Wikipedia:Help desk

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

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

Ask a question

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

There are two Wikipedians looking for help. (refresh)

What was made first the color orange or the fruit orange

Because what is there a fruit named the wild bear orange or was orange invented because the human species language today also known as English that’s that’s an only or mainly in the USA ~2026-38361-32 (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

TA editor, you could look for an answer in Orange (colour) and Orange (fruit). TSventon (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a help desk for asking questions about Wikipedia, not general questions about anything. However, Orange (colour) § Etymology answers your question. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 01:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

And if it doesn’t, try asking at the Reference Desk on Language.—Odysseus1479 01:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Reading those two articles made me wonder, since "orange" originated from French, if the French word has any French rhyming word, unlike in English. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Solange mélange l'étrange orange, puis elle la mange avec les anges. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

poranges.

who sez nothing rhymes with oranges. ~2026-29746-11 (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Any made-up word can rhyme with any other word, so that doesn't count. The pair of English words "more range" rhymes with orange, but not any single word in English. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It was Philip Larkin who rhymed 'fangs' with 'meringues' in 'A Study Of Reading Habits', although he wasn't the most woke of onanists. MinorProphet (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Conflicting details

Jude Bellingham's Wikipedia page states his mum, Denise is of Afro Jamaican descent but Jude's brother Jobe Bellingham's Wikipedia page states his mum, Denise is of Kenyan descent. As both brothers have the same mother, which is correct?~2026-39532-53 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-39532-53.

Looking at the sources cited for the claims in the two articles, I find that the claim of Afro-Jamaican origins for Jude is supported by the citation, whereas the source cited in Jobe Bellingham does not appear to say anything about their mother.

So I would suggest removing the claim from the Jobe article. It's tempting to make it match the Jude article, citing the source there; but unfortunately the source (Athlon Sports) that verifies the case for Jude does not mention Jobe at all, so it would not be permitted to add in the same claim for Jobe (it would be synthesis).

Possibly the best action would be to look for a source which talks about Jobe's mother, identifying her as such, and use that. ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no reason both cannot be correct, they are not contradictory. "Afro-Jamaicans are Jamaicans of predominantly African descent", and Kenya is in Africa.

The matter is potentially (but probably not actually) complicated by the fact that people of Jamaican nationality can be of African, European (usually British: see e.g. Michael Manley), or mixed descent, or of Indian or Chinese descent, and people from Kenya can be the same (see e.g. Richard Leakey), because of colonialism. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It's specifiying the country you jerk. ZachScientia (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

How to properly make a page redirection.

I need help on making a page redirection to the Mitchell Beazley article because it's okay too and it's more formal name that is beneficial to link to the Mitchell Beazley article, I also need it to finish another different article that I'm currently making. ZachScientia (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia page that helps with making redirects. Wikipedia:Redirect_maker. Simply put in the name of what you're redirecting from into the text box on the page, and then in the [[ ]] put in Mitchell Beazley. ಢೠೊೠಃಈ (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I have an issue with Wikipedia:Help_desk#redirect icon menu does not work today. Wisdood (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I used it, it didn't work, I checked if I'm going anything wrong, I seems I didn't, I'm still confused if I have done something or some things wrong, and I missed something. ZachScientia (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I used it, it didn't work, I checked if

namaskar

Ram haaje ke samankar keli Seta gaje he pandir ne? ~2026-39814-09 (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39814-09 Google translated as "What is Ram doing over there with Seta?". I've no idea what the answer might be.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I got this at https://translate.google.com: "Has the Pandit played the game of Rama's house?" A little later I got this: "Playing like Rama's hajj Has the priest given the Seth's hajj?" Then I included "namaskar" and got his: "Greetings Rama is like playing. Setha, has the Pandit given the gift?". I think human translators are still needed for a while. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This sounds to me like possibly another Adam's Bridge rename post. See that article's talk page for context if not familiar. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 00:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39814-09 This is a ENGLISH wikipedia talk page. Please use a translator if you are not good or can't speak English before adding a question. Ksb0218 (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Communicating via automatic translation can be messy. It may be better to suggest they ask their question over on the appropriate language's Wikipedia, such as the Hindi Wikipedia (हिन्दी विकिपीडिया). The community there may be more helpful in answering their question, and some of them may be able to help translate on their behalf if this relates to an issue specially here on the English Wikipedia. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 16:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

(fwiw, I don't think that's Hindi, because I can't make heads or tails of it; either that or my Hindi's really gotten rusty) Athanelar (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

(You're probably right. I wasn't sure about the language either. I hedged my guess a bit by prefacing with "such as". It'd be easier to narrow it down if it were in the native script. If they return, maybe they can let us know which language they speak.) – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 21:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Article renaming

Hi Folks!! Found this: Hospitalism which was an peadiatric diagnosis in the 1930's. There was another hospitalism, a crisis of ideas in the UK/Europe in the 1860's. Would it be normal to rename to something like Hospitalism (1930's) and create another article as Hospitalism (1860's). They are totally distinct and have nothing to do with each other. I'd assume a disambiguation would be needed. Seems to pushing the boat out a wee bit when you think about it, but they are totally different and different centuries as well. scope_creep^Talk 20:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, I would suggest writing a draft about the 1860s hospitalism, then you could decide whether it needs its own article and if there is a primary topic. If an article is needed and there is no primary topic, then 1860s and 1930s (no apostrophes) are possible disambiguators, but more descriptive disambiguators would be better, if possible. TSventon (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@TSventon: I think there isn't any primary topic as they are both of their period. Certainly I can supply better descriptors, which I never thought of, which is a good idea. I think that ideal. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 21:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Scope creep: on second thoughts "19th century" and "20th century" might be better disambiguators than "1860s" and "1930s". Obviously articles can be moved, so you don't have to find the perfect name before writing the article. TSventon (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Scope creep: "1930s" is definitely far too narrow a disambiguator for the article currently at Hospitalism since that article notes the term was in use into the 40s and predates the 30s.

Looking at sources to see if there's a primary topic I noticed three topics:

• a dated synonym or hypernym for Hospital-acquired infection (ie. nosocomial or iatrogenic disease), relating to increased mortality among patients at hospitals; this seems to be oldest sense. (eg. )
• the diagnosis discussed at Hospitalism, which seems to have originated as an extension of the older sense. (eg. )
• the "hospitalist model", a recent movement/trend/specialism/pattern of practice in medicine (eg. . , )

However, I wouldn't characterise any of these as a "crisis of ideas", so I'm unsure which topic you are proposing to write an article about.

Regardless, when I filter Google Scholar results for publications from after 2010, most seem to be for hospitalist model, however I'm not sure this means it's "more likely [to be what a reader is searching for] than all the other topics combined" (WP:PTOPIC). I'm also not sure any of these topics could be said to have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". I'm inclined to agree there's no primary topic based on what I've seen, but maybe it could be argued that the oldest sense would have greater enduring notability and educational value, given that investigations as to the cause of "hospitalism" in this sense has shaped modern medicine. If it is the primary topic, maybe Hospitalism should be a redirect to Hospital-acquired infection with a hatnote at that article linking to the other topics with articles. A proper discussion would be warranted.

