Wikipedia:Help desk

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Source assessment § Meaning of "partial". – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Formerly, when I looked at the history of a page on my watchlist, all versions newer than any I had already seen were highlighted. That changed a few days ago: now, looking at any version resets the whole. This breaks my habitual way of reviewing my watchlist. Can I toggle something to get the old behavior back? (I doubt it, as the new way means less for the database to remember.) —Antonissimo (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Antonissimo: This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist. The code has been fixed, and the fix will be deployed here this week, probably Thursday. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks —Antonissimo (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

And we're back to normal. —Antonissimo (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Good afternoon. On the page for the first SpongeBob movie (the section Developement), the qoute from Stephen Hillenburg is slightly cut off on mobile. Nothing mayor, but still noticeable. I already asked this on the article's talk page, but nobody answered. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-24671-3: Fixed by using {{Quote box}} instead of a bunch of custom code. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

A belated thanks to you! Nobody replying to me on the talk page is the reason i don't trust those pages. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s not you can’t trust the,, it’s just someone has to go the talk page and look for the respective message, many talk page messages get ignored if no one sees them The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I made an edit thet was approved by the person that the Wikipedia artical is actually about and the edit was removed. ~2026-16184-68 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Whether the subject approves or not is actually not relevant to the merits of your edit. Please ask the user who removed it why they did so.

If you are in communication with the subject of the article about your edits, you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-16184-68.

Your edit to Mary Robinette Kowal was reverted because it did not cite a published source. All information in a Wikipedia article should be verifiable from a reliable published source. Anybody's personal knowledge (even the subject's) is not enough. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, your addition was unencyclopedic in tone, at variance with Wikipedia's usual practice (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names), and would have been misplaced in the article even if it had not been. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I'll edit it in a more encyclopedic tone and cite sources. ~2026-16184-68 (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Where best can I post my profile? ~2026-17033-95 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-17033-95.

The answer to your question is "somewhere that isn't Wikipedia".

Wikipedia does not host profiles. What it hosts is neutrally written encyclopaedia articles based almost entirely on what people wholly unconnected with the subject of the article have chosen to publish about the subject, not on what the subject wants people to know. ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

if you're talking about a wikipedia user page, you can create your own one under your user with a registered account.  Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed  _{(message me!)} 12:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Emi-Is-Annoyed, @~2026-17033-95 Your own Wikipedia "user page" is not a place to post an entire social-media-tyoe profile. It is a place to (optionally) post a short summary about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. See WP:UP. David10244 (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Is that not what a profile is? I feel like any public information about yourself counts as your 'profile'.

 Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed  _{(message me!)} 09:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Facebook, LinkedIn and Wix.com are ideal for this. On Wikipedia, posting autobiographies, CVs etc fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and the material will be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

In Template:Infobox academic there is a thesis_url setting, and the documentation says it "should be where the thesis is available freely; not for commercial advertising usage". How about ProQuest Dissertations and Theses? Can theses in that database be linked, and if so, can it be done with Template:ProQuest? WilliamDenton (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@WilliamDenton, ProQuest is a serious academic resource of long standing (going back to University Microfilms) and using it it not considered a commercial advertising usage. Using the ProQuest template is fine. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: thanks! But how to make the linking work nicely? Look at Roald Nasgaard, for example. If you uncomment the ProQuest template in thesis_url then the link is there but has square brackets around it, and I can't see how to get rid of them. WilliamDenton (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I guess the ProQuest template produces a linked ID number for use in references. Just use the url at Proquest directly without benefit of a template: https://www.proquest.com/docview/302739379. Then the infobox will use it to link the thesis title. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! WilliamDenton (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Just wondering where on the list of Wikipedia sins is the following. Template:foo123 has 2 required fields: params A1 and A2, and 6 optional fields, params B1 through B6. A user is adding uses of the template in appropriate places, but adding them with the parameter=value in the order B6=val, B3=val, A2=val, B1=val, A1=val. Is this

• A) Ignore, the template is being used appropriately.
• B) Comment to user, but order is their choice
• C) Comment to user, but appropriate to put into correct order even though the edit doesn't change what a wikipedia user does
• D) Comment to user, and if the don't change the chaotic order, ask for 3O.
• E) Warn the user, and if they continue bring to WP:ANI.
• F) (perhaps along with one of A-E) get someone to write a bot which will do edits to reorder the parameters)

(Note, this is something that both I've seen and I've done, so I'm more curious as to how it occurs to others).Naraht (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Naraht.

I would say it's A. ColinFine (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

If the user is still doing it then post a diff. Maybe it causes enough annoyance for later editors to be worth politely suggesting a change but it depends on the template and parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

This is sort of for self reflection. I'm currently transforming about 400 references out of either cite web, cite book or just in the general look of cite book. It is sometimes easier to do the date param first because of the way that the existing reference is displayed (and I know everything before the date is provided by the new template. However it is not a required field, so I'm worried as much about myself as for others. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phi_Delta_Psi&diff=prev&oldid=1344151487 for an example.Naraht (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

If the template is working as intended, then ignore it. {{cite newspaper}} works whichever order you list the parameters in. I suspect that the vast majority of templates are like this. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Naraht You'll drive yourself nuts if you do anything other than (A) on templates like {{chembox}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Named parameters can be written in any order. Your diff is for {{Cite Almanac FS}} which has no good reason to enforce a specific order. For some templates a poor order can be annoying. Your "B6=val, B3=val, A2=val, B1=val, A1=val" with numbers in the parameter names sounded like a potentially annoying case but maybe it was misleading example names. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I was just making up parameter names to separate required from non-required, and I guess it is worse if the templates have a clear ABC1, ABC2, ABC3, ABC4, etc. order (like listing cite book editors 1-6 in a screwy order and having cite journal editor1-first half the template away from editor1-last). And the {{Cite Almanac FS}} example is an edit that I did. Naraht (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

So not too bad a sin, though on some templates, certain "misorder" can be more annoying. (And D, E, &F are completely off the table)Naraht (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to flag that we need a disambiguation page for Carlos Otero, as we have Carlos Otero, Carlos Otero (rowing) and Carlos Bello Otero. Carlos Otero should be renamed Carlos Otero (actor). Could someone do this? ~2026-17170-12 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if the article about the rower could be deleted. Merely appearing in the Olympics is no longer inherently notable. Even if not, I don't really see the need for a disambiguation page. People are more likely to look for the actor than a Mexican politician or Argentine rower. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Carlos Otero (the actor) may for all I know be notable. (Certainly his filmography as provided in es:Carlos Otero lists a great number of items.) But if he is notable, this is hardly evident from the article about him -- which currently can't even decide if he was a "Portuguese film and television actor" (article body) or "TV host" (infobox). Lord Cornwallis, are there no good sources ripe for you to mine? -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a feature I like where you hover over an explanatory footnote or reference and get a preview box. However, I clicked the gear icon next to one of them, and disabled them entirely in the name of "testing". Since I had so much trust in Wikipedia's UI, I thought you could just reenable them from your settings or anything like that. But no, I've tried all my settings, and it hasn't done anything. The only things that have transpired from turning this default setting on and turning this default setting off (both can't work together) are preview formats that look awful (one's ancient, the other's complicated and makes the text too small). I only remember the words "reenable them with a footnote at the bottom of the page" or something like that, which I also recall being extremely vague, so that doesn't help either. When I open Wikipedia in incognito, they show up perfectly fine, so it's an account issue; not a browser issue. I've tried resetting my Wikipedia and Mediawiki settings to defaults, but the "defaults" just disable them again. This is genuinely so frustrating because I can't afford to lose this feature. It helps me massively while editing and I won't "cope" with any half-done botched workarounds. I want this setting exactly as it was back, but I think there's a problem with the way my account itself is coded. I don't even know if someone else was dumb enough to do this and if they ever got that feature back. Please help me; I've been trying to figure it out for 9 days. I haven't edited anything since and want to go back to doing that. It's too late to abandon this account and try to make another one (and I can't even do that, since my IP is blocked). If anyone knows what the cause is and how I can fix this, I will remember you for as long as I remain on this website. Thank you for reading, and I know that was a lot of text. UltraCobson (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@UltraCobson, at the bottom of a page there should be a button called Enable Reference Tooltip which may solve the issue. On vector 2010 and 2022, it will be next to a button called Mobile view. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't show up for me, though. This is what the bottom of Wikipedia looks like for me:

