Eurovision Wiki:Help desk

badges

i want to see if I can get badges ~2026-15148-53 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

What kind of badges? Police? Girl Scout? —Antonissimo (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Not with the kind of edit you made as your first edit under this account. David10244 (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Edward A Braithwaite

Special:Diff/1342801106

The URL I used is correct, I am not sure why it is giving this error.

Thanks, AuroraTiara (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You appear to have fixed that problem, AuroraTiara. Intrigued by "Westard Ho", I clicked on the link to "RCMP to Honor Pioneer at Funeral Service Saturday". But I arrived at a different newspaper clipping, one with no mention of westardity or westwardity. And something seems odd about "He also was a respected Freemason": Wikipedia doesn't normally say that people were or are respected whatevers. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

If someone was a disrespected Freemason, would we know? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The referencing problems are more serious. Of the 10 references, 6 are wrongly linked to the same newspaper clipping, which says very little about Edward A Braithwaite. One reference is a map, another also says little about him, leaving only #2. This article was created on Monday, yet it's in mainspace. Should it be draftified until these problems are fixed? Blackballnz (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@AuroraTiara @Hoary Blackballnz (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Blackballnz, yes it indeed should. I should have noticed those problems. I have now belatedly moved the article to Draft:Edward A. Braithwaite, where AuroraTiara, or indeed anyone, is welcome to work on it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The newspaper articles used as citations actually exist, but the URLs used were duplicated and wound up pointing to the same place. I've fixed the links to point to the proper clipping. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew. I made an error when uploading to the Wayback Machine archive. I thought I could upload the documents at once, and add specific metadata to each file, but it saved them all under one link. I used the same link (to avoid paywall sites) until I had time to figure out how to fix the Wayback archive. I appreciate your assistance. AuroraTiara (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It isn't a "referencing error" - if you open the link you will see I simply made an error in uploading to the Wayback machine. I uploaded all of the articles at once thinking I could add specific metadata to each article, but it was loaded as a single entry instead. Unsure of how to correct it, I used the same link to the Wayback machine and I made a note in the talk page that I was working on citations. All of the articles cited are in the Wayback machine (and on newspapers.com etc), they are just not in the preferred "single article archive" method yet. I think it is unfair that this was moved to a draft without contacting me for clarification. AuroraTiara (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

AuroraTiara, I regret the trouble this has caused you, but the draft still seems odd to me. He had a long and distinguished career in Freemasonry and [was] well thought of by his Freemason Brothers in particular reads less like an encyclopedia entry, more like obituaryspeak. Or is the prose style specific to freemasonry? As it is, I'd be amazed to read in the article Eric Hosking (as a hypothetical example outside freemasonry) that He had a long and distinguished career in bird photography and was well thought of by his fellow photographers/ornithologists. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary If you only have issues with one cited line, I think it would be easier to have removed said line, rather than have the entire article remain in "draft" status. Freemasonry is not considered a job, instead it is a fraternity that is committed to truth, justice and philanthropy (etc.) - so being well thought of by your "Brothers" in the lodge, speaks to how he was well though of as an upstanding citizen in the community which is why I felt it was relevant to include it. Feel free to delete it if you feel that would make the article worthy of being republished. Considering the quality of many of the articles and stubs I have edited, I don't understand why this article is unacceptable. AuroraTiara (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

AuroraTiara, fair enough. I articlified (dedraftified) it a few moments ago. -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Pageviews potentially broken

The first few days of the article 2026 Iran war seem to show almost no views [1], even though this seems to clearly be a mistake.

Compare this with the page Ali Khamenei which got nearly 10 million views during this same period [2], or Assassination of Ali Khamenei (which is itself a part of the 2026 Iran war) and got nearly a million views in this time [3].

This article was also in the front page of Wikipedia the first few days of the war, for example, so I'm confident it had more than 0 views the first day, 123 the second, 3,500 the third, and ~6,000 the fourth. This seems to be a bug; can it be fixed? Thank you.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: The page has been moved muliple times. The views are registered under former titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: you can tick "Include redirects"; which will usually include the former titles. Then you can click on "Redirects" to see how many views each redirect got. TSventon (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Script warning: {{cite book}} errors

"Script warning: {{cite book}}: this reference has errors; messages may be hidden" Does anyone know how to find what these errors are and which citations they are on ?. There are multiple cite book lines in the article - none have apparent errors. The warnings only appear in 'edit preview' - and you are not allowed to navigate away from the page without losing new edits ! Charles.bowyer (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Charles.bowyer, you provide ISBNs for editions of books that, as you describe them, predate the invention of SBNs, let alone the wide use of ISBNs. The ISBN, if provided, must match the edition described. (If no ISBN exists for the edition cited, you might instead provide an informative OCLC number for the edition. You can find this at WorldCat.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed - that has dealt with the issue.

Has something changed in the checking process - these things didn't used to raise errors ? Charles.bowyer (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Bagel

"Hi, I'm a new editor. I noticed the bagel article doesn't mention cream cheese as a common pairing in the text. I'd like to add a sentence about this in the 'Serving' section with a reliable source. Does anyone have objections or suggestions for a source?" Ttekhopi257 (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Your talk page suggests that you're just a time-waster. -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Ttekhopi257, and you will be blocked if you don't stop immediately, you've had enough warnings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm just trying to help Wikipedia Ttekhopi257 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Whom are you quoting? —Antonissimo (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed a pattern of quoted help desk posts as of late. I can't be sure but I strongly suspect LLMs are behind it mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mghackerlady I'm almost certain the quotation marks are left in after copy+pasting from LLM output. I've seen this outside Wikipedia as well. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 06:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Broken Source

I found a source that doesn't work nor it doesn't exist anymore. Should I keep it in the article or remove it entirely? TyronesEditsPages (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

First, TyronesEditsPages, you might use a search engine (Google or similar) to see if the source still exists but has moved elsewhere. If that doesn't work, see if the Wayback Machine has it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah so if that doesn't work, then it's not a source since it's gone completely? TyronesEditsPages (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of it. If it was a digitised version of something that was originally or also printed, then the print version (which likely exists in library or other archive) can still be a source even though it can't be linked to: links to a source are useful when available, but not a requirement. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@TyronesEditsPages More advice at WP:LINKROT, which includes the statement do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. TyronesEditsPages (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Concerns about a user's contributions

