Hi, I’ve recently created a new article titledDeath of Noah Donohoe, and I’d like to add a photo of him. I’ve seen other articles use fair use rationales for non-free images, but I’m not familiar with how to do this correctly.
Could someone please advise:
Whether it’s appropriate to use a photo of Noah under fair use?
What steps I need to follow to upload it properly?
How to write a fair use rationale that meets Wikipedia’s standards?
Hello, @ItsShandog. The criteria are atWP:NFCC, and it's up to the uploader to determine if they are all met, and to write a justification showing so. Does that answer your question, or are there some more specific questions you have?
Go toWP:FUW, pick Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is a historical portrait of a person no longer alive.
I have tried but once I clicked upload it brought up some type of error message and just showed a jpg page but no picture on it. Its asking date of publication for the picture also but is that when it was first published or the picture that I'm uploading? It doesn't seem to be working when i try upload it.ItsShandog (talk)13:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
translating and publishing a wiki-page from Farsi (Persian) in English language (original page creator request) ==
Hello there,
This is Iman Shamim. I am contacting you regarding the issue of publishing an available Wikipedia-in-Farsi page in English language. The original wiki-page (in Farsi) has been initiated by myself, and, at this moment, I am receiving some requests for translating the page in another languages of English and French for it to be better known and more widely spread. However, I was informed that only experienced editors are permitted to issue pages translated from other languages to English directly.
May you help me to go through this process? also, the following is the link to the original wiki-page:
You may use theArticle Wizard to create and submit a draft for review.
Please know that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is considered acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. It is up to the translator to make sure that the subject meets the requirements of the Wikipedia for which they are translating. In our case, you would need to show that you meet thespecial Wikipedia definition of a notable person that we have.
331dot, it appears that the subject of the proposed article died decades ago. Wikipedia editors don't have to be notable. (Or anyway I hope they don't. I for one am a nobody.) --Hoary (talk)11:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Wikipedia page, and I am unable to make any edits. I am the representative of the company and would know if we can get the ownership of the page below.
The information that is posted is incorrect and outdated, would appreciate a response so I can have the rights to edit the information as per our company profile and it is affecting our company profile.
Amna Zahid Khan First, as a company representative, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure, seeWP:PAID.
Individuals do not "own" articles here, they belong to the community.Donald Trump does not own or have exclusive control of articles about him. You are blocked from editing a couple articles directly, but you are permitted to make formaledit requests (click for instructions, or see theedit request wizard) detailing changes you feel are needed.
I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.
Amana Contracting and Steel Buildings isWikipedia's article about your company. It does not belong to you or your company, it is not controlled by your or your company, it will not necessarily say what you would like it to say, and it can be edited by nearly anybody in the worldexcept you and your associates. You are, however, welcome to suggest changes, using theedit request mechanism, once you have made the mandatoryWP:PAID disclosure.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject inreliable sources.If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.ColinFine (talk)11:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've a new mailadress and connot access my Wikipedia Useraccount anymore
Since twostep verification I cannot login to my account anymore because of an old deleted email adress.I have a lot of saved Wikipedia lemmas in my account and I am a regular donator of Wikipedia. 1. Can somebody please help me to change the emailadress from my ald deleted to my present preferred email adress? 2. Can somebody please help me to keep my old account with samed lemmas and regular financial donation?Baljuw (talk)09:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request some updates to theRye St Antony School page. As the school has merged with Headington School, and the school now operate under and we now operate under a new structure with two separate sites:
Prep School (for girls and boys aged 3–11)
Senior School
Each site has its own distinct branding. While we now have a new page titledHeadington Rye Oxford, the current page for the Prep School still contains outdated information and does not reflect the recent changes.
To avoid confusion and ensure accuracy, we would appreciate your help with the following:
Updating the existing content on the page to reflect the current status of the Prep School.
Renaming or rebranding the page (if possible) to align it with the updated structure and branding.
Providing guidance on the process or requirements for making these changes, if needed.
