Wikipedia:Help desk

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

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

Ask a question

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

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The help desk is currently semi-protected, meaning it cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template:

Requesting copy of deleted draft article

Hello! I recently submitted a draft page titled User:FluxGen/sandbox, which was deleted under G11 (promotional content) on June 10, 2025. I now understand the issue and would like to revise it according to Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and sourcing guidelines.

I have already contacted the deleting admin (Waggers) but haven’t received a reply yet. Could someone please help me get a copy of the deleted draft so I can improve and resubmit it properly?

Thank you! Rahul Upadhyay at FluxGen (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

First, if you are employed by FluxGen, that must be formally disclosed, see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.

You wrote that the company is a "startup"; startups almost never merit aritcles. A company must be established and recognized in its field to draw the necessary coverage to merit it an article- significant coverage in independent reliable sources; coverage that goes beyond the mere reporting of its routine business activities or offerings and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company- not what the company sees as important about itself. In looking at the draft I think it would be better to just start fresh, using the Article Wizard.

What are the three absolute best sources you have? (and only three, please) 331dot (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

G11 given as a deletion reason means you're almost always going to be better off starting from scratch. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

As Alpha3031 says, the deleted draft is unlikely to be of any use.

We get huge numbers of inexperienced editors trying to create articles about their companies. Usually, they have made the mistake of writing either what they know about the company, or else what the company wants people to know. (Sometimes these are the same thing).

Wikipedia has essentially no interest in either of those. It does not want to know what you know about the company (whoever you are). And it certainly does not want to know what the company wants to say about itself. Pretty well all that Wikipedia is interested is what some people wholly unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about the company, in reliable publications.

If hardly anybody unconnected with the company has yet published anything about it, it is TOOSOON. And if there is enough material about the company which meets WP:42, you need to forget everything you know about the company and summarise what those independent sources say.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Adam Shapiro

 Courtesy link: Adam Shapiro (television reporter)

Your description of me is inacccurate. I have updated the description. 69.193.176.10 (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Your changes were reverted; not least because we cannot tell if you are who you say you are. Please see the advice at WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Unable to log in despite knowing the password

Since that case is not covered by Help:Logging_in, I went to this page as directed there.

A few days ago I got logged out from the mobile app, and, upon trying to log back in, I got told I had to input a verification code that had been sent to my email address. The problem is, I no longer have that email account, which I literally deleted. When I noticed that, I tried going to my profile on my desktop browser, to change the email - which doesn't work, since changing the email requires me to login, with that very same verification code. Does that mean I will be locked out of this account? Ntechs (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. If you no longer have access to the mail, and you are not still logged in anywhere, then there is no way to recover your account. You'll need to make a new one, and you are recommended to put a note on both user pages (the old and the new) explaining that one is a successor to the other). ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Ntechs is still logged in here. You can mail ca@wikimedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @PrimeHunter: I missed that @Ntechs was logged in - somehow I looked at the signature and saw the figures in the time and date, and thought I was seeing an IP address! ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Sergio Gore is not from Malta, he is from Russia. 2601:246:5E00:25A0:51A9:BC1D:B6CC:EC0C (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. There seems to be considerable dispute as to whether or not Sergio Gor (note the spelling) was born in Malta. See, for example https://timesofmalta.com/article/meet-sergio-gor-the-maltese-man-heart-trump-administration.1104244 , and \https://theshiftnews.com/2025/06/18/trumps-mr-malta-may-not-be-maltese/ .

There is already a discussion on the talk page Talk:Sergio Gor, which you are welcome to join. ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

James B. Steele wikipedia page

 Courtesy link: James B. Steele

I am the subject of a Wikipedia page that contains at the top warning labels that the Wiki entry has problems. How can the problems ve corrected? I have read the page and do not see anything that is inaccurate but still this warning label appears. This is embarrassing to me and if I can't get this corrected I'd just as soon have the entry deleted from Wikipedia. HutchJim (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally will only delete a biographical article if, on consideration, the subject is judged to be non-notable (by Wikipedia's definition of Notable); the wishes of the subject are usually not considered, just as (say) the New York Times would not agree to not reporting a story merely because one of those involved didn't want it to.

Some subjects do turn out to be non-notable, because the articles about them were created when standards were laxer, or because no-one assessed them at the time – if attention is drawn to them, such articles do get deleted. However, I think it very unlikely that you, James B. Steele, would now be judged non-notable, so the article will almost certainly stay.

Articles about living (and recently dead) persons are held to higher standards of citation and verifiability than those about other subjects – see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons – and I note that there are several (in themselves innocuous) statements in the article that are uncited and probably should be removed (even if true) unless citations to published Reliable source can be added to verify them (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth).

