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.
• For issues with financial donations, please see this Wikimedia Foundation 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!

There is one Wikipedian looking for help. (refresh)

Margaret Owen disambiguation

Its the 1st time that it happens to me that I didnt find in Wikipedia something about an important person. Recently there was in the news that Margaret Owen was recently arrested just for displaying a cardboard sign. She has an OBE for her important contributions to human rights. https://honours.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/stories/margaret-owen-obe/ In the margaret owen disambiguation page looks like she is not there Margaret_Owen Im too novice to say if its an error in the disambiguation page or the page about her directly does not exist, HELP !! Maverick528 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Maverick528: The only mention I could find is this line in 2011 New Year Honours#Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE):

• Margaret Ann, Mrs. Owen. For services to Human Rights, particularly Widows Overseas.

A single line in a long list is usually not enough to be included in a disambiguation page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

/* Margaret Owen disambiguation */ Reply ~2026-55304-06 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

If she made important contributions to human rights, it seems very likely that those would have been reported in some news media, appropriate journals, etc., and of course reports about her arrest in reputable newspapers would probably count towards notability. You need to keep looking for sources on which an article can be based.

(Disambiguation pages only list existing articles, not additional people with no articles as yet. List articles may include people who don't yet have an article but are good candidates for one, in which case they can be red linked.)

A casual online search on Margaret Ann Owen OBE yielded a first page of items specific to her, so I think it likely she qualifies for an article: the Women in Red Project may be interested. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230./195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Its full of mentions of this person out there, for example in BBC (I guess you can trust BBC news?)

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c933kx42np4xo

And the United Kingdom does not give the OBE award to "random ppl".

I think there are biographies of "less important" ppl here in wikipedia, so Im a bit surprised that the biography of this woman is not here ...... Maverick528 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Has a major publishing house put out a biography of her? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

That BBC article contains one sentence that merely mentions her name and otherwise says nothing at all about her. Surely there must be media coverage that discusses her in more detail? If not, it does not seem likely that she meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. We need sources that actually say something substantial about her, not merely mention her name. CodeTalker (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

more personal info can be found here =

https://www.widowsforpeace.org/about/founder/

and here=

https://www.9brchambers.co.uk/our-people/margaret-owen-obe/

Im not doing any extensive online research, I only originally wanted to point out that this bio is missing, if she is "wikipedia worthy" or not, I dont know but I suppose there are more qualified ppl than me here, I spent 2 hours trying to figure how to make a request for inclusion en the Woman in red project but I coudnt..... Maverick528 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Maverick528 Sometimes, there are subjects about whom an article could be written, but no volunteer has taken it upon themselves to create and submit a draft.

Editors here are all volunteers. There is no "editorial board" that looks for articles that are "missing". A volunteer has to, first, be interested in the subject, second, understand the complex requirements for creating an article in Wikipedia, and third, be able to find independent, reliable, published sources that talk about the person in depth.

"Important" people usually, but don't always, have independent publications that write about them in depth.

Then, that volunteer can start the process of creating a draft, with appropriate references, to be submitted. David10244 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice answer. What I see here is a problem. Editing existing articles isnt too difficult. But if you think a new subject must be added and you know you are not good enough to do the task yourself, I dont see a user-friendly mechanism for a noob to request inclusion. And if the goal of wikipedia is to be a source of all knowledge available, looks like there are subjects where there could be nobody interested in creating the page, because you must find as you said somebody that volunteers at least to do a proper draft following wikipedia standars, somebody that has to be at least a bit knowledgeable about the subject and is not directly involved with it........ Maverick528 (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

There is such a method, but only theoretically. Wikipedia being strictly a volunteer effort, nobody is obliged to work on the request list, so it has become a backwater of thousands of abandoned ideas. You would technically still be welcome to add your idea; in your grandchildren's old age it might still be sitting there to remind them of your ever-hopeful attitude. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

SE learning aids

Do you have any recommended learning aids for longtime VE users who’d like to overcome acute aversion for using the SE and develop at least advanced intermediate SE skills? Augnablik (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Turn on the syntax highlighter in the source editor. Lifechanging. Athanelar (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar, although I didn’t know about the highlighter — and it wasn’t quite clear at first how to turn it on — I did succeed. It’s a nice touch and I’m happy to know about it, but this longtime VE user (yes, me) needs a bit more. What, I don’t know.

To me, the SE with all the — what I think of as “code clutter” — is really distracting from writing and editing. I had no problem using markup while learning basic computer coding, but to write and edit articles I just feel the need to see the flow of the text across several paragraphs at the same time.

If you have a few more little tricks like the Syntax highlighter to share, it might help. But can you also recommend some user-friendly learning aids — perhaps including tutorials, videos, quizzes, and essays? Augnablik (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Try using User:Cacycle/wikEd. I haven't used it in a while, but there was a button I remember pressing to collapse references into blocks to reduce the amount of code in the editing window. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:51, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

From a glance I gave to the article at the link you gave me, @Tenryuu, it seems no longer supported although still okay to use. I'll go back to it and read more, but ... wouldn't reducing the amount of code mean that an editor could inadvertently delete some of it when working in the editing window? Augnablik (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I tested it out on another wiki, and the button I was thinking of is called "Simple view", which collapses references, tables, and templates into blocks that expand upon mouse hover. It'll be fine as long as you leave those blocks alone. WikEd also offers syntax highlighting if you're concerned about code blending in with prose. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:28, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik in case you have missed this, turn on preview with the "Preview" button on the top-right corner. I almost always have it on, because - like you - I want to see the flow of text without all the clutter, while enjoying the ease of typing and navigating of SE. LkL-70547 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

No, @LkL-70547, I didn't miss the Preview option ... though to me, using it is still a bit klutzy ... better than nothing, but:

• I can't avoid seeing all the coding in the window I have to work in whenever I have to use the SE.
• And because the Preview window is smaller than the editing window when I use the VE, I don't get to see the flow of the text all that well.
• Then, too, in my experience the Preview window doesn't seem configured to follow along with wherever I am in the editing window, so I have to keep adjusting the two windows to show the same thing.

Because you're the only one of the editors who's replied to my question and identified as someone who wants "to see the flow of text without all the clutter," may I ask whether you always felt happy using the SE, or if not, how did you adjust? Also, did you ever use the VE much? Augnablik (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik I have always been on SE. With my programming background, I'm quite clumsy writing on anything that's not plain text - when I press the arrow key in VE, will it go to the next paragraph, the next line, an image, or expand some window that's gonna take 5 seconds to load and break my flow?

If I'm editing something that involves more than a few paragraphs (which is when the preview is the most useful), I do make my browser window larger, so that the preview will be the same size as an entire article is when I'm reading. But other than that, I'm afraid I don't have much to say other than "get used to it". LkL-70547 (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

As LkL has said, between the syntax highlighter and the preview window you should be much alleviated in terms of 'code clutter' since you can easily see where the prose is in between the references and such and reference that to your preview window. Other than that, I don't know of any specific resources. All I did was just keep working with it until it became natural. If you see a template or a wikitext tag that you aren't sure what it does, search it up, read the documentation and come back. Try writing something in your sandbox entirely in the source editor to get a feel for citations and footnotes and headings and such. I find it way easier than the VE. Athanelar (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar, when you say you find writing "citations and footnotes and headings and such" in the SE "way easier than the VE," when you did do that sort of thing in the VE, I'm surprised you wouldn't have found going to the Insert option to insert a template you could simply fill in much easier than the SE. What am I missing here? Augnablik (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the only thing you're missing is that different people with different habits can have different definitions of "easy", or different likes & dislikes that they accidentally include in their judgement of easiness.

Possible example: "VE is easier for citations" - "Sure, until something non-standard is impossible for VE, or until something gets messed up" - "But how often does that really happen?" - "With SE it never happens" - "The features in VE are nicer" - "Too bad they aren't as reliable" - [they continue this until 3AM] :)

You can see in this exchange that nobody is really right, nobody is really wrong, and the two in my imaginary discussion are both unlikely to change their minds. My own logic has two parts: VE can't accomplish more than SE, only equal or less (which is currently true); and SE doesn't bother me enough to make me switch (which is just personal preference). My other personal preference would be to improve SE enough to make everyone forget that VE existed. (Or to improve VE so immensely that it can easily do 100% of what SE can do in every case, but that seems like fantasy right now.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, the source editor's best learning aid by far is to intentionally stop going back to the visual editor even if something goes wrong. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers, I would agree with your instructional strategy for something like learning a new language so I could live in a new country. But all I want to be able to do with the SE is just be able to use it well on certain occasions and for particular reasons. Like if I want to check something in an article's underlying code. Or if I'm reading an article with directions about how to do some Wiki procedure that the writer completely focused on doing it in the SE with no reference to how it would be done alternatively in the VE.