I came across information that 'the brain responses of progressives and conservatives are different', but I'm not sure where it should be included.Domoso55 (talk)12:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Domoso55 That statement seems to me hopelessly vague. First of all what does your source mean bybrain response? Is this a neurological response or an emotional reponse or what? And response to what kind of input? We are all different so I would expect everyone to have their own responses to whatever stimuli it's talking about.Shantavira|feed me13:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Bavarian by birth myself from deep Oberpfalz (so I would be able to speak a very developed dialect, but I don’t do it because nobody understands that except my grandparents). Considering what problems the scots Wikipedia had, I wanted to ask if the Bavarian Wikipedia is OK or not. There are a lot more speakers, but there are only recently efforts to seriously preserve it, and there is academic debate over wether it's a language or a dialect (most speakers, including me, just consider it as a dialect based on standard German. However, it's a language insofar as we didn't know it was "nicht" and not "niad/ned" or "Gesangsverein" instead of "Xangsverein" when starting school. We even got exercices like "think of a phrase in high German this week"). Ludwig Zehetner thinks it's halfway to a language, while Anthony R. Rowley is more open to it being a language. There are calls to include it as a school subject. While it's slowly declining, a majority of Bavarians still have some sort of dialect/regiolect/accent. This is brings me to my point: Bavarian Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any officially rules as Bavarian is a family of dialects. This means if high German words are used, nobody realises/cares, even though there is a Bavarian alternative. Theoretically, I could totally volunteer to help with translation, but I only know Oberpfalz dialect which is very different from the rest of old bavaria (we use a lot of ou {like ow} and äi {ey} sounds). So, is the Bavarian Wikipedia fine currently or not?2003:EE:6F0D:D339:D818:4051:25C0:BF12 (talk)13:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably beyond the skillset of editors frequenting this help desk. You could ask atWT:WikiProject Bavaria.
(edit conflict) In principle, each language version of Wikipedia is a project of its own, with no authority over any others. But when it was found that the largest contributor to Scots Wikipedia was not a speaker of Scots (also know as Lallans), the issue was discussed here. This seems appropriate, as Scots is a dialect of English. But Bavarian is a dialect of German, not English. Wouldn't it be better to ask about this on de:Wikipedia?Maproom (talk)13:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. When most British-English speakersthink they're hearingScots, they're actually hearing English with an admixture of Scots, which is what most Scottish people actually speak; moreover, they skew their language towards British English in circumstances that are more formal and/or when English (etc.) people are part of the conversation – this is largely unconscious.
If Scots speakers speak unmodified Scots, they are all-but incomprehensible to a native British-English speaker such as myself (who lived in Scotland for seven years in my teens and twenties). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)16:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I translated and improved this articleMaría Dolores de Pablos from eswiki. I'm having second thoughts on this article about of her notability. Theastrology side ispseudoscience of course, but she has some legit poetry published. Can you review it if it is worth of a proposal for deletion? I'm currently banned of prod use and afraid of doing the nomination for myself just in case, even though I'm not banned on nominating AfD and opening the discussion. Could someone else do it if you find it suitable, please?Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk)20:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see. But I was wrong, that's not the only issue. I mean, there's the two sides of her personality: her pseudoscience side and her poetry side. Plus being cofounder of a literary salon where *other* poets gained more fame, it seems. So I doubt on her notability and balancing that two public sides of her life in the article or if the pseudoscience side "wins" and merits the article a deletion?Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk)20:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than a stub, and appears to be well referenced. I can't easily assess the references since I have almost no Spanish, but if they areWikipedia:Reliable sources, comply withWP:42 and support all of what is in the article, then by definition the subject isWP:Notable.
