Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
If you are having an issue while editing, which editor are you using?
Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

There are three Wikipedians looking for help. ()

Search the frequently asked questions

Search the help desk archives and other help pages

SpongeBob movie

Good afternoon. On the page for the first SpongeBob movie (the section Development), the quote 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)

removed edit

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)

Posting

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)

@Emi-Is-Annoyed Wikipedia's user pages are not intended to contain an entire social-media-type profile. The term "profile" has several meanings, but what people generally call a "profile" on the 'net is not what Wikipedia intends the user page to contain. David10244 (talk) 05:43, 26 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)

Help

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)

Philipp Spitta

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)

Tried to improve my page

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)

Controlling rearrangement of paragraphs on mobile

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)

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)

Unable to collapse lists in edit window (mobile view)

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)

Paw Patrol edit request

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)

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

tool way find download edits per wiki text format

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)

Driving Tester

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)

Grunow

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)

Cirvumventing the 2026 internet blockade in iran !

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)

I just added article Norman Williams, Jr.

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)

Biography

Asked and answered on the Teahouse. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places --ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

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 have a draft of a biography that I would like to send to a Wikipedia representative for review. I had paid a company to help with this but they turned out to be scamming folks and what they did help with was terribly done. I am not real computer literate so I need all the direction I can get as far as emailing the draft. 20:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC) KANINGRYTA (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

Question about copyright of genealogy

(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)

Referencing errors on Bynum Reservoir

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)

Can I get a copy of a paywalled journal article?

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?

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)

I don’t know

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)

Likely sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry

currently ongoing, and confirmed vandalism

Now at WP:ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

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, Ichafu (headdress), 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 Ichafu (headdress), 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,

You would need to definitively prove that claim, and
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.
No Ichafu does NOT mean scarf, we have proof and documentation of it being head-gear or wear.
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:

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

Disruptive User- Repeat Offenses

User:Dolpina continues to delete verifiable citation and information and falsely claim that the Igbo headwear Ichafu is of yoruba origin, this is not the first time this user has continuously engaged in disruptive edits of ethnic origins, and has on a number of occasions has been warned by moderators to cease this behaviour, they’ve previously done it with the akwete page where a moderator had to be involved, as has engaged in edit warring on the ogiri page, which is an African seed/food ingredient, not of any ethnic origins, but uses a general parlance for the term in the same vein as ogbono soup, these are 3 different offenses, they have also falsely claimed users such as myself as sock puppeting and editing pages which I had no part in. A moderator’s input would be much appreciated. Dangermanmeetz (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dangermanmeetz, @Dolpina , @Idenze, and anybody else involved in this.

To the extent that this is a content dispute, resolve it following the procedures in dispute resolution.

If there are "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" involved, take them to WP:ANI (but make sure you read the material at the head of that very carefully, and beware of boomerangs).

We don't want to see the kind of squabbling in #Likely sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry above here, thank you.

(And this is not about who is right or wrong. It is about being part of a cooperative working environment). ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries and thanks for the link. Dangermanmeetz (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

Is there a noticeboard to get help from a TAIV that isn't AN, ANI or SPI?

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)

Easiest way to list articles only differing by capitalization?

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)

Wanna Translate Need help

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)

Maplink is not working on Channel Tunnel article

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)

Diffs for large tables, 'too long to compute your changes'

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambiguous titles

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)

Re Deep Purple, the current consensus is that we don't disambiguate albums/songs against other albums/songs that don't have standalone articles. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Filed Talk:Bob Williams (coach)#Requested move 23 March 2026 for Bob Williams since things are fundamentally broken in multiple ways there. I'll let someone else handle the primary topic dispute if they wish to do so; it seems plausibly justified to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Ref error in List of shipwrecks in 1791

Merging

Referencing errors on Aviation safety

Referencing errors on Electronic waste

Captcha

Is there a way to see smaller rangeblocks within a larger range?

Broken archive link

Slope Stability Probability Classification (SSPC)

There should be a page "Slope Stability Probability Classification (SSPC)". This page has been made by me many years ago but seems now to have been removed and replaced by a redirection to a page called "Slope Stability Analyses". The "Slope Stability Probability Classification (SSPC)" is a slope design system used throughout the world. The replacement page "Slope Stability Analyses" may be part/seems to be part of a book, is incomplete and certainty does not replace the page "Slope Stability Probability Classification (SSPC)". I wonder who did this and why. Please can you restore the original page "Slope Stability Probability Classification (SSPC)" and remove or change the redirections where appropriate. Robert Hack (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Slope stability probability classification was turned into a redirect back in 2019, seemingly unilaterally as I can't see any discussion in its talk page. The last revision of the page with any text on it was here. If you want to restore it you're entirely free to do so. Athanelar (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I can see no reason why we would need to have two articles on essentially the same subject - we are supposed to be providing a summary of topics, not exhaustive detail on every subset of it. And I'd assume this was the reason the redirect was created. If the more general article doesn't cover a specific subset (a particular method - i.e. SSPC) properly, the answer is to update the general article to correct this.

