Hello,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am the owner and General Manager of Flex FM, and I am writing regarding our existing Wikipedia page.

Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the account originally used to manage the page, and as a result I am unable to log in to update or correct information. I would like to update elements of the page, including historical information and ensuring that the content accurately reflects Flex FM’s development and current status. I understand Wikipedia’s policies regarding neutrality and conflict of interest, and I am more than willing to follow the correct process to request changes rather than editing the article directly.

Here is the link to the page in question:

Flex FM

I can provide proof of ownership and any supporting documentation required, and I would appreciate guidance on the appropriate next steps to have these updates reviewed and applied correctly.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Kind regards, Terry Little Owner & General Manager Flex FM Noelsie tl (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noelsie tl, welcome to Wikipedia. You are probably by now already familiar with our policies on conflict of interest, and the recommendation to request edits on the article's talk page rather than updating information yourself. You may not yet be familiar with our requirements on paid-contribution disclosure: generally to comply with Wikipedia's terms of service, you must follow the procedure to identify and disclose your business relationship for any edit where you receive or expect to receive compensation. That procedure is described at Wikipedia:Paid contribution disclosure. You've already been upfront about that here so you're already ahead of many commercial editors, but the proper disclosure is still mandatory.

Once you have properly disclosed, you should go to the talk page of the article you would like to update, and write an edit request. For that you can see our summary guide at WP:Simple conflict of interest edit request, or check the links from that page for more detailed information. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Noelsie tl.

I'm afraid that you have a (rather common) misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works.

Wikipedia's article Flex FM does not belong to you or the company, is not controlled by you or the company, and preferably should not be directly edited by you or anybody associated with the company, though you are welcome to make edit requests concerning it.

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.

All Wikipedia accounts are personal: group or role accounts are forbidden; and almost any account may edit most articles (COI being one restriction). ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given the OP says "I understand Wikipedia’s policies regarding neutrality and conflict of interest, and I am more than willing to follow the correct process to request changes rather than editing the article directly... I would appreciate guidance on the appropriate next steps to have these updates reviewed and applied correctly.", I wonder who has the misunderstanding? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually one of the things that made me assume the OP was using unfiltered LLM output in their post here. However, given their edit was reverted as promotional (and it's very much not hard to see exactly why) there's little to no chance the changes they've been trying to force would be accepted thru an edit request without completely re-writing the lot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence has been (with some repetition):

• Conflicted editor does things the wrong way
• Conflicted editor is reverted
• Conflicted editor is given advice on their talk page
• Conflicted editor asks here for further advice in order to do things the right way, while at the same time declaring CoI
• Conflicted editor is correctly answered (in this case by Ivanvector)

Correct me if I'm wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way I see it. They may make a request for an edit that is entirely unacceptable, and we may be able to work with them from that point. At any rate we're still a few more steps away from "experienced editor tells conflicted editor their edits are trash and to go fuck themselves", hence my warning to Jéské Couriano about their original message here, which I removed. They've made the proper disclosure on their userpage, but I don't see a request yet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks for the reply, IN ot very good at this page but i am of a understanding that the disclosure is if i expect payment? i dont expect this i just want to update my business details. please xplainm what i need and i will get this done.

Regards

Terry Noelsie tl (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

What i have written is a history of whats happened NOT promotional, i can back this with facts/links if needed.

I just would like to update this to show our achievements

Regards

Terry Noelsie tl (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's your business, which weans you expect to make money from it, which means you must abide by our policy on "paid contributions".

Please make change requests on the article's talk page, as you have been advised to do, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its a non profit business my friemnd a community radio. Can someone please tell me how to make edits Noelsie tl (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I answered that question on your talk page on 12 January, here, and in doing so quoted an answer you had already been given.

You are in danger of exhausting this community's patience if you keep asking for an answer that has already been given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a user, am I permitted to create art for certain pages on Wikipedia that lack any visuals? I'd like to add images to extinct animal pages that are lacking any visual. I'm a hobbyist artist and have experience making paleoart. I know users like Apokryltaros have done valuable work for this exact situation on Wikipedia, and I would like to create art in a similar vein (mostly for Holocene extinctions that lack paleo reconstructions). Are there any qualifications I need to have before doing this, or can I just try my hand without preparation? Gone Extinct (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I say "GO GO GO." Check in with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review regulars, like User:FunkMonk, User:Zhenghecaris, User:Gasmasque and User:Ta-tea-two-te-to, for additional protocols to follow, mostly to post at the Paleoart review, first, so what you post are "accurate" Mr Fink (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, also check WP:Dinoart. FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off topic but I love how "dinoart" is an actual shortcut to an actual page. It's so silly I love it mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sick, thanks! Gone Extinct (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Err, do you plan to use AI to make this art?—S Marshall T/C 15:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI doesn't make art, it just churns out in-offensive slop disguised as it (all the while leeching off real art available to it). There's no circumstance where I'd ever use it. Gone Extinct (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please carry on, in that case. If you were going to use AI, I would have started a discussion with you about the rules for that, but since you're ethically opposed to AI, I don't need to!—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be hard pressed to find someone as vehemently opposed to generative AI as me. Glad I could clarify! Gone Extinct (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(psst, if you ever want to do something other than just biology articles, you might want to check out WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup) Athanelar (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh right down my alley, thanks! Gone Extinct (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article United_States_v._Maduro_et_al. currently has lots of curly quotes. Question: When I see curly quotes, should I edit them into straight quotes? Is there a bot that does that? Are curly quotes OK to be left in articles?

The article may have received those curly quotes from the user who was involved in an ANI thread around Jan 9, which covered LLM use, user @ApoieRacional, a few editors mentioning LLM use on several articles... resulting in Cullen328 blocking that user from article space.

Thanks. David10244 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David10244. The guidance in the Manual of Style can be found at MOS:CURLY. Curly quotation marks should be replaced with straight quote marks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I change to straight quotes out of habit when I see curly quotes, but nowadays I'm wondering why we have that guideline. In every browser I use these days, searching for a string containing a straight quote also finds strings containing curly quotes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to change "curly quotes" into "straight quotes", David10244, on the assumption that you're using a computer: (i) Set out as if to edit the "source" of the article as a whole. (ii) Get your text editor to start editing a new file. (My text editor of choice is Geany, but any decent text editor should be fine.) (iv) Copy the whole thing. (v) Paste the source into your text editor's window. (vi) Cancel your (non-) edit of the Wikipedia article. (vii) Use your text editor to change every instance of “ and ” to ", and every instance of ‘ and ’ to '. (viii) Copy the whole thing. (ix) Set out to edit the "source" of the article as a whole. (x) Delete the entire content (but don't press submit). (xi) Paste in your version; submit. All of this takes a lot less time than it took me to write it out. (I daresay a similar process is possible on a phone, somehow.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary @David10244 Yes, doing this on a phone is exactly the same, as long as you have a text editing app with find-and-replace capability. Such an app might not be installed by default, so you might have to find one and install it. Some of the apps don't function very well, so if one of them frustrates you it's probably time for a different app. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary, @TooManyFingers Yes, thanks, I do know how to change the quotes; I just wondered if I should. @Cullen328 answered that question.

I know it's one of the "tells" for text written by AI -- since it's generally (AFAIK) harder or less natural to use curly quotes when you are writing Wikipedia articles using VE or editing the source directly.

I think some of that Maduro article has been affected by AI...

Thanks. David10244 (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tool to convert ISBN's to the template, populating as many fields as possible?

Humpster (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I think. Back in July 2021, I proposed just such a {{cite book| ...}} feature: see WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_182#"cite book" ISBN database?.

Alas, it wasn't followed through. A few problems were raised, but to me these seemed to be "edge cases to be lived with" rather than blockers. So the whole idea was lost.

Perhaps we should resurrect the idea.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITOID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

or citer.toolforge which can take ISBN and other inputs. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I read the 2021 discussion User:Feline Hymnic, and followed all the suggested links. Things such as citeQ and citeDOI don't fill the need I had.

To see what already exists, I searched the Internet using the ISBN of the first book within reach which happened to have a 10 digit ISBN.

EBay gave me an answer in a snippet without even opening the website.

There are several ISBN look up sites of which the notable ones are:

Book Finder

Amazon

ABEbooks

They are better than Special:BookSources

RefToolbar or Citoid work reasonably well to get references in place efficiently. However, they have deficiencies such as inability to handle 10 digit ISBNs and they don't include an archive. But they have the advantage of taking URLs as input as well as a few other things.

I like Citer as a standalone lookup to produce cite templates from URL, DOI, and ISBN. It allows options and gives me the sfn format I prefer. It handled the 10-digit ISBN.

None stand out for the old books I often use. But then I get the data manually from the book, either my own hard copy or e-book, or Internet Archive. (I would counter claims about bad ISBNs by saying "If you want a truly reliable source, you must have the book in front of you.")

I will try the toolbar option for a while. When it fails, I'll continue getting my data from Book Finder. It scrapes data from many new and used book sites, so even the British Library might not match it.

At one time, I contemplated a database such as you proposed. It makes sense for insuring the information is as we want it, but would require much overhead to maintain. On principle, data should only reside in one place, so we shouldn't repeat the work already done by book people. However, since I'm doing a lot of work on similar topics, I have effectively collected a few dozen frequent references.

Thanks for setting me on the path to more tools.

Humpster (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to look at Zotero (and WP:Zotero). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a rule on the Iraq wiki page where it said I had to be extended confirmed to make an edit (it's only protected for confirmed/auto confirmed). Am I not allowed to do the edit request (Listed under the semi edit requests) that is requesting a typo be fixed? AirmanKitten203 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AirmanKitten203: If it was the "salboat" typo, it has been fixed. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was. I was also wondering if there was any exceptions to that rule when it's posted? AirmanKitten203 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests are the best way to ask for an edit if there is some kind of protection on the main article/page. If there are restrictions on asking for edit requests - it will be obvious on the top of the talk page. Example: Talk:Gulf of Mexico. -- Reconrabbit 17:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an image of Dame Louise Richardson. It was taken down due to copyright issue. The organization I represented, Carnegie Corporation of New York, in which Mrs. Richardson is the President, owns the rights to the copyright. May I reload a new image to her biography? Looking forward toward your response. Sincerely, Ronald Sexton (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, you can upload the image it meets the WP:NONFREE content requirements at WP:NFCCP which may require your organisation officially permitting the image to be used on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That answer is self-contradictory. Fair-use of a non-free image by definition does not need the rights-holder's permission. However, given this person is still alive, non-free fair-use image would generally be prohibited. Instead, we would need an image that has a free license, and that is something that the rights-holder would have to grant explicitly. DMacks (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar You're confusing things. We don't ask permission for non-free stuff, if it fits the non-free rules, we just use it. What a copyright holder can do, if they want, is putting a license we can use on an image, thus making it "free." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ronald Sexton.

To amplify DMacks' answer: the intention of Wikipedia is to provide a resource which is free for anybody to use or reuse for any purpose, without requiring permission; this should include media (images, sound) which are therefore required to be explicitly either in the public domain (which does not mean just "freely available", but "devoid of copyright"), or else licensed by the copyright holder under a free licence such as WP:CC-BY-SA. (Some Wikipedias, including English, have a tightly limited set of criteria under which non-free images are permitted, but as DMacks says, this would not apply here).

