Wikipedia:Help desk

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

Good evening. The main Paw Patrol page still states that the Dino movie will come out on July 31, instead of August 14. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise that on the article's talk page, citing a reliable source for August 14. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure i don't even need a source at this point, as it's literaly on the Dino Movie's page. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that you do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paw Patrol: The Dino Movie The date is right there. Look at it! ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, @~2026-24671-3, so copy the citation from that article. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But Paw Patrol is locked, that's why i'm making an edit request. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred way to do that is to make it on the Talk page of Paw Patrol, using the Edit request template, and stating the exact change you suggest and the source that verifies it.

Your initial post gave no indication of the source, and the other editors had to drag it out of you in stages. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did put it on the talk page and it still isn't there. Looks like ColinFine will have to do it himself. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't include a source, despite all the advice you have received here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I literally said that the correct date is on the movie's page. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I literally said "Please raise that on the article's talk page, citing a reliable source for August 14." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source. Happy now?! ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I literaly added the source, but nobody edited it yet... ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paw_Patrol&diff=prev&oldid=1345710283 -- TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki article has a table with 300 rows. When an editor makes a change in the table, the diff shows the entire table has changed. I have found conversations and open bug reports on this going back several years, but I'd like to make sure I'm not missing an easy fix.

I copied the table into a personal sandbox article, for testing. One thing I tried was to put each cell on its own line in the wikitext; that did not fix the timeout issue.

I think perhaps the table should be converted to text, but for now I want to make sure I'm not missing some options for fixing the table issue. My sandbox version, with musings and links to other tickets, plus the table in its own section, is here: User:Wikipedian-in-Waiting/300sandbox

Thank you!

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedian-in-Waiting: Please post a diff with the problem, or steps to reproduce if you cannot save an edit with the problem. I examined every diff in the page history of User:Wikipedian-in-Waiting/300sandbox without seeing a problem. Some of the diffs were huge but that's apparently because you made a huge number of changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikipedian-in-Waiting/300sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1344896199

And here's what it looks like for me: https://imgur.com/a/LUJcTZh

Here's what it looks like if I add &diffmode=inline to the end of the URL: https://imgur.com/a/LX4ZzEW

Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedian-in-Waiting: Thanks for the screenshot which shows you have selected "Visual". I can reproduce the problem there. It works with "Wikitext", both with and without "Inline". The full warning text is "It took too long to compute your changes, so the description below may not be optimal." The solution for now is to just use the wikitext diff if the visual diff works poorly. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I've never even tried the Wikitext and Inline options.... Thank you for the tip! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raquel Baranow has requested me in their talk page to change some details about one of their images (File:Wound Healing.jpg) that I edited and separately uploaded (File:Wound Healing edit.jpg in the article Wound healing).

While I think their requests have some merit, I do not feel comfortable making the edit for them due to circumstances of their ban, of WP:PROXYING for a banned user, and of some disagreements with the content of their requests.

Please advise. Thank you. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a postscript: I did not know they uploaded the original image. If I knew then what I now know about them, I will not have edited the image. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 18:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are not banned on Commons so it is acceptable for them to ask you to modify the image there, but they should use Commons talk pages to do so. It is, however, unlikely that the extensive commentary they propose is relevant on Commons.

Your change in the article here on Wikipedia was correct and should not be reverted; doubly so at the request of a banned user. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected; they are also indefinitely blocked on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will clarify on the usage in Wound healing that it is a hiking wound. I disagree that I "improperly attributed" and "completely obliterated" their image [1], but I think I will also add their "other versions" request in Commons. Would these be okay to do? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does the fact that it is a hiking wound tell us about wound healing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. I thought that different wound types mean different healing outcomes and thus it is useful to know the exact cause/type of the wound, but upon further thinking, the already-used "laceration" is more specific yet more useful. Thank you for the sanity check!

Would the "other versions" proposal be okay to do? I can see both cases for "yes" or "no", and another sanity check would be nice. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"other versions" would be OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to do anything more than you have done, and would be hesitant to do the "other versions" proposal. The image is attributed as a derivative, the story is completely unnecessary (and is available on the original image so not obliterated), the canyon is irrelevant and should not be displayed on our article. You've done everything correctly. Meadowlark (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello team, I really need your help. I am in Uganda, and I would like to contribute to Wikipedia by providing information about churches, hospitals, schools, and local talent in the country, but I don't know how to start since my contributions tab is still inactive.

Seganda, n(talk) 22:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Seganda: I guess you see grey unlinked text "Contribute" in a menu. It's a heading for the following items and not supposed to be a link. See Help:Editing and note the requirement for reliable sources. Starting a new acceptable article is difficult for beginners but see Wikipedia:Articles for creation if you really want to try. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Seganda (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seganda, you're very welcome to try. However, please note that (i) the subject of any Wikipedia article must be demonstrably notable (as the word is understood here), and that (ii) most of the hospitals, churches, schools, and talented people in the world, however worthy they may be, are not demonstrably notable. Start by gathering reliable sources; and only when you've gathered several, start to create a draft, citing those sources. Indeed, before you even try this, it's a good idea to get practice improving existing articles -- always citing reliable sources, of course. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Seganda (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd also be able to provide a photo. ~2026-18845-46 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Seganda, and welcome to the Teahouse. I echo what Hoary says.

To clarify what @~2026-18845-46 says: if you are trying to create a new article, then really don't worry about photos until you have done the important work of finding suitable sources, writing a draft, and getting the draft accepted.

If you take Hoary's advice, and improve existing articles, then adding photos to articles that do not have them is one way to improve them. But unfortunately Wikipedia is very careful about copyright: if you are able to take a picture yourself, you can upload it and add it to an article (see Upload wizard), but you most often cannot use a picture that you didn't take yourself. (See image use policy). ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Seganda (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox photo at Murder of Ruth Waymire clearly appears to have been run through an AI upscale/filter by its Wikipedia uploader, as it doesn’t match the linked source. I’m not sure what to do about this, I don’t have much experience with images. Any ideas? Electricmemory (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you upload the original version from the linked source and replace the frankly uncanny upscaled one, per WP:AIIMG. Athanelar (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar looking at the source the up-loader obviously put it through an AI, and didn't note this anywhere. I've got no experience with cropping at uploading photos so I'm not going to fix it myself. Electricmemory (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've PRODed it, can't think of what else to do. Electricmemory (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was not approrpriate; you were advised that the image could be fixed, and how. I have now done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing I wasn’t aware fixing it in that manner was possible. I assumed it had to be deleted and the new one reuploaded Electricmemory (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make an article I'm confused -PIERROTTHEFREAKCIRCUS- (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. Athanelar (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly about Draft:Freak Circus Available, which currently cites no sources. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @-PIERROTTHEFREAKCIRCUS-. In addition to the advice you have already been given, please note that Wikipedia may not be used for promotion - i.e., for telling the world about something.

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 unless and until several people wholly unconnected with the game have chosen to write at some length about it, and been published in reliable publications, no Wikipedia article about it will be possible, and I advise you not to spend any further time trying to create one. ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does a category automatically not get deleted if it's marked {{db-catempty}} and not empty? Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Late Night Coffee, I don't think the process is automatic. I understand that an editor notices a category is empty and tags it for speedy deletion under WP:C1, then seven days later an admin checks the category is still empty and deletes it. So an admin could accidentally delete a non-empty category as empty, but it is unlikely. TSventon (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon, You mean a human does the deletion step? So they'll probably not delete if not empty? Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Late Night Coffee, that is what I mean. Do you have a particular category in mind? TSventon (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would probably be in a triple-negative category all on it#s own, like Triple Cross or perhaps Double Bind with extra knobs on. I hope that no-one isn't confused. MinorProphet (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC) [reply]

Couldn’t access indigo girls. Locked out. Could access on other devices. Could access everyone else. Said error real fast in red. Worked later. Too strange. Happen to make comments on them in YouTube. Did Wikipedia being shared. How secure? No maintenance involved was able to access everyone else. Wasn’t there page cause I was able to look them up on another device easily. Please explain ~2026-18930-79 (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a technical issue that would be better answered at WP:Village pump (technical), but you would need to provide much more information than the rather vague and terse description above, such as what device you got the error on and what browser/app you were using. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-18930-79: Were you using a Wikipedia app instead of a browser? phab:T421359 reported an app problem earlier today but it should be fixed now. Indigo Girls works for me in the iOS Wikipedia app. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

हैप्पी बर्थडे टू यू ~2026-18834-51 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-18834-51: Google Translate says that means "Happy Birthday to you" in Hindi. Thank you. This is the English Wikipedia. Do you have a question for us? The Hindi Wikipedia has a help page at hi:विकिपीडिया:चौपाल. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information, @PrimeHunter: that's not even a translation into Hindi, it's a transliteration into devanagari. It says "Happi brthde tu yu" ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hæppī barthḍe tū yū, too. —Antonissimo (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation: the german wiki entry does not show up when searching in the en.wiki.

