Hi, I started editing Wikipedia about two days ago. I’m reading the guidelines and trying to learn properly.I’m also a digital artwork creator and have uploaded some of my creative work toWikimedia Commons. As a new editor, can I help by improving articles or giving feedback, and is it possible to become a page reviewer later?ButterflyCat (talk)09:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thank you so much, and welcome to the community! You absolutely can improve articles. You don't have to be a page reviewer to do that, such as by formatting pages per themanual of style, adding citations, or copyediting. You can also give feedback on talk pages of articles or drafts, or talk pages of users who create them. If you have a good track record for this, you can request the permission so you can "patrol" pages so they are indexed on search engines like Google! There are many things to do on Wikipedia, feel free to seethe Dashboard for some tasks you can help out with.jolielover♥talk11:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ButterflyCat When you upload any work to Commons, you are agreeing to license that work under one of the Creative Commons licenses. I believe that allows anyone to reuse your work for any purpose (with attribution). There are other details (that I'm not too familiar with); if you are OK with this, then great. If not -- you may want to take your work down.
Page reviewers review pages and edits; however they may edit. You don't have to be one, @ButterflyCat. What you are doing right now (editing, I assume?) is good enough. If you want to be extended confirmed later, then that's entirely different!Purplemaker (talk)23:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For different types of English used in quite a few articles, we often use "'s" for singular nouns such as "Charles's" (which I've added to) fromRise of the Planet of the Apes (since this is an American film, for reference, one of the plot section quotes readsCharles's condition returns as his immune system becomes resistant to ALZ-112.).
That is an apostrophe, not a comma. Its placement is decided by how the possessive is pronounced as well as the variety of English in use. TheOxford Manual of Style saysUS English is more likely to support ... genitive possessives ... with British English tending instead to transpose the words and insert "of": e.g. "the effects of the catharsis" rather than "the catharsis' effects". There is more information theapostrophe article.Shantavira|feed me09:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the plural of a surname when it'snot possessive, there must not be any apostrophe, and an s must be added even if there already was one - if the name already ends in s, stick in an e for padding. "The Burnses were here yesterday, but the Flintstones, the Joneses, and the Smiths were not".
For the possessive/genitive singular, isn't the norm for most names ending in -s to just use an apostrophe by itself? That is,Charles' notCharles's. –Scyrme (talk)01:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know Wikipedia uses the MOS, I just don't have every guideline and shortcut memorised. Looks like the MOS recommends that in cases where the final S would be omitted, the text should instead be rephrased so the suffix isn't necessary, though you're right that it doesn't omit the S when the suffixis used rather than avoided. Strange that the only exception is for abstract nouns preceding the word "sake", rather than just abstract nouns consistently.(I know it's to preserve common idioms; I still think it's strange.) –Scyrme (talk)21:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I would like to add the following sentence to the Wikipedia article on the song "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You":
The main repeating bass line in the Led Zeppelin version uses the same sequence of relative note intervals and relative note durations as the main repeating bass line at the start of the verse of the 1966Summer in the City (song) byThe Lovin' Spoonful.
To my mind, just listening to the first 7 seconds of Led Zeppelin's version of "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" and the first 14 seconds of The Lovin' Spoonful's "Summer in the City" makes it very clear that the above statement is true. But I'm not allowed to just state that?
I found a Facebook post by some guy 3 years ago who made the same point (using less precise wording than my statement uses). So if I just included a link to that less precisely worded Facebook post, then I could add my above sentence to the Wikipedia article on the song "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You"?
We generally do not include random facts in Wikipedia articles simply because they are true. The question is not whether someone can verify that fact by listening to the song, but rather why we should mention such a random piece of trivia at all?
The need for reliable sources is twofold; firstly to verify the information, but also to demonstrate to us that the information is significant enough for reliable sources to have commented on it. For example, you'll notice that Wikipedia biographies don't tend to make a point of mentioning peoples' hair or eye colour even if these things are easily 'verifiable' merely by looking at their photos.
To my mind, the first time that a particular bass line which ends up being a major part of three major rock hits (Summer in the City, Led Zeppelin's Babe I'm Gonna Leave You, and Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4", in chronological order of release) is a significant piece of information. This is because whoever "first" came up with that bass line should perhaps get a little extra "credit", since it's probably more likely that they initially composed that bass line, and probably more likely that subsequent uses of it were due to those later musicians having heard the initial "hit" that used it (in this case, the number one hit "Summer in the City"), and then incorporated it into their own song later. (I realize that this may not have been true for Jimmy Page.) Thanks to Cullen328 below, I now have a reference for what I was saying. Now I just need to find a reference that also discusses "25 or 6 to 4" using that same bass line (in a very major way, even)!Bjdpc (talk)07:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
'Significance' is not our criteria for inclusion but rather 'notability,' i.e., whether a subject and information about that subject has been discussed in reliable sources. Notability generally should follow from significance; if a piece of information is truly significant, then one should expect that somebody would have written about it, as in this case.Athanelar (talk)09:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N dictates we can only create articles about subjects that are covered by RS, by summarising the information available in those RS. QED, facts included in existing articles can essentially only consist of those things that are covered by the same RS that demonstrate the subject's notability (aside from the limitedWP:ABOUTSELF case, but that doesn't apply here.) Any claim of a fact's 'significance' must necessarily be supported by a secondary RS, which is also part of the subject's notability.Athanelar (talk)10:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you still have it wrong. While your first sentence is correct, the next one (starting QED) is false. Sources in an article by no means have to be among those that establish its notability; that is just wildly off base.Mathglot (talk)22:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find where well-known reporters from trusted publications thought this was important, like it got serious coverage in a Rolling Stone article or whatever, then there would be more of a chance of putting it in.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)17:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bjdpc, I found a 2016 book calledExperiencing the Rolling Stones: A Listener's Companion that also discusses other songs of that era. Take a look atNote 19 that makes a comparison of these two performances similar to the one you made.Cullen328 (talk)05:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Cullen328. I really appreciate you finding that reference. Now I just need to learn how to insert that reference in my statement. (Sorry - I'm almost completely new to editing Wikipedia.) Is it trivial to do that? If so, could let me know what I should insert in my listing, and if not, could give me a link to the part of the Help section that discusses that. If so, thanks a lot. And thanks again for the reference.Bjdpc (talk)07:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Refer toHelp:Citing sources. Based on what the articleBabe I'm Gonna Leave You already uses, you should use a template like{{cite book}}. So you would add something like<ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |title= |publisher= |year= |page=}}</ref>, with the relevant information after each equals sign (last and first are respectively the author's last and first name), after the statement that you want this source to support.