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).

Ask a question

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

There is one Wikipedian looking for help. (refresh)

hatnotes for "Belgrade Fortress"

Belgrade Fortress looks written by someone with non-native skill or machine-translated, so many sentences are meaningless. It needs hatnotes. .... Xo4v (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

When you say hatnotes, do you mean that it needs a note linking to another article (what we usually mean by hatnotes on Wikipedia)? Or do you mean maintenance tags that address the problems with the article? I'm going to take a look at it and see if I can do some cleanup, but if you think it should have a note at the top linking to another article, please let me know which one. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hatnote: maintenance tags that address the problems with the article to warn new readers

someone familiar with subject or language should look at Belgrade Fortress .... Xo4v (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I added a "confusing" tag and am also seeing if anyone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia wants to take a look. Thanks for pointing this out! I don't think it's a machine translation issue because the article was first created in 2004 and because I don't see any major recent additions, it looks like content was added over time, but I could be wrong. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

genders of nouns are wrong, and nouns are wrong, so "machine translation" was a guess. the "improve by translating from serbian:Belgrade Fortress" Wikipedia:Hatnote might work .... Xo4v (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hatnote does not say what you say it does ("maintenance tags that address the problems with the article to warn new readers"). It says: "Hatnotes provide links at the top of an article or a section to help readers locate a different article if the one they are viewing is not the one they're looking for." AndyJones (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

"Hatnotes provide links at the top of an article"

there are many Hatnotes. some assert WP:NPOV, "article seems LLM", "article seems written for pay", "article seems written by someone close to subject", "article needs inline citations", "article needs translation from other language"

Hatnote = template at the top of an article

Xo4v (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Xo4v: We don't call what you described hatnotes. They're article message templates, many of which usually referred to as maintenance tags. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Why you write not Türkiye

This country chanced the name. Is not longer "turkey", now Türkiye. ~2026-44343-81 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Turkey/FAQ. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that we also don't write Italia, España, Sverige, Norge, or many other countries' own spellings of their names. Also note that the Turkish Wikipedia has not changed "Kanada" to Canada, has not changed "Avustralya" to Australia, and is still using the grossly distorted "Yunanistan" instead of Ελλάδα. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not really the same thing. It's not an endonym/exonym issue; the official name as recognised by the UN is now the Republic of Türkiye. They changed it a couple of years ago. Wikipedia only hasn't caught up because WP:COMMONNAME. Athanelar (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it really is an endonym/exonym issue. The UN is merely one reliable source among all the others. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

All the UN did was to change the name they use in their own documents, as requested. They do this as a matter of course, for any country that asks. At no point has the UN ever claimed to have any power to determine 'official names' in any other context. Furthermore, Wikipedia is under no obligation to use 'official names'. We don't, we use the name most commonly used in English-language sources: hence 'Germany' rather than 'Deutschland' etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

At no point has the UN ever claimed to have any power to determine 'official names' in any other context. Right. That's why I said "as recognised by" the UN. It's the official name because that's what they want people to call them in English, and their UN name aligns with that. This is different for, for example, Germany, who to my knowledge uses "Germany" as its official English name in contexts such as the UN. That's why I think it's inaccurate to say that the reason we don't call it Türkiye is the same reason we don't call Germany "Deutschland" or India "Bharat".

Furthermore, Wikipedia is under no obligation to use 'official names'. We don't, we use the name most commonly used in English-language sources Right. That's why I said Wikipedia only hasn't caught up because WP:COMMONNAME.

Türkiye's official, preferred name in English is the Republic of Türkiye. This is not the same thing as the fact that Germany is called the Bundesrepublik Deutschland in German. Athanelar (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all clear one way or the other, whether it's [right, ethical, practical, or other things] for a country or other entity to dictate exonyms for itself. It does make sense to say "Those people should not be calling us the name they're calling us", but it also makes sense to say "Those people should not be trying to dictate our own language to us".

"We don't like it" is a legitimate statement to make whenever it's true. But "Because we don't like it, that automatically forces you to change it" is not the same thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

In this situation, at least as far as I know, the change request is being made in good faith, and I think that's important. But it isn't such a huge leap back in time to when the vast majority of English-language media did not honour the exonym wishes of the German Democratic Republic. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:26, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Why do publications written in Turkish refer to my country as "Birlesik Krallik" and not "The United Kingdom"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-43920-01 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@87.81.230.195 if you are in "The United Kingdom", what do news readers call "the Republic of Turkey"? ... Xo4v (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Türkiye sounds just like Turkey in the UK as far as I can tell. If you look at written text, such as the BBC, or The Guardian, which are both usually quite good about these things, they're still writing 'Turkey' and 'Turkish'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The special character (u with two dots), is probably contributing to the lack of uptake. It's not used commonly in English and most English speakers don't know what it's called or how to find it on a keyboard. So that presumably creates a barrier of inconvenience. ~2026-42636-56 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there's probably a disadvantage from a Turkish point of view as well: I'm sure that an English speaker with no understanding of Turkish sounds very "un-Turkish" when they say "Turkey", but with "Türkiye" they would sound far worse - not better at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Box about a city

Ask a question.  I used to see a box where I could put in, say a city, and wiki would give me everything about tht city. where did it go? Blarry5 (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean the search bar? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Blarry5. If you do mean the search bar, in some skins this may be hidden until you pick the magnifying glass icon to get it. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The search bar is what you need. As an alternative, some browsers such as Firefox let you add search engines. Adding Wikipedia would let you search Wikipedia for a city or anything else in the same way as you might search DuckDuckGo, Google, Bing, etc., even when you don't have a Wikipedia article open already. Certes (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked everything except the little magnifying glass. ~2026-44797-43 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Categories and sub-categories

Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask. (i considered category talk:Japanese superheroes and category talk:Japanese-language surnames, but then thought i should ask if anyone has had these problems with other categories too.)

When i add {{category:Japanese superheroes}} to Wikipedia:Sandbox, why does the footer link to category:Asian superheroes and category:Fictional Japanese people by occupation and not directly to category:Japanese superheroes? Feels a little like if dog (disambiguation) only linked to mammal and quadruped and not directly to dog.

Category:Japanese superheroes also did not add Wikipedia:Sandbox (secret identity of Bruce Wikipedia-Sandbanner) to the W section, nor Sandbox (alias Sandy Brock) to the S section. _{Maybe their superpowers include invisibility.}

Both problems also occurred when i added {{category:Japanese-language surnames}} to Wikipedia:Sandbox: the footer links to category:Japanese names, category:Surnames by language, and category:Surnames of Asian origin, but not to category:Japanese-language surnames (which does not add Wikipedia:Sandbox to the W or S surnames).

Is another step needed to add a page to a category? Is there a reason the footer won't link directly to the specified sub-category, and the reader has to detour through a broader category first? Seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Intuitiveness and WP:TRANSPARENCY, as if {{category:Japanese superheroes}} and {{category:Japanese-language surnames}} are piped links, only the "astonishment" surprises the editor instead of the reader.

Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing. --~2026-41706-31 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

When adding a category to a page, the usual syntax is [[Category:Category name]] or [[Category:Category name|Sortkey]] with square brackets. Your examples here are using curly brackets which do something much more complicated, and not what you want in this case - see Help:Transclusion. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! --~2026-41706-31 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

_{This was such a stupid mistake, i kind of feel like the whole conversation should get deleted...} --~2026-41706-31 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

With any mistake that's this easy to make, more than one person is going to make it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:52, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I learned a number of useful things from this conversation and also enjoyed your joke. ~2026-42636-56 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Evansville Brewing Company

Diff/1369223683

I'm trying to cite a newspaper notice from 1898 that doesn't have a title. Is "no title" acceptable in this instance?

Thanks, Ktgrimm (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ktgrimm: The immediately preceding note on that page uses "Evansville Brewery 'Minnehaha' Beer (advertisement)" as a title. If your citation is also to an advertisement, couldn't you give it a similarly descriptive title? Deor (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not really an advertisement, more of a statement or notice... but I guess I could still use that style. Thanks for the suggestion! Ktgrimm (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

You can use |title=((Untitled)) (note double parentheses). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Two-tier policing

Diff/1369215431

Hi team, a bot said this edit performed by me, on the page Two-tier policing, introduced referencing errors. When I used the template loader to fill in the data stuff from the template form in the browser, it failed to load. I have gone back and manually added a title, is this sufficient? Also, is there a quick way to do this rather than manually going through the lines to find the missing bit and finding a similar line to copy from from? Halbared (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

1. Yes, it's sufficient
2. You may (or may not) find it quicker to go to the page histropy, revert your edit, and start again
3. You still have |website=www.leics.pcc.police.uk. The value of that parameter should not be a URL or (sub)domain, but the name of the website (e.g. "Amazon"), but in this case better to use |publisher=Leicestershire Police

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Maria offering to edit my wikipedia page for a payment

Dear colleagues at Wikipedia

A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by ‘Maria’ who suggested that she could help revise my Wikipedia entry, for USD$500 (a large sum of money, especially for us in Australia).

I am attaching the latest draft of the revised entry for me. My original entry contains omissions, mistakes, misinterpretations etc.

Following a suggestion made by the IT expert within our University, I asked Maria how she operates – before paying her.

I followed the link she shared, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation?utm_source=chatgpt.com, and it says there that if anyone is asking for money to do a wiki entry (or update one, I guess), is suspicious – this could be a scam.

Following that suggestion on your site I am writing to you with the question: is ‘Maria’ legit’? Or is it a scam, to make me pay?

Many thanks in advance

Alexandra

I sent you an e-mail - no reply, sadly. Could you help? ~2026-44521-56 (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I need your help to understand if Maria who wanted me to pay for editing my entry is scamming. ~2026-44521-56 (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44521-56 Anyone offering Wikipedia services for money is a scam. Always. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It's kind of hysterical that "Maria" doesn't even know enough about Wikipedia to link to the WP:AFC page herself; based on the link she provided, she used ChatGPT to find it. This is definitely a scam. You may, if you wish to help others avoid scams from this person, forward the correspondence from Maria to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. You can read more details at WP:SCAM. CodeTalker (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44521-56/Alexandra, could you please also let us know which article "Maria" was offering to assist with? Athanelar (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar, according to the TA's post on their talk page, Alexandra Aikhenvald. ~2026-44405-25 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandra, the better news is that the volunteer editors here at Wikipedia actually do want the articles to be accurate and as complete as possible based on reliable, published sources. There is some general advice for the subject of a WP biography at WP:ASFAQ. Basically, you should not edit Alexandra Aikhenvald directly yourself but are very welcome to make suggestions for changes (not wholesale re-writes, please) at Talk:Alexandra Aikhenvald. There is an edit request Wizard to help. The more specific the change and the better they are backed up by citations, the more likely that a volunteer will incorporate them into the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the volunteers who assess your suggestions and update the article about you will not ask for money or any other reward. This is a free service. Certes (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedia Encyclopedia Page for Blake Little

I had a Wikipedia Encyclopedia Page for Blake Little in 2014. I logged in to user page account 1 day ago on 8 /12/2026. I searched for my Wikipedia Encyclopedia Page on wikipedia.org for Blake Little and nothing came up. My page for myself Blake Little is missing. How can my page be located in the archive and republished? I want to keep the history from the original Wikipedia Encyclopedia page. Please help and assist me with the issue. Thank you

Blake Little Blakelittle (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Not 'missing', deleted as 'Non-notable photographer, insufficiently sourced for 12 years. Probable autobiography'. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiographies, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before proceeding further. If and when we are ever to have an article on Blake Little again, it will be on our terms. It will be an article about you, and not 'your page'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Thanks for your response. I am happy to read the suggested articles you referenced, I am not experienced with Wikipedia, would you please elaborate on what you mean by "Non-notable photographer?" My intent was to establish a presence on Wikipedia that others can read to find out more about my career and my photography. With what I read prior to making the recent changes, I was under the impression that there is a "user page" and an "encyclopedia page", and that by editing under the draft selection on my user page, after submitting the draft it would go under review for potential publication as an encyclopedia page, providing I was in compliance with all of Wikipedia's guidelines. My intent is only to establish a page that provides people interested in me, my photography and my career as a professional photographer, a resource to they can access. Thank you . Blake Blakelittle (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Blakelittle When you say "My intent was to establish a presence on Wikipedia that others can read to find out more about my career and my photography"; that is a promotional purpose, see WP:YESPROMO. Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject wants to say about themselves, Wikipedia is interested in what others say about them. This is usually difficult for people to do about themselves, because as human beings it is difficult for us to set aside what we know about ourselves and limit ourselves to summarizing what others have said- the good, the bad, and the ugly. Are you one of the rare people who can do this successfully? Possibly, but the odds are heavily against it. I personally in 14 years have never seen someone succeed at writing an autobiography, though it may have happened.

If you haven't already, please review the autobiography policy. If you want to tell the world about yourself and your career, you should establish a website and social media accounts to do that(if you haven't already). Also know that an article is not necessarily something to desire. There are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text you might prefer or prevent others from editing it. If you have ever done anything in your life that you are not proud of and there is a record of it, it will eventually find its way into an article about you. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Blakelittle You're not wrong, but one primary non-negotiable requirement is "absolutely no promotional articles". Your intention was to make one of those. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:49, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Photo change

If I have permission to change a photo of someone’s page from them can I change it without it being “vandalism”? ~2026-44478-26 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

In this case:, no. If you're interested in why, you can start with WP:LEADIMAGE and WP:OWN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I've started a thread on the article talk page explaining how the photo can be changed. Staraction (talk · contribs) 15:44, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Help formatting a table

At Metroid#Reception, is there a way to stop the paragraph of text wrapping around the table, and just sit underneath the table? It's hard to read. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

If I understand what you're wanting, you can add {{clear}} between the table and the text. CodeTalker (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried that before asking here, but it pushes the table to the right. Is there a way to fix that? I've gone ahead and implemented it for now anyway as I think it's still an improvement. Popcornfud (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Popcornfud, @CodeTalker: It's not a table, but a template which produces a table: {{Video game series reviews}}. It doesn't seem to have an option to override the placement of the table it produces. Adding one and thoroughly testing and documenting it is not trivial. You may find a template editor willing to put the effort in to do so (but not me, I'm afraid: not my area of interest). Bazza 7 (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I guess I'll just live with the "clear" function for now, as it's imperfect but better than nothing. Popcornfud (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Error

I recently started getting, on every talk page load and this page as well: "Javascript Error https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php?lang=en&modules=%40wikimedia%2Fcodex%2Ccodex-styles%2Cjquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Cvue%7Cext.discussionTools.init&skin=vector-2022&version=1cki3 at line 51: Uncaught TypeError: Cannot set properties of null (setting 'nodeValue')"

My common.js is empty - no custom scripts, but ?safemode=1 makes the error go away.