After finding the german wiki entry and trying a tool like google translate, the result is less than perfect.

How do I proceed? Cbumb (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbumb See WP:TRANSLATE for the basics. One problem is that if you aren't fluent in both languages, you will struggle. One other issue is that very often foreign-language articles don't have the sort of good sources that allow you to show notability, as will be required for the English version. Depending on the topic, you might get assistance from one of our local project groups. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike, but the translation isn't my problem.

The main problem I am trying to solve is that when searching on the en.wiki, the de.wiki entry is not found. Unless you know that there is a german version on de.wiki, you won't look further. That is why I am trying to create an (identical but in english) one in the en.wiki.

I'm not worried about adequate sourcing, but that would be something to address later if necessary. Cbumb (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If translation isn't a problem for you, then your best approach is to start a draft, or a subpage off your user page, and work on it. Once the article is in mainspace, it's easy to add new languages to the selector. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Found what I needed: Wikipedia:Translation#Translation from another language to English:

If the English article does not yet exist:

• you can create a starter article (at least a stub) in English, using the process described at Your first article; once you have created the article, tag it with a translation template, as mentioned above.
• or add a page request red link in the Requested articles Project section with the proposed title of the article which will contain the translation adding an interwiki link to the other language's Wikipedia page(s). Note that fewer people will likely see a request created using this method.

Cbumb (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Cbumb.

Despite what that page says, unless you verify before you start that the German article has sources that are adequate according to the standards of English Wikipedia, then translating the German article will - at best - produce a draft that has been written backwards.

I strongly advise that by far the most effective way to translate an article which is not adequately sourced is to start from scratch, locating the requisite sources and (only if you can find them) summarising what the sources say with little reference to the original article. ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbumb, I see that you have noted a conflict of interest in relation to de:Victor Hermann Umbricht on your user page. I therefore suggest that you use Wikipedia:Articles for creation rather than moving the draft to article space yourself. I have edited your draft to disclose that it is translated from de Wikipedia and added some basic formatting, I hope that was useful. TSventon (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TSventon,

Thanks- I can use all the help I can get right now ;-)

But I am quite confused - I think I have noted that in the COI itself, do you mean its better to also put it in the article? Also, I don't see your edits in the draft (yet?) is that just timing? or am I looking in the wrong place?

Navigating this process is quite the nightmare so far. What is the advantage of using Wikipedia:Articles for creation over working on the draft (which I think is in my "sandbox"?), but to tell you the truth, I thought I got there going through W:Afc. Perhaps I didn't save properly and started new in the sandbox?

Can I move what I have, wherever it is, to W:Afc somehow, or start over? What is the advantage of using W:Afc over what I am doing now?

Thanks! Cbumb (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbumb, your disclosure of COI is fine. I have edited User:Cbumb/sandbox you should be able to see what I have done by clicking on "Viw history"

Writing a new article is hard, even if you are just translating from another language. The standard advice here is to learn a bit about Wikipedia before trying to write an article, if you are interested you could look at Help:Getting started.

Your draft is in your sandbox, should I move it to Draft:Victor Hermann Umbricht? You may have clicked on Wikipedia:Article wizard and then on "Practice in your personal sandbox", but it doesn't matter much. It is best to move the page rather than copying the code so the history is preserved.

You need to do some more work on the page to make it suitable for publication, I recommend reading Help:Your first article, if you haven't already. Make sure the subject is Wikipedia:Notable before spending too much time. Then when it is ready, you can either publish the article yourself, or get a reviewer to check it first, which is known as "Articles for Creation". The advantage of AfC is that an experienced reviewer will check the article and tell you if there are any problems, also it is recommended by the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. The disadvantage is that there can be a long wait. In any case the article needs to be checked by Wikipedia:New pages patrol before it is indexed by Google. TSventon (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TSventon, much appreciated. Still trying to get used to how things work here. I compared what I saw in your latest version (Latest revision as of 00:04, 28 March 2026) and it looks to me like what I am seeing in what seems to be my latest version ( 22:38, 27 March 2026 ) in the source mode editing view?

If that is the case, this looks good to me. I am not sure if it should be moved it to "Draft:Victor Hermann Umbricht" as you suggest - (when I click on it I get "Wikipedia does not have a page with this exact title." which is what should be expected, I suppose). What would be the purpose if my 00:04, 28 March 2026 version is acceptable?

If this also looks ok to you, I would be fine with going ahead with publishing to AfC (if so how?) - but since you indicate this can take a long time, can it also be sent to Wikipedia:New pages patrol in the meantime? If so how? Cbumb (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbumb the article is not ready for publication yet. I think the subject is probably notable (suitable for an article in English Wikipedia), as he has an entry in the Historical Lexicon of Switzerland,. However English Wikipedia expects the information to be supported by inline references, and you have not done that yet. (As you can see German Wikipedia is different.) There are instructions at Help:Your first article#Citing sources, but to start with you could put <ref>...</ref> after the information and replace the dots with a web address for an online source.

To see the changes I have made you can click on the "view history" tab to see a list of changes and then "Prev" on one of the lines with my username, for example 05:01, 28 March 2026, where I removed some information at the bottom of the page.

You will only be able to move pages when your account has been live for 4 days, so you are not able to publish the page yet, even if it was ready.

The difference between AFC and new pages patrol NPP is that AFC is a check of a draft and NPP is a check of a page which has been published, so NPP can't happen before AFC. (Some AFC reviewers will mark articles as NPP patrolled when they publish them, but that is random.) Articles in the AFC queue are generally moved to draft names like Draft:Victor Hermann Umbricht as that means that a potential reviewer can see the page is a draft and what the subject is.

I have added some code to enable you to submit the article via AFC. I advise that both because of your conflict of interest and because you only have a day or two of Wikipedia experience. TSventon (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TSventon. Impatience with the process is on me.

I am also still battling with the user interface of this process, like the to me unpredictably popping up error message about incorrect nCaptcha , that comes and goes (I saw a comment that this was happening when you are < 10 edits or something, and it did go away yesterday, but now its coming back again, and stopping again... is this recurring for every different page (like Homepage, Sandbox etc.?)

Anyway, my main question right now is your point about inline references. I have tried to add some already, but it's hard for me to decide what details are worth referencing directly beyond what is listed right now - e.g., do I have to dig up references for the listed Honors? Every item mentioned in the LIFE segment, e.g. documenting that he was a court clerk in 1939-41?

These things are basically covered in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland and the Neue Deutsche Biographie... is that not acceptable?

Perhaps you can point out some key items that would need more detail?

Thanks again! Cbumb (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon,

Some more thoughts on the additional inline referencing. (Looks like I can't edit my 16:42 entry after hitting the reply button).

One dimension I think needs consideration is that the COI issue. As I stated with the COI box, I am hopeful I can mitigate COI concerns by staying.as close as possible to the de.wikipedia (and fr.wikipedia) versions, with which I had no involvement.

I am sure I don't have to point out that the selection of references can easily be a means of biasing content. Introducing many new references will likely be a flag for the reviewer(s) to carefully scrutinize them - which is fine, but could lead to much more work = time etc., which motivates me to stray as little as possible from the original de.wiki. version. I get that the en.wiki reference standards are different, but I would prefer avoiding trouble.

Your guidance is much appreciated. Cbumb (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cbumb, firstly Captchas, I think they are generated when you try to add external links and your account is less than four days old (or has less than ten edits). Four days isn't long.

On in line citations I would say cite everything. The article on Paul Trappen mentioned below is an example, there are just three references, but they are all given names and can be used more than once. The lead is often a summary of referenced information in the rest of the article, and in that case it does not need references. Wikipedia:Verifiability says references are needed for material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged. The article is mainly a list of roles and dates, so I would say all the information is equally likely to be challenged. From experience of German Wikipedia, inline citations are not required there, or at any rate not enforced. Also the German article was started in 2008 and the rules could have been different then. The earliest version of the article has an edit summary which suggests that it used Daniel Schwane's NZZ article. Do you have access to that?