I have had a growing suspicion that a portion of a Wikipedia user's contributions are original content (bluntly, fictitious) rather than content based on those from verifiable secondary sources. A chunk of their edits are genuine, but there are also contributions that are eyebrow-raising. I'm not sure what would be the first steps to address this, who/where to bring this to light, or whether it would be ideal to discuss with the user first and go from there, as well as next steps after that. Any advice would be helpful, thank you for your time! Ornithoptera (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

A portion of this question concerns Commons uploads, a portion of work has been published without any apparent secondary sources verifying its legitimacy. When I try to search for any independent usage of those purported images, I come up empty handed. Some of those images have now been used on a variety of Wikipedia articles. A secondary question would be whether that is allowed? Can originally fabricated content be put up on Commons without a marker that identifies it as the original creation of the Wikipedia user and not something that has been established? I'm sure that Commons would like to promote original work, but passing original designs off as something that it is not is a bit eyebrow-raising to me. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Commons has an 'own work' tag which is supposed to be used specifically to flag anything which is the creation of the uploading user. Athanelar (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Athanelar:, thank you for your insight. My concern lies within the factuality of the upload. As an (not this but, for the purposes of keeping the user anonymous) example, someone uploaded a drawing of a fish but had labelled, categorized, and referred to it as a car. This drawing is clearly a fish, and somehow or another, this drawing had wound up in a foreign-language wiki article for cars without evidence other than the fact that the drawing is referred to as that. Would that be allowed? Ornithoptera (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Assuming that your hypothetical somewhat reflects the real situation; if the image is being used on a foreign-language wiki, then the question of whether its use is allowed is one that can only be answered on the wiki in question; the different language Wikipedias are entirely independent projects with their own standards and rules, what is allowed here may not be allowed there and vice versa.

I'm not sure what PAG to point to, but I can guarantee that that would not be allowed on the English-language wiki (i.e., an unrelated image of a fish being on an article about a car merely because the fish image is labelled as car.jpg), but I can't confidently tell you that the same goes on whatever foreign-language wiki you're referring to; you'd have to ask there. Athanelar (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it is solely a concern and those concerns can be confirmed/denied when I have a conversation with the user in question as suggested earlier. There are some usages of the images in question on the English Wikipedia as well, those articles are just not paid attention to enough to rectify, and there are so many of them I'm not sure where to start if it actually turns out to be the case. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Ornithoptera.

In almost all circumstances, the first step is to engage with the editor involved. Assume good faith, and ask why they think their edits are appropriate, and try to explain to them why you think they are not. ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight @ColinFine: I'll see what I can do. I wanted to follow up and inquire about potential next steps in the situation that the user is uncooperative or if there is no resolution reached through discussion. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Then you would proceed to WP:dispute resolution. We make a distinction between a disagreement about content and one that involves the conduct of the editors who are involved (e.g. failure to WP:communicate). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Pixelated images

Today I see any image in the infobox appears too blurry or pixelated, but when I view it in image only mode, then it is clear. What happened? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This may happen because Wikipedia cached a low-resolution thumbnail. You can try opening the image page and purging or refreshing it to regenerate the thumbnail.Hxqq (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Please always give an example when you report an issue. I guess you encountered the recent bug phab:T419927. If that's the case then I don't think editors can do anything to fix it. Don't replace images because of this. The bug will probably be fixed soon. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I have not replaced any image. I just didn't have time to upload a screenshot as proof, and was editing via mobile. If this problem persists I'll share a screenshot but it may be available only for 24 hours. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I just meant to link a page as our edit notice asks for. The issue only affects some infoboxes. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Manick22, are you experiencing this as well? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 Yes, I noticed it yesterday itself. I thought it might be my old android phone causing the issue, but when I saw the images on my laptop, that's when I noticed this issue. I asked about the issue at the village pump; they said this issue will be fixed after the weekend. Manick22 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

"Error check" is broken

Hello, my "error check" in the toolbar stopped working a few minutes ago. I did not change any settings, and I'm using the same browser. My "named references" tool isn't working either - neither button responds. I restarted my machine but no luck.

If I've posted this in the wrong place, or have been unclear, my apologies - I barely know what to call these things. Will be happy to provide further info. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (technical) is usually better for these kinds of questions. Athanelar (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Reported at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar#RefToolbar is broken and apparently now fixed.

Posting here is fine, if you are ever unsure of where else to ask; then we can signpost you to a more topic-specific venue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Another part of RefToolbar was fixed. "Error check" still needs a similar fix. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for the pointers (and it's fixed)! Jessicapierce (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Puzzling CS1 error

At Coat of arms of Ukraine, ref 14 – "Svoboda party – the new phenomenon on the Ukrainian right-wing scene" – has a CS1 error "{{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value". I don't understand why. According to the help page, the error is caused by the URL having non-Latin characters, spaces, or an unacceptable URL scheme, but it doesn't: it's https and all ASCII with no spaces. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hairy Dude: The help page also says:

There is an additional test for |archive-url=. The cs1|2 templates expect that |archive-url= will hold a unique URL for an archived snapshot of the source identified by |url= or |chapter-url= (or any of its aliases). This error message is emitted when the value assigned to |archive-url= is the same as the matching title or chapter URL.

PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Well now don't I feel dumb :-) Thanks, it's now fixed. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk Page Archives

Hello! I've noticed that some people have archive things on their talk pages. I was wondering how to set that up on mine.

