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!

March 13

Linking citations with url as well wikipedia article

Morning Folks!! Is possible to have cite book entry that links to the book url in the internet archive and at the same time link to the Wikipedia article about it. For example, on the George MacDonald article, in the fantasy section, there is cite book entry and there is also the Fantasy section entries. In the first entry there is a Phantastes: A faerie romance for men and women which links to the internet archive but there is also the Phantastes article. Is it possible to link these two somehow in an effective way. I tend to mention the book in the prose but it would be nice to see linked in here somehow. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep You can use the parameter |title-link in the {{cite book}} but it will conflict with the URL and give an error. The help at Help:CS1_errors#URL–wikilink_conflict suggests you would need to place the URL at the end of the citation (outside the curly brackets at the end, for example) to separately provide the link, say as "Here at archive". Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia should generally not be cited as a source. I would put the internet archive link in its parameter, which I know is in the website entry but I am not sure if it is in the book entry. PhoenixCaelestis•Talk•Contribs) 12:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

They are not used as sources thankfully, just sitting in the publications list. I don't think its in the cite book entry. I would have assumed there was a simple way of doing it. They must have came across this problem before? I think putting the archive link at the end of the cite and using title-link seems the best way of doing it. scope_creep^Talk 12:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep: the general advice here is excellent: you can add stuff that is not inside the template at all. However, in the specific case of Phantastes, it is not clear that the Internet archive copy is the best of the many excellent internet copies of the book listed in the "external links" section of the book's article. If I decide to read the book (which I may, now that you made me aware of it) I will probably read the Wikisource transcription. -Arch dude (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Arch dude: I'm not keen on those transcribed versions as they often miss important information e.g. the illustrations and/or many times they have branding on them that is entirely unsuitable, which seems to be becoming more and more prominent. The one I've linked to for this is the first edition, although do they have the date wrong on the internet archive and its the scan of the entire book including covers with no branding, in its whole originality. I never thought of using the wikisource. I will need to think about the pro's and con's of it. Its certainly free of branding and will remain so, which is a good thing. scope_creep^Talk 07:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Arch dude: Try the The Night Land Novel by William Hope Hodgson 1912 which may be up your street if you like the Phantastes stuff. scope_creep^Talk 07:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I insert numbered inline citations in an article

Please can someone help me? I have looked at Wikipedia: Inline citations, to try to work out how to place inline citations in an article. I have done experiments in my sandbox using (<ref: SOURCE: ref/), but that has not worked. Where I am going wrong? Anyone who can provide a step-by-step guide as to how to place numbered citations in an article that even a numbskull like me can understand will be much appreciated. Many thanks, YTKJ (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

it should be <ref> SOURCE </ref> —Tamfang (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@YTKJ, I recommend for your first references (sources):

• <ref>Author, Title, Web address if there is one, Publisher, Date, Pages</ref>.
• With Visual Editor use Cite->Manual->Basic form, and the editor will add the <ref></ref> part for you.

For other ways see Help:Referencing for beginners and the reference sections at Help:Introduction. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

User: StarryGrandma, I have tried that on the sandbox of my userpage, but it has not resulted in the numbered code. Would you care to tell me where I have gone wrong? YTKJ (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @YTKJ: What exactly do you mean. The software automatically numbers the references when you put in inline citations, in the order you put them in. I'll take a look at what your doing. scope_creep^Talk

I see what happened. It should have been <ref> Brown, 1998</ref> I updated this reference Brown, 1995. It should have a opening ref and close ref to tell it that is the ref. You also missed the template that goes near the bottom of the article.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

that is placed near the bottom of the article. The Reflist tag tells the software where to render them all into a block in the article and numbers them for you. I've used the nowiki tags around here to stop the system rendering them on this talk page, which we don't want. You were very close to get the getting the cigar but this should help. If you need help contact me and I will give you a hand. Lastly on top of the editor window which opens when not using the visual editor is a cite button which has a set of 4 drop down templates which are the most common references types like cite book and cite web and so on. When you click on it, it opens a dialog with fields that can be filled in. Fill these in and it will create the reference for you. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 08:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@YTKJ Looking at your sandbox: you've been trying to put the reference inside a sort of <ref /ref> tag (which doesn't exist) instead of between an opening <ref> one and a closing </ref> one. Also there's a stray <nowiki> tag which shouldn't be there—it's used in examples to stop code working as code and display what it looks like instead, and isn't part of what to type. Musiconeologist (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@YTKJ Suggestion: Try starting with something very short so you can see what you're doing—maybe just copy <ref>this</ref>—then when that's working, replace the word this with the actual text you need. That way, you can focus on one step at once.

