I’m a small donor and use you quite frequently. You used to say the subjects age as well as date of birth, (but I’m quite awful at math) and having to figure out someone’s age spoils my enjoyment. I’m 79 and although that’s not an excuse, I’d love if you could calculate someone’s age like you used to. Thank you so much Cherrill Faruzzi ~2026-64869-5 (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify a certain article where this is an issue? 331dot (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-64869-5: We usually state the age if the article has an infobox. We haven't changed practice so I guess you just happened to recently see some articles which never stated the age. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that do this (eg. Stephen Fry) often use a template, {{birth date and age}}, to automatically calculate the age from the date so it stays up to date as time passes. However, the template has to be manually added to each article; sometimes editors neglect to include it. – Scyrme (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to read on a mac, you can press command+space to bring up a search bar that also works as a calculator. I'm bad at math too, it's a life saver mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to get another opinion on notability before I get into making an article on Mary Garfield Stanley-Brown (wikidata:Q75766697; the daughter of James A. Garfield, wife of Joseph Stanley-Brown, and mother of Margaret Stanley-Brown). Besides mentions in biographies of her father, I found:

• A profile on the US National Park Service website: https://www.nps.gov/people/mary-mollie-garfield.htm
• One paragraph on the Smithsonian website: https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/mollie-garfield-papers-8174/biographical-note
• An article in the Archives of American Art Journal: doi:10.1086/aaa.45.1_2.25435100
• A book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mollie_Garfield_in_the_White_House/utYEAQAAIAAJ

Normally I'd say the book would bring it over the line, but it was written by her own daughter. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: hi, if you don't get an answer here you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. More sources would be useful, have you done (or asked somebody to do) a newspapers.com search? TSventon (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are mentions of her in newspapers, but the only secondary coverage is in obituaries, which is still routine. And I've found that WiR is more concerned about the number of articles created than the quality of sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, for what little it's worth, is that she is not wiki-notable enough to be worthy of an article in her own right. What did she do beyond being somebody's daughter/wife/mother and collecting some autographs? Chuntuk (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recent updates made by user ~2026-672111-2 appear as a political opinion labeling a public news person by using inflammatory descriptions. The update was made by a user who newly created an account and has made a single update making it look like they are anonymous. Wolfgan20 (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wolfgan20, I think there's a small typo in the username and you probably meant this edit here. It was indeed problematic and I reverted it. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are our new temporary accounts. The WMF thought exposing non-logged in editors IPs was a privacy issue so they implemented them a few months ago mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know that in the Source editor, we use colons to indent text the equivalent of one tab stop, but I prefer to work in the Visual editor and haven't yet figured out how to do it there. Guidance, please—also the associated short cut, if there is one. Augnablik (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From my knowledge, that is not possible in visual editor, unless you use spaces. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 21:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AdmiralCarl Do you mean that leading spaces have a special function in Visual, or do you mean just adding spaces by hand on each line?

Different screens or windows have different line lengths, so adding spaces by hand isn't really useful unless all your paragraphs happen to be very very short. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, as in just pressing the spacebar repeatedly.... AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 22:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like they said, adding repeated spaces at the start of a line doesn't work if the text is long enough to wrap around to a new line. I also think it would get on other editor's nerves if you did that in ordinary text. Usually padding things out with spaces is only done in templates in the source code to make them easier to read. I know if I found an article that started a sentence with repeated spaces I would just delete the spaces or revert the edit as unhelpful. (Edit: I'm also not sure how that would actually look in the source code - what would the visual editor convert it to?) – Scyrme (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: I gave the visual editor a try while logged out and it seems you can indent text in the same menu at the top that you use to add a bulleted list. The icon looks like three stacked lines with bullet points on the left. It only appears when editing articles, not in Talk page replies. That same menu also lists the keyboard shortcuts as Tab or Ctrl+] to add indentation and Tab+Shift or Ctrl+[ to remove indentation.

However, on my end those options were greyed out and I couldn't actually use them. I don't know why. Maybe those options are only available to logged in editors or have to be enabled in preferences? I honestly don't know. I don't personally use the visual editor when logged in. (In fact I don't even know how to switch to it; I can't find the option, so I suspect I disabled it in my user preferences at some point. When I click "edit" it goes directly to the source editor for me.)

Maybe Tab or the options in the bullet point menu work on your end? If they're also greyed out on your end and no-one here knows why, maybe the editors over at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might have an idea as to why they're listed but not enabled. – Scyrme (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Going directly to the source mode is done through the preferences; I enabled it but I don't remember where... AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found the relevant preferences. Turns out you have to both check the option to "enable the visual editor" and also set the "editing mode" menu to "show both editor tabs" (I had it on "remember my last editor").

Situation on my end in the visual editor in is the same when I'm logged in. The options are listed, including shortcuts, but they're greyed out and I can't actually use them. – Scyrme (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You found them, nice, and thank you, now I can change that option. AdmiralCarl (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up at several points on my question, Scyme. I'll address your comments from several messages at the same time here.

— I noticed that the bulleted icon you mentioned occurs at the top left only in Source edit mode, whereas in Visual it appears in the Tool bar. Could it be that the indentation tool was once operative but no more? That seems counterintuitive.

— And when I did use the icon, like you I found the two options greyed out as you did.

— As for using the Tab key, that wouldn't indent an entire paragraph, only its first line. This reminds me, though, that some months ago I had a somewhat similar conversation as this one with my mentor, although he rarely uses the Visual editor; and what he suggested was to use the Block feature among the Paragraph tools. That indents the paragraph from both the left and the right, however, not just from the left. It's not quite what I'm looking for.

Still hoping, so now I'll follow your advice and go with my question to VP-T. Augnablik (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In 2005 I began editing at Wikipedia using my IP Address as my username. Having just changed my broadband supplier I discover that my username is no longer recognised to login here. Who can help, please, to let me change my username and retrieve those past edits? - CLOFM ~2026-71910-2 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which 'username' are you referring to? I don't think it has ever been possible to register an IP address as a username. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I joined Wiki in 2005 it certainly let me use my 12-digit number and plenty of people did do that back then. There's only one slot for entering our "username" when we login - unless you know otherwise! - clofm ~2026-71910-2 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Andy, you can still see plenty of IP numbers as usernames when you view the history of an article. OK maybe not as many as once upon a time, but my username is still visible in plenty of histories. clofm ~2026-71910-2 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us what username you have been using. We aren't mind readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those IP numbers aren't usernames. It was never possible to use an IP as a username on Wikipedia; that was explicitly not allowed. Instead, if you edited without logging in to an account, it would use your IP like a 'temporary username' of sorts.

I think it is quite possible that you were editing logged out the whole time you thought you were using your IP as a username. In any case, it would be helpful if you'd tell us what that IP address was, so we can find your contributions. Athanelar (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this person may have asked this question already, either here or Teahouse, within the past month(ish), and never answered that time either. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Presiously, if you did not create an account, your edits were attributed to your IP, which was assigned by your ISP. All those edits still exist and are still attributed to those IPs in article histories; if you know the IP, you can see the list of all if its edits. However, they could never be transferred to another attribution--neither a different IP if your IP changed nor an actual account if you created one. If your IP changed your contributions list did not follow you. Retaining "all your edits" even as you change IPs was one of the advantages of creating an account.

Now we have "temporary accounts" that are automatically created if you make an edit without creating a regular account. Like IP non-accounts, TA edits cannot be transferred, so if your TA changes, your previous edits do not follow you. Like IP edits, TA edits do not transfer if you change TA (but like IP you can always look up those old edits if you know the TA name). Unlike IPs, TA identity is designed to automatically live with your device, so if you switch IPs your TA stays the same and your history is intact. However, TA accounts automatically and non-optionally expire in 90 days, and might also change if you switch browsers or delete your cookies. If you make an edit afer that, you get a new TA with no contributions history.