I'd suggest you write a draft for your new article and submit it via WP:AfC. If the draft is accepted as an article, then you can start an WP:RM at Talk:Hospitalism to move that article to another title and free up Hospitalism for a disambiguation page or redirect or whatever the outcome of the consensus of the discussion determines to be the best solution for the title Hospitalism. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 00:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If the article currently at Hospitalism does end up needing to be moved to free up its title for something else, I'd suggest moving the article to Hospitalism (pediatric diagnosis) or the shorter Hospitalism (pediatrics). Neither a decade or century would be accurate as a disambiguation. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 01:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Could be 3rd category in the modern period. The Rene Spitz article is the current article. You found it. The Hospitalism crisis started in mid-later 1860's and was a response to large hospitals due to size, location and overcrowding producing lots of diseases producing 4 septic diseases en-masse e.g. gangrene and no one known what caused it. It was coined by James Young Simpson. It was a couple of decades between 1860 and 1880 when a whole load of ideas about the causes e.g Spontaneous generation were discussed, before the Germ theory of disease became predominant. It was assumed that hospitals should be destroyed and replaced with small infirmaries with perhaps 5 or 6 small rooms to reduce infection, but folks had no clue. Anyway, both have merit but I see that 3rd seems to be genuine movement and will likely get an article at some point. I find it hard to define the hospitalism 1860 without putting a sentence in the name. I was going to suggest Hospitalism (pediatric diagnosis) for the former as it fits well. scope_creep^Talk — Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Scope creep: How about Hospitalism (public health) or Hospitalism (health crisis)? I lean towards "public health", as the topic has enduring notability as one of the many contemporaneous issues which shaped the development of the field of public health, so I think it makes sense to distinguish it as a topic in (the history of) public health. Either title would work though. I suppose the best choice depends on whether the article focuses more on the causes of the problem itself or on the responses to the problem.

Alternatively, instead of an entire new article, a subsection could be added to Hospital-acquired infection § History, which would avoid the need for a uniquely disambiguated article title for the topic.

If you intend to write a lot about the topic, then a separate article would be better as otherwise adding an enormous amount to Hospital-acquired infection § History would overwhelm the material already there. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 13:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme: Funny, I was thinking that this morning. It is a public health crisis so that very close and an ideal fit. I plan to do a separate article, although I didn't see that Hospital-acquired infection. Its the wrong place, different domain, the infection process as opposed to the response to the infection process, i.e. intellectual discussion. Yea, totally agree. Thanks folks!!. scope_creep^Talk 14:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:Abandoned shopping malls in the United States

What's the general difference between Category:Abandoned shopping malls in the United States and Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States? They seem similar categories with the former being less populated and for malls that may or may not have been demolished. Chuterix (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Chuterix, those categories are part of a hierarchy. Category:Defunct shopping malls in the United States is a higher level category that has two subcategories, which are Category:Abandoned shopping malls in the United States and Category:Demolished shopping malls in the United States. The next higher level is Category:Shopping malls in the United States, and the level above that is Category:Shopping malls. So, the further down you go in the hierarchy of categories, the narrower and more specific the definition is. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328 When I read ths first half of this question, I could not imagine what the two categories were underneath "defunct". But "abandoned" and "demolished" surely covers it! David10244 (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

SUB CATEGORY NA

NA ~2026-39966-49 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-39966-49: If you have a question then please be more specific and link any involved page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

How to make a source reliable?

• Link: Talk:Cologne Cathedral#Hohe Domkirche Sankt Petrus

I have an email from a good source that would help fix a wrong information in Wikipedia. I know that an email is not an RS, so what can I do to make this information available in a reliable (in the RS sense) way?

It's about the official name of the Cologne Cathedral, see my history for details. ~2026-37064-08 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Emails will never be usable sources due to them not being (1) formally published and (2) subject to editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 18:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I know that, and I am doing the opposite of suggesting that it should be accepted as an RS. However the false information should be fixed. How? ~2026-37064-08 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-37064-08: You would have to find a reliable source that corroborates what you've been told. Reading WP:PRIMARYCARE, it seems like if the Cologne Cathedral stated their official name in some published manner, that could work, though I leave that to be determined by editors more versed in primary/secondary source evaluation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually I don't understand your (2). Whose oversight? Wikipedia's or some external body? ~2026-37064-08 (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

"Editorial oversight" means that the outlet does not just publish whatever the authors write, they send it to an editor who reviews the content before publishing. All legitimate news outlets have editors that review content before publishing or broadcasting it. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, understood and agreed, thanks. ~2026-37064-08 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anybody's. Unless otherwise specified, emails from individuals are are assumed to have no intermediaries between the sender and the receiver; that is, the sender usually doesn't pass it to a second party to be fact-checked and so forth before sending it. (There may be after-the-fact oversight, as in "You wrote what? You're fired", and that actually does have value, but now we're getting down into the weeds.)

However, just like a blog post, an email could be considered reliable if the writer is so expert and so trustworthy that we may be entirely confident of her statement. But unlike a blog post, there's no way that we can prove that the sender is who she says she is to the reader. A reader has to be able to access the source, be it a book, website, video, or whatever, without egregiously unreasonable effort. That's not possible with an unpublished source.

But let me congratulate you on your intrepid energy here. You are doing exactly the right thing, and I've done it myself: step one is to determine if a datum is actually true, and if it is, then cast about for for supporting sources that we can use in the article.

Duck-duck-go is you friend here, just googe on "Hohe Domkirche Sankt Petrus". Right off I get this (reliable? I don't know) with "Cologne Cathedral (Kölner Dom, officially Hohe Domkirche Sankt Petrus) is..." But then I do note that on the German wikipedia "Hohe Domkirche Sankt Petrus" is a redirect to the article Kölner Dom which has "Der Kölner Dom (offiziell Hohe Domkirche zu Köln[1]) ist...". So on the merits, I guess more work might need to be done, possibly ending up with "some sources say this, some sources say that...." (After all, the Dom may be just be repeating what he's always assumed; few single sources are always 100% slam dunk, when there are other possibilities.) But here's where I get off. Herostratus (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, I have to disagree though. In most cases, conflicting sources might lead to a "some sources say..." situation, however this is about the "official name", and no amount of newspaper articles can take that away from the owners and keepers of the cathedral.

The German article uses the same source, the cathedral's website's imprint. The more I think about this, the weaker I think it is. This is a legal requirement pointing out a responsible party for a web publication, and it's certainly not implied that associated buildings share that name. ~2026-37064-08 (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I think there might be a couple of larger problems behind this: First, at least on English Wikipedia, a 100%-certified correct official name is of little importance, and the everyday colloquial name is the one that counts. Second, if there is a traditional official name, then it would take greater evidence - perhaps some signed and dated "We have officially changed the name of our centuries-old cathedral" announcements - to successfully get an older name taken down. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't claim that the official name is more than exactly that, the official name. The imortance of that factoid is debatable, but I think it should be mentioned.

However, I don't think that the information given should be false. In other words, I would prefer an article with no information to one with false information.

Incidentally, I live in the area, and I just made an informal poll with eight people: Nobody recognized the official name. In that sense, just "Dom" would be a better name around here. ~2026-37064-08 (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I see that you have been having similar discussions on de Wikipedia, including de:Diskussion:Kölner Dom#Hohe Domkirche Sankt Petrus. Both names are sourced to current websites, so they are both used. It has been suggested that both names be included, both on the de talk page and on Talk:Cologne Cathedral#Hohe Domkirche Sankt Petrus. TSventon (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I felt that the responses on de were unfriendly and arrogant, and I no longer take part in that debate.

However, that point was implicitly raised on en, and I disagree. I don't see how there could be more than one "official name". Adding both would mean that WP is 50% false, and I would prefer to remove both until the matter is resolved.

I also think that "I found words on a website, so that's the building's name" is almost as useless of a source as my initial "dudes, I has mail". ~2026-37064-08 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

A website made by a publisher with paid fact-checking staff and a good reputation (a reputation they could lose by stupid mistakes) is just as good a source as a properly published paper book. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Not my point. The problem is that the website does not present this as the building's "official name". ~2026-37064-08 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

To get the other name deleted, when there is good evidence that that other name is still being accepted as official, I think you would need written evidence of church officials explicitly rejecting that other name and saying that the name you're proposing is the only one that exists. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "accepted as official". They don't deny entry if you can't name the secret official name or anything. As I wrote above, the official name is almost never heard of around Cologne, and I wonder if even cab drivers would know it. ~2026-37064-08 (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you have solid proof that the church officially rejects the other name you're trying to replace? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You are asking me to proof a negative.

Fact 1: "...zu Köln" is the name of the building's owner, a legal person.

Fact 2: The imprint must contain the name of a legal or natural person, and cannot only contain the name of a building.

Conclusion: The imprint adds no weight to the claim that "...zu Köln" is the building's name. None.