You have a conflict of interest because Victor Umbricht was your father, so your draft needs to be checked by AfC. You have to change the article a bit to make it suitable for English Wikipedia and that creates work for you and the reviewer. I don't think the reviewer will be concerned if you choose the HDS, the NDB or the NZZ as a reference for a fact. Obviously adding lots of positive adjectives would be a bad idea. TSventon (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TSventon, thanks for your suggestions. Have a look at the current state - I believe I have added inline refs where it makes sense. Fortunately, all the relevant points I can see were covered by the references already there, I just added them inline where appropriate, so COI should be minimal. I was able to add direct links to the External links missing them (like the NZZ article).

Is there anything else necessary? Again, I would like to minimize my own footprint as much as possible to minimize COI concerns.

If this looks ok, Next Steps? Thanks! Cbumb (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cbumb, the article looks good, do you want to submit it to AfC? As you have seen I have made some minor adjustments here and there. I have just removed an external link to a pdf, perhaps that should be readded as a reference, if so it would be useful to clarify what document pages are being used. I want to format a couple more links as templates, but that need not delay you. The article only has two sources, which is very low, but hopefully enough. Also it mostly lists what he did and when, with minimal analysis, but I can understand why you don't want to work on that.

Did you find any discrepancies between the article and the sources? The NDB has an award from Los Angeles in 1984, not in 1987, that may be worth correcting. I think the article title should probably be Victor Umbricht as that is what both sources (and List of Bilderberg participants) call him. German and English titles don't have to be the same.

Incidentally, I found two Wikidata items for you, so I merged them as Christopher B Umbricht (Q91143227). TSventon (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I translated Paul Trappen from the German Wikipedia, and it was a lot of work. I know a bit of German but I am not fluent, so I did a lot of running a sentence back and forth between German and English in Google Translate, changing phrasing a bit until the bidirectional translations were stable. Much of the German article cited no sources, so I had to remove statements or find sources for them. This was also a lot of work. I added another source too. Within hours of my posting the translation, a bunch of edits appeared in the German version to update it, so I assume my version was used for that. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch TSventon.

Q1: Move to AfC - Yes.

Q2: Agree. The link went to a lengthy PDF, of which only one segment is relevant: the Summary Record of the Secretary-General's meeting on UNROD on 26 April 1972 (p1-7.) What I have no idea about is how to create a link that selects that portion, not to mention that I have had great problems with the way refs appear to be managed here - when I was inserting the in-lines, for instance, suddenly the sandbox mechanism started added a new (identical) references (i.e., the small [1] and [2]), with a new entry and number below every time I did that...??? I was able to get rid of it, but there is a lot of the UI I still don't understand.

Anyway, could you add that PDF as ref [3] below and at the same spot in line as the UNROD-related [1][2], perhaps with additional info stating something like (Secretary-General's meeting on UNROD on 26 April 1972 (p1-7.) ?

Q3: Links vs Templates - gladly leave that to you since I have no idea what the differences are and how they work differently.

Q4: "minimal analysis" - yes, that is something I want to stay away from for COI reasons, and it is not my expertise.

Q5: Discrepancies - Yes I saw that, and don't really have a better suggestion that yours, to assume Mr Schwane has a typo and rely on the NDB date of 1984.

Q6: Title = Victor Umbricht - I don't know the better choice, I stayed with the full name Victor Hermann Umbricht to stay close to the de.wiki entry.

Q7: Merged Wikidata - thanks - no idea what that does but fine with me. Cbumb (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TSVenton,

on second thought (re Q5: discrepancies): I prefer leaving it as is, since that reflects the info on the de.wiki, fr.wiki, it.wiki. I haven't been able to find a "tie-breaking" other source, so I prefer leaving it consistent with those entries. I did find some correspondence between some Swiss official thanking a US/LA official for honoring Victor Umbricht with the LA award, and that was in 1987, so there is that. I will continue to look for more, but leave it for now. Cbumb (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TSVenton,

re: Q5: Discrepancies: Found one in the NZZArchives (1/15/1987, p.34): https://zeitungsarchiv.nzz.ch/read/7395/7395/1987-01-15/35 Cbumb (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cbumb hi again. Firstly please could you "ping" me when you want a response. You can do that by copying [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] from my signature, you also have to sign your post. That means I will see your queries sooner.

Q2 and Q3: I will deal with those in the next day or so and let you know if I have any problems.

Q5: discrepancies. English Wikipedia has a Verifiability [policy, which] means that articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, such as reputable newspapers and scholarly journals. The quote is from Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines, I have added a couple of words in brackets. Therefore we should rely on what Schwane wrote in the published Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz, rather than what he (?) wrote in German Wikipedia, which is not a reliable published source. I am less familiar with the policies of German Wikipedia: they will be somewhat different, and will have developed since the article was written in 2008. Obviously even reliable sources occasionally make mistakes, but footnotes help readers evaluate the evidence. (As an academic, you will know that better than I do.)

Q5 again: I don't have access to the NZZ archive, please could you quote what it says?

Mentorship: I see that you have asked your "mentor" a couple of questions, hopefully they will respond soon. Wikipedia:Mentorship volunteers agree to answer questions, they don't check all your edits.

P.S. Congratulations you are now Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed. TSventon (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TSventon,

I will try to ping from now on - not sure when to put the "TSventon" - here goes a try.

I have a screenshot from the NZZ 1/15/1987-p.34 notice, not sure if it will work if I just paste it here, since I don't have a copyright.

Following the popup instruction, I copied it to "Screen_Shot_2026-03-30_at_12.19.09_PM.png (744 × 361 pixels, file size: 437 KB, MIME type: image/png)", no idea if this works, or if I am violating some rule. Cbumb (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TSventon, did the "ping" work yesterday? Also, you mention "you also have to sign your post" - not sure what that means or how to do it (is this specifically for "pinging"?) - I assume everything I enter and "publish" or "reply" is signed?

ad Q2: What about the PDF (https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/639451391017922190-0560011973/original/WorldBankGroupArchivesFolder1771226.pdf) you removed with the suggestion of adding it as reference, which I think is a good idea, as it illustrates the Bangladesh engagement for the UN/Worldbank mission.

Problem: only one segment is relevant: the Summary Record of the Secretary-General's meeting on UNROD on 26 April 1972 (p1-7.), but I don't know how to selectively link that from the overall linked PDF doc. You can do a find in the browser ("Summary record of the Secretary-General's meeting on UNROD

on 26 April 1972) when you are on the PDF, but I don't know if the specific segment can be in the link.

Anyway, I believe this is soon ready to submit to the AfC? If so, how to I do that?

Thanks!

TSventon Cbumb (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbumb, thank you for the pings. The location of [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] doesn't matter, you can put it at the beginning. The thing about signing is that if you edit a conversation to add a link to a user without adding a signature, the ping doesn't work.

I have added the reference, I don't think that it is possible to link to a page in a PDF, but the reader can search for the title. I looked up Biharis in Bangladesh and it seems some are still stateless.

I have moved the article to Draft:Victor Hermann Umbricht. I think the article is ready for AfC, to submit it just click on the blue button near the top "Submit the draft for review!"

The 1987 NZZ clipping is probably a copyright violation, so it will be deleted shortly. You could add it as a reference by adapting <ref>{{cite news |title=Globales Engagement vor der Globalisierung |trans-title=Global Engagement Before Globalization |url=https://zeitungsarchiv.nzz.ch/read/127577/127577/2008-07-14/9 |work=Neue Zürcher Zeitung |date=14 July 2008 |language=de |url-access=subscription}}</ref>. TSventon (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon

Thanks TSVenton.

About the signing - probably doesn't matter, since you got the ping, but I still don't understand what you meant with "signing" - I never tried to "sign" anything - is that automatic?

Thanks for the PDF reference. Works as is, but it would be nice if I/you could added an additional "Search PDF for "UNROD" to locate" at the end of the reference, or something like that?

I don't want to mess up the reference block, and I don't know how to access {reflist}, which is all I see in the source editing mode. So I don't know how to do that.

As to the NZZ - the link to the PDF alone is not a copyright issue, right? Since wikipedia allows paywalled references (correct?), I think we can leave it as is?

Other than that, I believe I'm ready to submit? Cbumb (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cbumb, yes, I think you are ready to submit. For the rest:

Signing is the process that adds your username and the time and date to your edit. I think it is automatic when you use the Wikipedia reply tool, in any case it is obviously working.

The way references in the article work is the code for the reference appears following the sentences it supports and is displayed as a superscript number where the code is located and as a reference with the same number where the code {{Reflist}} is located. So the code for reference 3 appears after the word "(UNROD)". I have added the note you suggested to reference 3.