File:Screenshot of Wikipedia Bottom 19 March 2026.png UltraCobson (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like a cookie issue if it works in incognito. Go to your browser settings and clear the Wikipedia/Wikimedia cookies. You will have to log in again, though. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It actually worked... Thank you so much! UltraCobson (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It's gratifying to be occasionally successful in diagnosing a technical problem. That doesn't happen often! ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline on when to use soccer vs football? I'm specifically wondering whether Category:Soccer podcasts should be renamed or not but I'm not seeing a policy or guideline about it. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, I can't remember a general guideline but I would suggest Category:Association football podcasts, based on other members of Category:Association football mass media. Category:Football podcasts would be ambiguous with Category:American football podcasts. TSventon (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a project-wide discussion either, but the compromise hammered out for Association football is documented in the faq at the top of Talk:Association football and more granularly at Talk:Association football/Article name. I'd assume those to be controlling (or, at least, least controversial) for related pages in general.

For people specifically, there is a project-wide guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer). There's nothing specific to this sport at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams), though. —Cryptic 03:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

How's it possible that being a jew, believer or not, for a subject's life, is pinpointed so much in your articles? Much more than other religions. Cheers ~2026-17224-30 (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

What's the data to support that sweeping claim? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Judaism is an ethnoreligion, meaning it's often much more integrated into an individual's fabric of identity than other religions. To my knowledge, Jewish communities consider a person who is born Jewish to still be Jewish whether or not they are actually believing/practicing.

Therefore, for someone born into a Christian family but who is no longer openly Christian, people are not likely to continue describing them as "Christian" in secondary sources, so that label is less likely to end up in their Wikipedia article; whereas someone born into the Jewish community is more likely to still be described as Jewish by secondary sources (and even by themselves) regardless of their personal religious position. I have personally never known an atheist to describe themselves as "Christian" rather than saying "I come from a Christian family" or somesuch, whereas I have seen plenty of non-practicing Jews (and indeed members of other ethnoreligions like Sikhism and to some extent Islam) describe themselves as "Jewish" and incorporate that into their identity even though they, personally, are atheist. Athanelar (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar:, that may be so, but perhaps you are giving more credence to a data-free random comment than it merits? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it is a valid anecdotal observation even if it's not strictly statistically true on Wikipedia. Someone might hear a comedian describe themselves as "Jewish" and wonder why; and this sort of thing has been the subject of antisemitic conspiracy theories since forever (the idea that Jews identify more with their Jewishness than with their country and are therefore a 'people without a nation' who will not hesitate to undermine their country was a central talking point of Nazi antisemitism, for example). It's worth responding to with fact, even if only for the benefit of a third party reader who stumbles upon this.

Also, I consider myself something of a scholar on religion so I'll never pass up the opportunity to educate somebody. Athanelar (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Just an anecdotal point: I met someone who described herself as an "atheist jew". I asked her how that is possible, and she explained that being jewish includes cultural background, family ties, as well as a religion, and identifying with all of them isn't required to consider yourself jewish. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians,

I recently made a new article named Gully Marine Protected Area which is currently tagged for Notability (geo) and primary sources.

Can I remove them, as I improved it? Versions111 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the tags; the issues seem resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

In the List of Christian pilgrimage sites article that I'm editing, I can't make two heading 3 titles appear the correct size. They look just the same size as the heading 2 title under which they appear. This has never happened before when I've made heading 3 titles.

The issue occurs under the heading 2 title of "Slovakia," where the two heading 3 titles are "Greek Catholic" and "Roman Catholic." Would appreciate help. Augnablik (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik try this syntax. = Heading = for heading 1 and == Heading == for heading 2 and === Heading === for heading 3 and ==== Heading ==== for heading 4 and so on. Please see Help:Section. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thilio (or is it CONFUSED SPIRIT?): although I use the Visual editor, not the Source editor, I understand your point about the coding.

But I just realized that my real issue is that the section breakdown of this article is simply broken down further than what I usually find in articles. “Slovakia” is already a heading 3 —- under a sub-sub-section, “Western Christianity” —- so I just need to use heading 4 around the two other topics.

Sorry. Augnablik (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thilio again: on rechecking it seems that actually I was “wrong about being wrong” after all. There really is an issue. If you go back to the same link to the article, let me show you the same issue in a more detailed way.

1. Here are the heading and sub-heading levels I see for the titles in the Visual editor (H means heading; SH means sub-heading):

Old World . . . (H1)

Western Christianity . . . (SH 1)

Slovakia (SH 2)

Greek Catholic (SH 3)

Roman Catholic (SH 3)

2. And here are the SAME heading and sub-heading levels I see for the titles in the Source editor, according to your guide with the === coding:

Old World . . . (H2)

Western Christianity . . . (SH 3)

Slovakia (SH 4)

Greek Catholic (SH 5)

Roman Catholic (SH 5)

3. BUT … the Greek Catholic and the Roman Catholic subheadings look just the same as the higher-level Slovakia sub-headings in the article after publishing!

Augnablik (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik: in the source editor, heading level 1 (with a single = at the start and end of its text) is the page title. Headings 2–6 are for sections. Help:Section may be useful. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik your syntax has no problem. Old World is at SH2. Western Christianity is at SH3. Slovakia is at SH4. Greek Catholic is at SH5. and Roman Catholic is also at SH5. which is absolutely correct syntax, I think CSS styling makes SH4 and SH5 look almost identical (I mean the CSS display style). An alternative solution would be to stop at SH4 like for eg, if you want, make Slovakia (SH3) and both Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic (SH4) or use bold instead of deeper S headings 5. Your current syntax is technically correct tho. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 19:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Wikitext and VisualEditor have different terminology for header levels. In wikitext, level n means n equals sign on each side of the heading. In VisualEditor, level 1 to 6 are called: Page title, Heading, Sub-heading 1, Sub-heading 2, Sub-heading 3, Sub-heading 4. Level 4, 5 and 6 look the same in the current default skin Vector 2022 but not in MonoBook. However, they are displayed with different indentation in the table of contents. There are no levels beyond level 6. If you type 7 equals signs then it makes a level 6 heading and the last equals sign becomes part of the displayed heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

But why don’t “Greek Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” look different than “Slovakia” if my syntax is done correctly? And how, at long last, do I get that to happen? Augnablik (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik As I said above, the reason why Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic do not look different from Slovakia because of the CSS styling of current default skin specifically Vactor 22 as @PrimeHunter said. In the V22 skin, heading levels 4, 5 and 6 are intentionally styled almost identically in font size but they are different levels (as seen in the table of contents and page structure). You can switch to MonoBook if you want to test that tho. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Mmmm, so you did. 😔 I guess the whole idea of sub-heading syntax, which one would assume does what would seem logical for it to do but won't because it's not set up to do that after all, left me feeling as disoriented.

