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!
• 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!

Watchlist

Dear all,
until a few days ago my watchlist showed entries first with a time period less than permanent, sorted by remaining days, and then the permanently watched pages in alphabetical order. Now it's alphabetical order only, the non-permanently watched pages are sorted in. How can I cange that back?
Thanks and kind regards, Grueslayer 07:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Grueslayer, that appears to have been changed for performance reasons. I don't think you can change it back. Rummskartoffel 11:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Rummskartoffel. It's a bit weird that the display scheme was changed without notice, and it's sad that an established feature is scrapped because of a handfull people with 10.000+ articles on their watchlist. But c'est la vie. Kind regards, Grueslayer 08:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Being able to order my watchlist by remaining days is fundamental to the way I use it, allowing me to keep it to manageable proportions by viewing what is next scheduled to drop off and assessing whether to retain it for a bit longer. Not being able to do this is certainly going to become a "performance reason" thwarting my efforts. I can only imagine this is a commonplace way of working that will hamper many other users. And I'm curious to know how people with thousands of pages on a watchlist can monitor them effectively. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Grueslayer and Mutt Lunker: As Rumskartoffel notes, this change was made for performance reasons. Can you elaborate a little on how you used this sorting? I can pass that on to the team who worked on this to see if we can do something to solve your issues. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. For each page on my watchlist I make a judgement as to how long I wish to watch it for/think it requires scrutiny, setting the time period accordingly. When the list was ordered chronologically, starting at the top I could easily see which pages I had adjudged would be next to no longer require my scrutiny and either leave the page to drop off by the period I had set, extend the time period or remove it early, if I thought it already no longer need be there. This allows me to keep the list in more manageable numbers by prompting me which are least likely to be worth retaining. Now that the list is alphabetical, I have to check it in its entirety to see what is about to drop off, with the risk that I will lose some that I would reassess as requiring attention for longer, or missing out on those that could be sifted out early. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, if the performance issues are only suffered by a small minority with surely excessive and unmanageable watchlists, it isn't worth the consequences. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The performance issues are slow database queries which, alas, slow down a wiki for all logged-in users and not just people who have very large watchlists CParle (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Thanks. I have all articles I started and those where I'm the main author on permanent watch, all others where I participated something on limited watch. It's fine if they disappear from my watch list after the selected time, but the sort-by-date function works as an "exit" function for me: If I see an article on top of my watch list (because there's only a few days left) I either try to remember if there's anything "new" to add to the article, or in case it's an article where changes are common (e.g. a band, a football player, a political entity) I briefly look up if anything has changed in the past months. If not → the article can go from my watchlist. If yes → the information goes into the article. Without the sorting scheme I can just put articles on a 1 week watch to see if someone's objecting to my change, but changes after 6 months or so are not gonna happen any more from my side. Kind regards, Grueslayer 15:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Just confirming that Grueslayer and myself are fundamentally doing the same thing. I'm sure this usage was widespread with users and the change to enforced alphabetical order renders it barely feasible. We won't be able to exercise the same level of scrutiny any more, without considerably more time, effort and risk of missing things. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Add me to the list of editors who were using the Special:EditWatchlist page in similar ways. In fact, your description practically mirrors how I was using the list before the change. Beyond this performance change, they introduced pagination and namespace filtering, which isn't working quite right (as I've noted in the phab ticket). Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks folks, this is really helpful. I'll take this back to the Community Tech team and we'll see if we can find a way to get you this functionality back. Just a note that pagination hasn't fully rolled out yet, we're testing it pending a full rollout. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 to everyone commenting here, I have been doing essentially the same thing. I'm now doing this manually by ctrl+f'ing and searching "few hours" "2 days" and so on. It's way more tedious and confusing. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 11:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Chief. (My watchlist peaked at 18511.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

FYI I created this wish https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist/W454 for re-implementing sort-by-expiry, just so we can get some idea of how important it is to people. As it says in the wish we can't re-enable sort-by-expiry as it was because the queries were just too slow, but we might be able to figure out some alternative way of doing it instead

If it's important to you (or to anyone you know), please support the wish! CParle (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks CParle (WMF)! @StefenTower and Sarsenet: Please take note. Kind regards, Grueslayer 15:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Grueslayer, Mutt_Lunker, StefenTower I wrote a userscript to reorder that may help you - See: User:KylieTastic/EditWatchlistByExpiry. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @KylieTastic, looks like watchlist pagination being fully rolled out has broken the script on my end. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 15:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Sarsenet: What happens (with the script on) if you change the pagination view from "first 50" to "first 500"? For me it shows the list as intended then! Still hadda try out more, but it looks like KylieTastic saved the day!! Kind regards, Grueslayer 15:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Grueslayer ah yes, it does work! I currently have 1,177 on my watchlist (not sure of the specific namespace breakdown). Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 01:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Oh I had not seen that go live. It still orders what is shown so by default 100 items, so will still work if you have no more than 500 per namespace and select those options. What a pain. KylieTastic (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Also I just checked and it's not just hidden data on the client side so for those with more than 500 per namespace there is nothing I can do - sorry. KylieTastic (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  True. Damn. But it was well worth the try! Thanks for that! Kind regards, Grueslayer 16:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  All is not lost. I watch less than 1,000 (currently) and your script works for the entries listed on each of two pages. That is still useful. Thank you! Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  It appears to work for me. For what it's worth, when about to publish the script, I was given a warning not to, saying it contained errors but I went ahead anyway. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Template/category to a match-case restriction to link suggestions linking to a page

I'm looking for something I can add to pages like The C Programming Language to prevent them from showing up when doing a suggested link edit especially because in the case of things like The C Programming Language, it prevents the article that actually should be suggested which is C (programming language). Apersoma (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Apersoma: I don't think that is possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Apersoma there's a template or category or something that turns it off; I'll see if I can find it again. Mathglot (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Apersoma (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Has it not been found yet? Simanelix (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

electric kool-aid acid test: Help

I'm looking at the page for Tom Wolfe's book The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. There are a couple sentences on the page that I don't unnderstand, or can't find the source for. Here are the lines: "The failed meeting with Leary marks a greater failure to unite the counterculture from East to West coasts. This becomes one of the turning points in the book, indicating that the new generation of “hippies” had officially outpaced the old Beat Generation in style and philosophy." A source only appears well below it as: "Fremont, "Books of the Times." The source doesn't make sense to me, and I can't locate it by searching anywhere. And I'm wondering if it's correct. Can you help? Thanks. 174.91.206.74 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, the sentences you quote are part of the "plot" section of the article, also known as the plot summary. The plot summary should be based on the book, Tom Wolfe's The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, so it doesn't have to have citation footnotes. If you have more questions about those sentences, you could ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. TSventon (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

So the text actually appeared in with the article? Where is the "plot section"? Because it isn't in the article itself... 2607:FA49:5845:2400:99C2:609C:F149:9160 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't really understand how to use that help desk? It seems to refer my back to this message board... The issue is that I don't see the text in the body of the article... 2607:FA49:5845:2400:C13:2940:66E1:BB70 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. This is not a plot summary issue, this is what a reviewer said about the book. When the original proquest link stopped working someone just removed the url, but didn't look for the actual location of the New York Times book review. I've updated the reference. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: the sentences quoted are in the "plot" section of the article. It is very possible that they are based on a review, rather than the book itself. TSventon (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

But I don't see the text in the article/review...? 2607:FA49:5845:2400:99C2:609C:F149:9160 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Re: Donation Requests at the Top of the Page

This is not a question... more of an existential crisis, really. I've caved and donated money I don't actually have to Wiki more than a few times, but I guess I just want anyone to know that the $1-5 donation range has a significant % of people who are already forgoing food to keep the lights on... or keep the gas tank full so they can run the heater periodically during the wintertime. Neither circumstance is foreign to me. I grew up in an environment that warned me to be wary of Wikipedia, because nothing here is a real source. I was told to trust the bookshelves of my tiny, failing confederacy of 3 towns in the least populated state in what we currently call the United States of America. When I got into a very prestigious college on scholarship, one of my classmates looked up my hometown on Google maps and said "you're joking, right? Your public library looks like a public toilet!" I've always been poor. I thought learning and working to lift communities would change my circumstances. I don't know when I stopped actually believing that, but I still desperately want it to be true. I've never had expendable income... a discretionary budget? Whatever it's called. I can tell you that the $3.10 I just donated is a single bag of lentils and 2/5 of a bag of rice, which is what I've been eating almost exclusively for months. I don't want to ask why Wikipedia continues to plead for help, because I want to plead for help but I stopped believing that would amount to anything a long time ago too. I don't want to ask why this is necessary, because I know... I want to ask why 4 days worth of calories are my contribution to an attempt to keep historical accuracy alive, and why 1/10 of that was a transaction fee. I want to ask the future if they see me, because I don't have much faith that even a 51% majority of the knowledge this platform was designed to preserve will survive this wave of windmill-shaped anti-intellectualism ... and I'm much more certain I won't. I hope some aspect of what I've existed as and worked for survives, even if I don't. What are we even doing anymore? PedestrianBlueSocks (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @PedestrianBlueSocks.