Perhaps I should still set aside a certain time frame to follow your suggestion as a way to really get to that level of proficiency, but just not "live permanently" in that new country. Okay, I'll think more seriously about it than when I first read your suggestion. Augnablik (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

My idea of "best way" is not anyone's idea of "only way"! In reality, there are two ways to edit: "This works OK for me" and "This is no good". As long as you have the first one and not the second one, everything is fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:03, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar, @Tenryuu, and @LkL-70547, @TooManyFingers, thanks for all your suggestions. You gave me some very helpful insights, even if not the "magic bullet" I was seeking. Receiving different ideas from four editors with SE expertise made the conversation really come alive for me—which, interestingly, helped lift some of the sense of isolation I'd come to feel in dealing with this issue.

PS: I just did an online search to see what would turn up if I asked there for instructional aid recommendations and found a few things I hadn't been aware of. So, onward! Augnablik (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik, would you mind sharing with the class? I also spend my days in SE (I grew up writing HTML for my dumb kid fandom websites on Geocities and Angelfire, so both the code and the emotions of extreme frustration followed by pride are familiar...) but you can never have too many tricks that someone else found useful and passed on! Meadowlark (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark, are you asking about specific learning aids I was referring to when—at the close of my previous message—I mentioned finding a few that I hadn't been aware of? If so, how about I send you some on your Talk page because I doubt the other four contributors to this thread would be particularly interested in them. Augnablik (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik - apologies, I missed your ping somehow. Please do, I would appreciate that greatly! Meadowlark (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Trust (social science)

Hi, I would like to ask for some feedback on the closure by @Vpab15 of this requested move: Talk:Trust (social science)#Requested move 14 September 2026. There were six votes in favour of making Trust (social science) the primary topic and four opposed. Was it appropriate to close the request without moving the article? Thanks in advance for your feedback. ~2026-54376-24 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Discussions are not decided by a counting of votes, they are determined by a weighing of arguments along with Wikipedia policy. The closer closed the discussion as "no consensus" because they felt no argument outweighed another. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@331dot I understand, but it is not appropriate for a single editor to make the decision on their own; the views expressed by participants throughout the discussion should be taken into account as a whole. That is why I am also asking here whether you consider the closure to have been appropriate. Thank you. ~2026-54304-41 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

What makes you think that the closer did not take views into account? 331dot (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I did not say that the opinions expressed were not taken into account. However, I do not think it was appropriate to close a discussion in which the majority of participants were in favour of the move with a "not moved" outcome. At the very least, the discussion should have been relisted, since the consensus seemed to favour making Trust (social science) the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That is why I am also asking other editors for their opinions on this issue. ~2026-54450-86 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

"Majority" is only relevant if every person's argument was of equal validity. If a majority want it to be done wrong, then the minority who want it to be done right should prevail. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I was simply trying to understand what the right course of action would have been. It probably would have been appropriate to relist the discussion for further input, which is still an option, and I will consider reopening it. ~2026-54450-86 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

There is a difference between a "not moved" outcome and "no consensus"; the former meaning the consensus was to not move it, and "no consensus" meaning that it was not possible to determine the consensus after a weighing of arguments. Again, it's not a vote, but a discussion. If you feel that the consensus was improperly judged, that is a matter for WP:AN to review. I don't think that it was, but that's just my opinion. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I would urge you to not disruptively reopen the discussion. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@331dot I meant that the issue can always be discussed again in a new thread; that is an available option. In any case, thank you for pointing me to WP:AN. I will ask for opinions there. ~2026-54450-86 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@331dot, for information, WP:AN have responded that WP:Move review is the correct place to challene a move. TSventon (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. 331dot (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm no authority, but I'm pretty certain that the right course of action in this particular case is to recognize and understand that the closer made an obvious right decision. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:34, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Basically, most people can do anything on WP, and if you don't like it, you can argue your tits off for all eternity via WP:ANI and appeal to Jimbo and end up none the wiser. They who shout loudest often win. MinorProphet (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Mobile edit

I have seen some editors making difficult SPI edits with mobile edit. When I try to collect, save copy paste, I am not able to work as good as using PC. How do these editors do such difficult edits with lots of texts with mobile edits. ~2026-54570-03 (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-54570-03 As no-one has answered here, your best bet may be to politely ask on the talk page of one of the editors you have noticed doing this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Easiest way to find and fix duplicate references?

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Climate change in Turkey/archive1 says there are 11 duplicate refs but is there an easy way to find them please? I installed User:Polygnotus/Scripts/DeduplicateReferences and cleared my cache but I can't figure out how to run it and the user who wrote it has been blocked. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Try reFill. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:59, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing That is useful but it says "No unnamed duplicate references found to deduplicate." Chidgk1 (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

That's disappointing; see phabricator:T440175. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:08, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Chidgk1, can I recommend this older version: User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences? It might not be as neat and tidy, but it runs by itself. It plops down a box just above the refs in the article with a list of duplicated URLs - you can then copy those and ctrl+F/find within the article text until you've tracked the duplicates down. I can confirm it's working for the article you want to work on, if that helps! Meadowlark (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

This is an area where I've been working a lot recently.

I use a combination of tools! I use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences to find which sources are dupes, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uglemat/RefMan to combine. (Sometimes Duplicatereferences points to the wrong number - you can ctrl + f and click on the result to highlight it in RefMan.

There are times where this doesn't work (for example if sources are part of a template or transcluded from other articles), but it helps a lot. Fleedre (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That's a very (!) interesting workflow. — DVRTed (Talk) 14:20, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm a new editor and I've kind of cobbled it together from looking at other people's summaries - if there are other tools or methods that accomplish the same thing, I'd love to try it out. Fleedre (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Editing other user's sandbox

Is it possible to edit other user's sandbox when the other user allows it? I was recently in talks with the other user in their talk page, who wanted me to collaborate on one of their sandboxes. While I would like to work on it, I'm asking this question to make sure whether there is a policy that allows it or does not, since I myself cannot find any information about it; as far as I can find, only the information about editing one's own sandbox is visible. Junsik1223 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

You're allowed to edit anything you want, people don't own their sandboxes. There's no area of Wikipedia which can be considered "private" or walled off from other editors; it's considered improper to edit somebody else's sandbox or draft without specific permission, but since you've been given specific permission here you're entirely welcome to do so. Athanelar (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Junsik1223 When I was a newcomer, I drafted an article in my sandbox and added some categories to it. Someone came along and removed them without prior permission from me, quoting WP:DRAFTNOCAT in their edit summary. That helped my learning! Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Same. Although when it happened to me, I was quoted WP:USERNOCAT. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I would hesitate to add a picture of a cat to my user page; I'd anticipate it being replaced by a picture of the Official Wikipedia Cat, and me being warned about WP:NOUSERCAT. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:34, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

the Official Wikipedia Cat, I presume, being one (or all?) of the infobox images for Cat. Athanelar (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages. PrimeHunter (talk)

Long book title

Hey all! Just finishing up a draft in my sandbox for the book The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence. Just wanted a second opinion on how I should handle the article name. Looking at WP:SUBTITLES I think it should probably be The Department (book), but since I was unsure figured I'd ask here! Sleepytimecat (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

One way of managing this is to observe what (if anything) the majority of reliable sources have done with the title. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Most shorten to The Department, so shall use that! Sleepytimecat (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict), yes "The Department (book)" sounds good, it might have to be moved again if someone writes "The Department (novel)". I had a look at the draft and fixed a few typos. TSventon (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you for the copy edits! Sleepytimecat (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

An interesting side note is that very long book titles were common in the 19th century. For example, I recently cited an 1867 book called Bean's History and Directory of Nevada County, California: Containing a Complete History of the County, with Sketches of the Various Towns and Mining Camps ... Also, Full Statistics of Mining and All Other Industrial Resources. Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Cullen, that title is abbreviated, omitting the Names and Occupations of Residents. TSventon (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

A side-side note is that back in 1867 books weren't issued with (often colorful and attractive) covers around their boards (if they even came with boards when sold new). Thus the job that today is done by the publisher's blurb somewhere on the cover would instead be done on the title page. A bibliographical convention of today (for books that don't also have a colophon) is that what's on the title page and looks like the title, is the title. However, I wouldn't assume that the 19th-century publisher, seller, or potential buyer of Bean's History thought of the book's title as extending beyond "California". -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

URL

 Courtesy link: Niuvanniemi hospital

Hello, I don't understand what means "check archive-url= value". The link is working. What should I do? I'm editing Niuvanniemi hospital pages. Kindly Ms Sari Kiiskinen SaKaHeKi (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi SaKaHeKi. You probably should take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners for some general guidance on how to properly format a citation. It looks like you're just doing the bare minimum, which is better than nothing, but doesn't really provide readers of the article with enough information about the sources you're citing. It also looks like you using the same URL for both the |url= paramater and the |archive-url= parameter; generally, you should use archive urls for |archive-url= and original source urls (even dead links) for |url=. There's some guidance on this in WP:DEADLINK.