Or even begin with just <ref></ref> then start typing between the >< in the middle. That's usually the best way to avoid typos with tags that come in pairs. Musiconeologist (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

March 14

Good article category?

Is there a Category:Good articles by age or something like that? If there isn't, it would be helpful if good articles were sorted by their age in a new category so that old ones that have issues can easily be found and nominated for WP:GAR TNM101 (chat) 06:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@TNM101: you could try asking at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations as people ther will know more about the GA process than most helpers here. TSventon (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@TNM101 Rather than looking up good articles by age (I imagine there is a way to do this) you can use the cleanup listing for good articles, which will allow you to find all the good articles with various maintenance tags and specific issues. Reconrabbit 19:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies! TNM101 (chat) 06:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Correct way to do this

Sudzha. On 14 January 2024, an edit is made "After the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Sudha became..." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sudzha&diff=next&oldid=1195628086). The source provided supports the second part of the sentence but says nothing about the term "full-scale invasion." As far as I can tell, the phrase "full-scale" has remained in the article through about two hundred edits. Today, another editor added a "dubious" tag around "full-scale" and shared their opinion, but they did not start a discussion on the talk page.

I disagree with the editor’s opinion. I assume the correct approach would be to open a discussion on the talk page. However, since "full-scale invasion" is mentioned in many other articles about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I suspect that this issue has already been discussed and that a consensus has been reached. The article Russian invasion of Ukraine mentions "full-scale invasion". Can I therefore assume that the term "full-scale invasion" is acceptable and remove the "dubious" tag? (I have also looked at the archive of the talk page of Russian invasion of Ukraine, and "full scale" is mentioned in a lot of archives - it is possible that it has been discussed but it is such a job to go look for it)

Another question: In other cases where an editor adds a "dubious" tag to a word, expresses an unsourced opinion that "this is all wrong", but does not start a discussion — and if no previous editors have raised concerns about that term — is it the editor’s responsibility to open a discussion and can I simply remove the tag, or should I keep the tag and open the discussion? TIA!! Lova Falk (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lova Falk WP:DRIVEBY suggests that adding such tags without discussion is a bad idea (although not prohibited by policy). As it happens, while typing this I have been listening to the BBC's 6 p.m. news on the radio and the phrase "full-scale invasion" came up! I've heard it so many times that I certainly don't think it is dubious. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Mike Turnbull! Could you please extend your comment to an advice on how to deal with them. For instance, would it be fine just to remove them? WP:Etiquette does not require me to first try to engage the editor in a Talk conversation? Lova Falk (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The other editor may have been concerned that the phrase in question is imprecise: the "became the last remaining point" presumably happened exactly on the day of the other pipeline's sabotage, not just "After the beginning of the full-scale invasion". You should probably either clarify that with an exact date or WP:PING the other editor to the talk page to discuss this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Can I use this picture?

Hi! I was trying to expand the stub at Noarlunga_railway_station and found an image here: https://www.libraries.sa.gov.au/client/en_AU/walkerville/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ASSET$002f0$002fSD_ASSET:1432327/ada?qu=Landscapes+%28views%29&d=ent%3A%2F%2FSD_ASSET%2F0%2FSD_ASSET%3A1432327%7EASSET%7E162&ic=true&ps=300&h=8

Is that something I can use in the article? Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The photograph looks like it was taken in 1968 and its copyright is not indicated anywhere (the source link is broken) unfortunately it is unlikely to be in the public domain per Australian copyright rules. You could still add a link to it in "External links" if desirable. Reconrabbit 19:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I'd like to link to a specific subsection of an article. How does that generally look like?

The link is supposed to lead to "The Ideological Turing Test" within the Bryan Caplan article. I imagine this might be where Wikipedia redirects come in. Thank you. MutuallyAssuredDeduction (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@MutuallyAssuredDeduction: that looks like [[Bryan Caplan#"The Ideological Turing Test"]] or [[Bryan Caplan#"The Ideological Turing Test"|The Ideological Turing Test]]. TSventon (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

TSventon, if somebody renames the section "The Ideological Turing Test" (to, for example, "Ideological Turing Test"), such links will no longer work. Better, I think, to use Template:Anchor (about which, see its somewhat wordy documentation). -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

See Help:Redirect for how to make a redirect. It can both redirect to a section heading and an anchor. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

March 15

Sentence on "Matthias Koehl" Neo-Nazi leader article - sourced to a pro-Koehl Nazi website?