Switching to MonoBook wouldn't solve the issue in an article. But you know what just came to mind and did solve it? Simply selecting each of the terms ("Greek Catholic" and "Roman Catholic"), then going to the Font Appearance option and choosing Small.

Case closed, happily. Augnablik (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I'm afraid that's not appropriate for an article. We want a consistent look across articles and the skin designers decide that look. The article has more views in the mobile than desktop version. Level 5 headers are not bold in mobile and after your change they are smaller than normal text. You can make them smaller for yourself with h5 {font-size:88% !important;} in Special:MyPage/vector-2022.css. A change in Vector 2022 for everybody at the English Wikipedia could be suggested at MediaWiki talk:Vector-2022.css but I anticipate opposition. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Yikes.

So, then, PrimeHunter, are you saying that I CAN legitimately use that coding you mentioned? Augnablik (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik: You cannot use the code in the article. Special:MyPage/vector-2022.css only affects your own account and you are free to write anything there. 88% was just a suggestion. Personal CSS pages like that affect how your own browser renders Wikipedia when you are logged in. You can also change font face, color and so on. MediaWiki:Vector-2022.css has the same effect for all users of that skin but it can only be edited by interface administrators, not even a normal administrator like me. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

😱 Well, although the outcome is far from what I was hoping for, thanks to all you Help Desk folks who picked up on my ticket.

I could have sworn I’d actually seen Wikipedia sub-headings in the smaller font size I was asking about. Guess not. Augnablik (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik: List of Christian pilgrimage sites could avoid the issue by dropping the Old World and New World headings, and move the subheadings up a level. The mobile version makes level 2 sections collapsible but not lower levels so that feature would work better without the level 2 sections being so long. I don't know whether the Old/New division is common for the subject. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, it was so kind of you to take time to delve further into this situation. What an innovative idea you came up with! I too am unaware if the Old/New division is common for pilgrimage information, but frankly I don't see why it's needed. If I were personally consulting the article to find a particular pilgrimage site, I would just want to go immediately to the country where it takes place.

Although I'm tempted to follow Wikipedia's "be brave" advice and just go ahead with your inspiration, I think the better course of action is to raise that suggestion on the article's Talk page, as the task I'm involved with is merely a copy edit as part of the bimonthly Guild of Copy Editors backlog reduction drive. What we do in these drives, as you may be aware, is just copy editing—but we're free to decide how much deeper editing we want to do on each article.

I've already spent quite a bit of time going beyond basic copy editing this one that may raise some eyebrows, even though what I'm referring to was just to bring consistency to the listings (some having been done by geographic location and some by site name). As I see that the article is still attracting edits from others, despite no activity on the article's Talk page for 13 years, I'd be a little concerned that such a radical step would attract a quick revert by someone else. By contrast, if I explain the rationale— including the heading 3 issue—on the Talk page along with the other comments I post after completing a drive copy edit, hopefully it will attract attention and discussion, and in turn (I hope) less chance of reversion.

And now another Danish pastry for you, with thanks! 🥐 Augnablik (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Im Persian-Iranian and we're cut off from world news outside. As you know we haven't had internet for past 500 hrs. Is there any way we could be connected through Wiki? 🙏 ~2026-17324-92 (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum or chatroom, and we do not have any infrastructure set up to handle this, nor will we create it. But we have seen many cases of users in your situation communicating on user talk pages independantly, and personally, even if it may run afoul of our rules, we understand your situation. Your best shot at the moment is to let someone know what you are doing off-wiki, and than communicate with them after that on their user talk page. Remember to stay consious about the fact that all messages are public here. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 12:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I am curious, if you haven't had internet in the past 500 hours, how are you communicating on this page? You need internet for that. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

If I were to guess, they probably mistakenly referred to the firewall/media blackout colloquially as 'the internet', though I would also be interested in OP's explanation of what's happening. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 15:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

internet isnt blocked entirely ! Its heavily whitelisted so that only wikipedia and its related websites open like wikidata and wikimesia and such and also of course everything that is on domestic servers ! And to anwer to the kind remark about this here being public we are aware but it is a matter of desperation really because all the vpns and proxys we know has stopped working ! And the hope nobody of the people blocking not reading this or missing it ! So if anybody has any suggedtions please let us know ! Being cut off from the internet is really really hard.

thanks V1983 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know of any way to "be connected through Wiki" as you put it. Wikipedia is just a website like any other website. It doesn't offer proxy services.

The Opera browser, if you are able to download it, includes a few built in proxies, but because they are all outside of Iran, they probably wouldn't benefit you.

Otherwise, if you just want world news, there is some available on the Wikipedia home page. And most topics that are the subject of widespread news coverage have Wikipedia articles that are kept reasonably up-to-date, such as the 2026 Iran war. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, does it make sense to move Philipp Spitta to Philipp Spitta (musicologist) and create a disambiguation page with Philipp Spitta (poet)? ~2026-17289-42 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

If there's only two articles sharing that name currentlt, there's no need for a disambig page; you can just disambiguate at the page itself, which has already been done. Athanelar (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It depends. If one is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then no. If they are relatively equally well-known, then yes. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

For English-speaking readers I would suggest that the musicologist (who wrote a well-known biography of J. S. Bach, translated into English) would be rather better-known than his father, who wrote hymns, popular in Germany in the mid-19th century but probably not in the English-speaking world. MinorProphet (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, I have received a private message on LinkedIn by Jawed Amjad claiming that he's a Wikipedia Moderator and that he's willing to help with the review of a page I'm working on. Is it a reliable source or is it impossible that Wikipedia contacted me directly? Thank you for your time and consideration. Kind regards ~2026-17276-11 (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a scam. See WP:SCAM and read it.

There is no such thing as a "Wikipedia Moderator".

Wikipedia will not contact you directly. Anyone who does is a scammer. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer. If you want help, it's free. Anyone who contacts you off-wiki to "help" is going to want money. If you decide to accept the offer, demand to know the identity of the account they use with the required paid-editing declaration on it, and a track record of successful edits. The scammer will never give you this information. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I have a lot of emails from my website. And I want to help make stories for people and help them. I don't care about spam because I have an app to help me sort them by book, asking and other stuff. 32hrosales-martinez (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@32hrosales-martinez: This is a help desk for the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. We make encyclopedic articles, not stories. Is your post meant for us? Your account has email enabled so you can email other users if they have email enabled but we rarely use it. We prefer public talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I have tried to change the page as best I can to adhere to Wikipedia rules and conventions. Please check it out and tell me if it is okay now. If it is okay please remove the warning signs of the top of the page. Also my account name is "Desiraju" not "GautamDesiraju". This should reflect in the top right hand side GautamDesiraju (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Gautam R. Desiraju

I will have a look at the article.