Overall, the only way to retain beyond 90 days is now to create an account. And from that account, you can add a note that you previously edited using IP... and TA... so others can see that history of yours. DMacks (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-71910-2 What EXACTLY was your user name? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A random sequence of twelve numbers. What's the point, anyway, it's not like the edit history can be retrieved somehow? JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JustARandomSquid With the IP, something like [1] can be found, and the OP might be a little happier. See also my comment below. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This person claims to have specific knowledge of the numbers they were using. If they have the numbers, I want to help them. If in fact they don't have the numbers, I want to expose their lie. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JustARandomSquid No, it wasn't a random sequence of 12 numbers; it was a specific sequence of 12 numbers, which was apparently a fixed IP address for this user. David10244 (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant random in the sense that there wasn't any logic to them. JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-71910-2 Find an article you know you edited. Look at the edit history, and find an edit you made. The edits you made with that IP are linked from there. If you made edits with several IP:s, repeat as necessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks to everybody who has replied. I see now how my own memory has played a trick. As DMacks says: it wasn’t so much me *entering* my IP number as username in 2005 but simply starting to edit and by default my IP number became the index for my edits like a temporary account today. And thanks to Athanelar for your clarification and to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for the hint for reaching my history… I’ve been lucky to have the same IP address for 20 years, until now, but clearly I now must create a named account… As for AndyTheGrump (living his name to the hilt) and TooManyFingers, I have not mentioned that IP address of mine because the rules, published at the top of this column, say explicitly: “Do not provide your email address or any other contact information.” On balance, job done, so thanks all round. ~2026-71910-2 (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-71910-2 If you want, when/if you make a named account, you can note on your userpage something like "My previous edits can be seen at [2]." It's up to you, and as you say, revealing ones IP can have some unwanted effects, that's why we now have the WP:TA thing instead. Then again, your IP has been in the open for 20 years on WP, and still is, if one knows where to look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-71910-2: I've found your old IP (which is unusually static), but I don't want to reveal it here, even though I didn't use TAIV directly to obtain it. Registering an account at Special:CreateAccount will give you a persistent account that'll last for as long as Wikipedia exists, even if your IP changes. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jewish Organizations

I've recently created the sidebar (seen to the right) of Jewish organizations, and I want to add this onto some relevant articles. However, there are dozens or even hundreds of articles in some of its sections, which I don't want to add manually. Is there a way to use a tool or a bot to automatically have it added to every article that's within a specific category? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why a sidebar and not a template to go, far less distractingly, at the foot (like for example Template:Restaurants in the City of New York, as seen at the foot of, for example, The Coffee Shop (New York City))? -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lists here do seem excessively long for a sidebar. Sidebars have to share space with images and other templates, but expanding the "American" section, would likely displace most them from their intended location on the page. Usually sidebars are selective in what they include, rather than comprehensively trying to replicate the contents of a category.

Many sidebars link to a relevant category for a more comprehensive list of relevant articles (eg. {{Philosophy sidebar}} or {{Taoism}}, which have an explicit links to their main categories in the "above" or "below" links, or {{Human history}} which links to its main category in the "part of a series on" preamble at the top). This helps avoid the problem of trying to include everything.

If the intention is to have a comprehensive list organised by topic or region (as opposed to just an alphabetical listing in a category page), you can also make a "List of..." or "Outline of..." article and link to that in a prominent position in the sidebar/navbox, like {{Philosophy sidebar}} (sidebar) or {{Geography topics}} (navbox) do. – Scyrme (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's far too big and loosely connected for a sidebar. It has 411 links! Some of it could be split into multiple navboxes. Don't use header markup ==...== in templates. The sections are added to the table of contents so I removed the transclusion from this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are precedents for large/complex navboxes. For example, {{philosophy topics}} has full, large collapsible subsections organised by branch/topic, era/history, and region/geography. I know many editors prefer smaller navboxes too, but at least when navboxes get too large it's less intrusive than an overlong sidebar. Nothing on the page gets displaced far from where it's intended to be. In general, navboxes are less prone to causing arguments over what warrants inclusion in the template and what articles should use the template. Might be the way to go if Wikieditor662 is very adamant about not cutting the links down much. – Scyrme (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be both, where a navbox has more items, while the sidebar has only the most notable ones? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's basically the current situation with {{Philosophy sidebar}} vs the navbox {{Philosophy topics}}. That said, sometimes if a sidebar and navbox are very similar an editor may list it at WP:TFD arguing that one of them should be deleted. – Scyrme (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I added it, as can be seen in Template:List of Jewish organizations, however, now I have the same problem: how am I going to add the navbox to all of these articles? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably need a bot or script to do it. I doubt there's a ready made, public bot available, since an automatic way for any editor to flood a whole category with a template is something that could easily be abused.

There may be a way to use WP:AWB with a script or something to speed up the job of doing it manually, but I've never used it so I could be wrong.

If no one else here knows of a way, you may have better luck asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). – Scyrme (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing a lot of articles with this. For example, Leonid Chernovetskyi, has a citation to https://www.facebook.com/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fchernovetskiy

Should this be deleted or moved to the External links section or marked as citation needed ? Meltedrock (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and other social media accounts do belong in External links. Facebook as a reference can be used sparingly, for example, "John Jones announced his candidacy for mayor of Swan Lake on Facebook." The sentence "John Jones is active on Facebook" might be true when the sentence was inserted, but it might not be true later, so I'm not crazy about using a Facebook page to support the article saying someone is active on Facebook, as Leonid Chernovetskyi does, sloppily, viz "Leonid Chernoverskiy belongs [sic] remains active on social media, including Facebook". The External link should be templated, viz:

* {{Facebook|Fchernovetskiy}}

which on Leonid Chernovetskyi will display as

• Leonid Chernovetskyi on Facebook

Anomalocaris (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, in this case, that shouldn't be added to Leonid_Chernovetskyi#External_links per WP:ELMIN. His official website would be enough even if it didn't link his FB, which it does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and @Anomalocaris Meltedrock (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Meltedrock: I believe WP:ELMIN is saying that ordinarily there should be only one official website. I don't think it's deprecating the listing of social media sites in External links. We might not want to list the Facebook page just because the subject of an article has a Facebook page, but if the article specifically notes that the individual is active on Facebook, it seems to me that it's fine to include their Facebook page in External links. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Normally, only one official link is included. ... However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites."

If there is no firstnamelastname.com website, then it's fine to pick one social media, FB, insta, whatever, to do the WP:ELOFFICIAL job. Raegan_Revord#External_links and Johnathon_Schaech#External_links are examples. If the EL-section has a list of several subject social media, it's time for weeding. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:NOSOCIAL - Arjayay (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which is under the heading "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article Leonid Chernovetskyi indicates that he is notable mainly as a politician and businessman, and the article does not suggest that he is notable as a social media influencer or that his Facebook page has any significance, so I agree that External links should not include his Facebook page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting pop-ups about watchlist labels, but these have no explanation as to what they are meant to be used for, or links to where further information is available. They are not mentioned in Help:Watchlist, so where is there any information about them? - Arjayay (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think these were deployed across various wikis literally within the last 24 hours or less, and I guess the local documentation hasn't caught up yet. It looks like mw:Help:Watchlist labels is the place to start. Ping @Samwalton9 (WMF) who I think has been working on this. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Thanks ClaudineChionh - although that page states "This page is currently a draft." and doesn't explain why you might wish to label things. - Arjayay (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yep, I'm happy to help if you have questions with this. It's a Community Tech project but I've been working with them on it. Claudine has linked the relevant help page, which we've been keeping up to date, so feel free to copy over text to the local help page. If you have any questions, bugs, or feature requests feel free to let me know here and I can get those documented and passed on to the team! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Samwalton9 (WMF) As I posted above in an edit-conflict, that page states "This page is currently a draft." It also doesn't explain what the idea behind it was nor what it can be used for - please provide some examples. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay Good point! We hadn't got to finalising the page yet. I've just updated it, added images, and removed that Draft template. Is it clearer now? Is there anything there that you think could still be improved? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Samwalton9 (WMF) that is a lot clearer - but is it now linked from the pop-up? (I can't tell, as i dismissed them) - it is still not linked from Help:Watchlist, nor upon clicking the "Labels" link on my watchlist page - so how is a user supposed to find out about it? - Arjayay (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay When you're on Special:WatchlistLabels there is a Help link in the top right which points to this help page. As a local help page, I'll leave Help:Watchlist to be updated by local editors to include information about this feature or point to the MediaWiki help page. We might want to update the Help icon at Special:Watchlist to point to a more generic help page than the one that it currently links to, so I've filed T416179. We should also update mw:Help:Watching pages to point to our new help page too, we'll do that soon. Thanks for chatting this through - making sure new features are well documented can be hard! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Making sure new features are well documented is an item to put on every development project's predeployment checklist. Why would a developer push something live with a documentation page that literally states that it is in draft form? Please adjust the WMF's basic development deployment checklists; that, at least, should not be hard. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9 (WMF) How would someone know to "be" at Special:watchlist labels when they see the pop-up? The doc should be linked from the pop-up, and that should have certainly been step 1 of the implementation and tezting. If what I read here is true, it's incredible that this step was missed! David10244 (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9 (WMF) I suspect that whatever bugs it might have, they're probably less important than this: whoever was dragging their feet complaining that this shouldn't be released yet, they must immediately (and permanently) be given the power to overrule the ones who decided to push ahead anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers Could you elaborate on this a little? Do you mean that the feature should not have been released in its current state? I'd love to know why you think this if so! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay I think my pop-up had a "next" button or something, and it disappeared after I had followed that to the end, like 2-3 clicks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes Gråbergs Gråa Sång it did have a "next" and then a second screen - neither of which linked to, or explained, anything - and the only way to stop it popping up every time I went to my watchlist, was to click the "Got it" button - even though the only thing I had "got" was annoyed at the unhelpful pop-ups. - Arjayay (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samwalton9 (WMF) - For awareness, there's at least one other community talkpage that was wondering about the new feature: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Manage labels. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it currently doesn't read "Got it" as "don't show me this tutorial again". Can't imagine it won't get patched soon. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The large box covers up or obscures Watchlist notices. Failed experiment or WMF make-work project? Better gone than present. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Click the button like it says. Two clicks and it goes away. The idea is that you could (for example) make a label called "socks" and add it to pages on your watchlist that you want to occasionally check to see if a particular sock has returned. Then you can choose to view only the pages with that label. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Did that before I posted here. Please think of the tens of thousands of users who won't know to keep on clicking, and who will have to clear this needless box every time they look at their watchlist. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "Click the button like it says. Two clicks and it goes away. The idea is that you could (for example) make a label called "socks" and add it to pages on your watchlist that you want to occasionally check to see if a particular sock has returned. Then you can choose to view only the pages with that label."