Thanks, AirmanKitten203 (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@AirmanKitten203: See Help:Archiving a talk page or just Help:Archiving (plain and simple). PrimeHunter (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! AirmanKitten203 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd be happy to set up automated archiving for you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

If you can, I would really appreciate it! AirmanKitten203 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I figured it out. Thank you though AirmanKitten203 (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Notable people of Kasur

Notable people of Kasur R. Tabassam (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

First you need to establish whether they are notable, do they have a Wikipedia article? Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@R. Tabassam: Yes, many lists of people are only for those who already have a biography in Wikipedia and then the biography is linked on their name like everybody at Kasur#Notable people. You have tried to add Zafar Mansoor but there is no biography so the link is red instead of blue. See also Wikipedia:Notability (people). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Try a search engine mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Standard for significant coverage

I could swear I read somewhere discussing what the standard for SIGCOV is and concluding it was 3 meaty paragraphs, but I can't find where it is. It feels like it might've been a userspace essay, but I have no idea. If someone knows what I'm thinking of, I'd very much appreciate a link. JustARandomSquid (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The standard varies by topic. For companies, one can have 3 meaty paragraphs about routine activities, which doesn't really count as significant coverage. For academics, no significant coverage of the person is required at all if any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria are met.

You may be thinking of various discussions you've seen in which the term "meaty paragraphs" gets mentioned a number of times in people's personal views. [4]

In my case, I like to see more than 1 paragraph and more than half of the cited source giving coverage. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The only thing WP:SIGCOV has to say on the matter is that significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail and is more than a trivial mention. The details are, I suspect, left intentionally vague, because as Anachronist has said, significant coverage must be evaluated in context. Athanelar (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Gena Branscombe

Gena Branscombe Tenney's fourth daughter Beatrice Branscombe (born Tenney 1919) married Edgar Lloyd Brokaw in New York City,in 1949; They moved together to Los Angeles, divorced in 1953, without children, She returned to New York, and died in 1954, at St. Lukes's Hospital. She visited her sister Gena and family: Phil, Roger, and Morgan Scott, at their homein New Jersey, shortly before her death. I am Gena Branscombe's oldest grandson, I knew Beatrice in person, and corresponded with her directly. ~2026-16095-49 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You didn't suggest what needed to change. Go to WP:Edit Request Wizard and follow the steps for an editor with a conflict of interest, to propose a correction on the Gena Branscombe article's talk page. It is best to arrange your request in the form "change X to Y", specifying the current wording (X) and the new wording (Y). You also need to cite a reliable published source, because we cannot rely on the word of some random editor. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the mind relief solution in human being

do flexible answer ~2026-16077-63 (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello there @~2026-16077-63. The Wikipedia help desk is a forum for Wikipedia-related questions, not for general advice. SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 05:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here not to do others' homework, but merely to aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can Template:Google Wikipedia or Template:Google.
If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Try a search engine mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Italic text in quotations

For some reason, whenever I put italic text in quotations, the text before and outside the quotations becomes italic & bold (the bold part comes from the first word in the page, which loses its bold properties.)

is this happening to you guys? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 05:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

No. What you observe indicates that you have some stray single quote marks somewhere. Are you using apostrophes for quotation marks? Those get used for italics (double apostrophe) and boldface (triple apostrophe) in wiki markup. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

ohhh.... SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 06:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@SomnambulantFish: You use VisualEditor where it may be hard to keep track of stray markup for bold and italics. You can switch to the source editor on a pencil icon at the top right. Two consecutive apostrophes both mark the start and end of italics. Three apostrophes instead both mark the start and end of bold text. This often has unintended consequences. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:ITALQUOTE, "Do not put quotations in italics." Problem solved! Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Need help reporting a problem

Hello, I want to report a problem on a Wikipedia page. Can someone guide me how to report it correctly? Thank you. Shin Htet Nwe (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the problem with the page? You may report it at WP:ANI or add a maintenance tag for one part like {{Citation needed}} or a tag for the whole page like {{More citations needed}} SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 06:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@SomnambulantFish: no, WP:ANI is almost never the appropriate place to report 'a problem on a Wikipedia page'. WP:ANI is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems".

@Shin Htet Nwe: Please tell us which page, and what the problem is, so we can offer meaningful advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Orit Farkash-Hacohen

I attempted to edit the article on Orit Farkash-Hacohen, but my additions were dismissed outright and without due consideration. I properly disclosed that this was a paid contribution, and I limited my edits to straightforward, objective information. עומר תשבי (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

עומר תשבי, you and Number 57 should start by discussing the matter on Talk:Orit Farkash-Hacohen (currently devoid of any discussion). -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you עומר תשבי (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The proper way for a paid editor to carry out edits to a page is via the Edit request wizard, which will allow you to post an edit request which a neutral editor will review and implement. Athanelar (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Question

Hello! I have opened a discussion about a move at Talk:Grünow. Could someone please let me know if this is sufficient, or whether I should also notify any relevant WikiProjects, and if so which ones? ~2026-16168-93 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is an automatic notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany#Article alerts and I think that is sufficient. TSventon (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Duplicate edit notices

2025 Potomac River mid-air collision presently has the exact same "Before you edit this page" edit notice duplicated three times. Why is this and how can it be fixed? – Scyrme (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Those are not the exact same, as they cover different CTOPs and specify as such. However, I do agree there should be some way to combine them or shorten the redundant text included in each. • Quinn (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Scyrme: Template:Editnotices/Page/2025 Potomac River mid-air collision has the three seperate uses of {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} for different topics. Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision combines the three with a different template {{Contentious topics/talk notice}}. In September 2025 HouseBlaster wrote at Template talk:Contentious topics/Archive 2#Option to have multiple topics for one template?: "It is on my list to extend this functionality from {{contentious topics/talk notice}}". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the talk page notice accomplishes this using a Lua module, whereas the edit notice doesn't have a module yet. (Probably because doing it without a module would require a lot of conditional expressions.) I suppose the only thing to do is wait until HouseBlaster (or someone else who can code in Lua) gets around to it.

Thanks for tracking down the details! – Scyrme (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm still planning to get to this, but real life and other wiki-responsibilities have kept me away from that. As a band-aid solution, in this case, you can probably just display the AMPOL notice. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:51, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

VPN editing

I get confused by the permissions I need that allow me to edit Wikipedia via VPN (I believe there is a global permission and a WP-specific permission). I have had these in the past, and I may currently have them. As I am traveling to a country where I will definitely need to edit via VPN, how can I check that I have the required permission? And how can I check the expiry date? Thank you. Brycehughes (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The relevant permission, globally, if m:Global IP block exempt. Locally it it is WP:IP block exempt. You currently have the local perm, expiring at the end of August 2026 (per Special:UserRights/Brycehughes). You also have the global perm, with no expiration date, per Special:CentralAuth/Brycehughes. The global perm does not usually allow you to edit enwiki through a VPN without also having the local permission. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Editing my page

Hi There

As an artist is it possible to edit my own wikipedia page ?