Astrology may be a pseudoscience (which I as an astronomer would agree with) but the fact that many people believe it means that it and its practitioners are significant factors in society and as deserving of inclusion as any other. A person could say much the same of any religion other than their own. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)02:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the article I translated/improved from eswiki. Thanks for the comparative, you are right. It's hard to assess to me on where to “put the limit” on what someone believes: I mean in terms of astrology, traditional religion, UFO science,flat earthers,nibiru'ers and stuff like that. For instance, there are still somehollow earth'ers,fake moon (artificial moon) believers etc., but I guess that could go in the conspiracy theories article. And worth of an article if the conspiracy is so elaborated and sustained in time to produce stuff like notable meetings etc. Oh, when adding links I found that all of that articles and concepts I mentioned are already in the wiki, great!Aldorwyn of Rivendell (talk)14:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vitorperrut555: There is no way to tell. The account hasn't specified an email address. Any non-public IP address information would be long deleted perWikipedia:CheckUser#IP information retention. The user uploaded a new version of a file in 2009[2] or at least tried to. As an administrator I should be able to see the file but it gives an error message. Somebody reverted to the previous file version two minutes later with the edit sumamry "we have a problem".PrimeHunter (talk)00:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bot keeps restoring content that should be deleted fromToni Breidinger. The ref in question is a paid/sponsored fluff article that should not be on Wikipedia, yet this bot keeps sticking it back in there. How does one fix this?Electricmemory (talk)23:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Atthis edit you removed the definition for<refname="Glamour Magazine–2022">; you did not delete the matching<refname="Glamour Magazine–2022"/> tags (seethis reference listing (permalink). It is not surprising then that AnomieBOT restored the reference definition. If you want to delete theGlamour Magazine reference, you must delete all uses of it.
Hi so the redirectAgender was previously an article, but was turned into a redirect and turned into adraft. However I think the draft is ready to be moved to article space now and would wish to skip articles for creation this time. But ive run into a wall due to the redirect existing, and I cant delete the redirect because it has some of the article history on it! Could someone help?Pencilceaser123 (talk)00:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question regarding what appears to be an inconsistency across articles with Japanese titles, particularly those including the modifier particle "no" (の). For some articles, such asAme-no-Uzume, the disparate words are joined with dashes, however in articles such asYamata no Orochi, no such dashes are used. The articleKusanagi no Tsurugi does not use dashes in the article title, however the lead section of that very same article uses dashes despiteKusanagi-no-Tsurugi being a redirect page. Is there a section of the Manual of Style that delineates the ruling for this?Ichika.jss (talk)01:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour, I am working on creating an article and when complete the article, I want to make an article on an incident about teachers giving students sleep-aid stickers. But I fear that this will be deleted as an attack-page. Would this topic be an attack page? If not, how can I make this article to not be an attack page and what would be a good name for it?Sources are here:[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and other ones I am too lazy to link. ~Rafael (He, him) •talk •guestbook •projects04:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rafaelthegreat, I clicked on the first of your links. Nothing there (which isn't necessarily your fault). I clicked on the second, and learned that according to a page last updated just eight days ago,The school district says there is an "active criminal investigation". I suggest that you wait till the criminal investigation is over; you'll then know what name(s) reliable sources have settled on for the matter (or if it's been dismissed as a nothingburger). If you stick to summarizing what reliable sources have said (which of course is anyway something you should be doing for any draft or article), and doing so fairly (not cherry-picking), then it's unlikely that you'd be constructing what could be called an attack page. --Hoary (talk)04:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear,Rafaelthegreat. Sorry for the brainfart! Anyway, I think that the sentence above "If you stick to summarizing [...] called an attack page" remains valid. As for the title, try to think of one that is informative and doesn't blatantly condemn/blame/incriminate anyone, but don't worry over whether it's the optimum choice. Later, when your article has matured (or when your draft has become an article), you or another editor will have a clearer idea of what would be best, and would be able to retitle the article accordingly. --Hoary (talk)22:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello hello, I use the scriptUser:Headbomb/unreliable.js to detect unreliable sources. On one case, in an article nominated for GA, it identified a thesis from Liberty University as unreliable/predatory. Some googling didn't show problems with the reliability of the information, but it did show a lot of controversy involving e.g., anti-LGBTQ+ measures within the university. Maybe the conservative