  So you've added a feature without documentation, that I am never likely to use, and which obscures my Watchlist every time I try to look at it, and which I have to click twice to make it go away, because you know better than me what I "may" want to use? Have I summarised it correctly? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Are you seeing the popup every time you visit your Watchlist? It should only displayed once - after you click 'Got It' they won't be shown again. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's helpful Sam, I had this pop up on five occasions whilst on mobile, each time clicking the prompt. Looks to have stopped now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Samwalton9 (WMF) Why was this implemented without community discussion? David10244 (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• See also discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § A new feature added, without community consent. A prominent announcement of this new feature before going live might have prevented some complaints/confusion. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm trying to request a new article, about myself and to say that I'm confused, is an understatement. For instance, there is no such button as "Publish changes" only "Publish page". Hoping someone can help. Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Publish" in our context simply means "save and make public", as all edits are public.

Are you attempting to create an article about yourself, or just request one? 331dot (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request one, preferably. Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can request one at Requested Articles(if you're not there already)- but it is backlogged to the point of uselessness; any request you make will not be acted on for some time, if ever(and that's assuming you meet the relevant criteria for inclusion).

If you truly feel that you meet the relevant notability criteria(like musician or writer or academic or just a person) you are free to attempt to create an article about yourself, though its inadvisable; please see the autobiography policy. You would need to set aside everything that you know about yourself and limit yourself to summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you. Most people have great difficulty doing that about themselves, especially without prior Wikipedia editing experience. But, if you want to try nevertheless, you may create and submit a draft via the Article Wizard. It is rare for people to succeed in writing about themselves, but it does happen.

Be advised that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's helpful. Yes, I meant the criteria and it would be helpful to have everything in one place. Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the best place for you to have all information about yourself in one place is a personal website or social media account that you own and control. You will not have exclusive control over any Wikipedia article about you, and it may say things that you might prefer not be said as long as they appear in an independent reliable source and are not defamatory. Most people fail in attempting to write about themselves, but you are free to attempt to submit a draft as I advise. I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial first. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sleep on it. Thanks. Echo-Reverb (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Meet, I meant to say (no pun). Echo-Reverb (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that almost everyone who comes here for help is quite confident that they meet the criteria, and yet they very often don't meet them - often not even close to meeting them. The usual problem is Wikipedia:Notability. Within that category, common problems are

• sources that don't tell the subject's entire history
• sources that are influenced by the subject

We have to stick very close to being only a restatement of what's already in the sources. For example, the subject is allowed to fill in for themselves "My birthdate is February 2", but not allowed to fill in "I'm a well-known painter". For that reason, we need sources that truly speak for themselves - we have to be confident that if we just plopped the three best sources onto a table, readers would have the full story just from that.

And while sources that appear to have possibly been influenced by the subject (or their publicist or associates) are not completely useless, they are much closer to useless than subjects usually expect. They can't be used at all when it comes to telling your story - they can't be one of those "three best sources" mentioned in the previous paragraph. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pleased to say that a colleague has stepped in and will now be taking up the challenge. He’s set up a few pages previously and although we discussed it many years ago, I didn’t want to burden him, however, he thought I’d never ask. Bless him. ~2026-73285-7 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that if the person writing about you also works about you, they will have a Conflict of interest. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, however, Sean doesn’t work for or with me, he’s a fan, but it just feels more comfortable to say colleague. I generally refer to individuals as “my good friend and colleague”. It works for me. ~2026-73285-7 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He will still have a conflict of interest. Editors have no need to contact the subject of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And, @~2026-73285-7, Sean will still have the challenge of

• finding the independent reliable sources about you that are required to establish that you meet Wikipedia's criterai for notability (most of us don't); and if he cannot find them, telling you so, and not spending any more time on this project;
• setting aside everything that he knows about you except from those sources
• making sure that almost everything in the article is verifiable from a reliable published source that is wholly independent of you: not only not written or published by you, but not based on an interview or press release from you or your associates or organisations. (Some limited information may come from non-independent published sources: see primary)
• fairly summarising what those sources say, even if he disagrees with them or knows that you will disagree with them.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you had got someone who had never heard of you, AND was happy to write for free, AND you provided them absolutely no information but just left them to look it up for themselves, your sense of relief would be justified. But the situation you've described is, from Wikipedia's point of view, really no different from having you do it yourself (or only barely different). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in user creation logs, you'll see that it states that a user created another user account. How does the log know that? Does one not need to sign out in order to create another account? thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 18:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Users with the WP:Account creator user group are able to make accounts without needing to sign out, which the log knows and logs. I hope this answers your question! dot.py (alt) 18:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's it. The log in question I saw was a blocked user creating other accounts (which were later blocked as socks). thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 18:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Normal users can make up to 6 accounts per 24 hour period via Special:CreateAccount. Account creator allows users to make more than that. Skynxnex (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, it looks like you don't actually need the account creator user group, you would just need to go to Special:CreateAccount. Account creators just aren't limited to the 6 accounts/day limit. dot.py (alt) 18:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Logged in users can create accounts using Special:CreateAccount, and it will be logged that they created a new account from their account. Typically used for creating bot accounts or for ACC purposes. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is also done by some of our less sophisticated sockmasters. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can create a new account while being signed in. Account creators can bypass the 6 account/IP/day limit. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago I hired a wiki writing firm to assist with a biography of my Father. They were supposed to submit it to Wikipedia for review. They never did that and now they are not able to be contacted. I believe I was scammed and I REALLY wanted to speak with one of your representatives. I am not real computer literate but I have spent so much time and money on this project, I do not want to scrap it. Help, please. ~2026-72700-6 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common scam. See Wikipedia:Scam warning. Sugar Tax (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As you suspect, you were scammed. Please read the scam warning. In that regard, there's not much we can do to help you. You can contact your bank and have the charge declared fraudulent. You could contact your local authorities but there's probably not much they can do.

We can't do much to write the article for you; this is a volunteer effort, not a business. Writing a new article is challenging, but you can try by using the Article Wizard. I'd suggest using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelmingly important detail is that whomever you hired has no actual affiliation with Wikipedia itself. It's a third party that is totally independent, and you'd have to work with them directly (or with whatever other financial or legal services are relevant). So that's why we can't do anything...not because we aren't sympathetic or frustrated by this sort of situation. DMacks (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of the biography. Where can I submit it for Wikipedia review and suggestions? KANINGRYTA (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@KANINGRYTA Visit WP:AFC , which is a submission vehicle an inexperienced or inexpert user will often use. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. However, you should first formally disclose your conflict of interest on your user page(User:KANINGRYTA) You should make sure that the draft is a summary of what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about your father, and that it has no personal knowledge. You need to show that your father is a notable person(there are also narrower criteria for certain fields, like musicians) 331dot (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-72700-6@KANINGRYTA In addition to what others have said, please forward your entire conversation with this 'wiki writing firm' to the reporting address at paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org so appropriate action can be taken against these scammers. Athanelar (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a caution: when sending your entire conversation, do not omit, edit, or redact anything. Send every bit of it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add an animation to an article. I have since reverted this edit, since the GIF was not animated unless you click on it. I have seen animations work without enlarging them on other articles. How can I make the GIF play all the time? Emgram (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The File:Homotopy lifting gif.gif file on commons has a comment "Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated. The limit on Wikimedia Commons is width × height × number of frames ≤ 100 million." DMacks (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Emgram (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a time zone preference set, but there are timestamps displayed that the preference doesn't affect. I don't like Wikipedia showing some converted and some non-converted times - I'd prefer them all to act the same. Consistency and reliability over convenience.

But convenience is nice too. I've seen at least one Wikipedia user script that says it will change Wikipedia's UTC to local time in places where that normally isn't done, but I'm not convinced it would be free of unintended consequences. I'd rather just switch off my time zone preference, see all of Wikipedia in UTC, and be certain Wikipedia is working right - unless there's some kind of indication like "Oh, tons of people use that script, it works great for me, never had a problem".

I'm not even sure I could identify all the possible pitfalls of messing with time display, let alone knowing how to check whether such a script deals with them correctly, and I figure there must be a good reason why Wikipedia doesn't show everything in everyone's local time by default.

