Typically on the talk page of an article, you can make anedit request. However it's best to be precise in what you believe needs to be changed, and provide a reliable source supporting the change. – {{u|hekatlys}} WOOF04:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, anonymous user. Hekatlys is right in general, but note that if the article falls within any of the areas listed asContentious topics, then anonymous editors (and new accounts) are not permitted even to post requests on the article's talk page.ColinFine (talk)13:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easier for us to help you if instead of asking a general question, you actually got to the meat and potatoes of what you are actually talking about.
Wikipedia doesn't claim to be free of bias, as all sources of information have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they csn evaluate and judge them for themselves when determining what they think about what they read. You may read an article and disagree with everything presented. If the sources in an article are not being accurately summarized, please detail the errors on the article talk page. If the sources are being accurately summarized, but are in error, you will need to take that up with the sources directly and get them to issue corrections, or provide more current sources with what you deem more accurate information.
If sources in an article are so biased that they make things up out of whole cloth with no basis, that is a matter for thereliable sources noticeboard.
Some contentious topics(not all) have restrictions on editing by users with non-temporary or new accounts, meaning you cannnot contribute to them unless you register a username and it is 30 days old with 500 edits.331dot (talk)13:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, people are sometimes ignored if they try to get advice without admitting what they're really talking about. When you don't immediately give the name of the article you're thinking of, that's exactly the kind of thing that can make other editors ignore you.
In my opinion, this is a very good feature of Wikipedia, because when a person seems like they're trying to avoid getting caught by not revealing their true intentions, usually that IS exactly what they're doing.
Because of all that, I suggest that you always say exactly which article you're talking about, and always say exactly which changes you want to make. When you do that, others may disagree with you, but you will get more respect and better answers.TooManyFingers (talk)04:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using Google Earth historic satellite imagery as a reference
I am having difficulty finding any documentation for the closure of a runway. The FAA doesn't archive Chart Supplements or Airport Diagrams and no news sources exist talking about the closure. I have found that the runway was closed sometime between 2015 and 2017 based on Google Earth satellite images, but that's as much as I can narrow it down. Without those images the most it can be narrowed down is between 2014 and 2020. Is it okay to use Google Earth as a reference in this manner? I have used Google Maps as a reference before, but never Google Earth. Would I just use cite web for this if it is acceptable? ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️00:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: That's quite the lengthy RFC there. I am going to do a big update on the articleMacon Downtown Airport. Runway 10-28 is still in use but the cross runway was closed in either late 2016 or early 2017. Since aregrading project happened on 10-28 last year, the former runway only exists as an unmarked taxiway to a hangar used by the Georgia Forestry Commission and has otherwise either been abandoned or obliterated. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️02:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccunicano: if you do use Google Earth I would suggest attaching a note to the citation explaining your methodology. I don't know the best syntax to achieve that. I guess using Google Earth like this is a placeholder until a reliable source is eventually found. However, ultimately, if it didn't get reported anywhere, is it really up to Wikipedia to mention it?Commander Keane (talk)12:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice and humor, for now I am just sticking with what can be determined based on currently-accessible news coverage. Runways don't get removed on a whim and without cost, so I suspect I can track down a reliable source on it, eventually. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️00:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had either a userscript or a gadget or a preference that when I clicked a timestamp in a sig, it would open up the diff for me. Now, hovering over it I see the link for the diff in the corner of my browser, but in clicking, it gets hijacked and fills my url bar with a long anchor link, and does not open the diff link I see when hovering. For example., on todays feature article talk page, it adds#c-Galebazz-2021-08-07T18:25:00.000Z-Splitting_into_two_articles to my url, even though I see in the corner of firefox that I am hovering on the link.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1017469394/1037626755
Just wondering what happened during my wikibreak, and if I can go back to my old ways. I also have tons of userscripts, so if its conflicting userscripts, I'll sort it out, but I figured y'all would know if there was a MediaWiki change. Happy Editing --IAmChaos06:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IAmChaos: The diff feature isUser:Evad37/TimestampDiffs which is loaded inUser:IAmChaos/common.js. It conflicts with a newer default feature which cannot be disabled as far as I can tell. If I hold down Ctrl while clicking the time stamp then the diff opens in a new tab (this is a general Firefox feature for all links). Does that work for you and is it good enough? You can change to the new tab with the mouse orCtrl+Page Down.PrimeHunter (talk)16:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a mac version of control click? Both Command and Control link to the comment, and when doing option and clicking open in new tab, it opens the link to comment in new tab. Shift click opens in new window. If not that's fine, I wanted to check. Sad that the new feature can't be disabled. Happy Editing --IAmChaos17:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IAmChaos: A mouse middle-click may open a new tab but if your method opens the link to comment then a middle-click may do the same. I'm on Windows 11. Ctrl-click is the general method to open a link in a new tab. It's not a way to select one potential link target over another. Both middle-click and Ctrl-click give the diff for me.PrimeHunter (talk)20:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll just lose the script. Diffs would be much nicer for me than super long urls, but I'll make do with what mediawiki gives us. Thanks for the help! Happy Editing --IAmChaos21:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, when Windows has control-click, Mac has command-click. That used to be quite a reliable rule, but I'm not sure if it still is.