-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)08:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn’t made up of “profiles” like LinkedIN, Wikipedia biographies of living people are about people who have enough secondary and reliable sources to be written about (and must be notable enough), holding a public office can demonstrate notability but you’ll have to hold the public office first, and then you would also have to state your conflict of interest as the subject, meaning you can only put verifiable information on the article (which you can make viaAFC although autobiographies aren’t advised).The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk)11:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Profile ("A summary or collection of information, especially about a person") is a perfectly ordinary word for someone to use about a Wikipedia biography.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edit
"Profile" has more than one meaning. One of them certainly is something like (off the top of my head) "a collection of information about a person, often but not necessarily including their photograph, curated and maintained by that person or their representatives, to be displayed to the public". I didn't look at Wiktionary, but if one of its definitions isn't recognizably similar to that, then it's only because no one has added it yet. Absence from Wiktionary isn't conclusive.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk) 23:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even if someone did add that definition to Wiktionary (feel free to try that), it still won't invalidate my statements and it won't demonstrate that that was what was meant in this case.WP:AGF has not yet been rescinded.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 23:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just stating what I have seen others say about the word “Profile“ it seems the original use of the word profile would fit, but what the word has turned into wouldn’t exactly (the meaning of “profile” in the public conscious appears different to the meaning in actual dictionaries, which does happen from time to time).The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The word has not "turned into" anything and it's original meaning remains valid.
What you apparently misunderstand the word to exclusively now mean is not "the meaning of 'profile' in the public conscious", but one of several meanings, and far from the usual or commonest one.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 10:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t misunderstand the word, I understand the meaning, but words do change in meaning, look at the French words which are slightly different in English, Sympathique isn’t the same as Sympathetic despite the latter coming from the former, among other words. I was just pointing out that profile can put a different idea into someone’s head, mainly due to internet profiles which have somewhat changed how we perceive the word “profile”.The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do not assume that the negative idea the word put into your head is the one meant by the enquirer, when other reasonable and positive interpretations are reasonably possible.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 10:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a negative idea, profiles work in certain places. Perhaps the user instead wants a picture of the side of their head on Wikipedia. We simply don’t know until they clarify.The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly insisted, without a shred of evidence, that the enquirer wishes to do things which would be in breach our policies. Of course that's a negative interpretation of what they actually saidAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 11:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was bad they wanted a profile, just that it isn’t really what Wikipedia is made of, I wasn’t taking them to be negatively wanting to do something, just correcting them that Wikipedia isn’t a form of LinkedIN which is a common misconception.The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By indicating they are a US Senate candidate, they strongly suggest they want a "profile" here to enhance their campaign, not improve Wikipedia. AGF hasn't been violated here.
You may be correct about the dictionary definitions of the word, but that is not how many people use the word in my many years of experience here. Many people equate "Wikipedia article" to "social media profile". This may be incorrect, but it happens nevertheless. By describing this we're trying to steer people towards knowing what exactly articles are- summaries of what has been written about them, not necessarily what they want to say about themselves.331dot (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reason they want to be included in Wikipedia may be what you suggest, but even if so it does not mean that they want something "made to be about the person in a promotional way" or "curated and maintained by that person or their representatives", and it is an egregious failure to AGF to assume that they do when they have said or done nothing to that effect.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 10:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All very interesting, but not useful for resolving the user question. Collapsed.Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article on a politician can only be drawn from how reliable independent publications have analyzed their career in politics. A candidate has no career in politics (yet). Wikipedia's article about any person is to document what the public already knew about their career. (Using myself as an example, the public knows nothing of my career, so there couldn't be an article about me. It's not a platform for me to tell about myself.)TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)17:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi how can i add the translation of this page in german in englih ? I don't think i have the editor right or how can i submit it to be translated ? thank youJojoraebbit (talk)19:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The German articlede:Alex Márquez (Filmeditor) is not sourced adequately for an English Wikipedia article, so a direct translation will not be acceptable. The one existing sourcemay be usable, but it is presumably a tertiary source: we generally require at least three reliable secondary sources, each meeting all the criteria inWP:golden rule.
So in order to create an English article on Marquez, it will be essential to find at least two more sources which meet all the criteria, and then write an article basedentirely on those reliable independent sources. It may be possible to translate parts of the German text, but if that includes information which is not in those reliable independent sources, those parts should not be in the English text; so it is likely to be more effective to treat the English article as a new article, and useArticles for creation.ColinFine (talk)20:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I am not quite following. 5 different language user pages were created. I remember resetting my preferences about then .Wakelamp (talk)d[@-@]b15:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only guessing (but I think it's a good enough guess) that some action you did was counted by the wiki software as an edit. Some wikis are set to send an automatic Welcome message on a person's first edit.
As mentioned above, and as proved by your reaction, many users find these automatic welcomes confusing, pointless, rude, or whatever, and there's a proposal in the works to make the wikis stop doing it, or at least to do it more reasonably. (And one of the main complaints is that what they're classifying as an "edit" currently includes a number of things that aren't ordinarily thought of as editing.)TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)16:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just to wrap up an issue quickly, on theAkwete_cloth page, user:Dolpina, is continuously editing and deleting citations from sourced material I had posted, and claims I “made up the sources, and content” despite having clearly linked the citations in detail. Would an admin be able to look over this?