Note: I have intentionally not linked to the script, because if I get much "Really? Never heard of that - where did you see it?" then I already know it's not for me. I don't want this to become an in-depth discussion of the particulars of running a time-display script and how to know where and whether it's behaving correctly; I just want to know if it's already in wide problem-free use. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So what essentially do you want help with (summarise the 4 paragraphs above) ? AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know whether numerous people who each have many years of experience on Wikipedia use such a script. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You mean scrips that change UTC time to the time of the user (I've seen those on user pages and their talk)? AdmiralCarl (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The time zone setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering is part of MediaWiki and only affects times shown in MediaWiki logs like page histories, wathclist, user contributions. Signatures have the time stamp hard coded as page text like 22:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC). The English Wikipedia has the user-made gadget (a script) "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time (documentation)" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It's disabled by default but you can try it without editing your common JavaScript. I tried it once but disabled it for several reasons. It uses am/pm (could be changed with a user js setting), it changes the displayed time after the page has already loaded, it makes it harder to refer to a post by its time (always use the original UTC for that), and also harder (at least for me when I was inexperienced with it) to work out what else the user was doing at the time. Special:GadgetUsage says 22,848 users (1,025 active users) have enabled it. It works correctly as far as I know but not everybody will like it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll just switch my preference to UTC and be done with it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every few years I switch it to my local time zone, and then within a day I realize why I keep it at UTC. It's just too confusing with contribution history showing one time, and comment signatures showing something else. I know what my local time is, and I have the gadget enabled that shows the UTC clock in the upper right corner of any Wikipedia page, so I can judge how long ago a timestamp occurred. Good enough for me. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Can you please give me a brief list of things that a experienced user should know? Anya2025 11:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMER for a good introduction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make an article via the sandbox and it got reset even after I published it. PLease help me. Calvinnnn5 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: [3]. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Calvinnnn5.

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

Starting writing an article in any other way than finding sources which each meet all the criteria in WP:42 is usually a waste of time.

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. ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Calvinnnn. In addition to ColinFine's excellent advice above, please read the following linked subsection of a larger topic: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which includes a decision Wikipedia determined in 2017: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist."

There are around 15,000 Middle Schools (so named) in the USA alone, and probably more than 100,000 Middle Schools or their equivalent Worldwide.

(Some countries have few or any because they structure their education system differently.)

Very few Middle Schools merit an article in a global encyclopedia like Wikipedia, and when they do it's usually because of something exceptional about them. Ordinary Middle Schools have no reason for Wikipedia to include them, and your article, now a Draft, does not suggest that your School is any different. Sorry, but it's very unlikely that an acceptable article about it is possible. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF

Hello! Ive recently been working on the backlog of COI edit requests where I frequently encounter paid editors. I was wondering what yall's thoughts were concerning paid editors and assuming good faith. Do you think the "barrier" to assuming bad faith is lower? Thanks! - Otherwise (Talk?) 17:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where is an example that made you ask this question?

It says "assume good faith", but it does NOT say "assume good work". Bad work is bad work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A disclosed paid editor from the Expedia Group requested removal of a section of an article regarding a scandal saying it was not related to the Expedia Group, only a particular subgroup of it. They claimed they reviewed the sources of the relevant section and that "Expedia Group is only mentioned in passing in two sources as a part owner of Trivago". When I examined the same sources, it clearly stated that the Expedia Group as a whole was involved.

In my initial response, I will admit I assumed bad faith and was passive aggresive. I since revised my reply to be more civil. I was just wondering what yall's thoughts were on this. - Otherwise (Talk?) 19:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend working on some of the more recent COI edit requests, if you're starting to feel a bit frustrated due to the creativity of the older requests. If ERs are just sitting there, there's a decent chance its bc the request is in some way deficient. One or more of long, biased, or poorly formatted.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TMF, @Mustbeotherwise. Paid editors who are new to Wikipedia (which many of them are) generally simply don't understand our policies on promotion, advertising, NPOV etc, and are here in good faith, trying to do something that they don't know might be impossible or forbidden. ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've assumed good faith for all paid editors unless I have a reason not to. I feel like I should've worded my question a different way. I guess my question is, is it reasonable to have a lower threshold to assume bad faith for paid editors compared to non-paid editors? - Otherwise (Talk?) 19:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "official" answer is that it's the same as for anybody else: assume good faith until proven otherwise, and remember that people can do a lot of unproductive things in good faith.

My personal stance on the matter is that we have to remember what we ought to mean by 'good faith.' The usual way people seem to mean it is that anybody acting without disruptive or vandalistic intent is acting in 'good faith'. For me, though, 'good faith' means a good faith attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia: which means doing the necessary due diligence to familiarise oneself with our rules and standards to at least some extent before jumping headlong into editing, article creation, etc.

In my experience, paid editors most often are here with a singleminded intent to get their edits/draft published, and have absolutely no intent or desire to contribute to the encyclopedia outside of that. If it were up to most of them, they would happily create the most appalling, shoddily sourced, non-NPOV article you've ever seen and call it a day, because their goal is to publicise their company/employer/self, not to build an encyclopedia. They only care about meeting Wikipedia's standards because it is a barrier between them and getting their edits published. That, for me, is antithetical to 'good faith.'

If someone showed up to volunteer at a soup kitchen so they could record themselves doing it for internet clout, and as a result their food hygiene practices were subpar, they weren't interacting properly with the people coming in to get fed, etc, would anyone suggest they are acting 'in good faith?' In the Wikipedia sense of the word, they arguably would be, considering they aren't actively trying to sabotage the operation. But would anyone really think they're genuinely there to contribute to the operation? Of course not. Athanelar (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Well, I guess a better question would be, when is good faith proven otherwise? If an paid editor makes a false statement to support their change, do I still assume good faith? - Otherwise (Talk?) 19:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you can treat the false material as 100% false while assuming it wasn't their fault, sure. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(However, I'm conflicted about this, because assuming good faith where it's clear none exists is IMO counterproductive and dishonest.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know to what end It's reasonable to assume good faith... A recent example, involving you actually, is this COI edit request. So many of their claims were misleading. - Otherwise (Talk?) 08:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith doesn't mean assuming they're right.

Maybe AGF should quote Hanlon's razor directly, if it doesn't already - i.e. if stupidity is enough to cover someone's actions, then there's no point in accusing them of malice. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is not how to edit, it's part of how to not get in a fight when you could have avoided it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When is good faith proven otherwise? I recall an incident where the subject of a biography tried to change it to be more favorable to him, was asked repeatedly to stop and use the talk page to propose requests, ended up being blocked for disruption, created a sockpuppet account to evade the block, and even hired someone to edit in his behalf rather than trying to appeal the block. Eventually he decided he'd suffered enough and came clean, admitting everything, but as far as I know the account is still blocked and the article is still in the state it was in before he came along. That's an example where an assumption of good faith became strained, and then impossible, within a short time. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything on WP:AGF which exempts certain classes of people from its scope? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Spammers, vandals, scammers, paid editors who refuse to disclose, editors who mostly engage in personal attacks or vendettas, are all exempt as far as I am concerned. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello

what is different between [WP] and [MOS] ??( i have seen in summery of edits)

where can i use them ??

should i memorize them??

i don't know how to use them please help me to know about how to use . Anya2025 20:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anything listed as WP: is those in Wikipedia space. This is a redirect to something like WP:NOT being Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

MOS stands for Manual of Style, so the style guide. These generally link to pages within our Manual of style, which is the prefix Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For instance, MOS:CAPS links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters.

In general, these links being sent to you are to show policies and guidelines that apply to Wikipedia. There are a lot, but you should try and follow them as best you can. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much 🌹 Anya2025 20:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:" and "Wikipedia:" are prefixes for the Wikipedia namespace. You can see a list of all the namespaces and more information about them at Wikipedia:Namespace. – Scyrme (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

These namespaces are a kind of categories. When you use one of them, you should memorize that it exists - for example, now you know that WP: and MOS: both exist. And knowing they exist, it's also good to get to know what kind of stuff is in them, so that when you want to look for something you'll know where to start.

But don't try to memorize all the items that each one of them contains - your head would explode! :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much 🌺 Anya2025 06:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

what constitutes an AI, more specifically can we use text editors such as grammerly Ducklan (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to one of Wikipedia's biggest ongoing debates.

Consensus as it stands is that AI chatbots like ChatGPT should not be used to generate entirely new articles. Using them to generate comments in discussions is also heavily discouraged and a ban is being discussed.

Grammarly does utilise large language models and so should be used with caution, as it's been known to overcorrect and change the meaning of text.