Julian Siegel

I have rewritten some biographical information and added many more links and much more info , it need updating and I would like to upload my changes but wanted to check first as I don't want to have editing access denied !. Some of the new text may be possibly replicated in part on other websites as its biographical info i have sent out in the past. Ive done my best to create a unique text for wiki and the original text and biographical infor has been generated by me anyway so I would only be using writing that i have self generated before,  

Just a double check on wiki etiquette before posting !

Best wishes

Julian Mbadgers1 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You may use the edit request process to propose changes to the article about you on its user talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Mbadgers1 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I advise you to propose incremental changes, one or two at a time, instead of a wholesale rewrite. This will increase the chances a volunteer will be able to invest their limited time in reviewing the request. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank very much for the reply Mbadgers1 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Another important thing to remember, @Mbadgers1, is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

So if you request a change which is cited to a published source wholly unconnected with you, it is much more likely to be actioned than one cited to a source which in some way is based on your words or those of a person or organisation associated with you. And if it's not cited to a published reliable source at all, it is unlikely to be actioned. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply Mbadgers1 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Budwig Diet

Budwig diet who created the Budwig diet ~2026-16267-73 (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Simply entering Budwig diet into the search box and searching would have redirected you to Johanna Budwig, but if you had to ask, it should have been on the Science Reference desk – this Help desk is for "ask[ing] questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia", as stated in large letters at the top of the page. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Try a search engine mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Are partial independence, partial reliability and partially significant coverage even a thing?

Template:Pin message  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Source assessment § Meaning of "partial". – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Arhciving Problem

I have been archiving my supporting URLs in my online citations. I have been using the WayBack Machine primarily, and if that does not work, the Archive.md archiving system. Recently, each of the Archive URLs using the Archive.md archiving system has produced a hidden error editor message.

Considering that the Wayback Machine only works 1 in 5 times, this means I have now used Archive.md archiving URLs a lot in my edits. The error messages produced in the old Wikipedia articles have started to prevent those articles from displaying their reference lists, especially in the Wikipedia list articles, where this problem affects thousands of entries. Can you assist me? What could I do to resolve this issue?SMargan (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@SMargan Archive.today and its related websites (which includes archive.md) are deprecated on English Wikipedia following this RFC. Per WP:ATODAY, As of February 28, 2026, the citation templates in popular use on Wikipedia (WP:CS1 and WP:CS2) will not render Archive.today and affiliated archive URLs. You should replace these links with other archive services (see Wikipedia:List of web archives on Wikipedia). Jolly1253 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jolly1253 (talk) - I am shocked by this ruling. I have never had a problem with Archive.md's performance or accuracy. Indeed, 1 in 5 of my archies have been through Archie.md, involving sites that do not seem to be Archivable through the Wayback Machine, so this makes it a real problem for me. Is there any way of getting this ruling reviewed? Or, alternatively, will it be reviewed in the future if Archie.md resolves some of the problems raised by Wikipedia? The Wayback Machine is not always able to archive website pages.SMargan (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jolly1253 (talk) - I am making many changes as we speak, converting Archie.md URLs to Ghost Archie URLs. This will take me most of this year, for all of the articles I have edited. But, how will I know that this replacement archive system will not also suffer the same fate, and be deprecated as well?SMargan (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

how will I know that this replacement archive system will not also suffer the same fate As long as Ghost Archive does not use malicious JavaScript to DDoS a website, tamper with archives or other shenanigans (all of those are obviously highly unlikely), you should be good. Remember that this decision (which was made by the community) was NOT made lightly, and people did consider the utility of archive.today w/r/t archiving webpages. OutsideNormality (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@SMargan, you should read the request for comments (which Jolly helpfully linked for you) to understand the extraordinary circumstances that led to this decision. It was even covered in mainstream technology news, for example this Ars Technica article. We know that the Wayback Machine isn't perfect, but the community decided that archive.md posed a credible that outweighed its usefulness. There's an ongoing community effort to replace the links, so nobody has to do this alone. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

history highlighting

Formerly, when I looked at the history of a page on my watchlist, all versions newer than any I had already seen were highlighted. That changed a few days ago: now, looking at any version resets the whole. This breaks my habitual way of reviewing my watchlist. Can I toggle something to get the old behavior back? (I doubt it, as the new way means less for the database to remember.) —Antonissimo (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T419918

@Antonissimo: This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Watchlist. The code has been fixed, and the fix will be deployed here this week, probably Thursday. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks —Antonissimo (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Need help uploading page to Wikipedia

Hi, I am really struggling to upload a page to Wikipedia. ~2026-16430-75 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16430-75: What kind of page? If you want to make an article then you can use Wikipedia:Articles for creation to submit a draft for review. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Users without a username(and new usernames) must use the article wizard to submit a draft. Make sure you have reviewed the relevant notability criteria and that you have summarized what independent reliable sources have said about the topic. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

SpongeBob movie

Good afternoon. On the page for the first SpongeBob movie (the section Developement), the qoute from Stephen Hillenburg is slightly cut off on mobile. Nothing mayor, but still noticeable. I already asked this on the article's talk page, but nobody answered. ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-24671-3: Fixed by using {{Quote box}} instead of a bunch of custom code.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Advice and a cry for help with our article on Lucky Bisht

I am fairly sure every single claim in this article is pulled directly from a dramatized book written about him. There is a clear history of sock puppets involved with this, with the sock master being @Powerfultample. Could use some eyes with more experience.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Article is now ECP. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Opinion pieces with prove facts

If an attributed opinion piece is making its argument utilizing verifiable facts, does the factual evidence need to be attributed? JPHC2003 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It depends on the context and how the facts are being used. It is easy to selectively misuse verifiable facts to form a subjective opinion, and in that case attribution would be required, rather than restating the opinion in Wikipedia's voice. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Appalling "globe with camera" logo

How do I permanently get rid of the annoying "Picture in Picture" "Wikipedia logo with a camera" that takes up a quarter of my screen on certain pages? ~2026-16559-48 (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where this is occurring? 331dot (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Most recently on the "Palmyra" page. ~2026-16559-48 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16559-48: Disable "Birthday mode (Baby Globe)" in the sidebar on the right. You may have to click a glasses icon at top of the page to see the sidebar. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi

OK - have done that - and it seems to have worked. Is this a permanent solution - will it stop it from recurring?

