, for the reasons given in the other comments.

There is a place on the Internet where your opinion about John Monash Science School would be welcome: [ https://www.reddit.com/r/Monash/ ] (John Monash Science School is located on the Clayton campus of Monash University, in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Please note that ~2026-43514-19 and ~2026-43528-82 are the same account. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Changing the title of an entry

Hi, I am a new editor and I specifically created an account in order to edit the title of an entry. The entry is called 'Multiliteracy' and it should be 'Multiliteracies'. The theoretical framework that is known as Multiliteracies (seminal New London Group article in 1996) is NOT called Multiliteracy. The entire premise of this framework is precisely the fact that literacy isn't one thing (i.e. reading words on a page - linguistic) but many different types of things (reading/making meaning across multiple modes, such as visual, audio, spatitial modes, etc.). The entire framework is based on the pluralisation of literacy and it is therefore inaccurate to refer to it in the singular as Multiliteracy - it doesn't even make sense as a word, given the prefix. The entry does begin by providing the plural in brackets but that is not sufficient - the term Multiliteracy should be removed and the title of the entry should be Multiliteracies. I can't seem to find a way to edit the title, though. Perhaps this is not common? What can you suggest? Ana Ferreira ZA (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You should first post on the article talk page and describe your intention. If no one objects, you may go to Requested Moves. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Moving a page. But yes, you should probably see if anyone objects first, and as a new account you would need to request someone to do the move for you anyway. I'd suggest Wikipedia:Requested moves to get a full discussion on the matter. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Address

I want to know the mailing address for Wikipedia so I can send a donation since I do not use credit cards. ~2026-43015-60 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Please go to https://wikimediafoundation.org/give/#ways-to-give 331dot (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Appealing a ban

What notice board do I request that my ban be lifted. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 20:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Community-imposed bans can be appealed on WP:AN. You can read WP:UNBAN for information. CoconutOctopus talk 20:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the quickest answer I have ever gotten. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 20:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

World Jewish population as a percentage of entire world population

Wikipedia’s own figures put the world’s population at around 8 billion 100 million and estimates the world Jewish population at around 15–16 million. Thus the math shows the Jewish total to be .002% of the world total population. This percentage is vastly less than the .2% Wikipedia gave me as the answer when I asked, what percentage of the world’s population is comprised of Jews. This Wikipedia answer should be corrected. Jews are not two-tenths of a percent of the world’s population, they are only two-thousandths of a percent ~2026-43659-42 (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not responsible for what Google AI tells you and of course both Wikipedia and AI can be wrong. In this case the calculation would be 16m divided by 8,000m = .002. 0.002 can be expressed as 0.2%, so the calculation is correct. TSventon (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi anon-user!

{{ec}} I just checked our articles to get the current data listed: Jews article says 15.2 million and World population estimates 8.3 billion. So ${\frac {15.2\times 10^{6}}{8.3\times 10^{9}}}\times 100\%=0.183\%$. I'm not sure which article you were reading where you saw 0.2%, but that seems like a pretty good estimate. DMacks (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)