Facts that are both uncited and untrue may be removed, even by the subject (who otherwise should not be editing the article – see WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Own). Cited facts (even if their sources are incorrect) should not be removed, but if contrary sources are found these may be added to give 'both sides of the story', and sources which explicate the former inaccuracy may 'trump' and replace the incorrect ones.

You (the subject) have made over 3 dozen recent (in terms of the article's history – see it's 'View history' tab) edits to the article about you (which you have been commendably open about), so that part of the notice is entirely true and of your own making. Please stop, and instead use the WP:Edit request procedure to provide suggested revisions, with Reliable sources to corroborate them, on the article's Talk page.

I think the 'résumé-like' aspect of the notice is probably less apparent than when the notice was added in January, and another editor may re-assess this aspect and remove it – you yourself should not of course do so because of your CoI (which, as you may appreciate, makes it very hard for you to maintain our core policy of WP:NPOV). In any case, this is a stylistic issue which can be addressed.

Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.192.251.148 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@HutchJim: You may find the advice at WP:About you useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Confused links between two pages about two species of cactus

Hello. This problem mostly affects two pages: Coryphantha cornifera and Coryphantha compacta.

Yesterday, June 26th, I added the new page for the plant Coryphantha cornifera. When I went to the finished page, it was OK except that at the top the title said Corphantha compacta. I messaged my helper but this morning there was no response. I then took the code I had done for C. cornifera from the page that said it was C. compacta, and made a new page for C. cornifera with the right title. Then I made a completely new page for C. compacta, which looks OK at the above address for that species. However, now I see that when I am on the English C. compacta page and try to go to its Spanish equivalent, it goes to the C. cornifera page. I don't know if my problem yesterday affects that. I find no recent taxonomical name changes in the major authorities -- POWO and GBIF -- so there seems to be no reason to relay pages from one name to the other. The pages as they now stand look OK to me as they are; I'm just finding that problem going between English and Spanish pages, so there may be others. Thanks. Gaiacoyote (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gaiacoyote: You created the article at the wrong title and should have moved it, not copied and replaced the content. I have used my administrator account to fix it with a history split. The links to other languages are controlled at Wikidata. See Help:Interlanguage links. I have fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @PrimHunter. I really messed up there; still learning this stuff. I appreciate your understanding and quick involvement. I'll take a look at how to move pages, though I hope this won't happen again. Gaiacoyote (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for files?

I accidently uploaded a full version of a song instead of a 30 second sample. The five minute sample is no longer in use on the article, Dead & Bloated, and is in lower quality than the original, but I'm pretty sure it's a copyright violation and I don't want people downloading it, so is there any way it can be deleted immediately? CleoCat16 (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! CleoCat16 (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

My Wiki Page was deleted

Can someone help me with getting my page back up on Wikipedia?

Thanks Pedro 2601:58A:8F02:88D0:5844:1F39:5486:510D (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "my page" (except, to a limited extent, the userpage of a registered user). What page are you talking about? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey Orange Mike i appreciate your response, didnt mean it was my page like i own it, lol, but it was about me used to have one and now noticed its not there anymore. Is everything here public meaning not a private conversation to help?

Page Pedro Power 2601:58A:8F02:88D0:5844:1F39:5486:510D (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Pedro Power was deleted according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Power. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia business is conducted on Wikipedia, for openness and transparency. Only the most sensitive personal information may be discussed privately. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Perfect thanks for the reply, but what was mentioned is not true. Its hard to pull up detailed sources from those days, but there is still some sources that provide actual facts on my career and also as a NBA Agent. How do i provide these? 2601:58A:8F02:88D0:5844:1F39:5486:510D (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Since the article about you was deleted, there's not much you can do. While not forbidden, autobiographical articles are highly discouraged per the autobiography policy. Also know that there are very good reasons to not want an article here. Nevertheless, if you feel that you can demonstrate that you are a notable person and received significant coverage in independent reliable sources that you can summarize, you could use the Article Wizard to submit a draft. If you do, you should note on the draft talk page that you are writing about yourself. I advise against this, but that is how you can proceed. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

If there are three sources that each meet all of the requirements of our golden rule, you can post details (as web links or bibliographic citations) here, then undeletion of the article can be considered, so that it can be updated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Pedro. Facts on your career are not enough. Did several people, wholly unconnected with you or your clubs, choose to write in some depth about you, in reliable publications? If the answer is yes, then an article about you may be possible; if no, then no article is possible. At the time of the deletion discussion in 2019, the consensus was that no such sources (or, at least, not enough such sources) existed. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

link-rot fix: patents.google.com/patent

U.S. Patent 2,230,836 :

dead link:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6ZZQAAAAEBAJ

new link:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US2230836A/en

Piñanana (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Piñanana You don't say which article you have found this in but a better solution is to convert the cite to use the template {{cite patent}}. This automatically creates a working link to Espacenet. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Reverb effect is which article have found this

a bot failed on http://www.google.com/patents?id=6ZZQAAAAEBAJ

search yielded https://patents.google.com/patent/US2230836A/en

how do you go from "U.S. Patent 2,230,836" to Espacenet ?