(Can't remember what I did last time I experienced something similar and search is no help - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=RememberOrwell+Javascript+Error&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns126=1&ns127=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&searchToken=cq9p1cp2cr8o52c6p8ojnna6h is giving me unhelpful/inaccurate results.) RememberOrwell (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @RememberOrwell.

For technical questions like this, you're more likely to find people who can help if you ask at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@RememberOrwell: "discussionTools" in the url indicates a problem with "Enable quick replying" (or maybe "Enable quick topic adding") at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. It makes the "reply" links I can see you use on talk pages. Does it help to disable it? You can click "edit" at the section editing to post with another method. What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I see DiscussionTools is still in beta. After disabling everything under Discussion Tools (and all under Beta features tab) at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, and a full refresh, still getting original discussionTools error. RememberOrwell (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@RememberOrwell: Does it happen if you log out? If it only happens logged in and not with ?safemode=1 then it my involve one of the enabled gadgets at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. If you experiment with disabling gadgets then note that there is no page history or similar which can show what you have changed. What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Attributing public domain images taken from .pdf?

How do I properly cite and attribute public domain images that I copied and cropped from a .pdf of a US Government booklet? I was kindly informed that the images I uploaded needed to be "...fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied."

I am using images of moth caterpillars that are in a Public Domain (US Department of Agriculture) booklet, that was uploaded as a .pdf to wikimedia commons. The images in the .pdf are not searchable. So I have been copying the images, cropping them in a photo editor and then re-uploading the individual photos to wikimedia commons before adding them to wikipedia articles.

When I upload to wikimedia, I include the source and use a public domain/ US government statement template.

What additional attribution do I need to add? Where do I put the attribution? Do I cite the source of the images (ie the .pdf) in the reference section of the wikipedia article? Do I cite the source in the image's caption? or Do I add the attribution to the image's file page?

For context:

• One of the articles I added an image to - Eulithis diversilineata
• One of the image files - File:Eulithis diversilineata larva.jpg
• Original source of images - File:Geometroid caterpillars of northeastern and Appalachian forests (IA CAT11119960).pdf

PS: While I am cropping the images, should I add a watermark/photo credit text directly to the image? (e.g. "Photo: public domain/US Department of Agriculture") India indie (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@India indie I am certain that you should not add any sort of watermark to your cropped image. As to your more detailed questions, they will get informed responses if asked directly at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @India indie: I think the information on your talk page was about text, I have asked for confirmation of that. It is often a good idea to "ping" an editor if you want them to seen a question as they may not be watching a particular page. I would suggests asking at the Commons help desk c:Commons:help desk if you are uploading the cropped images correctly. I would expect to see a link to the source file on Commons when you upload a cropped version but I am not a Commons expert. TSventon (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@India indie: Don't watermark. JPEG image files can contain metadata, and you can put comments in that metadata. The program you used to do the cropping probably enables this. If not, you can use GIMP. If you place your attribution and provenance in the metadata, it becomes part of the image file and will remain when it is copied by others unless they make an effort to remove it. -Arch dude (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Human body

what do the electrolites do in the body ~2026-44559-54 (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

see Electrolyte. Note the spelling. -Arch dude (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Question regarding disambiguation pages

Hello Help desk! I'm here to ask about disambiguation pages. Specifically, if a certain disambiguation page should be created in this situation. Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm using this as an opportunity to learn and understand more about disambiguation pages.

So I recently made the article Bail Organa and realised the page Organa existed. Since there are quite a few things Organa can refer to, I was surprised that there wasn't a disambiguation page for it. Now I'm not sure if Organa really qualifies as a primary topic, since it is really quite obscure and only uses one source in the article.

So what I'm asking here is, should there be a disambiguation page for Organa and, if so, does Organa really qualify for a primary topic or should the disambiguation page be named Organa instead? Thank you! MasterRayvis (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The hatnote entries at Organa are: Princess Leia Organa (nobody calls her Organa); Organum (organa is the latinate plural); Organa (crater); and Hormuz Island (the Ancient Greeks apparently called it Organa). Of these only the crater is actually ambiguous; the others rightly have completely different article titles. There's also Organa Peak, named after Organa, but again, different title and not ambiguous. Also Orghana. So really the question here would be whether there is a primary topic between Organa and Organa (crater). My first instinct would be to make a disambiguation page at Organa which could then also house all the aforementioned links. Though the Bulgar ruler does consistently get more pageviews than the crater, so that might also reasonably be said to be the primary topic... Someone smarter than me would have to say what one could do about the hatnote spaghetti in that case. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:18, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Luigi Mangione

I have a photo I took in Venice, Italy in September 2025. (My husband & I went there for our 70th birthdays.) The graffiti on the wall says, “RICORDATE LUIGI MANGIONE” (Remember Luigi Mangione). Would Wikipedia like to have it to add to the photos on Luigi Mangione’s Wikipedia page? (If so, I don’t know how you’ll contact me since I can’t leave my email address.) Thank you. ~2026-44788-31 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44788-31: You can upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons. You'll need to create an account and agree to release the right to use it for everyone, not just Wikipedia. If you do that the photo will be available for Wikipedia to use. Then you can post to Talk:Luigi Mangione to tell interested editors about it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 00:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Would my name be associated with the post? I would feel terrible if his family saw that I posted it. Some of them would recognize my name. If that’s the case, I don’t want to do it. The Mangiones are a really good family. ~2026-44788-31 (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

You do not need to register your real name as your account name. However, it is possible that the family would remember the circumstances of when you took the image by seeing it. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the advice given above, you might also want to take a look at c:COM:ITALY (where the graffiti is/was located) and c:COM:GRAFITTI before uploading anything to either English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. The degree of freedom of panorama Italian copyright law allows places restrictions on certain types of creative works and certain types of use. Even though the words "Remember Luigi Mangione" themselves wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection, they grafitti art could be depending on how much creativity was involved, even if the "artist" isn't known. If that's the case, then Commons would most likely consider you photo a c:COM:Derivative work: you'd be the copyright holder of the photo but not the photographed grafitti. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-44788-31 Aside from the copyright issue, I don't see why some random graffiti on a wall in Venice has any relevance to the biography of an alleged murderer, unless some reputable source has commented on it and said so. I imagine that "Luigi Mangione" is quite a common name in Italy. Do you have any evidence the graffiti refers to the American? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