incidentally, I note that you are the author of a couple of the sources cited in the SSPC article. This isn't generally a particular issue where the author has established subject-matter expertise, but you should probably read WP:SELFCITE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Robert Hack: The former content of "Slope Stability Probability Classification" was not deleted but moved to a section of Slope stability analysis. However, somebody later moved it to Slope stability#Probability classification without updating the redirect at Slope Stability Probability Classification. I have done this now. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Robert Hack: unfortunately, unilatetal redirection of aricles is a systemic issue on Wikipedia. Per summary style, it does make sense to mention the topic at Slope stability and if content/sources demand it, a standalone article may be needed. I see this has been done, poorly, for example with with Slope mass rating. There is also textbook inclusion potential with our sister project Wikibooks. Our aim is a compendium of all human knowledge, but it is a work in progress. Commander Keane (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Distinguished Flying Cross missing a recipient

Government type in infoboxes

Is there some sort of hidden consensus about the structure of the government type in infoboxes?

Whenever you go to any sort of country's infobox, you are guaranteed to see on the government_type = :

unitary? federal?
presidential? semi-presidential? or parliamentary?
republic? monarchy?

It's almost as some sort of unwritten rule that I can't see for people to do this, so is it possible for someone to give me a link that's responsible for doing this?

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I went looking for a talk page consensus and all I found was this section on VPI in December where you suggest many articles don't follow this format and that you think it should be mandatory for them to do so, and people disagreed with that. Are you asking if consensus changed in the past three months? I'm confused. - Purplewowies (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I was asking for some sort of community consensus that made the government_type = go in the structure that I have mentioned about before. Like what I mean is that:

why does every single page always follow that structure in the type of government?

Sorry for not explaining it before clearly, but I hope you do by now GuesanLoyalist (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe because that's what made sense to people writing the infoboxes, @GuesanLoyalist? (Except when it didn't).

If you think about it, there are probably lots of examples of a practical consensus across Wikipedia, that has never been specifically discussed.

And of course there are lots of cases where some people desperately want consistency across the project, but have not managed to enrol enough support to get anything tied down or consistently applied. That's the nature of a volunteer project without managers. ColinFine (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

So let's say that I do want to make this unwritten rule to be instead a written rule, would it be ok for me to request an RfC for this? GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you a native English speaker?

It's a somewhat well known phenomena that native English speakers have a sort of 'intuitive' understanding of what order adjectives should go in. For example, "big, brown, hairy dog" sounds a lot more intuitive than "hairy, brown, big dog." "Sharp, flat-sided, metallic cube" sounds more intuitice than "flat-sided, metallic, sharp cube."

I would imagine part of that is a factor here. "Unitary parliamentary monarchy" certainly sounds more intuitively pleasing to my ear than "Parliamentary unitary monarchy". Athanelar (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Adjective order lists the general order, although the list doesn't seem to apply to descriptions of governments. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

That does actually make sense though, thanks for having this discussion with me GuesanLoyalist (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

There's a rule of thumb that's generally applicable for adjective order in English denoted as OSASCOMP. Opinion-Size-Age-Shape-Color-Origin-Material-Purpose. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

That was my point. That ordering rule doesn't seem to apply to "parliamentary unitary monarchy" versus "unitary parliamentary monarchy". Neither adjective is an opinion, size, age, shape, color, origin, or material, although both may be purposes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Data entry task: wolf place-names

What is "abstract"?

Connecting Wikidata software version strings to Wikipedia software infoboxes

I was trying to link the version information in Q113289177 to the infobox software template in the HiGHS optimization solver article. Some information has transferred, namely repo and website. But not the latest release version. I tried mapping this, without success, using: {{wikidata|property|reference|edit|Q28865|P548=Q113289177|P348}} and {{wikidata|property|preferred|references|edit|Q8038|P348|P548=Q113289177}}. Any help very welcome. The fallback is, of course, to continue with manual updating of the version string within the Wikipedia EN article. But that is not especially elegant. TIA. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, or have misunderstood the question, but am I right in assuming you are trying to automatically automate an update to a Wikipedia infobox from a Wikidata entry? If so, since Wikidata is clearly not WP:RS, this is contrary to policy, and any updates would need to be done manually, after verification of the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: You're not wrong! But I understand the GIMP software does exactly what I am suggesting — and is used in examples describing this feature. Data scientists like to update in one place and then propagate. But equally, Wikipedia might prefer more humans‑in‑the‑loop. The ultimate sources are the release tags used in online software repos — GitHub in this case. Thanks for responding. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I learned yesterday that Wikidata entries have an optional field that lets you cite a reliable source. I learned this after being frustrated about not being able to edit fields in an infobox on the Croatian Wikipedia, and then was told the infobox data is being pulled from Wikidata, and sure enough the birthdate of the article subject in Wikidata had a source citation on it, but that citation doesn't appear in the infobox. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