So there is no source supporting "...zu Köln". The diocese's website, while inconclusive, points towards "...St. Peter". ~2026-37064-08 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

some other topic

Is it possible to search Wikipedia and generate a list of solutions. As examples, could I generate a list of US general in World War II with birth and death dates or a list of basilicas in France with GPS coordinates? If so, what is the procedure? ~2026-32400-04 (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-32400-04.

It is possible to run database queries against the Wikipedia database - I have never used this, so I don't know whether it will do what you want.

Alternatively, if the relevant articles have been categorised in ways that are relevant to your query, then you should be able to use petscan to find articles. But that does depend on somebody having categorised them. ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32400-04, it is possible to run queries on Wikidata, which is a sister project to Wikipedia, but I don't know much about them. There is some information at d:Wikidata:SPARQL query service. For example the Wikidata item Carl Andrew Spaatz (Q579115) records that Spaatz was American, a general, he served in World War II and his dates of birth and death, but other items may be less complete. TSventon (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Interlanguage link for (almost) nonexistent EN article

I want to create an interlanguage {{ill}} entry to leave a red Kaag text so someone creates the missing EN article for the dutch sailboat type, but with an article target page named "Kaal (Ship)" as there is already an entry for Kaal in the EN Wikipedia for a city.

None of the following worked:

• This points to the city article (which exists in Wikipedia EN): {{ill|Kaag|nl|Kaag (schip)}} and appears as "Kaag"
• This shows the target page to create, but messes the text: {{ill|Kaag (Ship)|nl|Kaag (schip)}} and results in: "Kaag (Ship)"
• In desperation, tried putting the non existent target article in double square brackets, but the {{ill}} template does not like it, so {{ill|[[Kaag (Ship)|kaag]]|nl|Kaag (schip)}} appears as "[[kaag]]"

I've tried to find a solution in Help:Interlanguage links, but it escapes me.

Thanks for the help!
Jp1008 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Jp1008, there are examples at {{Interlanguage link}}, I think the relevant one is {{ill|Grünbein (Argentine town)|es|Grünbein|lt=Grünbein}}, showing as Grünbein. TSventon (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The customised version is {{ill|Kaag (ship)|nl|Kaag (schip)|lt=Kaag}}, showing as Kaag. TSventon (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It should be lowercase "ship". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

True, I have fixed my text. Probably "kaag" should be lower case as well. TSventon (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to both! Jp1008 (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jp1008: kaag sounds very similar to cog. Are these broadly similar? In which case a redirect could suffice. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jp1008: they appear to be related but, according to the articles the cog, nl:kogge, was medieval and the nl:kaag (schip) was later. TSventon (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

You are correct @TSventonTSventon. Did a quick research on their differences which you can find here. Not my contribution focus, so if someone wants to create the kaag article, godspeed!
Jp1008 (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Between Amer and Brit English about "manufacturer"?

Sorry to inconvenience. So that i do not get confused is there a spelling difference? Thank you.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

No spelling difference, same in all varieties of English, so you won't see anything like a faux French "manoufactureur". There's only a difference in how it's pronounced (Brits tend to drop the final "r"). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Image view bug

Hey, I’m encountering a bug that appears when I’m viewing images and clicking the arrow buttons to move through them. Let’s say I click the arrow five times in a row; the bug causes me to return to previous images while cycling through all the images that were already scrolled past. This keeps happening on every page. Morris (talk with this worm) 04:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Morrisworm Yes, it loops. so If there are five images on the page, and you page the arrow five times, it will move you to the first image again. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Morrisworm: I'm not sure which situation you refer to. Please always be specific when you report something and give an example if it looks like a general issue. If you think an image returns too soon then link an affected page, say which image you first click on and which image returns. If the article displays the same image multiple times then you may see it at each location when you scroll through the images. For example in Iowa where the flag and seal are both in the infobox and the following "State symbols of Iowa" sidebar. If you just mean that the images start over when you have seen all of them then it's normal. That's the situation TheDJ refers to. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, this isn't limited to one specific page or one type of page, it happens consistently, across every article, every time. And to clarify, this is not the same thing @TheDJ is describing; I'm already aware of that one.

What I'm describing is different: suppose an article has 10 images in its image viewer. If I scroll forward through 5 of them and then stop, the viewer snaps back to the very first image instead of staying on the 5th (not exactly "snaps back", sometime, because it also gets stuck into loop between those 5 images). It behaves like a stretched spring being released. i am not entirely sure if this bug or some other issue. Morris (talk with this worm) 22:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Morrisworm: We have millions of articles. You haven't examined all of them and I haven't found one where it happens for me. When somebody is trying to help you and they ask for an example, GIVE AN EXAMPLE. Also name your browser and device because it's probably specific to your circumstances. And try to bypass your cache on an affected page. Use Ctrl+F5 in a Windows browser, not F5 or the reload button alone. Does it also happen if you log out? When I click the first image in Wikipedia I see 1/23 in the upper right corner. When I keep clicking the right arrow, it shows each image one time up to 23/23, and then goes back to 1/23 as expected. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Serif font for headings

Can one of you fine folks please set me up with a custom css that returns the section headings to use a serif font, in articles and Talk pages?

I have read the discussions on this. I don't want to turn all of the "improvements" off -- the horizontal line is OK above the heading, and the "latest comment 5 minutes ago" line is also OK. But I really hate the sans serif font on the section headings.

I would appreciate it if someone would make me a CSS file to "fix" this. And install it in my "profile".  :-)

Thank you! David10244 (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Typeface_in_discussion_headings  AxG / ✉  15:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Namaskar

i upload question 2 days ago in hindi same title(namaskar) Is there trouble understanding my hindi? i can use translator to ask questions Ram haaje ke samankar keli Seta gaje he pandir ne, bharat dosti marjo he… ~2026-39836-85 (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

That query has had 7 responses so far. The trouble is not in translating your Hindi (probably few if anybody answering here actually speaks Hindi). The problems are that:

(1) the question itself has no context with which to understand it (who the h*** are 'Ram' and 'Seta'? Soap Opera characters?);

(2) this Help desk is for asking questions about how to edit or use Wikipedia, not for factual questions; and

(3) it looks (though might not be) very much like other deliberately obscure or meaningless questions that vandals and other abusers frequently post here to waste our time. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

"Ram" and "S[ i ]ta" are mythological character, as far as google says. There is even a page for it on Wikipedia. @~2026-39836-85. Morris (talk with this worm) 23:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I was being sarcstic about Ram and Seta. My points remain that the question without context is not comprehendable, this is the wrong forum for factual questions, and it looks like our chains are being jerked. Let's not throw food under the bridge, eh? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Are there any other ways to save a citation for websites that block archive crawlers?

Hi, I understand that some news websites block the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (or any other on-demand archive sites) from saving a copy of their articles. Are there any other ways to preserve these online sources so they remain usable as references for Wikipedia articles? Thank you! SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 06:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Syfuel.

I don't know the answer for sure, but I doubt it, because storing and making available a copy of a website without permission from the copyright owner would normally be copyright infringement, and it is not permitted to link to a copyright violation.

Note, however, that unless the source is only on the web, a URL is not an essential part of a citation. As long as there is sufficient bibliographic information to allow an interested reader to find and get a copy of the source (eg by ordering a copy from a major library), that is enough.

It's the information like author, title, date, publication, publisher, that matters: a URL is just a convenience for the reader. ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @ColinFine! Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, the issue I'm having is with news websites or publishers that are increasingly becoming web-only. For some older newspapers, I can still rely on their archives because they usually include standard information such as the publication date and page number. But with web-only sources, I'm trying to understand whether there are any reliable ways to prevent or mitigate link rot when they don't allow external archiving crawlers. SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 00:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that the reason they don't allow crawlers is exactly to make your proposal impossible. I can't see why else they would do it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Syfuel: Have you tried archiving with Ghost Archive or Megaolodon.jp? These sometimes succeed in archiving live webpages when the Wayback Machine is unable to. There are instructions for both of these alternatives at Wikipedia:Archiving a source. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 02:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme Thank you! Yup, I actually tried to archive this link using both GhostArchive and Megalodon previously, but neither of them worked. :( But yes, I've had the experienece where some other links can be archived with either of these two when WayBack Machine can't. SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 03:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Obtaining acceptance of non-promotional editorial content.