The article already has a few different photos of graffiti around the world, illustrating how this has become a global phenomenon. Whether to use the new one would be an editorial judgment. As for other Luigis, even Italian Wikipedia doesn't have any. I'd eat my hat if this graffiti wasn't about the American one. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:52, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

The graffiti was the only thing written on a wall at the end of what pretty much amounted to an alley way. It was “off the beatin’ path”. The streets in Venice are like mazes. Anyway,I’m not going to pursue this. Thank you for your time and input. It’s been interesting. ~2026-44788-31 (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft Creation

About three weeks ago, I created a draft of a redirect page through the article wizard, and believe I submitted it. I did see it once on one of my personal userpages attributing it to me, but I haven’t been able to find it since? If it is still stored as a draft within my userspace, where would I find it? And if it isn’t and has moved onto review, would I be notified if it became approved? 붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 03:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Which page do you mean? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:46, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@붉은혜성라이카: I'm not seeing any of your contributions in draftspace. Did you put {{subst:submit}} somewhere else? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:10, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@붉은혜성라이카 You appear to have created Draft:Arcadian Wild as a redirect in mainspace. I guess you meant the redirect to be from Arcadian Wild to The Arcadian Wild, so you need to fix that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@붉은혜성라이카 and 붉은혜성라이카: Your account is old enough to create redirects directly in mainspace. If you want to submit redirects via articles for creation then use the Redirect wizard link in the lead of Wikipedia:Articles for creation. You created Draft:Arcadian Wild with another method and it has not been submitted. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

How would I be able to submit the draft? 붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 00:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@붉은혜성라이카 I don't understand what you mean by "draft" in this context. Your original Draft:Arcadian Wild had no content other than being a redirect to The Arcadian Wild. Do you intend there to be a new article called "Arcadian Wild" that you haven't yet written? Or, more likely, are you just trying to create the redirect? If the latter, we can do that for you by moving that page to Arcadian Wild, or you should be able to do that yourself. Leaving Draft:Arcadian Wild as a blank page in mainspace is not acceptable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you very much! 붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 18:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Service awards

Sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I want to ask if I can put all Wikipedia: Service awards on my user page even though I haven't earned them all at the moment? Can I state and clearly emphasize that these are only goals and that I do not have them all? Thank. StefanNoviSad (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi StefanNoviSad. Just for reference, you don't get any special priviledges or benefits as a Wikipedian based on how many service awards you have; moreover, they're pretty much optional things that bascially Wikipedian's use to decorate their user pages with and self-congratualte themselves with. Your account is just about a week old; so, perhaps just continuing to focus on improving Wikipedia thourgh editing would be the best thing to do for the time being. Adding a bunch of userboxes/icons of awards you've yet to qualify for is probably not the worst thing to do, but it might make someone mistakenly assume you're less here for Wikipedia and more here for yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

FYI

OP has been blocked for block evasion and all their many edits to mainspace have been reverted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:40, 15 August 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.

Are these niche video stores notable enough? They all have mostly local coverage

• Movie Madness Video
• Night Owl Video
• Scarecrow Video
• Vidiots

These are interesting video stores, but I heard that more national coverage might be needed. ~2026-44749-29 (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Did they get front-page news coverage locally? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:23, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I looked at WP:AUD. I think they all passed that. ~2026-44749-29 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

So, for each of them, a major regional paper published a featured story? Seeing them mentioned doesn't count. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

All except for Draft:Night Owl Video. They might not have enough notability for WP:NCORP... yet. Only one feature source from The Guardian. Now I checked to be sure about standards. ~2026-44749-29 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Disclaimer that I'm a Seattleite, but Scarecrow Video absolutely passes notability guidelines. There's plenty of coverage on it, especially with the rarity of video stores and its extensive catalog. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:13, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

There's also no way Movie Madness is not notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Il Caffè, ambiguous titles

Hi, we have a clearly incorrect situation regarding Il Caffè and Il Caffè (magazine). I have requested the moves; opinions at talk pages would be welcome. Thanks. ~2026-44665-60 (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

MAIL

NO MESSAGES SHOWING

~2026-44849-89 (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the help desk for Wikipedia. We regret we cannot assist with email issues. Your local library may be able to help you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this, but I have to agree with @Pigsonthewing right now. We cannot help with email issues. If it's a gmail account, please refer to Google for help. Purple, the Maker (You're welcome to say something!) 20:02, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

The Bloody Judge

Is it correct for The Bloody Judge to redirect to George Jeffreys, 1st Baron Jeffreys? There is also The Bloody Judge (film). Should it be a disambiguation page? ~2026-44975-48 (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-44975-48. We don't normally have a DAB page where there are only two items. There is already a hatnote to the film in the article about the judge.

I guess your question really might be which of the two is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. To me this is obviously the judge (but then I am interested in history, more than in films). If you think it should be changed, you could start a discussion on the talk page of one of the articles. ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Ingin masuk kan detalis artis BETTO KHAI

Bagai mana cara untuk masuk kan detalis artis di laman ini? Need your support for this ~2026-44679-23 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Bagai mana cara untuk masuk kan detalis artis di laman ini
A quick Google Translate gave me this:

How do I add artist details to this page?

@~2026-44679-23: There is no page for Betto Khai. If you have reliable sources that establishes Khai's wikinotability, I suggest you ensure that they are suitable before thinking about creating an article, which I suggest going through Articles for creation to make a draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:12, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to do this on the Malay language Wikipedia, you would need to ask on ms:Wikipedia:Meja_bantuan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Organize the "the"!

Hello! I am working on a sortable list of films where certain titles start with "the", so I'm organizing it in such a way where the second word in the title is what's sorted for the table ("The Wizard of Oz" is sorted by "Wizard"). However, the list also has several films with french/italian/spanish titles. Should titles starting with "the" in other languages also be sorted by the second word in the title? i.e. "La Bamba" is sorted by "Bamba"?

This is the list, for the record.

I'm using english wikipedia, if that matters. BakedintheHole (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@BakedintheHole: WP:SORTKEY is about categories but the same applies to sortable tables so sort as "Bamba, La". Another tip: The source text at the bottom of La Bamba (film) says: {{DEFAULTSORT:Bamba (film), La}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! BakedintheHole (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Potential favourite articles: Mans, Le; De Da, La; The, The; and, best one, Wreck of [Edmund Fitzgerald, the], The TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Smithsonian fair use?

Walnut (crane) hasn't an image. The Smithsonian web site Has images of her. I understand many U.S. govt images are free to use, but these are apparently attributed to a specific photographer.