So it is not enough that the rights holder has given permission for the image to be used on Wikipedia: the requirement is that the rights holder has explicitly released the image under a suitable licence. (This must be done either publicly, or in a direct message to the Wikimedia Foundation - see donating copyright materials)

Please see Image use policy for more information. ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronald Sexton Welcome! We'd love to have a picture of her for the article, but we take copyright seriously, and things must be done right. There are several ways you can go about this, see Wikipedia:A picture of you.

A good way for the Wikipedians is this: Mark one or several pictures of her at https://www.carnegie.org/about/staff/dame-louise-richardson/ with the caption "This picture is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license." Then you can tell us here it's done, and one of us will add it to the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or take a new image of her yourself, and release it here as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you so much! I sent an email to photosubmission@wikimedia.org with a subject: Image of Dame Louise Richardson Ronald Sexton (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were given advice about this last November; and in the same place last week.

Furthermore, although you have declared being paid to edit, you should be more more clear about your conflict with regard to the above article; and more cautious about editing that and other articles where you are conflicted as a result; I have left further advice on this matter on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Random question.. can an editor be completely blocked from Wikipedia? I.e not even aloud to visit the website?

Not a topic ban, editing restrictions, indefinite block etc but completely disallowing someone from visiting/reading some/all articles ?? ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @~2026-19602-0! To answer your question, I'm not aware of such a thing ever happening before and I doubt that it would ever be allowed. It goes against the very nature of Wikipedia. If we blocked someone from reading it, we would not be the "Free Encyclopedia". Wikipedia's purpose is to allow information to be given to all even if they may be users who were blocked or banned in the past, so again, to do this would be to go against the very nature of Wikipedia itself. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 01:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There wouldn't be any point in Wikipedia stopping someone from reading Wikipedia, because reading doesn't harm Wikipedia or any of its editors.

People have been completely and permanently banned from writing on Wikipedia though (i.e. everywhere, not just articles). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship_of_Wikipedia#By_country. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are countries that (try to) do this, see Censorship of Wikipedia § Blocking all Wikipedia sites (in one or every language), but they are working against, not with, Wikipedia. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If someone vandalizes an article but than immediately deletes the vandalism, do they still get punished? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody gets punished for vandalism. They just get stopped. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If someone does it across many articles (vandalize and then immediately revert it), they can be blocked for making disruptive edits (probably for some period of time, not indefinitely). Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, if it's a consistent behaviour they might be asked to stop, but otherwise it isn't hurting anyone. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:PUZEG1/Grand Duke Butigeidis Dragoon Battalion

Hello,

I am writing to ask for help translating our military unit wikipedia page. As I understand, I have to be an editor who made over 500 changes in wikipedia to publish translated pages. Is it possible to publish our page translated into other languages by being new account in here? PUZEG1 (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English-language Wikipedia. We only host articles in English. If you wish to add content (translated or otherwise) to Wikipedia projects in other languages, you will have to conform to their rules, not ours. They may differ substantively in regards to editing restrictions, and in regards to sourcing requirements. Check with the individual project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per an edit summary, the above user page has been "Created by translating the page 'Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio Butigeidžio dragūnų batalionas'". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, I would strongly advise you to read Help:Your first article before proceeding further. Your draft as it currently stands is entirely lacking in cited sources, and the only external link is to an article which doesn't support almost anything in the text. Citations to published reliable sources are required. You should probably also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and note that should we have an article on this unit, it will not be 'your' page, and you will have no control over content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: If you have been ordered to translate the page by a more senior person, please show them WP:BOSS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a talk page message from Iruka13 which deals with non-free image urls. Is it still recommended to use the URL to the page displaying the image, even if the URL to the page is non-unique? Sswonk (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All URLs are unique, by definition.

In this case the URL requested by User:Iruka13 is https://amandashiresmusic.com/#music Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy, I will take your suggestion and list the URL as you have. Sswonk (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so I'm new to using Twinkle and I can't figure out how to warn people. I checked the doc and it mentions a "warn tab" but I can't find it for whatever reason? I know for a fact I have warnings enabled in configuration. Thanks in advance :) Monkeymoo458 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all of twinkle resides under the "TW" menu you see on the top bar. The button to warn is under there. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! Thank you! Monkeymoo458 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an assistance in creating a wikipedia page for my football club. Maryfelsports (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Maryfelsports It is unlikely that anyone will be able to help with your venture. Unless you can provide reliable, independent sources which cover your club in some detail, it simply won't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which are given at this page. As a new editor with a conflict of interest, you should read that linked page and this essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Maryfelsports: Is the club notable enough to sustain an article? See WP:NFOOTY and links therefrom for guidance. Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

unless your football club is special in some way, it's unlikely to be notable enough for a wikipedia article mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, I would like to translate an article, that was written by me, from Hungarian to English. I have done it already on 'paper' but I do not know how to type it into the 'English Wikipedia' version. How to link them? I do not need automatic translation and I am not an advanced editor. Thank you for your answer and help. BEK2022 (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BEK2022 There is general advice at WP:TRANSLATE. I assume the person you want to write about is Gyula Ernyey and the main issue at en:Wikipedia will be to demonstrate that he meets our inclusion criteria for academics, listed here. Note that he only needs to meet one of the criteria but you can't base information only on his own writings: we need evidence of his impact and/or Awards etc. I suggest you use our articles for creation process so you'll get feedback on your draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Your first article, and the links I have just left on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently tried to add one (1) sentence containing a quotation to a page about a prominent WWII officer Ernest N. Harmon, citing a very reliable, eminent historian who was quoting yet another reliable witness/historian in his latest, acclaimed nonfiction book. But for the very first time ever in my many years of contributing to Wikipedia, I was confronted with a box informing me "Your changes have not been published."

To correct this, the same box refers me "to go to the report page and follow the instructions." But I must admit I was totally stymied by that report page and don't understand at all how to use it and resolve my edit problem.

Looking for assistance to figure this out. Thanks for any reply & guidance. Mwprods2 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not familiar with this error. Have you tried just making the edit again? If it's an edit conflict, that should fix it. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your reply. Prior to seeing your message, just minutes ago I did re-edit my contribution but deleted the word "Niggers" which was part of the infamous slur by a prominent WWII general, quoted by two historians.

That might have been the problem(?)...even though my current edit now does include the general's other insulting reference to "jigaboos."

Btw, what is an "edit conflict?" Mwprods2 (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An edit conflict means two editors are making conflicting changes at the same time. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Got it. Mwprods2 (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict only means "two people trying to edit at the exact same time". As you can imagine, the Wikipedia machinery doesn't always handle that situation perfectly. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much,TooManyFingers! Mwprods2 (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mwprods2 the word you added probably triggered a Wikipedia:Edit filter. If you still want to add the word, you could add a request to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. TSventon (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwprods2: It happened because you used the N-word in the edit summary. Just avoid that. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, np now, even though I re-edited and did include the N-word plus another derogatory word that were both used by this WWII general to describe Black soldiers.

My latest edit with both words included has been accepted, so far, thanks! Mwprods2 (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all good now despite my re-edit which now includes two "triggering" words. Mwprods2 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwprods2: you can see if any of your edits triggered a filter in the log. Depending on the filter you may see exactly what triggered it. Many filters will only silently log or add a tag to the edit instead of showing a warning or preventing the edit. MKFI (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may see the whole code of the filter but not which part triggered it. Some filters have many conditions. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, yes, thanks MKFI, I see on the Log--which I never knew existed nor checked before--that there was a "trigger." But again, my preferred edit remains intact. Mwprods2 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, PrimeHunter, all good now with my edit, and I've learned a bit about triggers, filters and the log! Otherwise, I've been more of a benighted contributor for about 15 years. Mwprods2 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but does anyone know how I could do this? They don't seem to have user pages on the English edition. Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fort esc: I would check they are still active and post on a foreign talk page. You could use automatic translation or apologise for using English. Or you could start an English talk page, which should create a notification when they edit on another Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to contact one or more specific individuals or just someone who edits in a specific language? For the latter, see WP:Local Embassy, and the pages on other Wikipedias that are inter-wiki linked from there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping. Fort esc (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 25 years, but is wikipedia25.org supposed to work? It only shows a Wikimedia error. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see someone saying it was supposed to work? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers: This is the Help Desk, where people come to ask for competent help. I also was flummoxed by wikipedia25.org's presentation. How is your comment helpful? Are you saying it's a joke and is not supposed to work at all? I managed to get something to work eventually, so your reply was not only unhelpful but verged on being misleading. If you can't provide the assistance requested, then it's best not to comment at all. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea it was supposed to exist. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am also curious about where this is being seen saying it is supposed to work. I hadn't seen any mention of it before this post. CMD (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Versions111: On an Android tablet in desktop mode, I swiped down, up, left, right and tapped the screen repeatedly in frustration. One of those must have worked as the presentation stirred into action.

It's got some interesting facts in it, but the presentation is decidedly amateurish and difficult to follow in places. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It works now! Versions111 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems good to me. I'm sure I don't belong to its target audience, so my opinion is particularly unimportant -- but I remember seeing, some years ago, an animation of the growth and alteration (both constructive and childish) of a single article. I don't remember its title, or even anything of its subject area, or indeed whether the animation was a GIF, an MPEG, or whatever. I wonder where I'd find the animation, or whether there've been other attempts at a similar illustration since. -- Hoary (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the CIA World Factbook (judicial branch section) to learn more about the judiciary of Mozambique for an article and noticed they got a basic fact wrong about the Constitutional Council judges' term renewal wrong. Should I consider the rest of the information I got from them ok, or re-source everything else in the article that used that source? Urchincrawler (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Urchincrawler. Every generally reliable source makes an occasional error. It is only when there is an ongoing pattern of repeated errors and that pattern is discussed by other reliable sources that we would consider removing all uses of that source. All sources have shortcomings including this one, but this source is widely used and considered to be accurate most of the time. As in all cases, editors need to use good editorial judgment. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! Urchincrawler (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Urchincrawler There's some useful guidance in the essay Wikipedia:When sources are wrong. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should trust that source the same amount you trusted it before finding the mistake. If you found many more mistakes on the same topic, then you might start wondering. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I used to edit Fandom and Wikihow pages as a child and am used to writing factual, objective information in those contexts, but am not really familiar with Wikipedia's conventions.

I am looking to create an article on the now-defunct game Fight My Monster (Jan 2011-Late 2016). I have a collection of sources (Silicon Republic articles, Techcrunch articles, Guardian article, Companies House page, official FMM blog posts (from archive.org), as well as many more niche journalism and non-journalism sources) towards the game's existence and notability (5 million accounts in total throughout its lifetime, and was generally thought to be very innovative), but am unsure whether this game would meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. The game also had commercials aired on British TV, had comics featured in The Beano, had trading cards you could order, had a book and membership cards that were in British bookstores, and had a planned animated TV series. I also have some fears that maybe I would be a conflict of interest in relation to the game, as I am a community moderator for a currently-active rewritten project. This would not be an advertisement and I have no intention on mentioning the rewritten project within the article, but I still thought a conflict of interest might need to be disclosed.

