Yes, absolutely. Just make a normally-formatted comment, like any other contributor to the discussion. Some people like to add '(Non-administrator comment)' or similar to their posts, but this is neither required, nor in my opinion particularly helpful. WP:AN and WP:ANI are for discussion of topics where admin intervention may prove necessary (i.e. to impose blocks etc). They are not places where admins alone determine for themselves how issues should be dealt with. Admins are given their tools to assist the community with ensuring the proper functioning of the project, but it is down to the community as a whole to determine, after discussion, what action may be required.
If you do post on the admin noticeboards, try to be concise and on topic, and to provide diffs etc when necessary. It helps a lot to get your posts taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an adminstrator who has been active at WP:ANI for many years, I want to say that productive comments by non-administrators are always welcome. Productive comments are those that analyze the actual evidence or present new evidence, that are based on a solid understanding of policies, guidelines and behavioral norms, and that encourage de-escalation of disputes and reasonable solutions, instead of inflaming matters. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And speaking as a non-administrator who's been about on Wikipedia for a fair old time too, I'd have to suggest that we generally prefer comments by admins that 'analyze the actual evidence or present new evidence, that are based on a solid understanding of policies, guidelines and behavioral norms'... etc, though we don't always get them. I don't consider it particularly helpful to imply that admins are somehow immune from some of the problematic behaviour we see at WP:AN/WP:ANI. We really don't need 'us and them' distinctions on noticeboards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump, I did not intend to imply that administrators never engage in inappropriate behavior there. Some of us ocasionally miss the mark. The question was about non-administrators commenting and that is what I tried to address, but your clarification is appreciated. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask, why would you want to? ANI, otherwise known as the WP:CESSPIT, is a time-sucking drama board. I try to ignore it as much as I can but occasionally get pulled in against my will when necessary. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, digging into dreary nuts and bolts of problems and trying to be help make sense of things is something I find quite appealing. So it is certainly possible! And I like to believe I may have even been useful at times, though I can't deny the possibility it's just that I've never been quite objectionable enough to warn or sanction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I put a request in the abortion article talk page for a change in the paraphrasing which I believe is most consistant with the rules. Someone replied with an essay which I believe wasn't relevant, so I explained that. However, other than this there hasn't been a reply. Abortion is a very prominent topic, and I'm sure many people are watching that page, so how come there haven't really been any replies to this? And how should I proceed? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I chimed in, for what it's worth. You should still leave it to consensus in this case and it is currently against you. I would advise maybe contributing somewhere else since that article is hell on earth to manage and we tend to be extra protective of it because people with agendas like to very subtly change things to fit an agenda, and this is arguably one of the most important articles to keep free from that mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind helping out with the article, however, I assume only the top sources are required for such an article, and I'm not sure if I'll have access to those.
Also, do you have evidence that a large amount of people are secretly manipulating the article on purpose for an agenda?
There is such wrong remark about Mohammad Reza the Hing Of Iran. it is important that you a fat check - the intnerview with Oriana Fallaci that it is referred to in the wikipedia .
the interview about women was as follow, not what you allowed to be read here - nothing about dispicable claim of sex object. pleaser correct .
During a 1973 interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, she challenged him directly on his comments about women. In that interview, he made statements suggesting that women had not produced major creative or political achievements comparable to men. Fallaci strongly objected and confronted him. ~2026-99083-6 (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: I think what they mean is they object to the preceding bit Mohammad Reza often spoke of women as sexual objects who existed only to gratify him because they interpreted it as being what she vehemently objected to his attitudes towards women refers to.
However, I'm unsure whether that's the intended interpretation. It may be that the reference cited mentions both that he objectified women and that he was confronted in an interview about his attitudes towards women, but not that he necessarily objectified women in the interview itself or that Fallaci confronted him about objectification, rather than about asserting that women had not produced major creative or political achievements comparable to men.
I don't have access to the reference so can't check which interpretation is closest to what it states, nor if it provides the extra detail about the nature of his statements in the interview provided by 2026-99083-6. – Scyrme (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OP, please note that we do not refer to anyone as a "Great King" in discussions among Wikipedia editors. This Pahlavi's title was "Shah" in reliable English language sources. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to all at Wikipedia and thank you so much much for creating the Thomas Edison Film Festival page. I am deeply grateful!!! My name is Jane Steuerwald, the TEFF Director/Executive Director of the Thomas A. Edison Media Arts Consortium. Today I tried to create an account so I could either add to or verify information on the Thomas Edison Film Festival page. I hope I did this correctly, but honestly I am not sure. Is there anyone there who can assist me? BTW - On a personal note, I have been a monthly supporter of Wikipedia for a number of years, and am a huge fan of what you do. I am deeply honored that this page was created. With sincere gratitude, Jane Steuerwald TEFF Director (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TEFF Director: The "View history" tab on Thomas Edison Film Festival shows it was created by User:Djflem in 2023. There are other contributors but Djflem wrote nearly all the current content and can be contacted at User talk:Djflem. They have over 100,000 edits and I don't know whether they are still interested in this article but that's what I would try if you want to discuss the content. If you have more general questions about editing then you can ask here. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apology. I didn't understand this. I was just making a correction to the site - TEFF does not accept feature films - only shorts. I also have read in a number of comments that since I am the director of TEFF I should not be making any changes. Again, I am so sorry - my only agenda was to correct some minor errors in our policies. FYI - we have a page on FilmFreeway too in case anyone is looking for accurate information about the history, mission, and practices of TEFF. Last question - should I change my user name? I created an account with a user name of TEFF Director. I assumed that that would be desirable as I am not pretending to be someone "neutral." One thing is certain - I will completely refrain from making any direct corrections to the site, and once again, I really am grateful that the page has been created. We are a modest non-profit arts organization with lots of heart - no red carpet aspirations. And I want to keep it that way. Thank you for listening and for your help. Jane Steuerwald, TEFF Director. TEFF Director (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary; you're new here and came and asked for advice. There's nothing wrong with that.