Piñanana (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see the documentation at {{cite patent}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Piñanana I've fixed it for you as I'm familiar with the template. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Broken template due to use of graph extension

The template Template:Airport-Statistics is broken due to use of the disabled graph extension. It needs to be rewritten to use the chart extension, but I don't know enough about that extension to do it myself. Is there a tag that can be applied to this template to get attention from a qualified editor? That template is used on 1,100 pages so fixing it would be a huge benefit. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 19:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

When pretty much all sources are not reliable...the curious case of Xavier Cugat

I've been working on the Xavier Cugat biography. A quite famous subject, there is a surprising dearth of reliable sources and information. Or at least the usual reliable sources (WA Post, LA Times, NY Times etc.) have proven to be error ridden and contradictory, at least the usual obituaries of the subject. Partly it is bad reporting, and partly it seems to be that Cugat self-promoted, embellished, told and repeated stories endlessly throughout his career, such that the historical record is hopelessly confused and often fiction. There are many other sources of a popular nature, given the famous subject (blogs, websites, etc) that recount facts, etc. but are similarly often in error, certainly unsourced, and, well, a little trashy; A LOT of other sources just echo material of the Wikipedia article before I got to it. Even the facts in Cugat's own two autobiographies do not seem to hold up to scrutiny. (e.g., Apparently early on, Cugat played the violin for Caruso...maybe.) The best source seems to be that by an academic Galina Bakhtiarova, who explicitly acknowledges this situation. To address the issue and warn article readers, I am contemplating including an "Editor's Note" at the end of the article's first section warning of the fluidity of the facts and contradictory sources. What do you think of this situation? What do you think of the idea of including such a disclaimer? (I've never seen such a thing in a Wikipedia article.) Bdushaw (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! Yes, a tricky case. There aren't usually "editors note"s within articles, but if the subject made various dubious or contradictory claims about themselves, mentioning that in the article is certainly appropriate. Longer explanations on the talk page seem a good idea. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems a good idea ... but on reflection, not one that's likely to succeed in the medium/long term. Some well-meaning editor is very likely to remove it; and those who think it was constructive might not quickly notice the removal, or have the energy to either defend it or to defend it so overwhelmingly as to crush the (well-meant but unsatisfactory) arguments for keeping it. But how about something on the lines of Pointing out problems such as the implausibility of Cugat's claim[reference to superficially convincing newspaper article] that he [blah blah] and the contradiction with a single study[reference to superficially academic source] in claiming that he [blah blah] despite [blah blah], Galina Bakhtiarova concludes that [damning indictment of meretricious sources on Cugat]? -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

While I am here...I have contemplated including the image of the Neptune's Daughter (1949 film) movie poster in the Xavier Cugat article. The image is one of "fair use", which is never quite clear to me what that means. Can the Neptune's Daughter movie poster image be included in the Xavier Cugat article? Is that a proper "fair use"? Such movie posters always include "Xavier Cugat and his Orchestra" in big letters. Thx, and thx for the above suggestions. Bdushaw (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Generally no. "Fair use" are generally only used when there is no known free licensed alternative images that can illustrate a subject. They are usually used in just one article, and if used more than 1 place should have an explanation for fair use in each place used. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

An image is not "(of) fair use". That's a category error. The use of a particular image in a particular article, if that image satsifies various conditions (irreplaceability, small pixel count, etc etc), might be a fair use. Could the use of File:Neptune's daughter poster.jpg in the article on Cugat be a fair use? Probably not, as it's not about Cugat. However, if, say, the article made a big thing of pointing out that Cugat's name was printed in as large a font as those of the stars, it might be. You'd have to add to File:Neptune's daughter poster.jpg a "fair use" rationale for this additional use. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Bdushaw, I would oppose an editor's note. We simply do not address our readers in Wikipedia's voice in articles. Instead, report the discrepancies between sources and let our readers draw their own conclusions: Something like, "According to the Los Angeles Times, Cugat was paid $50,000 for his performance in the XYZ film, but the New York Times reported that it was $30,000". Galina Bakhtiarova is your friend in this venture. You cannot call Cugat a prevaricator and shameless self promoter. But she can, and you can paraphrase what she says and attribute it to her. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for your advice - I've been thinking about what to do, and have crafted a paragraph that might work. Happy to have a review of it (middle paragraph of "Early life" section, Xavier Cugat) I enjoy writing biographies - this one has been fun, but entirely challenging to get the facts right, fitting together, and supported. I keep hearing the Wikipedia mantra "...we write what the reliable sources say!", which in this case turns out to be a big mistake! Bdushaw (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Color-Code a 32-Seeded Bracket

hey, so i was wondering how or if someone can color code on my bracket for winners and losers.