For full guidance, please read WP:LLM Athanelar (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would much rather read someone's bad grammar. Not everyone is at the highest level in English, and that's fine. If people get your meaning almost all the time, then it's probably enough. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're extremely strongly discouraged, because there is no need to let them corrupt your writing. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined Wikipedia for the first time. Any tips on making and editing articles? Also what should I first do as a new member on Wikipedia? NoriAndris (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First tip is don't even think about creating new articles until you've grasped the basics, and got a bit more familiar with how the place works. Beyond that, see Help:Introduction, and Help:Editing, and then find yourself something that suits your skills and interests. Take a look at articles on subjects you know something about. Could the wording be improved? Are there grammatical errors? If you are reasonably confident in your English-language skills, it isn't hard to find articles that could do with a bit of copy-editing. Or maybe the article needs more (or better) sources: this is a bit trickier, since we have fairly strict rules about what we will cite in articles - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Getting a firm grasp of our sourcing policy takes a bit of time, but it is an essential skill if you want to contribute new content. More generally though, my advice is to find something that interests you, work on that, and don't let yourself get bored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want suggestions for ways you can contribute, Wikipedia:Task Center may be helpful. – Scyrme (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have left some useful introductory links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft talk:Wiknic

An unknown reviewer said "Even for events hosted by the English Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia is not a reliable source." even though the subject of the article isn't hosted by English Wikipedia, but instead Wikimedia. Also why did they say it's not a reliable source? This person is incorrect. Jaxx99 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are not incorrect, and this is official policy, as the English Wikipedia indeed is not a reliable source and must not be used as one, see Wikipedia:Circular. AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Wiknic

@Jaxx99: Wikipedia is not a reliable source - even for incidents involving itself - and if it does directly involve Wikipedia/-media, Wikipedia would be a primary source with regards to it. Your draft also cites nothing what-so-ever, which would doom any article regardless of topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add, please do not put a section for the References if there are no references. AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would also fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability criteria unless discussed in depth in independent reliable sources - which seems unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry as this was my first draft I made. I will fix it because I'm a beginner to Wikipedia articles and didn't know this obscure rule. Jaxx99 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, no one knows everything. AdmiralCarl (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jaxx99, and welcome to Wikipedia.

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. ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why we consider it inadvisable for newcomers to dive right into article creation. Get some experience editing for a while first and you'll understand the obscure rules much better. Athanelar (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

where do i write a article Casosos (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YFA and then WP:Article wizard. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note it is not recommended that new users attempt to create a new article. Please get familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before attempting. AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not always the case. Many editors, including myself, spent some of their first edits drafting and submitting articles. I don't think we should be too down on people enthusiastic to give it a whirl. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. At the least, be familiar with Wikipedia:Notability. AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being understanding.

I have researched some Generals of the First World War.

I have come across a SPINKS sale catalogue when his property was sold after his death.

The catalogue contains much more info about his life than is currently published.

How do I go about having it included?

Would someone be interested in helping?

This is not my work, I simply discovered it. Attribution will be the SPINKS the Auction House

Paul Whyatt (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Whyatt - are you the same person as @Casosos?

In any case, this is not an acceptable place to put this kind of material. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No I’m NOT the same person as Casosos, what would be the point? I thought the information I had discovered might be worthy of adding to existing material. ~2026-84066-3 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion then - I didn't see why you'd be responding to Casosos's question by adding what you added. Your material might be able to be added to the appropriate article, but only if you remove all statements that look as if they could be your opinion or speculation. Every little detail needs to be credited to an independent reliable source. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to drop this as life’s too short😊 ~2026-84066-3 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that way often when I'm down in the weeds with something on Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign in when you edit. When you sign out, you become a temporary account, as seen by your signature in your last comment. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

does anyone happen to know why the wikilink in the caption of this photo on Armin Mueller-Stahl’s wikipage is displayed in a smaller font size?

(Safari, iPhone 12 Pro, iOS 26.2.1)

Greetings, Molekularbiologe (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The thumb caption of images is smaller in size, but I myself have no idea why. AdmiralCarl (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. It's not smaller on my end, though I'm viewing it on a desktop computer. I tried viewing the page on "mobile view" too, but it was still the usual size. I checked the history of the article to see if anyone edited to fix it, but no one had edited it after you posted. I checked the source code of the article Armin Mueller-Stahl, but there's nothing unusual about the caption. The link highlighted in your screenshot only has the typical Wiki formatting for italics.

Perhaps it's an issue with Safari or iOS?

If it's still smaller on your end, maybe someone at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might know what's going on here. – Scyrme (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The entire caption is already smaller of course, but then the italic link is extra small. I suspect Safari, but can't prove it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I keep trying to submit and I write the exact words on the CAPTCHA and it keeps rejecting me and not letting me publish, this is literally an assignment for one of my courses and it simply just making my life more complicated for no reason. Ivy2020uw (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you have entered the word, do you then click the 'Publish' button some way further down (which is the correct procedure) or do you click the 'Refresh' button next to the CAPTCHA box (which is incorrect)? The latter is a common mistake which I have made myself before now; the 'Refresh' is for asking for a new CAPTCHA challenge because you could not read the previous one. Hope this helps, but if not ask again with more details, like exactly what you're trying to do. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If your teacher has set you an assignment involving editing Wikipedia, please instruct them to reach out to WP:WikiEd if they haven't already, as WikiEd actively works with schools to design sensible coursework involving Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Stephen L. Hurst

Hi there, I created an article and was given feedback that the article didn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. I redid the article and some comments were made but I can't tell exactly where things stand and what to do now. Is there anyone or some place I can turn to for help? Many thanks. Nico Tenpasten (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

At the beginning, you say Hurst is a biopharmaceutical executive, attorney, and venture capitalist. Who has published those facts about him? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reply and questions/instructions! I like your name too. I thought this information could be inferred from Mr. Hurst's documented background, but if it can't I've listed a few resources that can corroborate these facts.

1. biopharmaceutical executive--> he co-founded Mind Medicine (MindMed), Inc. a biopharmaceutical company, served as Executive Vice President of Operations and General Counsel at Inhale Therapeutic Systems.

Potential sources:

https://people.equilar.com/bio/person/stephen-hurst-definium-therapeutics-inc/451761

https://psychedelicreview.com/person/stephen-hurst/

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/21578203?embedded-checkout=true (PAYWALL)

2. attorney--> received a Juris Doctor from Golden Gate University School of Law in 1984, is a registered patent attorney.

Potential sources:

https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/114975

3. venture capitalist--> Hurst is a General Partner at 1864 Fund, a seed-stage venture capital fund in Nevada.

Potential sources:

https://pitchbook.com/profiles/person/208414-72P. (PAYWALL, but I have a PDF of this page). Tenpasten (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalls are fine, but Pitchbook is not independently written - the information comes from the subject himself (or from his staff), and is therefore inadmissible on Wikipedia. At least that's my understanding of how Pitchbook operates - please correct me if I'm wrong. All these things need to come from independent sources, not influenced by the subject or his associates. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of what I've said is related to Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability - plus an excellent summary at WP:42. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Tenpasten

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Later on, you say:

During his tenure, he played a role in raising over $700 million in investment capital and helped out-license multiple clinical development projects.

But as a citation you give Hurst's own advertising. Wikipedia requires independent published confirmation of every salient fact. We can't take Hurst's word for any of his accomplishments. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... Draft:Stephen L. Hurst TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Things that are not accepted on Wikipedia, except in support of mundane statistics such as date of birth:

• Material that appears to have originated with the subject or his associates, regardless of who ultimately publishes it
  • This means anything that seems to come from a CV, a media bio, a press release, an interview, an industry/trade publication, social media, blogs, a corporate or personal website, or a service for business such as LinkedIn or similar
• Material for which a published source is not cited

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to start an AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussion for the article École d'Informatique d'Électronique et d'Expertise comptable but the AfD discussion page link doesn’t seem to exist, and search returns no results. What to do? Weichan123 (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Weichan123 To fix the discussion page link please see full guide @ Afd footer CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Weichan123 The easiest way to start an AfD is to use WP:TWINKLE, which handles all of the relevant filing and tagging in a single button press. Athanelar (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Weichan123, the discussion is up and I have contributed. It is a good idea to search for reliable sources when you nominate for AFD per WP:BEFORE, I couldn't find much. TSventon (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a definition somewhere of what counts as a "revert"? So far I've found detailed lists of n "exceptions" without much detail about what DOES count as a revert.

How closely does it need to resemble the previous version?

Does just removing something count as a "revert" to before it was added?

Late Night Coffee (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have Wikipedia:Reverting..I find it rather comprehensive. Lectonar (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any method that successfully gets rid of (more or less all of) someone's previous edit, counts as a revert. But "editing their edit", so it's still there but you changed it some, is not a revert. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, just removing something that got added is definitely a revert. (But again, not if you only changed a certain part of it.)