Yep, on the talk section of said page, but they continually delete my sourced content saying I’m making it up, which is hilarious, so now it’s an issue only a mod could solve, really.Dangermanmeetz (talk)05:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider it a person attack because that person didnt hear my side of things and just believed the person interested in POV editing.Dolpina (talk)11:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please how am I a vandal for pointing out original research? That isn't what was said in the sources and I called it out. I tagged 3rd parties for help and he quickly reverted the page before it was locked. He/she is the one interested in POV editing.Dolpina (talk)11:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dangermanmeetz: It looks both of you were reverting each other back and forth, which isn't really look good for either you ofDolpina in the eyes of a typical Wikipedia administrator. If content you add to an article is disputed by another user (even content supported by citations), and they give a policy- or guideline-based reason why (e.g., they feel the content isn't not supported by the sources cited), thenthe burden falls the person wanting to add/re-add the disputed content to go to the article's talk and start a discussion explaining why doing so is in accordance with relevant policies and guideline, including even seeking a consensus to re-add the content. Disagreements over a content and sources isn'treally considered vandalism per se, particularly when the other person seems to at least be giving policy- or guideline-based reasons for reverting. You both now have, also, started competing threads on the article's talk page, which also isn't a really good idea. Perhaps the best thing for you both to do would be to take a break, let things cool down a bit, and then go back to the article's talk page to see if you can resolve your differences in accordance withWP:DR. If you both keep on going as you have been going, an administrator is likely to step in, but neither of you may like the outcome of that happening. --Marchjuly (talk)05:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the response, though I would say the issue is moreso that the objections by the other user is not in line with what is actually occurring. By claiming I’m “making my own content” and saying what I’m citing and writing are different with no proof (I’ve also linked the book and page I cited a couple times), it just seems deliberately dishonest, especially when we get into the ethnic framing of it (if you’re familiar with Nigerian ethnic tensions) which take place on the site all the time.Dangermanmeetz (talk)05:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how right you are or how wrong you think the other person is, you just don't keep reverting back and forth to your preferred version, which look like is exactly what you both were doing. There'sno exemption forWP:3RR when it comes to a content dispute or disagreement over sources; moreover, if the subject matter is as contentious as you state, then maybe evenWP:1RR could be a problem. You both should, in principle, be followingWP:DISPUTERESOLUTION process in trying to resolve this. There are various steps to that process; so, if one doesn't yield any positive results, move to the next one.Arguing back and forth via edit summaries, including threats of getting each other banned, doesn't typically move things in a positive direction at all. In my opinion, the best thing you could do to diffuse the situation would be to self-revert the disputed content as a show of good faith and then seek a consensus to re-add it through discussion on the article's talk page. --Marchjuly (talk)06:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the version of the article be reverted to the pre edit warring stage then we start from there. I feel more neutral people be involved and check the sources and the subject matter. I have tagged random 3rd parties. It feels unfair that his is left up for a week. It should be about accuracy and truth, and non POV pushing,rather than fastest fingers.Dolpina (talk)11:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you, @Dolpina and @Dangermanmeetz need to get off your "I am right and they are wrong" kick. At this point what matters is that you both do your very best to reach consensus - which starts by really listening to the other person's point of view. Repeated reversion doesn't do it, nor does insisting that you are right and they are wrong, and nor does appealing to some "authority" to rule.
I've been open to it, but they don't seem to be. Not much I can do with someone insisting on making his own conclusions, not made in a source while separately accusing me of vandalizing another unrelated page, because I reverted vandalism/POV. I am still open to it but at some point whether or not I intervened, anyone who cares enough about the topic will see the discrepancies. Anyone who cares enough about the subject should feel free to contribute before it is equivalent to a personal blog post.Dolpina (talk)17:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can't control what others are going to do, but you should be fine as long as you're discussing things in good faith andlimit your comments to the content being discussed and not the other person, you should be fine. A user can't ignore aWP:CONSENSUS; so, focus on establishing a consensus by showing how your concerns about the content and cited sources are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If a consensus is established that you're correct, the content will be removed; if the other user tries re-add it despite consensus, they will find out from a Wikipedia administrator that such a thing isn't allowed. If they persist even at beyond that point, they will learn thatthey can't win by most likely ending up being blocked. --Marchjuly (talk)07:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'm happy if you want to keep the text the same - all I did was change it to the description we currently use on our website home page. But the logo/image is our old one and needs to be changedChiva75863 (talk)14:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiva75863 As the logo you added does not appear anywhere on the charity's website (ie with the strapline), I have uploaded the updated logo as found on the website. I have also moved the article to the charity's current name, and reverted the odd change you made to add a "display title" to a redirect - but things like redirects are obviously complicated and difficult for a completely new editor to understand. I think the charity now has the correct incoming redirects - from the old/long name, and from the CAPS version. I note that the Charity commission still uses the long form of name, and does not even mention "Chiva" as a "working name" as is done for many other charities.PamD15:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiva75863 And the text you added was copied from the charity's home page but not sourced to anywhere. Theoriginal version of the page, which I created around the time of that long-ago royal wedding, listed the "aims" and directly cited the charity's "aims and objectives" page. Over the years various edits had managed to separate those bullet points from any sourcing, and indeed they seem to have disappeared from the website, being replaced by the two paragraphs you copied. I've now replaced your paragraphs in the article, but showing clearly that the text is quoted verbatim and showing its source, the home page.PamD15:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You sayour charity page. You have two misunderstandings. Firstly, it is not "yours"; it is a Wikipedia article about a topic (in this case, some charity). Secondly, it an article, not a page.