Hello. I am writing about Alternate Concepts. I am a paid communications consultant who ranks Alternate Concepts, aka ACI, among my longstanding clients, with a relationship dating back to 2006. By way of background, I am a former print journalist (1987-1999) with several awards earned, including investigative reporting recognition in two states. I am leading an effort to provide Wiki users with a fact-based record of ACI's work at the intersection of public transit and private sector. It strikes me that more transparency regarding a private operator of public transit is important, and that is the spirit that was used in revising the text that was previously in place until last week. Please note that I aggregated and inserted citations for the content with full intent of adhering to Wiki policies. Last week, an editor named TonySt - User:TonySt - deleted all of the content after publication, claiming it was promotional. Via the 'Talk' function, I was able to communicate with TonySt to better understand the requirements, including disclosure on my page of conflict of interest about my work with ACI. Also, i spent a week carefully line editing the text to remove any adjectives or words that could not be supported by citations in the public record. Because ACI manages public services and/or provides support for a variety of public entities, I was exceptionally careful to cite records that are verifiable and linked to cites. The text sets forth the scope of contracts that ACI holds or held in the service of public transit. The claim that such content is 'promotional' defies credulity. It is not presented for the purpose of obtaining contracts, a process that is strictly managed by way of state ad federal bid regulations (under the shroud of secrecy, it should be mentioned.) It's sole purpose is to educate users about the nature of the services that ACI provides to the public via government entities. With respect, TonySt undid all of the additional edits yesterday without comment under the claim of promotional with a conflict of interest. This is frustrating because there has been no communication as to the offense committed, i.e., what text is considered promotional at this point? Is disclosure of a COI not enough, i.e. is more verbiage needed? I set forth these issues in the best spirit possible - transparency. Considering the importance of public transit to humankind, it would seem self-evident that private operators of transit systems would be encouraged to set forth their background, experience, current and former contracts, etc. Of course, the text is editable by all Wiki editors, which would allow for more edits as needed. However, to delete all of the content seems directly in contrast to the stated mission of the Wikimedia Foundation to to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license. The edited Alternate Concepts page is strictly educational and factual. I respectfully submit it merits to be available to people of the world. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It's sole purpose is to educate users about the nature of the services that ACI provides Wikipedia considers this to be "promotion" within our scope of that word. Promotion is anything designed to bring attention to a subject. A Wikipedia article should generally be a completely neutral and detached summary of the information available in reliable, independent sources completely unaffiliated with and uninfluenced by the subject of the article.

I would suggest you read WP:YESPROMO and WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a standard that's incredibly difficult to understand in 21st century vernacular. How does sharing information bring attention to it? This content will not be publicized. It will not be distributed. It is as neutral and detached as humanly possible within the framework of an expert (me) who has tracked the company's work for 20+ years. With respect, I can provide reliable independent sources to verify all content and remove ACI website content - but lordy, this is upside down thinking. ACI will not profit from the publication of a Wiki page. It will not benefit from publication other than to have accurate, verifiable info in the public domain. Much different than the tens of thousands of public figures who are featured on the site, etc. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

ACI will not profit from the publication of a Wiki page. It will not benefit from publication other than to have accurate, verifiable info in the public domain And if that wasn't a benefit to them, why would they be paying you to do it as part of their marketing/PR strategy? The Wikipedia article about them is the second google search result after their own website; that's a pretty major SEO boon. Athanelar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The 'stub' page that's been in place for years is inaccurate, and the company's leadership asked me to lead an effort to have content that on point, verifiable, etc. They don't benefit from SEO because they don't sell a product. Their credibility with public transportation authorities is gained or lost on the basis of highly technical documents that are submitted via publicly advertised Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP) legal advertisements for rail and transit operations and maintenance services. Read more here to learn general information about the RFQ process and here for the RFP process. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@ScottDFarmelant, I will reply here as well as on your talk page. I have not edited Alternate Concepts in more than one week. Your edits were undone by another editor yesterday because they felt they were promotional edits, as you can see in the page history of the article. My name is included in the edit summary because they changed it back to how it was after I edited it on July 7. TonySt 20:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you TonySt. It remains confusing as to why this is considered promotional as COI has been published, all adjectives removed, all cites inserted from 3rd party verifiable and trustworthy resources. ACI is an unusual entity because it provides the public with a service yet doesn't own the underlying assets that serve the public. Key point is there's nothing to be gained by accurate content other than public education and understanding of the services they use an rely upon to access work, school, healthcare, R&R, etc. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Promotional means what audience it's for, not what style it's in. If you make it so that customers and investors come away stymied because they found none of what they wanted to know, that's non-promotional.

Another way to put this: Only write what will be required learning for a history class in the year 2365. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

A whole different way of putting it: Wanting to make the public aware that these services are available is the very definition of promotion. The attempted fixes you described above are merely the difference between nice promotion and not-nice promotion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Neither the current version of the article, nor ScottDFarmelant's much longer promotional versions, answers two obvious questions:

1. What does the company actually do? Own trains? Run trains on behalf of their owner, employing train drivers etc.? Do the timetabling for trains? Something else?
2. Why does it have such a silly name?

Maproom (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the second sentence of the page, and clearly states exactly what ACI does for public transit authorities:

ACI provides transportation operations, coordination, consulting and maintenance services to multi-modal public authorities that own light rail, subway, streetcar, rapid transit, commuter rail, and bus networks across the United States.

Great question on the name, and there is an answer but there's no citation available! It reflects the company's origin to help secure financing for public transit authorities from private sources to fund infrastructure growth. That model obviously changed over time to a focus on operations and maintenance contracts. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@ScottDFarmelant Please clearly define the following terms: "transport operations", "coordination", "consulting" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

For example, delivering biscuits is a transport operation, improving guitar technique is coordination, and dress-code advice is consulting, but I'm pretty sure those aren't what you meant. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:SOLUTIONS. Athanelar (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Transport operations (for passenger rail and public transit): Moving people via public transit, buses, or trains. For ACI, transport operations means working under contract for public transportation authorities or agencies to manage the transportation of passengers by rail or bus.

Transport coordination: Assisting public transportation authorities or agencies with the management of transportation of passengers by rail or bus.

Transport consulting: Advising public transportation authorities or agencies about the management of transportation of passengers by rail or bus. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the answer is along the lines of owning and maintaining the rolling stock for a number of relatively small rail lines, hopefully making it more economical for those lines to operate than if they each bought their own. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Operations and Maintenance companies like ACI do not own assets typically, and when they do, they lease assets to public owner entities. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Notability of Alternate Concepts

@ScottDFarmelant:, in case you have not noticed, the article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate Concepts. The criteria for notability (suitability for a Wikipedia article) of a company are explained at WP:NCORP and a key section is WP:SIRS, which says that several sources about the company need to

1. "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth."
2. "Be completely independent of the article subject."
3. "Meet the standard for being a reliable source."
4. "Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability."