Hi. Please direct me somewhere else if there’s a better place to discuss this - I wasn’t able to find anywhere. I’ve recently been working on expanding our page on Matthias Koehl, a notable Neo-Nazi leader who succeeded George Lincoln Rockwell as head of the American Nazi Party. Of course, I’m aware an obscure Nazi subject like this might draw attention from actual nationalists, and, while I doubt the editor who added this was one, it is at least true that a statement in the article is sourced to "National Vanguard". The statement is legitimately useful (albeit not the most important to Koehl’s life, and not mentioned in any other sources) and the sentence of it in the article doesn’t appear to be Neo-Nazi propaganda or anything, but National Vanguard is a Neo-Nazi website that publishes articles praising Koehl and his racialist & fascist associates. If the statement is helpful, should the sentence be kept? Or is National Vanguard assumed to be instantly biased on issues relating to fascism, being a fascist website? Is National Vanguard even a news source or is it self-published? Star Manatee (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee: What sentence is it exactly and I will check it. scope_creep^Talk 10:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Second paragraph in the "Politics" section, on Ezra Pound Star Manatee (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee: It is an interview on an neo-nazi site, which makes it suspect. I tried to find the editor web page but instead found a whole load of Nazi crap. I also can't confirm it which likely makes it conjecture. I've posted a note up to the WP:RSN but they are not going to like it. They are a rough crowd. Wait to see what they say. I think it will likely need to be removed. scope_creep^Talk 13:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. The sentence in of itself is not notable at large to the biography of Koehl as more commonly focused upon parts of his life, like his mass layoffs of famous party members, his allegations of homosexuality and the (widely scholarly-supported) conspiracy theory that he organised the assassination of Rockwell - while it might be notable that he met a famous wartime fascist, the fact that it’s not been mentioned in any book on him I’ve read so far says a lot. Star Manatee (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Star Manatee: That National Vanguard is not reliable. I've removed that section from the para. If you see a National Vanguard reference anywhere on Wikipedia, remove the block or the para itself or the sentence. Don't leave it in. scope_creep^Talk 13:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yep! Thank you for your help Star Manatee (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

AI generated content

I believe that the episode summaries that were added to Old Gods of Appalachia are AI generated. What is the process for dealing with this? It doesn't seem like it's a copyright violation so I guess it doesn't need a revdelete? But the edits go back to 2023 so I don't know if it can just be rolled back either. Is the solution to manually go through and delete the episode summaries? Also, what about thr editor who added them? TipsyElephant (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I certainly looks like it. I would report the whole lot to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup noticeboard for a second opinion and it can be tracked. The process is to remove the stuff and have a chat with the editor who put it, informing them its not acceptable. I don't think wee have got as far as publishing a warning template for editors as yet, but the folk at the noticeboard will keep you right. You could tag which is there, it but it will end up coming to me, since I seem to be the only one processing them. They go into Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts I would remove it. scope_creep^Talk 12:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Longest Wikipedia Page Title

Which page has the longest Wikipedia page title? Gnu779 ( talk) 14:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia records#Articles with the longest titles. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

How can I promote discussion that I opened?

When I opened discussion, usually no one participates. So I want to promote it, but I don't know how.. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 17:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions: Unfortunately questions on most article talk pages mostly go unanswered. You could try some of the suggestions at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. TSventon (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Camilasdandelions: You have to learn the fine art of collecting folk which is based on personal charisma, presence, hard work and results. Find friends and influence them. Offer to collaborate. Takes time. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 19:21, 15 March 2025

@Camilasdandelions It depends a bit on whether it's something potentially contentious, or just a simple query or request for assistance. For context, do you mean this one? Musiconeologist (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes :( Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I received an email from a user to close a discussion - I'd like to ask for feedback here as to what to do

Hello, I wasn't sure whether to ask this:

• Here;
• At the Teahouse;
• At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard;
• By contacting an individual admin.

I elected to end up posting here as this seems more like a general-purpose place for this, but if this is wrong I do apologize; please let me know and I will discuss in a more appropriate place.