Thank you so much! Do you have any recommendations for a user name? Do people use their "real" names or something made up? My approach is always to be honest about who I am but if the is not advised, I can adjust. Your advice is appreciated! Jane TEFF Director (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It can be your actual name (first, or last, or both, or a nickname), a made-up name, a goofy phrase, etc. And it can include your affiliation along with your name (or whatever else you make up). But it can't just be an organization-name or job-title (a shared "WP:ROLE" account) because the policy is that each account is tied to one person. In the future, someone else from the same organization or with the same job-title might want to edit here. DMacks (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be advisable to keep it (unless it's insecure or otherwise rendered useless). Does the film festival have a website where it states that it only accepts shorts? I'm pretty sure that would fall under our "about self" exception and be usable as a source mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Wikipedia?
WHAT HAPPENED TO WIKIPEDIA??? For years I have used AND CONTRIBUTED to Wikipedia. Now I click on my favorite link to Wikipedia and I am taken to a news page but no option to look up info. I use Wikipedia several times a week and consider it a treasure of information. After ½ hr of searching and clicking links I can not find the "old" Wikipedia. What happened? Where is it? Do I need to descend to google search again for info?
@Gck80: Depending on circumstances like screen size, you may have to click a magnifying glass icon to get a search box. If the change was in 2023 then you can get back to the old Wikipedia when you are logged in by selecting "Vector legacy" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Please post a link to the page your favorite link leads to. The English Wikipedia is at https://en.wikipedia.org. That link says en.wikipedia.org in case something outside Wikipedia changes the url for you. Many other websites show our content but sometimes close or change. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You would presumably have to contact the school in question. There's not much Wikipedia can do about this. This is generally for help with Wikipedia issues. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
مرحبًا! هذه هي الويكيبيديا الإنجليزية، يجب أن تسأل عن الويكيبيديا العربية (كن أكثر وضوحًا بعض الشيء، على الرغم من أنني أشك في أن كون سؤالك باللغة العربية يجعله أكثر تحديدًا) (أعتذر عن اللغة العربية السيئة، فأنا أستخدم ترجمة جوجل) mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USERBIO tells us userpages should not contain Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia. While it is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary and superfluous to use one's userpage as a list of identity labels, I would say it's neither 'inappropriate' nor 'excessive' and so nothing needs to be done about it. Athanelar (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Ambassador Loeb would like to replace the current B&W photo with a color headshot. It is his personal picture and over 20 years old. He would also like to add a paragraph regarding his Military service. I have tried to change the picture which is uploaded and shows in the thumbnails but wont replace the current photo. I tried to add the paragraph which I was able to add but I can't get the font and font size from the tool bar. Nothing matches what is currently there. I was going to try and cut and paste from a word document but I don't want to screw up what is currently on the Wiki. I have spent days trying to do this and I really need some help. Ambassador lob is in his 90s and I am trying to help him.
Please let me know what I am doing wrong and can you help me.
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.
Requesting Assistance in contacting the writers of a scientific paper
Hello. Can Wikipedia assist in contacting the author(s) of this Scientific journal?
I would like to clarify what the authors are referring to when they mentioned the "Eastern Hathor Basin" (page 43/ PDF page 9/19). Looking at the map of Ganymede, and based on the latitude and longitude given of 69° S, 265° W, I think what they are calling "Eastern Hathor Basin" is actually Hathor Basin itself, and they mislabeled the crater. Therefore, the correct name of the subject should have been called "Eastern Teshub Basin". (see map below)
The authors names are Pierre G. Thomas | Olivier P. Forni | Philippe L. Masson.
Hi IapetusCallistus. "Wikipedia" is a a collaborative editing project made up of WP:VOLUNTEERs from all over the world; so, there's really no "central office" per se which could aid you in contacting the authors of this paper. One of the volunteer editor's could, I guess, decide to try and help you out (I guess), but you're probably better off trying to contact these people yourself via the Laboratoire de Geologie Dynamique Interne, UniversitP de Paris XI, Orsay, France. Given that the paper was published in 1984, there's no way to know for sure whether any of the authors are still at that university or even whether they're still alive. You could try googling their names to see whether you getting any hits; you might get lucky and find more recent information about one or more of them which contain more current contact info. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Université de Paris XI was subsumed into Paris-Saclay University in 2019, so the original laboratory and the department it belonged to no longer exist. I think the equivalent department today is the Paris-Saclay Geosciences Laboratory, which now occupies the same buildings (Bâtiment 504 et 509) of the Orsay campus, but based on the staff listed the original authors no longer work there. I doubt anyone would have any luck in contacting the current staff about this. If the original authors are still active with another institution, even if their contact info were publicly available, it's unlikely they remember much about this after over 40 years. – Scyrme (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. Awwww.. bummer. I guess I'll have to wait until 2031 before ESA Juice mission arrives at Ganymede for more information. IapetusCallistus (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After a considerable search for reliable, secondary, in-depth sources independent of the person. And after a lot of thinking. Who are you thinking of writing up? (Your boss? Yourself?) -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary is correct that finding (and citing) significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is by far the most important step in writing an acceptable Wikipedia article. Once you have those sources, pretty much all you have to do is neutrally summarize what they say. Please read the help page Your first article for additional advice. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting an article into existing pages & deleting
Hi,
I want to propose splitting a stub article across 2 different articles and then deleting the original page. The page is First XI, which I would propose splitting between Glossary of cricket terms & Glossary of association football terms. I'm not sure this warrants a full article on its own & it cites no sources.
Is there a standard practice for doing this, both a split & request for deletion? Also, how should redirects be handled? Most links to First XI come from sports-related pages so can be redirected to their corresponding sports glossary, but some redirects are neutral between sports (see most here [1]). As I type this maybe this is evidence against the split.
First: your terminology is off, to 'split' an article is to create a new article from a section of an existing article. Combining one or more articles together is called a 'merge'.
Second, there's no need here for any complex procedure. You're free to boldly WP:BLAR (BLank And Redirect) the First XI article if you think it's sensible; if someone disagrees they can just revert.