"Pages" are things on websites and social media. If that website and media are yours, then they are "your page". But that's not Wikipedia. Indeed, if you are closely associated with the topic that needs editing then, although others may edit the article, you probably should avoid editing it directly yourself, but instead make well-sourced edit requests at the talk page. SeeWP:COI andWP:PAID. Hope that helps clear things up.Feline Hymnic (talk)16:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AsAndy Mabbett has pointed out,Feline Hymnic, even according to Wikipedia's own terminology a Wikipedia article is a page. And, as you concede,"Pages" are things on websites and social media; so since Wikipedia's articles are things on on the website wikipedia.org, for Wikipedia to call them pages is hardly surprising. As for the claim that a page/article about some organization is not theirs, this would fly in the face of the Standard English use of thegenitive. My page/article isn't the page about me, but this is ruled out simply because you have no reason to think that such a page exists. But it could be the page/article to which I recently devoted much time, the page I'm complaining about, the page I seem to be obsessed with, the page I'm helping push to FA. And if it did turn out that there was a page about me, "my page" could mean that too.WP:BLPN currently has mentions of "Siddiqui's article" (i.e.Aafia Siddiqui's article; en:Wikipedia's article onAafia Siddiqui) and this subject's article" (i.e.Jamie Shea's article; en:Wikipedia's article onJamie Shea); I'm happy to report that nobody has yet popped up to trumpet any delusion about some implication that Siddiqui/Shea "possesses" the respective article. --Hoary (talk)00:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pam D for updating it for me, and for everyone's advice. As a small charity I just wanted to make sure the information was up to date to benefit our support users. I apologise I am not very clued up about Wikipedia - I didn't mean to cause any offense to anyone or break any rules. I'm happy to close my account on here now the "article" is up to date. Have a great day everyone.Chiva75863 (talk)09:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiva75863 Please stay around and if there is news about Chiva, or changes needed to the article, comment on its talk page giving references so that someone else can update the article/page. And now that you've dipped a toe into editing, perhaps see if there are other articles which you could improve or update, backed up withreliable independent published sources: perhaps your home town, interests, or HIV topics?PamD16:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. Just make a normally-formatted comment, like any other contributor to the discussion. Some people like to add '(Non-administrator comment)' or similar to their posts, but this is neither required, nor in my opinion particularly helpful. WP:AN and WP:ANI are for discussion of topics where admin intervention may prove necessary (i.e. to impose blocks etc). They arenot places where admins alone determine for themselves how issues should be dealt with. Admins are given their tools to assist the community with ensuring the proper functioning of the project, but it is down to the community as a whole to determine, after discussion, what action may be required.
If you do post on the admin noticeboards, try to be concise and on topic, and to provide diffs etc when necessary. It helps a lot to get your posts taken seriously.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an adminstrator who has been active atWP:ANI for many years, I want to say thatproductive comments by non-administrators are always welcome. Productive comments are those that analyze the actual evidence or present new evidence, that are based on a solid understanding of policies, guidelines and behavioral norms, and that encourage de-escalation of disputes and reasonable solutions, instead of inflaming matters.Cullen328 (talk)19:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And speaking as a non-administrator who's been about on Wikipedia for a fair old time too, I'd have to suggest that we generally prefer commentsby admins that 'analyze the actual evidence or present new evidence, that are based on a solid understanding of policies, guidelines and behavioral norms'... etc, though we don't always get them. I don't consider it particularly helpful to imply that admins are somehow immune from some of the problematic behaviour we see at WP:AN/WP:ANI. We really don't need 'us and them' distinctions on noticeboards.AndyTheGrump (talk)00:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump, I did not intend to imply that administrators never engage in inappropriate behavior there. Some of us ocasionally miss the mark. The question was about non-administrators commenting and that is what I tried to address, but your clarification is appreciated.Cullen328 (talk)03:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask, why would you want to? ANI, otherwise known as theWP:CESSPIT, is a time-sucking drama board. I try to ignore it as much as I can but occasionally get pulled in against my will when necessary. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)09:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, digging into dreary nuts and bolts of problems and trying to be help make sense of things is something I find quite appealing. So it is certainly possible! And I like to believe I may have even been useful at times, though I can't deny the possibility it's just that I've never been quite objectionable enough to warn or sanction.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)16:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also can't get the map to update to the address I loaded, and now see a citation which goes to a different link than what I thought I pasted in. Under Enrollment, I pasted in an updated source, but that URL links to a citation number which goes to a different URL.
Can I get some pointers? Sorry to have misfired on all this.
Hello,IterantFocus. According to the cited website, an appropriate title for the first reference is "School Name: Horace Mann School For The Deaf Hard Of Hearing". That should be placed in the "title" field of the citation template. You should fill as many fields as is practical. Some fields can be left blank such as the author fields for an unsigned article or the date field for an undated article, but the title is considered so important that the template generates an error message if the title field is left blank.Cullen328 (talk)20:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the direction! Ultimately when I looked in code instead of the visual editor I saw what I must have dropped out when I made my edits.
Is there any chance you can help me with why the map doesn't agree with the address? I don't see anything suggesting how it's pulling a dated address. Could it just be a caching issue?IterantFocus (talk)21:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was pulling the location from the "coord" template at the bottom of the page. I moved the coord template up into the infobox (not necessary, but it's easier to find) and changed the coordinates to match the address.Andrew Jameson (talk)13:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked atWP:Namespace and it only listsDraft: andTemplate:, but not something likeTemplate draft:. I'm unsure what the appropriate namespace is for an experimental template, particularly one which may otherwise get automatically categorised into a maintenance category as having errors due to its being incomplete.
I know I can sketch things out in a user sandbox, but it's difficult to experiment & troubleshoot without being about to insert the template into a user page to test if it works properly and responds to parameters as intended. –Scyrme (talk)20:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that suggestion is for if you want to try out the examples/markup used by that help page, rather than if you want to work on a new template. The template sandbox is good for short experimentation, but I was looking for something suitable for longer term project. (The sandbox is shared, so isn't reserved for a single project and gets wiped every 12 hours.) –Scyrme (talk)21:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't understand your point aboutdifficult to experiment & troubleshoot . I test templates all the time that are in my user space; what difficulty are you having, exactly? You can create a test cases page with a range of tests, and refresh the page every time you tweak your test template, and see if that broke or fixed anything. Is that what you mean?Mathglot (talk)20:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: How would I insert the template into a test page? Usually to insert a template you would add{{TEMPLATENAME|parameter1=some|parameter2=thing}}, but since the template isn't in the template namespace that doesn't work. –Scyrme (talk)20:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Scyrme, just as you showed above, with the full pagename including namespace and full path where you wrote TEMPLATENAME. The software only looks for a template in template space by default when you do not provide a namespace, but when you do provide one, then it looks there. Here's one in my user space:
I done edits onJames Dean's page using p.m. because I thought it was preferred in American English but someone reverted it and saidMOS:PUNCT and I can't see what they're referring to there as many pages use p.m. it isn't as common in British English but the page I done was American English any clarity on this would be helpful or if someone could explain what he was pointing out to me. Thank youItsShandog (talk)08:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TIME doesn't specifically mention it, but its acceptable examples show both a.m./p.m. and am/pm.