My main motivations are to ensure that information on the game is briefly compiled into an article as I would love for this information to be easy to access, since even though so many sources exist, they are very disjointed.

Would I just have to write the article, publish it, and then see what people think of it? Or should I create a sandbox and then ask for dynamic feedback somewhere on Wikipedia? Or should I not bother, due to lack of notability (or the conflict of interest issue)? Thank you so much for any input/feedback, I appreciate Wikipedia as a resource so much but have no idea of the inner workings of how to edit it lol. -kat279 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you exclude all interviews, all announcements, and all material on company websites and on any blog, exclude all user-editable sites like wikis, AND exclude your personal knowledge - so that the article is nothing but a compilation of the sources that didn't get excluded - is there enough to write about? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, but I don't entirely know how substantial a Wikipedia article has to be. Most sources are not from the company websites (ergo no announcements), and the wiki for FMM has only recently been created (by another member our community). Here is most of what I have immediately available to me in chronological order (disregarding the topics you mentioned).

• Raising $2.1mil due to how unique the game was : https://www.siliconrepublic.com/start-ups/fight-my-monster-raises-us2-1m-in-seed-investment-from-greycroft (pre-the game's release)
• Companies house page, detailing when the company was founded/disbanded: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07236034
• Fight my Monster x Brown Bag Films: Fight My Monster and Brown Bag Films Announce Animated TV Series - Business Insider
• Growth and targeting boys: Ten Year-Olds Versus the Triple-A Market | GamesIndustry.biz (I think this might be a blog, but apparently the woman who wrote it was a Managing Editor at IGN?)
• Fight my monster brand ambitions: Fight My Monster Borrows From The Angry Birds Playbook - Merchandise And Movies Up Next? | TechCrunch
• FMM growth, including game mechanics and industry-leading parent centre: FightMyMonster.com: a monster of an idea that just keeps getting bigger | Games | The Guardian
• The Beano collaboration: https://downthetubes.net/fight-my-monster-joins-beanomax-beano-strip-to-follow-in-august/ (lasted throughout the latter half of 2013) https://www.inpublishing.co.uk/articles/fight-my-monster-to-appear-in-the-beano-8373
• The book they published (Fight My Monster: Monstrous Official Guide), mostly detailing game mechanics: Fight My Monster: Monstrous Official Guide: Amazon.co.uk: Simon & Schuster UK: 9781471115707: Books

Coverage does mostly fall off after around the start of 2013 unfortunately (it's not confirmed anywhere official, but it's common consensus that they just ran out of funds and let it die).

There's a lot of journalism detailing mostly these points on

https://kidscreen.com, but I don't know if this is a good enough source for Wikipedia really. As well as these, there were two official blogs for the game (one for industry, and one for children), which is pretty well-stored at Archive.org.

-kat279 (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But your first item is an interview. And your third is an announcement. And the official guide is from the company. Let's see what's left when there's nothing that the company had any hand in producing, and no interviews, and no announcements. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How are we defining these words? Sorry, I'm not really familiar. I see "interview" as somebody being asked questions and getting answers, and "announcement" as somebody who has a hand in a production making everybody aware about an update. -kat279 (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wikipedia isn't interested in what a person or a company says about themselves, as that is likely to be self-serving. Articles here are based on what third-parties have written without prompting or conflict of interest. This is summarised here. You need to demonstrate how the game is notable in the quirky way Wikipedia defines that word. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand how the first link was an interview - it seems to have quoted from a conference Dylan was at GiG2012. Is it just that direct quotes from a creator cannot be used as a source? I was more planning to use the parts of the sources that were objective i.e., the funding they got, where it was from, and why it was obtained. Is this not okay to do either? I guess maybe not in the context of demonstrating that there are enough independent sources. Is "<creator> has announced <thing>" not substantial? I would've assumed that was secondary?

The FMM Beano strips are listed at List of Beano comic strips, so I assumed that was already substantiated by the articles announcing its release.

Is there a way to tell whether articles may have been prompted? I don't believe any should have conflict of interest, but I'm also not really familiar with the gaming journalism/investment industry.

I understand the non-independent sources should not substantiate a lot of the article, I just provided their existence as it could help with sections explaining gameplay or updates. I was looking at other online children's webgames from the same era to get an idea of how to format these articles, and it seemed like non-independent sources were often used as sources for things like that (this may not be wanted though, a lot of these pages do have infoboxes at the top stating that the pages have issues). Basic gameplay information is listed in the sources I linked, though (of the ones which were valid). -kat279 (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear, but that's exactly it - what the company and the creator and their associates have to say can be peripherally useful in small ways, but isn't something you can build an article from. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And my reason for saying certain things are just announcements is that they don't contain "The History Of Fight My Monster" or anything even close; they're reminders of temporary blips in its existence.

For an extreme example of why those don't contribute anything of significance, consider "vapourware" (does that word still get used?) - anybody can announce anything, and it doesn't prove much. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Vaporwave, like the music genre? Sorry, I have no idea what you meant by that comparison lol. I feel like the vaporwave genre is still pretty relevant (or at least, relevant enough for lots of facets of it to be Wikipedia articles).

Do you think it is unlikely to meet notability requirements, given the sources I have provided? It's totally okay if not. These are the major ones that I could obtain immediately, but I can make a more notable/comprehensive list to overview. It seems like other similar games have primarily "announcement" citations, for example when I look at Fantage, Bin Weevils, or Moshi Monsters. Of course these articles existing does not mean they are doing things correctly. I could also just still be misinterpreting the meaning of an "announcement". -kat279 (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they meant vaporware. JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense, I keep misreading words online recently LOL. I think I understand what they meant, now. -kat279 (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I misread words all the time. :)

I just meant it happens too often that a big announcement is not followed by big results. Wikipedia is only looking for reliable sources that tell the long story of how the results turned out, and throws away all the exciting announcements. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense! I can try to find more references that mention it post-announcement.

I think it's possible FMM may just not meet notability requirements for Wikipedia, but I will try to make a comprehensive list of every source I have including brief points of what is specified in each source. I think I do probably have enough to meet the standard of the similar articles I specified in my previous comment, but of course this may not be the requirement for a new article.

If I do make a list, do you think you could overview it (since you have been the primary person helping me with this query), by either sending it here or your talk page? Totally OK if not, I do understand this is very personalised advice. I plan to keep trying to edit and learn about Wikipedia in the meantime irrespective of whether the article can eventually go into fruition. -kat279 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beano collaboration = just another announcement TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-kat279, your ambition is admirable, but it seems that you're surprised or puzzled by a number of considerations that most likely you'd understand well if only you'd worked on existing articles. I mean, it would be unrealistic for somebody (like me!) with no experience of car maintenance to ask for advice on replacing the transmission of his ICE car. Much better to start with jacking up the car and replacing a wheel, changing the spark plugs, and doing suchlike day-to-day stuff, and gradually working up from there towards pulling out one transmission and putting in another. (Take heart: For the new article you won't need special equipment, dropping anything won't risk crushing your foot, the whole operation won't cost you any money, just time and a little frustration;....) -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I can try dedicating more time to Wikipedia! I've been reading talk pages of articles recently whenever I use the site lol and it's extremely interesting to me to learn about the customs and culture here. -kat279 (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, "Would I just have to write the article, publish it, and then see what people think of it? Or should I create a sandbox and then ask for dynamic feedback somewhere on Wikipedia?"

The best practice is to use the Article Wizard to set the article up as a draft, and then submit it to Articles for Creation, where an experienced editor will look over it and decide whether it's suitable for inclusion. JustARandomSquid (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I will use this if I ever do end up creating this (or any other) article :-) -kat279 (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If our gallery reports on original artwork that we own for historical details that only we can provide, is this a conflict of interest? It has flagged a filter, almost certainly because our reference to the artwork is on our website. Before we attempt to publish again we ask so that we do not fall foul of wikipedia rules but would like to offer expert advice particularly regarding album artwork. The gallery has the largest private collection in The UK and potentially the world. This includes unseen design work for prominent and historic artworks. Popnouveau (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The artwork was already on wikipedia. Copies of that artwork are owned by tens of thousands of people. Our addition was to point out that an early incarnation of the work exists. Because we own that early version we believe that the additional information regarding its origins would be valuable information for those that are interested in its history. Much of the source and design artworks for prominent album covers changed before they were eventually released and we wanted to add that history that would be otherwise unknown. Popnouveau (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This probably relates to the Pop Nouveau Gallery in Sudbury, Suffolk. TSventon (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it does, we wanted to add some historical context to the article on the album Popnouveau (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Popnouveau What is the artwork? ~2025-31242-74 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Popnouveau, for when you get unblocked: this is probably not a conflict of interest, but you may have a problem in that sources must be available to anyone who cares to look for them and they must be published by a reputable source. So if your sources are, for example, that the artist told you (or someone else who passed the information on), or wrote it in a letter that you possess, these would not be suitable. You may find WP:EXPERT a useful read. Meadowlark (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to set what wikiproject I get important messages on? I got the messages for the wikipedia birthday celebration on my wikisource account as it was the first account i made, but I would prefer to get my messages like that either here or on meta-wiki. Is there a way i can set that? i looked for quite a bit through my various preferences but could not find anything to do so.I know you can enable global notifications, and i do have them on, but it's not the same. Sorry if this is not the right place to ask this question, i want really sure. ¿VØ!D? ☄ 13:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how, but I know exactly what you mean, and it's a good question. "Wikiproject" is a different kind of thing (they're sort of like topic workgroups on Wikipedia), but the reason you used the wrong word is that you've never been told what the right word is! I don't know either: "what account"? "what Wikipedia"? "what part of the Wikimedia agglomeration of similar-but-different websites"?

I guess "How to change which of my Wikipedia accounts is treated as the primary one" is close enough. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the answer is to go to Settings -> Preferences on the Wikisource account, adjust which kinds of notifications it should receive (i.e. turn some of them off), and then separately go to Settings -> Preferences on the Wikipedia account and turn some of them on. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i meant like wikipedia's side projects not wikiprojects, whoops. I poked around in preferences a bit but couldn't find any way to change which account is treated as the main one. Thank you for the suggestion though! ¿VØ!D? ☄ 17:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the home wiki. I don't think it can be changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oh thank you, sucks that it can't be changed. ¿VØ!D? ☄ 17:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some users are annoyed (including me) that there's a user who constantly makes (mostly) disruptive edits to articles without saying why that's done or by asking in the talk page and wait for consensus. The user is "Boringhuman404", but the person using it has used it from the other old names, including Urayahahah and "Renamed user c2ca70d12a943d959769c7559822e2ae". Ominae (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Have you tried talking to the user? If you have and the behaviour still persists, you should bring this to WP:ANI mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Someone's already doing that. Ominae (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am registered to edit wikipedia under an old email address which I haven't used for several years and no longer have access to. Is there a way to retain my pervious access with a different email or would I have to start over? ~2026-31751-6 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the correct user name and password, it should be possible to log in and change the email address in Preferences.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying.