India won the match. while, its wrongly mentioned as Pakistan in the Wikipedia. Kindly correct it ~2026-10936-23 (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lizzie Elkin First, as you are editing about a client, the Terms of Use require you to comply with the paid editing policy and make a formal disclosure on your user page.
The trouble you are having is that you are telling us what you want the world to know about your client, like its activities and offerings. That is the wrong approach. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is usually critical analysis and commentary as to what sources view as important/significant/influential about the topic, not what it views as its own importance. Most companies on Earth actually do not meet the criteria to merit a Wikipedia article, just as most people do not.
Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your client; this explains why it is very unlikely you will succeed at what you are attempting, especially as a new user without prior editing experience. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform here, and it's harder with a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How to fix dead link template with archived copy?
So I was looking at my list of pages and I noticed someone had attempted to tag a link as dead on the article Some Kind of Wonderful (film).
It is for a fansite devoted to the film and has a lot of information on the movie. It also appears to have been added a LONG time ago to the article.
The website appears to be permanently down, however I found a mostly intact copy on the Wayback machine.
How can I edit this into the page without going against the RFC about the Archive, if it pertains to this instance?
I'm sorry, but if the deadlink was to a fansite, it was almost certainly not a reliable source, and should not have been cited in the first place. The citation, and any information in the article which depends only on that citation, should be removed. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By changing the parameter url-status in the citataion to url-status=dead. If there is an archive-url parameter pointing to the archive, this will cause the citation to show that link as "archived at". ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Hello! I think we're getting our wires crossed. I want to make the link under "external links" point to an archived copy. How exactly do I do this step-by-step? I don't recall doing this before. Thanks! Urbanracer34 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, @Urbanracer34, so it's just an external link, not a citation. My answer related to a citation template such as {{cite web}}.
Simply replace the URL with the URL of the archived copy. If you like, you can make the display text (after the pipe) explain that this is an archived copy, but I don't think there's much need. ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since one year now, i am trying to add an infobox to the article of "Angeln", the region where the name of England and the English language ultimately derives from, and therefore, although pretty small, a very important region. The infobox includes four pictures, and summarizes the main geographical facts about Angeln. It can be seen in the previous version of "Angeln". However, everytime i insert it, it is being deleted again. What can be done about that? Greetings Ephesos21 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but back then I asked about all the changes in general. This time I'm only asking about the infobox. The only way I can add content to the article is by discussing everything individually, so I'm asking specifically about the infobox for now. The infobox only contains four images and summarizes the obvious facts about the peninsula. Is there any justification for deleting an infobox if someone adds one to an article? Ephesos21 (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but it's strange that none of this seems to bother you. As a regular user, you could also support my changes. You can compare my version with the current one, and it's quite obvious that my version is a significant improvement. Generally speaking, it's odd that someone would try to delete an infobox, because nothing is more informative than such a box. It's absolutely baffling why anyone would find my version worse than the current one, unless they're deliberately trying to make the region look as bad as possible. Ephesos21 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the other person what their arguments against an infobox were, but I haven't received a reply. How long do I have to wait before I can insert the infobox? Ephesos21 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ephesos21, instead of worrying about an infobox, you should work on improving the referencing of the article in compliance with the core content policy Verifiability. That article is in terrible shape and any editor would be perfectly justified in removing vast quantities of unreferenced content. Once the article is properly referenced and complies with core content policies, then you can think about optional things like infoboxes. Cullen328 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi. I am attempting to write my first Wikipedia article. I have gotten familiar with the general rules and also corrected my drafts over the course of about a month. I am not sure how off base I am with my submission at this point and would love some help. Particularly, it seems that different people are on the fence about if my article will qualify under the notability standards. Can someone help with that so I don't spend too much of my time on something that isn't ready to be approved. Thank you Tomdvocate (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
That template still makes a link. If it was usurped rather than just becoming a defunct/dead link, it may not be safe to keep the link. – Scyrme (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Website defunct for now, but I do think it would make sense to have a distinct template for usurped urls, such as could warn users who click on them before continuing to the site (speaking as someone who clicked on the UPNE link). I see there's Template:Usurped but that's explicitly for archive urls so not applicable here Placeholderer (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I am a Bangladeshi and I want to come to your country and work in your company. Can you help me in any way? If you can help me, please let me know. Please help me. ~2026-10987-46 (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Help desk for editing the English language Wikipedia, which is a worldwide volunteer project. Wilipedia is not a company in the traditional sense. "Your country" is meaningless here since Wikipedia editors live in hundreds of countries. We cannot offer emigration assistance. Good luck to you. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the help desk for Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia written by volunteer editors.
We are not paid anything for our volunteer efforts, and we do not have a job for you.
We have many articles about companies all across the world, but none of those companies are affiliated with us in any way. MEN KISSING(she/they) T - C - Email me!07:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Searching notifications on the phone
Is there a way to search through our notifications—like for the name of a sender or key words in a topic—when we’re working on our phone rather than our computer?
Hello!
I am unable to add a note to an already existing page. Maybe my settings are not well configured.
May you give me full & detailed instructions?
Thanks. Settignano (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Settignano: Some pages a protected but I cannot tell from your post whether that's the issue here. Please always give the exact title or URL of any page you want help with. Also say where in the page you want to add the note. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: The diff in Peter Parnall shows you removed the title and the reference error says "Missing or empty |title=". Do you really just want help to restore the title you removed? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, in the article's History section, there's this sentence: That year, during an international reception, Ho Chi Minh asked cinematographer Phan Thế Hùng:"When will you let our people watch television?"
After I re-reviewed the translation, I think it may be a good translation already. To be honest, the original speech is difficult to be translated into another language, but I came up with "When can our people watch television?", which isn't really close to the literal translation; it will be better if both the original and the translated version are displayed. EmperorChesser15:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@EmperorChesser: I don't think that sentence is particularly important, so a slightly imperfect translation is probably OK. Obviously English and Vietnamese are very different so there will often be more than one way to translate a sentence. I wouldn't add the Vietnamese version as 99% (made up statistic) of en Wikipedia readers will not understand it. However there are likely to be worse examples of machine translation, so if you can improve those you will improve the article. And if you (have time to) fix the major problems you could remove the rough translation tag. TSventon (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see that there is a discussion going on about the image of Nancy Guthrie and whether the image is fair use. I was under the impression, from lots of other missing‑person pages, that it is fair use to use an image to identify them under:
"This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non‑free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non‑free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non‑free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non‑free content licence listed at Category:Wikipedia non‑free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work:
To illustrate the subject in question
Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
On the English‑language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non‑profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non‑free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights."