Equally, adding back something that they removed is also a revert. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee I think, if any of this came to a dispute resolution, they would look at the pattern of how the person acted. If it looks like Person A really intended to undo whatever Person B had done, they would probably call it a revert, no matter how it was accomplished. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers I don't want to make a formal complaint. I just wanted to tell someone to stop removing my contributions to a page. But I wanted to check I was right about the rule first. They delete various things, often things I've added, about 3 times per day. Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article with a one revert rule. Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You seem (just at a glance) to be making massive and controversial changes to a very controversial article. I'm not convinced that you're really doing valuable things to that article, at least not all the time. I think, on that article, you need to back off, slow down, and make better quality smaller edits. I'm not seeing you as "the good guy" at all in those conflicts; I'd be reverting a lot of it too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If what you're adding is being reverted, the proper approach is to start a discussion about including it, not forcing it back in after the revert. The purpose of WP:1RR is to prevent edit warring, not to give first-mover advantage to someone wanting to include disputed content, which would flip WP:ONUS over. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if the current citation at MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility Valley units and Courtyard units is placed properly. All the information in the Valley units and Courtyard units are supposed to be under the 3rd reference, but I'm not sure if it currently reflects that. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit in this area, so I've not changed anything, but I'd put the reference immediately after "the Valley/Courtyard units are:" rather than against one or all of the items in the bullet lists. That's what's done where you have a single source for who somebody's children are and you list them out in a bullet list (that's what's done by me, anyway) and this is a similar case. Chuntuk (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with access to The Times (British newspaper) please verify the claims referenced to it in the article Husain Al-Musallam? I want to make sure the claims are correct. Thanks. Janhrach (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tried The Wikipedia Library, but unfortunately that only gives access up to 2014, and the references queried are from 2017. TSventon (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Janhrach. Please ask questions like this at the resource exchange. ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The next time, I will. Is it okay (from the copyright standpoint) to request several articles from a well-known newspaper? Janhrach (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can, but editors will probably object if they think you are over-doing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all

This is a slightly odd question but is there a way to search all of my contributions on English Wikipedia for a specific word, phrase or set of words?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiblame lets you search one page for exactly which edit introduced a word or phrase to that page.

You can do an edit summary search on yourself, for what you wrote in those.

But I don't know how to search all of Wikipedia at once. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings I wrote "word or phrase" above, but searching for one word is probably a bad idea - it would find too many false positives. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TooManyFingers (great user name), thanks very much for your reply, unfortunately this hasn't worked. The edit summary tool didn't pick up pages I knew I had used the word on and Wikiblame isn't really the right tool since I want to look across all pages I've contributed to over 15+ years. If you have any other ideas or places I could ask please let me know :) John Cummings (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one else has responded here, I suggest taking your question to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). That gets looked at by people more knowledgeable than I am. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am making changes to a professor's page, whom I personally know. Why are the changes being changed back. I am making corrections. Brendaskent (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because the changes you made aren't corrections at all, and you didn't tell the truth about what you were putting. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Brendaskent Please familiarise yourself with the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. When someone reverts a bold edit you made, your next course of action should be to discuss with them why they reverted you, not to continue to try to push your changes through; doing so is called edit warring. Athanelar (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made an edit to a page and used a court filing PDF as a source. But I'm getting an error: "Missing or empty |title". I'm not quite sure how to fix that since there isn't really a "title" for this PDF. I really wanna learn to do this the right way, so any help would be appreciated. The edit in question occured at 22:26, 4 February 2026 on this page: https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Anna%27s_Archive&action=history

Thank you in advance. Charliefish (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see at Template:Cite web under Usage, if there is no credited author, you can put |author=<! -- not stated --> for it's parameter, and, after testing in my sandbox, turns out you cannot do the same for the title parameter unfortunately. Therefore, I think a title must be there if you want that error message to not appear, I'm not certain though. AdmiralCarl (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've given it a title - could also be "NVIDIA’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT" if that's more suitable. Not having an obvious title means we should try our best with what is there. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

is there a function or gadget that can automatically set incoming links and transclusions to be hidden for that option, to leave only redirects? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn: "Page information" under "Tools" has a link on "Number of redirects to this page". That may be a little easier than starting with what links here and then hide transclucions and links. If you want then I could make a script to add "Redirects" above "What links here" so you have both options. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

huh, it seems i've... actually missed out on that option due to moremenu. whoops. if you don't know of any such gadget or script that already does that, i would appreciate the alternate solution consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn: Add this to your common JavaScript:

$( document ).ready( function() {
  mw.util.addPortletLink(
    'p-tb',
    mw.util.getUrl('Special:WhatLinksHere/') + mw.config.get('wgPageName') + '?hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1',
    'Redirects', 't-redirects', 'Show redirects to this page', null, '#t-whatlinkshere'
  );
});

PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

that'll do. danke, herr doktor consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 10:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have two accounts: bizdata-usa and peter lyons hall. Please REPLACE and consolidate the content for bizdata-usa with Peter Lyons Hall. Thank you. Bizdata-usa (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way for us to do that. The best thing for you to do would be to put a notice on the userpage of both accounts explaining that each one is linked to the other. Athanelar (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Need help as many of Estonias notable people birthplaces are changed to USSR even though we were not recognized as a ussr state worldwide! Can there be a autobot or autobanner on people who change them to be born there? ~2026-79894-5 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ~2026-79894-5. There was a discussion and a consensus to put the birthplaces as the Soviet Union during the occupation years. You are free to join discussions on this, but please do not continue changing the birthplaces. See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes Thanks. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this argument about people's place of birth in Baltic countries at that time, both sides always lose the argument. There is no way either side can ever win it, because the other side always has a perfectly good response to everything. So on Wikipedia we have to shut down the argument and forbid continuing it, make some decision that's reasonable, and stick with it. Which is what we've done our best to do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
Years ago I created Category 2 and published it under GFL. It's a valuable example in the subject of Category theory. My page will be lost when the Web site is gone. So I think of contributing as an article here. Any consideration or objection before I start?
Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The big consideration is that Wikipedia doesn't accept original work of any kind. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not original work; only documentation. For a mathematician, a simple example. The cited page notes "... suggested by Fred Linton in the first message to the Categories List on the day of 2008-02-15." Category 2 is just a simpler example parallel to category Set under the heading Category_theory#Examples. The heading is Examples but currently there's only one. Category Set is a more difficult example for a novice. If you object to 2, can you suggest another example simpler than Set? PeterEasthope (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets - it has suggestions of other places to publish your material. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterEasthope Also, especially considering the fact that it isn't very long, make sure that some paper copies exist. Websites disappear, hard drives fail, but you can't switch off a piece of paper. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PeterEasthope, you say My page will be lost when the Web site is gone. Is there something inadequate about this and the other Wayback scrapes? -- Hoary (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess Category_theory#Examples can cite the page at Wayback. Similarly, many other external pages can be cited rather than be in Wikipedia. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tool similar to Special:RandomInCategory but for a random article in a specific portal? Zatoicy (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am wondering what the little image next to an article when you search something up is called? CharlieRidesRollerCoasters (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CharlieRidesRollerCoasters, I think you mean the lead image (MOS:LEADIMAGE). TSventon (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlieRidesRollerCoasters: It's called the page image. See mw:Extension:PageImages. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again. I added the Tamil script and pronunciation of a subject in this edit. Is this MOS-compliant? I couldn't find any info in it for putting text in the original script like that. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 05:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the MOS in my head the way some people do, but I like the way you've done it and I see nothing wrong at all. MOS:FULLNAME is what governs this, as far as I know. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the bad example they give for Gaddafi's name is not being criticized for using a non-English writing system, but criticized for being a huge unreadable mess. Yours is simple and well done. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the Manual of Style states: Avoid the use of Indic scripts in lead sections or infoboxes. Instead, use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides, which are more international. Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script. I think this is an okay exception as it is a biography about someone from Tamil Nadu, who speaks Tamil, and likely has an accepted Tamil spelling of her name. -- Reconrabbit 15:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this, as per WP:INDICSCRIPT the Tamil script is not acceptable, but the Tamil IPA is. - Arjayay (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense. -- Reconrabbit 16:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I never knew that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you all for the advice. I will add only the IPA to Indian subjects going forward. thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 18:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The page Val d'Or station exists, but unfortunately neither Saint-Cloud station nor Template:Transilien Line L are picking up the link. Could someone help? Thanks! PalleyCov2030 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I created a WP:REDIRECT from Le Val d'Or station, which has fixed the issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have just submitted a proposed (self-biographical) article and been given a temporary account reference number. But how will the decision on this submission be communicated: I haven't provided aby contact details. ~2026-82364-2 (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be posted on the talk page of your temporary account. Your draft is currently significantly malformed however and has no chance of becoming an article: I would suggest you create an account and read up on our article standards before trying again; namely WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:PROUD and Help:Your first article. Athanelar (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the article "Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station", under the heading "Environmental protests", when clicking on the image labelled "Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, from the east, with a train of coal being unloaded as it passes at walking pace through the building at middle right" an error message is now displayed "Sorry the file cannot be displayed". This never used to happen up to about a month ago, there does not appear to be an edit to cause this, and I do not know why it is happening. How can this be corrected, please? MaltaGC (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Works just fine on my end, maybe ask at WP:VPT Athanelar (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I have just tried using the Microsoft Edge browser instead of Avast Secure Browser where the problem was occurring and it is OK! So I went back to Avast Secure Browser which has been giving this problem and again it displayed "Sorry the file cannot be displayed" so I hit <ctrl>F5 to reload it and the error message disappeared with the image now being displayed correctly. It is now OK and works every time. MaltaGC (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Issa Boulos. There is a Wikipedia page about me but it has a lot of discrepancies and wrong information. How can I correct this? Iboulos (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the edit request wizard to propose changes to the article about you. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iboulos, first please read, digest, and think about Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. Then respond to User talk:Iboulos#February 2026. If you are successful, then declare your "conflict of interest" on at least one (preferably both) of User:Iboulos and Talk:Issa Boulos. And finally do what 331dot suggests immediately above. -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:School the World

Hi: We had an intern help us try to submit a page on behalf of our non-profit last semester. She did it under her personal account which I don't know and has stopped responding so we can't get her help in deleting the submission. Can you help. The submission was for School the World, an education NGO based in Boston.