I only have my old email as I was always logged in and didn't use user name and password. ~2026-31751-6 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Friends! I work a lot of new biographies and today, I'm seeing a message that says the page doesn't exist and to visit Wikispecies - see: Axel Hille and Alejandro Londoño-Burbano. I have never come across this before and not sure what it means or if it is supposed to be there. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thank you!! Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I spent some more time looking at it and it is legit. It just threw me because there were so many all of a sudden. - My apologies - please disregard. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you might have recently started writing more about some people who are very obscure by ordinary Wikipedia standards but who are significant within their own fields of study. I would have been surprised to see those messages too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These type of pages are actually quite common and are called soft redirects. You can read all about them at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thank you! You learn something new every day! Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The dominican singer and composer Alicia Baroni meets enough merits to be in Wikipedia, but so far I could not enter her bio. Can somebody help me, please? ~2026-32405-1 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't enter a request here on all caps. People won't think you are serious. I'd recommend talking to an WP:Admin 𝚃𝚑𝚎 𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝 𝙴𝚙𝚒𝚙𝚑𝚊𝚗𝚢👁👄👁 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the right place to ask; and this is not a matter that needs an admin's attention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to show that she meets the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN. Can you do that?

If so, see WP:Your first article; but we strongly recommend that you get some experience making smaller changes to existing articles, first. I'll leave some links to guidance on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL: This looks like it would be hard to find enough secondary coverage to create an article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Police#Israel

in this page it talks about policing in ancient Israel, although some of the areas existed like Jerusalem, Judah there was no Israel till 1948. Wikipedia should stay impartial and not peddle political messages to try and make out a state existed before it actually did. ~2026-31843-5 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please take that up on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Israel yes, but ancient Israel existed around 1000 BC-500s BC Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Shenandoah (Miami)

I'm trying to add a page for an historic church in Miami, Florida. Did I botch the title? It just says "Shenandoah." How do I edit it? LBK1Wiki (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue to work on the article where it is, and the title will be fixed if and when it is published.

You may also wish to read WP:Referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as it currently stands, none of the material comes from sources that are independent. Anything that comes from the church's own publications, whether local, national, or in between, can't be used to tell the story. Church publications can be used to confirm details such as the date it was founded, but can't be the source of the main parts of the article. The reason is we want to see how significant the place is to "everybody in general", not how significant it is to members of the Presbyterian Church. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you have copied text directly from web pages. This is not allowed (unless they are under a suitable open licence, which is not the case here). It will shortly be deleted.

Please try again, but write on your own words (and use independent sources, as noted above). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The biography of author Roald Dahl is tagged with {{British English}}. Should this also apply to all articles about his books and short stories? Personally I think it should per MOS:TIES - but I regularly see editors changing UK to US spelling, such as this edit. (Admittedly, Dahl did live in the USA for many years, and many of his stories were first published in the USA and are set in the USA.) Muzilon (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever there's a British vs American spelling case doubtful enough to ask a question about, the answer is "leave it alone then". Except make each individual article consistent within itself, based on the chronologically first evidence of either spelling that it contains. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Or consistent with an already long-standing, carefully and responsibly placed tag. Slapping a new tag on an article and then editing it to conform to the new tag is not a good method, unless it has a very obvious necessary connection to only one variety of spelling.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As seen in Talk:AmericaFest#Feedback from New Page Review process, a user told me that MSN is depreciated because the Chinese Wikipedia said so, even though it seemed to have been called generally reliable in the English Wikipedia per WP:MSNOW. They then said You should find the original URLs and use those, as these MSN sources appear to be aggregated instead. could anyone confirm that MSN should be depreciated, and if so, I'll add it onto WP:RSP? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As with more of less any other policy matter, the decisions of one Wikipedia language project have authority have no authority over any other. They are autonomous. See the recent discussion on WP:RSN regarding MSN's suitability as a source - it really needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. As a news aggregator, it should say where it is getting its material from, and that will be the major indicator of reliability. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Have authority" -> "have no authority", right, Andy? Bishonen | tålk 22:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Oops. Corrected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, for exampleif it hosts The Guardian then it can be used, but if it hosts TH (hypothetically) then it can't? Should this information be added to RSP on the english Wikipedia? And thanks for being nicer to me, I really appreciate it! Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in most cases we'd assume that if the source that MSN got it from was reliable, we could use it - though ideally you'd find the original, and cite that instead. As for adding MSN to WP:RSNP, note that the list is for 'sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed'. I don't think we've really done that with MSN, or at least, not enough to say that there is a consensus regarding its use, beyond the more general one regarding news aggregators as discussed at WP:NEWSAGG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...I feel as if I must note that MSN and MSNBC (MS NOW) are not the same thing. MSN (Microsoft) hasn't been connected to MSNBC/MS NOW since 2005 for the channel and 2012 for the website (in 2012 the website became nbcnews.com and then later the msnbc.com site became a website for the cable channel). - Purplewowies (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I think I realized this recently, otherwise MSN would've been typically considered reliable without needing to look at what it hosted. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source considered a reliable source at web archive https://web.archive.org/web/20260116001304/https://kpop-teen-star.preview.emergentagent.com/innovation# Pinchmemore (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say not remotely reliable. It gives every appearance of being paid-for content. It concerns an American musician, yet is published in Lagos, and is overtly promotional. See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA for more on the sad state of the Nigerian media - not that the problem is confined to that country alone. And note that we'd need a proper URL for the original, even if it were useable. Archives aren't 'reliable sources', they are repositories where copies of such sources can sometimes be found, and without a link to the original, we have no way of verifying it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So if it was from the United States would it be partially considered reliable ~2026-33235-0 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not a good source, no matter where it's from. The United States does have some good sources, but it has a lot of bad ones too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's so promotional, and so cliché-ridden, that it looks to me like a parody of promotion. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Fortunately for us, most brown envelope journalism is fairly obvious. Either that, or we are missing the more subtle stuff. Some of it is clearly written by the subject, rather than the journalist, who clearly doesn't care in the slightest about what impression it gives. I suspect that it is sometimes created with the direct intention of providing 'reliable sources' for Wikipedia, given that the content is highly unlikely to be of interest to most readers of the host publication.

Note that the subject of the 'article' linked above, one 'JFO Star' has already seen multiple attempts at a biography rejected for lack of evidence of meeting WP notability criteria. If Pinchmemore was thinking of making another attempt, and this crap was the best they could come up with, I suggest they stop wasting their time. And that whoever paid for it stop wasting their money... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump:, they have indeed. WidgetKid ^{chat me} 18:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Close the Wayback Machine overlay and you will see that this website claims to be the BBC despite the URL being completely different. All the links in the page, such as the ones to "related articles", lead back to this same "article". The article (and comments!) are baked directly into the source code. I'm surprised this site does NOT lead to a cryptocurrency/investment scam, as every other website impersonating a news agency seems to do so. OutsideNormality (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OutsideNormality Wow, good find. That page appears to be made using React, but the source is pretty inscrutable. David10244 (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add this map to this sidebar but I can't figure out how to make the legend visible without A. Going to Commons, or B. Having a big caption with a legend in the sidebar (which seems inappropriate). Is this possible? When I click on images like here that use {{legend}} in a caption, the colors don't appear Placeholderer (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I.e I want the legend, with colors, to be visible by clicking on the image Placeholderer (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My Father has a page on Wikipedia and his medals are displayed. But his Purple Heart should have a SILVER STAR on it, NOT a GOLD STAR… He has 6 PURPLE HEARTS AND THE MARINES Designate that with a SILVER STAR for 5 awards and the ribbon makes it 6…. We would like to see the Gold start replaced with SILVER STAR as the award device. Mdsd77 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Using all capitals like that is taken as shouting. Please don't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mdsd77, please go to your father's article. Somewhere along one of the edges of the page, you'll see a link to "Talk". Click that. In the article's talk page, make the request above. -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And it would help if you could tell us which article you are taking about - we have no way of knowing who your father is if you don't tell us. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Back in 2008, the Bulletball page was deleted. I think it's gone back and forth a few times and ended up protected indefinitely around 2012.

I think, at the time, that was understandable. Bulletball was probably put on here as a joke because of that one YouTube video [2].

The thing is, many years after the American Inventor incident, it actually did make it into the Olympics, it is quite literally an Olympic sport. As such, I do think that the game itself is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. A list of Olympic sports would, by definition, not be complete without Bulletball.

We don't need to make it read like "whoa the inventor was so whacky and they made him a meme!". Just a short article about the sport, its rules, its appearance on American Inventor, and eventual debut at the 2012 Senior Olympics. I'd be happy to write it. We could semi-protect it to stop people turning it into a meme page.

Anyway, sorry. My question is: Is there somewhere I can go to argue the above and at least open a vote or discussion on the issue?

Thank you for your help! LegalUsername (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LegalUsername: the page is creation protected (salted). WP:SALT gives several options. Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request. TSventon (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What TSventon said, LegalUsername. The draft version (if it's worth creating at all) might go in User:LegalUsername/sandbox. I note that your claim for Olympic status is actually a matter of the "Senior Olympics", and that this is not an international but a US affair; saying "A list of Olympic sports would, by definition, not be complete without Bulletball" seems quite a stretch. Incidentally, my browser finds no mention of "Bulletball" in that article. -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say "an Olympic sport", when it has nothing to do with the Olympics at all? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the play Uncle Vanya" ~2026-33068-4 (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a question about Wikipedia, then please rephrase it understandably. -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-33068-4 Are you looking for our article about Uncle Vanya? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The desktop watchlist can group all edits to a single page together. Am I correct that the mobile watchlist doesn't have the option to do this? Thanks! Helpful Cat {talk} 03:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1331997235

Reference help requested.

Please fix this error in the article of Mahendra Singh Dhoni now.

Thanks, ~2026-33072-4 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Reference help" denied. Anyone thinking of providing "help" should first look at the history of the redirect/article. A single article (MS Dhoni) is sufficient. -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected this article now. It is perfect for viewing. I have successfully corrected a deformed article into perfection now. ~2026-33072-4 (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I long-term semiprotected as the redirect to prevent this problem for a few years (same editor doing same bad-faith edits to another page as well, which I likewise semi'ed). DMacks (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See I was thinking we should include something about bruno's recent Twitter hacking ~2026-14741-7 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit, so if you feel comfortable doing so, and you're certain that it's important enough to be in the article, add that yourself, as well as citations to reliable sources to support your claims. If you don't, you can mention it to other editors on the article talk page — Talk:Bruno Fernandes. JustARandomSquid (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SEAOFBLUE

Hello.

I've noticed that in several articles for notable clergy members, It'll introduce the subject as a Anglican priest or a Baptist minister etc etc, and I'm a bit confused on how I should improve the readability, if I should improve it at all. Do I de-link the denomination or the title? Rework the sentence (somehow)? Is there any relevant consensus on this topic?