Lots of other missing‑person pages use this, even Featured ones, so I just want to get clarity on this. Do they have to be missing for an extended period of time before it is fair use? I am assuming that is the issue for the discussion. Otherwise, how are other missing‑person pages allowed to use fair‑use images? ItsShandog (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ItsShandog. We can use non-free images of people who have died, but the hope is that Nancy Guthrie is still alive. The relevant policy language can be found at Non-free content- images. If you mention specific other articles, we can address the reasoning for other images. Sometimes an image of a missing person is released free of copyright, removing any obstacle to its use on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at several missing‑person articles — for example Natalee Holloway, which is a Featured Article, and Maura Murray, which is a Good Article — both use fair‑use images. One case involves a subject who is now presumed dead, while the other involves a subject who is not, yet both articles use the same non‑free rationale — the same one I quoted earlier. This is the standard approach across missing‑person articles, including the examples I mentioned and many others, a lot of whom have never been declared dead or have no proof of death and remain missing in the same way as Nancy. ItsShandog (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But that’s exactly what I was asking in the previous question — do the subjects have to be missing for a certain amount of time before a fair‑use image is allowed? Even in cases where someone is presumed dead, many of those individuals are not legally declared dead, so the situation is the same as any other long‑term missing person. So what would the time frame be — two years, three years, four years? How long does someone have to be missing before a fair‑use image becomes acceptable under that interpretation? ItsShandog (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Laws vary by country, but in the US, seven years missing leads to a legal presumption that the person is dead. At that point, their estate can be distributed to heirs. The time is shorter based on circumstances like shipwrecks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So any person who has been missing for more than seven years is allowed to have a fair‑use image, but anyone missing for less than that would not be allowed one unless they were legally declared dead or confirmed dead? That makes sense if that is the rule, but this is exactly why I was asking for clarity — I was confused about whether there is actually a time requirement.
There is also the FBI poster on the page. I know the poster itself is in the public domain, but the photograph of Nancy that appears inside the poster would not be. So what happens in that situation, since the overall poster is public domain but the embedded image is not? ItsShandog (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ItsShandog, you seem to be asking for an easy, hard-and-fast rule. But copyright law is very complex and each contested image needs to be evaluated on its own merits. It is clear that a person who has been missing for a few weeks is in a different category than a person who has been missing for several decades without proof of life. As for the FBI poster, keep in mind that photos taken by employees of the US federal government as part of their job duties are copyright free and in the public domain. But copyrighted photos distributed by the US government do not lose their copyright status. I encourage you to think in different terms than a missing person "is allowed to have" a photo. The question is about the suitability of specific photos, not missing people. One photo may be acceptable and another one not acceptable. When a photo is contested, a convincing policy based argument must be given to keep that specific photo. "Similar articles have similar photos" is a weak, unconvincing argument. Cullen328 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you’re saying, and I’m not trying to create a hard‑and‑fast rule. The reason I’ve been asking these questions is because I’m trying to understand how NFCC is actually being applied in practice. NFCC doesn’t contain any time‑based requirement, yet the concern being raised here seems to rely on the idea that Nancy hasn’t been missing long enough. That’s why I’ve been looking at comparable articles — not to say “other articles do it”, but to understand what the actual distinction is meant to be.
I’ve also found new examples of recent missing‑person cases that use fair‑use images, which makes the time‑based argument even harder to follow. For instance, Gus Lamont has only been missing since September last year, and Sudiksha Konanki has been missing since March last year. Both of those cases are very recent, neither involves a legal presumption of death, and both use fair‑use images under the same type of rationale. Their images were uploaded around the same time the disappearances happened — exactly the same situation as Nancy’s.
I’m assuming there is some kind of review process for these images, so if they were unsuitable under NFCC I would expect them to be flagged for deletion as well. That’s why I’m struggling with the rationale being given here. I understand your point about each image being evaluated individually, but at the same time the explanation doesn’t make sense when you look at how similar cases are handled. If every case is judged on the specific image rather than the fact that the person is missing, then I’m trying to understand what the actual difference is between those photos and Nancy’s, because the circumstances are extremely similar other than the fact she is presumed kidnapped. ItsShandog (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We now have a discussion going on in two places, which is sub-optimal. Your assumption that there is some kind of "central approval authority" that OKs these photos is incorrect. That does not exist. It is done by individual volunteer editors on a case by case basis, as is taking place here and at Files for discussion, which is the appropriate place to make a decision about this specific image. If no volunteer notices that an image is erroneously licensed, then nothing will be done about it. In the case of Sudiksha Konanki, her parents have asked that she be declared legally dead. That is a major difference from the Guthrie case. As for Gus Lamont, perhaps there is an aspect of Australian copyright law that I do not know about. My hunch is that this image should probably be deleted but I am not going to nominate it myself because I do not know enough about the specific circumstances. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A Request for Assistance
Dear Wikipedia Brothers and Sisters,
It has been almost 10 years since I have contributed to Wikipedia.
My interest has been and continues to be Native American History.
Unfortunately, I am not up to date on any protocols for contributors.
I would like to start again after these many years.
I recently noticed that the article I wrote on Major Israel McCreight is missing or deleted.
When I hit the button to go to the article on McCreight I am directed automatically to the one on American Horse.
2. The article I wrote on Chief Blue Horse has been deleted.
Brothers and Sisters, I would like to respectfully request that the articles on Chief Blue Horse and Major Israel McCreight be restored.
Hello, Richlevine00. Chief Blue Horse was renamed Blue Horse (Lakota leader) because we do not use honorific titles in article names. It was then discovered that the article contained copyright violations and it was deleted in 2019 for that reason. Copyright compliance is very important. Please read all of the messages on your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Griffith 4o0
Why is an incorrect picture of a Griffith 400 posted in the article?