Your account name is 'GautamDesiraju,' though. User talk:GautamDesiraju goes to your talk page, for example; and it's also visible in your signature. Athanelar (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@GautamDesiraju The first two paragraphs of your 'biography' section are completely unsourced. Our policy on biographies of living persons require that all information that could be potentially contested (including all biographical details such as birthplace, education etc) must have an inline citation to a reliable source; even when you're writing about yourself. Athanelar (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

okay let me try and attend to this. ~2026-17326-47 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@GautamDesiraju: Comparing Special:Contributions/Desiraju and Special:Contributions/GautamDesiraju, I assume both accounts belong to you. They were created in 2006 and 2016. You were logged in as GautamDesiraju when you posted here. The Desiraju account hasn't edited since 2017 but it appears you have been logged in to both accounts today. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Alternative account notification. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

can you club them both into one account Desiraju? ~2026-17326-47 (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

We cannot combine two accounts' edit history, but you can put a notice on the account you do not wish to use and identify it as an alternate account of the one you do wish to use. (So you could put the notice on GautamDesiraju that it is an unused altetnate account of Desiraju)

Please make sure to log in before you reply here or anywhere else, as you are currently replying while logged out. Athanelar (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The inability to combine two accounts with histories never made sense to me. We can merge articles together. There should be no technical reason why a bureaucrat shouldn't be able to merge accounts. The licensing reason doesn't hold water if two accounts are identifiably the same person. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, this is about the draft Draft:Post Sex Nachos. I had a much better version of what is there now, with more sources, before it was deleted under WP:G13. Since there is a draft there now, I was wondering if it would be possible to port the old draft over to the new one, while keeping some of the content in the current draft there. wizzito | say hello! 16:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wizzito As it was deleted under G13, which is for abandoned drafts, it can be undeleted at any time upon request. I have undeleted it. You can click on the history tab at the top to see prior versions, and then move the content that you want from the older versions into the new version. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I am translating the article on Mieczyslaw Kolinski from German into English. Did first section, had to move it to my user draft space because I'm too new. Can't for the life of me figure out how to get it to continue. Sent in circles for an hour. Ready to eat my phone. No luck with FAQ, Archives, etc. Can somebody please tell me the secret Simon Says? Herbanoid (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Herbanoid.

I observe that de:Mieczyslaw Kolinski has no inline citations, and only one source, which is a biographical dictionary.

That sourcing is quite inadequate for an article in English Wikipedia, and so attempting to create the English article by translating the German article will be pretty much a waste of time.

The only way to create an acceptable English article would be to find several independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Kolinski (they do not have to be in English, or online, but they must meet all the criteria in golden rule) and write a summary of what those sources say.

(This problem is precisely why the content translation tool is not available to inexperienced editors). ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

There are four different language versions of the article with different sources. Some of those are online, e.g. Lexikon verfolgter Musiker und Musikerinnen der NS-Zeit and The Canadian Encyclopedia. TSventon (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

This will definitely be helpful and very valuable... A bit later. My first problem is how to get it to continue to the next section, ie restart an existing content translation, even if it's totally inadequate. Translate the German first, then research the necessary enhancements. It's still only private, and a learning experience. I'm a rank newbie, with maybe 10 grammar corrections to my name. Herbanoid (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

oh, and I don't yet care about translation: I can do that by hand. I just don't have the wherewithal to learn about templates and formats just yet. Herbanoid (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @Herbanoid. I'm not sure what you mean about getting it to continue to the next section.

If you're talking about using the content translation tool, I have no idea.

If you're talking about editing User:Herbanoid/sandbox to insert a header for a new section, in the source editor you just put the header between two pairs of equals signs, like ==Early life==, but on a line by itself (or three or four pairs for lower-level headers). (I think it's easier with the visual editor, but I'm not familiar with that).

Perhaps Help:cheatsheet will help? Or, more generally, your first article.

But, to repeat myself, writing anything at all before you have found the necessary sources is likely to be mostly time wasted, since what you write should be based on those reliable sources, not on anything else. ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll throw in a Help:Translation for good measure, and point to WP:PNT where you can look at articles in different stages of translation. Lectonar (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Herbanoid I'm guessing you don't know how to find the draft you started in your sandbox? If that's the issue, here's a link. If you don't know how to add to it, you cand do that by pushing edit and then adding to it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there any clear criteria set out for what Wikiproject links should and should not be linked on Wikipedia articles? Note, I'm talking about article's themselves, like in see also sections, not talk pages. I've looked myself but not been able to find clear guidance on the matter. It would help to clear up some grey areas and for disputes. Helper201 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Helper201, Wikipedia articles shouldn't link to pages in "project space" (those pages with the prefix "Wikipedia"). Thus although Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France- and French-related articles may in some way inform or otherwise help the reader of the article French orthography, the latter article should not link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France- and French-related articles. A WikiProject, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject France, is no exception. Thus the "see also" section of an article (no matter how France-related) should not link to Wikipedia:WikiProject France. -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hoary, sorry, my mistake. I didn't mean WikiProject's, I meant portals. Apologies for the mix-up. Thank you for your response though. Would you be able to help with where things stand with portals in this regard please? Helper201 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, Helper201. The very existence of portals is something of which I'm only dimly aware. (English Wikipedia turns out to contain all sorts of odd material. Just an hour ago I made a trivial slip of the finger when intending to type WP:TH and thereby arrived at WP:YH.) Somebody else should answer this one; but meanwhile, see Template:Portal/doc and Template:Portal bar/doc on the matter of "See also". -- Hoary (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that the target of a redirect created as an AtD, in controversial subject matter, lacks useful information or navigation for alternative common meanings of the term, and I don't see any other obvious targets. In addition, the AfD nomination was made by a now-banned sock, and was non-admin closed as redirect after one week with 2 keeps and 3 redirects. Is this a matter for deletion review, for RfD, or for boldly creating a new disambiguation (which addresses surmountable problems raised at AfD)? —BrechtBro (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

BrechtBro, can you link the redirect and AfD discussion? That would probably make it easier to answer your question. TSventon (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, yeah: Occupation of PalestineOccupation of Palestine (AfD discussion) —BrechtBro (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

As the title suggests, I made a change without having created a user. I was given a temporary account and then I made an actual account but I didn't get the attribution for that change. NewEditorForNow (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@NewEditorForNow: well, the system does not credit you for that, at least not under the name NewEditorForNow

I just don't recall where I learnt that thing Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The best you can do is create your User page and mention on it that you prevously made an edit/edits as Temporary account $whateveritwas$.