Thank you. Cawfeecrow (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, I can't infer based on previous wikilinks because (being the introductory sentence) it'd be the first instance of their respective wikilinks in the article. Cawfeecrow (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cawfeecrow That same page suggests not linking MOS:COMMONWORDS, so I suggest remove the links to priest and minister. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, make the links like Anglican priest, using [[Anglicanism|Anglican priest]]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks!. Cawfeecrow (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If such a decision is hard to resolve by simple rules, I try using "Which of these potential links, if followed, is more likely to make the reader say 'Oh, now I get it!'?" It might be the one that seems most difficult/hardest to summarize.

Example:

Minister: "It's a kind of leader"

Protestantism: "... Ummm, let me link you to that, OK?" :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[[Anglican|Anglican minister]] and similar is the way to go. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

who is external guide ~2026-33882-3 (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a question about Wikipedia, please word it more understandably. -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Information about this location is incorrect regarding Boston Celtics games. It does not list the game of 3/2/1975 vs. Seattle SuperSonics

• https://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=16705&sid=77b734caf98d1fc158e884a86b67f363#p16705
• https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/197503020BOS.html

-- ~2026-33794-7 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-33794-7Your question is unclear. If you think you have found a mistake in a Wikipedia article, please visit the Talk page of that article and suggest a correction there, ensuring that you cite a reliable source for your claim. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Creating art for Wikipedia pages that otherwise do not have a suitable selection of photos

I was just wondering whether I could draw illustrations to convey topics that do not have sufficient photos under their Wikimedia Commons category. I've already started creating Paleoart with Wikiproject: Paleoart review, and if this request is met, I would be creating illustrations mainly for species/breeds/animals that don't have a great photo selection to chose from (I'm a zoology-centric editor). An example of a potential application for my art would be the page that I aim to create in the coming days on the Hyacinth pigeon. The Wikimedia category for this breed is pitiful, with the best representations of them being an old black and white photo that isn't focused on the bird itself, and a contemporary innaccurate pair of illustrations. If I could illustrate the bird to an anatomically accurate degree, could I upload it as the page image when I create it? I hope this post makes sense, I'm a rambler. Thanks! Gone Extinct (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User-created art is used for illustration, but we have a very high standard. The artwork needs to be of professional quality and a scientific level of accuracy.

If you think those criteria are met, I on urge you to upload a couple of examples and see what reaction you get when adding those to articles before expending many hours of effort making more, which might be wasted if they are not used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll be sure to keep that in mind if I go through with making art. Gone Extinct (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something like a bird is obviously not easy to do. There's currently controversy on Wikipedia about uses of AI, and quite a few people are hostile to it. If someone accused you of using AI for your pictures, and if a few others believed them, that could turn into a reason to not use your work.

So I agree with Andy, don't start a lot of drawing projects yet, just one or two for a test. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, birds aren't the easiest to draw accurately. Some pages with illustrated images demonstrate that clearly (eg. Osteodontornis). If I end up illustrating, I'll be sure to brush up on my skills. I'd never stoop as low as to use AI though, that's a definite fact. Gone Extinct (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing@TooManyFingers Sorry for re-igniting this discussion and pinging you both, but would this illustration be considered sufficient? I heavily based it off of existing photographs and tried to make it as accurate as I possibly could. If not, then that's fine, I'd just like some approximation of how far or close this is to becoming a utilisable image in an article. Cheers.

File:Hyacinth Pigeon Illustration.png. Gone Extinct (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the subject well, but I would say so. I would lose the frame though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I clicked on the link to the file, I didn't realize at first that Andy had already responded. Once I had looked at the picture, I came back here to independently say exactly what he said: I don't know the subject well, it looks good to me though, and probably lose the frame.

I think my main objection to the frame is that it goes across part of the bird in a way that somehow doesn't look right. And the way online pictures are presented often gives a frame-ish effect anyway, making the pictures' own frames seem redundant to me. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for replying at all, I’ll remove the frame, cheers. Gone Extinct (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been working (periodically) on the Jenbacher J624 page and have recently uploaded a non-free, low resolution image from Jenbacher's website in order to provide a photo for the page. Unfortunately, this has prompted discussion over the validity of the non-free usage rationale. I am here to hopefully settle that one way or the other before the page can be deleted without an outside opinion. My rationale is that the photo should remain because it is a photo with no copyright-free equivalent, which does no harm to Jenbacher's commercial efficacy, which is used minimally, which is displayed publicly on the Jenbacher website, which is quality and worthy of encyclopedic inclusion in nature, which is properly displayed in only the relevant article, which is contextually relevant to the article, and which is properly cited to the URL of the Jenbacher website it is taken from.

Please, if you have the time, weigh in and help find a resolution.

Thank you. TheSaturnLover (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheSaturnLover. This non-free image is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The policy language can be found at WP:NFCI and says Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia. You could contact the sales or public relations people at the manufacturer and ask them to release a freely-licensed image. You could take a factory tour of some facility that has one of these engines installed and take a photo yourself. Perhaps the engine is might be displayed at a trade show. Attend and take a photo. And so on. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually tried contacting Jenbacher before about this. They seem to be very confounded and paranoid. Nevertheless, I'll look for a better one and let this current rendition expire as expected before. TheSaturnLover (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TheSaturnLover, please read Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for the best wording to use. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And it's perfectly fine to have no picture at all, until you (or anyone) gets to do one of those things. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the recent licensing deals with Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft, what will change with Wikipedia? Will the free encyclopedia remain?

Thanks, John Roche "john54roche" (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are referring to by "licensing deals". 331dot (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot They're referring to this. New Wikimedia Enterprise Partners: Wikipedia’s 25th Birthday qcne (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(more discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#WMF announces new AI partnerships with Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Perplexity...) qcne (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @"john54roche". The Wikimedia Foundation has signed these deals, it has to do with API access to project data and should not affect the English Wikipedia in any way. qcne (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth pointing out that no content is being licensed that wasn't already licensed here. Wikipedia is under a free license already so these companies already have the right to access our content and use it to do whatever. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

in addition to the above, it'll have zero change in how Wikipedia editing is handled. It's an external thing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with licensing, or our content, each of which remains unchanged.

There is a good analogy: Wikipedia content is water. They're getting the same water, but paying for a bigger pipe. The pipe is Wikimedia Enterprise.

Someone else said it's like we sued them for overloading our web servers, and now they're paying damages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive robotic screen-scraping places a very high demand on web servers, including Wikipedia. It's much more efficient at both ends if the same data is provided using a machine-to-machine interface. It reduces both computational load and bandwidth by a factor of at least ten and probably more than 100. The entire philosophy of Wikipedia is to make that data available to everyone for any purpose, at no cost, so doing this with a minimum delivery cost is greatly to our advantage. -18:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

in our city many shops are selling fake royal stag so how can I check it is original or fake Royaltester 123 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The teahouse only has help for Wikipedia questions. Sorry about that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Help Desk, not The Teahouse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Royaltester 123 You can try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change/update Erika Evans profile photo Sydne96 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you represent Erika Evans? If so, please see WP:A photo of you.

Otherwise, where is the new photo? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is here, File:Erika Evans Seattle City Attorney.png. Sydne96 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That appears to be improperly described; Seattle City Attorney Office of Law is not part of the Federal government.

My question "Do you represent Erika Evans?" needs an answer, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is her official photo of the selected official, you can see the link here https://www.seattle.gov/cityattorney Sydne96 (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sydne96, she is not a federal official so the claim that the image is in the public domain is not verified. The City of Seattle website includes copyright notices, which indicates the image is probably not in the public domain. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links to the Erika Evans article and photo uploaded to Commons by Sydne96. Lovelano (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It states they are from Houston. The official Poppi page says Dallas. If you are from Texas this makes a big difference!! ~2026-34099-5 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To which article does this relate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A search suggests Errol McCalla Jr., also known as "Poppi". TSventon (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then our friend who raised the issue needs to do so on The article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if this is the case with Poppi, but there is frequent confusion between where a person was born (an objective fact) as opposed to where they are "from" which is a vague concept that could be birthplace, childhood home, current home, or where they lived the longest. Here is a personal example. I have a 36 year old son who was born in a hospital in San Francisco but he has never lived in San Francisco. He lived in the Napa Valley for nearly 30 years. He currently lives 110 miles from San Francisco. So, very few people would say he is "from" San Francisco. Cullen328 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I have recently had issues with an anonymous editor. They have been regularly editing out sourced content regarding Bosnian former footballer Miralem Pjanić. Specifically, they have been removing cited, relevant content about Pjanić being "regarded as one of the best midfielders of his generation, and "one of the greatest free-kick takers of all time." I have sourced this info with relevant references all naming him as one of the best free-kick takers ever and a world-class midfielder of his generation, which is easily verifiable (I even replaced some older sources with newer ones specifically regarding Pjanić as such). These are some of the IP's pointless edits: 1, 2, 3. Their most recent edit was him reasoning by saying: "removed bs". I think it's clear what they mean by "bs" lol. I could use some help resolving this issue. Bakir123 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Bakir123.

Unless it is very clearly vandalism, which these edits are not, you need to engage the other editor in discussion, normally on the talk page Talk:Miralem Pjanić. See WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how to make page ? :

en:RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon

Piñanana (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Piñanana. The book is mentioned in Bibliography of Richard Nixon. I assume that it is probably a notable book. Please read Your first article. You should base any draft article on reviews of the book in high quality journalistic sources and discussions of the book in well reviewed biographies of Nixon. Cullen328 (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) § Colons. You need to modify the title a little to remove the colon or otherwise make it not start with "RN:", like "RN — The Memoirs of Richard Nixon" (I have no idea what is best in this situation as I am not familiar with this book), then add a special hatnote to the top of the article you created. OutsideNormality (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RN; The Memoirs of Richard Nixon Piñanana (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is probably the most suitable indeed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today I learned we have a Wikipedia in Kirundi with 703 articles. DMacks (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know 17 January is an official day worldwide to recognise mentors and all they do ? It began as an extension of National Mentoring Month in the US throughout the month of January, but it’s now celebrated on just one day.

Navigating the twists and turns of becoming Wikipedia editors is so much easier with the help of a mentor. Here at the Help Desk, as well as at other Wikipedia help venues, we also get quick, insightful, and ongoing help—day in, day out from tireless hosts, who, like mentors, receive no pay other than the happiness that comes from helping. So ...

◆ Let's "think and thank", pausing to consider all we receive from them and perhaps sending them a few words of gratitude.

◆ Perhaps this occasion could also be a time for some to think of becoming a mentor or a help venue host themselves as a way of giving back.