I presently own Griffith 4006055 which was originally used as the Griffith 400 picture. The posted picture is NOT a Griffith 400 due to its incorrect hood. How does a "CORRECT" picture of a Griffith 400 get posted? ~2026-11202-73 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, in 2022 an editor called Prova MO (who hasn't edited now since the middle of 2024) replaced the image that was there before Image that was in the article till 2022 by the current one, saying "Better quality image". The current image was taken from a Flickr picture (here) which is identified as "TVR Griffith 400 (1966)".
If you think the image is wrong, you are welcome to replace it. I think you are saying that the image originally in the article was correct. If that is so, it is easy to replace: you just edit the article and replace File:TVR Griffith 400 (1966) 003.jpg by File:1966Griffith400.JPG. Make sure you explain in the edit summary why you are changing the image, so people won't think this is vandalism. ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first of your (so far) two edits. Your edit summary: "this is my first fixing thingy so i don't really know but i changed a misspelling". You changed an instance of ⟨millimetres⟩ to ⟨millimeters⟩.
The millimetre (SI symbol: mm; international spelling) or millimeter (American spelling) is a unit of length in the International System of Units (SI), equal to one thousandth of a metre, the SI base unit of length.
So ⟨millimetres⟩ is hardly a misspelling. However, the spelling might be undesirable all the same, if the article Switchblade is -- quotations, etc, aside -- in US English. (See National varieties of English.) So, does the article appear to be in US or in UK English?
But what's a far bigger problem is that "Single action OTF knives" is completely unreferenced. Do you happen to have access to reliable information about switchblades? If not (and of course most people don't), then is there some subject area about which you do have good, reliable, published information? -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Response above written when far too sleepy. And so: If a spelling is unfamiliar, don't assume that it's mistaken. Do not attempt to convert what's written in "British" (non-US) English into US (non-British) English, or of course vice versa. Misspellings and the like are rarely as important as referencing. See how referencing works in good articles and improve it in not-so-good articles. Don't think of using "artificial intelligence" to help you or Wikipedia: it's nowhere near as "intelligent" as many of its users assume. HTH! -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not host social media style profiles where people tell about themselves. This is an encyclopedia of articles, which are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- such as a notable person.
Please see the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, writing about yourself is discouraged. However, if independent sources have written about you and what makes you notable, and you think you can set aside what you know about yourself, only summarizing the sources, you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Versions111: please do not give misleading information. User pages are not provided as a means to create 'profiles'. Contributors who usefully participate in the project, e.g. by making a significant number of edits to subjects with which they have no connection, are permitted to post limited autobiographical content, per Wikipedia:User pages guidelines. Signing up and then doing nothing but create a promotional userpage is unacceptable: the page is very likely to be deleted, and the contributor risks being blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dietz appears at first to be a notable academic with an impressive background. In reality, he considers his wikipedia bio to be his personal play space, has edited it multiple times, and largely ignores his talk page.
His content and reference list are promotional Linked-in style content, and the references are all papers he has co-authored. I am seeking advice as to how to deal with this very common sort of content. To be quite frank, I would reduce his bio to
Joerg Dietz is a German professor at HEC Lausanne. He has co-authored several papers.
Joerg Dietz is an excellent example of why people should not control their own Wikipedia articles. The impression it gives, at least to the undersigned, is "Joerg Dietz writes papers about vacuous bullshit such as 'contextual antecedents'. He's good at getting them published, but there's no evidence that anyone ever reads them." Maproom (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a start I've tagged the article for G11 (unambiguous promotion) speedy deletion. We'll see if whichever admin sees it agrees, if not I think it's an open-and-shut AfD candidate. Athanelar (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just had to laugh. There is an old joke about behavioral psychologists having unruly dogs. Well, this fellow specializes in "organizational behavior"... And no comment on how he behaves. If there is an Afd please let me know. The page deserves deletion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic notes
Hello to everybody. I am not getting an answer to my previous question.
I will put it straight:
how to add a note (number, etc.) to the text of an already existing page?
@Settignano I understand you want to add a reference to National Air Communications. If you want to reference a book you could follow the format of an existing reference. Reference 5 uses the following code
<ref>{{harvp|Bluffield||2009|page=205}}</ref> in the Activation and dispersal section
*{{cite book |last=Bluffield |first=Robert |date=2009 |title=Imperial Airways – The Birth of the British Airline Industry 1914-1940 |publisher=Ian Allan |isbn=978-1-906537-07-4}} in the references section
In some pages, after the notes (see above), there is a list of books and other written/printed documents to delve deeper into the topic.
Headlines are both "References" or "Bibliography".
Which is the correct one? Settignano (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The usual heading, if I'm understanding you correctly (and if the "books and other written/printed documents" are in addition to the works cited in the article), is "Further reading". See MOS:FURTHER. Deor (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject at some length, in a reliable publication (see WP:42 for more detail).
If you cannot find the sources, the subject is not notable (as Wikipedia uses the word) and you should go and do something else.
If you can find several such sources, then an article is possible. "Forget" everything that you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what the sources say - even those that you disagree with.
Unpublished information cannot be used; and nothing you personally know about the subject can be used unless it has been reliably published. ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am familiar with the criteria but whatever I do myself will by definition be biased, given that I used to know him. There is WP:RSN but no equivalent for notability. I was hoping to get some others to build the page. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This user Dangermanmeetz seems to have a problem with me, with following proper sources content and misinterpretation. We've had an issue with edit warring, and I called helpful voices to the Akwete cloth talk page. His edits were by and large declared wrong and my alarm on his false sourcing and original research was correct. I gave sources on the talk page even to appeal to all concensus on other motifs, all to be fair. I reverted to the version that goes with what the talk page concensus was. After the talk page discussions in which his sources were debunked, which he barely contributed in, he only reappears to make an edit while chastising me for his perceived wrong.