the color code would look like this:

Key
. – Eliminated after Atlanta
. – Eliminated after Chicago
. – Eliminated after Sonoma
. – Eliminated after Dover
. – Eliminated after Indianapolis

thanks! Brycenrichter (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a very strange question/request, Brycenrichter. You seem to be saying that you're wondering how, or if, someone can do what you are here demonstrating. But perhaps I misunderstand. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

yeah, im wondering if its even possible but basically… Brycenrichter (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Problem with an external link?

I became aware of General Aviation inc. Flight 115 when it was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I wanted to add a link to the National Transportation Safety Board's investigation of this airplane crash, but I found when I went to the NTSB's website that I could not get a "normal" link to the document -- instead, the only link that the website provided, as far as I could tell, was a link to download the PDF. [1] I realize that many users, including myself, would prefer not to download a document without warning, so I added "(Download PDF)" to the link description in the external links section. I didn't see anything prohibiting this kind of link in WP:ELNO, but if anyone knows of a more "normal" link to the document, I'd much prefer to use that instead. Can anyone find such a link? If not, is the existing "download" link acceptable? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: Some articles use Template:Cite web#Using "format=" to say |format=PDF file, direct download, often followed by a size (search). It's not common and I haven't seen a guideline about the issue. If you found a web page with a link to the PDF then you could also link the page and use |at= at Template:Cite web#In-source locations to briefly say how to get the PDF from there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, the PDF was only accessible (as far as I could tell) from a search result, which would not have been linkable itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

error: cite web

what is the error?

<ref name="youtube/omkdv8gz_PM">{{cite web |author1=48south7th |publisher=San Jose Peace and Justice Center |title=Napalm Ladies |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omkdv8gz_PM |via=[[youtube]] |access-date=29 June 2025 |date=12 January 2011}}</ref>

• 48south7th (12 January 2011). "Napalm Ladies". San Jose Peace and Justice Center. Retrieved 29 June 2025 – via youtube.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Piñanana (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Piñanana (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

See the intro section of Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list for an explanation of what triggered the error and how to resolve it. DMacks (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Spurious sfn errors

Why does African humid period suddenly throw a bunch of harv errors even though the codicils seem to match? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Picking di Lernia (2022) (permalink) as an example, someone changed the author surname in the (apparently) matching long-form citation to Di Lernia (permalink). Don't do that. Surnames and publication dates must exactly match.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I fixed a few, but there seem to be some missing sources. Common problem with short references. DuncanHill (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I am working on fixing the rest. Someone has broken sources by removing the editors names used in the sfns. In others, the order of authors has been changed, but the order in the sfns hasn't been changed. I reiterate, sfn is a lousy system, 99% of the editors who like to use it haven't the faintest idea how to make it actually work. DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I have now fixed them all. None were spurious, all were the result of mismatch between the source and the sfn. See here for the changes I made. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

There were no Harv error messages in the 17:46, 20 June 2025 version, so it seems that the subsequent citation bot cleanups caused the current Harv error messages. Chris Capoccia, did you see the recent edit summaries? "Please install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js and watchlist Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors to help you spot such errors when reading and editing". TSventon (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of citation template errors too, by looking back to the edit TSventon linked. See here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

continuous redirect requests

There is someone named 65.93.183.249 (I don't know how to link it) who keeps on writing redirect requests on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. They wrote multiple synonyms about "Aptera", but they were making so many different request templates. I saw they make 5! Can you remove this? Or combine them into one template? Or anything else? Rafael Hello! 15:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Link is: User:65.93.183.249. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not what it is about. Rafael Hello! 15:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rafaelthegreat That editor has been quite active creating articles through AfC, which suggests they think they know what they are doing. Their talk page at User_talk:65.93.183.249 has several messages, so you can reach them there, although they won't be alerted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rafaelthegreat I see no reason why these redirects shouldn't be requested. Someone will in due course either make them or decline them. About half the requests for redirects are declined anyway. Just let it run. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Problem Viewing XFD Logs