That said,MOS:RETAIN applies here; i.e., there's generally no need to make these kinds of stylistic changes to the form of English used if one style has already been established in the article.Athanelar (talk)09:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I always was curious why not just use 24 hour time like the rest of the world? Most Americans understand it too, as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)09:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, many Americans don't (or pretend not to) or complain about the use of what they call "military time". How much of this is genuine and how much is rage baiting I'm not sure. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2026-76101-8 (talk)17:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've never experienced it as rage baiting. I've seen total incomprehension, and I've seen un-ironic "why bother learning fancy tricks when I'm already using the system everyone knows". But this is from Canadians, who are (at least by stereotype) less inclined toward rage baiting.
Agree wit TMF. It's genuine. I got used to 24-hour time elsewhere, and when living in the U.S. (or communicating with Americans) I would get blank looks when using 24-hour expressions.Mathglot (talk)08:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do think 12 hour should be the default for articles that have ties to US/Canada, seeing as they (outside the military) almost exclusively use that. Its common in the UK where my phone says 17,00 and the shop sign saying that it closes at 4,30 pm on Sundays. Its a normal life in the UK using both systems simultaneously, just like having to deal with mph and metres. And times are said in the 12 hour format (even when reading form 24 hour) except in the context of railways.JuniperChill (talk)20:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm visiting Singapore at the moment, and noticed that while everything is metric, residential real estate is still referenced in square feet. They also use 24-hour or AM/PM simultaneously.
MOS:TIME first bullet-point does specifically mention that either with or without periods is acceptable. I thinkMOS:STYLERET is the more specifically relevant guideline about not changing from one to another acceptable style without good reason, andMOS:DATEVAR is good precedent too for being consistent within any one specific article.DMacks (talk)21:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I've been having long-time problems with a user using multiple IP addresses. Theirmost recent edits regard Bosnian footballerErmin Bičakčić. They have removed relevant content (contract info about him signing for a new club, an image, as well as a separate part about his new club because the "club is not relevant enough and [he] is nearing the end of his career", which is an incredibly subjective and illogic reason). He has also changed the access-date and language format which is currently in use in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia. They have done this to multiple former Bosnian national team players' articles. Evidently their main account has been blocked due to some reasons, and for years they've been evading furhter blocks by using multiple IP addresses. I do not intend to edit war with them, while trying to discuss anything with them on any players' talk page is, unfortunately, not going to work (I've tried before). They are just incredibly stubborn, and their edits are not contributing to anything. What should I do?Bakir123 (talk)09:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakir123 The sequence of edits, all from different temporary accounts, suggests that if this is a single individual they are "clever" in having their device(s) associated with different accounts. The simplest thing to do is to request page protection atWP:RPP. The somewhat more complicated thing would be to take it toWP:ANI but I don't think that would help much in this instance given how many accounts are involved.Mike Turnbull (talk)10:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.ColinFine (talk)16:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Today I noticed an edit on a page where the reference had '?utm_source=chatgpt.com' at the end of the URL. This makes me wonder how many contributors are using AI chatbots as ways to collate information and sources for Wikipedia.
Does anyone know of any studies on this?
Is there any way to search the raw wikitext of Wikipedia to see how many times URLs with some kind of sign the source was suggested by AI? Eg ?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Are there any bots on Wikipedia which would remove these signs eg removing ?utm_source=chatgpt.com from the reference URLs?
2. User:Gnomingstuff has lots of great tricks for scraping for AI-generated content. I think they have pings off but you could ask at their talk page.
3. No, nor would we want one; AI editing is discouraged and under steadily-increasing restrictions, and fingerprints like this are important tools to catch it.
@ROLEXMEENA: Could you provide more information? Like at least linking to what you mean by "Hindi Wikipedia articles"? We're on the English-language Wikipedia so there are no articles in the Hindi language here. Are you talking about the Hindi-language Wikipedia? Or do you mean something else? –Scyrme (talk)18:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. However, the titleOrne (river) is still inherently ambiguous, sinceOrne (Moselle) is also a river, and the disambiguator "river" does not distinguish between them. Hatnotes and the disambiguation page help navigation, but a more specific disambiguator in the title would be clearer.~2026-98545-5 (talk)21:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I puta request in the abortion article talk page for a change in the paraphrasing which I believe is most consistant with the rules. Someone replied with an essay which I believe wasn't relevant, so I explained that. However, other than this there hasn't been a reply. Abortion is a very prominent topic, and I'm sure many people are watching that page, so how come there haven't really been any replies to this? And how should I proceed?Wikieditor662 (talk)20:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Help, I attempted several times to login using my User Name: "GSR Soc" and password without success. I requested a "forgot password reset" expecting advice sent to my email but received nothing. I checked 24 hours later - still nothing. Please can you assist? Many thanks :)~2026-99853-4 (talk)23:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is such wrong remark about Mohammad Reza the Hing Of Iran. it is important that you a fat check - the intnerview with Oriana Fallaci that it is referred to in the wikipedia .
the interview about women was as follow, not what you allowed to be read here - nothing about dispicable claim of sex object. pleaser correct .
During a 1973 interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, she challenged him directly on his comments about women. In that interview, he made statements suggesting that women had not produced major creative or political achievements comparable to men. Fallaci strongly objected and confronted him.~2026-99083-6 (talk)01:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Ithink what they mean is they object to the preceding bitMohammad Reza often spoke of women as sexual objects who existed only to gratify him because they interpreted it as being whatshe vehemently objected to his attitudes towards women refers to.
However, I'm unsure whether that's the intended interpretation. It may be that the reference cited mentions both that he objectified women and that he was confronted in an interview about his attitudes towards women, but not that he necessarily objectified women in the interview itself or that Fallaci confronted him about objectification, rather than about assertingthat women had not produced major creative or political achievements comparable to men.