He says that the akwete cloth wasnt only inspired/ copied from ikaki designs from aso olona. Well, that is not what the statement says, because the sources say "main", "most popular" etc, but he seems to have some problems with that. That is what he specifically tweaks while chastising me rudely, also he doesnt reverted to his previous "common" motif version and edits it to" a motif" which isnt how the source presents it, because the sources are pretty clear cut on the level of importance of the ikaki/ikakibite motif.
This isn't even like in the main paragraph of the article even if it deserves to be, but to keep peace it is placed and has been placed in the motifs section. But that isn't enough for him, he has to diminish facts.
Here is what he said when he made his edit
"Again, Dolpina continues to misrepresent history despite the fact that another user explained in clear detail that there are OTHER designs that were not gotten from Aso Olona. The user has learned absolutely nothing."
What exactly am I to do here with someone who seems hellbound on picking a fight, and not accepting reality of sourced concensus. I find his behaviour off-putting and his tone suggesting he is more interested in edit warring again. Dolpina (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is Dark Justice more softcore or Hardcore? The list says softcore, the article on Dark Justice itself says hardcore. Unfortunately, this might not get answered, considering how obscure Dark Justice Is.~2026-24671-3 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to a question about why something is in a particular article is nearly always because some editor decided it was appropriate to put it in, and nobody has since decided to take it out.
I suggest you post an item on that talk page, saying something like: "I don't believe ... belong in the list because ..., and I would like to remove them".
Then either somebody will come and argue the matter with you, or if nobody objects in, say, a week, you can remove them from the list yourself. As always, especially when removing material from an article, be sure to give a brief explanation in your edit summary. ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted draft
Hi - I had a draft deleted a few months back, and I want to get retrieve it and see whether it's worth working on. Who can I ask to undelete it? Blackballnz (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English-language Wikipedia. Any biography hosted here will have to be written in English. See Help:Your first article but note that creating new articles is very difficult for inexperienced contributors, and frequently results in failure and frustration. Would you perhaps be better off trying the Spanish-language Wikipedia? [3]AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Luis Mauricio Sibilla
psicólogo destacado mendocino, aportó en varias áreas de psicología,aporte a libros,investigación sobre conceptualización en palomas y etología,publicados en Psicologí abstract y presentados por el destacado profesor de Psicología Profesor Carlos Fachinelli en Bohum,Alemania.Sibilla uno de los primeros en trabajar en computación para niños en el (CPA)Centro de .Luego de graduarse,fue un pionero en equinoterapia para niños con diversos problemas neurológicos y psicológicos.
Pericias psicológicas y consultor de empresas.Su dedicación al bienestar de los demás lo llevó a realizar consutorio en Clínica Psicológica y asesoramiento de empresas..Es muy dedicada y vasta su trayectoria,muy estimados por su comunidad.Dedicó su vida a la psicología hasta su muerte el 10 de enero de 2025.
This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
14:08, 10 November 2025 Explicit talk contribs deleted page Philip Shishov (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Shishov (XFDcloser)) (thank)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Shishov. Whether you requested deletion or not has nothing to do with why the article was deleted. Per the note at the top of the AfD discussion, you can ask for it to be restored, but note that unless the subject can be shown to meet the necessary criteria (e.g. through significant coverage in secondary sources) it is liable to be deleted again. And also note that if you are Shishov, you need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Asia Rose Simpson's Correct Age And Birthyear According To The Eat Bulaga's Segment The Age Is Right Which Is 18 Years Old And 2007 But Not Yet Announced The Birthmonth Of Asia Rose Thank You For This Questions Gabby121995 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i'm aware of Special:Contribs being a shortcut to Special:Contributions, and of Special:CA being a shortcut to Special:CentralAuth. my question is: are there any more shortcuts like this? there is Help:Special page § Alphabetical order, which does list shortcuts, but i added the CA shortcut to the list, so there might be more not in the list. ltbdl (master) 16:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there's a comprehensive list, however I do know of Special:MakeSysop → Special:UserRights, and Special:PermaLink → Special:PermanentLink dot.py16:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Special:WhatLinksHere doesn't seem to work for Special pages so there doesn't seem to be an easy way to check for redirects (and I'm not sure that these shortcuts work as redirects anyway).
I was able to find a list of aliases at MW:Special page names. However, the list doesn't seem to be up to date. Some of the aliases don't work, even when trying variations with/without spaces or variations in capitalisation, and others are missing (Special:CA for Special:CentralAuth). That said, it did include some that were not already listed (eg. Special:Users for Special:ListUsers).
I suspect there's an up-to-date array of aliases ($specialPageAliases) located in MessagesEn.php, but it's probably only accessible to admins. May be worth asking over at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
As an aside, I'm not sure adding shortcuts to that list as regular entries is a good idea, since it pads out the list with non-unique entries. If it were to include shortcuts, it may be be better to include them as subpoints, like:
Special:Contributions
Special:Contribs
That way they're distinct from the main entries and kept together rather than scattered around according to alphabetical order.