TSventon (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

With respect, ACI exists at the intersection of public transit and private commerce, which creates a lack of transparency that ACI would prefer to eliminate to the degree possible. This is the challenge - who will share content about a company that exists in the public sector and behind the scenes other than somebody connected directly to the organization? Considering the many aspects of Wikipedia that are leveraged to publicize and promote commercial interests - entertainment/Hollywood, tech giants, pharma - it's fascinating that a transport management company is treated so harshly in its pursuit of sharing verifiable, non-commercial, non-promotional information in a transparent manner via Wikipedia - content that would seemingly benefit the public that uses and relies on bus, rail and similar transit services. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@ScottDFarmelant We are treating this company as we would any other topic which clearly does not meet our criteria for inclusion. The fact is Wikipedia has, unfortunately, millions of bad articles that do not meet our criteria for inclusion but no volunteer editor has improved or marked them for deletion yet. qcne (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't dispute this, but I respectfully suggest the "any other topic" does not apply here because the services in question are central to the daily lives of millions of people across the world. Knowledge is power. ACI believes people should know about the contracts they hold and the services they provide to public transportation authorities across the USA. It's my hope that editors would be interested in helping solve the problem rather than dismiss it as a 'bad article.' ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Being "central to the daily lives of millions of people across the world" isn't one of our criteria for inclusion. Our criteria for inclusion is clearly stated at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You have not demonstrated in any way the company meets any of the criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Fine, but why then is there a "stub" article that is out-of-date and inaccurate? ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Because it was created in 2021 by a volunteer editor. It is common for editors to create stubs that might not meet our criteria for inclusion. The outcome is either improvement of the content to meet our criteria, or deletion. There is currently a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alternate_Concepts. qcne (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the conversation. Public transportation appears to obviously and clearly meet the notability standard. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Which, specific, Primary criteria for inclusion do you believe it meets? qcne (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

From Wikipedia "Notability" page...

"When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education..."

Public transportation has a profound effect, or if you will, significant and demonstrable, on society and economies. There is readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability of public transportation and by extension, the entities that operate and maintain the services. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I like how you purposely didn't include the sentence directly above No matter how important editors personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it.

Your sources do not evidence that this company has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education etc. qcne (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for not including that, but as has been stated in every thread, the article is extensively researched with citations for all statements of fact. This includes government websites, academic research sites, public transit organizations, main stream news media, and trade media. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

And you've completely avoided the point which is: there is not proof of notability via significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources.

I get it: this is your job and this is your client. But this is exactly why we don't like editors with a conflict of interest editing articles. Imagine this argument, repeated for every company on earth, by every PR professional. It would destroy Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The article that is nominated for deletion had proposed content edits with citations from websites maintained by public agencies in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, San Juan, Washington, DC, as well as the federal government (Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration.) It included citations from media outlets like the Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, NBC 4 News/Washington DC, and American City Business Journals are referenced. It linked to citations from the non-governmental research bodies like the Transit Research Institute and World Transit Research. It also included links to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Trade publications like Railway Technology, and Railway Track and Structures are cited. Other citations include the American Passenger Transportation Association (APTA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and technical publications like Movement Engineering, Transportation Review and Transit Lab. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Namedropping your sources tells us nothing. It's not merely about who says something, but what they say. The sources need to provide significant coverage of this specific company and must not simply cover the routine business activities of the company. Athanelar (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That means you need to demonstrate that this specific company has had that kind of significant impact; with the sources to back it up. Not that the company is part of an industry that has had such an impact. Athanelar (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

See last reply. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

There are no special considerations when it comes to article inclusion; public good does not provide any exception to the typical requirements. Athanelar (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Public good is not the point. It's public education and awareness that's the point. Specifically, public transportation has a profound effect, or if you will, significant and demonstrable, on society and economies. There is readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability of public transportation and by extension, the entities that operate and maintain the services. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No, there is no "by extension." Notability is not inherited, public transport companies aren't automatically notable just because the concept of public transport is notable.

I'm not sure why you're so intent to argue the point here. We have very clear guidelines on how the notability of organisations and companies are determined at WP:NCORP. Either you demonstrate the company meets those guidelines or there's no basis for an article; no two ways about it. Athanelar (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Right, but they are notable by virtue of actively operating four passenger rail systems in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey as well as San Juan? There seems to be a clear basis for an article... ScottDFarmelant (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No, they are not notable by virtue of actively operating four passenger rail systems in Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey as well as San Juan. Running four passenger rail systems is not a criteria for notability. Why are you not understanding this? qcne (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

A criteria for notability "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies," [emphasis added in bold.] The passenger rail systems in questions meet all of this basic criteria for notability and directly impact hundreds of thousands of people. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No, that isn't a criteria for notability. You have misread the policy page. qcne (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

We're not talking about whether "passenger rail systems" in general are notable; they obviously are, hence why we have an article about them at Passenger train. You need to demonstrate that this specific company is notable. And no, it does not inherit notability merely by being involved in the passenger rail industry. Athanelar (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No? Where does it say anything of the sort in WP:NCORP?

What makes a company notable, as is plainly stated there, is that it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The scope of the company's operations, its subjective importance to public life, and whatever else you might argue, is totally irrelevant as far as our requirements are concerned. What you need is the presence of multiple sources meeting the golden rule, nothing else. Athanelar (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the citation: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) The text you question is set forth in the first subsection of the first major subject header ("Decisions based on verifiable evidence" entitled "No Inherent Notability." ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that supports your argument. Athanelar (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

For a communication professional, it's really interesting that you don't seem to be able to read headings. The Decisions based on verifiable evidence is very obviously an informative heading to help readers assess notability based on sources. The actual criteria is then, very obviously, directly below named Primary criteria. qcne (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You men this, ys?

Primary criteria

See also: Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources; and Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline

Shortcuts

• WP:ORGCRITE
• WP:ORGCRIT

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

The article that is nominated for deletion had proposed content edits with citations on the basis of significant multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of ACI, including websites maintained by public agencies in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, San Juan, Washington, DC, as well as the federal government (Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration.) It included citations from media outlets like the Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, NBC 4 News/Washington DC, and American City Business Journals are referenced. It linked to citations from the non-governmental research bodies like the Transit Research Institute and World Transit Research. It also included links to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Trade publications like Railway Technology, and Railway Track and Structures are cited. Other citations include the American Passenger Transportation Association (APTA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and technical publications like Movement Engineering, Transportation Review and Transit Lab.

It would be wonderful to cite more resources, which would surely happen if the content in question is approved for publication. Thank you. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Where are all those sources you say you cited??? qcne (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Deleted by editors who objected to content on basis of me posting as paid consultant, which I disclosed in keeping with COI policy. Here's the text that was proposed then deleted via the Edit History section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternate_Concepts&oldid=1364521381 ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It would be wonderful if a non-paid editor cared enough to work on the proposed content so it could pass muster. Key point on this end is ACI wants more information in public domain about the 'boring business' of public transit, not less. As their rep, my role is to do what's possible within the confines of every internet platform's requirements and that's what i'm doing here. Thank you. ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, no, it was reverted because it was heavily promotional in tone; full of synthesized material; full of unencyclopedic and undue detail; an excessive reliance on primary sources; and still didn't prove notability.

You wrote a company tender document, not a Wikipedia article. It was wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia which is why it was reverted.

This is exactly why we hate CoI editors editing on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm doing my best and have asked for guidance. I removed all adjectives for example to avoid any possible 'promotion.' Regardless of who write it (multiple parties), it's not tender document, aka a bid response submittal, which is a highly technical legal document that includes hundreds of forms, financial documents, technical filings, etc. so that phrase simply not accurate. What's been challenging personally is the many statements about claimed issues without follow up as to what's acceptable. How else would a transportation operations and maintenance entity set forth the services it's contracted for without listing said services, outcomes, impacts, etc.? ScottDFarmelant (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

How else would a transportation operations and maintenance entity set forth the services it's contracted for... It shouldn't. That's the point. As we've tried to communicate to you many times, a Wikipedia article about a company should primarily consist of a summary of things written by people completely unrelated to the company. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to "set forth" their service offerings. Athanelar (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Israel Discount Bank

I was falsely accused by adding text generated by LLM, without reviewing it properly. I want to know how to contest the reviewers' claims עומר תשבי (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

On your user page, it's necessary for you to reveal exactly who is paying you (and also who has paid you in the past) - each one of them. You can't put "freelance".