◆ This year seems a perfect time to begin a new annual tradition on 17 January, as it's the 25^th anniversary of Wikipedia and mentors have been a large part of its success story! ~2026-35535-5 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Deadly Sins

I noticed that Pride in Christianity, one of the seven deadly sins, wasn't a part of Pride (disambiguation), so I added it. However, I then noticed some of the other contents from the seven deadly sins weren't brought up in their respective disambiguation pages either. I look up Wikipedia:Disambiguation and didn't find any problem with the links being on there. Is there a reason for this, or should I add them? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the ones that there are already separate articles for. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What about for ones that are from sections for the seven deadly sins? Is that not okay? Also are we able to create articles for them even if they're stubs? Also how about for redirects to those articles, such as "lust in Christianity", is that okay for sections? (Because one of them I changed and it was approved so I thought it was okay). Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Voorts, thank you very much for your help; do you have any thoughts on this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, every item on a disambiguation page has to be an article by that name, not a section. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, do you also happen to know the answer to this question: Also are we able to create articles for them even if they're stubs?? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They would first need to be worth an article. Example: The deadly sin of lust is not a special kind of lust, it's the same thing we already have an article about. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there could be more information about Christian views on it specifically, you're right that the general article is similar in this case. However, in other situations, it's different: take pride for example, the general article doesn't really make it seem negative, and mostly mentions things like LGBTQ Pride, which is quite different from the Christian view on pride (and "pride" may have different meanings in these situations). What about for those cases? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you say there's already an article "Pride in Christianity"? Is it the wrong thing? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, it redirects to the Seven Deadly Sins section on pride. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the current article "Pride" does a really good job of supporting the Seven Deadly Sins concept of pride. As you've pointed out, it includes other concepts as well, but in my opinion writing another article for the benefit of the Deadly Sins really would create a WP:POVFORK in a bad way, even though its purpose was intended to be good. When the ambiguity of the term "pride" is hidden from view, even for a good cause, it uneducates people about the Seven Deadly Sins. Like I said, this is my opinion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest to be done? Should there be no separate articles for them? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, see below for what Cryptic wrote, that disambiguation is fine for sections and not just articles.

I have a strong opinion that the Pride article is already a very good support for the Seven Deadly Sins article, because it does go into useful detail about that interpretation of the word, while also laying out the other interpretations that perhaps the Seven Deadly Sins were not referring to. I think a separate article for that one would merely put the Seven Deadly Sins into a sort of ghetto where it's divided from real understanding.

I haven't looked at all the others, but in general I think creating this kind of "walled garden" or "ghetto", where words don't mean what they really mean, is counterproductive. An intelligent person reading the proposed new articles would protest back to you "Yeah, but that's not what this word really means, and you know it" - and that complaint wouldn't happen when referring them to the Pride article the way it is now.

I do think it's right to make sure that if a historic or traditional treatment of some of those words is necessary to make sense of the Seven Deadly Sins, then it would be right to find reliable sources for them and have it on Wikipedia, whether in the main article about Greed or whatever, or inside the Seven Deadly Sins article.

And of course I might be in a small minority on my point of view, or I could be just wrong. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it a different way: Having a separate library of "in-universe" definitions, thus treating religion as merely the top-grossing fantasy franchise of all time with an unbelievably huge fandom, was probably not your point. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. By the way, it turns out one of them already have a specific article for them: Sloth (deadly sin)... do you suggest it goes through WP:AfD? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, every item on a disambiguation page has to be an article by that name, not a section - this is completely wrong. We have entire disambiguation pages where not a single entry has a dedicated section within an article, let alone a dedicated article; a couple minutes' searching found Garble, for example. What's important is that the disambiguated topic is discussed in the linked page, so that readers searching for a term find what information we have about it. There are special considerations for formatting on the disambig page when not linking to a full article - see WP:DABSECTION for when there's an entire section, and WP:DABMENTION for when there isn't - but there is in no manner a prohibition against including such entries at all. —Cryptic 04:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then I grossly misunderstood what I was reading, and I apologize. Thank you for correcting my (unintentional) misinformation. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new fair‑use image to the article Disappearance of Macin Smith, and the old non‑free file Macin Smith.jpg is now unused. I tried tagging it for speedy deletion but realised I was using the wrong template, so I removed it again. I’m unsure which is the correct template for an unused non‑free file that has been replaced by a different image. Could someone help me with this please? ItsShandog (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the right template to use is {{subst:orfud}} (and User:B-bot would have eventually tagged it), but since you were the uploader and only editor, I went ahead and deleted it immediately. —Cryptic 11:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, appreciate it. ItsShandog (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We affirm that Mack Sennett was born in Danville, but in his autobiography [3] he claims to have been born in Richmond. I've opened a discussion on the talk page. ~2026-36417-8 (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you've started a discussion there, there's no need to tell us here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at Talk:Mack Sennett#Birthplace. TSventon (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

David Muir Hello, everyone! Could you replace the link new one for me? it doesn't work: [4]. I am translating this article from English into Russian. ru:Участник:СтасС/Заготовка 1 Help me, please. СтасС (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating a page for my grandfather who has passed away. I do not have much information available online that I can as reference since there was not a whole lot of digital information kept during his time (1913-1995). However, I can provide written physical certification from organizations that he has been associated in his life. Can that be used? Just need some direction on how do I take this forward so I can preserve and present his memory through wikipedia to rest of the world. KhadiPen (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @KhadiPen.

Sources do not have to be online; but they do need to be reliably published, and most of them need to be independent of the subject - anything from organisations he was associated with will not help.

I'm afraid that, like most people who try to create an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you appear to have written Draft:Ratan Lal Sharda backwards.

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.

So you need to start by finding several sources that meet all the criteria in golden rule: books or magazines from reputable publishers, as long as the author was not associated with your grandfather or any organisations he was affiliated with. But each of them needs to contain significant coverage of him - say, three or four substantial paragraphs as a minimum.

If you can find several (say, at least three) such sources, then an article is possible. You will need to put aside everything that you personally know about him, and write a summary of what those independent sources say. (That is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to write an article about a subject where you have a a conflict of interest).

The truth is that most people in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so there cannot be articles about them - even, sometimes, if they have done amazing things, or have become famous or popular. Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial site.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ajijic has {{cleanup}}

what is hatnote for translate from es.wikipedia ?

Piñanana (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Template:Expand Spanish.

But it looks to me as if all or nearly all of the sources for es:Ajijic (like the current sources in Ajijic) are Primary sources. English Wikipedia requires most sources to be secondary sources, so adding better sources to the English article would be a much more valuable improvement than translating text from the Spanish. ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

fr de nl... mostly have no sources

Cannes Ibiza Lake Tahoe

Piñanana (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Different Wikipedias have different standards, @Piñanana. I believe that en-wiki is one of the strictest. ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the ability to use visual editor when editing articles, talk pages, or etc. I am familiar enough with syntax to edit from source as needed, but it's markedly easier to edit some templates with the visual editor and would appreciate the functionality. Is this a permissions issue or a technical problem on my end? In the case of the latter, I am using Firefox 147.0.1 (latest stable), and having the problem across both the Vector legacy and default Vector themes. Breadpachinko (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure--I don't think this is a widespread Firefox issue, at least, because that's what I'm using. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is related, but I had a problem using Firefox for MacOS where the visual editor would start to load and then stop before finishing. Ultimately, what resolved it was clearing all of my WP cookies. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked your Special:Preferences? Per WP:VisualEditor, go to Preferences, click Editing, check Enable the visual editor, and click Save. Blepbob (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He is one of the last custodian of Bengal School of Art and a legendary painter. Sarbbottam (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sarbbottam. For an article to be possible, you must prove the person meet's Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. You would create a draft article via the Wikipedia:Article wizard and then provide multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

If multiple sources do not exist, then the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sarbbottam.

If you can find the required sources to establish that Sarkar meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability either as an artist, or generally, you are welcome to go ahead and create an article. (If you are not experienced at creating articles, I strongly advise using WP:AFC).

Merely putting a suggestion here is unlikely to be effective. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NB Wikipedia has no need for articles that call their subjects "legendary" (or similar promotional language). Or indeed for user pages that look like job application forms. -- Hoary (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to log back in and when I tried to reset my password is says my phone's IP address I have tried to reset my password 3 times now and I have not gotten the email to do so ~2026-37365-1 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past week, different temp accounts with only one edit have been editing the TheBurntPeanut article and trying to change the wording- here is an example of their recent edits. I don't really understand what they are trying to do here, I have already seemingly fixed the problem that they are trying to fix (which is that the article doesn't use a real-world perspective). However, after I fixed the problem, the temp accounts keep reverting me and replacing what I've fixed with a sentence that says the same things but is just worded worse with bad grammar. To avoid edit warring, I've notified one of these accounts on their talk page, but they have not responded and have kept up with the reverting, now even adding a template and hidden text to the article. - dwarfroe (talk / contr) 23:46, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's the meaning of their hidden text? Which template did they add? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, at first glance, like these editors might be doing their best to improve a pretty bad article. TBH with the example edit you showed, I can't even tell which is worse, the "before" or the "after". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the article right now, there is a {{In-universe}} hatnote in the Career section that has been added. The hidden text is:

"Probably this is because some Wikipedians literally referred the sources that based on the virtual YouTuber's fictional setting."

I don't understand what they are trying to say here and I don't believe that the article has any problems that require the above template and hatnote. I don't know what to do though as most likely when I remove the template and hatnote the temp accounts will continue to revert me as they had previously. Should I request page protection here? - dwarfroe (talk / contr) 03:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the mostly garbage sources - they just mention this guy, they don't tell his story in depth. There's honestly not much worth protecting in that article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suggesting deletion here? - dwarfroe (talk / contr) 05:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing an article about a TV Station here on Wikipedia and recently was able to get in contact with a former employee of that Station. Unfortunately a lot of the information that, that person gave me isn't available online or has vauge references. So I was wondering how do I cite our conversation? Do I post it on a third party website and cite it? Who do I show proof that this conversation happened? (Also, just incase, I did tell the person beforehand that I was writing a Wikipedia article but I haven't asked them yet If I can use their name or cite them using their name, I'm just asking this question beforehand If I do get their permission). JAV317 (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This would qualify as original research if the information is not in a reliable, published source. • Quinn (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dang, I guess I won't be able to use the information that was given to me, now I feel bad that I wasted that man's time, im still waiting on him to clarify something that could be cited but besides that, I won't be able to use anything else. I will still post my findings on a third party website but I will not include them on the Wikipedia page. Thanks for the Help. JAV317 (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My edit here introduced a citation error I've never seen before, and cannot seem to locate - a soft hyphen. Is there any way of detecting where this is, short of counting out 530 characters in the quote? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there's an easy way, but I pasted the article into a file and piped it through od to find it. —Cryptic 04:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: Depending on your editor you may have a "Syntax" button in a toolbar above the edit area. Click it and look for something unusual. I saw a small red circle at the character, after the first word in "connected­ – personally". PrimeHunter (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks very much for that, Cryptic. Useful to know about that od tool - not being familiar with Unix - do you have a link for how you do that? Thanks also to PrimeHunter. I usually use the classic editor (after finding an ongoing issue with WikiEd on Firefox), but switch to WikiEd sometimes for find-and-replace and things like that. I can't seem to see a Syntax button on either, but please let me know if I'm missing it! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: It's in the default source editor. By "classic editor" do you mean "Enable the legacy (2006) editing toolbar" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets? It's not in that one. Here is a general external tool I use to identify special characters: https://r12a.github.io/app-conversion/. Paste something into the "Characters" field and click "View in UniView". My goal is usually to find out which character I'm pasting but it also works for your purpose if you make a browser search (usually Ctrl+f) on soft hyphen. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter No, I don't have that enabled, so assume it's the default source editor. I can't seem to see anything saying Syntax - just the Bold/Italic/Link/ etc. options, and Advanced option with a few more. Anyway, don't worry, thanks for that. Probably something I can't see for some reason, probably my brain... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: It's to the left of "Advanced" for me and has both "Syntax" and a pencil icon but the text may depend on "Improved Syntax Highlighting" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. Maybe you just see the icon in the image. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter Hmmm, thanks. I went and ticked the box for the Improved Syntax Highlighting box, but still missing the pencil or words in that spot (and the two to the left of it are swapped). I'll play around with it some more. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: If "wikEd" is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets then try to disable it there (not merely on an icon at the top right of edit pages). Do you see the pencil in ? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - thanks PrimeHunter - that gives me the pencil! I can now experiment with it (although I still find WikEd useful for the mass-change function), so may have to get used to switching in and out. At least now I know though - much appreciated. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: The default toolbar has search and replace on a magnifying glass icon to the right. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, must have forgotten that - thanks again. The other thing I use on WikiEd is the ability to change case over strings, which I don't see there, but not serious. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any hex editor or hex dump command would be able to do it. od's output is kind of opaque (example collapsed below), but it's what I used since I'm already used to it. —Cryptic 05:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic Ah, interesting. Yes, could be too late to each an old dog new tricks (although I do have a techy background in some areas). At this point, I am just hoping it doesn't happen again - but at least now have a few pointers to help find the problem now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