Got a very helpful reply which provided a link to an API query which gives the up-to-date list. Here's a summary of aliases and shortcuts, omitting aliases where the only difference was upper case was changed to lower case:
List of aliases and shortcuts for special pages
List of aliases/shortcuts for special pages
Special:AccountSecurity
Special:Manage Two-factor authentication
Special:OATH Manage
Special:OATHManage
Special:OATH
Special:Two-factor authentication
Special:OATHAuth
Special:AllMyUploads
Special:AllMyFiles
Special:AutoblockList
Special:ListAutoblocks
Special:AutomaticTranslation
Special:MinT
Special:Block
Special:BlockIP
Special:BlockUser
Special:BlockList
Special:ListBlocks
Special:IPBlockList
Special:Book
Special:Collection
Special:ChangePassword
Special:ResetPass
Special:ResetPassword
Special:CentralAuth
Special:GlobalAccount
Special:CA
Special:CiteThisPage
Special:Cite
Special:CollabPad
Special:Collab Pad
Special:CommunityConfiguration
Special:CommunityConfig
Special:Contributions
Special:Contribs
Special:DeletedContributions
Special:DeletedContribs
Special:DeletePage
Special:Delete
Special:DownloadAsPdf
Special:ElectronPDF
Special:EditChecks
Special:Edit checks
Special:EditPage
Special:Edit
Special:EmailUser
Special:Email
Special:EntityUsage
Special:EntityUsageData
Special:GlobalBlockList
Special:ListGlobalBlocks
Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist
Special:GlobalBlockStatus
Special:DisableGlobalBlock
Special:GlobalContributions
Special:GlobalContribs
Special:GlobalUnblock
Special:RemoveGlobalBlock
Special:GlobalUserRights
Special:GlobalGroupMembership
Special:IPContributions
Special:IPContribs
Special:ListFiles
Special:FileList
Special:ImageList
Special:ListDuplicatedFiles
Special:ListFileDuplicates
Special:ListGroupRights
Special:UserGroupRights
Special:ListUsers
Special:UserList
Special:Users
Special:Log
Special:Logs
Special:LonelyPages
Special:OrphanedPages
Special:MassGlobalBlock
Special:MultiGlobalBlock
Special:MostLinkedCategories
Special:MostUsedCategories
Special:MostLinkedFiles
Special:MostFiles
Special:MostImages
Special:MostLinkedPages
Special:MostLinked
Special:MostTranscludedPages
Special:MostLinkedTemplates
Special:MostUsedTemplates
Special:MyContributions
Special:MyContribs
Special:MyUploads
Special:MyFiles
Special:NewFiles
Special:NewImages
Special:OAuth
Special:MWOAuth
Special:OAuthManageMyGrants
Special:OAuthGrants
Special:OAuthConsumerRegistration
Special:OAuthRegistration
Special:PageHistory
Special:History
Special:PageInfo
Special:Info
Special:PagesWithBadges
Special:QueryBadges
Special:PagesWithProp
Special:PagesByProp
Special:PendingChanges
Special:OldReviewedPages
Special:PermanentLink
Special:PermaLink
Special:ProtectPage
Special:Protect
Special:Random
Special:RandomPage
Special:RecentChangesLinked
Special:RelatedChanges
Special:SiteMatrix
Special:WikimediaWikis
Special:Statistics
Special:Stats
Special:TemplateDiscovery
Special:Template Discovery
Special:TemplateSearch
Special:ContentTranslation
Special:CX
Special:Transcode statistics
Special:TranscodeStatistics (An exception to the usual pattern where it'd be expected the page would be located here, but on ~enwiki it isn't)
Special:Transcode Statistics (Rare exception where the page isn't located at the capitalised version)
Update: I've gone ahead and updated Help:Special page § Alphabetical order to list shortcuts/aliases. That page also already listed some links which redirect to other special pages, but which are not aliases of one another according to the list given by the API. I've left them in, but haven't labelled them as shortcuts/aliases. – Scyrme (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accidentally introducing unknown params on mobile editor
I occasionally use the mobile app to make suggested edits by adding short descriptions and images. However, another user recently left me a message on my talk page saying that when I added an image, caption, and alt text, I introduced unknown parameters. Here's the edit where they fixed my mistake. [4]
I'm trying to understand what I did wrong and how I can prevent it from happening again. I was using the pre-written fields on the mobile app (a field that says "caption" and typing in a caption, and the same for alt text). I wasn't manually putting in parameters or using the source editor. How can I make sure I'm using the correct parameters when editing on mobile like this? Should I go back and fix all the other image edits I've made on mobile?
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I would like to ask whatgeneric naming refers to as when I was editing Birmingham City Council it was stated something likeyour edit is deleted due to detected generic naming
Zakariah Hayat Khan, the message asks you to correct errors in your edit, it hasn't been deleted. First and last in a reference template should be human first and last names, if it is useful to add an organisation as an author, you can put the whole name as "author", rather than splitting it between first and last. Category:CS1 errors: generic name has a list of words like editor which should not be entered in the first and last fields.
In your edit the problems are likely to be |last2=correspondent |first2=Neha Gohil Midlands in the Guardian reference and |last=Council |first=Birmingham City in the www.birmingham.gov.uk reference. Both strings can be removed as they don't provide any extra information. You could also replace |website=www.birmingham.gov.uk, which duplicates the url, with |website=Birmingham City Council. TSventon (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going improving an article that has a decently high number of article splits. Specifically, it is a city, and has many sections common to cities (e.g. History, Transportation), but also corresponding articles (e.g. History of [City], Transportation in [City]). I'm trying to shepherd the article through a GA nomination, and think the main article meets criteria, but am unsure whether the splits also need to be brought up to the main standard.
I despair about how much time it is taking to go through and verifying a single 300-citation article, let alone going through these splits and not just verifying, but building out and image-adding. I'd prefer not to if not necessary, but don't want to waste a GA reviewer's time given the backlog on noms.
If there is a general policy, I was not able to find it on a casual look on the Good Article page. Any guidance or a redirection to ask my question there would be appreciated. Kwkintegrator (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kwkintegrator, let's imagine that the city in question is Ottawa. Supposing for a moment that it is so, are you asking whether it's true that
"The article Ottawa has a section titled 'History'. This has a hatnote: Main article: History of Ottawa. In order for Ottawa to be promoted to GA, would History of Ottawa first have to be promoted to GA; and likewise for other articles (such as Geography of Ottawa) similarly pointed to by hatnotes atop other sections"
? If this is what you are asking, then "yes" would greatly surprise me. Where have you read a suggestion that this is so? But perhaps I have utterly misread your question. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kwkintegrator, I agree with Hoary. A Good Article assessment is an assessment of that article and not in any way an assessment of related articles. I would also like to point out that there is no need to frame your question as a hypothetical. Evasiveness is not helpful. When you are asking a question about a specific article, please furnish the title of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary@Cullen328Ottawa is absolutely the article in question. Just figured for the specifics were not particularly relevant, apologies for the inconvenience. Your phrasing of that question is pretty close, I suppose the only thing I'd change is that I'm not asking about the status of the "History of Ottawa" page needing to get to GA status prior to "Ottawa" receiving GA status.