I'm sorry for your crisis. I think many people are in a similar position at present.

Please be assured that, while Wikipedia invites donations from those who are able and willing to support it, there is absolutely no requirement or expectation on anybody to do so - and at present, the Wikimedia Foundation is not in any great need of financial support.

The facilities are provided free to anybody, and no donation is required.

Now that you have an account, you have the ability to turn off the banners soliciting donations, at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners, so that you won't see them any more. ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to donate money. The regular editors here have donated hundreds or thousands of hours of their personal time to Wikipedia, time out of their life that they won't get back, and that has value too. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Editor with persistent lack of sources

By accident I've discovered an editor who has a years-long history of nearly a thousand additions to Wikipedia, many of which are unsourced or inaccurately-sourced. (The inaccurately-sourced items are often ones in which the material must be from some other source, since it's not in the cited one.) Substantially all of the person's edits are the same kind, adding the same type of incorrectly-sourced information to the same narrow category of articles. The information itself all seems likely to be true, we just don't know where it came from.

What do I say or do in such a case? TooManyFingers (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @TooManyFingers.

The first step is to engage with the editor. They may not know they're doing anything wrong. Are there already messages about it on their talk page? If so, have they responded to any? (It may be a case of WP:CANTHEARUS rathen than WP:ICANTHEARYOU).

If they have been warned repeatedly, and either don't appear to be aware of this, or are aware but continuing the behaviour, then WP:ANI is the place. Read the rubric at the top of that page before posting there. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I discovered the long history after two new such instances happened in the past couple of days, which I did leave messages about on their talk page. They've maybe not had time to respond to those yet. I haven't yet mentioned "Oh, by the way, it seems you've also done this nine hundred times in the past", which to me seems like the difficult part, and is why I came here. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

One of my talk page messages was actually more general in nature, saying it's necessary to cite the source of everything you add. But my messages are mere hours old, so of course there's no response yet. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If it has been going on for years, then WP:AN not WP:AN/I, I would say; but first stop is the editor's talk page. Another approach (not an either-or) is to pick one or two of the most recent ones, find a paragraph or two in each one that is unsourced and remove them, with an edit summary mentioning 'unsourced', and linking WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:INCITE, with explanation in the edit summary solely about the article in question in each case. Mathglot (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I began by using your "Another approach ..." method, but I didn't link the appropriate pages for them to read. I think I'll see what the person says, give them the links to the information, and see how it turns out; if they don't respond by beginning to remedy the problem, then I'll take your first advice. It is 5-6 years and nearing a thousand additions, but they haven't done anything that will be so difficult to repair, and seem to have caused no real serious damage (unless it's all copyvio). TooManyFingers (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I see now (on the editor's own talk page) that they were gently alerted two years ago about their habit of unsourced additions, and that on the same day (14 July 2023) the editor asked at the Teahouse "why was one of my edits reverted". They were told the reason, and what they needed to do about it. They didn't try to reinstate the reverted edit at all. Over the next few days they made a few edits with sources properly cited, and then there's a gap of several months. When they returned in 2024, it was back to no sources. My personal impression is that this is a basically reasonable person but who thinks proper sourcing doesn't apply to them or doesn't matter.

They seem to have not been back since I messaged them. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Dendera light – adding photos

Dendera light

This article currently contains only one photograph of a very small section of a crypt wall. I have two panorama photos of two long sections of a crypt wall, showing complete scenes. But I don't know how to add these to the existing article.

Could someone please either: (a) explain in minute detail how to do this, or (b) add them to the article if I e-mail them to some nominated eddress?

Thanks, Daniel DanielFFF (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

These panorama photos - are you the photographer yourself? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@DanielFFF (I only ask that question because if you personally took the pictures, then you own the rights to them and the process is therefore a bit simpler.) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@DanielFFF If indeed you were the photographer, then there are two basic steps. 1) Upload the file(s) at c:Special:UploadWizard, which adds them to the repository at our sister Project, Wikimedia Commons. Then 2) follow the steps at Help:Pictures to incorporate them into the article. Thanks for the suggestion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

IJN Hatsuyuki and Shortland Island

Possible link between the IJN Hatsuyuki page and Shortland Island page. What do I do?

Hi! I'm a new-ish Wikipedia member, only recently joined - but I've been using the site as a reference for my personal projects for years. Anyway, I'm getting off track. I noticed a link between the Shortland Island and IJN Hatsuyuki pages. I've tried asking on the WikiProject:Ships page but it was removed, so I'm asking here. I've already made the needed edits, but if I need to, I will take them down. Thank you so much! Dry Rails and Smooth Running! - J Class (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it wasn't removed. It just didn't get any replies for 21 days so a bot archived it. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

"Presumably" is a serious flag that the information does not belong on Wikipedia. We don't do any presuming, so unless this presumption is literally given in black and white in the sources, it will unfortunately have to be cut. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Just An N&W J Class hoping you see this. The relevant information about this kind of situation is at WP:SYNTH, but mainly the requirement is that editors not point out probabilities we have recognized. We only include probabilities that have already been intentionally pointed out by the authors whose work we're referencing. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you so much for this information - Should I take the edit down? Dry Rails and Smooth Running! - J Class (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Writing a new article on gujarati singers

I’m a blogger and I’d like to publish an article about the Gujarat singers on your platform. It is important because he is the live singers from gujrat had gradually increased in past 4 years Could you please confirm whether I’m allowed to create or contribute a page about a singer here, and whether I must include full citations (with proper sources) for the article? Also, are there any specific guidelines I should follow regarding 'blog posts' vs encyclopedia style entries on Thanks!” Suwaatche (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Suwaatche, and welcome. You are allowed to, but I would discourage you from attempting it until you become more familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I you decide to move forward anyway, please follow the step-by-step instructions at Help:Your first article carefully, paying particular attention to the question of WP:Notability of the topic, and the use of WP:Reliable sources to establish the WP:Verifiability of the content you wish to add. Also, please read WP:COI and declare any connection you have with this singing group. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

When singers become well-known, reporters from major publications want to write featured stories about them.

Singers who are not so well-known must get into an interview first, or else the reporters might ignore them.

Wikipedia has articles about the kind of singers who are the subject of featured stories, but not interested in the kind of singers who need an interview or a press release to get themselves noticed. Being able to show that a singer is the subject of many featured stories is therefore the best thing you can do. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

For clarity, interviews, as primary sources (e.g. the subject talking about themselves) do not count towards notability, as Wikipedia defines it. The relevant notability criteria can be found at WP:MUSICBIO. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

As to your last question, we generally don't accept citations to blogs unless the blog is maintained by a notable journalist or scientist in the blogger's professional field of expertise. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Navigation Box Not Visible on Mobile Wiki

Why is Navigation Box Not Visible on Mobile Wikipedia? Palmamazo (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

See Phabricator ticket T124168 for progress on the mobile issue. Moxy🍁 14:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

How should this (potential) problem be handled?