I found this articleWikipedia:Notability (people), but it's not clear if the person needs to be notable worldwide or can be notable on a country level.I have two articles (on Polish Wikipedia):
The first person is a well known professor (there are 5 langauges) and the second is an artist, she was listed on this pageWikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Artists. Dragan may be more known outside the country, he is a researcher, Wolska is not that well known outside of Poland (article is only in one language).
@TSventon: I know that different Wikipedia have different criteria, that's why I'm asking this question. Will try to ask on project talk page. From my experience, most projects on Wikipedia (at least on Polish Wiki) are dead and no one replies.jcubic (talk)17:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcubic: there are a lot of dead en wikiprojects, I would advise looking for recent replies before posting on a project talk page, but Women in Red is active.TSventon (talk)17:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Yes, I've read that. The link to that article is in the question. It don't answer my question. Those statements are very generic, similar to the one we have in Polish Wiki. It doesn't explain what citation is. Should it be English worldwide citation, or can it be citation in a different language. Is the article notable if all reference are language other than English?jcubic (talk)17:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcubic: the general guidance on notability for humans isWikipedia:Notability (people). The main requirment (basic criteria) is have they received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. It doesn't matter if the sources are from Poland or in Polish. There are also more specialised guidelines, e.g. for academics.TSventon (talk)17:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in translating some articles from Japanese Wiki into English Wiki using AI.
So, there are now AI tools capable of translating much more comprehensive Wikipedia articles from Japanese or Chinese into English without losing context, better than DeepL or Google translation due to their ability to scour the Internet for context.
One example is Google’s AI Studio, which has an option to more or less quickly analyze Japanese texts for historical accuracy, resulting in consistent naming and far less discrepancies as compared to ordinary machine translation. I was pretty amazed because it made hitherto impossible to understand machine translations legible.
So, I have a simple question.
Would it be a good practice / is it allowed to fully copy well-researched articles from foreign-language Wikipedia, translate them using such AI tools, and then paste the content into the English Wikipedia, citing only the original foreign-language article as the source?
I am somewhat well-read on certain topics, so I'd be able to spot the obvious translation errors, but the problem I have is the workload with sources.
For example, the Japanese Wikipedia article on Kiyohime is far more robust and detailed than the English version. It could be made vastly more accessible to the English-speaking audience if AI translation tools were used.
The problem, I mentioned, is the general paucity of foreign wikipedia articles. A character from a Fujiwara clan can have an entire wikipedia page on JP wikipedia, but not exist in the English one. Worse still, a JP article can have hundreds of sources, but to copy them one to one into EN wiki would just be far too work intensive, if every source, reference, and hyperlink were to be included.~2025-33734-00 (talk)14:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do notunder any circumstances use AI to translate Wikipedia articles from one language to another, unless you are capable of reading both languages yourself, and are prepared to carefully check that the entire translation is supported by sources you can also read yourself. Given the well-documented, routine, and unavoidable tendency of AI to 'hallucinate' where it lacks data, such translations simply cannot be trusted. Any article translation of any reasonable complexitywill contain errors and falsehoods, andyou will be responsible for dealing with them.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they do the things you mention, it's still leaving the AI or original article to determine structure, covered topics, points of view, and other things which should be intentionally chosen. I'd just throw the whole thing out - I wouldn't give the editor a mop to clean-up :) --Edwin Herdman (talk)22:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @~2025-33734-00. To add to what Andy said: in articles in many Wikipedias (and also in many older articles in English Wikipedia) the sources cited are nowhere near adequate for an article to be added to English Wikipedia today. Translating an article from another Wikipedia (whether manually or with machine assistance) is a waste of time unless youfirst verify that the sources are adequate by the current standards of English Wikipedia (seeWP:42).ColinFine (talk)19:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond all the good and useful answers you already received, there's this: The large amount of extra work forced on you by the errors of AI is probably much worse than just writing a completely new article that's in English from the start.