Are either images fair use? Scuttlebug Jam (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:Scuttlebug Jam! Copyright rules are indeed complex, and this question seems to tangle up several different topics related to what "use" means. One is the licensing of the images, and whether they are "public domain" as a US government work-product. I think the answer is yes, given Commons even has a specific {{PD-USGov-SI}} tag. That means the image can be uploaded to commons and then used here in the enwiki article. For completeness, "fair use" is when we choose to use things despite license prohibition, which always strikes me as an easily-misunderstood phrase. In that case, it is prohibited on commons, but one image of the subject might be uploadable here to enwiki for use in that article. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You cannot assume the copyright status is public domain- since the content is not marked "Creative Commons Zero" according to the Smithsonian's policy. However, the answer to your question is probably "yes" according to

https://www.si.edu/termsofuse

and given that the page is not marked, the section that applies seems to be:

"b. Other Content – Usage Conditions Apply"

There are many images of other white-naped cranes on Wikimedia Commons, so you might (as a workaround) use one of those instead and word the caption accordingly to make clear that this is not actually Walnut?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=white-naped+crane&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

If the purpose is general illustration, might that be an easy and acceptable alternative? 45154james (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

If the image in question is a work-product of the SI employee as part of their job and SI is a US-govt-funded unit, then the work-product meets {{PD-USGov}} whether or not the SI explicitly says so (or even thinks so). In particular, {{PD-USGov-SI}} has been well vetted by commons and has found that SI's claims to "non-commercial only" are overly broad and therefore potentially invalid. The bold-faced part is the only detail that needs to be established. A non-free image of this specific crane would meet the enwiki fair-use criteria for this specific article. A generic image of this type of crane would be a poor substitute even if it were a free image. DMacks (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hoof, disambiguation page

Hi, could someone create Hoof (disambiguation)? Besides Hoof, there are people with this surname: William Hoof ; Fi Van Hoof ; Harry van Hoof ; Jef van Hoof ; Jan van Hoof. ~2026-44959-99 (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that a disambiguation page would be appropriate, given the multiple people with the surname Hoof. I can create Hoof (disambiguation) and include the relevant entries. Eleena Vitha (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi anon editor! We already have Hoof (surname) (for the last name "Hoof") and from there a separate Van Hoof (for the various spellings and capitalizations of it). Because they are different names, they get different disambiguation pages. What was missing until a minute ago is a hatnote link from Hoof pointing to the surname page. DMacks (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do not ask the same question at multiple places. It risks you losing track of answers and everyone else wasting time tracking it. Let's keep it at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hoof, disambiguation DMacks (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Hi, I tried to write a good article nomination, but I ended up making a lot of mistakes and I need some help. Questionadora ávida (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks fine to me? The talk page correctly says that it's a nominee, and it is on the list of nominations. What's the issue? Athanelar (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, while trying to create the nomination, I ended up creating a page called Talk:Almerinda Farias Gama/GA1, which was full of errors that I couldn't fix, so I requested a speedy deletion. Now I don't know how to do the nomination correctly, I probably got confused by the instructions. 🙁 Questionadora ávida (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You were right to delete the GA1 page. When a reviewer starts the GA review, they click on the link on the talk page link and create the GA1 page. TSventon (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I understand now, thank you! Questionadora ávida (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Old moves template permalink problems

Can someone tell me what's wrong with my markup here?

{{Old moves
| small = no
| collapse = no
| date = 26 June 2026
| from = Homosexuality in English football
| destination = English football and LGBTQ people
| result = not moved
| link = https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality_in_basketball&oldid=1362438296#Requested_move_26_June_2026
}}

The output is:

When I click the link I get the little pop up that says the discussion may have been moved or deleted, although it does show up on the page. I'm also not sure why '[discussion]' appears in brackets.

This currently appears at Talk:Homosexuality in English football. I'm not sure if this is relevant, or why this would cause a problem with the permalink, but the RM took place on another page, Talk:Homosexuality in basketball. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae: Regarding the discussion link in brackets, I think you're supposed to use Special:Permalink in |link=, as shown in the template's documentation. That is, Special:PermanentLink/<number>. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I have clarified the documentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for doing that. Could you also change that in the Parameters section, specifically the line containing |link1=, |link2=, |link3=? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The documentation update is helpful. I get confused by the similar parameters |link= and |page= on the related templates {{Old moves}}, {{Old RfD}}, and {{Old XfD multi}}. On {{Old XfD multi}} (which I update more frequently) the |link= parameters are the full URL, which is what I was expecting here. On {{Old RfD}} and {{Old XfD multi}}, |page= accepts the normal Wikilink format (or defaults to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME on Old Xfd multi). {{Old RfD}} has an additional parameter |rawlink= which accepts the full URL. The description of |rawlink= is sorta buried in the documentation. I understand that RMs and each XFD venue have their own particular setups and considerations but I wonder if more consistency would help other editors. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I have added "using Special:PermanentLink" to |link1=, |link2=, |link3=.. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Aha, that fixed both problems. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

How to make/display section links with {{for}} template?

While reading Image sensor format (previous edit, not the current one), I stumbled on a broken {{for}} link at the top of the page, tagged like this:

{{For|a quick understanding of numbers like 1/2.3"|#Table of sensor formats and sizes}}

So the idea is to direct readers to a table further down the same page. It displays correctly (well intuitively), as:

For a quick understanding of numbers like 1/2.3", see § Table of sensor formats and sizes.

but links incorrectly back to the top-level Wikipedia home page.

I have changed the markup to this, so the link now functions correctly (takes the reader to the right place):

{{For|a quick understanding of numbers like 1/2.3"|Image sensor format#Table of sensor formats and sizes}}

However, the displayed link now includes the name of the page that we're actually on, which might be confusing:

For a quick understanding of numbers like 1/2.3", see Image sensor format § Table of sensor formats and sizes.

IMHO, this clumsy {{For}}> hatnote is a kludge workaround where the real solution is a properly structured article that introduces the topic simply to begin with. However, forgetting that entirely, as a temporary fix, is there a better way to do the {{For}}> markup so it doesn't display the name of the page we're on and correctly links to the table further down?

Thanks for any tips. 45154james (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@45154james: The whole thing should be removed. Why pick out a very specific bit of information, and what has a random fraction got to do with this article's subject?

On a more general note, the table of contents is where the article's sections are listed. The site's search for "1/2.5” sends me to Aspect ratio (image), which might benefit from the hatnote you describe. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

With respect, I left it because it seemed to me to be serving a useful purpose, albeit imperfectly. "Why pick out a very specific bit of information, and what has a random fraction got to do with this article's subject?" Simply, I'd guess, because most "naive" people probably go to that article for the same reason I went: to learn what a very commonly cited but very opaque optical sensor measurement such as 1/2.5" actually means. The hatnote served that purpose: it sent you straight to the relevant part of the article. That the article itself is an inefficient explanation for people seeking an answer to that question is another matter. I don't have time/knowledge enough to rewrite it and it may well (in all probability) never be rewritten. So I'd gone for what I saw as the lesser evil - kludging the kludge rather than fixing the article. Removing the offending hatnote is easy, but ignores the question of why it might have been put there; it just means readers of the article will now have to work harder to find what they want. 45154james (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

{{for}} and other hatnotes are only for links to other articles to help readers who reached the wrong article. If the section is really that important to readers then it can be linked in the opening paragraph with {{section link}}, e.g. "See § Table of sensor formats and sizes for specific formats." The "§" hints that it's on the viewed page. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you PrimeHunter. That's most helpful and appreciated. The real answer is to sort out the article, of course! :) 45154james (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Tulle

Hi, a user who answered at Talk:Tulle#Requested move 15 August 2026 forgot to sign his comment; could someone add the signature? Thanks in advance. ~2026-44999-83 (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. I use {{Unsigned}}, which makes it really easy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: That's useful. Thanks. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Suspicious edits to mayoral election candidates

Hi, the two main mayoral election candidates in Ottawa (Mark Sutcliffe and Jeff Leiper) have had their pages edited on the same day (2 May 2026) by two temporary accounts, with the edits clearly designed to paint one of the candidates (Jeff Leiper) as an unhinged leftist (Bike lanes! Drug injection sites! Tax hikes!) while at the same time sanitising Sutcliffe's page.