The succinct question is then: "The article Ottawa has a section titled 'History'. This has a hatnote: Main article: History of Ottawa. In order for Ottawa to be promoted to GA, is the quality of the articles corresponding to these section titles taken into account?"
To answer another good question, I have never seen a suggestion that article splits that are linked out to need be maintained at the same quality. The question stems from my own reasoning that someone might see the relationship between Ottawa and Geography of Ottawa as hierarchical/subsidiary, and thought I'd look for an answer proactively.
To answer the last topic of discussion, I am not looking to attempt to get Ottawa to featured topic status. The question is very much limited only to the Good Article process. Kwkintegrator (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is no. Outside of glossary links (where links should actually exist on the page being referenced) we don't look at other pages. We would, however, expect some sort of summary of the article in the main article. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)14:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Archives on my talk page
I have started to archive my talk page (first manually, now through a bot) to hide old warnings as it may be less impressionable as an AfC reviewer. Now, I want to be able to sort them chronologically, with the first being 24-25 as I had rarely any edits and conversations in 24, and then yearly from then onwards. However, I am finding it difficult to do so with the following aspects:
1. My main talk page only says "Archive 1" and "Archive 2" without the year in parentheses, despite page moves. I do not know what will fix this.
2. Now, when I click on the links, it goes to the old page name set to &redirect=no. I was hoping someone here would know how to resolve that as well.
Maintenance template removal after content improvements
Hello,
I edited an article to remove promotional tone and added reliable sources to improve neutrality and verifiability.
Could you please clarify how maintenance templates are typically removed after improvements? Is there a formal review process or are they removed as editors verify the changes?
I do not have any direct relationship with CoreMedia. I was asked by a third party to help improve the article by removing promotional language and aligning the content with Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing guidelines.
My intention is solely to ensure the article complies with Wikipedia standards.
"I do not have any direct relationship with CoreMedia. I was asked by a third party..."—This implies that you have an indirect relationship, and/ or are acting on behalf of someone with either a direct or indirect relationship, with CoreMedia.
2026-27 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball season article
Can you please make a redirect for the 2026-27 NCAA Division I Men's basketball season article please. ~2026-11836-06 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any tips or suggestions to shorten a lead paragraph? I noticed that this article I looked at has a lengthy lead, which looks bulky and has people not want to read it. I try not to cut too much content in the lead since some of it is why people look articles in the first place. TyronesEditsPages (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TyronesEditsPages, there is some guidance at MOS:LEADLENGTH, which says The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. "barbershop music" has a lead of 372 words, which is quite long. The lead should summarise the content of the remainder of the article, so you could look for information which is only present in the lead and move it to a relevant section. An example could be the detail about bass, lead, baritone and tenor singers. TSventon (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did took a look at MOS:LEADLENGTH before. I know a majority of Wikipedians aren't fond in the niche genre but still, is there any ways to have content still there without removing a lot of it in the lead? I could use my sandbox to try something since some information in the lead is already mentioned in the body paragraphs leading forward. TyronesEditsPages (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Similar upcoming TV series drafts
I have developed a draft at Draft:Soul (2027 TV series) which is currently more comprehensive and cited than the existing Draft:Spirit (TV series) (imo). Because there is a one-way interaction restriction in place—specifically, the creator, Aidillia, of the other draft is restricted from interacting with me—I want to avoid any appearance of a conflict or a tussle over the content. Could a neutral editor please review both versions and merge the higher-quality content and citations into a single draft? I want to ensure the best possible version of the article moves forward while strictly respecting existing interaction boundaries.
"Reuters", "QQ.com Staff [Anon.]", "English, 36Kr", "Sina Finance Staff", and the like fail to specify the actual author(s), Apixie701. If this is all the information that you have for the authorship of a source, don't use any of "last=", "first=", or "author=". Don't attempt to specify the author(s). For something written by two identified humans, follow the pattern "first1=Karl | last1=Marx | first2=Friedrich | last2=Engels". You'll find this explained in Template:Cite book (and the others: Template:Cite journal, etc). Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PS To say that a news story came to (for example) a local newspaper via Reuters (and thus wasn't locally produced) can be helpful, Apixie701. And the citation templates offer agency= for this purpose. Template:Cite news tells us that the agency= field is used for The news agency (wire service) that provided the content; examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. Do not use for sources published on the agency's own website; e.g. apnews.com or reuters.com; instead, use work or publisher. May be wikilinked if relevant. The template documentation also helps with A news article released by a news agency and having no credited author. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personal page
I am 85 years old and would like to create a personal page that will allow people to look me up. Somehow, someone has already done that in the Spanish version of Wikipedia and it contains inaccurate information. Would you be kind enough to assist me in this endeavour. Thank you Orade1944 (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not social media. The best place for people to look you up would be a social media account or a personal website. Your age is not relevant. Please also note that having posted this request here, you may receive messages offering to create an article for payment. Please see WP:SCAM. Shantavira|feed me09:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Missing Data of Ramchandra Potdukhe MLA 1962
I have reliable sources showing that Ramchandra Paikaji Potdukhe was MLA in 1962 for Chandrapur constituency. His name is missing from the list. Can an editor please verify and update? I can provide references Spbot30 (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Size of widely circulated Reuters image of Andrew in car (currently 387 × 258 px)
I have a question about the appropriate non‑free size for a Reuters photograph used in the Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor article. The file is the widely circulated image of him sitting in his car as he left Aylsham police station. It was not uploaded by me, but I noticed that it is currently at 387 × 258 px (146 KB), and I wanted to check whether that is too large for a modern non‑free press photograph. My understanding is that non‑free images should generally be reduced to around 250–300 px in width, with a much smaller file size, to comply with NFCC. ItsShandog (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Linking within articles
I'm currently working on a list article in my userspace. Where it says under a ship name to "see another ship name", is it possible to link so that clicking on the link takes you to the relevant entry? As the list is currently in my user space, I take it that if it is possible, the links will need to be changed once the list is in mainspace. If that is the case, I just need to know how to do it, and will save the creation of such links once the list is in mainspance. If anyone can show me an article where this is done, it would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