I don't have access to the reference so can't check which interpretation is closest to what it states, nor if it provides the extra detail about the nature of his statements in the interview provided by 2026-99083-6. –Scyrme (talk)04:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OP, please note that we do not refer to anyone as a "Great King" in discussions among Wikipedia editors. This Pahlavi's title was "Shah" in reliable English language sources.Cullen328 (talk)07:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through the naming conventions and I noticed thatWikipedia:Naming conventions (music) wasn't in the subcategory for the arts, so I added it. When I went to remove the base category I couldn't find it anywhere on the page nor could I use HotCat to remove it. Is there any reason for this?Drowssap18:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I heard an editor started replacing the phrase "pregnant person" with "pregnant woman" in almost every instance, while repeatedly saying "standing for the truth" in edit summaries. They were then given a 31 hour block:Special:Contributions/Oifwejiofwje
As Athanelar said, we should go with what the source says. In this case, I think at least some of the edits were appropriate (I haven't check all of them), but it was clear they were making these edits willy-nilly in aWP:RGW sense, not because they had checked the original source in each one of those cases.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to all at Wikipedia and thank you so much much for creating the Thomas Edison Film Festival page. I am deeply grateful!!! My name is Jane Steuerwald, the TEFF Director/Executive Director of the Thomas A. Edison Media Arts Consortium. Today I tried to create an account so I could either add to or verify information on the Thomas Edison Film Festival page. I hope I did this correctly, but honestly I am not sure. Is there anyone there who can assist me? BTW - On a personal note, I have been a monthly supporter of Wikipedia for a number of years, and am a huge fan of what you do. I am deeply honored that this page was created. With sincere gratitude, Jane SteuerwaldTEFF Director (talk)22:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TEFF Director: The "View history" tab onThomas Edison Film Festival shows it was created byUser:Djflem in 2023. There are other contributors but Djflem wrote nearly all the current content and can be contacted atUser talk:Djflem. They have over 100,000 edits and I don't know whether they are still interested in this article but that's what I would try if you want to discuss the content. If you have more general questions about editing then you can ask here.PrimeHunter (talk)00:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apology. I didn't understand this. I was just making a correction to the site - TEFF does not accept feature films - only shorts. I also have read in a number of comments that since I am the director of TEFF I should not be making any changes. Again, I am so sorry - my only agenda was to correct some minor errors in our policies. FYI - we have a page on FilmFreeway too in case anyone is looking for accurate information about the history, mission, and practices of TEFF. Last question - should I change my user name? I created an account with a user name of TEFF Director. I assumed that that would be desirable as I am not pretending to be someone "neutral." One thing is certain - I will completely refrain from making any direct corrections to the site, and once again, I really am grateful that the page has been created. We are a modest non-profit arts organization with lots of heart - no red carpet aspirations. And I want to keep it that way. Thank you for listening and for your help. Jane Steuerwald, TEFF Director.TEFF Director (talk)16:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary; you're new here and came and asked for advice. There's nothing wrong with that.
Thank you so much! Do you have any recommendations for a user name? Do people use their "real" names or something made up? My approach is always to be honest about who I am but if the is not advised, I can adjust. Your advice is appreciated! JaneTEFF Director (talk)17:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It can be your actual name (first, or last, or both, or a nickname), a made-up name, a goofy phrase, etc. And it can include your affiliationalong with your name (or whatever else you make up). But it can'tjust be an organization-name or job-title (a shared "WP:ROLE" account) because the policy is that each account is tied to one person. In the future, someone else from the same organization or with the same job-title might want to edit here.DMacks (talk)19:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT HAPPENED TO WIKIPEDIA??? For years I have used AND CONTRIBUTED to Wikipedia. Now I click on my favorite link to Wikipedia and I am taken to a news page but no option to look up info. I use Wikipedia several times a week and consider it a treasure of information. After ½ hr of searching and clicking links I can not find the "old" Wikipedia. What happened? Where is it? Do I need to descend to google search again for info?
@Gck80: Depending on circumstances like screen size, you may have to click a magnifying glass icon to get a search box. If the change was in 2023 then you can get back to the old Wikipedia when you are logged in by selecting "Vector legacy" atSpecial:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Please post a link to the page your favorite link leads to. The English Wikipedia is athttps://en.wikipedia.org. That link saysen.wikipedia.org in case something outside Wikipedia changes the url for you. Many other websites show our content but sometimes close or change.PrimeHunter (talk)10:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient evidence for living public figures' birth year (and/or date)
Hello - I would like to add the birth year for a living person.
Caveat: I realize none of the following are acceptable, but sharing to let you know what I know. Their state's voter reg rolls are public and it lists the actual birth date. Their wedding announcement in the NY Times lists the age of the person (which I realize only marks their age on that day, and doesn't reliably narrow down the birth year). Their college lists their graduating year (again: not reliable). Their Public Facebook Page lists their college and graduation year as well as high school and graduation year (and there's a photo saying "Me at 18 in 1980"). Also, a Facebook post by them corroborates their wedding anniversary and age at that time. And every year on the same date they acknowledge birthday greetings on Facebook--which is the same date on the voter reg rolls.