Using AI here is like asking a shopping website for the best cheapest product in a category, it will recommend the product with the highest profit, hide items for corporate reasons, and other tactics. AI services are not "altruistic".
Thanks for asking instead of just doing it :) I don't have a problem with automating needlessly repetitive formatting tasks, but there's many appropriate tools, like a citation builder, and their output still needs to be checked. However, you're also giving over full interpretative and editorial control to the AI. You can't guarantee that an AI won't do more in a 'formatting pass' than you asked for. A more 'consistent' translation may look reasonable, but be wrong.
Even if I ask the best human experts hand translate the article, we don't know if it is good for English Wikipedia. We might not want the same structure, conclusions, and points of view. It might not be considered notable here (sad noises).
There's no rush to translate an entire article at once, even though there's many more articles to translate than we have the time. Good articles are still built up slowly over time. It's no big deal if you have to flag an article as incomplete, but it is a big deal if you publish an article with subtle errors that will stick around for a long time (it happens anyway, but we want to avoid it by checking each step). I don't know if you've written Wikipedia articles before, so I'd suggest practicing smaller edits before going for a full essay. You don't have to know all the Wikipedia rules and tools, or be a subject expert before you edit, but people won't tolerate pretending to do the work.
Citation builders and machine translators may be useful to you personally, but so are the groups and editors that cover various topics. If you have something interesting, try reaching out to them and see if it's useful to them. Just make sure you're paying attention to any step you're involved in, and don't assume any automated tool is correct. --Edwin Herdman (talk)22:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never, ever use AI to translate from Japanese to English. It does not work. Never, ever incorporate translated Japanese Wikipedia articles into the English Wikipedia without substantial review. The Japanese Wikipedia has very different standards. Most of its articles lack anything close to the kind of sourcing we require here, and are often written from a purely Japanese perspective. Japanese Wikipedia articles can be useful for gathering sources, but the articles themselves are very rarely good enough to serve as the basis for an article on the English Wikipedia. There are human translators on the English Wikipedia, such as myself, who would be happy to provide assistance as needed.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎01:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rock Bridge Network, Peter Tiel, Chris Buskirk, etc
I read the Rock Bridge Network article on Wikipedia. I couldn't find a way to add the following info: I'm listening to MSNBC, Stephanie Ruhl, an economic journalist and host. She had Elizabeth Dwoskin, Silicon Valley correspondent, on her show, who spoke at length of the aims of Peter Tiel and Chris Buskirk (political operative) to develop a US aristocracy (them and associates), using the MAGA movement to get into power and deregulate the tech industry. They and JD Vance started a secret donor ciricle, first helping to elect trump in 2016 and again in 2020. Musk is also a part. Also on the show was Max Chafkin, author of the book: The Contrarian: Peter Tiel and Silicon Valley's Pursuit of Power (2021).I hope someone has the time to add more details to the article based on these individuals. Thank you~2025-34238-05 (talk)03:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add material to an article (in this case,Rockbridge Network), and if this material is relevant to the subject of the article, nontrivial, clear, and reliably sourced, then you can usually add it yourself. "[Speaking] at length of the aims" of a plutocrat and an "operative" is woolly: it falls short of stating what these aims were. Likewise, for an author of a topical book about the plutocrat to be on a show falls a long way short of a lucid evaluation of the book by a political correspondent writing directly for publication and thus feeling no need to mince words because of the presence of the author. If you want to have something added to the article but don't want to add it yourself, then you might add it to the foot ofTalk:Rockbridge Network. Be as precise as you can. (Which MSNBC show? If it's available on the web, what's the link? Et cetera.) Happy editing! --Hoary (talk)06:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This Help desk is for asking questions aboutusing Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. You could try asking atWikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, though I'd try to explain in a little more detail what you are asking for. And please note that labelling questions 'urgent' isn't going to get them answered any sooner.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried creating company page with information about its history, founder, establishment details, services provided and links about the articles published by independent media houses. The page was immediately deleted claiming to violate the policy. all the company pages that exist in the Wikipedia has same kind of information, that i had provided, so why did the page was deleted.Rewired Mavericks (talk)16:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I tried to get this to work for some time but had no luck. I've asked for help elsewhere but people only seem to know wikipediaor openstreetmap, not both. Is there someone who can please help who speaks both? No matter the attempts I made I just couldn't seem to crack it.