Linking to the NZZ website is not a copyright violation. TSventon (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon

Thank you!

Not very happy with the available "Tags", but you can't create new ones I guess (like "UN" "ICRC" or "International Mediation"... Oh well.

Submitted.

Thanks again for your help.

chris Cbumb (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cbumb it is good to see that the article is submitted. I would suggest checking to see if AfC have responded with queries, ideally weekly. If you add an email to your Wikipedia account, you can get email notifications if a message is posted to your talk page or to a Help:Watchlisted page, see Help:Email notification.

The tags on the talk page are "Wikiprojects", which are groups of people interested in editing articles related to a topic. Many projects are now inactive, for example I added Wikipedia:WikiProject United Nations, which seems to have been merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations. Are you happy wit the article's categories? They do a similar job. TSventon (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon

Yes, I think your additional tags/categories are fine.

Re: email - I am getting emailed notices when you reply - is that different for the AfC? Cbumb (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cbumb, I just wanted to check if you had set up email notifications, I didn't when I first started. I also recommend watchlisting Draft:Victor Hermann Umbricht.

Incidentally, would you be interested in providing an image for the page? It could be either fair use, just for English Wikipedia, once the article is published, or freely licensed, which could be used on any Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon

It looks to me like the draft:VHU page is on my watchlist, although I didn't create the watchlist, as far as I know...

As to an image, sure, but I will have to root around to find one that is not from a publication/newspaper etc. Since I am in the US, I will have to ask my sisters who are still in Switzerland if they have something suitable. If so, assuming it is some family photo, what next? Take a iPhone picture and submit - where to?

Take care.

chris Cbumb (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I recently made a small edit to Bengal fox (based on the cited source at the end of the paragraph on their head, body length, and weight, and I was wondering:

What is the standing policy on units? Do you use the same units as used on the cited source? Do you round units to the nearest whole number as you see fit, or do you show all information as provided in the source?

Any input is appreciated, thank you. KyleTheFox18 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that you should generally use the units appropriate to the "nationality" of the subject of the article, though you can use Template:Convert to include conversions for people more familiar with other units of measurement.

Generally we do round a bit, as discussed at MOS:LARGENUM.

Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input! I did use template convert, as it was used previously, but flipped primary units from in to cm, as the source was metric (mm). and as it turns out, the region (india) also uses metric, so everything seems ship-shape!

according to MOS:LARGENUM, my rounding also seems fine. thank you for linking it!

where from can i search the manual of style? i can't find its homepage. KyleTheFox18 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a search box and multiple links at WP:MOS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help! Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Happy editing! KyleTheFox18 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just translated the German Wikipedia article about Sebastian Klein into English (I originally wrote the German version). The draft is currently saved here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tarat97/Sebastian_Klein_(entrepreneur)&oldid=1345536381

Could you help me with the next steps, or review the draft for submission?

Thank you! Tarat97 (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I put a banner at the top of User:Tarat97/Sebastian Klein (entrepreneur) so you can submit it for review.

See also WP:ENTREPRENEUR. Everyone is an entrepreneur, and calling that out in a draft may raise a red flag for reviewers unless being an entrepreneur is extremely well documented. You don't want to synthesize that assertion if sources don't say it. See WP:SYNTHESIS. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Tarat97. We only use a term in parenthesis in a article title if it is necessary to disambiguate. There is currently no existing article called Sebastian Klein, so your draft, if it is accepted, will have that title. ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-19099-75 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-19099-75: If you have an account and know the password then log in and go to Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Last names Choudhary Chowdhary Chaudhary is different than CHAUDHARI which is primarily a Maharashtrian name belonging to region Maharashtra - its not bengali name which might be taken after . ~2026-18862-57 (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-18862-57 It's not clear to which article you are referring. Please raise this on the talk page of that article, including a reliable source for your assertion. Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@User:~2026-18862-57 Our article Chowdhury is pretty comprehensive and covers Chaudhari as a surname. Talk:Chowdhury is the place to make any comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who can help me document a Wiki page for my father, Bill Goodall, jazz bassist, who played with Tommy Dorsey, Tony Bennett, Frank Sinatra, George Shearing, Marian McPartland, to name a few. He's in published books and recordings with lesser-known musicians Steve Jordan's book and records (Here comes Mr. Jordan with Billy Goodall), Billy Butterfield's records (Fat Cat Jazz), Charles Peterson's book (Swing Era New York). Goodall70 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask at the Music WikiProject, and describe what sources you have with significant coverage of your father. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything more than passing mentions, which isn't going to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your post was far too large, and possibly a copyright violation. Just tell the top three absolute best sources. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to copy and paste an extensive list of all the albums my father has played on, I didn't realize it was a breach of protocol. In my first attempt at supplying the top three absolute best sources, the first one "Here comes Mr. Jordan with Billy Goodall" my father's name was removed, in fact there is no mention that he's even on the album. I have this album and a few others, as well as some books with Steve Jordan. When this is corrected, would this be one viable source? Goodall70 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking for the kind of sources described at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Goodall70, as you have made this appeal and have enabled email, what's very likely is that you will be contacted by a self-described experienced editor, senior editor, moderator, administrator, or other species of poohbah of Wikipedia, who'll offer assistance (for a price). Such assistance is unlikely to be competent, if it's delivered at all. Ignore it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant guidance is at WP:SCAM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am writing to request a review of the maintenance templates currently on the Josh Hasty article (specifically the "AI-generated" and "Paid contribution" tags). I am the subject of this article and I am disclosing my Conflict of Interest (COI). I am not editing the page myself to avoid violating community guidelines, but I believe these tags are now outdated. Since the tags were originally placed, several independent editors have significantly rewritten the article, removing the sections that were flagged as problematic. Because the "demands" of the tags appear to have been satisfied by the community’s recent edits, I am requesting that a neutral editor review the current version. If the content now meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutral point of view and human-authored prose, could the tags please be removed? Thank you for your time and assistance.

~2026-19062-49 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Posting an AI generated comment to request that a maintenance tag identifying AI generated content be removed is certainly a choice. Athanelar (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Not long ago, a standard in every country article's "Quick facts" section, the "Drives on the" entry, was removed.

Do you know why that was?

It was helpful.

I do know there is a good article on this: "Left- and right-hand traffic".

Thank you! Glenn Warren (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided on Infobox country's talk page in March 2025: Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 16#Driver side (Don't edit that page. It's an archive.) Essentially, it wasn't considered an important enough fact for the infobox. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are two files that are up for discussion. I tagged the later uploaded one. A user by the name of George Ho tagged tye newer file for discussion on behalf of me. It sucks, but only three people answered on my entry (though those three people concurred with me). No administrator has closed it because four people agreeing is rarely consensus. What should I do if my discussion ever dies down without reaching consensus? I don't think this qualifies as a WP:DISCFAIL because that is more when you ask one person a question and he/she does not respond. Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 06:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nutella lover, FFD discussions are, in priciple, supposed to remain open for seven days before they can be closed. Unlike some of the other XfD noticeboards, the number of administrators reviewing FFD tends to be small since files (particularly non-free files) can be trickier to assess in terms of relevant policies and guidelines; so, it's not uncommon for a FFD discussion to run more than seven days. Furthermore, non-adminsitrator closes are usually pretty rare because of the complexities involved and also because closes often result in files being deleted. FWIW, the administrators who do monitor FFD are a pretty dedicated and knowlegeable bunch but sometimes just get busy doing other things. I don't think there's really anything to worry about here; most likely one of those admins will get to the discussion (either to re-list it or close it) fairly soon. The most recent comment in the discussion was made early today; so, perhaps an admin is waiting to see whether that generates any additional comments. If another week or so passes without any new comments being made or without any administrator action, then you can always request a close at WP:CR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else having problems with Geohack and the coordinates links? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaosdruid: Please always give an example. It failed for me a few minutes ago in London infobox but works now. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was all of them - i tried several pages, then several random pages. I shouldn't have to tell you to assume good faith. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Chaosdruid. PrimeHunter asked you for an example (since you hadn't given one) and then reported that he had seen a problem and then seen the problem go away. How is that failing to assume goot faith? ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaosdruid: I also wonder that. I asked for an example so I could examine whether the same page was broken for me. Many problems only occur on specific pages or for specific users depending on their preferences, user scripts, browser, device, location, and so on. It's always important to give an example so others don't waste time wondering what they are supposed to examine if there is no apparent problem for them. Even if you think something is on all pages (which may or may not be true) , ALWAYS give an example. ALWAYS. Asking for an example is perfectly reasonable when a poster fails to give an example. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Can you give" or "what page(s)" would have been fine, but "always give an example" assumes I have read some rule somewhere and ignored it, and am now being chastised like a naughty child --- that, is the very definition of AGF. I also don't need another person jumping in to their defence AFTER I had given a reply either. When I tried twenty or more pages, half of them "random article" from various "sections", I'm certainly not going to be going back through my history to find them. It was only for a short time, all working agian, end of drama. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to change my username. Please provide me with a link for doing so. Dreambrokerz (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Changing username for an overview. 🏳️‍��JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 16:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have requested a move in Talk:Giovanni Battista de Rossi, I have to report the matter in some projects to get more opinions? ~2026-19073-91 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TOPIC: DONATIONS AND MY OWN WIKIPEDIA BIO.