Are you by chance connected to the hospital in some way? When the first thing a newly created account does is edit a relatively obscure article, it's often because there's a connection between the account and subject of the article. It's not expressly prohibitfor an account to do such a thing, but it's a lot easier for others to help them avoid running into problems if they're transparent about ay connection they might have. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I still don't understand what should I wrote "archive url" field? If it not could be the same as url-field. Yes, I've a connection to the hospital, I'm working here as a secretary to the director. And he has asked me to do some changes to English page. And I certainly did. I should change only the photo to the model, but unfortunately I remove all the the other information and now there's only a photo. Could you just return the model (like in Finnish page) which there were before? And then I try to add only the new photo. And as the newly created account, I've created my account 2024, so I think it's not new one any more. SaKaHeKi (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SaKaHeKi.

First, and most important, if you are employed by the hospital (even if editing Wikipedia is not a primary part of your role), you are what Wikipedia regards as a paid editor: you must make a formal declaration of this (see that link for how and where to do this) and you should not directly edit the article in most cases. Rather, you should use the Edit request wizard to make {{COI edit request}}s.

I would advise you to also read WP:BOSS.

Wikipedia wants articles to be accurate, according to what independent reliable sources have said about the subject. It has little interest in what the subject of an article wants to say, and especially no interest in what the subject wants people to know or not to know: that would be promotion, which is forbidden in Wikipedia.

To answer your question about url-archive: that parameter is provided for when a website has been archived by a site such as archive.org. As long as the original site still exists, the url parameter will be used, and the archive-url parameter will be ignored; but if the website ceases to be accessible for whatever reason, somebody can add url-status=dead to the citation, and it will then link to the archived version. So an archive-url parameter should be specified only if there is an archived version available.

I have restored the infobox that you removed when you added the new image, and replaced the image in the infobox by the newer image (which I presume is what you wanted).

As far as Wikipedia is concerned the choice of image is of no importance, compared to the serious deficiency of having no or few independent reliable sources. Please see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not correct:

As long as the original site still exists, the url parameter will be used, and the archive-url parameter will be ignored; but if the website ceases to be accessible for whatever reason, somebody can add url-status=dead to the citation, and it will then link to the archived version.

When both of |url= and |archive-url= are present, the source's title in |title= will be linked by |archive-url=. Adding |url-status=dead does nothing. If you want the source's title to be linked by |url=, use |url-status=live.

{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2026-10-14}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2026-10-14. – |url= presumed to be dead; Title links to archive.org

{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2026-10-14 |url-status=dead}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2026-10-14. – same; |url-status=dead does nothing

{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2026-10-14 |url-status=live}}

Title. Archived from the original on 2026-10-14. – Title links to example.com

It has been ever thus.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for restoring the infobox. I should do the same to Finnish page, but it didn't work. May I ask you to do the same also to Finnish page, add the same image?

You wrote archive url parameter should be specified only if there is an archived version available. There is no archived version, so what should I wrote there, because that field is forced to write something?

I'm confusing you wrote "you should directly edit the article", do you mean "by article" I should not edit my organization page?

I have only edited the text, added a new link to the hospital report, and modified the address of an existing link. I have done this kind of thing before, no promotion meaning. So does this standard editing really needs formal declaration? ~2026-55339-17 (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SaKaHeKi (please remember to log in).

Apparently I was wrong about archive-url - please read what Trappist says. But the part relevant to your problem is that you should not use archive-url unless there is a separate archived copy of the site.

I'm afraid that there is no such thing as "my organization page". The article Niuvanniemi hospital is Wikipedia's article about the hospital. It does not belong to the hospital, it is not controlled by the hospital, and it is not for the benefit of the hospital, except incidentally.

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.

Almost anybody in the world may edit that article except you and your colleagues. Your involvement is limited to making edit requests, as I said. The particular edits you made may be innocuous, but you, inevitably, will have the hospital's interest in mind when making them, and that may not be in harmony with Wikipedia's concern with neutrality. If the article says what the hospital wants people to know, then it is promotional.

Please see WP:OWN.

You are breaking the terms of service of Wikipedia by editing without having made a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor. ColinFine (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

And in answer to your request that I correct the Finnish article: no, I'm not prepared to edit an article in a language I barely know. You'll need to ask for help in the Finnish Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi again SaKaHeKi. First, thank you for being transparent about your connection to Niuvanniemi hospital. The additional information you provided has made it easier for others to try and help you. I've added some general information to your user talk page about some of the things ColinFine has pointed out above. The information I added contains links to relevant English Wikipedia policy and guidelines pages containing more detailed information that you might find helpful. Please take the time to look at this information before making anymore edits to the "Niuvanniemi hospital" article because a failure to comply with relevant English Wikipedia policies regarding paid editing could lead to your English Wikipedia account being blocked.

Now, I don't know whether the same information is available for Finnish Wikipedia (each language Wikipedia is a separate and distinct project with its own policies/guidelines); so, you will need to ask on Finnish Wikipedia to find out what its policies/guidelines are. Since both English Wikipedia and Finnish Wikipedia fall under the purview of the Wikipedia Foundation, though, I'd imagine that there's also a Finnish Wikipedia version of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure that you will need to comply with if you intend to edit on Finnish Wikipedia because this policy is a Wikimedia Foundation policy, not just an English Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi SaKaHeKi, Did you really take that picture, yourself, today, as stated on its page on Wikimedia Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:41, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, the picture which is now on the English page, I don't know when and by whom it has been taken. Yesterday there was different pic which ColinFine changed. Why the picture has been changed? ~2026-55339-17 (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Just for reference SaKaHeKi, your conflict of interest and paid-editing status don't matter as much to Wikimedia Commons as it does here on English Wikipedia. What matters most to (Wikimedia) Commons is the copyright status of the content it hosts. The reason Andy Mabbett is asking whether you took the photo you uploaded is because the copyright holder of the a photo is typically considered to be the person who takes it. So, if you didn't take the photo yourself (and someone else did), you can't really upload it to Commons under the type of copyright license you used. If, by chance, you didn't know any better and just uploaded a photo taken by someone else by mistake, then that doesn't automatically the photo needs to be deleted. It might still be possible for Commons to keep the photo but more information about it is going to be needed to determine that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The picture, which should be in English and also in Finnish page, has taken in 3rd June 2026 by some else. So what should I do now? ~2026-55339-17 (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Nothing. I removed your image because it was very low resolution (of the order of 125 Kb compared to the current image's 5.5 Mb); and of apparently dubious provenance; as your above comment confirms.

Alternatively, provide a better (much higher resolution) image with correct metadata, that meets the requirements at c:COM:THIRD.

Also, please sign in before commenting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:51, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I know who has taken the picture, so is there any change to use it? It looks fine even you said the resolution is very low. And now I locked in. SaKaHeKi (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, you would need to have the owner of the copyright in the image follow the process at c:COM:THIRD, to make the image available under a suitable licence. That owner could be the photographer, or the hospital, depending on the circucmstances.

Secondly, you would need to ask them to provide a copy at higher resolution (preferably the highest available). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

If I got the better picture, what should I do after that? SaKaHeKi (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi yet again SaKaHeKi. If you're able to find a better photo that satisfies c:COM:L (also see c:COM:Third), then upload the photo to Commons as a new file (don't update the file you've already uplaoded). Once you've done that, use WP:ERW (English Wikipedia's COI edit request) to make an edit request and propose changing the current image to the one you uploaded; don't try to change the image yourself. One of the Wikipedia volunteer who respond to such request will review it and make the change if they think it's an improvement. I don't know the edit request process for Finnish Wikipedia; so, you will need to ask about it at Finnish Wikipedia.

Now this next part is very important. You've still yet to properly declare you connection to the hospital on your user page; this is something that you need to do as soon as possible, i.e., before you do anything else on English Wikipedia. The longer you wait to do this, the greater chances of your account being blocked by an English Wikipedia administrator. If you're not sure how to properly declare your connection, follow the guidance in WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. Please understand that even though you might not be being directly paid to edit English Wikipedia per se, the fact that you've been instructed by your boss (a director of the hospital) to update Wikipedia on behalf of the hospital means that you're almost certainly subject to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure; so, it's best to make sure you're in compliance with this very important Wikimedia Foundation policy if you want to avoid running into trouble here on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

How to cite this "Gazeteer of Berkshire County", late 1800s?

https://archive.org/details/gazetteerofberks00chil/page/n5/mode/2up

I found a broken citation for this, using the "cite journal" template, and when I went to correct it I realized that this doesn't seem like a "journal"... those are for academic or routine publications.