Hi, I was reading Augustan prose and I noticed something I think is a problem. There's a sentence that begins like so: "Montesquieu's 'essais' were available to English authors in the 18th century". The problem is that I'm pretty sure whoever wrote this meant Montaigne, not Montesquieu. I'm by no means an expert, but Montesquieu isn't known for his essays and was writing in the early-to-mid 18th century, whereas Montaigne is overwhelmingly associated with the form and was writing in the 16th century. But what's the right way to handle this problem? I don't know of any inline tags that allow you to write something like "do you mean Montaigne?" Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! 2603:7080:A507:A8E1:B0CA:BA89:DE1C:1C0C (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

If the sentence in question had an inline citation, I would've suggested going and looking what the source says. Seeing as the entire article has literally zero inline citations and is tagged as possible original research, I don't think a cleanup tag for a single sentence is going to help. Rummskartoffel 16:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

IP 2603, good catch. I tagged the article {{unreferenced}}, and started this discussion on the Talk page, linking back here from it. On the one hand, per our WP:Verifiability policy, you are free to challenge or remove any uncited content, but given that this article was created in many years ago in the early days of a now respected senior editor and admin, let's hold off on any mass deletion there until we see how it goes. Otoh, you are free to amend or remove content that you think is incorrect, or at the very least, tag it inline with {{dubious}}, and I would encourage you to do so. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Not with {{dubious}}, that is apparently reserved for sourced material that is nevertheless sketchy; this is unsourced, so not the right tag. Maybe just an inline {{citation needed}}, then. Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Font when editing source text

Something went wrong and the font used when editing source has changed for me. It changed in both Firefox and Chrome to something hard to read. I looked at Help:preferences, and it mentions "Options → Content → "Default font" Advanced " but I don't see that anywhere.

How can I set the font for when eding source? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bubba73 The Wikipedia part is set at the drop-down at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. The browser in use will have further options as described at the Help:Preferences page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see a drop-down there. Where is it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Just below where it says Editor Edit area font style: Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean "Editing"? I have three choices for font there: monospace, serif and non-serif, but they don't make any difference when editing source for an artucle. The font is smaller than it should be and some things are underlined when they shouldn't be. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bubba73: You can try code like this in your CSS:

#wpTextbox1 {font-size:20px;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Did you perhaps accidentally turn on (or off) syntax highlighting? In some skins, it's a pen icon on the toolbar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I accidentally did something, since my screen went wild. It was probably that - I'll see. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, turning on "improved syntax highlighting" gets it closer to the way it was, but the font in the window for editing source is smaller than I like. Is there a way to change that? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bubba73: I just gave you a way to change it. If it doesn't give the wanted result then you can remove the code or try another size. It may affect other text boxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried it and exited out to make sure it loaded. I tried font up to 30 bit it only affects the headings when editing the source. It doesn't affect the other text. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bubba73: Syntax highlighting changes the required code. Try this:

div .mw-editfont-monospace  {font-size:20px;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I replaced the line you gave me previously with that, but it doesn't make any difference. (I tried replacing 20 by 28 to be sure.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that when editing, I want to see plain black text. It is highlighting things in different colors and underlining things. Also, if I start to put link brackets around something, it changes it to blue before I finish. I don't know what setting is causing that. What is it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like you are a person who does not like, and does not want, syntax highlighting.

Have you accidentally switched from "source editing" to "visual editing"? On my screen, that change is controlled by clicking a pencil icon. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't like the syntax highlighting at first, but now I see the benefits of it. The problem is the small size of the font - which is hard to read with my vision. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible that a new font got installed on your machine? Program installations (or updates), as well as system updates, can install a font, and that font can start being used by your browser. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bubba73: There are different syntax highlighters which may interfere with fonts. See WP:HILITE and try to disable any that are active if you prefer plain black text anyway. Then try this which makes different attempts to increase font size and override other font settings:

#wpTextbox1 {font-size:20px !important;}
div .mw-editfont-monospace  {font-size:20px !important;}

If it still fails then what is your browser and what is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Categorization

Is it possible to edit the categorization of a bunch of pictures by one edit? DeVrolijkeSchrijver (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@DeVrolijkeSchrijver: Only if the category is template-generated but there are sometimes faster ways than normal editing. Which change do you want? Be specific with links. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about images here on Wikipedia, or on Wikimedia Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Bug prevents new users creating pages

FYI: There is a bug preventing new users from creating new pages with external links

Per this Phabricator ticket, there is a bug preventing new users from creating new pages which contain external links, due to an issue with CAPTCHA. The user will get no error on clicking Publish page... but it will refresh and nothing will happen.

The workaround is to use the Visual Editor or publish a blank draft and then make edits onto it.

This should be fixed by Monday.

We're seeing quite a few new users report this across various channels, so I thought I'd make an FYI here. qcne (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Not able to get into my account!

I do NOT own another device to get into my account, I can not get logged in!! 70.51.93.169 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Do you see an error message? Did you forget your password? 331dot (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Request help creating draft page - page creation restricted

Hello! I'm trying to create my first article on English Wikipedia about Association Touhou, a Slovenian cultural organization. I've properly disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page. My account can edit existing articles (I just successfully edited Klenovnik Castle), but I cannot create new pages - every attempt just refreshes without saving. I believe my account has page creation restrictions due to having no previous edit history on en.wikipedia. Could an experienced editor please create the draft page Draft:Association Touhou for me? I have the complete article text ready with proper citations and formatting. Once the page is created, I can edit it myself. Alternatively, if there's a way to remove the page creation restriction from my account, that would also work. Thank you for your help! DrustvoTouhouSI (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:AUTOCONFIRM, if your account is four days old and you have made ten edits, you can create a page. Alternatively—and this is probably the best course, considering your WP:COI—you might consider creating a WP:DRAFT and letting more experienced editors evaluate it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@DrustvoTouhouSI: You may have been affected by #Bug prevents new users creating pages but I see you have since created the draft. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I figured it out, worked when i switched to visual editor. Now I'm waiting for the draft to be published :). The bug is only in code mode. DrustvoTouhouSI (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Reverting a merge

How does one get an erroneous merge reversed and the original article restored?

I've just discovered that the Arcsine transformation article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arcsine_transformation&action=history was merged into the Arcsine distribution article a few years ago. This transformation is widely used in many areas of research (a little further detail about the context on the talk page of the article merged into, Talk:Arcsine distribution). People looking for the original article, or following the various links to the Arcsine transformation article both within Wikipedia and from numerous places on the internet will be left with none of the information they need and instead will be served a brief page full of information of no value to them. Note that the article its merged into is very quiet, only two talk posts in the entire history of that article, including the one I have just made (no surprise, its a pretty niche article compared to the one that got merged into it) - so there's little chance of even a single reply there, let alone any consensus. How do we undo it and get the old information restored? Glenbarnett (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

was this maybe at another title? Arcsine transformation was never an article, it's always just been a redirect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, my apologies that explains why I couldnt get back to the history and thought it was just gone. I must be confusing it with information that was on one of the shorter sub-pages relating to it. In that case, how do I make it not redirect and actually start editing the Arcsine transformation page with some useful information? Its worse than nothing now. If I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arcsine_transformation&action=history and click Edit there will that do it? Glenbarnett (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Bare in mind that writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. You may find it easier to start up a WP:draft article in your WP:sandbox and then move it to the target area once written. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very helpful suggestion. I'm not new to editing articles, but this will be a bigger project than I've undertaken before. Glenbarnett (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sticking my neck out here as Captain Obvious, but if you remember an article on Wikipedia that did contain the information you found useful, that information is likely still findable - even if some of it was deleted, it will be in the edit history and able to be retrieved.

The history of the existing article you've already mentioned is not a very complicated one, and doesn't (on the surface) seem to have involved any massive deletions of material. But I also think it's unlikely that you would remember a good useful article that never existed. I wonder if its information DID get merged, but to some other article? TooManyFingers (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Or could it just be Binomial proportion confidence interval#Arcsine transformation which was easily found with a search? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Prof Alan Sinclair - Editor now uncontactable

I have paid the fee to Ben Matthews (Wiki Editor) for reviewing my entry. He has made a few changes but NOT completed he entry. He s not responding to his email and the company I paid the funds into (syntax quill) have a tel number that is also not working or disconnected.