Thank you! Lara.hoyem (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are automatically deleted if they haven't been edited in over 6 months, so there's no need to do anything. Athanelar (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that because it's at the draft stage, the public is not going to be finding it anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lara.hoyem Given what your intern wroteon 4 December, she had a very poor understanding of what conflict of interest means. Interns are paid editors if writing about the organisation they work for and are required to make a formal declaration of that status. However, if you have no intention of taking the draft forward, there is nothing you need to do now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Mike. We understand the conflict of interest issue now and won’t be taking that draft forward.

Just to confirm procedurally: does the existing draft need to be deleted or otherwise closed before any unrelated editor could create a new draft in the future, or can it simply remain until it expires? Appreciate the guidance. Lara.hoyem (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It can remain until it expires. After it expires, it can be resurrected for further improvement by making a request at WP:REFUND. Or it can be created anew. If you want to delete it to start afresh, let me or another administrator know the situation and we can easily delete it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete the article. She is not eligible to submit due to her conflict of interest so she will not be resubmitting it at all. Thank you for your help. Lara.hoyem (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, it's deleted.

A point of clarification: The only venue available for editors with a conflict of interest to write articles is in draft space, submitting an article for review. Therefore, she is eligible to submit it. We expect COI editors to submit drafts via the WP:AFC process instead of editing in mainspace.

You may start afresh, or you may recover the draft with a request at WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

She is eligible to submit drafts, but must adhere to WP:PAID as well as WP:COI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS! Lara.hoyem (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, everyone's edits must be under their own account. It is not permitted to share accounts or have a "role" account that is passed on to whoever has a certain position over time. DMacks (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to delete the redirect page Canon PowerShot SX280 HS. Can someone check if I did it the right way?

I know the procedure in the german wiki, but here I am a bit overwhelmed how to do this. Skranon (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What you've done is fine, but WP:RM/TM is the best location. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a redirect page, and would not be deleted. You are likely thinking of a different page that is actually a redirect to that one. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3 minutes before your comment, a user deleted the redirect page and also moved the page to its name. So yeah for you it looks like a normal page. Skranon (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Im using a tablet from T Mobile but couldn't get into Simple English or the Regular English Wikipedia even while I'm using a strong password nobody else knows and I'm always with every day. Making matters worse, the systems wouldn't allow me to even change my password into a stronger code. Can somebody please help me with these situation problems here? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 20:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What exact message are you receiving on your screen, when it doesn't work? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The login system kept telling me the username and password were incorrect when they were not. Furthermore, the login system also wouldn't let me change my password to a stronger one. For some unknown reason I cannot log into my own actual account even though my password was correct. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 21:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't log in, Tropical Storm Angela. That is indeed a problem. I hope somebody has a suggestion. (It's not something simple, like accidentally having CapsLock on when it should be off?) But the systems wouldn't allow me to even change my password into a stronger code.... Furthermore, the login system also wouldn't let me change my password to a stronger one. That's reassuring. Or rather: of course. The ability to change somebody's password when they're not logged in could have disastrous consequences. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Tropical Storm Angela You are clearly logged in at present since your posts here are correctly identified with your account. So is the real problem that your tablet device doesn't let you log in while the device you are using currently does? If so, the issue is with the tablet, not Wikipedia. If you really want to change your password, you should be able to do so now in this session and then go back to the tablet to ensure it stores the correct credentials. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does one insert a picture as an avatar? Mospeada11 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are no avatars or profile pictures here on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mospeada11 Computer avatars have an article, with images. Any picture is inserted according to the instructions at Help:Pictures; the files are normally stored on our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. If you wish, you can put a picture of an avatar on your own user page. However, we don't use them as part of our signatures. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the General Manager of the Jarrett House. We are coming close to completing our renovation and I was recently made aware of our presence here on Wikipedia. While we are extremely excited to see this, it is somewhat disturbing to see the statement listed in the article about the tragic death of one of our beloved workers and local resident. I would ask that this statement be removed as it not only is disturbing to the staff, but mainly to be respectful to the surviving family members. The statement is not really anything that should be listed on Wikipedia, as other historic hotels do not have such information posted on their descriptions. Thank you for your attention to this. Your cooperation would be most appreciated by many people here. ~2026-84651-3 (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let somebody else handle this, other than to say that although the cited source for this briefly mentioned incident in the article The Jarrett House has succumbed to link rot, it survives here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

History doesn't disappear because time has passed. This was an event in the history of The Jarrett House that mattered enough to be reported.

Note that Wikipedia is not censored for anyone's benefit. This is a policy: WP:NOTCENSORED. If the information you find disturbing is cited to a reliable source, then it's public information, and it's fair game to include in the article. Whether it should be included is not for you to decide, it's for the community to decide, and you have made no proposal on the talk page about it.

You or someone else blanked that statement, and I have restored it. Because you have a conflict of interest, you shouldn't be making any substantive changes to the article directly. Use the WP:Edit Request Wizard to propose changes on the talk page, and a neutral editor will review your request. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The talk page" which Anachronist refers to is Talk:The Jarrett House. It's where you, ~2026-84651-3, and Davallison may make your case. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has been resolved after talk page discussion by several uninvolved editors. To the manager of the Jarrett House: I assume that there will news coverage when the renovations are complete and this historic hotel re-opens. Please return to the Help desk at that time, and editors will assist you in updating the article. The hotel is definitely notable and worthy of up-to-date coverage on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For Gun laws in the United States by state, there are many "transcluded pages". Is there some way to determine the displayed page size as opposed to the amount of wikitext in the page code? --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677 yes, see Wikipedia:Post-expand include size#How to see the current post-expand size. TSventon (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon:, what does "Post-expand include size | 760,014/2,097,152 bytes" mean? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677 it means that the "Post-expand include size" or displayed size of the page is 760,014 bytes, out of a possible maximum size of 2,097,152 bytes. TSventon (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon:, thank you for your assistance today! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677 and TSventon: That's not the meaning of post-expand include size (PEIS). It means how much content in total was transcluded from other pages during evaluation of the page, including content passed between templates without being part of the final page. The source text of the page doesn't contribute to PEIS so a huge page without transclusions would have PEIS 0. If you want the size of the final wikitext after everything is evaluated then you could use Special:ExpandTemplates and find the size of the "Result" field, e.g. by saving it to a text file and let your operating system say how large the file is. For Gun laws in the United States by state I get 332 kB. PEIS is much larger at 733 kB because a lot of content is passed around two or more times during evaluation. Some downloaded content like images doesn't contribute to either of the sizes. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started editing Wikipedia about two days ago. I’m reading the guidelines and trying to learn properly. I’m also a digital artwork creator and have uploaded some of my creative work to Wikimedia Commons. As a new editor, can I help by improving articles or giving feedback, and is it possible to become a page reviewer later? ButterflyCat (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you so much, and welcome to the community! You absolutely can improve articles. You don't have to be a page reviewer to do that, such as by formatting pages per the manual of style, adding citations, or copyediting. You can also give feedback on talk pages of articles or drafts, or talk pages of users who create them. If you have a good track record for this, you can request the permission so you can "patrol" pages so they are indexed on search engines like Google! There are many things to do on Wikipedia, feel free to see the Dashboard for some tasks you can help out with. jolielover♥talk 11:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I’ll focus on improving articles and learning the process first. ButterflyCat (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Lars Knudsen redirect currently points to Danish researcher Lars Ramkilde Knudsen, but there is also Lars Knudsen (producer). Should this be a disambiguation page? ~2026-83879-4 (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When there are only two subjects involved, it is more usual to place a hatnote at the top of each article linking to the other. Were there four or more, a disambiguation page would certainly be appropriate. If there were three, opinions might differ on whether hatnotes (each with two links) or a disambiguation page would be preferable. Hope this helps, and further opinions welcome. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is needed if there is no primary topic (WP:NOPRIMARY). That can be true even if there are only one or two articles. TSventon (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahima Cissé currently refers to the footballer born in 1994, but there is also Ibrahima Cissé (footballer, born 2001), which includes a disambiguation note despite its disambiguated title. Should Ibrahima Cissé be converted into a disambiguation page? I don't believe there is a long-term primary topic. ~2026-83879-4 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ~2026-83879-4. You might want to ask about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. This kind of thing has probably come up before regarding other articles about soccer/football players, and that particular WikiProject might have worked out an approach to applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifically to such articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer to you about Lars Knudsen above. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made a number of lists. How do I view my lists? Thanks.ZZBUFF (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What lists are you referring to? Your account has no edits other than this one. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ZZBUFF: If you refer to a feature in a Wikipedia app then maybe mw:Wikimedia Apps/Android FAQ#Reading lists and offline reading or mw:Wikimedia Apps/iOS FAQ#Saved Pages and Reading lists can help. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why was our page deleted? We were told to fix the references,so we were working on those. Some brand new ediotor deleted the page. We submitted a couple of days ago and were still workng on the draft and a brand new editor (this is what it says on his page). How can we get this fixed.