So what is this object? I don't think it's "news" - it's *sort of* a "book", but more like a compilation. Thoughts? Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hornpipe2 you can use cite book, I think it is described by the lead of book. The main thing is that cite book should give you the fields you nee like page numbers and publication date. TSventon (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

{{cite book |section=Part Second: Business Directory: Adams |title=Gazetteer of Berkshire County, Mass., 1725-1885 |date=1885 |page=[https://archive.org/details/gazetteerofberks00chil/page/30 30] |section-url=https://archive.org/details/gazetteerofberks00chil/page/2/mode/2up |quote=Cheshire Crown Glass Company. |access-date=5 May 2014 |editor1-first=Hamilton |editor1-last=Child |publisher=Printed at the Journal Office}}

Child, Hamilton, ed. (1885). "Part Second: Business Directory: Adams". Gazetteer of Berkshire County, Mass., 1725-1885. Printed at the Journal Office. p. 30. Retrieved 5 May 2014. Cheshire Crown Glass Company.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all! I've updated the article. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Slight issue with Gale Template

The links that Template:Gale direct to still bring the right document, but I'm unable to actually view the contents of that document. For example, when accessing an article through my library's portal, once I open it in Gale the "get link" button gives this: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A823812351/ITOF But when I use the Gale template with the corresponding ID, the link becomes this: Gale A823812351 On the second link, I'm directed to the correct article, but to actually view it I'm prompted with an "Access from your library" button. Pressing it has the website ask for my location (which is disabled on my machine), and it then shows "Document Not Available The document you requested could not be found".

I'm unsure if I should use the Gale template with the "id" parameter in my Template:Citation or have the "link.gale.com" URL as the "url" parameter. The template seems like it would be more appropriate in general, but the URL is what is actually working for me in terms of viewing it. In the article I'm currently editing, the relevant citations currently have both the url and the id parameters, which seems a little redundant to me. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Error Message: "Trying to add an email address to this page"

 Courtesy link: Mahmoud Maina

Hello,

I have just completed an elaborate update on Mahmoud Maina profile. I was unable to publish when I got an error message on the site saying:

"Your edit has triggered an automated filter and has been disallowed. It looks like you're trying to add an email address to this page."

I have not included an email address in the edit. I'll appreciate someone's help urgently. Thanks. ~2026-54934-99 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-54934-99, multiple of the citations you are attempting to add have email addresses in them. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:09, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-54934-99: You tried to add a citation to https://biortc.com/biortc-director-appointed-professor-of-neuroscience-at-newgate-university/ with an email address in the field last which is for the surname of the author. It happened because you used a citation tool which detected the HTML source says <meta name="author" content="..." /> where ... is an email address. That looks like poor coding by the website. Remove the email address before saving. Do you want a copy of your attempted edit? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Edits

Hi! I made an edit to a Wikipedia page about UFO Sightings to add the one that happened in my town of Farmington, NM, which was already on our towns Wikipedia page. I am unsure if I cited wrong or what but it did get undone. Could I get some help on how I am actually supposed to do it? AetherTheFurry (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't undone, it's still listed. It looks like someone fixed the formatting of the citation. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Writing Article

How do I publish information to be scrutinized An Original American (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Writing a new article is not recommended as the first thing a new user does; you are essentially asking "how do I build a house that will not fall down". If you wouldn't first attempt to build a house without learning about construction techniques and how to install plumbing, you shouldn't attempt to write a Wikipedia article without first gaining experience and knowledge about how Wikipedia works by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as using the new user tutorial.

If you still want to attempt to write an article now, please first review Your First Article and then gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage that meet the criteria listed here; you may then use the article wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

IABot

I've been attempting to use the IABot for archiving URLs, but it doesn't seem to be acknowledging the URLs that are actually dead on pages I have tried to use it for. I also tried to run it for specific pages, but it timed out and I had to use the "multiple pages at once" feature. Any suggestions on how to get better results? JPHC2003 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678 and Harej: who maintain the tool. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:38, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Language Sub-Populations

I am conducting research to determine population densities within a major metropolitan county in California.  

Does Wikipedia or some other research site have demographic data which estimates the number of languages, other than English, spoken within a specific geographical area?

Then, I would need to determine the languages spoken by age group and the number or percent of population of speakers for each language identified. ~2026-55303-85 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

If that county happens to be where you live, I suggest you go to the biggest library in the county and ask them where to look for this type of thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a 'research site'. Our articles are based on citations to published sources, rather than any research conducted by contributors. You will probably do better to use a browser search engine to find this sort of primary data, if it exists. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Merging a draft and live article

I'd like to merge Draft:Will Reeve into Will Reeve. I've done lots of article-to-article merges but not draft-to-article merges. Do you have any tips for going about this in a way that will maintain author attribution as required for copyright? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Clayoquot. I don't think there's anything special involved here. Basically, you'd just be adding existing new content to an existing article. If you're the creator of the draft, then there's really no need (at least to best of my understanding) for you to attribute yourself. If you're "merging" content created by someone else, then I think you just need to comply with WP:CWW. Even if the draft ends up being deleted and becomes a WP:RED link, its page history will still be there (just no longer publicly visible) for attribution purposes: an administrator, for example, would be able to see it.

One thing, though, is that merging content from a draft that was declined by an AfC reviewer for not being Wikipedia notable into an existing article might not be the best thing to do. The existing article was boldly created in the mainspace (i.e., it never underwent any type of third-party notability assessment) just a few days ago. If the draft which seems, at least at first glance, to be a bit more fleshed out with more sourcing was deemed to be insufficient in establishing Will Reeve's Wikipedia notability, then perhaps the existing article also has the same concerns. The fact that it exists doesn't mean it should exist; maybe it's just never underwent a proper assessment. So, instead of just merging content from one page into another, it might be better to see whether WP:OVERCOME is an issue and look for reliable sources clearly showing Reeve is Wikipedia notable (independent of his Wikipedia notable dad). If Reeve wasn't seen as being Wikipedia notable in December 2021 for all the things he had done up until that time, then it seems unlikely the coverage generated by his announcing last month (September 2026) that he was diagnosed with testicular cancer but is now cancer-free would be the thing to put him over the top in terms of Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Help, editing coding is screwed up

Hello. Started editing today, I edit in Monobook, and the coding is in some kind of mode that makes it very difficult to edit. Things that have changed include the addition of line numbers along the left side of the edit, very large section headings (when I type "Help, editing coding is screwed up" the result is very large type compared with the editing type, and a great deal of blue links which jump to something else when typed over or comes up as weird coding. Any suggetion on how to turn this back is welcome, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC) how

Hello, @Randy Kryn.

I don't know for sure, but it sounds as if you may have syntax highlighting turned on: this is an option in the preferenced in your account. ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

ColinFine, thank you, you are a wizard. I have no idea how that was turned on from last editing to now, but it was. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

It got turned on for me too. It looks as if the powers that be have decided that syntax highlighting is good for us, and we all have to turn it off individually in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Certes (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I personally love syntax highlighting, makes editing in the Source Editor so much easier! qcne (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

It has its uses, and I'm sure many editors happily use it, but the quibble is with it being imposed on everyone unexpectedly and without consensus. Certes (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The preference must be initially set to something; there's no such setting as "neither with nor without". The decision for which way to set it initially was obviously not mine so I don't know what the reasons were. But when anyone says they don't like syntax highlighting, the very first answer is always to tell them how to switch it off. In my opinion it's worse if some people never find out we have syntax highlighting available, in your opinion it's the opposite, but the fact is it has to be one of those ways. I don't think it's even remotely fair to call it "imposed without consensus" when there's a switch to turn it off.

(Compare this with the image carousel "feature", which was not equipped with a visible Off switch.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Certes After reading further, I think that by whatever kind of accident or luck I never even saw the thing you're talking about. My preferences may have been set differently to begin with, or other variables may have varied, but in any case I think I completely misunderstood you and I'm sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:16, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I also misunderstood, in that the temporary change was rolled out in error rather than as a conscious decision. Certes (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that I am another who had syntax highlighting irritatingly turned on without warning. For a moment, I was afraid my account had been compromised. Deor (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

...and another here. This is so amateurish. What is so difficult that implementors of such changes can't include, for a short time, a message saying what's been updated (and how to find out more, and how to disable unwanted new features)? Bazza 7 (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Above, I strongly disagreed with the idea "imposed without consensus", and I still disagree with that. But I do agree that there should - and easily could - have been a temporary notification on the editing screen (not just in some publication) saying syntax highlighting has been implemented and the switch is just over there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:57, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! (I was never going to figure out how to fix this by myself but here is the answer and I didn't even need to ask.) RJFJR (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

FYI

This was in fact mentioned in tech news, which some editors subscribe to via their talk pages, just so that they can be made aware of this sort of change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Reminds me of "It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'" from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (But that said, I think I like the result.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Only for logged-out and newly registered users, and it happened on September 14. The current change is unintentional and they are working on reversing it. Further details: WP:VPT#Was 'Enable syntax highlighting for wikitext' suddenly added to enwiki as opt-out?. Certes (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Now fixed, per the same link. Certes (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

What does "pre" do?

<pre></pre>

ווסטוק (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

It marks a block of preformatted text and prevents the parsing of templates. Further details: Help:HTML in wikitext#pre. Certes (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Set skin for mobile only?