nature of the source could also lead to bias, but that wasn't clear from my searches. When reviewing this GA article, is it still appropriate to ask the editor to remove the source based only on the controversy, and not because I identified problems with the quality of the publications?Barbalalaika (talk)04:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I stop bots from automatically replacing archive links on particular citations? In some cases I would like to use particular archive websites above archive.org but bots can replace them without people noticing. As an example, when Iadded a citation with an archive of GhostArchive to a video to prove the pronunciation of the video gameVVVVVV, a bot later came andchanged the archive link to archive.org. The problem is that archive.org can't even archive YouTube videos so the archive becomes worthless for this purpose. How would I stop bots from tampering with this citation (and similar citations) in the future? ―Howard •🌽3308:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IABot has a little trouble with GhostArchive specifically at times. It will normally not replace an archive if it sees on there. This is a known issue, and will be getting fixed in a future release of IABot. Right now, cbignore on ghost archive references will be the best workaround to keep the bot off. —CYBERPOWER(Trick or Treat)16:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, if you're talking about an article here, they cannot be 'hacked'. If you're blocked from editing, it's likely because your IP/account is blocked for another reason, or the page is protected; seeWP:Protection. If you're talking about your user account, seeWP:Compromised accounts.jolielover♥talk13:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current article presents MetaZoo Games LLC as the active publisher and does not reflect the verified transition of ownership and publication. As of 2025, MetaTwo fully owns the MetaZoo intellectual property, including all prior assets, branding, and game materials. The MetaZoo TCG continues under this same IP, but is now published by GameQBator Labs, featuring updated mechanics, branding, and organizational oversight.Because the IP remains the same and is now being actively managed under a new publisher, the article should reflect this continuity rather than treating the current game as a separate or unrelated entity. The original history (2020–2024) under MetaZoo Games LLC remains important, but it should be properly contextualized as the first era of the ongoing MetaZoo TCG, not a disconnected product line.
To ensure accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability, I propose that:The MetaZoo article remain a single, unified page.The article be restructured into clear historical sections, such as:Early Development and Launch (2020–2024) – covering MetaZoo Games LLC.Ownership Transition and Relaunch (2025–Present) – covering MetaTwo’s acquisition and GameQBator Labs’ publishing role.The lead section be updated to accurately identify:MetaTwo as the current IP holder.GameQBator Labs as the current publisher.All claims be supported with verifiable third-party sources, such as official statements, news coverage, and business records.Antitroll2025 (talk)14:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Help Desk. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia, or need assistance?
Otherwise, your comment would be better placed on the talk page of the article concerned.
Your concern with the article may have been prompted by its state beforethe latest edit to it (made byMoxy) -- although even then it didn't say that use of the word started in the 1990s but instead that in the 1990s references to the word increasingly did so via the circumlocution "the N-word". In addition to what331dot has written, I'd urge you to be very careful in commenting on that talk page: in the talk page of an article such as this, however well-meant comments are, they risk being misinterpreted by editors who are accustomed to, and have already been rendered impatient by, the comments of people with fringe beliefs, of trolls, of more or less overt racists, etc. Always reread the passage about which you intend to comment, and "Show preview" of your comment and read it carefully before you opt to "Publish changes". --Hoary (talk)04:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated profile information of our company profile
Hello, we are the communications team of the company and would like to update the company profile (both EN and TC language). However, we have difficulty doing batch update. Please let me know if there's any protocol we need to follow for editing / updating? Thx.Hongkongpolyu (talk)02:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently was browsing Wikipedia on a school-issued computer whose IP isblocked, and when I tried to purge a page it gave me the notice that I was blocked from editing, despite the fact I was not editing the page. Is there a reason? I should note that this question was previously asked by an IP but this was over a year agoon an unmonitored talk page.interstatefive03:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but there would be some technical background best explained atWP:VPT. My guess is that purging is the same as an edit as far as the servers are concerned (similar overhead on regenerating the page) and there is no reason for a blocked editor to be permitted to slow down the system with purges.Johnuniq (talk)03:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one website is blocked, but i need to unblock it show me the way
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello
I need help improving these articles so Wikipedian does not delete those under their personal option about "Not Notable".