Is this considered vandalism? Does it deserve correcting, and if so how should it be done? GEmualliuG (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It is absolutely not vandalism by Wikipedia standards, because vandalism is defined here as intending only to disrupt or destroy, not when intending to change the content to different content. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. To put it differently, is it an allowed behaviour? If not, how should it be corrected? GEmualliuG (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You might be looking for the term Tendentious editing. But we shouldn't go out accusing people lightly, but rather Assume good faith. The best way to address this is to simply stick to the content and to the policies, in this case especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and its section called WP:DUE. Look at each individual change. Is this constructive? Yes? Good! No? Fix it! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Creating an article - interviewing for sources?

Hi, I am involved with climate activism in northern CA and I know two people who I feel have significantly contributed to the region's history without much info about them online. But in looking it up I see that it's discouraged to write about subjects you have a connection to. I'm wondering what the best thing to do here is, and if it might be not doing a wiki page at all and instead interviewing these people as a source that someone else might use. If so, does anyone have advice on where to share these interviews? Would they be considered firsthand sources and thus also not helpful to make a wiki page?

The existing articles I could find connected to their work are Grove of Old Trees and Redwood Summer. ~2026-45240-59 (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-45240-59. Unless it can be demonstrated that the two people in question clearly meet Wikipedia:Notability (Wikipedia:Notability (people), any attempt to create a Wikipedia article about them is going to most likely end in failure. There are lots or people and organizations out in the real world that are doing or have done some pretty great and WP:NOBLE things, but they need to meet clearly Wikipedia's notability guidelines for any article created about them to have a chance of surving a deletion request.

As for sources considered reliable by Wikipedia, as long as the source is published and reasonably accessible, it doesn't necessary need to be online; online sources, of course, tend to be much easier for others to verify but "being online" isn't a requirement per se. WP:INTERVIEWS, though, for the most part are considered to be WP:PRIMARY sources; an interview can sometimes be cited as a reliable source for certain types of article content, but interviews, in general, don't really help establish a subject's Wikipedia notability. In addition, the reliablity of the interview often depends on who conducted it and whether they did their due dligence and provided some form of editorial control as explained in WP:NEWSBLOG. An interview conducted by an established journalist who is considered to be a content expert with a good reputation of editorial control and fact^checking is going to be considered more reliable by Wikipedia than an interview conducted by some unknown person without any type of track record regardless of how accurate/true the content of the interview might be. Please understand I'm not trying to imply that you're the latter type of interviewer, just providing some general information on what Wikipedia tends to look for when it comes to interviews. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Basically, to get them onto Wikipedia, you would need to show an already-published biography written in an independent reliable source ("independent" meaning "not associated with them, and without their help"). What they say about themselves won't get accepted, even if they say it to a third party. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Request for Review of Amina Melikova’s Wikipedia Article

 Courtesy link: Draft:Amina Melikova

Hello. I am writing regarding the Wikipedia article we have prepared about Amina Melikova.

After creating the article, we received a notification on July 17 asking us to make some revisions and add additional sources. We followed the recommendations, revised the article, added reliable and independent sources, and resubmitted it for review.

However, it has now been more than a month since the resubmission, and we have not yet received any further feedback or a decision.

Amina Melikova is a museum director, curator of international exhibitions, and author of several publications. There are a number of independent sources documenting her professional activities, and relevant references have been added to the article.

We would kindly ask you to review the article when possible and let us know if any further revisions or additional sources are required.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Kaktu23 (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Who is "we"? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kaktu23! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for both your post and your contributions. I understand you're here to ask that your AfC submission be reviewed more speedily, but I want to note at the outset that there's no centralized body of editors at AfC or any other place on this platform. Rather, we're comprised solely of volunteers who decide for themselves what to work on and at which points in time. I also want to note that this is the help desk, a place for users to ask questions about using or editing Wikipedia. It's not quite the place to ask for a response to a request you've made for a specific article. For your information, there's a help desk reserved for asking questions related to AfC in a subpage of the project.

But to provide a response, if I may, I'd like to explain how AfC actually works so there's no misunderstanding there. Because of the risk of giving very new, to wit, very inexperienced editors the ability to create articles, a WikiProject had been created to facilitate the peer review of articles such editors seek to create, that WikiProject being WikiProject Articles for creation. You typically submit a prospective article using the Article wizard, it gets placed in a feed among hundreds of other articles, and you wait until it receives feedback. Because of the volunteer nature of the project, as well as the massive backlog those volunteers seek to cut through, it's common for editors to be forced to wait over a month to receive that feedback. This is a normal and natural part of AfC, and though it's understandably frustrating, to my knowledge, there's not much you can do but to wait that time.

In the meantime, you may wish to review our content policies and notability guidelines for the greatest chance of success once your submission finally does get reviewed. Make sure that every contentious claim made in the article is supported by an inline citation to an independent, published, and reliable source, as per our verifiability policy; that the article doesn't unduly highlight any particularly positive or negative aspect of Melikova's life, as per our neutrality policy; that all of the claims made in the article can be directly supported by those reliable sources, as per our policy on original research; and that you abide by those policies strictly and without latitude, as per our policy on biographies of living persons. Make sure that you only use images that hold an appropriate license or are under an acceptable fair use claim and that you avoid plagiarism or close-paraphrasing of your sources, as per our copyright policy, including our image-use and non-free content policies. And make sure that Melikova would actually meet our notability guidelines for people, which involves—with some edge cases—receiving significant coverage in multiple high-quality sources. As always, reach out again if you need any help or clarification with this. All the best! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

You may need to WP:BOSS and WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Do note that the box at the top of your submission says "This may take 2 months or more". LittlePuppers (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

(Currently) misleading redirect

I have posted a message at Talk:Terrel Williams. The redirect leads to a american football coach named Terrell Williams, at least currently a boxer or former boxer named Terrel Williams is subject of newspapers. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Himbeerbläuling. I wouldn't say that redirect is misleading; most likely it was created because of the similarity in the spelling of "Terrel" and "Terrell". Redirects are often created when a spelling error is anticipated, particularly for names. Whether the boxer "Terrel Williams" is Wikipedia notable for a stand-alone article per WP:NBOX is something that might be worth looking into. You can ask about this at WT:BOXING. If it turns out that Terrel Williams meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then a article about them can be created using their name, and the two articles distinguished from each other by either a WP:HATNOTE for just the two articles or by creating a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page if more Wikipedia notable Terrel/Terrell Williams are found to exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