How can I set my skin as Timeless on mobile only? I tried going to the settings in mobile, but that had the opposite effect, and now I have Timeless on desktop and Minerva on mobile. I'd like to have Vector 2022 on desktop and Timeless on mobile. Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈 11:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Helpful Cat: I don't think that is possible unless there is a way to load the Timeless skin or something equivalent in Special:MyPage/minerva.css and Special:MyPage/minerva.js, but that may cause problems. The skin setting in preferences is only for desktop view. Mobile view ignores the setting and uses its own skin Minerva. Timeless is just one of the skins you can choose in desktop view. You can switch between mobile view and desktop view at the bottom of pages regardless of which device you are on so you could choose desktop view and change skin in preferences to Timeless when you are using a mobile device but then you have to change the skin back to Vector 2022 when you switch to a desktop device. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I see, thanks! I think what I'll do for now is to switch back to Vector 2022 in settings (to have Vector 2022 on desktop), and I've installed this user script to easily switch skins, so when I'm on mobile it's two clicks to switch to both Timeless and desktop mode. That lets me access desktop features on mobile relatively easily, which is the main reason I wanted to use Timeless on mobile. Thanks again! Helpful Cat🐈 14:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

ThiruVani Civilization

Tamizhy civilization Oldest World old Tamal, I researched answer becames Tamal is one of the first Language source and education method inthis World, Iam authenticity writter ppmagadevan alies ppmahadevan

PPMagadevan(alies)PPMahadevan (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @PPMagadevan(alies)PPMahadevan. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

PPMagadevan, please see Tamil-Brahmi.   Maproom (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Donate

why would anyone donate to a site with corrupted information? Ilhan is just one example of so many. ~2026-55431-65 (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

There is no obligation to donate here. "Corrupted information" is, however, more likely to be found on other websites. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a genuine question, or are you just here to rant?

If you think that something in a Wikipedia article can be improved, you're welcome to do so - making sure you comply with Wikipedia's policies about verifiability, reliable sources and neutral point of view, of course. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Donation is totally optional; you are very welcome to read and edit Wikipedia without donating. If you have found a problem with the Ilhan article, please fix it by editing the page or raise the matter for further discussion by creating a new section at Talk:Ilhan. Certes (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Seeing total views on articles you've edited?

Hello,

I'd like to see how many views have been accrued across all articles I've edited in the past. Currently, I can only see views in the past 60 days on my homepage. Is there a way to expand this period to include all of my contributions across Wikipedia? Oro Temp (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's an easy way to do that. If you really wanted to, you could download the large Wikipedia clickstream datasets for each month since you started editing and write some software to correlate that with your edit history, perhaps only counting views since the month you first edited each page. But it'd be a lot of work for you, for your computer and for the servers. Certes (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

My page needs updating and improvement I would like to engage/hire someone

User already asked this at the Teahouse. Please ask a question at only one venue to prevent duplicating user effort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

My Wikipedia page needs serious updating. In the last year, I've received emails from persons saying they worked for Wiki but were actually scammers. I would like to engage/hire a professional or high-level, experienced official Wiki volunteer. Thank you for your help!

Marguerite Feitlowitz Mfmushroom (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

You're quite right not to engage anyone who expects payment for editing your Wikipedia page – it's always a scam. I suggest creating a new section on Talk:Marguerite Feitlowitz explaining what needs to be added or changed. Citing reliable sources would really help. Hopefully, a volunteer will make the necessary changes in a neutral tone. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has some good advice, especially the General COI section which shows how to mark your article and Wikipedia account as connected. Certes (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mfmushroom: Please ask your question at either the Help Desk or the Teahouse, not both. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I have closed—again—the duplicate discussion at The Teahouse. Please do not reopen it again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I will point out that the question was asked first at the Teahouse, but fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:05, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mfmushroom Please remember that 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.. When you say your article "needs serious updating" that may well be the case, but it is also often the case that the updates the subject of the article thinks are needed are not the updates which are necessarily actually needed. Athanelar (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Account access recover

Hello! I would like to recover login to my account but I don't have an access to my old email

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Kuzmin_Alexey

What can I do and how can you help me?@Kuzmin Alexey ~2026-55409-44 (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

If you are unable to access the email address attached to the account, you will not be able to regain access to the account. You may create a new account and identify it as a successor account on its user page("I am User5678, I was User1234 but lost access") 331dot (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Alternative dark CSS for Timeless

I know mw:Skin:Timeless/DarkCSS exists, but it changes many things apart from implementing dark mode, such as fonts and colours. Has anyone created any alternatives? Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈 00:05, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Profanity bleeped in source

What should be done when the source material censors out profanity? Wikipedia has a policy of not censoring quoted material. I stumbled across a quote by the rapper Favio in Drill music where he says the N-word, but the publisher (TMZ) bleeped it out, and thus the quote also is censored in the Wiki article. Should quotes be true to the source, or true to the actual words said? This is more of a philosophical quandary than anything, lol. afever — 01:16, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:BOWDLERIZE: In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited overrides this style guideline, where it is necessary to indicate that an alteration is carried over from a quoted source, " [sic]" or "[thus in the original]" or a similar phrase, within single brackets, may be used. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:34, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

So basically the best thing to do is to put the exact text as in the source accompanied by a {{sic}} template? 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 08:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, yes. This avoids quoting them as having used a word they refused to use. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

SpaceNews' reliability

Hello everyone! Is SpaceNews a reliable source? Is it appropriate to cite a SpaceNews article in a Wikipedia article? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 02:36, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The "Stellar Dispatch" section is apparently all press releases. Press releases are always biased and there are many ways they should not be used. The articles outside of that section, the ones that have a real byline with a real journalist's name, look good to me - but you should ask people who work on space-related articles a lot. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:52, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: So, to put it clearly, is it reliable or unreliable? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 03:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

It appears to have a decent editorial staff and publication history, so I would assume that it's fairly reliable unless shown otherwise (excluding press releases and the "sponsored" section). Do note per WP:RS, Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything.... Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement. Some science people may be found here, or (if you don't get a response here) at one of the science wikiprojects; or perhaps at WP:RSN (the only prior discussion there is this, which isn't really much of a discussion or recent). LittlePuppers (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed "you should ask people who work on space-related articles a lot." Is there anyone here with an interest in space-related articles who could provide a precise answer to my question? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 03:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I think with two (three including you) who agree it looks good as long as you stick with the main articles and stay away from "Sponsored" and "Stellar Dispatch", you are pretty safe to start using it. (You even CAN use the press releases of Stellar Dispatch to prove minor points such as "In October 2021 the company claimed they had solved the problem".)

NO source can be declared 100% always reliable - think of the normally fine Der Spiegel and its former rogue reporter Claas Relotius - but I think SpaceNews's main articles should be treated as good to use in general. At some point someone will always argue about anything anywhere, and we must always hope that intelligent reasonable discussion will prevail in such cases. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mention my reasoning with the press releases, so in case it wasn't obvious, here it is:

While press releases are never a valid source for notability, and rarely-or-never a valid source for news, they are valid to show "they really did make that statement", so if that's all you need, go ahead. When citing a press release, always use in-text attribution such as "the company claimed in a press release" or other words politely making it clear that Wikipedia can't be sure they were telling the truth, just that they said it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I follow Space subjects obsessively. SpaceNews is a reliable source, perhaps one of the top five and far more accurate than the general press. Like all other reliable sources, you must distinguish between factual reporting, opinion, and press releases. -Arch dude (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Using unreliable sources

Hello. I want to ask whether use of unreliable sources is permitted when no reliable source is availabile for something. If so, under what policy?

Example, I've been editing articles related to TV shows for a while. All reliable sources that used to publish viewership and ratings for these shoes have shut down.

Can an unreliable source publishing these numbers be used on Wikipedia? Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Linkin Prankster, the answer is "no". If content like this is not originally published by a reliable source, then it does not belong in this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

*these shows Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If all the reliable sites for [something] really have shut down, then unfortunately it's true that Wikipedia will never be able to mention that [something] again - at least not until someone creates a new reliable source for it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If the reliable site's pages are archived at the internet archive or other valid archive site, then the information on those pages can be used. The information does not suddenly become unreliable when the site shuts down. You will need to reference the archive URL. -Arch dude (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

This is certainly true. The problem would only be with new informaton that hasn't ever been in a reliable source. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Collages of victims and NFCC rules