I am having a problem viewing the logs of deletion discussions that have been closed in a particular way. It happens when I try to view the listing of Miscellany for Deletion via Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. The page is briefly displayed showing the deletion discussion for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject/Computer Programming/to do, but then the main MFD page is redisplayed, and the MFD for that page shows up in the Table of Contents, but no longer on the page itself. This also happens when viewing the RFDs for 18 June 2025, if I click on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_June_18#Westlake,_Washington. After momentarily displaying all of the RFDs for the day, some of the closed RFDs disappear from the screen. Is this a misfeature, in which something is trying to help me by hiding the closed XFDs so that I don't see them? Does this also happen to everyone, or have I turned on this misfeature via a preference? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Using your final link, I see the closed discussion for Westlake Washington at the foot of the (PC) screen, but can scroll up to the many others including the one just above for Returned ticket, which is also closed. I'm using WP:Vector 2022. I have no idea what preference you might have used to suppress this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, User:Michael D. Turnbull. I see what you describe for a few seconds. Then it disappears Westlake Washington entirely, and disappears the discussion of Returned ticket except for the note that it was relisted. I am using Monobook. I will try using Vector 2022 and see what happens. I have always been using Monobook, and I know that I only have had this problem in the past few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I just tried switching to Vector 2022. I still have the same problem that it causes certain closed XFDs to disappear. I don't like the appearance as much as Monobook, probably because I have always been using Monobook, so I will switch back to Monobook. The choice of skin does not appear to be what causes this. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Since I am not getting a quick answer here, I will be asking this question at Village pump technical. I don't think that asking there is forum shopping when I haven't gotten an answer from the first parent. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

page with wrong title at top redirected not moved

This deals with the pages Coryphantha delaetiana and Coryphantha delicata

I prepared the new page for Coryphantha delicata, it published OK, but the title at the top said it was C. delaetiana, not C. delicata. This happened before with another page, also a Coryphantha, where on the Coryphantha genus page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coryphantha the species were listed alphabetically. Each time I published a new species, it appeared with the title of the species listed above it, well separated and in its own box. The first time this happened, I asked for help, it was fixed, and was told I should have moved the page. This second time, when I requested a page move, I was told "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coryphantha_delaetiana is invalid. Must create https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coryphantha_delaetiana before requesting that it be moved to Coryphantha delicata." This seems like in both instances I must have clicked on the wrong red link, but I was careful, especially the second time. Whatever the case, currently when someone clicks on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coryphantha_delaetiana page, they are redirected to my C. delicata page, which is wrong. Both species are valid and a redirection is inappropriate. Thanks for any help you can offer. #gaiacoyote Gaiacoyote (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gaiacoyote:, I think that you are saying that Coryphantha delaetiana, a redirect created as a result of a page move, should be deleted. You could have requested that at WP:RMTR along with the move request. @Annh07:, could you request deletion under {{Db-author}}? TSventon (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The redirect command should be deleted, and the Coryphantha delaetiana stage returned to its red link status. My Coryphantha delicata page which currently appears when Coryphantha delaetiana is licked on, should have the text appearing on the Coryphatha delicata page, not the Coryphatha delaetiana page. In case you have to delete my current page which appears on the Coryphantha delaetiana, I have saved the code and can try to set up the page again, though if an administrator can move the material to the C. delicata page that might be easier. Thanks to those involve. @gaiacoyote Gaiacoyote (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gaiacoyote: I have deleted the redirect Coryphantha delaetiana. Your code had already been moved to Coryphantha delicata when the page was moved. A move automatically does that. Your account is autoconfirmed so you could have made the move yourself. You could not have deleted the redirect but you could have tagged the redirect page for deletion with {{db-r3}} after the move. See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article. "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coryphantha_delaetiana is invalid" in your move request [2] was because you entered the whole url instead of the page name "Coryphantha delaetiana". It's highly unlikely that the software creates a page at another name than you are editing. I have never heard of it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I was late, looks like you solved this. Annh07 (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Responding to edit requests at WP:RFPP

Am I allowed to respond to edit requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit if I have sufficient permissions to edit the pages requested, or are only admins able to respond to these? Justjourney (talk | contribs) 20:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If you are able to make the edits, and consider the requests are justified, then you should go ahead. Maproom (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Question

Can you review my requests on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects? They haven't been reviewed in a long time.Rafael Hello! 23:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

A couple still haven't been reviewed. They're dated 29 June. If the temperature in your kitchen is 30°C, then "since yesterday" is a long time to have left your butter outside your fridge. But as they await review, redirect creation proposals don't turn into butyric acid. -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I read WP:LLM, but I have a question