Cheers ~2026-16559-48 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16559-48: It may recur in another browser or device, or if the browser forgets the setting. Registered users can disable it for their account at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. It's a limited-time feature for Wikipedias 25th anniversary. I don't know whether an end date has been decided but the feature doesn't appear popular. Many others have asked how to remove it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Per the RFC, the end date is march 16th. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Not surprised!!

Thanks for the help - much apreciated.

Cheers ~2026-16559-48 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, the readers and editors who do like the feature don't have much reason to come to the help desk or village pump to ask how they can Template:Strike enable it given it's enabled by default and they have nothing to complain about, so there's a bias in the feedback that we've seen here. Personally, I like the mascot and my display is large enough that it's not intrusive. – Scyrme (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I loved the one time I saw it on someone else's computer, but I don't ever see it logged in because I'm an old fart (32 years old! gasp!) who uses Monobook. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Twice as old here, using Vector 2010. —Antonissimo (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Pochopeni

Dobry den, jsem uplny novacek, ani netusim, jakou formou mne wiki zavedla sem. Chci se zeptat, jaky ma byt presny vyznam wiki a encyklooedie? Chapu spravne, ze k jednomu tematu mohou poskytnout informace ruzni lide i behem chvilky a tedy informace pro bezneho uzivatele se tak budou menit v obsahu i vyznamu? k cemu nebo jaky je idealni jednotny, konkretni cil wiki? ma sjednocovat informace na pric cele spolecnosti nebo je pouhym mistem, kde se da na zaklade citaci menit cokoliv, co bezny uzivatel ma za realnou, spravnou pravdu? co kdyz v zaveru ruznymi editacemi dochazi k neumyslnemu desinformovani uzivatele a nasledne, nevi cemu verit? Ma wiki byt mistem propojeni reality s virtualni realitou? Co kdyz virtualni realita je zakladnim ekvivalentem reality? Nemela by tedy v dusledku cela encyklopedie sjednotnit principy a zasady chovani cele spolecnoati? jak casto je vhodne dochazet na wiki do komentaru a jak moc je dulezite editovat clanky? dekuji za odpoved Nikisek365 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This is the Help Desk for the English-language Wikipedia. If you wish to participate here, as it appears from what Google translate makes of your post, you will need to be able to communicate in English. Alternately, you might prefer to contribute to a Wikipedia version in your own language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You may want to ask your question at cs:Wikipedie:Potřebuji pomoc. nil ^nz 01:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nikisek365: Možná byste se měli zeptat na české Wikipedii (Wikipedie:Potřebuji pomoc). – Scyrme (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

"View Source" on any article

Sometimes I want to view the source for a page (typically to grab some template or markup for another page), and I'd prefer to not be in an actual editing mode for this. I see that pages I don't have edit permissions for have a "View Source" button. Is there a way to make this button appear on all pages? DuskTheUmbreon (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You can just use the source editing window; the 'view source' button on pages you don't have perms for is just the source editor with the editing disabled because you don't have the perms. Athanelar (talk) 06:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I see. I suppose I just have to be careful to not make changes then. Thanks! DuskTheUmbreon (bark) 07:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Even if you accidentally change some text, it won't get published unless you hit the "Publish" button, so if you're just trying to copy something from the source you don't need to worry. Athanelar (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@DuskTheUmbreon To be even safer, you can go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary") which won't allow you to publish any edit unless you also add an edit summary. This is a good thing to do for all your edtiting. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I have that enabled, but honestly just hadn't put together that it'd stop me from accidentally making edits. Thanks! DuskTheUmbreon (bark) 01:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Pictures are vague

Hi there, I found that there're some problems about wiki pictures. Some pictures / logo in wikipedia are suddenly vague, for example, 96th Academy Awards. I don't understand the reason and anyone can explain it? It seems that there're so many pictures / logo have the same thing. But some pictures / logo are still clear. What happen for now? Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Stevencocoboy: It's a bug that apparently will be fixed soon. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Transparent PNGs appear broken on wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thanks for reply and I hope the problems will be resolved it at soon. Stevencocoboy (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Human name disambiguation template sortkey

The documentation is rather scanty. Should the sortkey for George I (disambiguation) be "George I" or "George 01". I'm seeing examples of both. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Every piece of documentation I could quickly find (WP:PEERS, Roman numeral guidance in WP:SORTKEY) suggests it should be George 01. Is there somewhere else that suggests the other way? - Purplewowies (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

removed edit

I made an edit thet was approved by the person that the Wikipedia artical is actually about and the edit was removed. ~2026-16184-68 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Whether the subject approves or not is actually not relevant to the merits of your edit. Please ask the user who removed it why they did so.

If you are in communication with the subject of the article about your edits, you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-16184-68.

Your edit to Mary Robinette Kowal was reverted because it did not cite a published source. All information in a Wikipedia article should be verifiable from a reliable published source. Anybody's personal knowledge (even the subject's) is not enough. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, your addition was unencyclopedic in tone, at variance with Wikipedia's usual practice (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names), and would have been misplaced in the article even if it had not been. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Finding articles for deletion

I feel like proposing some old articles for deletion. What's the best way of finding old articles that may not meet the notability criteria?

I know about new pages patrol and that's not what I'm looking for. I'm specifically looking for articles that were created years ago and may never have met the notability criteria, but have somehow escaped being deleted up until now. --Viennese Waltz 15:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Viennese Waltz are you asking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or both? The header suggests the first and the first sentence the second. TSventon (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I want to find, and propose for deletion, some old articles which have not currently been proposed for deletion. I don't have any particular articles in mind, I just want to find some articles and propose them for deletion. There must be a tool I can use for this purpose. I trust this clarifies. --Viennese Waltz 16:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

If you are specifically looking for older articles that may not meet the notability criteria and have slipped through the cracks for years; a good place to look is the various maintenance categories such as Category:Articles lacking sources or Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. Remember that it is your obligation prior to nominating for AFD or PROD to do a check for sources before nominating. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Perfect, those categories are exactly what I'm looking for. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 16:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia will be affected by ECA Digital (Lei Felca)?