I need to know what is happening? Professor Alan Sinclair 2A00:23C5:6F08:E701:D9BA:C2D9:9DF5:7F32 (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have been scammed, nothing to do with Wikipedia. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:SCAM, sadly. Please note especially Wikipedia:Scam warning#Reporting scammers. You can also find useful advice at WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The WP:SCAM page doesn't say this, but it's essentially true: Any time anyone comes to you offering to edit Wikipedia on your behalf, it isn't a good idea. If you know them or work with them, then they have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be touching an article about you; if you don't know them, it's a scam.

If you or someone who knows you comes to Wikipedia to make requests for changes (rather than doing any editing themselves), that's all right.

This is needed to prevent unscrupulous people from using Wikipedia to advertise themselves. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a hyperlink to the page this scammer "Ben Matthews" was working on, on Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne The name of the page is in the question header, presumably Alan Sinclair (scientist). Madam Fatal (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That was created in 2017? qcne (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The scammer was hired to do updates, but didn't do them or didn't finish the job. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi

I recently nominated Dina Marciano for deletion as it was purely promotional article. However i didn't paste the notice of deletion prior to it to the author's talk page. Can any admin please mention who created this article so that i send them the notice? zglph^•talk• 15:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Zglph, you can see a list of all contributors to the article by looking at its History. ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

i can't see its history it is deleted now. zglph^•talk• 16:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Then chalk this up as a mistake to not make next time

(and take a little comfort knowing if it was deleted this quickly there probably wasn't much they could have done about it anyway.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

anyways my message was to an administrator. zglph^•talk• 16:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry. Yes, an admin should be able to give you that information. ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Zglph The user was HuskyBusty, they haven't edited since April Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Background

Is there a help page somewhere that explains what should be in the Background section of an article page?

I've searched for this, but the results are all about the "background" shading on tables and other graphics.

2405:6E00:630:E8C6:ACE1:C45F:35B:6B69 (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It would help it if you asked a narrower question about the specific issue you are trying to address. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware that there is necessarily a Background section in an article. I guess it might be used when an article is about a particular event which is part of a more general situation. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

To me, a "Background" section usually gives a long and involved answer to a question like "Why would an event like this even happen?" or "What were the unusual circumstances that led to this?". There's normally no need for a "Background" section, because that material can usually be finished in a couple of sentences - but it helps if the background turns out to be a long story in itself. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a help page somewhere overview of what each section of a page is for? There's a few that are in nearly every page:

• Background
• History
• See also
• External links

Some are obvious, but Background is confusing. 2405:6E00:630:E8C6:80A7:202E:BF5A:32A5 (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried to add something to a Background section and a more experienced editor objected. I probably misunderstood what that section is for, but maybe they just didn't like what I added. I was hoping there was a help page somewhere that clearly says what belongs in a Background section, so I know if I should modify what I added to fit better, or just give up and find a different page to work on. 2405:6E00:630:E8C6:80A7:202E:BF5A:32A5 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

There's no exact rule for Background, and there might not even be a Background section in a lot of articles. Some people might consider them unnecessary or useless. But if you have one, it is likely to describe [earlier events or earlier conditions] that caused or enabled the main topic.

Here's a possible example: imagine an article about a dike that was built around a city to protect the city from floods. If that article had a Background section, it would probably tell how bad the floods used to be before the dike was built, and about people in the past who always wanted to do something about the problem. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have made an edit and another editor objects, you can either accept their objection; or follow our dispute resolution process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements has some general links which apply to all articles like See also and External links. Background and history depend on the topic and many articles have no reason for them, e.g. an animal species. Which type of article do you have in mind, e.g. biography, organisation, event, place, conflict, or something else? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

BLP Query

Not sure why I'm so squeamish about this - but I am writing an article about an architecturally notable house but feel uneasy about including the name of the property developer that built and designed it as they are BLP and not notable themselves, and have just sold the property. That individual has given interviews to The Guardian, and featured in several magazines and discuss the house on their personal website. Should I just include their name despite their BLP status and lack of notability? My prose feels constrained with not naming them. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @No Swan So Fine. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't name them. Lots of living people get named in passing in articles. ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If the building is notable, then it isn't right to omit the designer's name. Just don't use the article as a way of telling the story of the designer - stay focused on the building. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Value

I am not yet credited with value 102.91.5.214 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I'm afraid I have no idea what you are asking about.

Does it relate to Wikipedia? If so, then please explain more clearly.

If it does not relate to Wikipedia, then we cannot help you, as this is the Help desk for Wikipedia specifically. --ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Reverting a list column

I linked a county name on list of museums in east Texas. Some how I must of caused the cols to get skewed must of deleted something needed. DMc75771 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Down at the bottom of the article, there's a line saying you were the latest one to edit the article. Click on that. You'll see the history of what's been done, with your latest change at the top - and beside it is an "Undo" button.

When you use that button, you'll be taken to a page showing the undo action you're about to take. Near the bottom of THAT page is a line called "Edit summary", with a bunch of stuff already typed in it. Keep all of that stuff. Go to the very end of the line, after all of that, and add on your little explanation of why you're undoing something. Then hit the Save button. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Help creating Wikipedia page

Where can I find Simone to help create a wiki page? This process is very technical and i do not have the right skills seemingly. 209.55.99.66 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to spend time editing articles that already exist, to improve them. Don't try creating a page until you have a lot more experience. When an inexperienced editor creates a page, it usually doesn't get accepted, and they give up - a frustrating waste of time for everyone. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I second what TooManyFingers has said. I would add that Wikipedia has quite strict rules about what is a suitable subject for an article (see notability) and a lot of people that come here and immediately start trying to create an article waste a lot of their own time because they have chosen a subject that is never going to merit an article. ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft: QAExplorer/sandbox

Hi I noticed that my recent article submission was marked as declined, and I’d really appreciate some clarification on the reason. I believe the feedback provided might not fully reflect the context — this was the first article covering Keploy, so there weren’t any existing references to cite. All the resources I included are reliable, and I even referenced GitHub and Crunchbase, which shouldn’t be considered deprecated. It would be really helpful if you could share more specific feedback or examples of what needs improvement so I can make the necessary updates and resubmit it. Thank you for your time and understanding. QAExplorer (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @QAExplorer. If there were no existing references to cite, then there can be no Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia article is a summary of reliable, published sources. Nothing more. In this case, an article on Keploy is not possible. Sorry. qcne (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

QAExplorer First you must remove all citations to Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite other Wikipedia articles(see WP:CIRCULAR) because Wikipedia is not a reliable source as it is user-editable(as you are doing!).

Once those are removed, the sources that are left just document specific information, they don't provide signficant coverage of this tool and describe why it is notable. I don't think an article about this is possible at the present time. Wikipedia is not for merely documenting existence- it must indicate importance as independent sources describe it(not us, in our voice). 331dot (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Editing in Wikipedia

Dear sir/ madam With due respect i want to state that i want to edit a wikipedia page by the name of Masarat Alam Bhat. May i know do i need sources of the same and do i have to upload sources too. Thanks Mukhtar Baba (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mukhtar Baba

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

In short, your article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about the subject, and not much else. You should generally not upload sources, but cite them - see WP:REFB. ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mukhtar Baba I assume you are referring to our article on Masarat Alam Bhat. Yes, you need to cite reliable sources. Please see the instructions here. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that the link User:Shantavira mean to use was WP:REF! Note, @Mukhtar Baba that you certainly don't need to upload sources but that they must have been published somewhere so that readers can, in principle, verfiy that they support what you summarise from them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Bot tag query

In an article I'm working on, I was more than surprised a few days ago to find that 11 of my references had been flagged by a bot with alerts about citation issues. When I saw {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} on the tagged references, I went back to each of them to check whether I'd used a template other than the one the bot mentioned. But I found that all the reference had been created with the correct template.

Then I noticed that all the {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} tags mentioned CS1 maint: url-status (link). So I checked each of the references again to check if I'd missed typing live in the URL status field. But again in each case I found that I'd done so.