There is no particular kudos in an exact count of your edits (save for passing various access thresholds), or in being able to point to every one of them. Most editors edit because it is something they want to do, because it contributes to the project, and because in some small way it helps humanity. I myself have never (in 24 years) bothered to even open an account, and have edited through very many different IP addresses and now Temp accounts, because I am not interested in 'credit'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Welp, hello 87.81.230.195 (or whatever you'd like to be called)

As for the "various access thresholds", the most basic ones are the autoconfirmed (4 days and 10 edits since registration) and extended-confirmed (30 days and 500 edits) statuses

There are more of these, like administrators, bureaucrats and template editors Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not about kudos, I'd just like to remember my first ever Wikipedia edit. Your comment isn't really relevant to the question. NewEditorForNow (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@NewEditorForNow I think that when you make an edit, and are not signed in, yiu are told at that very moment that edits cannot be transferred or re-attributed. David10244 (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm a continuous, monthly, yearly supporting donor to this site. I don't remember my password and I didn't think I'd need one. I'm trying to read further information on something, but I'm blocked because I don't recall my password. I shouldn't be experiencing this at all!

Please read my comment above. ~2026-17492-46 (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I've shortened the header and placed your comment in the main body of text. You don't need to log in to your account to merely read Wikipedia. If you used the password reset function and it didn't work, or you didn't have an email address attached to your account to enable the reset function, access to your account is lost. You would need to create a new one and identify it as a successor to your old account. 09:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for donating, but donation records are not attached to accounts, and we editors have nothing to do with the donation process; donating or not donating is not relevant to the day to day matters like this. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-17492-46: Which further information are you referring to? If it's an external link to a site with access restriction then a Wikipedia account wouldn't help except some websites if you qualify for Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello all,

I have been editing on here for a couple of months now and a problem I tend to run into is editing plot summaries, particularly with books. Specifically, I want to edit them for objectivity and encyclopedic language, but I'm not sure how to distinguish between relevant content and tonal balance Is there a reference page somewhere on wikipedia that I could read for assistance?

Kind regards,

ElectricityBiller ElectricityBiller (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You may find WP:PLOTSUM helpful. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! ElectricityBiller (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Good luck. A LOT of people will vigorously defend excessively detailed plot summaries. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I am become editor, destroyer of tonally imbalanced wikipedia sections and subjective language. ElectricityBiller (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

At Roman numerals there's a table immediately following the first paragraph that logically flows from it and should really be presented immediately afterwards. Unfortunately the paragraph rearrangement algorithm that applies on the mobile skin moves the paragraph but not the table, thus interposing the image and interrupting the reading flow. Is it possible to force the image to go below the table instead? Obviously one way would be to move the image, but it really should be at the top on any desktop skin. I've tried adding a div around them to force them to be moved together, but this leads to the rearrangement algorithm seeing the div as part of the "front matter" and pushing up the second paragraph instead, resulting in an incorrect order of paragraphs. (You can see my experiment in the page history – I couldn't do it in a sandbox because the algorithm apparently only applies in main space.) Hairy Dude (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hairy Dude: I don't know all details of the mobile algorithm but I have moved the table introduction out of the opening paragraph to keep it together with the table. Feel free to change it if you find a better solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Jacobolus has reverted me. Half the readers are on the mobile version and most of them on smartphones with narrow screens. If you don't have a smartphone for testing then click "Mobile view" at the bottom and make the window narrow to see how it looks. The Cutty Sark image is between the table description and table so it looks like the description is for the image. My solution isn't ideal but I think it's better than the current situation. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I've applied the text as a table caption. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

No, the result of this change is garbage. Can the broken mobile reflow be suppressed somehow? –jacobolus (t) 16:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk. But moving an ordinary sentence to be a bolded caption is confusing, incoherent, and ugly. Are there ways of manually adjusting the way mobile reflow works? (For example, by wrapping them in a common element?) Both the sentence and the table are logically part of the same first paragraph of the article, and should be kept together. –jacobolus (t) 16:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The other alternative would be to substantially rewrite the lead section of this article; that might be overall a decent idea anyway. –jacobolus (t) 16:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The mobile feature is described at mw:Reading/Web/Projects/Lead Paragraph Move but it doesn't give details of the algorithm. I don't know a way to display the table before the image if the image comes first in the source. That's why I suggested a solution which displays both the table description and table after the image so they at least stay together. The image could also be moved down in the source but then desktop wouldn't display it at the top right. Or the image could be omitted in mobile by wrapping it in <div class="nomobile">...</div>, but we don't normally hide images in mobile. The image could also be completely removed but I like it in desktop. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Please no edit warring. We can take our time and come up with a working solution instead of trying to brute force something right now. –jacobolus (t) 17:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

1. First revert by jacobolus
2. Second revert by jacobolus
3. Third revert by jacobolus

All in less than two hours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It is expected and ordinary community practice to revert to a stable version of an article pending discussion. Your preferred alternative is harmful to readers and not acceptable. Please discuss instead of trying to force it through by brute force bashing the edit history. –jacobolus (t) 18:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Cf. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. –jacobolus (t) 18:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you should read that before citing it in defence of your hypocritical edit warring? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The key part is: "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted it. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolutionprocesses. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement." This particular formatting has been on the page for a few months shy of 10 years. Working around buggy mobile reformatting isn't so urgent a problem that we can't take an extra few hours or days to come up with something that flows narratively, remains logically coherent, and isn't distractingly ugly. –jacobolus (t) 18:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

No; the key parts include:

• BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view
• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
• BRD is never a reason for reverting.
• BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once.
• BRD is not mandatory.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not about whether I "like" the change. The change is logically incoherent, confusing, and ugly. There is a large space of possible changes to this article, including many which would surely be mutually acceptable to everyone. Insisting that your personal preferred version must be implemented runs entirely contrary to the spirit of collaboration and consensus on which Wikipedia functions, and tying to wikilawyer your way out of addressing the substantive content disagreement is not helping anyone, so please also stop that. –jacobolus (t) 19:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It is you who is wikilawyering; you who is edit warring while telling others not do do so; you who is citing BRD while ignoring what it says; and you don't like the change, however many words you use to say so.

Never have I "insisted that my personal preferred version must be implemented".

WP:TABDD says, quite clearly, "Use short, self-explanatory captions". It is you and you alone who has been removing the caption completely, and you and you alone who has been using derogatory terms to describe others' good-faith attempts to improve the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

This misses the purpose of this particular table element. It's not a logically separate and independent "data table" at all. It's just a alternate presentation for a portion of the paragraph which associates a small handful of symbols with their meaning. It's logically part of the paragraph, the same way as a block math formula would be. It does not need any kind of caption, and indeed adding a caption entirely breaks up the reading flow. If you are concerned about associating the previous sentence tightly to the table, a plausible alternative would be to eliminate the table entirely and rewrite the list of symbols and their meanings as a prose sentence. –jacobolus (t) 19:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The table is a data table, not a layout table. It needs a caption. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see where in the MOS there is a demand that every table must have a caption (and indeed, many tables across the site do not have captions, which is routinely to their benefit). But if you are going to insist on a caption for some kind of bureaucratic reason, then the table must be eliminated. –jacobolus (t) 20:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

"I don't see where in the MOS there is a demand that every table must have a caption—right there in its lede: "Maintain accessibility when creating tables by using ... captions". Below that, there is an entire section, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables#Captions and headers", which opens "Table captions ... should be ... used on all data tables".

"if you are going to insist on a caption for some kind of bureaucratic reason", I'm not, but there you go, assuming bad faith again.