Assume in a situation where something would be bolded and is piped, where are the rules/guidelines on bolding inside vs. outside the link. '''[[abc|def]]''' and [[abc|'''def''']] give the same result, is one preferred over the other? I am presuming that '''[[abc]]''' is *always* preferred to [[abc|'''abc''']]Naraht (talk)16:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Michael D. Turnbull , read through it twice, it contains a lot of how to, but no guidance in determining which of the two ways which appear equal are preferred.WP:AWB will convert [[abc|'''abc''']] to '''[[abc]]''', but I'm looking for slightly broader guidelines here.Naraht (talk)19:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer '''[[abc|def]]''' over [[abc|'''def''']], and anecdotally I believe my preference is aligned with what I see more commonly done, but as far as I'm aware there's no guidance directly recommending one format over the other.ModernDayTrilobite (talk •contribs)21:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. It is clear that '''[[abc]]''' would preferred to [[abc|'''abc''']] since it takes fewer characters and is a bit easier to change if another editor decides that the bolding should actually only be italics. I've hunted around and can't find anything else relevant in theMOS.Mike Turnbull (talk)12:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Czechecon: Note that the English Wikipedia's standards for sourcing and notability tend to be stricter than other Wikipediae, and so a straight translation is unlikely to work. Approach it as if you were writing a new article, and assess the sources on the Czech Wikipedia version againstWP:NCORP andWP:RS. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques17:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and created a redirect toMasaryk University. There is already a brief 2 sentence description at the main university article. I would start by expanding that, then when you've got enough sourced information to spin out and demonstrate notability, spin it out at that time. ~ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving17:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I donate money to wikipedia on an ad hoc basis, usually from a desktop computer. Today I tried to give you some money from my phone and it appears there is NO front page link to the donation widget. Or if there is it’s not easy to find. You should think about either adding it to mobile, or making it WAY more obvious if it’s there and I’ve missed it.Overdraft611 (talk)19:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion to help make Wikipedia sustainable. If you're not the right person then maybe you're embedded enough to have contacts on the money side. I literally tried to give Wikipedia money and couldn't figure out how. I know you need it because I keep getting nagging popups saying you need it. It's therefore odd that you wouldn't make it easier to do!Overdraft611 (talk)00:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have much say over the popups and banners either! I've given you the email address where you can reach staff who do have control over the donation systems. I'm sorry to say that none of the volunteers answering questions on this page can help you with this issue.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)00:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the separation of functions. But the average user doesn’t know there’s a distinction so wouldn’t know to look elsewhere. We know the world is migrating to mobile AND the donation link exists on the desktop site, so there’s no philosophical reason for the link not to exist on the mobile site.Overdraft611 (talk)02:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SeeLoyalhanna Township, Pennsylvania. I tried to update the Historical Population table with current US Census data. But the result is a bit of a mess. I can't figure out how to fix it. There's some arcane structure at work here that baffles me. Can someone please help? Thank you in advance...BuzzWeiser196 (talk)20:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot reach to userpages. When I click username to visit userpage it is going to differnt page. For example; My user page is onmyway22. And user page is User:Onmyway22. However, when I try to click to my username from an article I created. it is going to Onmyway22:user:Onmyway22.
Seems to work for me. Screenshot, please? Not from after you click on the link, but of the page containing the link. And does it still happen withsafemode enabled? —Cryptic23:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you hover your mouse overSadie Stanley it says "hot american actress". I'm not disputing this, but I think the text should be more meaningful and less thirsty. I tried to change it but I didn't know how. --ACCCounTTT2000 (talk)22:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A new temp acct is now auto-created whenever I make an edit. Thereafter, every time I go to a different page, the Main Menu and the Tools Menu are added to my sidebars, despite these having been set to be 'hidden' when I accessed WP prior to editing under the new system.
I can hide both menus while remaining logged into my temp acct, but this setting does not appear to be saved in the cookie (or acted upon) because they are added back again whenever I go to a different page. I find this to be inefficient and irritating so I then log out of my temp acct, which makes this not a useful thing for me.
I'm not sure that I understand your question; but if you're asking "Is the talk page of an article where editors can discuss what should be added to, removed from, or changed in the article?", then the answer is "Yes, with a few exceptions". --Hoary (talk)10:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking over the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and I'm unsure on identify a seconary source from news articles. I know there are a lot of reliable news outlets that exist, but how can I know if they are secondary sources if they don't normally post any references of there own (like the way scholarly articles do)? My first thought was when they include and make an opinion or analysis on quotes from interviewed people, but I don't know if such news articles would count as a secondary source. What do you guys think? —Alex26337(talk)10:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News articles are generally considered secondary sources unless the article is primarily an interview with the subject or merely a republishing of materials associated with the subject.331dot (talk)10:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Making a new article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. It requires a robust understanding of policies and guidelines likenotability andneutral point of view, as well as technical skills likefinding and citing sources and formatting your article in accordance with themanual of style. It's not something we recommend new editors try to do right away.