Please tell me what I'm supposed to do to satisfy the bot. Augnablik (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Please link the page. Always link any page you want help with. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I had hoped to avoid having to do so. Augnablik (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Most problems can have multiple causes and depend on circumstances so always link the page from the beginning. "link" in the message goes to Category:CS1 maint: url-status which explains the problem here. url-status=live is for use in combination with archive-url=. If the citation has no archive link then don't say url-status=live. If you just want to say that the link works then you can use access-date= to give a date it was working and still supported the statement it's referencing. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't read any of the page and don't know what it's about if it makes you feel better. If you really wanted to hide something then you could have posted an example reference with the issue. Helpers should always know the code which caused a problem. Otherwise there are just too many possibilities. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Be my guest, PrimeHunter. I trust you. I just didn't want to have that location out in such a public arena. Too late now! The references to which the bot added tags are 1, 4, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 29, and 31. Augnablik (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Wait ... if I wasn't supposed to put live into the template, then I'll undo that and see what happens. I'll also remove the link I gave you earlier till I know for sure if you've solved my problem. So please bear with me a few minutes till I get back here with the verdict. Augnablik (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I don't know whether you used a tool to create the citations but the page has never been edited by a bot. The message is made automatically by the citation templates depending on parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

This is too weird, PrimeHunter: I removed live from one of the references, and after publishing it, took a look at it ... and saw that not only was the {{cite}} gone from that reference but so too from all the other 10 where it had also been!

This does not compute. 😗 But you do seem to have solved my problem. Many thanks! And just for luck, I'll remove the code from the other references too. I could have sworn we were supposed to put live on all templates involving an URL. Augnablik (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: I still see the other nine. The messages are hidden by default with a CSS rule at Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css#L-103.They can be made visible with another CSS rule shown in Category:CS1 maint: url-status. I have similar code in User:PrimeHunter/common.css but you don't so you were never supposed to see the messages. You also said they appeared suddenly. I guess the CSS to hide them was not loaded correctly by your browser but now it is again. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the other nine now. But I really don't understand all this about CSS, and why some people like you have the code but others don't. Especially if we ought to see what sort of {{cite}} messages end up in our references, because I'd assume they might get us into trouble with editors on patrol.

🥐 Another Danish pastry for you, PrimeHunter! Augnablik (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: We don't want readers to see them. Registered editors can choose to see them by adding this to your CSS:

:root .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */

PrimeHunter (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, though I’d have no idea at this point in my Wiki career as to where to put that.

But I’m still wondering why all editors don’t automatically see the coding in their references — because surely if they don’t take care of it when it ends up there, other editors on patrol would connect with them about it, wouldn’t they? Or are there editors who quietly do that sort of work behind the scenes? Augnablik (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: "your CSS" is a link where you can put it. Most registered users never make any edits. It would be possible to automatically display the messages if editors become autoconfirmed or extended confirmed but that's about protected pages and we generally don't change the interface for that. The messages are not classified as errors but less important maintenance messages. It's not something others would normally tell the editor about. Articles (not userspace pages) with the issue are automatically added to Category:CS1 maint: url-status. I don't know whether there are editors or a bot who monitor it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Glad to get this mystery cleared up. Augnablik (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, almost cleared up. I clicked on the link you gave me, "your CSS", but I got an error message saying the page didn't exist. Augnablik (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Change to IP addresses

I note that all IP addresses are now appearing in the format ~2025-31123-XX - and that this format does not offer the Geolocate option, which is extremely useful when keeping track of meat/sockpuppets. Who thought this was a good idea? and where can I ask for it to be reversed? - Arjayay (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout. Nil🥝 12:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have a demonstrative need for it (such as tracking sock puppetry), you can consider requesting Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer permissions. Nil🥝 12:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

This isn't going to be reversed- but you can apply for the permission to view IP addresses, as noted. It's a privacy protection measure. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You can't see them, but neither can the Heritage Foundation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Referencing errors on BMW M70

Reference help requested. Hello! I've unfortunately created a referencing error on the BMW M70 page. Unfortunately fixing it is a bit beyond me. There was a dead link tag on a link that was no longer dead, and I was trying to remove it. For reasons unknown to me the number of sources and thus their numbering within the page was different in read mode vs edit mode, so that created some issues. I believe I got through most of it (although if you could fix the text on source 15 that would be great). However, there is currently an error on source 13/15 that seems to require some source editing that is beyond me. Help would be appreciated. Thanks, Colinkb (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ive made some changes, was that what you were looking for? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Source numbering is automatic. Normally, when you edit, it's only on a certain part of the page. During that time, sources found in other parts of the page are not "seen" by the editing window, and can't be counted by the automatic numbering. This means, when you edit, the numbers look all wrong, and you need some other method of remembering which source is which. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Linda Robson

I believe someone has edit her Wikipedia page as it wouldn't necessarily Linda, and has my friend involved Simon Dwain Kalavazides, he is partly sighted and very vulnerable and find if Linda it isn't him, please investigate it thanks. ~2025-30950-14 (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Editor. The subjects of an article are not permitted to edit articles about themselves, so Linda Robson should not be editing the Linda Robson article. Otherwise, do you have a specific question? qcne (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne: "The subjects of an article are not permitted to edit articles about themselves"—this is not true. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, it is absolutely true. qcne (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not. You cannot cite a policy saying so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, Andy. Sure. qcne (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, very sure. I am not clear why you are so mistaken in your belief about this.

I note, though, that you did not cite a policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy, for your always useful contributions. qcne (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It might be important to add that the subject's friends, family, and associates are also not permitted to edit. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: "the subject's friends, family, and associates are also not permitted to edit"—Also not true. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

As with the response from qcne above, while I have to agree that you're right in a merely technical sense, it's so strongly discouraged as to have become (at least in many people's eyes) a moot point. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not right "in a merely technical sense".

Repeating a falsehood, now matter how many do it or believe it, does not make it true. I would hope a Wikipedian would understand that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it's a fact, because I know you wouldn't lie, but in that case it's a fact surrounded with a great deal of FUD; to me, a lot of that FUD carries an air of being official and intentional, rather than coming from irresponsible people. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The only FUD here are the claims "The subjects of an article are not permitted to edit articles about themselves" and "the subject's friends, family, and associates are also not permitted to edit". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I recognize that those are the only sources of FUD here in this discussion. But you're shooting the messenger. The editors who made those statements (including me) didn't fabricate or exaggerate anything. It's more than a little disingenuous for a knowledgeable person such as yourself to act as if the advice we gave here isn't frequently and insistently repeated by sources on Wikipedia that we (qcne, me, and others) as editors should and do expect to be trustworthy. If, in fact, the apparently trustworthy sources we keep hearing this from are actually loose cannons who shouldn't be misrepresenting the way things are done on Wikipedia, it would make more sense to find a way to cut the misinformation off at its source, instead of blaming people like us who didn't come up with the idea and who wouldn't keep saying it if we hadn't been legitimately and convincingly told it, or at least strongly led to believe it. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You are one of the "messengers" posting those fabricated falsehoods, for which no source has, nor can be, cited. You can expect to have it pointed out to you that they are false, any time you do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

For clarity Wikipedia:Conflict of interest states “COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted.” I had to Google "FUD" not a term I have come across before! Theroadislong (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes; "strongly discouraged", not "prohibited". It also says (at WP:COISELF) "An exception to not editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly".

At the same time, WP:AUTOPROB says "In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to remove obviously mistaken facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on."

Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects includes "It is generally considered okay for you to edit the article about you in certain circumstances" (followed by a list of five such examples); "Disclose your conflict of interest, and if the edit is simply fixing a minor error, go ahead" and "...vandalistic edits are bad-faith edits intended to disrupt the encyclopedia. You can revert those edits yourself..."

These are not the only places where we tell people that they can edit articles about themselves or people with whom they have a CoI.

Frankly, anyone suggesting that an article subject or someone close to them is "not permitted" to remove an egregious breach of our BLP policy, such as the edit in this case which suggested that a still-living subject "died from a case of explosive diarrhoea", needs to give their head a wobble. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I just looked at the article in question. In recent days it was heavily vandalized, but is now more strongly protected against that, and has been cleaned up. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Adding Vichay Phommachan to Laotian Americans Wiki

Laotian_Americans

Vichay Phommachan, Deaf Laotian-American entertainer, dancer, and actor ~2025-31316-07 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there already a Wikipedia article about this person? TooManyFingers (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not finding an article, so it's currently not possible to do that. Otherwise we'd end up having to add every person in the world to that page (or another page like it). TooManyFingers (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope, that name is not even in Wikidata, so there are no foreign-language articles either. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

What programming languages can be used to create a Wikipedia bot and an anti-vandalism tool?