These are two valid Def Leppard band singles, even with physical media released, that Wikipedian wants to delete:
Instead of allowing people to improve the articles they just quote some "mombo jumbo" and delete the articles. I don't need bureaucracy reading rules, I need these articles improved.
Wikipedia is not a collection of information about things that exist, there has to be useful information published independently of Def Leppard for a single to be considerednotable by Wikipedia standards. There were discussions about if these articles should be deleted (redirected) at the top of the page for a full week, and the editors who created the pages were notified. --Reconrabbit17:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think it is personal bias. Tell me if it is useful to have on the Wikipedia all kind of Rabbits that are on earth. You like that, your research it, you think it is important, but for a lot of people it is not. Yes, you follow the rules to make a nice article with references, but if it is notable or not, it is just personal bias.Martiniturbide (talk)17:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the bias of Wikipedia to have articles that have references because some people got together and decided that was how this website will be run.Little Child and a whole lot of other Beatles songs have references because there are enough people out there who decided to publish books that discuss every Beatles song in depth. If the same existed for Def Leppard or Lynyrd Skynyrd orXiddigaha Geeska then we could probably have articles about every song from all of those bands without complaints. --Reconrabbit19:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You belief that this was based on a "personal option about 'Not Notable'" is mistaken; our criteria are clearly set out atWP:NSONG.
Furthermore, that page was referenced in the deletion discussions, of which you were notified and where you have participated. Given those discussions, you should be aware ofWP:CANVASS.
I believe that the set of rules inWP:NSONG are taken in a personal bias according the Wikipedian of turn. Look for exampleLittle_Child, this is an unknown song in popular terms, but it has a wikipedia article just because are The Beatles. Wikipedians are using their personal opinion to delete pages instead of making research on improving it.Martiniturbide (talk)17:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor that I reported did not produced detailed report of what is failing in the article. Just says "I didn't any significant coverage of the song" and it does not conform toWP:NSONG and that's all. No research, no looking around, just needs some other Wikipedians to tell him/her that's fine, and it's done, page deleted.Martiniturbide (talk)17:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your erroneous beliefs are of little importance here.
You are entirely unable to divine what "research, looking around" another editor did or did not do. There is no requirement for a reviewer to have "produced detailed report of what is failing". The onus is onyou to substantiate your point by showingevidence that supports it.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits18:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My belief has are of little importance here, just like everybody else that is not a Wikipedian. What you don't talk about is that your Notability Rules are applied according to a personal opinion. And nobody is watching the facts of that page, or the number of references. The Wikipedian personal opinion is that a Def Leppard single has less notability that a race of rabbits or a Beatles song.Martiniturbide (talk)22:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been explained to you, that is not merely their personal opinion, but fully accords with Wikipedia's usual practices and policies.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I found this little paragraph that describe better the problem that I was trying to explain.[11]
This "Bureaucracy" and "Hierarchy of privileged users" are deleting articles according to the personal bias, and then they (editors) defend each other like a little mob.
Considering the second note on that page points out that much of the essay regards concerns from roughly 20 years ago, I'd like to see you provide some evidence substantiating your concerns, especially since this is not the first time you've come to this page to raise similar concerns. It feels like you're being a bittendentious.DonIago (talk)16:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Translation discusses translating an entire article, but it does not address the question of translating a single phrase within an English article. For example, a recent edit toGeometry changedTheorema Egregium (remarkable theorem) toTheorema Egregium ("remarkable theorem"). I have no idea which, if either, is correct, or whether there is a template that generates the approved rendering. Also, if there is an article that discusses this then there should be a hatnote template linking to it, e.g.,{{about}}.