I read Wikipedia:Large language models, but I have a question. When will AI be helpful, but when should AI not be used? Upset New Bird (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the answer would be covered in WP:LLM, specifically WP:LLMCIR. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Upset New Bird Do not use AI to create an article or substantially edit an existing article. Do not use AI to find sources. I find AI can be helpful to re-write text or summarise existing content for my own understanding. qcne (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne: I understand. AI may be used when making the content more natural and accurate (e.g. fixing grammar or context, etc.), but AI should not be used when creating a new article. Thanks for letting me know! Upset New Bird (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Upset New Bird, I don't think that's what Qcne is saying. What they're saying (and what I would say) is that you might find it helpful to use an LLM or chatbot for your personal use only, to help summarise something you are reading. Please do not use an LLM/chatbot to either edit existing articles or create new articles. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite right. I'll use AI to check spelling and grammar and to suggest prose improvements. The danger is when you let it do your research or find refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, LLM is ok for suggesting copyedits to existing reliably sourced text, but that is all. It should never be used to generate new material, for the reasons explained at WP:LLM.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak, @Ianmacm: Yes, I agree with you. What I mean is using AI to fix spelling or grammar, or to suggest improvements, like in my sandbox. However, I never use AI to generate new material. Upset New Bird (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

greek-genocide.net a non-reliable source?

My question is: is the website greek-genocide.net a non-reliable source? Especially in the context I used: I used a link to that website to prove that the name "Macri" is/was used as the Greek name for Fethiye. Is it correct that an anonymous editor reverted my edit? Thanks, --Dick Bos (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear to me. I can't see anything about its staff on the website, which is a red flag. Insofar as it collects resources, they are probably reliable (though often primary); but I'm not sure that any text about them should be so regarded.

I suggest asking at WP:RSN. ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick answer. I'll certainly do that! --Dick Bos (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

A more general pont, @Dick Bos: when another editor reverts your edit, the appropriate action is not to go somewhere else and ask if people agree with you, but to discuss it with the editor who reverted you (and possibly other interested editors) on the article's talk page: see WP:BRD.

If the other editor won't engage, or you are unable to reach consensus, then further steps are outlined at WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. (my problem was that this was an anonymous editor) --Dick Bos (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, the above advice applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Five-letter rule: Last Night From Glasgow

Last Night From Glasgow

Does this title violate MOS:5? I don't know if it qualifies as a "title of work" per se, or if that matters. To me, the "From" would appear to violate the five-letter rule, but I'm just hesitant enough to not move the page just yet, until someone responds here.

Side note: I'm aware the article has other major issues. I've brought it up in the article's talk page. Fundgy (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Fundgy: I'd prefer "from". But having read Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness/Archive_1#Is_it_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_or_Star_Trek_into_Darkness?, and looked at archives 2,3,4,5,6, and 7, I'd avoid getting involved in any argument about four-letter prepositions. See [3] for a summary. Maproom (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That was something... I've had a few arguments here and there on Wikipedia, but it's kind of unfathomable that people would get so heated over that. I gotta say, my initial hesitation didn't even account for something like that happening.

While I doubt I'd receive the same kind of backlash for a page such as this one, some non-neutral language has been added to the article (to the point that I had to add a POV maintenance tag). Makes me think there's either a personal or emotional attachment to the subject, so yeah, think I'll avoid doing that. Fundgy (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Samuel Whiting Jr.

Samuel Whiting Jr.

I accidently removed the "succession box" at the end of the is page. I have found a reference - which is seen now ref number 1 (identical to ref number 6) at the bottom page to support that Samuel Ruggles succeeded Samuel Whiting Jr. as the next minister of Billerica. Please put the "succession box" back at the end of the page. ALSO reference number 6 is in the red - please fix. Brrowbottom (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. On a not totally unrelated note, this user talk page mentions our policy on logged out editing and use of multiple accounts. I wonder if you have anything to say about that. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 03:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I was about to do some of that, but D 'n' B beat me to it. I read "access-date=3 May 20255" (a considerable distance in the future). Yes, all of this looks curiously familiar. -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to automatically make a list of articles without photos for a WikiProject?

Hi! I noticed a lot of the bios related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic literature are missing photos and I would like to ask people to upload photos they've taken of people to Wikimedia Commons. Is there a way to automatically identify all the articles in the WikiProject that are missing photos to motivate people to fill in the gaps? I feel like I've seen this on other WikiProjects but can't find it now. Lijil (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Add |needs-photo=yes to the project template(s) on the talk page of the relevant articles (example at Talk:Thomas Bolton (microscopist)).

This will add them to categories like Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people; you can then search for articles that are in both that and the project category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Try this link to a pre-filled Petscan query, is that what you were after? - X201 (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Confusion

My project draft:Arganak was declined because some person named user:AlphaBetaGamma posted this:

"This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

When on Armenian cuisine in the soups, and stews section, there is a bulletin point, and it says "Arganak (Armenian: արգանակ arganak) – soup that is based on seasoned meatballs, and onions, which are cooked in chicken broth, and flavored with lemon juice, egg yolks and parsley."