Hey,

I'm planning to create a two tools to Wikipedia:

• A multi-task bot (Python or Java)
• An anti-vandalism tool, but designed as a CLI (terminal mode) program who can also in the low-end PCS.

So.. What programming languages can be used to create a Wikipedia bot and an anti-vandalism tool? Any API? Need a approval? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 23:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

See mw:API:Action API for the APIs of MediaWiki. You can use any programming language that can talk to the internet for that. Bots need to be approved at WP:BRFA. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Vitorperrut555: See Help:Creating a bot. There a sections for Python and Java frameworks. pywikibot, in Python, is popular and interacts via the API for you. The information on User:ClueBot NG may be helpful for anit-vandalism tools. And yes, you will need approval as pppery mentioned. Commander Keane (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Usernames

Does the change to the way that IP addresses are dealt with as "usernames" mean that you can have IP address looking usernames?

(Checked WP:USERNAME, no info)Because IP addresses would show up as usernames in histories, registered usernames could not look like legal IP addresses. Now that we have the temporary account setup so that usernames would show up as ~2025-99999-87 mean that we can now have a username look like 101.202.44.55? Conversely, are usernames that look like they could be (or eventually be) they are the temp filenames are banned? So we would not be able to have a username of ~2027-11111-11? Naraht (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope that neither one is allowed, but I really hope that anything even slightly resembling the new temp names has been disallowed. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Related to that, we used to have a very prolific editor who signed as "(The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246" but as Special:Contributions/94.1.208.246 shows, their edits are now called "Legacy". I assume this means they will now be forced to use a temporary account, or create a permanent conventional one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I just tried several permutations and they were rejected as invalid names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Policies indicating what would be rejected *should* be documented somewhere, at least in broad terms.Naraht (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Rowspan

Chronic laziness has led me to avoid the creation of tables wherever possible. Now that I want to create one, "rowspan doesn't work", by which of course I mean that I have made some mistake that prevents rowspan from working. What stupid mistake can you find in the table at User:Hoary/sandbox? (Incidentally, the asterisks are intended to display as asterisks, not to indicate list items.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Did you want colspan instead? Visually I'm not figuring out how you actually want it to go. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it for you. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, duh. Thank you, Children will listen! -- Fogeys will goof (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm not really sure what the table is trying to say. I presume the text inside the parentheses is supposed to be the idiomatic translation of the sentence, and the one listed under the "English" column is the literal one, but Jules a vite appris ses rôles translates literally as "Jules has quickly learned his lines", not *Jules quickly has learned his lines. I'm not a native French speaker, so I could be completely wrong here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Children will listen, in the "English" column are (grammatical) English sentences and (asterisk-flagged) ungrammatical not-quite-English sentences. Entries in the right column aren't presented as English translations of those in the centre column. Does this enhanced (?) version make it any clearer (or is it merely a migraine-inducing technicolor nightmare)? (Incidentally, I've hardly looked at the text surrounding the table; I am not to praise/blame for it.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

"Jules has quickly learnt his lines." is supposed to be an example of an "adverb, [followed by a] tense-marked verb", but the adverb "quickly" is actually after the tense-marked verb "has". Is this intentional? Same goes for *Jules quickly has learned his lines., which is the other way around. This also contradicts the text that other languages (such as English) do not allow the adverb to intervene between the verb and its direct object, but of course, it might be because "have" is a special kind of verb. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Excellent point, Children will listen. It seems that my mind is in something of a fog today. I don't know whether that's the doing of the boost of Covid vaccine I received yesterday, talk of an enigma as a conceptual anchor, or just plain old senility. I do notice that the table now contradicts part of the text that immediately precedes it. I'll read up on the matter and hope soon to make the explanation more accurate. -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hoary, allow me to suggest that you try table operations in VE instead. Take it from someone (me) who abhors VE and uses it almost never, except for the solitary case of table operations, where it excels. Things such as swapping columns are horrifying with the wikitext editor, rather simple in VE, or doing complex cell fusion or splitting, and rowspan/colspan operations. Don't get me started on all the problems with VE, but whoever worked on the table operations portion should get a raise and a promotion, because it is a delight. If you don't use VE at all there will be a learning curve, but it won't take long, and once you have the basics, the table operations are worth it. Of course, the moment I have adjusted the tables on a page, it's straight back to the wikitext editor and my normal attitude again, but I have to give credit to VE for that one feature, which is both intuitive (once you learn it), and a timesaver. Hint: place the cursor just above a column or just left of a row, and play around with the active controls. Try it, and if you get stuck, ping me at my Talk page. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Nitish Nirmal

Nitish Nirmal Is an Indian actor Lhhivugigi (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I am creating this actor Lhhivugigi (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Lhhivugigi WP:BACKWARD may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Can we ping temporary accounts?

Successfully, that is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Temporary_accounts#Communication, yes. I haven't tried it yet though. Perception312 (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know whether temporary accounts can set email addresses. I would suppose not, or they might as well be permanent accounts. Hence the notification/ping/thank will just create alerts and notices which the person behind the account would have to see when (next) logged on, as they won't have offline email summaries. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Note template editing issue

New request: In this article, I need to make an accent to the final E of the name of an author included in a Note list (in Note 5, Herve Moulin should be Hervé Moulin). But I can’t figure out how to access the Notes. Although I use the Visual editor for most all my editing, I knew that for this task I’d need to use the Source editor. But when I went to the Notes section in the SE, all I found there was {{Reflist|1}}. I have no idea where to look for that, and probably what to do when I get there. Help, please. Augnablik (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: The reference is defined in the text at Social welfare function § Axioms of cardinal welfarism. It's coded as <ref name=moulin2004>{{Cite Moulin 2004}}</ref>{{rp|66–69}}, which shows the actual reference as being in another template. If you have authority, then edit that template at {{Cite Moulin 2004}}; if you don't, reply to me here and I'll do it for you. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bazza 7, I have no idea if I have authority, which probably means I don’t. If you’d swoop in on this, I would be most grateful. Augnablik (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: All done.

Viewing Special:Preferences while your logged in will, in the User profile tab, show Member of groups. If you are a member of "Template editors" then you have the authority to edit templates. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Not really true, that. In the case of {{Cite Moulin 2004}}, any editor can edit that template because it is not protected. I would argue that it probably ought not be a template at all since it has only a dozen or so article-space transclusions; but that's another discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Really grateful, @Bazza 7. Augnablik (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Why is my name not appearing in Wikipedia? Rabish Kumar Yadav (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Rabish Kumar Yadav. I'm assuming that your question means, "Why isn't there an article about me in Wikipedia?"

The answer is almost certainly that, like me and almost all of the eight billion people on Earth, you do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability: roughly, that people wholly unconnected with you have published enough information about you in reliable publications to base an article on.

If for some reason you are one of the few people who have been written about in that way to be notable, then the answer is, because nobody has yet written an article about you. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If you mean to ask why there's not an article about you, the answer can usually be found at WP:GNG.

Perhaps you meant something else; I'm not sure. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rabish Kumar Yadav You created a userpage in August but such pages are for statements about your intentions as a Wikipedia editor (see WP:UPYES). They are set up so that search engines do not index them, so no-one will find you as a result of anything you place there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

User doc other lang links

I want to insert a collection of language-specific links on my user page. What is the most standard way to do that? Whatback11 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Whatback11 You already have a WP:Babel box, so I presume you mean links to articles in other languages. The template {{ill}} works on userpages just as it does elsewhere. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Not links to show my language proficiency or alternative pages, but something like this: English, 한국어, 日本語. Whatback11 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

if you have user pages in other projects, they show up on the left hand side. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Like this, which puts the link under "Languages", in the sidebar (in default desktop skin). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

About taxonomy templates

Can I create Taxonomy templates in my user namespace? Jako96 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Jako96.

A page can be WP:transcluded from any namespace: if no namespace is given it defaults to Template:

So I have a template at User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst, which I can (and frequently do) transclude onto various help pages by {{User:ColinFine/PractiseFirst}}.