My redirect requests, and possibly a few others, look like they have been done. But they suddenly disappeared, when older requests that also looked finished were still on the page. I already put my requests back on the page, because it looked like something had gone wrong, but I'm not sure if that was the correct thing to do, so I decided to ask for help, because I don't know what happened, or if it should have happened, or what should happen next.2405:6E00:651:F5FC:D904:ED5:248C:FE9F (talk)11:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is more for the sake of a quick chuckle at the moment, but it could actually be potentially useful as a point of reference, so i'm taking it here~
can y'all name any articles that, while undeniably being presentable, are partially or almost entirely carried by a single source... but also where that's not exactly a bad thing, because the source in question has enough to carry the entire article? thinktattoo assassins, where citation 2 provides most info on its gameplay and a good bit of its receptionconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)16:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
consarn, I do not think that most editors would consider it acceptable in the long run if an article dependedentirely on a reference to a single source, especially if a competent search failed to produce any other acceptable sources. But sometimes a single source will dominate the referencing because one particular source goes into the topic is great depth and detail. Two examples of articles that I have worked on come to mind.Harry Yount is a good article that includes references to 12 sources. But one of them (William Supernaugh) is used 26 times because he wrote an in depth study of Yount's entire life that was published in the journal of a historical society. Similarly,Robert Clunie relies heavily on the book length biography of the painter by Richard Coons, although there are five other sources.Cullen328 (talk)17:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing an article requiring a lengthy chronological list. Each item in the list should be referenced. In some cases, there are several chronological items all requiring reference A, followed by an item with reference B, then several more items all requiring reference A. For the items in a sequence requiring reference A, is there guidance on whether to 1) show reference A repeatedly after each and every relevant item (looks cluttered); or 2) show reference A only after the final item in the sequence (the preceding items appear to have no reference); or 3) some other option I've not thought of? Thanks.Masato.harada (talk)16:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend the former: the latter is ambiguous (does refA refer to items 1–5 or 5 only?), and in many lists, one or more further items with different references might potentially be inserted between those already present, which would entail more complications in the second format.
In practice, the blue superscript reference numbers are not perceived as 'clutter' unless there are several against one item/in the same place. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)21:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor. The usual answer to "Why isn'tx on Wikipedia?" is: because no volunteer editor has taken the time and effort to create an article yet. Hopefully, someday, a volunteer editor will create an article for this person if they meet our criteria for inclusion.That person could be you?qcne(talk)17:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I now see that this musician's career began several decades ago, so 'Too soon' will not be applicable. However, I have found surprisingly few references to him by websearching, and no sources suitable for basing a Wikipedia article. I would havethought he would be well-enough documented in relevant music journals, etc. of the relevant period and locality, but finding such sources might entail searching physical (or microfilmed, or scanned) archives in libraries (if not someone's cuttings collection) – sources do nothave to be online, so long as their full bibliographical details are given. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)17:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question about access-date parameter when updating existing citation
Recently clicked on an old news article linked in a reference footnote and found that link had long since died (like almost 20 years ago). I go to edit the page and see that the citation as written already includes an archive URL but with the "url-status" parameter set to "live". Super easy fix, just change it to "dead" and the archive link becomes the one that comes up first in the footnote - I'm very familiar with all of that! My question is: in this type of situation, should I at this point (having now confirmed that the news article is still accessible via wayback machine and that it does indeed say what the wiki article said it does) also update the "access-date" to today's date, or am I supposed to leave it as the original editor dated it? I feel like the answer is update it, but I couldn't find this spelled out anywhere in the how-to articles, so I thought I should ask! Hopefully this question makes sense, and thank you in advance!Gravelove (talk)23:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say: no; do not update|access-date=. While we can, for the most part, assume that the archive will be with us into the future, that ain't guaranteed. If it becomes necessary in future to seek a snapshot of the source in another archive, knowing the original access date will be important; especially in the case where source content might have changed – online news stories and the like.