Again: I understand none of those meet your standards. But what would? If the wedding announcement in the NY Times says the person was 25 in May 2005, would I have to find articles referencing them and their age as 24 in, say, January--and then 25 in April? Or what would be sufficient documentation? Thank you.Limeginger (talk)03:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Converting simple things like this into abstract theoretical questions makes them more difficult to answer, and might reduce your chance of success. Please start by saying exactly who you're talking about.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)04:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to me thatLimeginger has asked any "abstract theoretical questions". I don't have any opinion on the (non-) issue and am disinclined to research it. I'd tend toward ignoring the matter of birth date, guessing that if it interested other editors then some of them would unearth more precise facts, eventually. However, a datespan seems possible -- and it could be explained in aTemplate:Efn. (Does some issue hinge on this person's birth date?) --Hoary (talk)23:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If this is for the infobox, I'd just use{{Age as of date}}, based on the NYT source. If you wanted an exact birth date, you could do a routineWP:CALCULATION if the Facebook posts are from a verified profile (perWP:ABOUTSELF) and give you a birthday. So if they say on FB their birthday is (e.g.) 1 April, and you know from NYT they were 25 when they got married in May 2005, then it's a pretty routine calculation to say they were born 1 April 1980.Nil🥝00:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time you have made this sort of error-report. And for the second time, someone has promptly responded that they do not see the problem, and that your message does not have enough detail for someone to help figure it out. Please make sure you are specific when reporting a problem. Otherwise a lot of people might wind up wasting a lot of time and benefitting nobody.DMacks (talk)06:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bundy standoff saysdirecting Bundy to pay over $1 million in withheldgrazing fees but in reality the grazing fees themselves were like 40-50k and the rest was penalties and interest accumulated over the years.“The fees themselves are probably only about $40,000 to $50,000,” Whipple said. “But then of course it keeps doubling, then with the IRS and the government entities, you’re talking about an entirely different figure.”[2] The $1m number makes the government seem unreasonable when he actually had to pay a far more manageable sum but refused for decades.Polygnotus (talk)05:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how y'all do this. I'm just not comfortable doing much typing unless I'm sitting at a stereotypical computer, ideally withmy personal keyboard and very large monitor. Doing anything on my phone takes twice as long for me, even if I disregard the extra time spent because of "hot dog fingers."CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for issues on my phone, but fix them on my laptop. My issue is the autocapitalization of the first character of searches which causes reserved words like insource not to work.Naraht (talk)15:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bundy standoff saysdirecting Bundy to pay over $1 million in withheldgrazing fees but in reality the grazing fees themselves were like 40-50k and the rest was penalties and interest accumulated over the years.“The fees themselves are probably only about $40,000 to $50,000,” Whipple said. “But then of course it keeps doubling, then with the IRS and the government entities, you’re talking about an entirely different figure.”[3] The $1m number makes the government seem unreasonable when he actually had to pay a far more manageable sum but refused for decades.Polygnotus (talk)05:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an idea for how to improve a Wikipedia article, the best thing you can do is edit it yourself. The second best thing you can do is raise your concerns on the article's talk page. In this case, you would want to make a new topic over atTalk:Bundy standoff.
I have trouble writing with a smartphone too, although I've never tried editing Wikipedia on one. If you have a personal computer of any sort, try editing Wikipedia on that device instead.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!22:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus you have made over 41,000 edits over the last 3.5 years, and since you are a fairly experienced editor, I don't understand why you are repeatedly posting this off-topic content here. You have asked no question in what you posted. What are you hoping will happen?CodeTalker (talk)05:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message regarding my recent edit to the Samastipur page.I understand that my addition of the "Digital Media" section regardingSamastipur News was reverted. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia and my intention was to add relevant local information, not to spam or vandalize.Could you please guide me on why this specific addition was considered non-constructive?Was it a lack of reliable citations (references)?Or is it an issue with the notability of the media outlet?I would appreciate your advice on how I can improve the content to meet Wikipedia's standards, or if I should provide third-party sources (like major newspapers) to verify the information before adding it again.Thanks for your help.Samastipurnewsedit (talk)17:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One major problem is that you cut out very large chunks of the existing article and gave false edit summaries (not slightly-mistaken ones, but giving a completely wrong impression of what you were really doing).TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)17:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stephenfoery, I am an administator and so could read your deleted userpage. It was entirely self-promotional and that type of content is not permitted on Wikipedia. Use social media to promote yourself, not an encyclopedia. The deletion hadnothing to do with your sexual orientation. It would have been deleted if you had been promoting your books about asteroids or butterflies. Theadministrator who deleted iteditor who tagged it for deletion isUser:Theroadislong, who acted correctly in my opinion. The current content on your userpage is bizarre and tendentious. I encourage you to remove it.Cullen328 (talk)18:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my error that was the result of a too quick look.Significa liberdade deleted the content. I believe that the deletion was correct. The content consisted of promotion of books instead of discussion of the editor's work on Wikipedia.Cullen328 (talk)18:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see your userpage, but based on what others are saying here, it sounds as if your user page may have been inappropriate due to excessive self promotion. Your Wikipedia user page should be more focused on what you do here on Wikipedia, not what you do outside of Wikipedia. Talking about articles on Wikipedia you've written is okay, and talking about your personal life is okay, but talking excessively about books you have authored is not.
As for "institutionalized homophobia", I suppose your mileage may vary, but I've found that Wikipedia's community is quite progressive and welcoming. I hope I can assure you that the subject matter of your books had nothing to do with the deletion of your user page.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!22:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For Ref 29 (which you added),{{cite web}} needs a title. You need to specify the title,| title = "Dr. Nkiru Balonwu, a social entrepreneur passionate about improving the realities of women and girls in Africa"|
For 14 and 16 (which I don't think you just added) the problem is that the author's last name is given as "editor", which is not satisfactory. Ref 14 has author "Vanessa Obioha", so it should say|last = Obioha |first = Vanessa". Ref 16 has no author credited, so thelast argument should be left blank.ColinFine (talk)22:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You've omitted the title. You need to add|title=Dr. Nkiru Balonwu, a social entrepreneur passionate about improving the realities of women and girls in Africa
(And the website is "RefinedNG".)
Incidentally, this source alarms me. It tells us for example:Balonwu is a strategic communication and stakeholder engagement specialist. This means nothing to me and I can't help wondering if it's intended just to obfuscate and impress. If it does mean something, then what? --Hoary (talk)23:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seemed more plausible than "Army radio operator who is also a highly-skilled matchmaker among vampire hunters", even though to my mind vampire hunters are the true stakeholders.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)01:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Friends have a local business that used to be affiliated in part with a national chain. Some time ago, they split ways. The national chain posted on a wiki page and on Yelp that the store was permanently closed, which is blatantly untrue. Can I go in and re-write the malicious disinformation?Dlewis925 (talk)03:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlewis925: There's a conflict of interest issue here, so you should instead useWikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/COI to request an edit to the article. It would help if you could provide independent sources for any information you want added or changed. However, if the article currently states that the store was closed but does not provide any sources about that, then you wouldn't need a source to request that claim simply be deleted from the article. Additionally, if you definitely know it was someone affiliated with the chain that has been editing the article, then they should have declared a conflict of interest. It would help if you could link the article here so other editors could investigate. –Scyrme (talk)03:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it'sblatantly untrue then you can fix it, regardless of CoI (which should still be declared, on your edit summary or on the article's talk page).