"then the table must be eliminated"—non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph without the table. –jacobolus (t) 20:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer though. It seems that the concern is accessibility for screen readers. For a table such as this one, if it were to stay, we could use the {{Screen reader-only}} template to add a screen-reader specific "caption" to satisfy accessibility concerns. I'll keep that in mind for other similar tables where a visible caption is inappropriate. –jacobolus (t) 21:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

"This template should only be used to hide text from sighted readers when that text substantially duplicates adjacent text that is visible." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. So in the cases (routine in mathematical articles) where a visible caption would add distracting redundant clutter for no benefit, we can still satisfy the accessibility requirement to include a caption because screen readers need it for navigation. That's a helpful feature to know about.

(Unfortunately our mathematical articles are almost entirely inaccessible to screen readers because the screen readers themselves have no facilities for clearly reading mathematical notation. But we can still do our best.) –jacobolus (t) 21:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

As an aside, in case it was unclear: I'm sure all changes were made in good faith. The way the mobile site moves paragraphs around clearly causes a problem in this case, and some kind of fix is needed. Just not this fix.

It's an ordinary and expected part of Wikipedia to make good-faith changes, have them undone by good-faith reverts, and then follow up with discussion seeking consensus. Just because changes were made in good faith does not mean they must stay, if they make an article worse. –jacobolus (t) 19:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the plot has been lost a bit in all the excitement. We shouldn't be rewriting or restructuring articles to fit a rubbish device design. Paragraphs are used to group sentences together into a coherent unit, not to move text around an image. Captions are used to annototate tables and images, not to force a piece of article text to appear in a particular place. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I've just glanced at that article and there is much more wrong with its presentation regardless of the device problems. MOS:NOBOLD, overdetailed MOS:LEAD, MOS:SANDWICH for starters. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is mediocre throughout, and could use dramatic amounts of attention and work. (Including rewriting the lead section, which could plausibly eliminate or move this table.) If anyone is interested on collaborating on more substantial fixes, I'm happy to engage on the talk page. –jacobolus (t) 19:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

(outdent) It might help to prevent edit warring to test changes in a sandbox. Unfortunately reflow apparently only applies in article namespace. Is is possible to force reflow on any page? If not, maybe that's a feature to request from the mobile devs. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to demo my favourite template, {{outdent}}. MinorProphet (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

We have a name change for our organization. It is updated everywhere but the title of the Wikipedia page. I was told to "move" the page to the new name, but I can't find an option to do so. Julie334 (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

New users cannot move pages. DISCLOSE FIRST. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 14:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Julie334 Also see WP:COMMONNAME; we don't necessarily use official or legal names as article titles, but the title that readers will most likely be looking for. For example, Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton(his current legal name) or William Jefferson Blythe(his legal name at birth) 331dot (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Julie334.

As you appear to be part of the organisation, you have a conflict of interest, and should not edit the article directly. Furthermore, if you are in any way employed by the organisation (even if you are an unpaid volunteer, and even if updating the Wikipedia article is not your main job) then you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor - this is mandatory.

So what should you do about the change? You should raise an edit request for moving the article. As 331dot says, it is not necessarily the case that the article should be moved at this point (though if not, the new name should be added as a redirection). If the consensus is that it should be moved, the editor carrying out the change will move it.

For future reference, if you should need to move an article while you are too new to have that ability, you can request it at requested moves. But, again, you should not do that on articles where you have a COI even once you are technically able to. ColinFine (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I was looking at the Tea House and was wondering about how to become a host. Is there an official process or do I just write my name somewhere? AirmanKitten203 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@AirmanKitten203: Please SEE Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host start. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 14:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! AirmanKitten203 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@AirmanKitten203, be aware that you probably shouldn't be answering questions here until you've got a lot more experience. I'd advise making some productive changes to current articles (which is a great way to get familiar with policy) and maybe creating an article before you start answering other new editors' questions at Teahouse. Valereee (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright. I appreciate all of the help! AirmanKitten203 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Greetings. I normally edit in mobile view (using Wikipedia:Source editor) and when I do so, one or more of the collapsible lists at the bottom of the page (Wikidata entities, hidden categories, etc.) are expanded with no way to collapse them (see adjacent screenshot from editing the page Red fox). I don't have the same problem when editing in desktop view. I checked my preferences page but couldn't find any obvious way to permanently collapse these lists. What should I do? ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: It works for me on an iPhone. Your screenshot includes Parser profiling data so it must be a preview. Does it also happen before previewing? Does it happen in safemode (don't click preview, it removes safemode). Your screenshot is missing the triangle at Wikidata entities but does it work to click there anyway? By the way, your screenshot may be from a mobile device but it's not mobile view. "Mobile view" or "Desktop view" is an option at the bottom of pages. Devices pick one of them by default. The skin setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering only affects Desktop view. Mobile view is like a skin by itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I edit using Android. The problem is in the editing preview, where the large number of list entries makes scrolling down to the edit window more challenging. Tapping on the heading "Wikidata entities used in this page" does nothing, but I can expand and collapse the other lists just fine. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Does it work if you log out? Does it work if you enable "Always enable safe mode" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? Ignore that some things will look different. You can disable it again after testing. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Just tested both options, and there was no change. The problem only occurs after selecting "mobile view" while the editing window is already open in preview mode (see screenshot). ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I can reproduce it now: Start in desktop view on Red fox, click "Edit", click "Show preview", and THEN click "Mobile view" when the url is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_fox&action=submit. Please say from the start how to reproduce a problem another time. You would never reach such a url from the mobile site as far as I know and action=submit indicates something was submitted in the browser to get here. When I then click "Mobile view" I get a warning that entered information may not be saved. I'm not surprised something breaks with this unusual sequence. The mobile site has its own way to make edits and previews with different url's. There has probably been limited testing of how mobile responds to such a url and the problem seems minor when the page does work. I don't know a solution other than to not do this unless you accept the consequences. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The mobile site is useless for anything more than very basic editing, which is why I am forced to employ this unusual sequence, as you call it. I used to edit in desktop view even on a mobile device, but at some point the text became too small to edit comfortably. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: You could make a Phabricator request but they may decline to spend time on it when it does work and isn't a normal way to edit. Remember steps to reproduce if you make it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this article Shogakukan-Shueisha Productions has the wrong logo i cant seem to find any place where the logo would be located to remove it Isla🏳️‍⚧ 21:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Isla: Click "Wikidata item" under "Tools". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Isla.