I abhor ignorant acquiescing to anything that could lead us as a society to full-scale setting aside of thorny questions and eliminating subtleties in thought and writing via AI. Can I download a correct "snap-shot/copy" of ALL of WIKI's content pre-any introduction of AI?2600:1007:B03E:BE18:0:36:3E90:8601 (talk)12:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor: seeWP:DUMPS. I'm not sure how you could be sure that AI had not been involved in some way, given even simple uses such as automatic typo correction and Wikipedia's extensive use of bots for minor edits.Mike Turnbull (talk)12:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, this is not the appropriate venue for asking general knowledge questions. Please use your local library or internet search engine.qcne(talk)15:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To save the IP and Ref desks' time: they already do; they are mentioned inGPS animal tracking, and many brands of such collars for pets are advertised – just put 'pet collar with gps tracking' into any search engine. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)18:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While there is an option in desktop version about recovering the last revised code, in case the page crashes, I feel it should also be available for mobile versions. Weak internet connectivity or multitasking in a device crashes the page (or sometimes edit preview) and it makes me rewrite the code multiple times (if I have not saved it in the clipboard or backed up somewhere else).
Also, for the past few days, all the titles on the talk pages are now not opening on mobile version (maybe I have installed some wrong gadget), and instead I need to click "Latest comment: xx minutes ago" to open the title and view the prose.
I would like to read Wikipedia pages for my own personnel joy, and to get other people interested in certain topics, and post it on Youtube but i just don't wanna get copyrighted. And also what if i include the original authors name and quote the sources?Lightness616 (talk)01:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The liscencing for articles is atWP:CCBYSA. Basically, yes, as long as you link to the article and make it clear that it was written by "Wikipedia contributors" or individual author names.Ultraodan (talk)01:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightness616: You are absolutely free to use Wikikpedia content in just about any way you want, but you must adhere to ourCC-BY-SA license. For this, there is an easy part and and a hard part. The easy part: just provide a link to the Wikikpedia articles(s) you use, and a very short attribution. HOWEVER, there is also a hard part: you must license your work (your post on Youtube) under that same CC-BY-SA license. When you do, you are allowing anyone to use your Youtube stuff however they want to, as long as they attribute your work. Think long and hard about this. I (and the huge Opensource community) would encourage you to do this, but none of us want to deceive you into giving away your material if you do not want to do it. If you disagree, then do not use our material, but I hope you decide to join us. You are of course still free the use the same sources that our articles use without agreeing to our license. -Arch dude (talk)02:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything I would have to do in order to get the CC-BY-SA license, or is it just given to me? Also say perchance someone uses my work but does not credit me, that’s not allowed right?Lightness616 (talk)14:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You 'get' thelicence by documenting under the video that you are releasing the content under that licence (note that there are several variations of it, so be specific). And if someone re-uses your material but fails to credit you, it would be up to you to pursue them if you chose – no one would enforce the matter on your behalf (unless you paid a copyright lawyer to do so). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)17:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a photo of a carving in theBuddhism article that includes several bare-breasted women – again, not remotely objectionable in context. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}94.1.208.246 (talk)17:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of such a tool, but users should be very very very careful when using such. I can imagine someone inadvertently one-clicking and opening every article in a category of thousands...
Is there a tool that allows to identify categories on Wikipedia with the largest number of interwikis for which there is no corresponding category in a specific language section, for example Ukrainian?Perohanych (talk)16:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add every vital article in certain categories to my watchlist using an unreleased script I made. I won't release the script to anyone else and it will only work for me. Is is okay to run on my common.js page by previewing instead of publishing?ZergTwo (talk)21:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZergTwo: That's OK unless the category is so huge that it stresses our servers. Your browser probably also has a console feature to run given JavaScript on the current page.PrimeHunter (talk)22:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wikimedia.org.PrimeHunter (talk)12:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: MetaZoo