It's silly under the circumstances to talk about contesting your obvious LLM use. I recommend that you not waste your time and energy on a battle you're certain to lose. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I havnt found a template fit for it.@TooManyFingers עומר תשבי (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to use a template. You can just type out a statement. You need to be specific about who your clients are. You also are required to link to any websites where you offer your services. Please review WP:PAID carefully. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Downloading a PDG

I had been downloading in a pdf format articles of interest but now there is no tool to do that. Have you stopped allowing that? Etalbot631 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If you switch to the Vector 2010 legacy skin, you will have the download link gain. Ruslik_Zero 20:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It's also in the three dots menu to the right of the "view history" link on Vector 2022, or in some cases in a tools sidebar to the right of the article in question. Are you not seeing that link or is it not working? - Purplewowies (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Apparently some of the menu entries were missing for a short while, but it should be fixed now. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikidata link missing from sidebar. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced NBA-player claims and apparent COI at Kyle Julius

The Personal life section of Kyle Julius names several NBA players (Wiggins, Olynyk, Bennett, Pangos) as people the subject trained, along with figures like "over 100 professionals." The only sourcing I can find is sites reproducing his own coaching résumé plus his social media. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, self-published material shouldn't support contentious claims about other living people, so I intend to remove those names. Bargnani is the exception, as there's a 2012 Globe and Mail article covering a training stint, so I'll keep that one cited. The related issue is that parts of the article read as promotional and appear lifted from self-authored bios (WP:COI), though the subject is clearly notable. Before I start editing, is WP:COIN the right venue for the COI side, or is tagging and cleanup on the article itself the better first step? Jackdawss (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you should be able to just do the tagging and cleanup yourself. COIN is for when other solutions have failed. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Renaming a page

I have been editing Pavilion Gallery Museum and realized that the title is misleading. The article itself is about the Assiniboine Park Pavilion, of which the museum is a part. The museum itself takes up only a fraction of the article. How do I go about renaming the page? And is that something I'm even allowed to do?? IfShrimpHadABarbie (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @IfShrimpHadABarbie.

You change the title of a page by moving the page. And yes, you are allowed to do this.

As with any other edit, if somebody disagrees they could move the article back; and if you think the move might be contentious, it would be a good idea to discuss it on the article's talk page first.

But from my quick look at the article, it looks like a sensible move.

If you move it, the software will leave the original title as a redirect pointing to the new title - which seems ideal to me. ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Awesome - thank you! IfShrimpHadABarbie (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, this has gotten strange.

I tried to do a move from Pavilion Gallery Museum to Assiniboine Park Pavilion, only to discover that this page already existed! Blank, but in existence nonetheless. And more than that, it had a redirect on it to Pavilion Gallery Museum.

So, what I did was remove the redirect from Assiniboine Park Pavilion and then copied and pasted the content from Pavilion Gallery Museum. We now have a page with content that is correctly named. Huzzah!

The problem now is that Pavilion Gallery Museum won't accept a redirect and it's out there in the world with no content on it. Halp! I feel like that page should be deleted now, but this is not something I can do.

Suggestions? IfShrimpHadABarbie (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

IfShrimpHadABarbie please don't do cut and paste moves, they make it difficult to track the authorship of articles, I have restored the redirect. You can request that the article is moved at WP:Requested moves/Technical requests, both pages have history, so probably a "round robin" move is needed. Helpers at RMTR may want you to start a move discussion first. TSventon (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll reach out via the link you provided. IfShrimpHadABarbie (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Non-free video game screenshot usage

Hello, I was directed to come here instead of asking on the non-free image talk page (context: Special:Diff/1364576709)

Basically, I uploaded a non-free image of a video game screenshot File:Barbie_Riding_Club_screenshot_horses.jpg + added rationale to use it Barbie Riding Club article. But in retrospect, the screenshot I originally uploaded is perhaps only borderline compliant with "contextual significance" rule WP:NFC#CS because, while it shows some gameplay that is discussed in the article (i.e., horses in the stable), the bulk of the sources in the article discuss feeding and riding horses. It's also just not very interesting, honestly.

Anyway, my questions here:

1. I have removed the original screenshot from the article & nominated it for deletion using Template:Db-g7 — isn't that the right move? Did I miss any steps?
2. Now, if I were to instead use a screenshot showing feeding a horse or riding a horse, do you all think that complies with "contextual significance" requirement? If not, could you share what you think would comply?
3. Any other caveats I should know about?

Thank you for your help — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 15:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Editing a page

Hi, I edited a page of my former band. Pulse Ultra with more detailed info. The page has reverted to previous version. how do i go about keeping my edits there. i made the edits on July 16th, 2026. Special:Contributions/~2026-40127-79

Thx. ~2026-40127-79 (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-40127-79.

If you are a former member of Pulse Ultra then you have a conflict of interest, and should not be editing the article directly.

Your edit was reverted because you did not provide any sources.

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.

You can use the edit request wizard to make a request, and then somebody uninvolved will decide what to do with your request. But unless you cite independent reliable sources for any information you wish to add (see WP:42) it is unlikely that your suggestion will be implemented.

The same applies to Headspace (Pulse Ultra album). ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

ok I didn't know.

I will use edit wizard.

Thx. ~2026-40127-79 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Mariah Carey Sugar Sweet

Songwriter Credit I am requesting a correction to the songwriter credit for “Sugar Sweet”. The songwriter listed as Patrick Charles currently links to or identifies a different individual. I am the Patrick Charles who co-wrote the song, specifically contributing to Shenseea’s verse. I respectfully request that the credit be updated to accurately reflect the correct songwriter or, if necessary, that the existing link to the unrelated Patrick Charles be removed until the correct attribution can be made. I can provide supporting documentation verifying my contribution to the work, including professional registration information and other documentation confirming my authorship. Thank you for your time and for helping ensure the accuracy of Wikipedia’s information. ~2026-40220-16 (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-40220-16.

The name "Patrick Charles" appears nowhere in the article Sugar Sweet. Are you referring to a different article? ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Possibly the album Here for It All. [[Street Life (rapper)|Patrick Charles]] was added here by Sock. TSventon (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have simply removed the link from Here for It All, @~2026-40220-16, since the attribution is unsourced anyway.

If at some point somebody decides to write an article about this Patrick Charles, and determines that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability and so is able to write the article, then the link can be reinstated to that article. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Everything Under the Sun (Nickelback album)

I tried to copy the footnote on Everything Under the Sun (Nickelback album) from Nickelback discography, but I think it did not work. Can someone please assist in this regard? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Where are you trying to put it? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Same place it went in Nickelback discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You probably think you've said what you're trying to do, but you haven't quite. I'm not a mind reader. What task are you trying to do, and for which footnote? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The reference was corrupt to begin with, so I removed it entirely. Issue resolved. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the real problem. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Nz Maori indigenous

how can Maori in new zealand be titled as indigenous when they migrated in canoes from Asia the word indigenous indicates means place of origin and evolution which actually doesn't apply to Maori they migrated to new zealand like the English but earlier and the maoriori was here before them also there is significant information that there were other people here before Maori as they actually state in their ancestry coming across the red headed giants Celtics and the little people pigmies so to call Maori indigenous is in direct conflict with the terminology of the actual word unless you are able to prove Maori evolved in new zealand they shouldn't be termed as indigenous ~2026-40279-48 (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and not on the unsourced ramblings of random contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-40279-48 Considering all anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa and spread out from there, the term "indigenous" is inaccurate in every case if that's your standard. The term "indigenous" is in all cases essentially based on an arbitrary time cutoff, or at best because a certain group were the first anatomically modern humans to settle an area.

But, for example, western Europe was once home to a range of Celtic cultures related to the Welsh, Bretons etc, who were conquered and supplanted by the Germanic peoples. I don't think that would cause anyone to say, however, that the Germans are not indigenous to Germany; and that replacement happened far more recently in history (after the time of the Roman Empire)

And this is all of course not even mentioning that the idea that the Moriori settled Aotearoa before the Maori is largely disproven. See Pre-Māori settlement of New Zealand theories. Anthropologists are generally of the belief that the Maori (or rather, their Polynesian ancestors) were indeed the first settlers of the region. Athanelar (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Aren't the Suzuki Boulevard C109R and the Suzuki Boulevard M109R really the same bike?