Hey. I has some question about editor's privacy living on country with laws to require age verification (A form of KYC on social media)
Is Wikipedia will be affected in this country listed in: Social media age verification laws by country? If I live in Brazil, Wikipedia will require age verification?

Thanks. :) VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia editors will oppose all attempts to enforce age verification on the site. For example, [6]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Email address

can I use Wikipedia email address for mailing through Gmail or any other browser? Please explain me in detail. Thanks Imranafzalchauhan87 (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Imranafzalchauhan87 What do you mean by "Wikipedia email address"? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Imranafzalchauhan87. It's a little hard to understand what you are asking.

Does WP:Emailing users answer your questions? ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Maps

Hello, When we click on a map that specified a specific location, the map is then displayed bigger and the specific location disappears. This bug should be corrected. Ppayot (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Ppayot. Why do you think that is a bug? ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ppayot: It's more of a limitation than a bug. For example, the article Dallas displays File:Red pog.svg on top of File:Relief map of Texas.png. If you click on the map then you are taken to a general page for the map which is used in around 1,700 articles. The connection to the red dot from the Dallas article is lost. With our current software it doesn't seem practical to avoid this. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ppayot: If one wants to see "a map that specified a specific location", one should click on the coordinates in the article rather than the map. That takes one to a page offering a variety of maps to choose from. Deor (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I am Laura Tanna

I am Laura Tanna and in reading the Wikipedia account about me I found five errors which I would like to correct but do not understand about editing. I am 78 now. Can I just make the corrections in the description below so that you can correct the page?

1. 1965-1970 title
2. 2nd line student demonstrations in 1968 NOT 1963
3. 3rd line State Dept. Foreign Area Fellowship to study Ki-Swahili.
4. Major prof. Harold Scheub
5. 1973- third line African NOT Ugandan

-- ~2026-16636-54 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Laura. No, you should not edit the article about you directly, but instead should make edit requests for uninvolved editors to look at.

Please see WP:AUTOPROB for more information. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

""Can I just make the corrections in the description below so that you can correct the page?" means that Laura wants us to edit the page, not her. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

We want the article about you to be correct, but we need to cite sources to verify the information. Can you provide any? You can do so here, or on the talk page of the article.

That said, changes 2 & 5 have been made.

You may also find WP:About you helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Best practice?

The disambiguation page Museum of Modern Art (disambiguation) should, in my view, be classified as a "List of..." page (e.g., List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City, List of largest art museums, List of most-visited museums in the United States), or an ordinary mainspace article with a prominent "List of museums of modern art" section (such as Design museum). Is this something that requires discussion (and if so, where), or is it something one can simply go ahead and implement? It doesn't seem like contentious change, but I thought it best to ask first. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: We already have Museums of modern art. Museum of Modern Art (disambiguation) is for museums where it's in the name. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: I see you removed the hatnote to the disambiguation page from Museum of Modern Art. Never do that when it has the exact same title with "(disambiguation)" added, and very rarely when it has a similar title. I have restored it. The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers who were looking for another subject with the same or similar name as the article (or a redirect to it). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It seemed like one too many hatnotes and rather unnecessary (also rather a mess viewed on a mobile device). Your call. Also, shall we add Museums of modern art back to the MoMA "See also" section then (where you've removed the Museum of Modern Art (disambiguation) link? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

PS: In fact, one might say that at the top of MoMA article, the first and third of the hatnotes (i.e., {{About|the New York museum}} and {{Distinguish|Metropolitan Museum of Art}} serve little purpose and bloat the article's top section with things that are not necessarily useful to most readers. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Hatnotes are for readers who were looking for another article and for example entered "museum of modern art" in our search box with no interest in the New York museum, so a hatnote to Museum of Modern Art (disambiguation) is certainly necessary. See also sections are for readers who were interested in this article and may also be interested in other related articles based on subject, not name. Disambiguation pages should not be linked per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. Museums of modern art might be linked but it has no more reason to be linked in Museum of Modern Art than in any other article about a museum of modern art. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Not really my primary focus here, all of this, but good info to have! Thanks. What about {{Distinguish}}? Are we actually concerned that readers will mix up the Metropolitan Museum and the MoMA? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Museum of Modern Art and Metropolitan Museum of Art are famous art museums in the same city so readers may confuse them even if their names are not so similar. The MoMA hatnote is for readers who entered MoMA or maybe some other capitalizations in the search box and were redirected to Museum of Modern Art but wanted something else at Moma. I think all hatnotes are OK but they could be grouped like they were before your edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

New York has quite a few famous art museums beyond the Metropolitan and MoMA (e.g. Guggenheim, Whitney, etc.). There are many cities with many famous art museums (indeed, almost all major cities have many famous art museums). Picking these two for NY is no more rational (to my mind) than distinguishing between the Louvre and the Centre Pompidou in Paris, or the Tate and the V&A in London. To my eye, it looks superfluous. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Guggenheim and Whitney are distinctive names. Museum of Modern Art is very generic and Metropolitan Museum of Art is rather generic in a metropolis, but I'm not interfering if you remove the Metropolitan hatnote. I don't know about editors of the article. It was added in 2023.[7] PrimeHunter (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't wish to waste your time or go further down a rabbit hole. If the preferred style is more hatnotes, then so be it. It looks a bit bloated (and is therefore distracting to me), but I've just got the one pair of eyes. "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety" (Proverbs 11:14 KJV). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no real confusion with two very different titles, so I am boldly going to remove the distinguish hatnotes in both Museum of Modern Art and Metropolitan Museum of Art. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Wrap links

Is there a way to wrap all the links in a template instead of using Template:Normalwraplink multiple times? Vector2019 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Vector2019: Add the class wraplinks somewhere if possible. {{Normalwraplink}} simply says <span class="wraplinks">...</span> around the link. Some templates have a class parameter. Which template is it about? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Posting

Where best can I post my profile? ~2026-17033-95 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-17033-95.