I was a long term supporter of Wikipedia through monthly $1,000 donations to your foundation. I got a new credit card and would reup my donations IF: I could edit my own bio that is on your website and is full or malicious disinformation put there by several individuals who are stalking and bullying me. I have just set up a Wikipedia account, but this did not help me repair my own bio. Nor did it allow me to find information about how to become a supporter again. I need to be able to fix all the lies in my bio AND to shut out the individuals who are falsely editing it.

Sincerely Yours,

Founder, J Class Management, Inc.

Founder, The International Yacht Restoration School Elizabeth E Meyer (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to the Elizabeth Meyer article? I can see no recent evidence in the article history that seems to indicate malicious edits. Such issues are generally best dealt with at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and you'll probably have more success posting there, providing the necessary details.

A couple of points though. Firstly we discourage (though don't absolutely prohibit) people from editing their own biographies - articles are supposed to be neutral, and based around what independent reliable sources have to say on the subject. Secondly, we DO NOT take into consideration whether donations (which go to the Wikimedia Foundation, not the volunteer contributors here) have been made when considering issues with articles. That would be entirely improper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the bit about the Vietnam war as off-topic, and based on a single source which mentions it in passing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see https://donate.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LandingPage&country=US&uselang=en&wmf_medium=sidebar&wmf_source=donate&wmf_campaign=en.wikipedia.org to restart donating if you so choose- but whether you do or not has zero impact on the content of the article about you.

Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about the topic. If the provided sources are not being accurately summarized, or sources are missing, please detail how on the article talk page. To propose specific changes, please use the edit request process to propose edits. I suggest you propose one or two changes at a time, incrementally, to ensure a volunteer working in their free time will review them. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find the advice for article subjects, at WP:About you, useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hii, my talk page addition of new topic for improving a section of contentious topic page has been removed and I do not know the reason for it. In my opinion I made genuine and non bias attempt to improve the page but it was removed with no reason. The contentious topic template says only extended confirmed users are allowed to make edits - I implied that this applies to the main page and not talk page itself, this is what I understood from the wordings atleast.

My section was removed from the talk by a non administrator, are extended confirmed users allowed to that?, I thought they could only comment. Why is talk page being treated as private room. In my past readings of talk pages generally talk pages don't revert stuff. They are striked out or hidden with a comment for same. It feels harsh this way.

Article Dhurandhar: The Revenge Talk Page section revert edit [2] `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 16:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone already answered your question on your talk page. Do you have any questions that they didn't address? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 16:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, thank you. There should be way for everyone to atleast discuss ☹️ @JohnLaurens333 `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 16:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the note ('active arbitration remedies') at the top of the article talk page, and then read Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Due to extensive issues with disruption to the discussion by people clearly unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works attempting to argue their own opinions into the content (which isn't permitted - we base articles around published sources), we have unfortunately been obliged to restrict edits (other than simple uncontroversial requests for e.g. correction of typos) to contributors with more experience. This is clearly less than ideal, but the alternative can be so disruptive as to render actually fixing anything almost impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that side of issues too, but it's easier to mass ban or purge comment than totally shut space for discussion, this is still my opinion and it seems current consensus is against that thinking. I think I received clarity, accept it with little sadness. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 16:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we can't have a rule, and then apply it selectively based on how valid we think the suggestion was. That would be too prone to bias, or at least allegations of bias. I wish there was a better solution, but then again I wish people could be a little more rational about what should be a simple article about a Bollywood movie, and not a stand-in arena for a debate about the influence of politics on Indian media, and a focus for the interminable India-Pakistan rivalry/conflict/tedium. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with what you said! Poepple, Rationality, Internet are increasingly more toxic relationship. Hate (sometimes scared) to come on internet and post anything. Thank you, I won't chase 500/30 hope it happens someday on own 🙏. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merely continuing to edit in other areas of the encyclopaedia that aren't under extended-confirmed restrictions will let you get there eventually. Don't worry overmuch about it - contentious topics like that are probably the worst place for an editor to learn how to edit to begin with, since they're full of users who suffer no fools and are tetchy at best since the underlying topic is a bomb looking for a fuze. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This section highlights areas where publicly verifiable and reliable information regarding the Indian rapper Emiway Bantai is currently limited or unavailable. Despite his significant presence in the Indian hip-hop scene and substantial digital footprint, certain aspects of his personal life, creative process, and business operations remain either undisclosed or insufficiently documented in credible secondary sources.

Key areas with limited publicly available information may include detailed insights into his early life and background, comprehensive documentation of his music production methodologies, contractual or financial details related to his independent career, and verified accounts of his off-stage activities. Additionally, some claims circulating on informal platforms lack citation from authoritative or reputable sources, thereby rendering them unsuitable for inclusion under Wikipedia’s content guidelines.

It is important to adhere strictly to Wikipedia’s principles of verifiability, neutrality, and reliance on reliable sources when addressing such gaps. Any future updates to this section should be supported by credible publications, interviews, or officially released statements to ensure accuracy and maintain encyclopedic standards.

This acknowledgment of unavailable or insufficient information serves to maintain transparency while upholding the integrity and reliability expected of a Wikipedia entry. ~2026-19105-44 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use LLM's to post here. Write in your own words. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and WP:AITALK in particular. We are not interested in engaging in dialog with next-word-guesser algorithms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And please also note that We appear to have no article on Emiway Bantai (Indian Rapper), we are also not capable of reading minds, and you will need to indicate where the issue is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Emiway Bantai has been deleted 6 times previously. Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I found that. There still appears to be some questionably-significant content on the rapper in other articles, which may need cleaning up. If we are ever to have an article on this person, it is going to happen because of what gets published in reliable sources, and not because of pressure from publicists etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, an IP edit from around two years ago added a much-abridged quotation from a politician in my country to an article I'm currently working on. Being familiar with the politician and the context, I believe the quotation is useful (though it was written in very broken English before I fixed it), though I believe that this goes against WP:VERIFIABILITY. The online newspaper source of the quotation also has little more than the several paragraph long speech of the politician, which would force me to either pick and choose specific quotes or summarize the gist of what he's saying. Other sources also give inconsistent accounts as to what he said and also includes quotes in headlines/headings that aren't found in their main text (including the first source I mentioned earlier). What should I do? I appreciate any help. Wreaderick (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sister Cities in Houston, your list still reflects the name of Shenzhen (sister city for Houston) that should not be listed any longer. ~2026-19134-28 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise this concern on Talk:Houston. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reviewing citations to Medium.com and I ran across one in the article on Gelatin. The passage of concern is:

A common gelling agent in cooking, different types and grades of gelatin are used in a wide range of food and nonfood products. Common examples of foods that contain gelatin are jellos, trifles, aspic, marshmallows, candy corn, and confections such as Peeps, gummy bears, fruit snacks, and jelly babies.^[1]

I'd like to remove this citation as a WP:SPS. The issue is I'm unsure how to handle the examples. I think there's an argument for removing them all, however I also think there's an equally strong argument for keeping examples supported by their linked articles. I.E both jello and aspic mention gelatin almost immediately in their leads, which is supported by sources in their bodies.

The way I see it, the options here are:

1. Do nothing. Claim made is uncontroversial and not likely to be challenged, so Medium article is sufficient.
2. Remove the citation, leave all examples.
3. Remove the citation, leave only examples in which the linked article mentions gelatin in the lead.
4. Remove the citation, copy over citations from linked articles for each example to support that they're made with gelatin.
5. Remove the citation, delete entire examples section.

What's the best move?

As a more general question, how much can crosslinks support?