Does that answer your question, or have I misunderstood? ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but this does not answer my question. I'm wondering if I can create templates like Template:Taxonomy/Felis and use automatic taxoboxes with them in my user namespace. Jako96 (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Gypsy Rose Blanchard

It was recently published on TikTok that you have unblocked Gypsy Rose Alcida Blanchard from updating and changing information on her biography. I am asking, as a person who is very familiar with Miss Blanchard that you faithfully research any changes that she wishes to make to her biography. [redacted BLP violations] Thank you. Muadd1313 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes precisely zero note of anything 'published on TikTok', and I'd suggest you do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

To add to the above, it appears that an individual claiming to be Blanchard made a couple of edits to the article, back on Oct 26th: both were reverted within minutes. And no, the article does not state that she is a bestselling author etc. I suggest you take the time to actually read Wikipedia articles before complaining about their content in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about adding a photo/copyright

I'd like to add a photo to a page for a hockey player, I have a hockey card of her - if I photograph the card, would that be fair use or would it violate copyright? maryshelagh (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what a "hockey card" is, and guess that it's a card whose design presents a photograph of the player, and that you want to reproduce this photograph. (If I'm wrong, please correct me.) If you don't have a good reason to believe that the photograph is not conventionally copyright ("All rights reserved"), then assume that it is. (Lack of any explicit indication -- "copyright", "©", etc -- of copyright is not evidence for lack of copyright.) If it is conventionally copyright, then uploading your reproduction of it would indeed violate the copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a hockey card is a trading card that features a hockey player. Photos are taken by the league during games and presumably the league or the company that prints the cards, Upper Deck, hold the copyright.

This answers my question, unfortunately not the result I want but certainly the outcome I assumed. I was hoping to get around the copyright thing because I purchased the card, but I understand there's still limitations. I suppose the only thing to do it go to a game and take a photo of the player myself!

Thanks so much! maryshelagh (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

maryshelagh, perhaps there are photos of this hockey player on Flickr. If so, please digest Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr to see if any of these are eligible for upload to Wikimedia Commons. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What is going on here?

Question was asked: "Creating a fake Wikipedia page." and then a series of unsourced edits: [1]. Quite sure some of these are not valid. Maineartists (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Pan Am

Pan Am

Reference help requested.

what do you mean by missing title in the pan am wiki

Thanks, ~2025-31562-66 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a very cryptic utterance. Perhaps you meant "What does the Mediawiki parser mean if, when I save the article Pan Am, it tells me |Missing or empty ?" If so, then at least once where template Cite book, Cite web, etc is used, no "title" is specified, but it must be. Thus for example

Bryant, Adam (January 16, 1995). "Market Place; In the volatile airline industry, it's Delta's time to shine". The New York Times. Retrieved May 31, 2009.

is produced by

{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/16/business/market-place-in-the-volatile-airline-industry-it-s-delta-s-time-to-shine.html|title=Market Place; In the volatile airline industry, it's Delta's time to shine|work=The New York Times|access-date=May 31, 2009|last=Bryant|first=Adam|date=January 16, 1995}}

-- Hoary (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Article not published.

I had previously submitted a draft article for "AHH - Asia Healthcare Holdings" for approval, but it has not yet been reviewed or published. Could you please provide an update on the status or advise on any additional steps required from our side? We would also appreciate guidance on how to successfully upload and publish this article, including any best practices to ensure timely approval and compliance with Wikipedia's content policies. Thank you for your support and assistance. Socialsaga (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Other than this Help desk post, your edit history shows no edits beyond your upload of the Logo file to Commons. [2] We have no draft at Draft:AHH - Asia Healthcare Holdings, at Draft:AHH, or at Draft:Asia Healthcare Holdings, and I can't find any evidence of it existing. Where can this draft be found, and under what account was it submitted? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, could you clarify who the 'we' (and 'our side') above refers to? Wikipedia does not permit multiple people to operate a single account, and if you are connected with AAH, you need to declare a conflict of interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Socialsaga. Judging from Andy has found (or not found), it sounds as if you did not actually save your draft. Before you try again, may I recommend that you read WP:BOSS very carefully. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Adding and removing spaces within fields in infoboxes and templates

G’day, over the years I’ve noticed some editors consistently editing articles with infoboxes adding or removing spaces between elements in a field. For example, changing |name=Foo to | name = Foo or vice versa. This also happens with cite templates like cite book etc. I couldn’t find any reference to previous discussions about it anywhere, but does anyone remember this being discussed? It seems entirely pointless to me, and I see that examples on MOS pages generally use the unspaced versions as examples. Anyone? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: it could be a side-effect of the WP:VISUALEDITOR, which I've noticed has a habit of reformatting things occasionally. You could test this by doing some dummy edits using the WP:SOURCE EDITOR and Visual Editor in your sandbox. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I do that myself from time to time (spacing, that is), including occasional more extreme examples of padding to line up values, i.e. starting in the same column, but only when some were already so aligned. It just makes things easier to see while editing. Of course, that is at the same time as when I'm making other edits. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Other than edits to hidden text, or those templates which are not meant to be seen, edits that do not affect the "rendered page" as seen by the reader, are unhelpful:-

1. because they are listed in "recent changes", so recent changes patrollers waste time reviewing the edit, and potentially let some other vandalism through
2. because they are listed on the watchlists of every editor who is watching the page, so they will waste time reviewing the edit
3. because they clutter up the article history, obfuscating the real changes to the article.

I thought that edits that do not affect the "rendered page" were deprecated, but like Peacemaker67 I can't find any previous discussions. - Arjayay (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Some guidance at WP:SUBSTANTIVE and WP:COSMETICBOT. My take is that it is OK to make changes which would not have changed the rendered page when combined with a change that would be visible to readers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

"Legacy contributor" -- not dead yet

I have been an IP editor (with dynamic IP) contributing thousands of edits from 2012 up to November 3 of this year. Now my edits are "Legacy IP contributions for 136.56.165.118" and a login is required. What gives? If Wikipedia wants to ban IP editing, then so be it. ~2025-31716-53 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem. You obviously haven't been prevented from editing, have you? Walter Ego 14:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried editing an article and it sent me to the login page: :Special:UserLogin?useformat=desktop&usesul3=1&returnto=Special%3AMyContributions&returntoquery=&centralauthLoginToken=5ea192d1ae9b377a797cebb045b84eae --~2025-31716-53 (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Temporary accounts which explains the recent change? This has been put upon en.wikipedia by the Wikimedia Foundation, we had no choice in the matter. qcne (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, just now. ~2025-31716-53 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

P.s., This contribution has caused the creation of an automatic "temporary account"

Which page did you try to edit and did it actually stop you or just display a warning with an optional login link? Maybe the page was protected. Most pages can be edited by anyone like this help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried to edit Ravens of the Tower of London, which was my most recently edited article. I tried just now, and it allows me to edit; presumably because I now have a "temporary account" that was created by my query on this desk. --~2025-31716-53 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That's odd. I can log out and get an edit window on the article. Maybe something special happens if you haven't got a temporary account yet but try to edit a page you had edited before the recent introduction of temporary accounts. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess I'll just have to adjust to the new reality. I had developed my own way of compiling information about my editing, tracking edits, etc. For example, once I close this page, finding any replies will be counter-intuitive (yes, I know that I can save a shortcut to this discussion and/or my temporary account: ([[Special:Contributions/~2025-31716-53|~2025-31716-53]]) --~2025-31716-53 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You could just create an account. Use a throw-away email address (or none at all). Connect via a VPN. Use a secure browser. qcne (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I like doing things my way because I'm an ornery codger. --~2025-31813-89 (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Human rights

Looking for Wikipedia projects which work to combat "denial of human rights, hate speech, racist or discriminatory rhetoric"

Hi all

I'm working on an application for Wikipedia to be recognised for quite a large international prize. Can anyone suggest any projects within Wikimedia that work on combating "denial of human rights, hate speech, racist or discriminatory rhetoric"

This could be partnerships with organisations, image releases, community projects like wikiprojects etc.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Advocacy and projects like Wikipedia don't mix well. One of our main neutrality rules is that we describe conflicts but do not participate in them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

A Great Source! ...One problem...