When I wrote a draft that talks about the same food, and was declined for not being notable! And also, the crazy thing is that on Armenian cuisine, many sources are not reliable. I will give some examples of non-reliable sources. Reference 102 and references 169 to 176 are literally products to buy on an e-commerce store. And reference 128 is using TasteAtlas, the only source I used in my draft, and somehow MY DRAFT got declined, and the part using the reference did not. Also, reference 140 is a YouTube video on how to make an Armenian food called "Qalagosh!" And finally, reference 177 does not exist (It is a 404 not found.)

This is not fair. Can someone please do something about it? Rafael Hello! 15:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

draft:Arganak is way too short, and has only one cite. This is nowhere near mainspace, see Your first article for ways of fixing this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you can do something about it: if the article Armenian cuisine is poorly sourced (which would not surprise me - we have thousands and thousands of articles which are seriously substandard and would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today), then the answer is to improve the sourcing on that article, not to add further equally weakly sourced articles.

Unfortunately, not many volunteers are willing to spend much time working on this issue.

We evaluate each article submitted against Wikipedia's current policies, not against existing articles: see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

You could ask or help finding sources at WT:WikiProject Armenia. Remember that sources don't need to be in English, and don't need to be online. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

review

Please review my draft: draft:Arganak Rafael Hello! 16:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Since you've already submitted the draft for review, a reviewer will get to it please be patient. This may take a week or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 312 pending submissions waiting for review. Asking in different forums won't get your draft reviewed any quicker. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Rafaelthegreat:, ideally you want significant coverage in three sources. WP:SIGCOV isn't defined exactly, but tasteatlas is only four sentences, which is probably not enough to count as significant coverage. Likewise Armenian Food has only one sentence and Česko-arménská konverzace, a few words in a Czech-Armenian vocabulary. TSventon (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Confusing double single situation

Hello! In October 2024, Poppy released a double single titled "The Cost of Giving Up / Crystallized", and both songs are from her album Negative Spaces. However, in March 2025, "The Cost of Giving Up" was officially sent to radio as a single. How should this be reflected in her discography page? Should it be kept as "The Cost of Giving Up / Crystallized" (2024) or "The Cost of Giving Up" (2025), and what would happen to "Crystallized"? Gabriella Grande (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Gabriella Grande, you might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pop music. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Question about potential article notability

I noticed that "Mascot horror" is not an article on Wikipedia, so I've been doing some preliminary research on the topic to see if it's notable for Wikipedia. Just based on prior knowledge, I feel like it would be notable, given its popularity in modern online culture. I have found thus far three journals that focus on the topic; however, this is really all I've been able to find that is based on strictly reliable sources. Other sources I've seen include screen rant, game jolt, and other similar websites, but I am unsure if these are considered reliable. It feels like a notable topic, but I'm conflicted with source availability, so I'm wondering if this would be a topic that is considered notable and could exist? SonOfYoutubers (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion, SonOfYoutubers: Here, within this discussion thread, post links to three journal articles (not just journals) that "focus on the topic". A DOI is good enough. If the article is behind a paywall, as most are, then the abstract should be good enough: The DOI should point to it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Google Scholar has 9 hits for "mascot horror", a term I've never heard before. Many are not in English but in principle if one were so motivated these might become the basis for an article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary@Michael D. Turnbull I actually did use Google Scholar to find these journal articles, links here: one, two, three, all are open source. The English and Spanish one I can easily interpret since I speak both, but the Korean one would be harder to use, although its abstract is in English and already provides good information. Besides these, I'm having trouble finding sources. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Newspapers.com gave me The Globe Sat, 04 Nov 2023 ·Page 4, which mentions this as a new genre but is not really WP:SIGCOV. That was all there was there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

If that is all you can find, I suggest you read WP:TOOSOON. It may not be time yet for an article here about this topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

SonOfYoutubers, I looked at those three.

• "one": The journal is La Revista de Estudios sobre Juegos de Rol y STEAM = Journal of Roleplaying Studies and STEAM. I think that the publication is web only (though such a distinction has probably lost whatever meaning it once may have had). Googling "Journal of Roleplaying Studies and STEAM" site:wikipedia.org doesn't show any citation in the Wikipedia of any language. The English-language abstract of this article reads (and I provide it in full): This proposal seeks to establish, show and delimit that transmediality and intertextuality play an important role at the moment of creating narratives in contemporary video games. Emphasizing the increasing complexity (and, therefore, highlighting the differences with conventional narrative structures) that exists in video game narratives and the necessity of interaction and non-lineal configuration in their stories. Perhaps I'm just dimwitted, but I cannot derive any meaning from this. When an abstract is as opaque as this, I rarely bother to look at the body text. Is the (Spanish-language) body text informative?
• "two": In refreshing contrast to the abstract of "one", this abstract is written to inform, and the conference paper as a whole seems to be as well, though I haven't read it. (This isn't a journal article. It's "2025: Conference Proceedings of DiGRA 2025: Games at the Crossroads / Papers". "DiGRA" is the Digital Games Research Association. Though "We thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments" sounds like peer review, so the distinction is perhaps unimportant.)
• "three": This appeared in volume 19 of a journal whose title Google translates or mistranslates for me as Journal of the Korea Knowledge Information Technology Society. I think that the journal is also cited in what's currently reference 21 of Korean phonology. It comes with an abstract that's in some Korean-flavored variety of English; I think I can guess what this means, mostly, but guesswork is of course inadequate. In order to derive anything useful from this article would I think need the help of somebody proficient in Korean.