So for context, I'm a relatively new user, but I do lurk on WP:ANI, and I've dipped my toes in closing discussions as an uninvoled editor, in order to become more familiar with administrative processes as I enjoy this kind of thing. I got an email from the user @Rejoy2003 (which I am pinging here for transparency's sake - my intent is not to "snitch" or anything) telling me that they saw the above-mentioned work, and asking me as a result to close this merge proposal that has been open for a couple weeks at this point and seems to have a small, albeit clear, consensus against it, with arguments against the merge that seem valid to me, having looked at both articles. I am unfamiliar with the subject matter, though, and am not that well-versed in actually dealing with content discussions or closes like this one (particularly with regards to things like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and the like).

I don't mind closing it, of course, but I'd rather get feedback from more experienced editors before doing anything here. Should I post this at Proposed article mergers or Closure requests, or just go ahead with this? Thanks for any help. NewBorders (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NewBorders: Here is the ideal place to ask this question. Its been opened for 3 weeks and 4 days and you have two immediate opposes. As two editors have opposed from the beginning, pretty firm, its unlikely to be a merge, so not posting to WP:MERGEREQ. I just close it with "Its been opposed". You could leave it open for another couple weeks but its doubtful you'll get any other responses. They don't seem to be natural merge targets. One is an org, the other is a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 19:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'm glad my original reading seemed pretty accurate. NewBorders (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I just closed it. I think I've done everything properly, including removing the merge templates and the like? If I've done anything wrong, please someone let me know and I will correct it. NewBorders (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

March 16

I have a feeling someone is following me watching my every edit, and it's making me uncomfortable

I have a feeling that someone (who I will not name) is WP:HOUNDING me across Wikipedia. They once even showed up on my talk page for an unrelated matter. How can I prevent this? It makes me uncomfortable. Félix An (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the good thing is to ignore, but if you're feeling uncomfortable, it might be best to email an admin and let them know who is hounding you and they will see if it needs a warning or a block. I don't think going to the ArbCom is required right now, unless there has been any off-wiki harassment or there is confidential information. I will let you know that some editors might be tracking your edits as you were recently unblocked, and this kind of following around is not usually considered harassment as it helps them to see if you have done any violations of your unblocking criteria TNM101 (chat) 07:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Changing an article name before closing discussion?

 Courtesy link: Nia (charity)

Hi, An editor moved an article I wrote to a new name without doing WP:Beforemoving. I moved it back because the name they moved it to was not appropriate for the geographic region the article refers to. I told them to be mindful and to please do some research before moving a page.

In response, they put a name change discussion tag on the page to move it a second name. I responded with an objection.

After the discussion was up for a few days, this editor then adjusted the name under discussion to a 3rd name.

This was done without changing the name discussion template and without closing the prior discussion. They just adapted the tagged name. Is this ok to do? Some of the points in the prior discussion refer to the initial name (the 2nd one) that the discussion was posted about.

This editor also accused me if having a conflict of interest with the subject of the page. I do not have any relationship to the subject of the page. This is a personal attack.

At this point it feels the drive to change the name on the article is not based on any benefit to the article, rather it's a personal grievance against me because I reverted their first name change. What should be the best course of action here? There's not much discussion on the talk page as it's not a controversial page. I don't think the behavior is appropriate and I'm not sure what to do here. Nayyn (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I've left a note at MPian's talk page to find out why the name change took place. scope_creep^Talk 09:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The article clearly states that its in British English so the name shouldn't have been changed. Its known as a charity, been in existance for 50 years so that is likely the common name. I've not done an archival search but its known as Nia (charity). The website refers to it as Nia. Its one of these names that are easy to remember, you can attach to it easily. The editor who changed it is fairly new, 3 months I think, so its inexperience. I see what the note says, when they come in. scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why the article was moved to Nia (organization), but the official name is "the nia project", which means that Wikipedia policies on capitalisation and names beginning with "the" are relevant. Based on the first five references, it is reasonable to argue that the "Nia Project" is the common name of the organisation. TSventon (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: Where did you find that. scope_creep^Talk 10:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I see it.That is the official name. All their docs refer to it as Nia. Even the recent website redesign. scope_creep^Talk 11:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:COMMONNAME, en Wikipedia looks at what independent reliable sources call a subject, not what the subject calls itself. TSventon (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I know, but your not confusing it with this Project NIA or this Emory School of Medicine Nia Project? scope_creep^Talk 12:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Another WP:CITEVAR question, if I may. I'm doing some work on The Tempest and I see two differing footnote styles. If you look at its References section you'll see what I mean. References 4, 6, 8, 13, 14 (etc.) take a different form from most others. The majority of footnotes use the {sfn} template and link through to something in the Sources section - whereas these and many others use a {cite book} or {cite web} template. I acknowledge that achieving perfection might be a lot of work - but would the perfect solution be to create all the sources in the Sources section, and then to turn all footnotes in the text into {sfn}s. It would then all be consistent. AndyJones (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you intend to take it to GA? scope_creep^Talk 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