Good morning from the East Coast U.S., Wikipedia Help Desk :)

It's me again... I've been writing large parts for the Dorian Heartsong page, and I came into contact with a simply immaculate source! I've corresponded with Mr. Heartsong himself in hopes of cleaning up the page and reducing inaccuracies (as well as— so far unsuccessfully— attempting to secure a superior quality photograph for the page). I have been given a true treasure trove here, but I'm not sure it's able to be used. This is a direct E-Mail conversation with Mr. Heartsong, and much of the biography is great, proprietary, even, but nowhere else will corroborate it.

And so I turn to you, wise fellows of the Help Desk, what must I do in such a scenario?

Thank you for your time :)

- TheSaturnLover TheSaturnLover (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The subject of an article is not considered a reliable or suitable source for editing articles, as the subjects of articles are notoriously inclined to shade the truth in favor of what they consider to be "right". We insist on published content from reliable third-party sources with no conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Dang. Well, that's a unfortunate thing, then. I'll see what I can do in spite of that being the case, thank you. TheSaturnLover (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@TheSaturnLover General advice about what article subjects can do at WP:ASFAQ. One approach is to get them to suggest published sources, whether via email or (better) by adding their suggestions to the talk page of the article. WP:ABOUTSELF suggests that some statements by the subject of an article are OK if published, say, on their website or social media account. Never directly in emails, however. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

TheSaturnLover, I think that you should try to get this interview published in a music magazine with a good reputation for covering rock music reliably. If you succeed, that interview could be cited for uncontroversial biographical facts or the opinions of the musician. But references to fully independent sources are required to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Biography of Living Person and transitioning gender identity

Hi, I have a personal relationship with someone who has a wikipedia article about them. When they were notable, they used she/her pronouns, but in the years since they've started using updated pronouns and no longer identify as a woman. Unfortunately, they are no longer a public person and so their transition isn't publicly documented (nor do I think they'd want that). Is there any way to update their wikipedia to no longer misgender them? I assume not, but it'd be nice if there was some sort of process. ~2025-31783-92 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

General guidance in this area is at MOS:GENDERID. Their gender needs to be reflected in some reliable source, we can't just take your word for it. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is there no table of contents in any page?

All pages on the wiki have no table of contents for me. I searched through my Preferences and saw nothing related to tables of contents. Simanelix (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Simanelix.

The table of contents can be hidden, in which case it appears as a "three dots and lines" menu icon beside the page title. Click it, and the contents should appear. ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Referencing errors on 2016 Pacific typhoon season

2016 Pacific typhoon season

Reference help requested.

The edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Pacific_typhoon_season&diff=prev&oldid=1320812070

Internet Archive (reference not found): https://web.archive.org/web/20120919013946/http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/indexfull.htm

Original Reference (from Webcite): https://www.webcitation.org/6jWExC12G?url=http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN31-PGTW_201608041500.htm

Possible (?) Alternative: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/13286/typhoon-conson-07w

I can't seem to find or fix this reference...

Thanks, DarklitShadow (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Fixed in this edit. The double parentheses overrule the error warning, when an apparently generic value is the correct one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

links no longer have pop-ups

I liked hovering over a link to get the gist of what I would get if I clicked it. Now I have to click and get the whole enchilada. Can I return to the good ole way? Jerry Colburn (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you messed with your Preferences lately? See Preferences > Gadgets, section Browsing, items Navigation Popups and Reference Tooltips. Mathglot (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jerry Colburn: There are two different popup features. The other is "Enable page previews" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Only enable one of them. If you are logged out then only page previews is possible and can be enabled on "Edit preview settings" at the bottom of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Taylor co music band

is this band still playing music ~2025-31828-02 (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! This is the wikipedia help desk, where wikipedia editors come to ask questions about editing. I suggest using a search engine like google or duckduckgo, maybe you'll find better results there. If you simply must get a wikipeia editors help for whatever reason, theres the reference desk : ) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Zoom out OSM map in tunnel infobox

Is it possible to zoom out the OpenStreetMap view in the {{infobox tunnel}} in Seikan Tunnel? It is just showing ocean at the moment. Feel free to make the change I will check out the diff. Thanks. Commander Keane (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest remove it; it adds nothing, even if zoomed out.Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Titles used in sources

Can someone point me at the MOS section, policy or guideline concerning whether/how titles used in sources should be transcribed in WP? I am thinking in particular about websites and news sources, where article titles often use lower case, e.g. "Everything you need to know about the new Wuthering Heights movie": should this be transcribed using title case? Or where they use ALL UPPER CASE: should this be transcribed as "All Upper Case"? Or, should the rules concerning quotes apply, i.e., no or minimal amendment? Thanks. Masato.harada (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Masato.harada Extensive guidance at MOS:TITLE and MOS:ALLCAPS. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

What is going on at pending changes reviewer requests?

I took a look at the page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer, and I see multiple requests that are still pending, with the oldest one having been sent around a month ago. However, other requests that are more recent have been accepted/rejected already. Why are they not in order? Is that page mostly inactive? Also, would it be more reliable to go to the recent admins page and request that role from an admin instead of going to this page? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The page is still functioning. I suspect what's happening is that admins are granting rights to the people they clearly see as qualified and punting on the less obviously qualified people. And trying to step outside the standard process and ask directly is more likely to annoy people or lead to accusations of WP:ADMINSHOPPING than it is to succeed IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Why don't they just straight up reject the less qualified applications instead of ignoring them? Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

If they're unsure they probably want to leave it for another admin to take a look, which gets repeated until someone makes a decision. Ultraodan (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help! Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Currently just twelve applications, of which the oldest is less than a month old. By en:Wikipedia standards, that's pretty good. (The twelve are easily outnumbered by two-month-old AFC submissions.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

(The twelve are easily outnumbered by two-month-old AFC submissions.) sorry, I'm not sure how to use that, does that say the number that was answered? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Company Page Updates

To Whom it May Concern,

I need to update my company's page. The entire article is completely out of date. ~2025-31966-35 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Please make requests on the article's talk page, following our COI and paid editing policies.

Your requests will be mroe likely to succeed if you can give reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

No disclaimers, but a disclaimer template

Longtime listener, first time caller (so to speak).

In early 2020, editor Waxworker added to the article Data corruption an example corrupted video, captioned "A video that has been corrupted. Waxworker included the text "Warning: This video contains bright, flashing images", obviously intended for those prone to seizures due to same.

Today, Test account for testing (yes, that's the correct username) removed the text per "no disclaimers". Digging around, I found the formal WP:Content disclaimer, which states "Wikipedia may contain images and videos which can trigger epileptic seizures and other medical conditions." I certainly understand the rationale. But digging further, I ran across Commons:Template:Seizure warning. That certainly seems reasonable too - but I've no idea whether it's applicable on WP, and am not going to venture to add it to the article. But it seems prudent, at least, to warn those prone to seizures of the risk.

I'm wondering if it would be improper/inappropriate/a violation of the spirit of the disclaimer to simply modify the caption language, e.g. "A video that has been corrupted, displaying bright, flashing images", which is a true and correct description.

I'm happy to go with whatever is the correct path. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

When to TNT?

Roméo et Juliette (musical) is almost certainly a notable subject, but at the moment our article is almost entirely sourced to a Tripod fansite. However, I suspect that if I take it to AfD, it will be Keep because the subject is notable. What's my best step here? Suggest WP:TNT at AfD? Just leave it and hope I or someone else have time to rewrite it soon? Something else entirely? Meadowlark (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Meadowlark, as described in Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and WP:SURMOUNTABLE, problems like poor sourcing should usually be fixed without deletion if the subject is notable. If you can't easily fix the problem yourself, you can add maintenance tags or ask WikiProjects for help. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Template: Date_table_sorting

Is there a way to make the abbr=on and format=mdy from this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Date_table_sorting apply to a whole table instead of repeating it on every row? ~2025-32119-45 (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

No. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Table sorting

Is there a way to make one column of a table un-sortable? If the other columns can be sorted? I think I've seen it when reading pages, but I can't work out how to make it happen? ~2025-32119-45 (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

See Help:Sortable tables#Making selected columns unsortable. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)