What, if we can anticipate that for many readers the article they are seeing is not the one they are looking for, but the article they are looking for does not exist? In this case, the effect arises for readers who were redirected. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

To bump in: good q, but I've never seen a hatnote disambiguating between the bio subject and another person who has no content on WP (dunno if there's consensus against this or just hasn't been done before). But if there's bound to be sustained reader interest, and the missing-on-WP person does not meet notability guidelines, then relevant content might still be DUE in another article? in which case we could add an anchor and make a {{r from person}} to that content, and then add a dab hatnote at Terrel Williams, if that makes sense? - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

PrimeHunter has changed the target of the redirect at Terrel Williams. TSventon (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I saw that daily hits on Terrel Williams increased from 0 to 384 after the death of Prichard Colón where he is mentioned. I have never seen a case where literally every reader was sent to the wrong article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hits on the football coach Terrell Williams grew from 76 to 21,450 so around 99.7% got the wrong article. I have added a hatnote there. The article was also getting bad edits calling him a killer because of the boxer. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Avril Cherasard

Avril Cherasard

Please merge the page history back to the original creator, User:Randomguy73, as I did not create this page. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 13:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, Wawan Kurniawan merged into User:Genrifinaldy. This happened because the user removed the speedy-deletion tag and re-added the content without submitting it through AfC. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 14:36, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I may be wrong on both of these points, but I think the request you're making is based on the fact that these articles are ... well ... that they're not your fault; and because of that situation you don't want them counted as yours.

But I think these things have already been taken into account by the way article histories normally work - that it's already perfectly clear you're not to blame, and merging isn't necessary. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

It was showing up in my Article Creation XTool, which is why I requested that the histories be merged. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 16:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

How do we resolve conflicting information between two different versions of Wikipedia?

I raised a matter on the talk page of an article this morning, concerning the late French Singer Claude François. Both the English and French articles differ in their listing of his death; The English version cites his death as being from an Electric Shock, whilst the French version cites it as being from a Pulmonary Edema as a result of the Electric Shock.

Is there any way that our article can be verified as correct or otherwise, by discussing the matter with the French Wikipedia, or do we presume that our article is correct, based upon the sources we have listed with it? Is there scope for editors to search and find sources which differ from our own, and state the other injury as cause of death?

In my mind, I believe that articles should at least have the same basic information across all versions where they're listed.

What are your thoughts on this, please?

Dane|Geld 13:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi DaneGeld, the general answer is that different Wikipedias are independent projects with their own rules, and written by volunteers with their own interests, so the information in articles on the same subject in different languages may or may not be the same.

If you find an error in one Wikipedia, you can fix it in other Wikipedias, if you know the language well enough, or contact a help desk to let them know. Obviously some "facts" are disputed and likely to be presented differently in different languages.

This case seems to involve a more detailed account in fr Wikipedia than en Wikipedia, rather than a contradiction. If you can check the French source, and it is reliable, you could add the extra detail. TSventon (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

One other simple but useful way of looking at it: forget both versions of the article, and examine the sources. This could be both to judge (i.e. which sources are better in which ways), and to develop a strategy to use what's available to make good articles.

Regional items (for example an article on a food that's much less well known elsewhere) might justifiably tell things differently sometimes, I don't know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you read two reliable sources that are in conflict, then put both versions into the article and note the conflict. We do not claim to be able to evaluate which is true. -Arch dude (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I have added the second source noting the Pulmonary Edema into the article, correctly referenced and cited from Paris Match. I think this should be sufficient, but I'll watch for notes or messages from other editors. Thanks for your help. Dane|Geld 23:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

2021–22 NHL season

 Courtesy link: 2021–22 NHL season

The page looks messed up......look at the teams list ~2026-45408-87 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Which exact part of the article? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Upwork

I just found out that on upwork people pay Wikipedians to write certain articles, and that this is seemingly allowed on Wikipedia (as long as you disclose and still follow the rules). One user even said they routinely got $150 an hour for that , which is insane, especially for someone like me who has been doing this all for free.

Is this really true? Because I've heard the saying: "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." and this honestly sounds way too good to be true. Also, if you do use it, is there a way to still remain anonymous and ensure that your wikipedia account doesn't get linked with your real life?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The editor who made the post you link to does indeed say that, before retirement, they earned $150 an hour.

They do not say they earned it editing Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

If I was giving career advice, 'paid Wikipedia editor' wouldn't seem an obvious choice if you were looking for long-term job security. Unless you have specialist knowledge, you will be competing with people from economies where wage rates are low, and if you do have specialist knowledge you will probably earn more putting it to use elsewhere. As for anonymity, that'd be down to how careful you are, and how much attention you attract, just as with doing anything else on the internet. AndyTheGrump (talk)

'paid Wikipedia editor' wouldn't seem an obvious choice if you were looking for long-term job security. Okay sure, but still, if you're already doing it for free, isn't it better to get paid to do pretty much the same stuff? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Both free and paid work are editing, but not "pretty much the same stuff". Volunteer editors choose what to edit. Paid editors do what their sponsors tell them to do, and often face dilemmas when that conflicts with Wikipedia's norms. It's like the difference between driving for pleasure in the countryside and taking a job delivering parcels. Certes (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Will Wikipedia have a 30th-anniversary mascot?

I was wondering today on if Wikipedia would have a mascot for the 30th anniversary of the website? Like we know that we have a birthday mascot of the 25th anniversary of Wikipedia, but will we even have a new mascot for the 30th anniversary? Who knows if we will have a 30th anniversary mascot in 2031, which is less than 5 years from now. For now its uncertain. - Wikipedian2025 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

A lot can happen before then. Probably best to leave such questions for a few more years yet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, might ask that question again in 2030, which would be ~1 year before the 30th anniversary of Wikipedia Wikipedian2025 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw, I too would like a cute mascot for the 30th :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Check on creation of Wiki Page

We hired a company to create a Wiki Page for our company called "Tradier Inc" - back in December we gave the go ahead to publish the articles we had ready and to submit for review to Wiki. It's now 8 months later and we keep being told "it's still in review". I want to ask if we can check or get confirmation that we are "in the system" at all or where we might be in the queue if we exist?

Thanks ~2026-45350-39 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I can find no evidence for such a page ever existing anywhere on Wikipedia. It seems possible you have been scammed. And please note we do not host content for companies. We may, if a company meets the requisite criteria, have an article about it, but said company will haver no control over the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The company you hired has no connection with Wikipedia, and unfortunately this sounds like a scam. Wikipedia editors create articles free of charge, but only about notable companies and other topics. The normal place for an article under development would be Draft:Tradier. That page did exist once but was deleted on 15 March 2018 because it had remained in draft for six months without being edited. We now have no page with that or any similar title. Certes (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the way to spot a Wikipedia scam is "money is involved". Wikipedia has no way of processing transactions, no facilities for paid editing other than trying to police its misuse, and especially no article queue. (Articles awaiting review have no precedence or sequence, but languish in an indiscriminate pile until a volunteer chooses one.)