If an article discusses several victims, can a collage made from separate copyrighted photographs of those victims be used under NFCC? The collage would not be an original group photograph but a composite created from individual images. I am also unclear about how the "historical photograph" non‑free rationale works. It is normally used for the lead image of a biographical article, but what happens if the photograph is placed in the body of the article instead and it is an article about an event in which they died? The "other non‑free" template says the image should illustrate the subject in question, but I am unsure how this applies when an article refers to several people rather than one subject. ItsShandog (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I have uploaded plenty of single images of people whose articles are about their disappearance or killing, and the image is usually placed in the infobox. I have always used the "historical photograph" rationale for a single image of someone who is deceased. I am now unsure how this works when the image shows several victims of an event. I know there is no strict limit on non‑free images in an article, but if it is impractical to upload several separate images and the composite image is placed in the body of an article about the event in which they died, I am not sure how the rationale applies. They are deceased, but the image would not be used at the top of the article. ItsShandog (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi ItsShandog. You probably should ask about this at WT:NFCC. In general, collages of non-free images tend to not be allowed per WP:NFG since they tend to be user-created (not copyright holder created). As for "historical photgraph", these tend to be photographs which in and of themselves have been the subject of sourced critical commentary for some reason (e.g. some major award one) as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC. A photo isn't historic simpley becauce it's old. FWIW, all non-free content needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but there tends to be more leeway given to infobox images than images used in the body of an article. So, a non-free image of deceased person intended for use in the main infobox of stand-alone article about said person for primary identification purposes tends to be easier to justify in terms of relevant policy than perhaps trying to use the same image in another way or in another article altogether. Again, there's lots of nuance (case-by-case assessment) involved when it comes to non-free content use; so, it's probably better to ask about it at WT:NFCC. Finally, the license templates often used for non-free content are really just boilerplate templates intended to cover the most frequent types of non-free use; they were created by some Wikipedian and are as official as anything else on Wikipedia, i.e. not very. What matters the most is whether a non-free use meets Wikipedia's non-free content use policy regardless of what the license might say. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I will ask there. I just get confused by it, because what if a collage is already made when you save it, or if the page is about the killing or disappearance of two people and there is a side‑by‑side image of them. ItsShandog (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Collages that you can prove were already joined that way in the source, are treated very differently than a collage you put together yourself. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:52, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Copyright

Could someone explain how to request permission to use an image from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons? The image would be used for something like a book cover. Thanks ~2026-55658-73 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-55658-73 Most images on Wikimedia Commons are licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 license (some are under different licenses, the page for the individual image will specify). You can see the details of that license here but in short, you're allowed to use those images for any purpose you want, including to profit from them, but you are not permitted to place your own copyright on them and you must properly attribute their origin. Athanelar (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-55658-73. In addition to what Athanelar posted above, try taking a look at c:COM:REUSE. It's important to remember that files uploaded to Commons are simply being hosted by Commons. Commons will only host content that is either within the public domain for some reason or has been released by its copyright under a type of copyright license that meets C:COM:L. In the latter case, you should be fine as long as you comply with the terms of the relevant license, but any particular questions about a license should probably be addressed to its copyright holder. Pretty much the same applies to Wikipedia as explained in WP:REUSE. Unlike Commons, however, Wikipedia allows non-free content to be uploaded and used; since there are more restrictions placed on this content, and it's often uploaded by someone other than its copyright holder, you may need to contact the copyright holder directly to see whether they mind you using their content in the way you want use it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Combine 2 disambig pages if they have unique interlanguage links

Hi! I'm considering merging Frigate Island into Frigate (disambiguation). But the former has unique interlanguage links to ceb:Frigate Island and de:Frigate Island that would be lost. What is the way to handle this? Thanks! Retselik (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone normally call an island just "Frigate"? I was surprised to see the frigate bird mentioned on the second disambiguation page, but they made it clear some people really do call the bird simply "frigate" - OK, fair enough. Just wondering if this merge is a great idea or if the merge-ability between these is maybe unclear. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

It's normal practice to list Foo Island, Lake Foo, etc. on the dab for Foo. Certes (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

As Special:PrefixIndex/frigate shows, there are loads of articles starting with the word "Frigate". Most of them are not listed on the Frigate DAB page and I don't see why you need to repeat the "Frigate island" DAB there. Maybe Frigate Island caecilian needs to go on Frigate Island, despite not being an island! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused - where are the interlanguage links? I don't see any ... Oh those! That menu on the side where you get the same article in many different languages. Those are not called interlanguage links, because interlanguage link is a template for when you need to make a wikilink to something but it's only available in a foreign language.

IF I was merging the two DAB pages (which I probably wouldn't), I would copy those other languages, delete them from where they are, and instead add them to our individual articles on each island. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:52, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

"Those are not called interlanguage links"

Oh, really? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:38, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I (reasonably, I hope) assumed that two different features of Wikipedia would not both be called the same name, and that if by accident or bad luck that were to happen, one of them would surely be renamed.

Can't we just rename both of them "Notability" to prevent confusion? :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

ok, thanks everyone! Retselik (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

ok i need some help with smth rq

How do i go onto that part of editing where you can see articles with spelling errors, articles needed, promotional content needing to be removed, etc so like it gives you categories like the ones i said and you can remove them via clicking on them and editing them BulgarianinCatalunya (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@BulgarianinCatalunya Perhaps you would like to try this link to WikiProject Cleanup Listings, which is based on tags people have placed on articles. The list has the advantage you can focus on topics that interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean Special:Homepage? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:00, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

nah, wasnt any of those. im tryna find it tho, thx 4 the offer BulgarianinCatalunya (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@BulgarianinCatalunya: I checked your edit history, are you looking for mw:Help:Growth/Tools/Newcomer Tasks? TSventon (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That's the technical help page for experienced editors that describes the "Homepage" feature I referred to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:28, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

thanks 4 looking at my edits also yh BulgarianinCatalunya (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Why do you guys allow misinformation

I don’t know why there’s a description of grapes coming from the Middle East now it didn’t it didn’t come from the Middle East. It came from Georgia that could because that’s where wine originated from you can look that up Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is not Middle East and then you guys are talking about oh Islam has a lot to do with it. It doesn’t the Romans and the Greeks were the ones who spread it all around to the Mediterranean. What are you guys talking about? Why are you guys misleading and miss lying about it? They did studies on it. It’s been proven. Dude. ~2026-55438-65 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Please discuss your concerns about an article's content on its associated talk page. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic; we try to get things right, but we don't always. We rely on volunteers. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The first section of Grape#History seems to be a good summary of the cited references. Wikipedia editors are not "misleading and miss lying", they are merely summarising already-published sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

"Georgia" as a nation is a concept that developed in the last thousand or so years. It did not exist 10,000 years ago. Similarly, the boundaries of the "Middle East" are vague and poorly defined. Boundaries of today do not really apply to 10,000 years ago. Even if modern Georgia is excluded from the modern Middle East, it is on the border. The ancient winemaking sites in present day Georgia are part of the Fertile Crescent, a Middle Eastern concept. Cullen328 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

From our Wine article: The origins of wine predate written records, and the details of the first cultivation of wild grapevines are uncertain. The earliest known traces of wine were found near Tbilisi, Georgia (c. 6000 BCE). The earliest known winery, from c. 4100 BCE, is the Areni-1 winery in Armenia. The subsequent spread of wine culture around the Mediterranean was probably due to the influence of the Phoenicians (from c. 1000 BCE) and Greeks (from c. 600 BCE). As for Islam (founded only 1400 or so years ago), what the heck has that to do with anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-55438-65 "We guys"? Most articles are written by several different people, and we don't all speak with one voice. The references are supposed to keep the authors from straying too far from what is generally accepted. As mentioned, the wine article does mention Georgia. David10244 (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Help with Template:German title hatnote

I've written Template:German title hatnote which accepts two parameters for titles e.g. {{German title hatnote|Prinz|Markgraf}}. I'd like to extend this template to accept three parameters e.g. {{German title hatnote|Prinz|Markgraf|Herzog}}. How can this be done without repeating the list of titles and their translations a third time? They are already repeated twice. Joe vom Titan (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

"Category:Works about rape"

Why is this a subcategory of "Category:Works about violence against women" when the category is about rape irrespective of the gender of the victim? ~2026-54123-75 (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-54123-75: It's far more common against women and I guess the huge majority of articles in the category are about women. Subcategories are a way to find related articles and should not be interpreted as claims. Category:Works about rape is also a subcategory of Category:Works about violence and Category:Works about sex crimes so it can be found by users going through the category system without entering gender-specific categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, to be fair, there is no equivalent Category:Works about violence against men. If there was, I'd say it would be reasonable to make this a subcategory there as well.. DonIago (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

But the category description explicitly state that it's gender-neutral. Making it the subcat of an explicitly gendered category goes against that ~2026-54123-75 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Belonging to categories that don't match each other is not automatically an invalid situation. "Works about rape" must stay in the "Works about violence against women" category because it is frankly stupid for it to not be there. It can and does also belong to other categories that are not like that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Help me

I need two help:

• How do I know that a page is patrolled by NPP or not? Any script that shows whether it is Reviewed or not.

• At AfD, I have seen editors talking about "red mark", "green mark" sources. Please tell me which script shows sources in those colours.

Thanks in advance. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 04:16, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anything called "red mark". But maybe you mean Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? That page includes a big list of commonly mentioned sources saying if they are OK to use or not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:46, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Not WP:RSP. There is a script which highlights reliable, non reliable sources in the article's reference list. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:20, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

On your first question, I asked this before and got some answers (no script, though). Helpful Cat🐈 05:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

May be in Preference settings where reviewed page shows with a Green tick mark. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, I searched "patrol" in my preferences, and the only thing that appears is meta:User:Krinkle/Tools/Real-Time Recent Changes. Is that what you mean? Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈 08:47, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

No no. Not this one. Is this importScript('User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter.js'); // Backlink: User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter.js Dylan Reed (Ping me) 09:00, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we're talking about different things. That fulfils your second question about marking sources, but doesn't answer your first question about NPP. I'm not aware of a script that shows whether an article has been patrolled by NPP, although such a script would be great! Helpful Cat🐈 09:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Yet I am not founding the script that identifies a page is NPP REVIEWED or not. I am pretty sure that there must be a script. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 10:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried a search at Wikipedia:User scripts? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:43, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Not yet. I was not aware of the script search option. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 00:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

unable to publish a translation

Hello,

I created an English translation of this page:

nl:De Zaan

I wanted to push this translation live but I receive a message that I'm not allowed since I'm not experienced enough. Then the page was published as an userpage: Page published at User:RonVanDenBoom/De Zaan

I would like to have this page published as the 'regular' English version fo the page, not as a user page. How can I proceed and have this published?