Anyone who challenges you for doing so may be directed toWP:COISELF, which says"An exception to not editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly."Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits11:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "untrue statement" cited to some published source? If not, it seems easily removeable by anyone, even COI. If it's cited, then an alternate cite is required to dispute it.DMacks (talk)12:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Only use it when a person'sexact height is important to what is said about them in the article. If they're an actor, saying "he was very tall" in the article is already enough - we don't care about the exact number. If they're a boxer or a basketball player, knowing that they're 6' 7½" can matter a lot.TooManyFingers(he/him ·talk)06:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So in this case, athletes, models, and other special cases that height is needed in a infobox then. Thus basically means that some infoboxes don't need to have their height listed if it's not useful like a chef or a singer for example.TyronesEditsPages (talk)09:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You would presumably have to contact the school in question. There's not much Wikipedia can do about this. This is generally for help with Wikipedia issues.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)07:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, everyone! Just a minute ago, I published a draft of an English-language translation for the Spanish-language article on the Virgin of Urkupiña,es:Virgen de Urkupiña. But it looks like I can't publish it, because publishing is limited to extended confirmed editors. How can I get the translation published? Thank you !!Duffmorton (talk)08:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons (the main reason, I think) that the translation tool is not available to inexperienced editors is that many, perhaps most, articles in other Wikipedias are not referenced adequately for a new article in the English Wikipedia. (English Wikipedia is one of the strictest - perhapsthe strictest - about this).
Consequently, only experienced editors (who in theory should understand the criteria fornotability,reliable sources, andverifiability) are allowed to use the tool, and anybody else needs to put their version through review atarticles for creation.
Unfortunately if the source article is not satisfactorily sourced, then that generally means that it has been writtenbackwards, and needs to be rewritten from scratch to make it acceptable to English Wikipedia.
I have added a header to your draft which will allow you to submit it for review when it is ready.
I notice that the draft begins with a template from Spanish Wikipedia which does not exist in English Wikipedia. You'll need to investigate whether or not there is a corresponding template in English Wikipedia, and if so change its name and arguments appropriately.ColinFine (talk)11:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the guidance! Right now, I'm trying to put in more sources and other changes. Is there a way for me to use (for now) only a few well-cited sections of the original Spanish-language article as the basis for the translated English-language article? And if I do this, can I save the rest of the translation somewhere? My hope, here, would be to set things up so that I or others can return later to obtain sources for the remaining sections of the article and eventually get them into the published English-language article.Duffmorton (talk)06:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SPA account adding links only to their own website
User:CulverHist's only contribution to Wikipedia is to add citations to their website chrisbungostudios.com, a user-generated directory of film and video filming locations (with some commercial aspects). I'm not sure if this is appropriate. Any advice?Dave.Dunford (talk)11:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello experts, I'm bewildered by the advice inHelp:Table andTemplate:Table alignment concerning how to specify the alignment of text in a column when you want it to differ from the default that has been specified. In my case, narrative text in the table is left-aligned by default but in 5 columns I want to apply "text-align: center;". None of the advice has worked for me – on past record, almost certainly because of me! I would be grateful if someone could visitUser:SCHolar44/Yinkanie and advise or correct – also on any other poor coding that's evident (I'm an eager learner). Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺💬 at12:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I need money for my home and business.My humble request is that. I am a helpless person. I have two small babies. I do not have a place to live with them. I do not have a partner. I cannot even feed them. So please help me a little. So that I can live with my two babies. And I can do business and eat. After a few days, there will be a storm and I have nowhere to stay with my two babies. Please help me.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Today's Featured Article,Abraham Lincoln, has anImageMap in theEmancipation Proclamation section withpoly lines identifying the people depicted in a portrait. One of those people is Lincoln himself, and it seems like there is a dilemma here: If we make Lincoln's name at the end of the relevant line a wikilink, it will be acircular link, but if not, the ImageMap extension throws an error reading "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6." @SchroCat removed the circular link ([4] - revision shows the error message), and I reinstated it to avoid the error ([5]), but I'm wondering if there is anything that can be done to avoid both these problems in the case where an ImageMap depicts the subject of the article it's being used in.Opus 113 (talk)18:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Opus 113 You can use a section anchor link, like [[Abraham Lincoln#Emancipation Proclamation|Abraham Lincoln]], or link to [[Emancipation Proclamation|Abraham Lincoln]] (he is holding it).Polygnotus (talk)18:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. The first one at least has the advantage that readers who click the link won't lose their place in the article - if there isn't a technical way around this issue, maybe that is the thing to do.Opus 113 (talk)19:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that current events articles often get a lot of !keep votes right after they happen, and then eventually progress into !delete or !redirect. I have made the mistake ofWP:RAPIDly nominating articles for deletion before, and know that when this happens, it's more likely they'll be kept than anything else. About where is the time an article no longer meetsWP:LASTING, if it stops?CutlassCiera00:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing article (1)Roundhay, which includes a sectionRoundhay#Oldest surviving film, describing a film shot there which "is believed to be the oldest surviving film in existence", with a link to article (2)Roundhay Garden Scene. Another user has repeatedly marked the statement in article (1) as needing a source. However, article (2) contains several sources for the statement and, in my opinion, a source does need to be shown in article (1).
Is there a general rule on this? If every article which linked to a second article had to re-cite the sources from the second article, then WP would rapidly be swamped by excessive citations. The opening paragraph of theWP:Citation overkill article says "If a page features citations that are mirror pages of others, or which simply parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to the article's reliability and are detrimental to its readability."Masato.harada (talk)10:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Masato.harada: You don't need to cite every source from the second article, you just need to provide suitable citations for the claims made in the current article. Whilereadability of an article is a valid concern, the reader is no more obliged to read the list of citations than they are to actually read the cited sources. If you decide to apply your logic and ignore the requirements for providing cited sources, you will be likely to find your edits being reverted.Fabrickator (talk)11:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
--CiaPan (talk)20:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]