Most articles composed with the participation of the subject - whether a company or an individual - end up being declined for reasons of bias, or having a promotional purpose, or use of information that's connected with the subject, or all of the above. Having to un-know your knowledge, ignore your own best interests, and write only what an outsider can discover from third-party publications, is hard. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

If you still have the conversations with the person you communicated with, please send them to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit summary blanking

Is there a place where I can request the blanking of an edit summary? NP (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@NP2026: See WP:REVDELREQUEST. If it's not sensitive then you can post the diff here but it may draw unwanted attention before something is done. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd rather not post the request here for privacy reasons. Thanks for the help NP (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I did something that might be what you are thinking, but I'm not sure if something else should also be done. It doesn't look like you have enabled email, though, so I will refrain from saying anything further in public. Please check...happy to do more but would obviously rather keep comments about it off-wiki. DMacks (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised you were able to find it so easily. Thanks for the help! NP (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! DMacks (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

How can I add my bio to Wikipedia

my name is Elaine Elle Espinosa if you google my full name you will know my bio..I'm in Marquis Who's Who and won 2 lifetime recognition awards and recognitions by others I would like to know how can I be part of Wikipedia? Elaine Elle Espinosa (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read the autobiography policy. The short answer is- don't. The best thing that you can do is go on about your life as if you had never heard of Wikipedia and allow independent editors to take note of you and your career as described in independent reliable sources and write about you themselves. Very, very few people succeed in writing about themselves(either directly or via a representative) here and it will likely just waste your own valuable time for you to attempt it, 331dot (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Also know that an article is not necessarily something to desire. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I googled your full name, and I found nothing worth reading; I only found things written by you (or people close to you), and lots of excited announcements.

Here's an extreme example: if I google Albert Einstein, of course I find some silly garbage, but I also find 10 or more large serious books about him.

Nobody thinks you should be Einstein, but Wikipedia won't write about you until there are some large serious histories written about you in major reliable publications, where there's no representation or help from you. It doesn't have to be many thousands of pages like for Einstein, but it can't be interviews, it can't be publicity or announcing anything, and it can't include social media. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:53, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

.Too many fingers your opinion is useless to me next to your own bio ~2026-45445-27 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The opinion I gave there is very useful to you, and there's no Wikipedia article about me either. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Sanitized CSS help

Hello. I created a little script that gives my userpage a hacking in movies-esque background. Is there any way I could get someone with the correct permissions to use Special:ChangeContentModel and set it to Sanitized CSS so that other users can see it as well? Just wondering. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ilov3gam3z: That sounds like a poor use of your common.css. If you create a css page in the template namespace, e.g. using Template:TemplateStyles sandbox, then it automatically gets Sanitized CSS and keeps it if you move it to your userspace. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I will do. Thank you. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I just did that but it does not work for some reason. I made it in the Template:TemplateStyles sandbox pseudo-space, and moved it to here but it does not show on my userpage, even though no code is changed or anything. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

You have to add to User:Ilov3gam3z. You would also have needed that for common.css if you wanted others to see it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Wait, nvm. I must be dumb or something. I added it to my page (see this diff) but for some reason it still does not appear on my screen. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Ignore this comment, I figured it out. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

How to remove the promotional content on an article?

Hello, im currently thinking about removing promotional content in the article about Zig (programming language), like what are the signs on some article containing promotional content? - Wikipedian2025 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

One oversimplified hint: pretend you're reading a history textbook, and find the parts that don't seem to fit in that kind of book.

Another oversimplified hint: the word "offer" or anything slightly similar (like in "the company offers ...", not like in "he accepted the offer") probably means that sentence is promotional.

Good parts of the article often focus on "what important events happened". Promotional parts often focus on "why are they good" or "what can I expect to get".

None of those points are absolute. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. - Wikipedian2025 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Make your editing as obvious as the promotional content is. If it's maybe sort of promotional, then maybe sort of edit. If it's hugely obviously promotional everywhere, then slash slash slash. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

How to close AFD'S

I recently learned how to nominate article for deletion with the help of some experienced editors here, and I've been getting more familiar with the process. I noticed that after a week, discussions reach a consensus and an editor closes the board to further comments. I'd love to learn and would greatly appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction or guide me on how to start, Staticspector (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Staticspector, see WP:XFDCLOSE. Closing discussions is usually done by administrators, but in some cases can be done by experienced users in good standing; I don't know if there are strict criteria. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@LittlePuppers I will be reviewing this I appreciate the guidance. Thank you Staticspector (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

What do I do…?

I hope this isn’t a weird question to ask, but frankly I have no idea of where else to go. I was emailed, and it asked me about editing histories related to topics about the UN, by the user UN-on-Wiki. They claim they are a journalist, and I refuse to do anything related to this before getting some advice. I have tried reaching out to them on their talk page. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)(rights) 21:07, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you very sure that that user exists? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:16, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The account was created today. Clicking the link below gives a different message from clicking on This user really doesn't exist (and Popups gives a different hover message too). Certes (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: UN-on-WIKI.

What sorts of questions? LittlePuppers (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

First 3 Paragraphs: “I’m a journalist working on a story about the editing histories of Wikipedia pages belonging to candidates in the current race for United Nations Secretary-General.

As part of that reporting, I’m reviewing significant edits and disputes across several candidates’ pages. I’m hoping to better understand how editors approach these biographies, particularly when questions arise around sourcing, neutrality, weight and biographies of living people.

Would you be willing to answer a few questions on how you assessed the material you edited, and your understanding of the discussion among editors? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)(rights) 21:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I would say, if you don't want to email an unknown person, don't email them. TSventon (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

That first paragraph had said "I'm a journalist working on a story about ... Wikipedia pages belonging to candidates...". To me, that's a red flag, prompting caution. Wikipedia does not have "pages belonging to [anyone]". Wikipedia has "neutral articles about..." not "probably-biased pages belonging to...". Be cautious about engaging this supposed "journalist" further. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

For me, the red flag is that the person is completely unknown. I would be less concerned about how much or little they know about Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

The best rule of thumb is not to reply to emails from any Wikipedia account that cold-emails you. That email seems designed more to harvest your email address than anything (Wikipedia email addresses are normally not visible to the sender; only the fact you have one is.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 01:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

While I share the suspicion, I'm not sure that this is a red flag. What precisely Wikipedia is appears to be widely misunderstood by non-Wikipedians. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi TheClocksAlwaysTurn. My suggestion to you is to do the same thing you always do when receiving unsolicited (somewhat suspicious) emails; the fact that the email is related to Wikipedia shouldn't really matter any more than if it was an email from your local bank. You reached out to them on their user talk page. If they respond there to your satisfaction, then decide whether you want to engage further with them. If they don't respond, then just move on. If you start noticing messages similar to yours showing up on their user talk page or start receiving more emails from the account, then most likely they're someone who is WP:NOTHERE; you can then bring the account to attention of some Wikipedia administrator, who will appropriately deal with it. Another suggestion (if you're worried about more of this type of thing ocurring moving forward) is to create an email address solely for Wikipedia (if you haen't already done so) and only use it for that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2026 (UTC)