Thanks for your response!

Ron van den Boom RonVanDenBoom (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

From just a quick look, it seems likely to me that the references you've used are failing to show that De Zaan is a notable company in the way that the English Wikipedia defines that. There may exist better references that you haven't used yet. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Dolce far niente

Hi, what do you think about the encyclopedic merit of the article Dolce far niente? There are very few sources, and little information can be found. Should it be proposed for deletion? ~2026-55687-32 (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty transparent WP:NOTDICTIONARY issue, for which it was already deleted 20 years ago. I've listed it at AfD. Athanelar (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it's a phrase that became sort of famous just as a phrase and there's nothing to say about it that you wouldn't already find in a dictionary. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:45, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Restore previous version is blocked by forbidden-site error

I want to remove multiple LLM edits from Kayan, Baghlan as part of cleanup for an AI noticeboard case. However, restoring to the non-LLM version is blocked because it contained an external link to a now-blacklisted site. Is there any straightforward way to clear this up, so that I end up with a version without the LLM text and without the blacklisted site? The blacklist error message says that I need to edit out the link first, but because I am restoring, not editing, this isn't possible. I would rather not undo all the intervening edits one by one if I don't have to. M kuhner (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's a problem. Just edit the revision you want to save, remove the offending link, and save it. What am I missing?

Also, if the site isn't on the blacklist but is instead triggering a filter, it may be possible for an administrator to save an edit with that link. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh! The warnings about "don't do this" that appear when you try to edit an old version were apparently so effective I never thought of doing it that way. Thank you. Will give it a try. M kuhner (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually I thought the recent version rewritten on 13 October looked pretty good, far better than this attempt by Gnomingstuff to remove AI, which looks to me like it actually retained the flowery AI prose, while the current version is more neutral and direct. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I will do a full check on this one, then, as it seems complex. This is a tough case with probable sockpuppets involved. M kuhner (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Guidance on a restricted LinkedIn account and failed identity verification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello,

I’m looking for general advice about the legitimate next steps for a restricted LinkedIn account. The original account has been restricted for about two months. I’ve tried identity verification through Persona several times, but it has not succeeded, and the verification upload link provided by LinkedIn is not working. I’ve also contacted LinkedIn Support and requested manual verification.

Could anyone suggest appropriate next steps or point me to a suitable resource? I understand that Wikipedia cannot restore or intervene in a LinkedIn account, and I won’t post personal documents, account credentials, or other sensitive information here.

I realize this may be outside the scope of Wikipedia’s Help Desk, which is for questions about using Wikipedia. If so, please feel free to point me to a more appropriate venue.

Thank you. ~2026-55485-90 (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The only appropriate venue would be LinkedIn's customer support. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 17:58, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How long does it usually take to approve access at TWL?

Just curious, as I applied for Newspapers.com access about a week ago to improve articles like YVR–Airport station. Thanks, --ABx11 (she/they) 01:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Glynn Edwards

you have an article about Glynn Edwards but it doesn't mention that has was also a producer and produced programmes such as Tizwas. ~2026-55979-48 (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-55979-48: That was a different person, named Glyn Edwards, with a single n. (Also the programme's name is "Tiswas".) JBW (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Possums

What should I feed it? ~2026-55809-67 (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-55809-67 See Possum. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

Is it correct for the philosopher Francis Bacon to be the primary topic? Francis Bacon (artist) is also very well known. Wouldn't it be better to move this to Francis Bacon (philosopher)? ~2026-55988-95 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-55988-95: The move was suggested at Talk:Francis Bacon/Archive 4#Requested move with no consensus. The philosopher gets the majority af page views. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter The discussion took place many years ago, in 2010. Similarly, Calvados (brandy) receives more views than Calvados (department), yet it was recently decided to turn Calvados into a disambiguation page. The same applies to Luis Suárez. In this case, Francis Bacon (artist) also receives a significant number of views and is an important subject in its own right. I have posted a new discussion. ~2026-55615-43 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Swindon Railway Village

I want to create an article about the Swindon Railway Village. When I search for 'Swindon Railway Village' I am directed to 'Swindon Works' and am told that an article called 'Swindon Railway Village' already exists, whereas it is just a paragraph in the Swindon Works article. The Railway Village was built to serve the Works but is a separate entity. If and when I could get a Swindon Railway Village article published I would need to edit the Swindon Works article to contain just a brief mention and a cross-reference. The Railway Village deserves a separate article. It would sit over articles about 'Swindon Mechanics' Institute', 'Health Hydro', 'Victorian Turkish baths, Swindon' and 'St Mark's Church' but would provide more detail about the Railway Village in general and about other notable buildings in the village. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mydaemonthirst: The top of Swindon Railway Village says "(Redirected from Swindon Railway Village)". If you click there then you can change the redirect to an article. It should satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. If you split out content from the existing article then see Wikipedia:Splitting. If you use Wikipedia:Articles for creation and submit a draft then the reviewer will handle the current redirect if the submission is accepted. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm struggling to follow that advice. I'll maybe look at that again tomorrow and see I can fathom it out. Nothing seems to be straightforward on Wikipedia. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mydaemonthirst: I think you have three options: 1. edit Swindon Railway Village 2. start draft:Swindon Railway Village and use articles for creation or 3. start draft:Swindon Railway Village and request a move to Swindon Railway Village at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests when the article is ready. As a new editor, you may prefer 2. I try to avoid 1 as it produces an article started by another editor. As PrimeHunter said, please read Wikipedia:Splitting. TSventon (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The only way

The only way Vaderdaomes (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Vaderdaomes: Do you have a question about Wikipedia? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Health Hydro title

An article on the Swindon Health Hydro has been published but with an unhelpful title. It is very much a part of the Swindon Railway Village and it would be helpful if the title could be changed to 'Swindon Health Hydro'. There are a number of Health Hydros around the world. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Health Hydro. The first line of the article says that it is in Swindon. If there are other articles that it might be confused with, you can add a WP:HATNOTE RudolfRed (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I want it to include the word Swindon partly to make it searchable both in Wikipedia and via search engines. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mydaemonthirst.

Why does that matter to you? It sounds as if you are engaged in promotion, which is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. (Note that "promotion" has a wider sense than in general use: if your purpose is telling the world about your subject, or what you put into an article or draft is telling the world what you/your subject want people to know about it, then that is promotion, whether it is commercial or not). ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

With its present title and the word Swindon in the opening paragraph it will still be findable for people searching for its full name.

Nice article, BTW. Thank you for your contribution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mydaemonthirst One current problem is that en:Wikipedia has a redirect page at Swindon Health Hydro which goes to Victorian Turkish baths, Swindon, not Health Hydro. To my eyes, these two articles cover very much the same topic! Is there justification for having both? Each article uses an image captioned "Medical Fund Baths and Dispensary Viewed from Faringdon Road, 1905", for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

There are very real reasons for having two separate articles.

The Health Hydro article is about a building that held medical facilities, a pharmacy, two swimming pools and wash baths, as well as Turkish baths (from 1906). The hydro was built in 1891-2.

The Victorian Turkish baths, Swindon article is about Turkish baths alone and the story starts in 1860, when the GWR gave the go-ahead for the Medical Fund Society to create Turkish baths. The story of Turkish baths in Swindon is part of a set of articles about Victorian Turkish baths in general and in their various locations. There were Turkish baths operated by the MFS in Swindon for forty years before they were opened in the Health Hydro in 1906.

They need to be two separate articles in order to tell each story coherently. There is inevitable overlap because, from 1906, the Turkish baths were located in the Health Hydro.

This is an issue that has been raised multiple times and played its part in delaying the publication of the Health Hydro article. Please let the matter rest. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Did some of the source material treat both of them in the same article, making it necessary to select the passages that were appropriate to cite in each of the two Wikipedia articles?

"What the sources have joined together, let no editor put asunder" ... or words to that effect. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

We have no such policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:33, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

While it's true there is no such literal policy, these two articles seem almost tailored to have WP:MERGEREASON apply to them in multiple ways. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Can some kind person set up a talk page archive?

See Talk:Active Denial System. No archive, and has content dating back 20 years or so. Has been persistently attracting forum-type posts, which archiving might discourage a little. I'd try to do it myself if I wasn't chronically sleep-deprived and liable to mess it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I set it up; hope you manage to get some sleep! —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 15:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Elected Official

Hello I can see that when I searched for my state representatives that are elected they're information is on Wikipedia but I'm also an elected official and I don't see me on Wikipedia ~2026-55923-95 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Notability. Whether or not someone has a Wikipedia article is based on their notability, not necessarily their occupation. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 21:49, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-55923-95.