For example, if the article Dreyfus Act says "One system which is banned domestically under the act is the ED-209 peacekeeping drone, which is manufactured by OmniCorp," and ED-209 opens with "The Enforcement Droid Series 209, or ED-209, is a heavily armed, fully-automated peacekeeping drone manufactured by OmniCorp. It saw use in domestic law enforcement until it was banned under the Dreyfus Act," would I need a citation for the fact that ED-209 is banned under the Dreyfus Act, or would the crosslink be fine? Is there an official policy on this? (I searched but couldn't find one, please trout me if I missed it.)

Rcfische2 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Using a crosslink to support a claim is like using Wikipedia articles as citations more broadly, which is not allowed. It would be better to go to the article in question, find the source which says that item contains gelatin, and then use that as your source. Athanelar (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- I was trying to fix/cleanup the table for the ongoing Celebrity Jeopardy!#Season 4 (All-Stars, 2026)_2, but have come into a bit of a dilemma. The current bracketing template being used is Template:27TeamBracket-3way, but that uses 9 quarterfinals, and need one with only 6 quarterfinals. The other closest I could find, Template:18TeamBracket-ThreeWay, uses 6 quarterfinals, but has only 2 semifinals while a bracketing is needed here with 3 semifinals.

I cannot seem to find any other bracketing template that has 6 quarterfinals and 3 semifinals, so am unsure on how to go about this. As it may be of use, the bracketing on the Jeopardy! website can be seen here. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: I set RD1-byes = yes per Template:27TeamBracket-3way#Byes.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit confused about why my edit was reverted. Since Tiger Woods is universally known by his nickname, and his birth name is Eldrick Tont Woods, I thought the lead could be written as "Tiger Woods (born Eldrick Tont Woods; December 30, 1975)". I only did that because his common name is Tiger, and I've seen similar cases, like Jilly Cooper, who was born Jill Sallitt but was known by her commonly used name. I'm just trying to understand what the difference is here. Thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:NAME, The most complete name should appear at the beginning of the article to provide maximum information. I'm guessing the difference between your two examples is that Cooper changed her name (adopted her husband's surname), whilst Woods has kept his birthname, but just goes by a nickname. nil ^nz 09:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Alternative_biographical_names is the more useful link here, specifically the last bullet point. nil ^nz 09:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ItsShandog (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Tiger Woods (born Eldrick Tont Woods; December 30, 1975)" implies he has legally or officially changed his name to Tiger Woods.

Compare Snoop Dogg; "Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. (/ˈbroʊdɪs/ BROH-dis; born October 20, 1971), known professionally as Snoop Dogg" This is the right way to handle someone who has a 'stage name'/nickname which they use in their professional capacity. Athanelar (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thank you! ItsShandog (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See also Sting (musician). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another famous example is Ringo Starr. Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for Royce White's article to use the same photo in both his primary/basketball infobox up top and in the MMA infobox further down, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to remove the MMA one. Can someone please help? Thanks. SportsGuy789 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SportsGuy789, I checked for instructions in {{Infobox martial artist}} and added |suppressfields=image to the infobox, which has removed the image. TSventon (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it! SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2026 page from Portal:Current Events is blanked. What happened? G.J.S. (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK from here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @G.J.S..

I think you're referring to the page you get to if you pick "March 2026" from the top of the calendar picker on Portal:Current Events.

But I notice that 1) Portal:Current Events already contains events from this month; and 2) if I pick the back arrow to change the calendar picker to February, then the "February 2026" at the top of calendar picker is no longer a link.

So it seems to me that the "March 2026" shouldn't be a Wikilink, because Portal:Current events we're already there.

Perhaps you'd like to bring this up on Portal talk:Current events. ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the page I was referring to. The problem is that the portal's main page has only the last 7 or 8 days, while the month page used to have everything from the beginning of the month, but I'll bring that issue there. Thank you very much G.J.S. (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was a WP:PEIS issue, which has now been resolved. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 21:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Does anyone know if it's possible to delete an edit request? New here, trying to learn. Thank you for your contribution to my wiki education!☺️ AGTWick671 (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AGTWick671: I'm presuming you're referring to your request on Talk:Ed Gein. While you may delete your own edit, it's bad form to revert other people's edits. Therefore, I restored your request and its responses. GoingBatty (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Jonathan Marcellus. I would like help determining whether I meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Here are independent sources about my research, citations, and public service. I have published research that has cited by many scholars, and it has been published through many academic repositories including academia.edu, ProQuest, Scholarworks and perhaps many others. It is titled "The Experiences of job recognition in the East Coast Casinos". I am also a published author of two books and a two-time regional political candidate for Atlantic County Commissioner. I am currently running in the 2026 primary and general election cycle. ~2026-19525-55 (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, read and digest WP:ABOUTME. If you still want to go ahead, read WP:GNG and WP:PROF and ensure that you satisfy either the one or the other. (You don't need to satisfy both.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not really based on what you've done, it is mostly based on what other people have written about you, with some very limitrd exceptions. 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. Athanelar (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble creating citations, and I haven’t been able to figure out what I’m doing wrong. Please see citations 9 and 10 on this page: Take Me to God Ccgcc (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it; you were missing "url=". The same way you put "title=" before the title of the article you're citing, you need to put "url=" before the actual URL. Hope this helped. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 05:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedians, I was trying to move User:Versions111/Hoya amboinensis into mainspace, but accidentally moved it to User:Hoya amboinensis. Can somebody delete the redirect? Versions111 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can tag pages created in error like this with {{db-error}}, a subset of CSD G6. I've done so now. Athanelar (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a stub under "confined liquid", subheading: confined to nanometer dimensions. There is only a stub, and the subject of confined water has become much more important based on recent (last ten years) work. I would like to change this stub to a full article (I have an article draft with 32 references (at this point--I cut it down from a longer book chapter in my book on "Water in Biology", which is three years old, plus some new references; I could easily extend it--it is rewritten, so there would be no copyright problems). The article is not controversial as far as I can tell, but it would replace the stub that is now all there is on the subject. How do I proceed? I tried just adding it to the top of the stub (which is not incorrect, just insufficient), but the automated filter rejected it as "disruptive". My article contains nothing political. I could extend it, with additional detail, but then it might become too technical for a general audience. Please advise M.E. Green ____ T333678 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to have made any other edits on this account, so it's hard to see which article you're talking about or which edit was rejected by the filter.

Could you perhaps paste the rewrite you're trying to implement to your sandbox at User:T333678/sandbox so we can have a look at it? Athanelar (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @T333678

It strikes me as unlikely that a chapter of an existing book is going to suitable for a Wikipedia article - not impossible, but unlikely.

Writing for Wikipedia is different from most other kinds of writing.

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 the requirement is that most of the sources each meet the golden rule, and that the content of the article is a summary of what the sources say - nothing else. I guess it depends on the kind of book, but I would have thought that the book would contain at least some synthesis from the sources, which is not allowed in a Wikipedia article.

There's also a potential issue with copyright. If you are summarising the book, that is not a problem; but if you are copying whole chunks of it (or closely paraphrasing) that might be problematic. Even though you presumably hold the copyright on the original text, it is likely that it has been published with a copyright notice, and Wikipedia will not accept if unless you formally license it under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA - see donating copyright materials.

I don't want to dissuade you from contributing, but I think it's worth pointing out potential issues that might arise. It's probably also worth your looking at expert editors ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should not have started with the reference to the book--it was more a matter of showing that I have the ability to write on the subject. The book has 13 subject matter chapters (plus epilogue and conclusion). This chapter has 107 references (it is an academic monograph, with references for each chapter). Not all the 32 references in the draft article are in the book--some are newer, for example. Obviously, this is a complete rewrite, not a paraphrase, and there should therefore be no question about copyright--there is nothing that is directly copied from the text, which is not written for a general audience. The article refers to the book, for those interested in further reading.

The reason for having a confined water article is that this subject is becoming increasingly important, and the absence of any mention of the subject (the stub has nothing really relevant) is significant lacuna in Wikipedia, which I have made an effort to fill. You should not worry about copyright issues.

This is not a subject that requires a point of view. The article covers the main questions that involve confined water--obviously it does not go into detail on each of the topics; I doubt that it would be considered in any way controversiila. T333678 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @T333678. Thanks for clarifying.

I would still advise you to read your first article, WP:synthesis, and WP:expert editors if you haven't already.