The logo is set in the Wikidata item q:Q5356388. It was uploaded from https://www.shogakukan.co.jp/ . ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking further, it seems to me that https://www.shopro.co.jp/, (which the Wikidata item identifies as the "official website") is actually the website of Shopro, which describes itself as a subsidiary of Shogakukan-Shueisha Productions. So I rather think that that is wrong, and that shogokukan website is the one that should be there. But I haven't looked into it further. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I've meandered through various pages for about 15 minutes looking for something indicating the minimum number of entries in a Category and whether there are exceptions (splitting X in the united states to X in the United States by State and you've got at least 5 of every state except 1 in Wyoming).Naraht (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Naraht there is some outdated guidance at WP:SMALLCAT. Hopefully somebody else knows what came next, if not you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. TSventon (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

is there any tool or way to find and download all articles edited by me per wiki basis in text format? কল্কি (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

You might get an answer by asking at WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I made an enquiry re the first Driving Tester in Ireland and the responce was you had no info. My name is Marie Byrne and I am that person. I was employed by the Dept of Environment in the early 1990 and I remained the only Female for 10 years. I would like to be registered on your website fore future clarification as i am proud that i achieved this status. ~2026-17585-57 (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Did they do driving tests before 1990? - Walter Who mentioned Pearl Harbour? Ego 08:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Presumably the OP means first female driving tester. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Well.... "In 1979 over 60,000 drivers were given an amnesty as they were granted a full driving licence without sitting a driving test due to the large backlog of driving test applicants at that time." MinorProphet (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Before that can be stated in any Wikipedia article, we would need a reliable source confirming what you say. Do you know of one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place to record or honour your achievements for posterity.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. Athanelar (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations, Marie. Well, the Dublin Evening Herald of 8 October 1990, p. 3 has this article: "meet ireland's first woman driving tester" (via British Newspaper Archive) but although I'm logged in with WP:WPLIB I don't seem to be able to access it. Looks good enough to me. MinorProphet (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

According to their page on 'free access,' you need to be registered and signed in to their site to get the free access via TWL; TWL just gives your account there unlimited articles to read. Athanelar (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The hatnote from Grünow, Brandenburg should be removed? The title has been recently changed. ~2026-17725-03 (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I have removed it . PrimeHunter (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

hello dear wikipedia.i am writing from iran and at rhe moment the only websites i can open is either wikipedia or its related sites kike wikimedia or mediawiki and such ! I wanted ask if it is possible to use these websites as vpns and connect to them with openvpn or any other von apps to circumvent the internet blockade ?

With best regards v1983 from iran V1983 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Sadly no. And if it were possible, I doubt that the Iranian regime would leave it unblocked for long. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

And I can't figure out how to 1. Add tags and 2. publish it for real. Here's the link. Please help! Thank you. Sartor Resaurus (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Sartor Resaurus.

I see you have now submitted the draft Draft:Norman Williams, Jr., and in time somebody will come along and review it.

In the meantime, I suggest you find some sources wholly independent of Williams.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

At present, most of your citations are to works by Williams. These do nothing to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and mean that the draft is effectively almost unsourced. ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, he did get a NYT obit. But I added a couple of citations. A Festschrift was done when he retired from Vermont Law School and I will try to get a copy of that and cite it. But his role in the Mount Laurel case alone establishes his importance -- the entire legal argument was based on his scholarship. Anyway I know you're following rules and I'll do my best. Sartor Resaurus (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

(if this belongs somewhere please let me know!)

I've been working on some Japanese genealogies and they're complicated to the point that I think we need one verifiable genealogy, rather than cobbling together sources (because there are many many conflicting views). Because of this, I want to use the genealogy published by the Imperial Household Agency for the page Family tree of Japanese monarchs to show what the imperial family claims (essentially replacing what's in that article with what's in the PDF). Would recreating this on Wikipedia run into copyright issues? Erynamrod (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm responding here basically because no one else has. In the *United States*, all documents produced by the US government and its agencies are not under copyright. I believe the Imperial Household Agency would count as an agency of the Japanese Government. But I don't know the rules on Japan. The other question that I have is that the Imperial Household Agency would, I believe, have a vested interest (if not today, than 100 years ago) in showing that the Emperor's line goes back as far as possible.Naraht (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Facts (or claimed facts) are not in themselves copyrightable, but a particular exact written description, presentation or graphical depiction of them likely is. I believe you could 'use' the genealogy safely provided that you redrew it in your own 'style', or coded it using Wiki markup. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1344668857

Thanks, Grizfan37 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Did my edit help? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 00:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

yes thank you Grizfan37 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

however I am still confused on why the bot suggested it Grizfan37 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

and what it meant Grizfan37 (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It said "last=generic name", correct? In cite web templates, the author of the article being cited is put like this: "last=Smith first=John", to indicate the author's first and last name. It appears that this author's name was inputted incorrectly: e.g. "last=editor first=John Smith". The system noticed this and flagged it because "Editor" is not a last name. In summary, the full name was put in the first name slot instead of being separated by last and first name. Hope this helped, let me know if you need clarification. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 00:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you Grizfan37 (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The bot is only the messenger. The {{cite web}} template that you wrote emitted an error message because editor in |last=editor is not the author's surname so does not belong in |last=. The |first=Melody Martinsen-Acantha that you wrote is also malformed because the author's given name is only Melody. And further, Martinsen-Acantha is also not the author's surname. Correctly your template should read:

{{Cite news |last=Martinsen |first=Melody |date=2009-04-23 |title=Bynum irrigators file lawsuit over diversion |url=https://www.choteauacantha.com/news/article_0c3a9d67-0af5-5e03-8b27-ceeda569b916.html |access-date=2026-03-21 |newspaper=Choteau Acantha |language=en}}

Martinsen, Melody (2009-04-23). "Bynum irrigators file lawsuit over diversion". Choteau Acantha. Retrieved 2026-03-21.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey. There used to be a place where you could request a copy of a paywalled journal article. Is that still a thing? Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:RX is probably what you're looking for -- nil ^nz 05:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

You are also eligible for The Wikipedia Library, which may allow you to access what you want. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy. I don't need it just now but will give it a go when I do. Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I want to cearte a personal page on wekipedia, how to do this? Prof. Mostafa El-Nazer (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by a "personal page". Users have a user page, where they can tell about themselves as a Wikipedia editor or user, but not anything and everything about themselves like a social media style page. Please see WP:USERPAGE for more information. If you mean a Wikipedia article about yourself, that is highly discouraged, though not absolutely forbidden. Please see the autobiography policy. Writing a new Wikipedia article is the most difficult thing to attempt on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest such as writing about yourself. You would need to set aside everything that you know about yourself and limit yourself to summarizing what independent reliable sources say about you, showing how you are a notable person as Wikipedia defines one. This is very challenging, and most people who attempt to write an article about themselves do not succeed.

If, nevertheless, you want to try it, please first use the new user tutorial, then visit the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft.

Also know that having a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

What is wrong with the trombone page? I don’t understand.❔❓ ~2026-17852-63 (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It has got the Birthday mode (Baby Globe) in it which annoys some people, but you can hide this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-17852-63: What in Trombone are you referring to? Is it the "This article has multiple issues" box at top, the globe animation to the right, or something else? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

currently ongoing, and confirmed vandalism

The accounts include older Wikipedia accounts with very few activities until recently and newer accounts created days ago. The accounts Dangermanmeetz and Idenze are examples of the likely old meatpuppet accouts making ai generated and original research articles, with "sources" not stating what is said, check it out , the "ichafu" and "Akwa ocha" articles, one which was already spotted as a LLM text hallucination reproduction.

Also another one, who is new is vandalised the disambiguation page of "Bole" to make it into a new article page of their choosing, which I reversed. An account days ago which vandalised the shekere page which then had just joined an hour ago. There have been a couple other accounts popping up vandalising.

But I will focus on these two older accounts, which even uploaded an art image from "1822" which is their own work and has n source stating it. The level of blatant disruption and commitment to original research is astonishing and very troll like. I don't know where to start with the reporting and from which angles, so I want to draw eyes of more experienced Wikipedians to these pages : @Dangermanmeetz @Idenze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichafu_(headdress)# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akwa_Ocha. Idenze is also adding images with no copyright approval that are not free use and tagging them with whatever he/she likes.