On the English-language Wikipedia at least, the update needs both verification and citation. No idea as to what the Croatian one expects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

My mistake, it was Bulgarian. Anyway, the Wikidata doesn't seem to be language specific, in this case d:Q61139728. The data itself is in Bulgarian, but any other languages can be added in that entry, and it appears that citations are optional, but maybe that depends on the data item. When I deleted the birth date due to a retraction by the cited source, it wouldn't let me delete the citation first, so I had to delete the whole birthdate entry. I added the only citation in there, the place of birth. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You should not delete the date from Wikidata in that case, but mark it as deprecated. Which item was it on? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw no way to mark it as deprecated, so I removed it. It's the item I linked in my previous comment. The VRT customer worked with the online sources reporting the birthdate so that the birthdate was removed in all of them, although it can still be found in archived versions of the sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

To note that the software version information is often well documented, provided by responsible maintainers, and accompanied by extensive release notes. An example. In addition, software product quality is now increasingly being regulated by legislation like the Cyber Resilience Act. Release notes are clearly primary sources but not remotely unreliable in the context of, say, the HiGHS solver. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Release notes may well be reliable, but Wikidata isn't, per core Wikipedia policy. If people really want latest version information in an infobox, it must be cited to a reliable source, though frankly I can't see a great deal of point to this, since anyone wishing to know such details would be better off checking the source anyway - it is more likely to be up to date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed! In this case, a link to the GitHub Releases page could be better, viz: release details. Or perhaps even a Wikipedia template that periodically interrogates that latest release info via a GitHub API. I don't like the idea of potentially stale information being displayed so prominently. Thanks for your comments. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

See d:Help:Deprecation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, sensible and useful to know. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

dhurandhar movie

Why you mentioned dhurandhar is a propoganda movi .it is reality base fictional movie

Courtesy link: Dhurandhar: The Revenge

it is not propoganda movie ~2026-18353-49 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It is entirely possible for propaganda to be fictional (most is), and 'reality based'. Having said that how we describe the movie is subject to discussion. I assume from the number of new commentators on this subject that they are being directed here from elsewhere. If so, whoever is doing that should take note that we really don't give a damn what their personal opinions of the movie are, and that we base article content on published reliable sources. Spamming us with irrelevant commentary is a complete waste of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

They're also being directed to WP:RFED in droves because the talk page is semiprotected, so their edit requests end up there. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The wording in the header to WP:RFED could probably do with clarification as to what an appropriate edit requests requires (citations for sources, policy compliance). I'll have a think about it, and then maybe look at revising it to make it more explicit. I have my doubts that many people actually read the header, but it might reduce the spamming a little. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. A while back I substantially changed the header to WP:RFUP, and now we can deny requests for unprotection on the basis of "failure to read instructions".

The RFED header does say "Please make a request only if you have a specific edit that you wish to be performed" but it's buried near the end. It should probably be boldfaced and moved up. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The article does not describe the film as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice, but quotes four commentators who did so, as well as a larger number who didn't. The article seems to me to be reasonably balanced, and hence displaying a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia policy requires. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

If you look at the history of that article, you'll see that the term "propaganda film" has been added and removed multiple times from the lead sentence. There's a talk page discussion about how to represent this best in the lead, since the propaganda issue receives a fair amount of attention in the article body. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

And it's that discussion - which ~50 different people coming in from offwiki are either oblivious to or refuse to read - that precludes us making ANY unilateral edits about this at the moment. They're basically asking us to dump the active RfC on the matter in the trash. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Indian cinema (and the social issues it tends to attract) are hot topics of discussion in India at all times, and the presence of large numbers of Indian TAs engaging in tendentious editing about this matter isn't necessarily evidence of some kind of centralised offwiki canvassing.

Pretty much every Indian even tangentially aware of cinema right now is talking about Dhurandhar, and I assume some significant portion of those are going to its Wikipedia page and getting grumpy about the way we describe it. Athanelar (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

True enough, but a some of the TA posts (and possibly some from users with accounts too) definitely suggested canvassing to me. Maybe I'm oversensitive to such issues, and since I don't have the necessary language skills to confirm it one way or another (Canvassing in English, where it involves more than a few individuals, is often easy to find through Google etc), I'll leave that to others, if they think it necessary. In practice though, since almost all the possibly-canvassed TA posts aren't based on policy etc, they shouldn't affect the outcome either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Noting that the WP/Dhurandar films thing has some media coverage, some of it like is even reasonable neutral in tone. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Help with the insource thingy

Editing in Wikipedia

Request to move user page to Draft space

So I can't post?

Commutative diagrans

Requests to me by another editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue creating an account

How to start a page about a hospital, church, school and local talent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible AI image issue

New articles

Giovanni Battista de Rossi

Question

Locked out of page

Mashallha

Creating (translated) Wikipage for en.wikipedia.org that exists in other language (de.wikipedia.org)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the English article does not yet exist:

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

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

Hello, @Cbumb.

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

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

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

Disruptive User- Repeat Offenses

Related Articles