The answer to your question is "somewhere that isn't Wikipedia".

Wikipedia does not host profiles. What it hosts is neutrally written encyclopaedia articles based almost entirely on what people wholly unconnected with the subject of the article have chosen to publish about the subject, not on what the subject wants people to know. ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

if you're talking about a wikipedia user page, you can create your own one under your user with a registered account.  Emily * Emi-Is-Annoyed  _{(message me!)} 12:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Facebook, LinkedIn and Wix.com are ideal for this. On Wikipedia, posting autobiographies, CVs etc fails WP:NOTWEBHOST and the material will be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Matei

Hello. In Talk:Matei I've requested to move the entry to Matei (given name). I don't know if the correct name would be "Matei (given name)" or "Matei (name)". So, I'd appreciate a clarification in the discussion if possible. ~2026-17049-55 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

"Given name" is usually used to mean someone's first/non-family name. Since Matei has both links to people with the given name Matei and to people with the surname Matei, I would suggest moving it to Matei (name) to include given names and surnames. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 18:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion G13 Page Move Six Month Clock Reset

Does moving a page reset the six month clock for Speedy Deletion G13 or not? Stunts1990 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

If such a move indicates that there is or was someone actively working on the page at the time of the move, then it should reset the clock. What page are you talking about? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The page that I am talking about is Draft:Hongqi Ousado - Stunts1990 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Since you have put essentially nothing in the draft, @Stunts1990, I don't know why you are concerned about the possibility of it getting deleted.

Writing an article, any article begins with finding the multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42) which are the absolutely essential foundation for an article. Doing anything else on a draft before finding those sources is likely to be time and effort wasted; because 1) if you can't find those sources there cannot be an article; and 2) if you can find those sources, anything you've written before finding them is likely to need rewriting. ColinFine (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR, temp accounts, and talk pages

Is it permissible for a temp editor to seek consensus for an edit or make an edit request on an article talk page where the article is subject to the extended confirmed restriction but the talk page isn't? Is it permissible for a temp editor to discuss such a request with an experienced editor on the experienced editor's user talk page?

My understanding is that a temp editor is free to comment on both article and user talk pages regarding articles subject to ARBECR unless the talk page in question is itself protected. Please correct me if I'm wrong or if there is some nuance to this. Uhoj (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

That's generally true, unless the topic area is under restrictions, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict(WP:PIA). Only extended confirmed accounts can edit any page or article on Wikipedia related to it(unless it is an edit request that does not require establishing a consensus). 331dot (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy and thorough reply 331dot! I wasn't aware of the special rules around Arab-Israeli conflict. Thanks for clearing up my confusion! Uhoj (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox academic, thesis_url and ProQuest IDs

In Template:Infobox academic there is a thesis_url setting, and the documentation says it "should be where the thesis is available freely; not for commercial advertising usage". How about ProQuest Dissertations and Theses? Can theses in that database be linked, and if so, can it be done with Template:ProQuest? WilliamDenton (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@WilliamDenton, ProQuest is a serious academic resource of long standing (going back to University Microfilms) and using it it not considered a commercial advertising usage. Using the ProQuest template is fine. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: thanks! But how to make the linking work nicely? Look at Roald Nasgaard, for example. If you uncomment the ProQuest template in thesis_url then the link is there but has square brackets around it, and I can't see how to get rid of them. WilliamDenton (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I guess the ProQuest template produces a linked ID number for use in references. Just use the url at Proquest directly without benefit of a template: https://www.proquest.com/docview/302739379. Then the infobox will use it to link the thesis title. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! WilliamDenton (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

template - added with fields out of order (how serious a sin)

Just wondering where on the list of Wikipedia sins is the following. Template:foo123 has 2 required fields: params A1 and A2, and 6 optional fields, params B1 through B6. A user is adding uses of the template in appropriate places, but adding them with the parameter=value in the order B6=val, B3=val, A2=val, B1=val, A1=val. Is this

• A) Ignore, the template is being used appropriately.
• B) Comment to user, but order is their choice
• C) Comment to user, but appropriate to put into correct order even though the edit doesn't change what a wikipedia user does
• D) Comment to user, and if the don't change the chaotic order, ask for 3O.
• E) Warn the user, and if they continue bring to WP:ANI.
• F) (perhaps along with one of A-E) get someone to write a bot which will do edits to reorder the parameters)

(Note, this is something that both I've seen and I've done, so I'm more curious as to how it occurs to others).Naraht (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Naraht.

I would say it's A. ColinFine (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

If the user is still doing it then post a diff. Maybe it causes enough annoyance for later editors to be worth politely suggesting a change but it depends on the template and parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

This is sort of for self reflection. I'm currently transforming about 400 references out of either cite web, cite book or just in the general look of cite book. It is sometimes easier to do the date param first because of the way that the existing reference is displayed (and I know everything before the date is provided by the new template. However it is not a required field, so I'm worried as much about myself as for others. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phi_Delta_Psi&diff=prev&oldid=1344151487 for an example.Naraht (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

If the template is working as intended, then ignore it. {{cite newspaper}} works whichever order you list the parameters in. I suspect that the vast majority of templates are like this. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Naraht You'll drive yourself nuts if you do anything other than (A) on templates like {{chembox}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Named parameters can be written in any order. Your diff is for {{Cite Almanac FS}} which has no good reason to enforce a specific order. For some templates a poor order can be annoying. Your "B6=val, B3=val, A2=val, B1=val, A1=val" with numbers in the parameter names sounded like a potentially annoying case but maybe it was misleading example names. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I was just making up parameter names to separate required from non-required, and I guess it is worse if the templates have a clear ABC1, ABC2, ABC3, ABC4, etc. order (like listing cite book editors 1-6 in a screwy order and having cite journal editor1-first half the template away from editor1-last). And the {{Cite Almanac FS}} example is an edit that I did. Naraht (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

So not too bad a sin, though on some templates, certain "misorder" can be more annoying. (And D, E, &F are completely off the table)Naraht (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Carlos Otero