$ od -t cx1 article.txt |grep -3w ad
0002500 271 330 250 330 257     330 247 331 204 331 201 330 252 330 247
         b9  d8  a8  d8  af  20  d8  a7  d9  84  d9  81  d8  aa  d8  a7
0002520 330 255   }   }   ;       b   o   r   n       6       J   u   n
         d8  ad  7d  7d  3b  20  62  6f  72  6e  20  36  20  4a  75  6e
0002540   e       1   9   7   9   )       i   s       a   n           s
         65  20  31  39  37  39  29  20  69  73  20  61  6e  20  20  73
0002560   o   c   i   o   l   o   g   i   s   t   ,       l   a   w   y
--
0012520       I       w   a   s       c   o   n   n   e   c   t   e   d
         20  49  20  77  61  73  20  63  6f  6e  6e  65  63  74  65  64
0012540 302 255     342 200 223       p   e   r   s   o   n   a   l   l
         c2  ad  20  e2  80  93  20  70  65  72  73  6f  6e  61  6c  6c
0012560   y       a   n   d       t   h   r   o   u   g   h       a
         79  20  61  6e  64  20  74  68  72  6f  75  67  68  20  61  20
0012600   s   t   r   o   n   g       s   e   n   s   e       o   f

I actually misread what you wrote as referring to searching through a 530-character quote. Since the error message gives you the position, you could have bisected the problem by replacing, say, "| quote= Nathalie Handal spoke with Randa..." with "| dummy= Nathalie Handal spoke with |quote=Randa...", moving the split around until you found a position with a reasonably small position number to manually count out. (Obviously you'd start with a much longer first section, ideally a little less than your best estimate of where 530 characters would be.) —Cryptic 05:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - thanks! I rarely use such long quotes, but it seemed apt in this situation. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some modules in Pashto Wikipedia are not working properly, if anyone can fix them, please help us
For example this page شاه زمان پټان (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@شاه زمان پټان: It happens on that page when groupstyle is set, e.g. if you only have {{Navbox|groupstyle = width:8em;}}. There are differences between the groupstyle code in Module:Navbox and ps:Module:Navbox but I dont know the importance. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi team, I would like to create a new wikipedia page for myself. I have a basic draft version ready, but I am getting "Error, edit not published" issue. An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. Can someone from Wikipedia page help me setup my initial page version first & publish it so that I can edit it later more ? Yash coder (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Best have a read of WP:COI and WP:NOT. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about yourself is a waste of time. When people write about themselves, the chance of it getting rejected is very close to 100%. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time, yes; but I didn't know that the rejection rate was close to 100%, TooManyFingers. How close, and how do we know? -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the research has actually been done on it, but someone should. My anecdotal observations definitely concur with TMF. Athanelar (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Find as many autobiographies as possible that were successfully published on "modern Wikipedia" (i.e. after the BLP rules became somewhat stable in essentially their current form), are still on Wikipedia, and for which a reasonable argument for deletion is not easy to see.

(That initial number is very hard to get and bound to be incomplete, as far as I know. I don't know a better way.)

Number found, divided by the number of people who have begun an autobiography in that time (including all those who only spammed their own user pages or who gave up before clicking Submit), multiplied by 100, gives at least some rough idea of the success percentage.

I think it's that "number who have begun an autobiography in that time" part that pushes it toward oblivion; it would take a pretty large number of successes to put a dent in that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yash coder, you created something that, at a hurried glance, might resemble an article. You placed it in User:Yash coder. That's an improper use of a user page. I therefore moved it to User:Yash coder/sandbox. You are entitled to work to improve it there, but I warmly suggest that you instead forget all about it. (Perhaps try LinkedIn instead.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Yash coder To be more specific, Wikipedia is not a place to post resumes/CVs nor is it a web host for your personal use. For people to have an article about them they need to meet our standard for notability, which unfortunately you do not. Athanelar (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While you are allowed to write about yourself and your work, according to strict limits, we only publish articles on people who meet these criteria, measured by these standards.

Nothing in your draft article suggests that you do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1333495224

How do I fix generic name errors when the article says it was written by "Digiday Awards" as the author?

Thanks, Froggygoo (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Froggygoo, you have "last1=Awards |first1=Digiday" for something on digiday.com. If it were instead on msn.com or theguardian.com or lemonde.fr, authorship by Digiday Awards would be surprising and worth noting; but on digiday.com it's merely the default. So skip "last1=Awards |first1=Digiday". -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Froggygoo (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they original research?

Category:Lists of longest rivers

I am recently reviewing list of longest rivers of China in Chinese Wikipedia. It was a featured list once, but delisted for original research. Which part, you ask? It's the selection criterion: Rivers included in the article must at least 1000 km. However, a user suggested that the criterion itself is original research if no citations provided, and must provide a reliable source that defined a "longest rivers of China" as "rivers in China that are at least 1000 km".

Of course, the usage of the Chinese word 最 may contributed the issue (Chinese don't use grammatical number, so we can't tell if "最长河流" is "longest river" or "longest rivers", see plural for details), but after reading some longest rivers' lists, such as List of river systems by length, List of longest rivers of the United States, and List of longest rivers of Ukraine, I found that no citations provided to their definition of "longest rivers".

Then why list rivers longer than 800 km instead of 1000 km in the US? Why list rivers longer than 1000 km long in the world, not 800 km? Are there any sources supported their criteria? Why aren't these considered original research? - I am puzzled by these questions, and have no choice but ask in the help desk.

Thanks for reading. Saimmx (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saimmx, I'd have asked not here but instead at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help, I am not sure where to ask at the time. Saimmx (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Saimmx: Editors sometimes disagree about where to cut off a list of top-something but I have never heard the suggestion that the selection of the cut-off could be original research. I don't know whether "longest rivers" in Chinese implies a minimum size. It doesn't in English but if we chose a rather long list then we might call it list of rivers by length instead. But yes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers sounds like a better place to discuss this if it's only for rivers. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"I have never heard the suggestion that the selection of the cut-off could be original research."

This is actually unreasonable to me either, and I believe such claim would be seen as WP:POINT in enwp.

"I don't know whether "longest rivers" in Chinese implies a minimum size."

No, "longest rivers" doesn't imply a minimum size in Chinese, either. But when referring the word, "最长河流", many will understand it as the "longest river" (no plural here), and believe the word only refers to the Yangtze in China. (Or in the US sense, the Missouri only)

I disagree such understanding and believe that "最长河流" can be understood as "longest river" and "longest rivers", but it is fact that some people understand by such sense. Saimmx (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks, I think I will wait further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#How Category:Lists of longest rivers are listed? Aren't they original research?. Saimmx (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have two questions: I would like to contribute to the Amharic Wikipedia and work with you. My goal is to write and document the life stories of various Ethiopian individuals. Amharic is a national language spoken by more than 80 million people in Ethiopia. I have written my own story in English and published it elsewhere. How can I upload or publish this story on Wikipedia? Thank you very much. ~2026-37760-4 (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2026-37760-4. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not host any original research. This means that we cannot accept content that has not been already published in mainstream sources (such as newspapers, books, magazines, etc). We are the wrong website to host the documented life stories of various Ethiopian individuals, I'm sorry. I would suggest starting a blog or website where you can host this content. qcne (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the Amharic Wikipedia, please see am:ውክፔዲያ_ውይይት:ምንጭጌ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies, guidelines and teams of administrators. Only editors with significant experience on Amharic Wikipedia can give you advice specific to that project. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hushpuppy Sĥoes ~2026-38004-6 (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are there rules in Wikipedia about using your own (scientific) work as a reference in articles? Judithcomm (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Judithcomm Editing about your own work would be a conflict of interest, so you should not do so directly, but you may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) for consideration by other editors. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITESELF Athanelar (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Judithcomm (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I have a table I want to include in an article; sample output below. How do I change the code so that there are two invisible columns between "track" and "ft", which define distances for start and end of a piece of railway track, then the "ft" and "m" columns would convert the difference between those numbers and "Trucks" would equal "ft" divided by 27.5? All numbers need to be rounded down to nearest integer. Or do I need to calculate and manually input each number?

Anothersignalman (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anothersignalman: You should input the information manually (although see my comment about converting feet to metres below). Remember to give, for the table, the reliable sources you used to obtain the figures used, including where you got "27.5" from.

You may also be interested in the {{convert}} template which will convert feet to metres for you and place the result in two table columns. So using {{convert|300|ft|m|disp=table}} in a row will produce:

300

91

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza 7 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know I could use disp=table, I'll have to experiment a bit. The above is only a small portion of the full table, which has about seven or eight RS's linked to it. 27.5 just happens to be the length of nearly every wagon that this specific railway operated.