My concern is not whether it is controversial, but whether you, as an expert, might be tempted to go beyond what your sources say and inject your own knowledge and ideas. ColinFine (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think I have managed to avoid inserting my own opinions. The introductory material, calling attention to the number of water molecules per ion at several concentrations, is not usually included in textbooks but with experience I wish it had been--but it is useful for a general reader. I did not even include it in my monograph. However, counting the number of molecules is hardly a matter of opinion. On this topic, I believe I have simply written an abbreviated review of fundamental parts of the literature. This is not to say that I do not have controversial opinions on other topics; if I were writing on ion channel gating, I would write something that would differ from what others in the field would write. However, there is nothing on that topic here, and I believe what I wrote would be generally accepted as factual--I did my best to keep it factual. ~2026-19723-53 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to fix references 1, 7 and 12 at [4]? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am not sure how to deal with this. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to List of mass shootings in the United States and find the definitions for 1, 7, and 12 that were in that article before you moved stuff to List of mass shootings in the United States in the 2020s.

As for the other error, |last=News |first=B. N. O. is not an author name... Don't do that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lower in the body, right or wrong? How about Infobox? Henrydat (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a proper noun, capitalize. Otherwise, don't capitalize. See MOS:CAPS. But, don't sweat it, it's not a big deal if you get something wrong. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Henrydat (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My page (with the above title) was published for public search/view for 15-years. Without any notification, my page was deleted from public view. I realize "citations" were needed, but I find the methodology too difficult to understand how I am to provide that information as well as correctly submit this for the administrators satisfaction. The nature of what I do can only be proven with links to the organizations I participate/membership (or have in the past). Those links were provided in my 1st drafts which DID appear on the original published page. Examples of those were: simple Google search of my name, link to ASCAP's ACE database, the RIAA awards I have received, the union (AF of M) I have belonged, the college I graduated from- Berklee College of Music, magazines articles about me. Since the creation of my page I have been inducted into the WV Music Hall of Fame. Please contact me at the email address on file to best instruct me on how to get my page published (undeleted). Thank you. Festerbunny (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, Festerbunny, you won't get a response by email unless perhaps it's from somebody offering to help you for a price. (Ignore any such "offer": it's most unlikely to result in a competent draft.) Please read WP:42 to see what would be needed for an article about you. If you would qualify, then I imagine that somebody other than yourself would eventually get around to creating an article about you. Incidentally, you seem to suggest that "[your] 1st drafts which DID appear on the original published page" might have been superior to later versions; however, at the end of the first day of its existence, the article told its readers for example: Barnhart wasted no time in infiltrating and familiarizing himself to club owners and managers as well as club promoters and doormen to eventually be on the A-list, and VIP memberships of some of the cities most coveted nightclubs. / This move was essential for networking with industry notables and procuring work. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your text was all either unsourced or sourced inappropriately, with the possible exception of the newspaper, which I am blocked from viewing. I'm surprised it lasted so long before it was deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Festerbunny.

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.

If there are not enough such independent reliable sources to base an article on, then Wikipedia should never have had an article about you in the first place; but we were less careful about this in the past.

The only way that an article about you could be published is if somebody showed that you met WP:NMUSICIAN - which still requires the multiple independent reliable sources to base the article on. ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone contacts you about resuscitating the article, see WP:SCAM and don't fall for it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I have started a discussion on the Talk:Giovanni Battista de Rossi, but I am not receiving enough input to resolve the issue. Could someone advise how I might attract more feedback? Thanks! ~2026-19735-12 (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could post a note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology, inviting people there to comment on Talk:Giovanni Battista de Rossi. -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What Hoary said, more general guidance at WP:APPNOTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw about a week ago there was an article for the website Makeship but I checked now and its gone. I looked through articles for deletion and the consensus was keep so what happened, why is it gone? Medina1529 (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's here:Draft:Makeship...there was a second discussion a day later which resulted in "draftify". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makeship (2nd nomination). Lectonar (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone removed the bold from the names in the leads of a few pages I have done and said that this is because it's only done for redirects, but I'm confused because I was only following what I've seen done on basically every page I've ever seen, and some of them weren't redirects. Is this a very strict rule, or does it matter that much? For instance, this page doesn't say anything about a redirect at the top, Disappearance of Amanda Campbell, and it is using bold, Springfield Three, Ylenia Carrisi, etc., and many more. None of these that I can see are redirects, and they're doing the exact same thing with just the name of the person in bold in the lead. Unless the redirect is not obvious on these or I'm missing it, but I don't see anything about it, as it usually says at the top when a page is a redirect. Any clarity here would be great, thanks. ItsShandog (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:BOLD. Without seeing the specific articles in question, it's hard to say whether bolding is appropriate, and there will always be edge cases. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Chloe Mitchell, Disappearance of Steven Cooper, these are the pages it was removed from and they're similar to the examples that I have sent. ItsShandog (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also MOS:BOLD is saying "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead." Would their name not be the title word or phrase? It is basically the focus of the whole page and I would argue the title word or phrase as the page is focused on them and their disappearance. ItsShandog (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are probably edge cases: the name isn't the full title of the article, and it's presumably the death/disappearance and surrounding events that are the focus, since these aren't biographies. If you think it's important, you can either discuss it on individual article pages, or maybe bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Remember though that bolding is never necessary to understand anything in this context: it's really nothing more than a typographical convention, and sometimes overused by contributors who mistakenly think it is some sort of requirement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsShandog: MOS:BOLDALTNAMES says:

If an article is about an event involving a subject about which there is no main article, especially if the article is the target of a redirect, the subject should be in bold:

Azaria Chantel Loren Chamberlain (11 June – 17 August 1980) was an Australian baby girl who was killed by a dingo on the night of 17 August 1980 ... (Death of Azaria Chamberlain, redirected from Azaria Chamberlain)

So your examples should be bolded. If you make an edit which adds bold then you can say "per [[MOS:BOLDALTNAMES]]" in the edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ItsShandog (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ItsShandog:, thanks for your message on my talk page which I will also reply to, but I have to say I disagree with this. The cases mention are not an application of MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, because the name of the affected individual is not a "significant alternative name" for the article about the killing. It is a redirect from a related topic, which is different. My opinion is that we emphatically should not bold the name of the person, per MOS:BOLDTITLE, which says "When the article title appears verbatim in the first sentence, it should be in bold. In articles where the article title does not appear verbatim in the first sentence, boldface is not used." These cases are neither the article title verbatim, not are they a significant alternative name, instead they are just part of a longer sentence detailing the fact that there was a killing/disappearance etc. Please let's leave them unbolded. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: My above quote from MOS:BOLDALTNAMES is about exactly this situation. The example is Death of Azaria Chamberlain. The post to you was about Murder of Ashling Murphy, and Ashling Murphy redirects there. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Arriving from WT:MOS) @Amakuru: It's not an application of the first sentence of BOLDALTNAMES, but the later bit (quoted by PrimeHunter above) certainly applies here. Given that the Azaria Chamberlain example is explicitly included in the MoS as good practice, I can't see what's different in (in particular) the Chloe Mitchell or Steven Cooper examples above. In both cases I think the MoS says to bold. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that's in black-and-white then, but I am deeply surprised by that. That clause seems to completely contradict the sentiment behind the whole rest of the MOS:BOLDTITLE guideline. Why should such titles be exempt from the overall rule that we don't bold partial titles? In these cases, writing it that way gives undue prominence to parts of the overall subject of this article over others. The article isn't about Amanda Campbell it's about her disappearance, and frankly if you're going to bold one part of it then it would be preferable to bold all of it. Amanda Campbell disappeared is worse than Amanda Campbell disappeared IMHO.