I would strongly advise that you first spend a while (at least a couple of weeks) participating in discussions here at the Teahouse and at noticeboards, asking questions, and editing already-existing articles to build the knowledge and skills I've mentioned above, and then come back to the article creation process later.
Hello, I need some help accessing my old account. I know my username, and I know my password. However, I am on a new computer and when I try to log in, it asks me for a 2FA code… sent to my elementary-school email address that I no longer use. Is there any way to recover access to the account and change the email address?
I think you are asking whether you can cite a Draft outside Wikipedia, usingEIDR.
I have no idea of the answer to that; but I will say that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, drafts are not part of the encyclopaedia, and should not be cited outside Wikipedia.ColinFine (talk)14:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When sortingSpecial:NewPagesFeed by date, it often shows an article as very old, when in fact it's an old redirect which was recently made into a page. Does anyone know of a way to avoid this? I was thinking it could be configured to date articles from the last edit tagged as "redirect removed", or from creation if none are found. Thanks.lp0 on fire()20:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
English Wiki:The Clearing (film) is a 2004 crime film.simple:The Clearing is a 2020 zombie film whose English cross-language reference is to the unrelated 2004 film (and vice versa). Could someone please copy the 2024 film Simple English article to the main English wiki and fix the cross-language reference? Thanks!~2025-34645-06 (talk)20:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Different Wikipedias have different rules. Where a subject exists on the Simple English Wikipedia but not on the English version, it is often because the subject is notWikipedia:Notable enough for this Wikipedia.TSventon (talk)21:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m using an older version of the app on my iPad mini 4 and it’s sending a verification code to my email and I’m supposed to enter it in the app. However, there’s no place to enter it.KaposiaDarcy (talk)17:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KaposiaDarcy: I haven't heard of verification codes specially for the app. Maybe you can enter it in a browser. If the mail has a link and tapping it opens the app then try the same address in a browser.PrimeHunter (talk)18:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is about Apples 2FA, you can enter the code on old devices by typing your password and then the code. something like this (password123456) with the numbers being the 2FA codemgjertson (talk) (contribs)20:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, so Im in a class and we were supposed to choose an article that we can edit. I could edit the actual article but for the assigemnt that was assigened I couldnt make the outline and it would show me this .
Creation of this page (User:Memefafa/United States Refugee Admissions Program?utm source=chatgpt.com/Outline) is currently restricted to administrators, page movers, and template editors because the page title matches an entry.*[?&]+[^=]+=[^&]+.* on thelocal orglobal blacklists.
If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:
Be sure to specify the exact title (especially bylinking it) of the page you are trying to create, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
If you wrote any text, save it temporarily to your device until you can create the page.
Hi, yes now I get it. But even after I made the edit and I pasted the exact link not using Chatgpt it still wouldn't let me do the outline and it still says that my source is Chatgpt. How can I fix it?Memefafa (talk)19:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Azs0242 (ec) My advice to you is- in short- don't, at least not now. The longer version you should readWP:BOSS for, you should also readconflict of interest. It takes much effort and skill to create a new article, and diving right in to the process is not recommended, not without first spending time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, and using thenew user tutorial. Diving right in often leads to frustration and anger, which we do not want for you.331dot (talk)19:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lshivers: if you look at the references for the article you should see a red message by reference 7, saying "Missing or empty |title=". The message means that the code for reference 7 is missing "|title=", followed by the title of the web page used as a reference. For example reference 6 has "| title = Membership".
I had a look at the article, and notice that most of the references are to the association's website. Wikipedia aims to summarise what independent reliable sources say about a subject, so most of the references for the article should be independent. I can see that the sourcing for the previous version was similar.