If the article was going GA, they would like sfn tags as its nice and clean and easy to review. But it looks as though as its under some development. There is a lot of cn tags. The majority are in sfn, so I would convert the rest to sfn tags. Its a quite a small number. That article needs a wee bit of love and care. I've copyedited somewhat to fix a couple of problems with references. scope_creep^Talk 10:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Tempest is already a GA, so I checked the approved version and all the sources were in the sources section there. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I missed that. Its been horsed a wee bit. I'll give you a hand. Answer to question. Yes. scope_creep^Talk 10:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a GA but it is undergoing quite an overhaul at the moment. Look for my name in the edit history for all the gory details. A lot of the {cn} tags were recently added by me but I am in the process of killing them all off. Thanks everyone for your help so far. AndyJones (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@AndyJones: I intend to do more. I noticed that some may be refering to the whole possibly, as a version of The Tempest. I posted a list to the talk page on what I find. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you @Scope creep:. As you can see I'm working my way through the major sources of the page, gradually, so do feel free to post anything you consider problematic on the talk page (where you'll see there's already the discussion GA concerns) and I will fix/delete/replace as appropriate. Thank you to @TSventon: also. AndyJones (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Notifications for WP:Peer review requests

Hi, I volunteer to do peer reviews and am subscribed to Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_unanswered_reviews#Philosophy_and_religion, but for some reason I don't get notifications when new requests are listed. Could anyone advise? I'm open to helping out in other areas as well, but it's only this one for which I would like to receive some kind ping or notification.

Many thanks, Patrick (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh When I navigate to the link you supplied, I see the possibility to click on "subscribe" to that section. Have you done that? It should trigger a notification when someone adds new content there. You can check what you are subscribed to at Special:TopicSubscriptions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've clicked that, and my subscription is recognized (the only option presented to me is to "unsubscribe"). This has been an ongoing issue. I previously thought something might have been thrown off with a change to header titles or the like, but unsubscribing and resubscribing has not corrected the issue.

I was not previously aware of Special:TopicSubscriptions, but the subscription does show up there with the "Latest notification" field reading "never"—even though there have definitely been new requests listed. Patrick (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that topic subscriptions is a feature designed for talk pages and the page in question is a project page, not a talk page. You might raise the issue at WP:VPT, as I suspect the "subscribe" option shouldn't be there at all. Or wait for User:PrimeHunter to show up here, as I'm sure he'll have the definitive answer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

... scrub that. This Help Desk page is also a Project page and subscribing here works fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I'll wait to see if PrimeHunter anyone else chimes in. (I'm subscribed to this query without following the whole page and get notifications just fine.) Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh: The page Wikipedia:Peer review/List of unanswered reviews hasn't been edited since 2022. The only content of Wikipedia:Peer review/List of unanswered reviews#Philosophy and religion is a transclusion of User:AnomieBOT/C/Philosophy and religion peer reviews which transcludes something from other pages. You don't get notified if a transcluded page is edited. You can add User:AnomieBOT/C/Philosophy and religion peer reviews to your watchlist but not subscribe to it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Could someone look something up for me in the Wikipedia Library?

I've not got my 10 edits this month, so I can't check it myself, and the suggested IRC on that page gives me a "does not exist" error. Ousman Miangoto has been suggested for deletion and I thought I'd have a look for any potential sources, especially as he appears to have been a flag-bearer. Using the google books search, I get a hit for this "N'Djaména hebdo, Issues 7–68, 1989" but it's behind a paywall. Is there anything on TWL? Red Fiona (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You have to make literally one more edit to hit the threshold ... that's probably easier than asking others to dig for sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Very good point - I think when I posted this I was further away and didn't think I'd be making so many edits tonight. (My apologies) Red Fiona (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apparently Newspapers.com has 113 matches for Ousmane Miangoto, but I haven't signed up. If no one here can help you could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. N'Djaména hebdo in Google books says something like "II git de Ousmane Miangoto qui it fait équipe avec Alladoum lo , NDoubadoum Raïngar et doum ." It looks like a single sentence and the lines seem to have been truncated. TSventon (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the Resource Request link. Red Fiona (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)