• Suzuki Boulevard C109R
• Suzuki Boulevard M109R

I think someone should merge these two pages, but I can't be bothered. Also, as far as I can tell from the AutoScout24 classified advertising site, this bike is primarily known as the VZR1800 in Europe. ~2026-40307-17 (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If you have reliable proof that they're different names for the same thing, then it would be very helpful if you say where the proof can be found; that way, the change might be made a lot sooner.

If you don't know where reliable proof is, then this could easily get ignored. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Having done some homework I have edited both pages discussing the relationship between the bikes. I'm sure it would be easier to find many more citations. I still feel they are essentially variations of the same model and should share a single page, but this is as much effort as I'm prepared to put in. If these edits took less than two hours then they didn't take much less and no doubt someone will soon be along to revert them and hack them apart.~2026-40307-17 (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If you really have shown proof from reliable sources for what you wrote, then the complainers really don't have a leg to stand on. (Though they will often pretend they do.)

If you've only put what you know yourself, without proof from a reliable source, then it should probably be reverted. Wikipedia is strict about that stuff. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Nothing I wrote was from what I know myself. It was all from the cited source or already uncited on the Suzuki Boulevard C109R page before I edited. ~2026-40307-17 (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

mutliple = multiple in Elon Musk article

It is semi protected & no capability that i can find to call attention to it on that talk page needing to be corrected. Several instances.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. In this type of situation, you can make an edit request on the talk page. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe that may not be an option for new or unregistered editors. That option is absent from the article talk page or not as readily displayed as in other locked articles.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

You can make edit requests as a new or unregistered user (would defeat the whole point if you couldn't). jolielover♥talk 11:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32542-29: There is an edit request wizard that is linked from the information page Ianmacm provided. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Again my point. What you say is not possible unless I go to another part of WP that i am expected to know about instead of as with many other locked article pages it is right on the article talk page. Its absolute arrogance in action you anyone in WP to expect to navigate thru WP with ease if you have unstated variances. Understand not everyone involved with WP is as invested in all the capabilities of WP and its nuances as the most knowledgeable WP participant. I understand this response to what has been said may not be welcomed but the fact remains if someone encounters an unexplained variance where in other situations what is usual is missing. When i explored the talk page i was directed by the way i navigated the age it was necessary to not be a new user or register an account in order to leave an edit request. Now i have never said i am a WP expert and if there are limitations at whatever stage of use it should be the policy of WP at that page to explain what can be done. As I said what i found is not what is being presented as the solution. The link was after the fact instead of current time when i encountered the brick wall. What is being presented is a rather elitist approach despite WP being presented as an every persons effort at participating. Having heard about others experiences with WP I know that may be unwelcomed but then not everything in life have been thot out. Again what i said earlier in the limited experience I have had with WP when an article is locked for whatever reason when you go to the talk page there is on it a direct means of submitting an edit request. I did not find what i have found with others and what i did find required me to move to a step i find less than what i think is necessary to participate. If the mechanism exists on that talk page I could not reasonably find it based on my prior experience in WP. Thats a problem. Those experienced with WP might think that an unreasonable courtesy. I wouldnt. Maybe we are not looking at the same picture?~2026-32542-29 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @~2026-32542-29: Talk:Elon Musk is semi-protected. In this rare situation you can post to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah... trout me, then. Yes, quite rare for talk pages to be semi-protected too. jolielover♥talk 17:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes I can if, i know. I did not and the process did not make that known without previous experience. That is what seems to be lost by those in a position of influencing what is done. Elitism in the WP world is instruction after the fact especially when in other instances a means to the purpose is readily found at the point of interaction. Having to go elsewhere especially after the fact has its problems when you try to protect a reputation. Let it be clear nothing will change this experience because it has happened and if i encounter it in the future I will have to rely on finding that link because i sometimes have difficulty with navigating WP. Others that are far more invested in it do not. Its a point to understand.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

This comment was posted before i had an opportunity to see the "T" comment. This is getting more contentious than what is purposeful. Maybe WP should have a section on variances? For those that may lack the ability that is facetious. I do not mind my hand being slapped for a purpose but i am not a punching bag. We all at some point go through an experience we learn what we acted on was incomplete. In a situation where one is not face to face it can be far more important when explaining.~2026-32542-29 (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry for failing to notice that Talk:Elon Musk is currently semi-protected. This does complicate things if an unregistered or new user wants to make an edit request, but as stated above you can do this at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. Maybe Talk:Elon Musk and similar protected talk pages could make this clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen

So some got kicked off of Wikipedia for calling Bruce a socialist?? ~2026-40170-91 (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

You're going to have to give a little more detail as to what exactly you are referring to. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If by kicked off you mean blocked, then it could be possible if they're deemed as being WP:NOTHERE. Irrelevant commentary & insults are not allowed here; if Springsteen's political ideologies were relevant in the discussion, then sure, but if it's a one-off irrelevant comment intended as an insult, then definitely not allowed. And yes, please specify what exactly you're talking about (and what your goal is with this discussion), because we can't help you otherwise. jolielover♥talk 17:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Problem Fixing Citation at Matlab Article

The 2nd entry in references for Matlab has a problem with "title". However, it is based on Wikidata and is inside the infobox of the article. How can that be repaired. Starlighsky (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Starlighsky: I have added a title at Wikidata. You can get there by clicking the pencil icon next to the reference in the infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Starlighsky (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Translating to other languages

I want to have the U.S. 101 in California article translated into Spanish, expanding on that Wikipedia article. What should I do to formalize that request? Nebulous2357 (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nebulous2357. There's some guidance on this type of thing in WP:TRANSLATEUS. It's important to remember that each Wikipedia project is separate and distinct from the others; each project has its own community of editors and its own policies and guidelines. There's no requirement per se that all Wikipedia articles in different languages need to be a verbatim translation of one another. Moreover, if you're planning on translating content on English Wikipedia into another language, you should be fairly competent in both the source and target languages: machine/software translations (including LLM transtations) are considered unacceptable per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. So, if you're fairly good at Spanish, you could be WP:CAUTIOUS and start a discussion about what you'd like to do on the talk page of the Spanish Wikipedia article about U.S. 101 to see what other members of the Spanish Wikipedia community might think. You could also be WP:BOLD if you think you're up to translating the content yourself. If you decide to do the latter, you should try to familiarize yourself what how things are done on Spanish Wikipedia because its manual of style (MOS) is probably different from English's Wikipedia's MOS; you should also make sure things such as the formatting used for citations and other stuff is consistent with what is done on Spanish Wikipedia. Lastly, if you do translate stuff yourself, it's important to remember to properly attribute the source content per WP:TRANSLATE#Attribution requirements; this is required for licensing purposes and not doing so is considered a copyright violation.

Now, if you don't know any or just a little Spanish, I wouldn't recommend you try to do this yourself. You might be able to find someone either capable of doing such a translation either at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/California, Wikipedia:Translators available or maybe even on Spanish Wikipedia at es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual. On Spanish Wikipedia, though, you should at least try to communicate in Spanish as best as you can, at least at first; you shouldn't expect others to automatially be capable of communicating in English. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Problem confirming my email address

I haven't received the confirmation of my email address although it says conformations have been sent. The email is not in Junk. Where can I see what email address Wikipedia has for me and correct any errors? Sapphic Scribe (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It's on the first page of your "User preferences". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphic Scribe: Click the person icon at the top right and then "Preferences". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hatnotes and advertisements

This topic is was duplicated at

• Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Quantum supremacy
• Wikipedia:Help desk#Hatnotes and advertisements
• Talk:Quantum supremacy#Hatnotes and advertisements
• Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#How do WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPAM apply to hatnotes?