If you have a conflict of interest concerning the organisation you are expected to declare it, also it is recommended that you suggest edits on the article talk page, rather than editing the article. I have put a standard message about this on your talk page. Also paid editing must be disclosed.TSventon (talk)01:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am an experienced editor. I found a another editor's very short article on a worthwhile topic. I was looking for a template to classify the article as a squib—or, better, a specific topic-category squib (I remember the squib-sorting project). I could not findanything helpful. Can you point me to something? —Finell03:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A recent Reddit thread has informed me that if you type "Obama" intothe search box, theMonkey article is listed among the dropdown results, even though the wordObama appears nowhere in it. Looking for a quick explanation, I asked on the Wikipedia Discord server, but to no avail. Apparently, the exact algorithm by which these dropdown results are selected is shrouded in mystery. It seems to me that vandals have found a way to artificially game this algorithm, akin toGoogle bombing. I am concerned that we apparently have no way to detect, understand, and revert this kind of vandalism, so I'm posting here to seek further insight. Please let me know if there is a better suited venue for this discussion.–CopperyMarrow15(talk⋅edits)06:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference error in theList of Victory ships (D) which I can't fathom out. The error appears as "Cite error: Unknown parameter "victory" in <ref> tag;" It appears that the error was introduced withthis edit. The error is in the ref name "Permanente1". The entry forDurango Victory is the only one in that edit which uses that reference name, but it appears to me to be correctly formed. If I remove that reference fromDurango Victory, on preview the error moves to the "VicD" ref. Again, that reference seems to be OK.Mjroots (talk)07:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cldcommunications: that isn't really ambiguous; choose an other filename. You have successfully uploadedFile:FehintiBalogun.jpg, but I have marked it as a copyright violation. Remember that if you upload an image as "own work", it means that you personally held the camera in your hands when the picture was taken. Draft articles also are not allowed to useWikipedia:Non-free content.MKFI (talk)12:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I was still working on the draft page for Robert Caughlan and it was removed for copyright but I hadn't intended for it to live, just to save the changes. Is there a way to retrieve the work?
Copyright violations cannot be restored. Note that clicking "publish changes" makes your edit visible to the public. (Even a draft)331dot (talk)19:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to add to the above, I note that one source cited in the article body,Le Monde states March 26. As does theWashington Post, if I've got the days of the week right.[1] I can't access the source cited in the lede though (I think it is supposed to beRoland Barthes: Or the Profession of Cultural Studies by Martin McQuillan, though it isn't entirely clear), and it should still be discussed on the talk page.AndyTheGrump (talk)02:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The server at archive.is is taking too long to respond."
web.archive.org/save/ "The capture will start in ~10 minutes because our service is currently overloaded. You may close your browser window and the page will still be saved."
If I cite an old article from a website likeThe A.V. Club and I want to specify who the publisher/parent company is. Do I use the company that owned it at the time that the article was published (i.e. depending on the year it could be Onion Inc., G/O Media, Paste Media Group) or the company that owns it now?TipsyElephant (talk)02:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to fixlint errors, and when I came acrossDraft:Analyn Anzano Cabras I saw that the entire page is bold, and the text that should be bold is just bolder than the irregularly bold text. Looking at the source of the article, there doesn't seem to be any reason for this. It doesn't even seem to be through a template, as it says onthe lint error search page for it (except for the manually bolded{{Draft}} template).dot.py02:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The code said'''{{draft|Analyn Anzano Cabras}}'''. It's risky to add bold or italics around a template call because it may interfere with the template output which in this case also had code for bold. HTML has different code<b> and</b> for start and end of bold but MediaWiki has the same''' (similar for italics''). It's easy to write but sometimes causes trouble when an intended end is interpreted as a start.PrimeHunter (talk)11:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw in some media format articles includingthis featured article that is a book—I saw it in some videogames, movies and tv shows too—when they write content summary it is without citation to any source. why is this allowed in wikipedia, where everything should be cited to a trusted source?Vastmajority20025 (talk)13:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the lead? (i.e., the part of the article above all the section headers?)
As perMOS:LEADCITE, it's normal (and acceptable) to not cite the info in the lead; because the lead should summarise the info in the rest of the article, and the claims should be sourced when they appear there. Although some discretion should be used e.g. for particularly controversial claims.The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.Athanelar (talk)14:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No @Athanelar, I'm not talking about lead section, I know what you said about lead. In articles about books, movies and tv shows, even those that are featured ones—like Synopsis section ofthis, that is a featured article—editors write the content summary of that media material, and they dont cite to any source, that's what I'm talking about.Vastmajority20025 (talk)18:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In wikipedia everything you write has to be cited to a reliable source, but in the case im talking about, this rule is just allowed to be not followed, and it's not in some articles, it's in some featured articles too—like the one i mentioned. I wanna know if this is under a specific rule in wikipedia.Vastmajority20025 (talk)19:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a specific rule that you don't cite the original book when giving a plot summary, because it's obvious that that's where the information comes from.