My multifaceted incompetence (ignorance of games, inability to read Spanish or Korean, dimwittedness) might be to blame, but I'd toss "one" and "three". If doing so means you have to wait some months for material for a decent article ... the article Digital Games Research Association is splattered with templated admonishments; how about improving it? -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary I read over "one", and the body text does seem to be informative, especially a particular part of it where it gives some qualities that Mascot Horror games have in common with each other, which would be immensely useful for a "definition" of Mascot Horror, similar to the definition section of first person shooter. Perhaps the reason for the abstract seeming opaque is maybe it was translated, but I can't say for certain. "three", I simply cannot derive much from because I, too, don't speak Korean, so I would need help from someone who does. Either way though, taking advice from the others, I likely will pass on this, at least for now, since there just doesn't seem to be enough sources at the moment to write a full article. I don't even think it's a "too soon" thing, I think it simply just doesn't have enough coverage from reliable news networks yet, despite its prominence, so I'll just have to wait. I'll keep it on my radar nevertheless. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That sounds sensible, SonOfYoutubers. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

List of surnames

How can I get a list of articles Foo Jeffrey to populate a new surname page? Doug butler (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Doug butler - do you mean an "intitle" search for articles including "Jeffrey", like this? - Arjayay (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

There is already a surname page at Jeffrey (surname), but it may not be complete. TSventon (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I created it and have populated it with some of the most common (male) given names, but from experience I have only found 10% of those qualifying. Doug butler (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Doug butler: intitle:Jeffrey -prefix:Jeffrey omits people with Jeffrey as first name. It's still a lot to go through. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Quicker than going through my book of baby names (if I can find it — that was 60 years ago) Doug butler (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

PDFs

Why is it possible to format videos on YouTube (unreliable sources) but not PDFs (possibly reliable sources depending on the situation)? Does this have anything to do with Wikipedia's policies or is it a platform thing? Questionadora ávida (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Questionadora ávida: What do you mean by "format" and "not PDFs"? You mention sources. PDF's are allowed sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Questionadora ávida, I've read this question several times but still don't understand it. "Format" doesn't mean "disallow", so it's a long way from your question to what I guess it might mean, viz: "Why is it possible to disallow the citing of videos hosted on YouTube as unreliable sources but not to disallow PDFs on the grounds that they're unreliable sources?" If so: The fact that a video is on Youtube doesn't make it a reliable source. (Neither does it imply that whoever uploaded it owns the copyright to it or is otherwise entitled to upload.) Youtube is brimming with mere chitchat, fantasy, pseudoscience, misinformation, and copyright violation. But it does also have videos that merit being linked to. It's usually clear who wrote a PDF, who published it, and what its copyright status is. If author, publisher and copyright status are all OK, it can usually be linked to. But I fear that I have completely misunderstood you. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Questionadora ávida: I thought of a plausible meaning: Autofilling citation templates from a url. YouTube is a popular site with a standardized page format for their videos. Our software uses Zotero and https://github.com/zotero/translators has a YouTube entry to extract data. We also have a general tool for HTML web pages but it varies how much data it can pick up from a given page. HTML has a formal way to specify metadata like title, author and date but many websites don't use it, or the title field is unhelpful like the website name without the specific page. I don't know much about the PDF format but maybe it has no formal way to specify metadata, or maybe few PDF files do it. It's often easy for a human to guess which text in a PDF is author, title, publication date and so on, but such things can be very difficult to interprete for a program. And many PDF's use images like scans of printed documents where a program may not even be able to read the text. You can always fill out citation templates manually but it's certainly more work. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

OK Questionadora ávida (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I understood everything you said. It turns out I was stupid and formulated the question badly. Questionadora ávida (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

help

I mistakingly made this BioSpring Biotechnology Company. Can you delete this? Rafael Hello! 03:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You can request the deletion of any page that you are the only substantial author of by adding the template {{db-author}}.

Nb. the page in question was moved to Draft:BioSpring Biotechnology Company. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 08:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)