Anothersignalman (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article to add a spouse to an article, it said "That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest". I was the spouse, so what conflict could I have? AFB-Fr62 (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Conflict of interest details a lot of this. "... contributing to Wikipedia articles about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." If you are/were the spouse of the subject, you still have a certain closeness to the subject and would fall under the COI guidelines, regardless of intentions. Potential edits should be posted on the talk page of the article for a neutral, third-party to review beforehand. • Quinn (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest means you aren't 100% committed to Wikipedia, because you're also committed to the subject of the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You asked in the right place, on the article's talk page, but we need to see a citation for the fact that you wanted added. Simply saying "Lousiana Vital Records Registry" is too vague; can you give a specific web link (URL), or the details to allow us to find the relevant record? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I am writing a book on WW2. I am currently covering merchant shipping losses in 1939. i am using a Wikipedia page called Shipwrecks in 1939. I this is extremely helpful. Although I am not copying what is written I am using the information to look further but in some cases there is no more information than what is provided by you, so i use that. Is the subject covered by copyright and do I need your permission? If yes, how do I obtain your permission? Many thanks #Geoffrey Marks

wikipedia ~2026-38739-3 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright on facts, so you don't need permission. I would however advise you to look at the source cited for each wreck (most seem to have some sort of citation), and if the source seems credible, cite that in your book. As long as you don't copy wording (exactly, or through close paraphrasing), you won't have copyright issues that way either. Good luck with the book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, please do not cite those sources unless you actually read (or consult) them yourself. If you cannot find the actual source or if you just do not have the time to do that, then cite the Wikipedia article instead. This is not a matter of copyright. It's just the correct way that you as a historian should cite sources. A citation is an implicit promise that you actually used that reference. We also need to avoid "WP:citogenesis". If your book is at all successful (I hope this happens), future Wikipedians might use your book as a reference. If our original Wikipedia article has an incorrect citation and you copy it without checking it, it can end up being treated as valid by someone else in a later publication. -Arch dude (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-38739-3: You can actually copy exactly what is written if you follow our license. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Articles usually have many contributors and the rights belong to them, not to Wikipedia, so you cannot ask for permission but just have to follow our license which the contributors released their work under. If you do that then you can copy entire articles. Some websites legally copy millions of articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2017, I submitted corrections to Captain Edward Worthington's profile. In the 2026 Captain's profile, it links William Hord Worthington as a grandson. There were two Edward Worthingtons living in Mercer and Lincoln Counties in Kentucky in the early 1800s. Wm H Worthington was the grandson of the second Edward Worthington. Per the history of the Rice-Worthington House (now in Boyle County, Kentucky) the second Worthington lived in Danville, Kentucky until 1833 as a Court Judge. This information can be found on the National Archives Catalog of Historical Places: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/123849449 History of the Judge can be found on pages 12 through 15 out of 34 pages of the Rice-Worthington request. Captain Worthington died in 1804 while in New Orleans, Orleans Territory. Judge Worthington died in 1846 in Hopkinsville, Christian County, Kentucky. One of Judge Worthington sons was Rev John Tolly Worthington, and the father of Wm H Worthington. Per the history of Rev Worthington on Findagrave.com, they list a bio on Rev Worthington's son, Col Wm H Worthington. In this bio, it is listed that his grandfather Edward Worthington was born in Maryland. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/120431647/john-t-worthington Captain Edward Worthington erected Worthington Station, 10 miles south of Danville, Kentucky. My request is to not link Col Wm H Worthington to Captain Edward Worthington of Gen George Roger Clank's association. The Colonel is not a relative of Captain Edward Worthington. Camworth (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Camworth, you edited the article Edward Worthington in 2017; and doing so you attempted to reference some of what you were doing. But a lot wasn't referenced, and some was referenced unsatisfactorily (one reference read, in toto, http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Family:Edward_Worthington_and_Elizabeth_Madison_(1), rather obviously an inadequate source). If you believe that the article could and should be improved, please use Talk:Edward Worthington to describe how, providing reliable sources. (Findagrave.com is not reliable. Websites that invite their readers to add material are not reliable ... and if this makes you think "So you're saying that Wikipedia wouldn't count as reliable?", then yes, that's exactly right.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would D.A.R. be an approved website for references? Camworth (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion about D.A.R. It was not enthusiastic, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 480#Sons of the American Revolution and Daughters of the American Revolution. TSventon (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear I’m new here can we be friends Johnhypolord (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can be abele to meet with friends Johnhypolord (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you make valuable and reliably referenced improvements to articles here, you will find yourself interacting with other editors, who will be amiably disposed towards you. It's unlikely that you will ever meet any of them, face to face. But if your purpose in Wikipedia is to make friends, you are at the wrong website. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Social. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When we're quoting a passage from the Bible, is there a way to determine which English Bible translation we should use? Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It probably depends on the context. How and where is it being used? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's very few circumstances in which I can imagine it would be appropriate to quote the Bible anyway. It can't be used as a source as per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and if you're citing a scholarly/exegetic interpretation of the text for some reason then you should use the quote as it's presented by the interpreting source. Athanelar (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what context the original poster is using a quote in, but I can see it making sense in quoting for comparison (+with scholarly citations) between Bible versions, eg King James Version vs. New International Version. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Much will depend on context for the specific use. There is a Wikiproject for Bible topics: WP:BIBLE. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem is that any Bible quote would have to be in a context where there is absolutely 0 interpretation going on on the part of the editor adding it, because that would inevitably be WP:OR

Any context where an editor says something like "The Bible says X about Y, like in the quote..." would be inappropriate, because suggesting that any quote should be taken in a particular way is exegesis and therefore original research. I think comparing quotes between different versions is essentially one of the only times it would be appropriate. Athanelar (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The entry WP:RSPSCRIPTURE at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources makes similar points to the comments above. TSventon (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One possible scenario: some topic about which a historical figure quoted the Bible, in Latin; a Wikipedia article quotes that historical figure as having quoted the Bible; an editor wants to include a translation from Latin, but would obviously rather use a good existing translation than try to do their own on the spot. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The scenario is that there is an image in which someone is holding a sign containing a Bible verse, so a note using {{efn is stating what that verse says. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My guess under those circumstances: Is it a contentious verse? Or one that has been translated in significantly different ways? If yes, tread carefully and examine several translations. If no, any non-quirky non-dumbed-down translation should work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Folks!! This is question on location maps. I have a lot of articles e.g. this one here Rosneath naval base where the location map which is correct opens up without showing the red dot. I have a lot of these articles like this. I have this article here: Barochan Cross. I put an "OSM Location map" in. (Its not finished). When you open it up, it carried the location correctly and shows the dot for the correct location. Is there some way that I can use the mapframe embedded within the infobox that are currently in the articles that are using the old style of locations maps to replace the old map style Its seems a much better mapping solution overall. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I'm assuming you mean that when one clicks on a pushpin map in an infobox, one is taken to the file page for the map, which does not show "the red dot". That is normal, and there's no way around it. If one wants to see a more detailed map of the location, one should click on the coordinates at the top of the page and select an appropriate choice (like a Google Map or OSM) from the maps offered on the GeoHack page. If one wants to have a mapframe map in an infobox instead of, or in addition to, the pushpin map, one can certainly do that (often by just adding the parameter |mapframe=yes to the infobox, depending on what infobox is used). See, for instance, Isla de San Martín (Argentina), for both pushpin and mapframe maps, or Reading Public Museum, for just a mapframe map.

Personally, I find pushpin maps useful, particularly for things like cities, since they usually show locations in a wider context (countries or states) than the mapframe maps. Deor (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Deor: I think the mapframe=yes is ideal. I think it will be more Isla de San Martín (Argentina) as its showing the geographic region and location map. That is exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can I write an article David F Stevens (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can write an article. The question of whether you should begins with asking whether you have at least three sources about your chosen topic which meet the requirements described by the golden rule.

What is it that you want to write about, so I can give some more specific advice? Athanelar (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:your first article; but we strongly recommend that you get some experience making smaller changes to existing articles, first. I'll leave some links to guidance on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can write an article u just need ur topic to have sources and be significant enough Gfroi (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two main categories your question could be in: "about me/someone I know/our business", and "about some other topic". The first category causes new editors massive frustration as their plans tend to clash with Wikipedia's requirements, and usually ends in failure. The second category often turns out much better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given a Wikipedia article, is there a tool which tells me, in a density map:

The edits on the page based on what time they were made. Say, what portion of edits were made in all the various months of 2024? Which months saw the most activity, and so on. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: you could start by going to the page history, then the page statistics for the article, then the month counts. That gives you https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Example#month-counts . TSventon (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was very helpful.

I wonder if there's a tool which would tell me how much of the text currently in the article was added at what time? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I screwed up reporting a sock case and need this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dsiegelasu moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Donaldssiegel. Thanks. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you want Dsiegelasu added as a new report in the Donaldssiegel case? Please add a note to Dsiegelasu and a clerk will handle it. DMacks (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it accordingly. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Golden Whip, Dsiegelasu said they were an article subject trying to update their article, I can see why you reverted their edits, but wouldn't it have been better to also leave a message to explain what they needed to do to get their article updated? TSventon (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write about a professor of English at Osmania university who was once my classmate. ~2026-41214-8 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If you can find the necessary independent published reliable sources to demonstrate that the professor meets our notability requirements, then in theory you can. I'd strongly recommend gaining experience in editing Wikipedia more generally first though, as creating articles is a complex process, and frequently results in frustration for newcomers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a page for Ranboo, but I can't find it any more? Teeny tiny rat (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find anything like that under any reasonable permutation of the title. ("Ranboo" is, and always has been so far as I can see, a redirect to TommyInnit.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Teeny tiny rat: The logs [5] show an article called Ranboo was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranboo (2nd nomination). It can be found by clicking Ranboo, then "(Redirected from Ranboo)" at the top, "Page history" and "View logs for this page". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Dayan. I am 34 years old, an Iranian bodybuilder and boxer, and I am interested in acting in adult films. ~2026-41870-5 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to determine my editing milestones. For example, when did I make my 1,000th edit, 5,000th, 10,000th, and so on. Is there a tool that will provide this info so that I don't have to manually calculate them? Assadzadeh (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Assadzadeh: I haven't heard of such a tool and you have 647 deleted edits, usually meaning edits to pages which were later deleted for any reason. These edits including the time can only be seen by administrators. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I'm a pretty new editor, so I'm looking to know whether I'm on the right track or not by thinking I should send this article to AfD. I discovered it while trawling through various categories, and I don't think it's suitable for Wikipedia for a few reasons:

1: From what I can find, this work has barely been reported on since its publication in 2020.

2: The wikipedia article itself is extremely short and somewhat vague.

3: The amount of sources cited seems like overkill and some of them read in a promotional manner. There's only 1 source listed after 2020.

4: While the 'guest-editor'/journalist behind the work is notable, I feel like this article could probably just be a redirect to his page instead of its own article.

Because of the reasons above, I debated whether or not to PROD this article or send it to AFD. I know that being bold is encouraged here, but I hesitated because I have never done this before and was unsure if the social justice aspect of the article would make it unsuitable for PROD. Before I do anything, I just wanted to get input from more experienced editors - am I on the right track here?

Thank you sincerely for your time. Showaeire (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, 'social justice' shouldn't be a consideration when the appropriateness of an article is under discussion. At least, not per policy. Given that this project is edited by human beings rather than bots it may possibly tend to sway things a little, but it certainly shouldn't be used as an argument to keep something. Beyond that, you are correct: it is a single-sentence stub, amounting to nothing more that a statement that Coates guest-edited a single edition of Vanity Fair. If there was significant critical response discussing Coates as guest editor, rather than the content in general, than maybe an article might be justified. I can't really see that from the sources cited. The Coates biography notes that he was appointed a senior staff writer for Vanity Fair in 2025, and in my opinion, all that is really needed is a similar brief mention (without the over-citation) of his guest editorship there. This could be done with a merge, and would need no prior agreement (it would of course be subject to possible reversion and subsequent discussion). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy. Apologies for clumsy wording and thinking on my end. I think I got stuck on the 'uncontroversial deletion' part and worried that the subject matter might make it inherently 'controversial' and therefore not appropriate for PROD. I think I understand now. I'll look into merging the article, but I'm logging off for tonight. Thanks again for your getting back to me so quick! ~~~~ Showaeire (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]