There is another specific rule that you don't give a citation for a fact that is merely what anyone would expect (for example, in an article about a lake, you shouldn't put any references that the lake contains water and is mainly surrounded by land).TooManyFingers (talk)04:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Gråbergs Gråa Sång! InWP:PLOTREF I found what I was looking for. It is actually allowed—for example—to just read a book chapter by chapter or watch a movie yourself, and with standards written inMOS:PLOT, write the plot section of it without citing to any source, but with below conditions noted inWP:PLOTREF:
“If the summary includes a direct quotation from the work, thenWikipedia:Verifiability requires it to have an inline citation, just like any other direct quotation. Inline citations from the primary work can also be helpful (but are not required) to source key or complex plot points. If all or most of the summary has been derived not from the work itself but from a comprehensive plot summary in a reliable secondary source, citing that source is recommended as a convenience to others”.
Yeah @TooManyFingers, but It seemed so out of place, because in here, the most obvious strict rule is cite everything you write to a reliable source, you can't just read publication informations of a book—like when it got published, place of publication, translations, etc. and dont cite to anything, or criticisms of it and not cite them to anything, but in writing plot section, I found out that this is actually allowed, and is an exception.Vastmajority20025 (talk)14:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting a sweater that calls for a #9 circular needle. In knitting the pattern it seems that the pattern is too loose so I'd like to charge to a smaller needed like a 4. If I do, do I double the number of stitches from the beginning such as originally starting with 50 stitches to 100 stitches?Freshdesign2 (talk)19:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at theReference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always trysearching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.Jauerbackdude?/dude.19:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And so on, until it eventually got to the real text:
... img{max-width:none!important}This image has been created during "DensityDesign Integrated Course Final Synthesis Studio" at Politecnico di Milano, organized by DensityDesign Research Lab in 2016. Credits goes to Carola Barnaba • CC BY-SA 4.0
I don't know where the problem is coming from. Is this something that can be fixed by editing the page, or does an actual web developer need to get involved?FactoidCow (talk)00:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also give the exact title of the article you are trying to create. You can create most titles by just entering them in the search box and clicking a link on the resulting page.PrimeHunter (talk)01:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am serving as non-executive director for a company on unpaid basis, where the company has gained good attention and popularity across reputed and mainstream media's. Now, am I allowed to create a wikipedia company page for the same company thereby citing relevant online sources and references? Your opinion and comments will be appreciated.Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk)05:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, westrongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to, especially in the case of corporations and organisations where this usually takes the form ofpaid editing. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.
Warning against COI editing
First and foremost this is because conflict of interest editing often results in issues with theneutral point of view expected on Wikipedia, due to biases whether consciously or unconsciously. While you may notintend to be biased, the types of information you include or exclude from an article are likely to be skewed by your connection to the subject. It's also very common for conflicts of interest to result inpromotional writing such as advertisement-like articles for companies or resume-like articles for people. You may innocently intend to 'raise awareness' or 'correct misinformation' about the subject, but this isstill promotion, and promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.
People with conflicts of interest tend to be very bad at gauging whether the thing they're writing about meetsWikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it needs to be 'notable,' which is a word that has a particular and slightly unintuitive meaning here on Wikipedia. There are a number of different criteria for notability depending on the subject, such asthe 'general' notability guidelines, theguidelines for notability of companies or organisations, thenotability of creative professionals etc.The vast majority of people and companies are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and do not warrant a Wikipedia article about them. A good rule of thumb is that if a person or company is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, then soon enough somebody else will write it for them, and there's no need to do it yourself. So if you're here to write an article about yourself or someone or something connected to you, it's generally a good indicator that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A special note is necessary here thatChatGPT and other AIs do not understand Wikipedia notability. It's very common for COI-writing newcomers to get themselves confused because they ask ChatGPT whether they should write an article about themselves/their company and it spits out a few trivial sources and claims that these sources constitute 'notability.' You need to thoroughly read the notability guidelines relating to the subject you want to write about and make sure you understand whether the available sources support the notability of the subject. Do not try to take shortcuts by asking an AI, it will likely be wrong.
It's very common that articles written by those connected to the subject end up being writtenbackwards. This means that you first write the article with everything you know about the subject due to your connection to it, and then try to find sources to confirm the information you've written.This is the wrong way to write a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise theexisting information available about a subject inreliable, independent secondary sources. The goal is not topresent new information or tosynthesise multiple existing sources to provide new conclusions. When writing an article you mustfirst search for sources relating to the subject (appropriate sources, those meeting thegolden rule) andonly include information in the article which is written in the sources. You may well know information about the subject which is not available in any of the existing sources, but youmust not include this kind of 'original research' in your article. It is understandably frustrating to want to provide certain information and not be able to, but that is the limitation of writing for an encyclopedia, and precisely why we strongly discourage people from writing about subjects they are connected to.If the existing sources don't say it, you can't put it in an article.