Also check out the recent page history for Gele (headdress), Akwete, shekere,ogiri,ogbono soup,Bole (disambiguation)...more might be currently be getting vandalised by similar agents. Dolpina (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The pages I worked on, which are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichafu_(headdress)# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akwa_Ocha had all necessary information added. It is a cultural heritage oof an ethnicity of over 40 million people. Ichafu, meaning head scarf in Igbo, while Akwa Ocha, a local textile is the tradtional cloth of Anioma, the Western Igbo people of Nigeria.

If there's any misinformation you see, address it as this community is meant to do. There was no vandalisation from my account as I made sure to backup every claim accoordingly. Idenze (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and it doesn't give definitions for words...thats btw, your content is ai generated and is full of original research with your claims. Dolpina (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

My contents are not full of AI as I spent time to research, and wrote it accordingly. I still have the original file of this two content as it was written in 2024, and 2025 respectively. Also, if you had checked my references, you would see that dictionaries were cited on every non English words there. Idenze (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

We did not use any LLM, and in any case, I guess we can rewrite it to seem less “robotic”. We also added all necessary information needed to back up out edits (which are still drafts btw- is she seriously reporting drafts? Lol). But if any mod here wants to help in this situation, it would be much appreciated, and Dolpina should face serious consequences of her claim of us being sock-puppets, she’s notoriously an ethnic warrior on here anyway Dangermanmeetz (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Those are articles not drafts, its written there : article. "Ichafu" asides from the LLM text and original research means scarf, a loan word from chiffon. Wikipedia is not a page for definitions in your languages if not the entries will be a lot. Read Wikipedia rules. Dolpina (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

There’s no proof of LLM,

1. You would need to definitively prove that claim, and

2.Claims of LLM happen all the time regardless of their use, I’ve seen people including me have that tagged on our pages during article approving motions, it’s not uncommon.

3. No Ichafu does NOT mean scarf, we have proof and documentation of it being head-gear or wear.

4. Also to the rest of your post, you blatantly LIED, that I edited other pages, which I had no association with, and in regards to “ogiri”, we have sources denoting it to Igbo origin, and your OWN source does not denote it to Yoruba origin, so again you are an ethnic warrior, which is a harmful thing to have on this site, and should be dealt with severely, we have no room for that on Wikipedia. Dangermanmeetz (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Also for the moderators who will be involved, this is not the first time of this Dolpina account engaging in ethnic tribalism in the Nigerian context on Wikipedia, this has been a reoccuring behaviour for this account, I having recently had to deal with them claiming that the Igbo attire Akwete, was of “yoruba origin”, we also had to involve moderators for that before it was resolved, having to correct blatant misinformation, also in regards to the ogiri page, so this continuous, destructive behaviour. Dangermanmeetz (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

So, in this report, these are the things you are accusing of that aren't true:

1. First of all, None of has touched the Gele (headdress), shekere, ogbono soup, Bole page, as you are stating, so she is lying.

2. The ogiri page that you keep reverting to the source on there doesn't claim that ogiri belongs only to the Yoruba people; that specific source also credits the Igbo people with ogiri. So, you are actually being disingenuous or not being honest regarding the ogiri. There is nowhere in the first source that states that ogiri originates from the Yoruba people. It is the most blatant misinformation so far in this 21st century. 3. Alsoo, Yoruba dictionary is not enough to claim that ogiri belongs to only one ethnicity, as Igbo dictionaries also credit the Igbo people with ogiri, and Igbo, Edo, Igala, Yoruba, Urhobo, Itsekiri, Isoko, and Etsako share the same linguistic ancestry, and shares words together. For exxample, in Igbo, stone or rock is "okwute/okute," while in Yoruba, it is "okuta." This is same way goat is "ewu" in Igbo, while it is "ewure" in Yoruba. Does that mean goat and rock originated from Yoruba? No. So you are terribly biased and blinded by your ethnic bigotry and supremacy mindset. Idenze (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:TAIV

Specifically, I would like to know if the editor who did this and this is also the editor I warned here and here . After the first reversion I didn't actually notice it was a different TA. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@ScrubbedFalcon Yap, definitely the same TA. I don't think we have noticeboard for WP:TAIV help warehouse, but It would be helpful if we really had one tho. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 13:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Could be useful under the "User conduct" section of the noticeboard navbox? Maybe something for a village pump topic? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Excluding* redirects, is there an easy way to find all articles in mainspace (and I guess separately in templatespace and categoryspace) that differ only by capitalization? This would mean that for example Orange bean and Orange Bean (or even perhaps OranGe Bean) are full articles. I know that the first letter can't be what's different since they are all capitalized. I'm *guessing* this could be done with a query to get all of the ones that are identical ones when made into all capital letters and then counted to be greater than one, but I don't know what would be done to ignore redirects.Naraht (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Try {{intitle}}, eg All pages with titles containing black bean. Sorry, you're looking for all articles. MinorProphet (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You might get some suggestions by asking at WP:Request a query. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey i am new to wikipedia , i want to contribute in translating page into my mother tongue. Can anyone provide me guide that explains how can i start translating Alimran Rubayet-Amin (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Alimran Rubayet-Amin.

Does WP:Translate us help? ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Alimran Rubayet-Amin (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The maplink display in the infobox of Channel Tunnel is just displaying a blank map. I believe it used to work correctly, focussed on the tunnel which was red line. I can't see any relevant recent edits on Channel Tunnel or Channel Tunnel (Q10257). The OpenStreetMap relation ID on Wikidata (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2147197) also seems to be okay. I'm stumped. Commander Keane (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If you zoom out of that map, you will see it is centred off West Africa - presumably at Null Island. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Some module stopped to understand coordinates...? --CiaPan (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

Hi, I would like to point out a few ambiguous titles: Deep Purple (album) vs Deep Purple (Sun Ra album), Bob Williams (coach) vs Bob Williams (American football coach), and Bobby Williams vs Bobby Williams (defensive back). Could someone please move them to more precise and consistent titles? ~2026-18020-55 (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Issues with a title should first be raised on the article talk page of the article at issue, to generate a consensus(or see if there is an existing consensus). Articles that are titled without a disambiguator(like Williams) are usually so because the community believes most people are more likely to be looking for that topic than other articles about other topics with the same title. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

For example, Michael Jackson goes to the article about the deceased singer and not to the numerous others named Michael or Mike Jackson. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

But in this case I don't see a primary topic. And, what about Bob Williams (coach) / Bob Williams (American football coach) and Deep Purple (album) / Deep Purple (Sun Ra album)? ~2026-18020-55 (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If you don't see it as the primary topic, you need to explain that on the article talk page and build a consensus. Note that your view as to what is the primary topic may not be the way others view it, which is why a consensus is needed. The same applies to the other examples that you mention(they are just slightly narrower topics, coaches in the case of Williams). 331dot (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, @~2026-18020-55 given that these talk pages are not likely to be frequented, you should notify relevant WikiProjects like WP:WikiProject Music and WP:WikiProject Sports so that you can get more eyes on the discussion. Athanelar (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)