I would like to flag that we need a disambiguation page for Carlos Otero, as we have Carlos Otero, Carlos Otero (rowing) and Carlos Bello Otero. Carlos Otero should be renamed Carlos Otero (actor). Could someone do this? ~2026-17170-12 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if the article about the rower could be deleted. Merely appearing in the Olympics is no longer inherently notable. Even if not, I don't really see the need for a disambiguation page. People are more likely to look for the actor than a Mexican politician or Argentine rower. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Carlos Otero (the actor) may for all I know be notable. (Certainly his filmography as provided in es:Carlos Otero lists a great number of items.) But if he is notable, this is hardly evident from the article about him -- which currently can't even decide if he was a "Portuguese film and television actor" (article body) or "TV host" (infobox). Lord Cornwallis, are there no good sources ripe for you to mine? -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Accidentally disabled explanatory footnote/reference previews and can't, for the life of me, turn them back on.

Wikipedia has a feature I like where you hover over an explanatory footnote or reference and get a preview box. However, I clicked the gear icon next to one of them, and disabled them entirely in the name of "testing". Since I had so much trust in Wikipedia's UI, I thought you could just reenable them from your settings or anything like that. But no, I've tried all my settings, and it hasn't done anything. The only things that have transpired from turning this default setting on and turning this default setting off (both can't work together) are preview formats that look awful (one's ancient, the other's complicated and makes the text too small). I only remember the words "reenable them with a footnote at the bottom of the page" or something like that, which I also recall being extremely vague, so that doesn't help either. When I open Wikipedia in incognito, they show up perfectly fine, so it's an account issue; not a browser issue. I've tried resetting my Wikipedia and Mediawiki settings to defaults, but the "defaults" just disable them again. This is genuinely so frustrating because I can't afford to lose this feature. It helps me massively while editing and I won't "cope" with any half-done botched workarounds. I want this setting exactly as it was back, but I think there's a problem with the way my account itself is coded. I don't even know if someone else was dumb enough to do this and if they ever got that feature back. Please help me; I've been trying to figure it out for 9 days. I haven't edited anything since and want to go back to doing that. It's too late to abandon this account and try to make another one (and I can't even do that, since my IP is blocked). If anyone knows what the cause is and how I can fix this, I will remember you for as long as I remain on this website. Thank you for reading, and I know that was a lot of text. UltraCobson (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@UltraCobson, at the bottom of a page there should be a button called Enable Reference Tooltip which may solve the issue. On vector 2010 and 2022, it will be next to a button called Mobile view. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't show up for me, though. This is what the bottom of Wikipedia looks like for me:

File:Screenshot of Wikipedia Bottom 19 March 2026.png UltraCobson (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like a cookie issue if it works in incognito. Go to your browser settings and clear the Wikipedia/Wikimedia cookies. You will have to log in again, though. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It actually worked... Thank you so much! UltraCobson (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It's gratifying to be occasionally successful in diagnosing a technical problem. That doesn't happen often! ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Use of soccer vs football

Is there a policy or guideline on when to use soccer vs football? I'm specifically wondering whether Category:Soccer podcasts should be renamed or not but I'm not seeing a policy or guideline about it. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, I can't remember a general guideline but I would suggest Category:Association football podcasts, based on other members of Category:Association football mass media. Category:Football podcasts would be ambiguous with Category:American football podcasts. TSventon (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a project-wide discussion either, but the compromise hammered out for Association football is documented in the faq at the top of Talk:Association football and more granularly at Talk:Association football/Article name. I'd assume those to be controlling (or, at least, least controversial) for related pages in general.

For people specifically, there is a project-wide guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer). There's nothing specific to this sport at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams), though. —Cryptic 03:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the early life and education

How's it possible that being a jew, believer or not, for a subject's life, is pinpointed so much in your articles? Much more than other religions. Cheers ~2026-17224-30 (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

What's the data to support that sweeping claim? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Judaism is an ethnoreligion, meaning it's often much more integrated into an individual's fabric of identity than other religions. To my knowledge, Jewish communities consider a person who is born Jewish to still be Jewish whether or not they are actually believing/practicing.

Therefore, for someone born into a Christian family but who is no longer openly Christian, people are not likely to continue describing them as "Christian" in secondary sources, so that label is less likely to end up in their Wikipedia article; whereas someone born into the Jewish community is more likely to still be described as Jewish by secondary sources (and even by themselves) regardless of their personal religious position. I have personally never known an atheist to describe themselves as "Christian" rather than saying "I come from a Christian family" or somesuch, whereas I have seen plenty of non-practicing Jews (and indeed members of other ethnoreligions like Sikhism and to some extent Islam) describe themselves as "Jewish" and incorporate that into their identity even though they, personally, are atheist. Athanelar (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Removing notability and primary tags

Hello Wikipedians,

I recently made a new article named Gully Marine Protected Area which is currently tagged for Notability (geo) and primary sources.

Can I remove them, as I improved it? Versions111 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Heading 3 issue

In the List of Christian pilgrimage sites article that I'm editing, I can't make two heading 3 titles appear the correct size. They look just the same size as the heading 2 title under which they appear. This has never happened before when I've made heading 3 titles.

The issue occurs under the heading 2 title of "Slovakia," where the two heading 3 titles are "Greek Catholic" and "Roman Catholic." Would appreciate help. Augnablik (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik try this syntax. = Heading = for heading 1 and == Heading == for heading 2 and === Heading === for heading 3 and ==== Heading ==== for heading 4 and so on. Please see Help:Section CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thilio (or is it CONFUSED SPIRIT?): although I use the Visual editor, not the Source editor, I understand your point about the coding.

But I just realized that my real issue is that the section breakdown of this article is simply broken down further than what I usually find in articles. “Slovakia” is already a heading 3 —- under a sub-sub-section, “Western Christianity” —- so I just need to use heading 4 around the two other topics.

Sorry. Augnablik (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Help

Im Persian-Iranian and we're cut off from world news outside. As you know we haven't had internet for past 500 hrs. Is there any way we could be connected through Wiki? 🙏 ~2026-17324-92 (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)