You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc isnot always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it. If you're writing about this company because you're an employee and your boss or colleagues have asked you to do it, then please thoroughly readWP:BOSS and report the information therein back to them.
If after reading all of that, you still think you can go ahead and beat the odds and create this article, then follow the steps below.
Writing a COI article
First, and most important, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to do this atWP:COI If your conflict of interest involves being paid to create this article, you should follow the instructions atWP:PAID to disclose that also.
Next, heed what I said above about not writing an article backwards. You need toforget everything you know about the subject of the article, which is obviously the most difficult part. Search Google and elsewhere for sourcesfirst. Remember that those sources need to bereliable, independent and secondary. Avoidtrivial coverage such as listicles, especially when writing about companies as this type ofday-to-day corporate coverage is very common. The sources you use need to actually prove the subject's notability (according to the most relevant guidelines) as I discussed above, which passing/trivial coverage does not. If you use ChatGPT or another AI to find sources for you (which you shouldn't), youmust double-check the sources yourself andverify that they actually say what the AI claims they do, because source-to-text inconsistencies are extremely common when using LLMs to search for sources.
Once that's done, you can extract information from the sources and write your article. For guidance on that, followHelp:Your first article and feel free to ask any more specific questions here at the Teahouse.
If none of these sources constitute significant coverage of JackSucksAtLife, or the ones thatdo only cover him in the context ofone event, then that would explain why they weren't enough to save the draft. –MrPersonHumanGuy (talk)13:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bot's addition toWikipedia:Help desk/Archive 74 reduced the archive from showing 156 sections to 119.I've repaired it by putting nowiki tags around an unclosed ref tag. (It wasn't closed because the help request was about a cite error and quoted the error message"Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).") Would some other bot have repaired it anyway, and would it have been better if I'd left well alone?NebY (talk)15:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to give credit where credit is due, so here are two more pieces of evidence, if needed, that "eyebombing" was indeed born in Aix-en-Provence and that its creator is the French artist Do Benracassa, residing in Aix-en-Provence, and not the two Danish artists who appropriated the concept by simply changing the name to "eyebombing"! The French artist Do Benracassa created this concept in 1984, and here is the link to his website:https://www.do-benracassa.com/eyebombing-france/~2025-35834-96 (talk)18:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Youtube link is to a video, seemingly from a TV program but reaching us via the channel "la Chaine de Do Benracassa", in which Do Benracassa chats with others. Not a source independent of Benracassa (and perhaps also problematic in terms of copyright status). The Medium article is by "Nixie P", who isn't obviously a reliable source. And you link to a third source, to Do Benracassa's website.None of these three sources is both reliable and independent of Do Benracassa. So there's no point presenting them as evidence. If you do have other, sound sources, then yes,Talk:Googly eyes would be where you could use them to argue your point. --Hoary (talk)07:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Theknoledgeableperson. If you see a need for such a subject, feel free to open a discussion atWP:VPP or perhapsWP:VPI, and argue the case for why it is needed.
The very first edit toWP:BLP, back in 2005, had the edit summary "I started this due to the Daniel Brandt situation". Perhaps you want to go looking for that and find out why it was felt to be needed.ColinFine (talk)20:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is one reason, certainly. More generally though, the community seems, from the policies enacted, to recognise a moral obligation to avoid causing harm to living people, or at least to minimise the unnecessary harm that can occur with unregulated content that doesn't properly belong in something that claims to be an encyclopaedia. As to whether this worthy objective is achieved as often as it should be, opinions differ.AndyTheGrump (talk)20:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there is aWP:BDP. It has been previously observed that BLP is just standard policy, but done with an urgency to reduce harm. Therein lies the key difference. --zzuuzz(talk)20:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a big part of the reason is that fewer people would benefit from lying about someone who died a long time ago. It happens, but apparently it's been kept under control well enough using the normal policies.TooManyFingers (talk)21:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,Linda Roy Walls. This is your first ever edit to the English Wikipedia. I see that you have uploaded a lot of photos of historic buildings to Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate but related project. Thanks for that. If you want to use these images in English Wikipedia articles, then you will have to link to the image files in those articles. It does not happen automatically. SeeHelp: Images.Cullen328 (talk)05:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Polygnotus (talk)19:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SeeWikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Why does "Monkey" appear in the dropdown search results for "Obama"?–CopperyMarrow15(talk⋅edits)06:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at theReference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always trysearching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.Jauerbackdude?/dude.19:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