The editor was This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

• 11:19, 7 February 2026 MPGuy2824 talk contribs deleted page Draft:Jona Denz Hamilton (G15: Unreviewed LLM-generated content (communication intended for the usersee bottom sections, "this article..." "this Wikipedia entry..." etc is obvious LLM.)) Tag: Twinkle

. ~2026-80504-8 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824 isn't a 'brand new editor'. He is a 'new page reviewer'(someone who reviews new pages) and an admin (hence being able to delete articles/drafts). As for why the draft was deleted, you have already been told - 'obvious LLM'. If you are unhappy with this, I suggest you discuss it with MPGuy2824. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Andy's reponse, see WP:CSD#G15. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-80504-8, if you are Jeff.p.godoy, please remember to log in. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 08:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Our page"? Who is this "our" you refer to? Is the account accessed by multiple people? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Your first article. One of the pieces of advice given there is not to use WP:LLM. Please write the text yourself and ensure that it is reliably sourced. Also you would need to establish that the subject is notable enough for an article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History Can you please send me a link where I can update and leave you for review the contents or links on the "page for review". Thanks.

https://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/index.html

JohnRathnam2026 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what exactly you want to do, but you may propose changes at Talk:The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History is not a ranking of the hundred, or the ten, most influential people in history, JohnRathnam2026. It's merely an article about a (perhaps rather silly) book titled The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. So you are, I am, anyone is free to disagree with what's written in the book; but our opinions are rightly ignored (unless perhaps we happen to be published by reliable sources). -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably very simple to anyone else. But I have made many reading lists of topics. I can’t figure out to view them, how to see all the Reading Lists I’ve made. Thanks for any help. ZZBUFF (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ZZBUFF, while logged in to en:Wikipedia as ZZBUFF you haven't made any list. You also don't seem to have made such edits to other-language Wikipedias or to other Wikimedia websites while logged in as ZZBUFF. -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ZZBUFF.

Reading lists are a feature of the Wikipedia mobile app: they are not supported on the desktop or website version. If you are asking about a way to view your lists within the app, I don't know: WP:VPT may be a better place to ask.

There have been many requests to add them to the desktop system (see for example m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Mobile and apps/Have Apps reading lists available on Destop/Mobile) but as far as I know they have not so far been added.

One way to create and curate your own reading list that you can see on any platform is to create files in your user space and put links to articles in them. ColinFine (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a quick question regarding sigcov- could anyone look at this link and tell me if it meets WP:SIGCOV? I'm editing HDF Explorer right now, so I'm figuring out if this would count as external coverage -- I'm leaning toward no

https://un-spider.org/links-and-resources/gis-rs-software/hdf-explorer-hdf-group

Thebest8382 (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't significant. Significant has long paragraphs of text that are all about the topic. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thebest8382, that's a routine database directory listing. It is the 21st century equivalent of a telephone book. So, the answer is "no". Cullen328 (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Is this article definitely compliant with the requirements? Specifically, is it not original research? I don’t see any sources among the ones cited that periodize USSR history according to the reigns of Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev and so on. Senya48 (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the thing you described. Could you please be more specific? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the sources cited in the article deal with the history of the USSR, but none of their authors identify or treat the period from 1927 to 1953 separately as the era of Stalinism. These are merely a selection of works on Soviet history that cover various specific aspects. The notion of a distinct “Stalinism period” is not articulated or established in any of the provided sources. Maybe I’m wrong, but when a concept or period is only mentioned in passing in the sources and not actually presented or named as such by them, that amounts to original research. At present, none of the existing citations/references is headed or described as “History of the USSR (1927–1953)” or uses any similar periodization label. Senya48 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a long article with over 100 references. If there are sections/pieces that you think aren't suitably sourced, you would be best to mention this on the talk page, or mark individual bits with {{failed verification}}. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, my concerns apply to the article as a whole, rather than to specific sections. Historians likely do not periodize the history of the USSR into distinct eras according to the last names of state leaders, as I have been unable to find any source on the internet that asserts the opposite. Senya48 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article on the "Stalinist Era" is not Wikipedia:original research as reliable, published sources exist for the term. Whether it is the best periodisation for the history of the Soviet Union is a different question. TSventon (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Senya48 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Senya48, unsurprisingly, we have a well-referenced article Stalinism which begins Stalinism is the means of governing and Marxist–Leninist policies implemented in the Soviet Union (USSR) from 1927 to 1953 by Joseph Stalin. Perhaps some of those references could be added to the article in question or you could do your own search of the massive historical literature on this era. Cullen328 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a notable critic publishes their review on their YouTube channel, is their review considered self-published and therefore ineligible for use on Wikipedia? Or does this not pose an issue under Wikipedia's policies? Vastmajority20025 (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SELFSOURCE. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 21:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yyou could say "Critic so-and-so noted on his YouTube channel that...." if so-and-so is notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia article that you can link to, and provided that the video is just an extension of the critic's primary profession. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSPYT, Youtube is considered to be a reliable source only if the content there is verifiably posted by an otherwise reliable source. Athanelar (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

...provided that it's in the video creator's area of expertise. A Nobel laureate in physics making a video about election fraud wouldn't be considered a reliable source on that topic regardless of the Nobel Prize effect. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't John Duncan (artist) be ambiguous, since John Duncan (painter) was also an artist? ~2026-88427-9 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An artist is different from a painter. Artists deal with art, painters deal with paint. No, it would not not be ambiguous. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 22:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, ArthurPlummer, a painter is a specific kind of artist. Both Duncans are artists.

@~2026-88427-9 both articles have the appropriate disambiguating hatnote at the top, clarifying who each article is about. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is ambiguous, both John Duncan and John Duncan are or were artists. DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not ambiguous anymore, because the first thing you see is an explanation and a link. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

John Duncan (artist), we're told, is "an American multi-platform artist". The multiplicity of platforms isn't described as including canvas, walls, or other paintable surfaces. "His events and installations are a form of existential research, often confrontational in nature", whatever that means ... well, it's an article created twenty years ago by an SPA, so no great surprise that it contains many gems, just one of which is Bus Ride sexually stimulated unsuspecting passengers on a city bus with a liquid poured into the ventilation system in order to observe the results; the premise -- that there exists a liquid which if poured into a ventilation system sexually stimulates those who are ventilated -- is, I humbly suggest, bollocks. The work of John Duncan (painter) isn't obviously confrontational in nature or anything else, but his last work "was completed in spite of the critical antagonisms Duncan was facing at the time", in which the "critical antagonisms" go unexplained. These two people are effectively distinguished by the combination of (A) artist/painter and (B) a hatnote on John Duncan (artist). Their respective titles aside, the article John Duncan (painter) is in moderate need of improvement and the article John Duncan (artist) in acute need of same. -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Reminds me of the movie Orgazmo. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard of Orgazmo, Anachronist; what I read reminds me of Flesh Gordon, or what little I saw of it before I dozed off. But back to the article John Duncan (artist): its lead describes the man's "existential research" etc in the present tense, yet it's sourced to something published in 2001. I'm so ancient that 2001 doesn't seem so long ago, but even I couldn't perpetrate the present tense here with a straight face. And yet people (especially at the teahouse) routinely claim to have trouble finding articles that need improvement. Strange. -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Orgazmo wasn't pornographic, it was about making pornographic films, and featured a device that you could aim at innocent passersby to give them instant orgasms. Your mentioning Bus Ride reminded me of that. But you're right, both articles can use cleanup. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How did we go from ambiguity between two names to this? ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've added your own ambiguity to the mix: is it "What is the world coming to?" Or "What, is the world coming, too?" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anachronist, I'd understood. (Incidentally, I found Flesh Gordon far less pornographic than soporific.) A difference between Orgazmo and Bus Ride is that the former is presented as amusing fiction, whereas Wikipedia uncritically recycles a credulous account of the latter (sourced to John Duncan: Work 1975-2005, a book by John Duncan). -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I created a Wikipedia page for a fellow artist and she would like to delete it. How is this accomplished. Dmichaele (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pages may only be deleted by administrators. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 22:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this FAQ, Dmichaele. -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, you want to improve it the article or still want it deleted? ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 23:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only article you have created recently is rather old and has contributions from many editors, so it cannot be deleted by request. You moved it to a new name, leaving a redirect behind, which is the correct situation because the article may be found by searching for either name. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmichaele: Is there a reason you want this article deleted? What is your relationship with David Eaton? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about Seiko Hatano? asks Orangemike, at 23:17, 8 February 2026