Looking at this history of this carve-out, it has been around for a long time, since this 2013 edit, but was based on a discussion in which only the proposer and one other editor contributed. I would definitely !vote to nix that part of the guideline and stick to all non-bold if we were to discuss the matter now.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: "Amanda Campbell disappeared" is the type of non-verbatim title MOS:BOLDTITLE says not to bold when the article title is Disappearance of Amanda Campbell. "Amanda Campbell" isn't a rephrasing of the article title so MOS:BOLDTITLE doesn't apply, not even the part which say not to bold, but something else like the followihg MOS:BOLDALTNAMES may apply. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's in the same spirit as the non-bold rule. Don't bold the whole title, and also don't bold part of it. At Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977) we don't bold Coventry City and Bristol City even though it could be said that the article is about those two things. And yes, I know that's a different case form an article with a direct redirect from the bolded topic, but the same principle applies. The lead should reflect the actual topic of the article, not some other topic that happens to redirect there because it isn't notable enough for its own article, and also happens to form part of the article title. The 2013 change was nonsensical and against the wider spirit of that guideline.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's in the same spirit as the non-bold rule: as you allude, that's exactly why the exception is needed. The other key guideline is WP:BOLDREDIRECT: Terms that redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section. So the same principle doesn't apply -- the fat that it's a redirect is a crucial distinction. Removing the carve-out in MOS:BOLDALTNAMES wouldn't change the guidance, it would just make it less clear. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment faire pour accéder à wikipédia ~2026-19726-71 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour. Si vous aimeriez, vous pouvez trouver le Wikipedia Français à fr.wikipedia.org. PolarClimates (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up to the commentors, I've done exactly what was suggested for the FAQs on both Talk:Sambhaji and Talk:Shivaji and will also be reverting any new name-change requests on either talk page and WP:RFPP/E (which is also getting spammed with this) on discovery. I would not advise blocking any users who make such requests at present; they're all either TAs or otherwise throw-away accounts and blocking will do hardly anything based on history. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team. I am Mari Kim, myself in wikipedia. I have been trying to change my profile photo for so many years and it has been so difficult, I'd like to succeed it this time, Please. How can I change my profile photo? Artistmarikim (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:A photo of you for guidance. Athanelar (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When sorting the list here List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign by 'Dates', oldest first works fine, but when sorting newest first, the top two rows are 1879 then 1857–1859 (then 2013 etc..); can anyone have a look please? Or suggest anything I can try?. JeffUK 23:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: You use VisualEditor where it may be hard or impossible to see what happens and change it. I fixed it in the source editor.[5] The whole column uses awful code to make the sorting but I'm not dealing with that mess and merely fixed the two rows by using the same bad system. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...I thought to myself "I've got time, I bet I could spend it fixing that". Then I opened the editor. What. the actual. heck. (Might still see if I can spend time fixing it. But not until I've finished some other low-priority off-wiki task that I actually want to do, ha.) - Purplewowies (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC) Three hours later... Done! - Purplewowies (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos, Purplewowies! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Turkish Young Academy

Hi, I added a page about Turkish Young Academy of Science its a long time i couldn't get a respond. May i have information about process and when it would be added to wikipedia? Thanks OpenNote (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is submitted and pending. As noted at the top, it could take some time before it is reviewed, as this is a volunteer driven process. Please continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone add hat notes in the article J. J. McCarthy to James Joseph McCarthy, John Joseph McCarthy and Joseph J. McCarthy? The page is protected and I can't do it. ~2026-19998-19 (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could someone please move Giulio Gatti-Casazza to Giulio Gatti Casazza (without the hyphen)? This appears to be the correct form of the name (see also [6]). ~2026-19904-11 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The primary place to discuss this is at the article talk page: Talk:Giulio Gatti-Casazza. But doing a quick check, I note that all three references in the article are about "Gatti-Casazza", including the hyphen. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even the page you link to uses both forms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I'd like to write an article about current whale rescue efforts in Germany. A whale has been swimming in the Baltic Sea (outside its natural habitat) since the beginning of March, and since then it has been in the Media. He first became stranded nine days ago, was rescued, and has now become stranded four more times. It's a huge drama and media event; live streams are getting millions of views, it's dominating the news in Germany. He is also featured in international media, including BBC, CNN, Guardian, ... I'd really love to create an article about it; is it relevant enough? I'd say yes, since there's in-depth coverage. Unfortunately, the German Wikipedia doesn't see it as relevant, so I'd like to make an article Here. Sorry if I'm in the wrong section and thank you for your help! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On English Wikipedia, the criterion is WP:Notability, which can be fulfilled by the requirements summarised at WP:42. If you have three sources good in all the respects detailed there, an article should be possible, and I'd be surprised if there weren't three or more such sources.

You've been here long enough to know about WP:Your first article and the WP:Article wizard, so I say – go for it! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm looking forward to preparing the article later. :) Do you have any good name suggestions? I'm still quite unsure. Thanks! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not offhand, but don't worry about it. When a reviewer accepts the Draft and moves it to a new title (without the "Draft:" prefix), it can be given any title you or they think better. For now, just use something relevant, however clunky. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has vandalized the article entitled "Dear Jonas.". In the text of the letter from Donald Trump to the Prime Minister of Norway, they have added two short paragraphs threatening a "murder spree" against Iran with the help of Israel. These paragraphs were not part of Trump's original letter ~2026-20095-19 (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why language links are now sorted by language code, rather than by native name of the language? For example, Finnish (Suomi) is now listed under F, rather than S, because its language code is fi. I think that the old version is better. --40bus (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English-language Wikipedia. Quite a large percentage of monolingual Anglophones (Google AI suggests 95%) will have no idea that what in English is called Finland is Suomi in its own main language, and would be confused by such an ordering.

(Of those (5%) who do, I bet many will have been stamp collectors at some point. I was, but in any case I have also visited Finland.)

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It had always been ordered by the native name of the language (romanized if not written in Latin alphabet) since I found that list many years ago. I looked the link to Finnish Wikipedia by searching "Suomi", under S. And I know native names of more languages than their language codes, so the ordering by native name should be the best option. And some languages have language codes not similar to English, e.g. Georgian ka and Irish ga so this new ordering does not always make it clear to English speakers. --40bus (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the change either. It seems to have been done in February (meta:Tech/News/2026/09), because the mw:Extension:InterwikiSorting was considered legacy code that no-one wanted to maintain anymore: phab:T253764. MKFI (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"And I know native names of more languages than their language codes, so the ordering by native name should be the best option."

What you know, 40bus, may not be typical for the majority of users, but in any case the point is moot since that seems not to be the functional criterion used. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@40bus: So where, in your preferred sorting order, does 中文 go? Bazza 7 (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted something under G4 and salted it. By my count articles on that topic have been deleted something like 11 times since 2005 at 3 different titles. At least 4 of those 11 times were at AFD. Here's the thing - we should and do cover the topic, but coverage of the topic is spread out across several different articles instead of consolidated into one article. Covering it all in one article would be a violation of WP:SYNTH.

I'm tempted to make a page to go at the main title (the one that has gone through AFD 3 times). Sort of like a disambiguation page. But usually a disambiguation page is something like "XYZ can refer to XYZ book, XYZ movie, XYZ song, XYZ place . . ." What I'm thinking is more like, "You may have arrived at this page because you are looking for information about XYZ or ABC or QRS or LMNOP..."

Do we have pages like that? I don't think that's really a disambiguation page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would a Category be of any use? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yo i’m Ozzie, formerly "rave(Crowny)" my article thingy randomly got edited and reposted without any explanation ??? It got dragged into a debate (which eventually ended with the disagreement on article-status and was downgraded to a draft) like over five months ago .. i’m kind of confused why (SOMEONE!! i will not name) tried to do a bold move like this … but whatever pleases the soul and mind ig. Anyways, can someone help me? rave (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, users don't "own" any article or draft. (see WP:OWN) Material submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone (if appropriate attribution is provided, see WP:ATTREQ). It looks like Veyhola decided to make some changes to the draft and publish it, presumably because they're confident the issues with it were resolved. You'd have to ask them about it. – Scyrme (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested.

The source I'm using does not list specific authors names it only lists them as Britannica editors. How should I change the citation to make it better?

Thanks, Mc12354 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mc12354, |last=Editors |first=Britannica implies a writer whose first name is or was Britannica, born into a family with the unusual surname of Editors. Simply cut this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jpblackofficial (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not blacklisted; it's deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Joey Primiani. An editor could request undeletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Such a request would of course have to argued persuasively. That seems unlikely, so I'd suggest that you give up on Joey Primiani. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is blacklisted, too. —Cryptic 02:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed is. I realized this less than a minute ago and was about to correct my misstatement, but you beat me to it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested.

I need the help adding a citation to the article.

Thanks, Janak Bhatta (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You say |website=https://www.onlinekhabar.com/ -- but "website" should specify the title of the website, not the URL of its top page (or any other page). Additionally, please read up on title=, script-title=, and trans-title=; all three are explained in Template:Cite web/doc. -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! For April Fools, I'm thinking of filing a joke ANI against an alt made specifically for the joke. Would it be acceptable to make such a joke there (if properly tagged as humour). If not, is there a place a joke ANi would be allowed? QwertyForest (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:APRILFOOLS. Things that are added as jokes may not always be as funny as they seem to the person who posted them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@QwertyForest I think that would be okay, as long as you're tagging it properly and you think the folks over at WP:ANI would find your bit funny. Making alts for such purposes is acceptable. If it doesn't go over well, then that's alright too; there's no punishment for having a joke not land.

Best of luck! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Em🐈ail me! 07:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]