To add a couple of things to what JohnLaurens says: WP:NPOL says that politicians elected at some levels are assumed notable, but it's not clear from your description whether or not you would meet that criterion. If not, you would be notable only if you met the general notability guidelines, which are about what has been independently published about you.

Also, if you are notable in Wikipedia's sense, that means there could be an article about you. Whether or not there is an article depends on whether a volunteer editor has chosen to write one: nobody in the entire world is entitled to have an article, because articles are for the benefit of Wikipedia and its readers, not for the benefit of the subjects of the articles.

If you meet the criteria for notability, then there could be an article about you. But I'm afraid there is no effective way for you to get that to happen. You could put a request at requested articles; but such requests are not often picked up. You are permitted to write an article about yourself, but strongly discouraged, as hardly anybody has ever successfully written an article about themselves, and you're likely to be wasting your time on an unattainable goal (see autobiography).

You are permitted to ask one of your staff to try and write one, but they would need to declare themselves as a paid editor, and the chances of an inexperienced Wikipedia editor successfully writing an article are low, even without a conflict of interest. I suggest you read WP:BOSS.

Finally, now you have posted this, you may get offers to create an article about you for money: such offers are almost always scams.

My advice (to anybody who wants to get an article about themselves into Wikipedia) is that you will save yourself a lot of frustration and probably wasted effort if you forget about Wikipedia and get on with your life and career. If you are notable, then eventually somebody unconnected with you will choose to write an article about you. ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

19 October 2026

It is okay to welcome new accounts regardless of their identity using Twinkle? Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

You may welcome whoever you wish, but we generally recommend that you welcome people after they have made an edit rather than just when they open their account.

Be aware also that welcoming people involves inviting them to contact you if they need assistance, so if you welcome thousands you may be inundated with requests for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:06, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rajdhani Fan Person: Many accounts are first created at a sister project and then you have to wait until they make an edit per meta:Welcoming policy which became global policy in May 2026: "A wiki is only allowed to post welcome messages to users if their account was originally created at the wiki, or the user has at least one non-imported edit there." Special:CentralAuth/Rajdhani Fan Person shows a plus at en.wikipedia.org so a welcome right away was allowed in your case. We don't normally do it but you used the requested account system and was welcomed by the account creator. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that even if it's allowed, many people don't like it and don't want it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

My page

how do I make my own page i have been looking for 30min but can't find it help me Random guy4322 (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Do you mean your own User page, which is a page that explains who you are as a Wikipedia editor? Just click on this link to go to your currently non-existent User page, then add your content and click Publish page... qcne (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

thank you very much that's what I looked for!! Random guy4322 (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Talk page archives

I noticed on the Bosch (Company) talk page, that for some reason a message wasn't being archived. Two questions on this 1) why wasn't the bot archiving it, despite later messages being archived and 2) is it okay to manually archive in these instances, as I did, despite archive pages stating "Do not edit the contents of this page". Presumably that excludes instances like these? Thanks. LateFatherKarma (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@LateFatherKarma: 1) Maybe the bot didn't like that Talk:Bosch (company)/Archives/2022 already had a section called "COI tag (September 2022)". 2) It's OK to edit archive pages for some purposes, just not to add new posts to old discussions or create new discussions. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Can someone please fix picture posted for Karoline Leavitt?

Karoline Leavitt's picture is upside down on her page. ~2026-55770-83 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean in this article: Karoline Leavitt? It looks OK to me. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Ditto. Have you tried bypassing or purging your cache? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 18:02, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

A vandal requested rotation of File:Official portrait of Karoline Leavitt, 2025 (cropped)(2).jpg. I only saw the rotated version on the file page but it can vary for others. I have restored the former version. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

submitted drafts

Has their ever been a draft created and submitted on the life of men in ancient rome

Munich g. lll (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we have hundreds of articles on life in Ancient Rome. Take your pick. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

but specifically focused on men? Munich g. lll (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean, you did, though you haven't submitted it for review. Unless it was deleted, no, a similar article has not been created and submitted. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 19:53, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

If you do submit it, it will not be approved in its current state, as it contains no references and reads like an essay. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 19:55, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

To address the original question, most of our hundreds of articles on Ancient Rome focus on men rather than women for obvious reasons. All the many articles on Military history of ancient Rome, Ancient Roman wars, Roman Constitution and so on. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:12, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Bias in Articles

Does anyone know how to report bias in an article to an administrator of some sort? ~2026-56080-59 (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

You can always be bold and fix it yourself. Make sure you read WP:NPOV. What article and bias are you referring to? Does the text match the sources it cites? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 19:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

what is biased about it?? Munich g. lll (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Administrators don't deal with such issues; content is overseen by the consensus of the community.

As always, it would be easier to advise on a specific case, but in general, raise the matter on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as all sources of information have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. It is possible to read an article and disagree with everything presented; this is fine as long as the sources are being accurately summarized.

If the sources are not being accurately summarized, please detail how on the relevant article talk page. If the sources are accurately summarized, but in error, you will need to take that up with the sources directly, or offer more current sources with what you deem to be more accurate information. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Weird redirect

What is the purpose of User:Shelving? It redirects to the Google article. David10244 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I was all set to answer "sometimes new users do all kinds of weird (but mostly harmless) things on their user page", but it turns out this one's actually been discussed, and at some length. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 14#User:Shelving. —Cryptic 21:11, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Push-pins and the arrondissements of Paris

I've been working backwards through the bibliography of Georges Simenon's redoubtable Inspector Maigret, and I've come across an issue which to best of my knowledge hasn't been addressed: The Mystery of the Vanishing Push-pins. By way of providing the reader a sense of place—not everyone knows how Parisian geography works—maps of several scales usually do the trick. E.g., Maigret and the Informer. Click on the conveniently labeled Arrondissements of Paris or Place Adolphe-Max, however, and the numerals and the push-pin vanish, respectively. Not only is this is an annoying digital artifact, making and uploading a screenshot of what's already extant is cumbersome. In Maigret and the Dead Girl jurisdictions are an introductory plot element. How does one illustrate this without imitating Rube Goldberg? What about when and if the arrondissements are the plot point and jurisdictions come into play? kencf0618 (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

There are times when the best answer is "without using a map". I can't say if this is one of those or not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Thw first answer is "definitely not with a gallery section" because see WP:GALLERY. I have no interest in fixing it myself but maybe you can if you're proverbially "in the area" anyway.

If it would help the reader's understanding, appending a (perhaps annotated) image of a map of Paris' jurisdictions or arrondisements near the relevant text is certainly something you can do. I wouldn't use the actual street map feature because it's really just supposed to be used to identify the location of a place in its infobox. Athanelar (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Need help finding sources

I'm writing about seat belt signs on vehicles such as cars and aircraft. Searching for related terms brings up blogs. Is there any way to find reliable sources for a subject such as this? --ABx11 (she/they) 22:08, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

It's very very possible that "seatbelt signs" is just not a topic that reliable sources have wanted to publish about. If that's the case, then an article isn't possible - not until reliable sources change their minds and publish. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:19, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers if that ends up being the case, where would be a good place to write about them? --ABx11 (she/they) 22:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

My first guess is Seat belt - maybe there's better but I'm not sure. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

But not in any article unless you have reliable sources; maybe what you actually meant was Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, where there are recommendations for places outside of Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:02, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

(The problem with blogs isn't topic notability, it's that we flat-out don't believe them.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

@ABx11 You've stumbled into a common mistake here called writing articles backward. Wikipedia articles start from the sources, not the prose. If you want to write an article about a topic, the way to go about it is to first look for usable sources and then summarise what those sources say; that makes up the core of your article. If you do the reverse, write down whatever you know or want to include and then try to look for sources to corroborate that information, you end up with the potential of wasting your own time because it turns out the topic isn't notable and now you've written a lot of prose that you can't use unless you figure out somewhere else to put it.

Help:Your first article might be useful for you in guiding you through the process of writing an article. Athanelar (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Humboldt_Research_Award_recipients

Awardees of the Humboldt Prize is not updated to reflect recent awardees. ~2026-55946-85 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-55946-85, if you know of articles that category should be added to, I would encourage you to add it yourself! CMD (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

public internet

Hello, I am using shared public wifi right now. If I logged into my wikipedia account on this public wifi and somebody else using the same wifi uses it to vandalize wikipedia would my account be terminated as well because we share the same IP or am I just overthinking this? ~2026-55903-60 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Your account will not be terminated. Accounts often share wifi, for various reasons. CMD (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

As CMD said, accounts often share WiFi networks. But if you're planning to edit lots on that public network, you could always leave a note on your user page explaining that you're editing on a public network. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 02:59, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Some people also like to have an alternate account for use on public wifi if they edit on public wifi a lot. See WP:PUBSOCK. Athanelar (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)