I have moved all of the duplicates to the most active page -- The Disambiguation talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Nick Shirley Error

 Courtesy link: Nick Shirley

"Shirley's central claims that members of the Somali community were operating fake childcare centers or inflating attendance numbers were unsubstantiated." This is currently posted on your website and is incorrect. On factually.co it has been reported that 98 people have been charged, 85 of those are Somali. The New York Times has so far reported 59 people have been charged and convicted of these schemes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-40547-53 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Factually.co is a large language model and is not a reliable source. We have many reliable sources that refute the claims listed at Nick Shirley#Notes. If you have a reliable source that backs your claims, please cite it directly. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Ads

you need to quit put alcohol commercial and Gambling as well as mixing non Christian music with the Christian music. That hypocritical ~2026-40574-49 (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have advertising RudolfRed (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

We do have (limited) WP:Wikipedia ads, but also responding to the original poster, we actively maintain a neutral position regarding all articles and contexts and we will not censor any information in favor of a religious point of view, as that affects the integrity of this project. If you do see an actual advertisement or commercial that promotes a brand of alcohol or gambling in a page, however, feel free to let us know. ⠀⠀.nhals8⠀⠀ 13:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-40574-49 ⠀⠀.nhals8⠀⠀ 13:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if they're construing us having an article on them at all as advertizing for those. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Nikolaj Coster-Waldau

Reference help requested. Hi, I don't know how to put in a title in the reference. Can someone help? Thanks, E-Turner (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It's another one of the fields in visual editor. In source editor, just enter |title= and then whatever you want the title to be. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Feeds for new editors

This is an article about a relatively obscure Scottish aristocrat. Yet it is edited on an almost daily basis by new editors, who almost invariably make changes with an edit summary of "tone". This cannot be a coincidence. Is there some feed I am unaware of, that "pushes" the article to the attention of new editors? My guess is that it's something like - "here's a list of articles with (supposed) 'peacock' terms where you could make the 'tone' more neutral". Does anyone know what's causing this? KJP1 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

KJP1, have you clicked on the links in the edits? They link to mw:Help:Growth/Tools/Newcomer Tasks piped to "Newcomer task" and mw:Help:Growth/Tools/Newcomer Tasks#Revise tone piped to "Suggested: revise tone", which are similar to your guess. TSventon (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

You can try it yourself: enable visual editing in editing preferences and suggestion mode in Beta features then edit John Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute and you should see the suggestions. TSventon (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. That's certainly the answer. Now, is there anything I could/should do about it? KJP1 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think {{No newcomer task}} works, though I'm not sure if any level of consensus is required to put it on the page. ScalarFactor (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Really appreciated. I am going to try it and will address any fallout. KJP1 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

You describe the subject as "relatively obscure". He was said in his time to be to be the richest man in the world. Most of his wealth derived from the coal mines he owned in south Wales, and the docks in Cardiff through which it was exported. Maproom (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

All true, and his patronage of William Burges has ensured a lasting legacy. But in the 21st century, I think he is now little known. KJP1 (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Trouble with infoboxes

When I was editing a article of a administrative division of a country, I wanted to change the population & area section of the infobox, but when I opened the infobox editing page, there was no population & area typing areas, even though they were clearly visible. Getting any information I can get on the topic. GoldenGourd (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

From your last edit, this is Hélécine and {{Infobox Belgium municipality}}. TSventon (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @GoldenGourd. If you find an infobox where the information displayed does not appear to be in the source, you'll usually find it is imported from the Wikidata item, in this case d:Q670355.

You can edit that (for data that changes in time, such as population, it is preferable to add a new value with a newer date and reference). ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, thank a ton. I'm new here & just making sights of things, but, yeah, thank you. GoldenGourd (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

How to show sidebar

how to add sidebar in settings ~2026-40500-17 (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Internal visited links not showing

For some strange reason, The internal pages to topics are not saving (changing to a visited link color) on Safari. I have been using a Mac for years and this just started happening. Sounds trivial, but it really helps when you are looking for topics and you don't immediately see that you have been on this page before. Any clue to why this is happening now? Majalu72 (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

You mean blue links you recently visited on Wikipedia have suddenly started staying blue, not changing to purple or whatever - right? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Majalu72. It seems that this is a bug in Safari/WebKit. See this question from a week ago. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Donations

I am a monthly donor for awhile now but I'm suddenly havin pop ups when trying to access the site for info. Very annoying. Ho do I stop this? Connie McCluskey ~2026-40629-67 (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NOBANNER. It's hard for IP users to avoid fundraising banners, so the best thing is to create an account.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-40629-67. What Ian said. Note that even if you create an account and login to it, there is (deliberately) nothing anywhere in Wikipedia which will associate your account with your donation status. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

New user who claims to be an expert in an ECR topic

I am trying to communicate advice about extended-confirmed restrictions to a self-identified professional expert in an ECR topic (WP:CT/IMH) after I tagged one of their articles for speedy deletion per G5. Besides directing them to non-ECR topics in their field of expertise (the Kumaon division), which I have done, I considered asking them to help with POV pushing or history-related editing in some other controversial topic, likely US politics. The discussion is at User_talk:Kumaoni_Painter#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Udyot_Chand. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, they acknowledged and will likely continue in counter-disruptive patrolling, like they did in a recent edit at Danganronpa 2×2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

How can I share feedback about the Wikipedia app?

I would love it if the Wikipedia app could become more useful to use, especially with jumping to specific sections within a page, since it has been cumbersome since it first came out. Where can I leave feedback to share my thoughts? The Feedback link in the app itself goes to an FAQ, but there is nowhere I can find that provides a link to a form or location where feedback is actually collected. Thanks! Sbwinter2 (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sbwinter2: The table of contents with section links is on the list icon at the bottom left, at least in the iOS app. mw:Wikimedia Apps/FAQ/iOS#If I have a question or a suggestion, how do I get in touch? has an email address. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why my photos were removed

Hello,

A user reverted my image edits on this page. I was replacing the images of the stained glass with higher quality ones from Wikimedia. The explanation given was that I violated a policy, but there was no elaboration on what part of the policy was violated.

America Windows

I deliberately took and uploaded those photos to create better options for the Wikipedia page. I marked them as free use for everyone/public domain. I don't see what the problem was. As far as I know, his work (The Chagall windows) is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1931 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice.

The ones on the current page are very pixelated when you zoom in. The ones I was uploading would have been clear when zooming in. I was not intentionally doing anything wrong, just trying to contribute knowledge.

Can someone please explain what I did wrong and if there's any way we can get better quality images of the America Windows up there?

Thanks Funknendai (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Photos of artwork need to be in a low resolution and small(unless its your own artwork and you want to release it under a free license, which most artists don't). 331dot (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

But, @331dot, @Funknendai says that the original artwork is in the public domain. If that is so (I don't know), why would it have to be low resolution? ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Pinging TonyTheTiger. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Funknendai, when I look at c:File:America Windows by Marc Chagall - Leftmost Panel (1977).jpg, I see that you claim that it's your "own work" and that, as copyright holder, you dedicate it to the public domain. But if anyone is the copyright holder, it's not you -- by which I do not intend to denigrate either your work or your motive. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm just going to delete it because I don't know how to fix it Funknendai (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Funknendai, if something was first published in the US, and after 1922 and before 1978, and without a copyright notice, then it's normally in the public domain in the US (though not because a user of Commons declared it to be). But I'm not at all sure that in this context "published" means something like "opened to public view". Is its meaning limited, something like "reproduced (e.g. by printing on paper), these reproductions being made available to the public (e.g. by sale)"? The best place to ask would be c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Why can't I get a general manufactures list price for a The Canadair CL-415 (Super Scooper,[2] later Bombardier 415) and the De Havilland Canadair DHC-515 are a series of amphibious aircraft built originally by Canadair and subsequently by Bombardier and De Havilland Canada?

The Canadair CL-415 (Super Scooper, later Bombardier 415) and the De Havilland Canadair DHC-515 are a series of amphibious aircraft built originally by Canadair and subsequently by Bombardier and De Havilland Canada.This is a plane being built to fight wild fires! It seems that the demand for this type of plane is going to increase and there should be a general base cost for it! After trying to get the information all I get is the statement: "THIS INFORMATION DOES NOT EXIST"!

Milton Carris ~2026-40750-63 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)