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

January 7

Namespace number

Why there are numbers in namespace? What is the purpose of that namespace number? Vitaium (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vitaium: Probably because that's how they get stored in the database(s). Imagine you have 6 million records in a database. Much better to store a zero for each of those to denote that its an article than the string "article". Polygnotus (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vitaium: See Wikipedia:Namespace#Programming. Template code with namespace numbers can be copied between wikis where the names are different. Namespace numbers are also used in other places, e.g. some url's to restrict features like search or WhatLinksHere to selected namespaces. If you don't make namespace-dependent templates or tinker with url parameters then you may never need the numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not permitted to Requests for page protection/Increase/Form

I am trying to report persistent vandalism over the span of 6 months on the article Gang rape#India, I am not permitted to do so. I get the message
Failed to create request. Error code: abusefilter-disallowed. Please try again or ask for help at WT:RFPP.
Can you perhaps submit it for me? I don't think it can get fixed i've tried alot of things. ContributedEditor (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging the man behind the hair, our beloved Sideshow Bob, @Oshwah:. Polygnotus (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The title of the article was triggering an edit filter. Your submission to WP:EFFP was already handled, no need to cross post. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Changing the italics in a title

Would like to propose this for Ikebana as it appears Roman and uncapped in Merriam-Web. thanks Shelter3 (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shelter3: Ikebana use {{Italic title}} to deliberately display the title in italics per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Non-English-language terms. Page names start with a capital letter unless the first word would usually be written lowercase at the start of a sentence like iPhone. Merriam-Webster is a dictionary so they want to show how a word is written inside a sentence but they still say Ikebana when the word starts a sentence. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Our sister project Wiktionary is a dictionary and their article is wiktionary:ikebana. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to clarify, it is already IN italics and needs to be Roman. So: {{Roman title}}?--Shelter3 (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shelter3: Ikebana uses {{Italic title}} to deliberately display the title in italics, so you could remove the Italic title template to remove the italics. The article is in UK English so arguably you should check a UK English dictionary. TSventon (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Referencing edits, citations, etc from the talk page

I’ve been collaborating with someone on the talk page of an article, but I’ve had difficulty finding clear standards or easy methods for referencing an edit or citation from the article we’re discussing. I’ve even struggled to find a simple way to quote something someone has said on the talk page. After some searching and working with raw code, I was able to use something like Talk Quote Block.

Since talk pages seem so important, is there a page that outlines all the tools available for constructive discussion? If such a page exists, I’ve honestly tried to find it! :D Dr pangloss (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about all of the available tools, but Help:Talk seems like a place to start. DonIago (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

How would you link to a citation in the article? Or a previous edit? I have just gone to the edit and copied the URL from the taskbar, or gone into the source code and copied the link to the citation if it has an external link or file. Dr pangloss (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You can link to a previous edit as a WP:DIFF, if you mean a comparison of an old and new version of text; it sounds like you may have ultimately done something equivalent. If you wanted to link to a citation. I'd probably just quote the text where the relevant citation is listed, but it's not something I personally have needed to do thus far. DonIago (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The template {{tq}} is sometimes useful for quoting text from an article or posting - it displays it in green. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}} is also useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Can't fix my error because edit source is no longer part of the section

Yes, I know I added the wrong citation markers. But now the page Ecclesiastes#Influence on Western literature doesn't include edit source, so I cannot go back and fix the mistake. Lalare (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lalare, I've removed the empty ref tags inserted before the heading, that should fix it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

And I have added a missing "</ref>". TSventon (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

January 8

Hudson Bay

What did I do wrong with the {{sfn}} at Hudson Bay? It won't link to the actual book listing. It's references 16 and 21. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: It was just a typo. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 in country music

At 2025 in country music, does anyone know why there are songs under "Top new album releases"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

They mostly seem to have been added by IP 2603:8000:9401:B55:2407:F6EC:241A:CA3E and another IP in the same range. IP's often change, so these are quite likely to be the same person. There's probably no point in posting on the IP's user talk page for that reason.

I suggest raising the issue on Talk:2025 in country music, and get consensus for removing the songs from that table (perhaps moving them to another table?) You might also want to put a note on WT:COUNTRYMUSIC, pointing to the discussion you create.

Or else you can be WP:BOLD and rearrange the article yourself. ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The CODE is in the correct section, the SONGS are in the wrong section. I do not have the skill set to fix this without removing the tunes in their entirety. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed by closing the table.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Question about reusing references and reliable sources

As my account is 3 days old, I would like someone to move this to the help desk itself:

Hi. I’ve inputted 2 claims into an article supported by the same source, and I’ve managed to cite the first claim but wanted to use the same citation on the second claim and I have problems with that. How do I use an existing citation on a different part of the article? Please use an example, because I understood I need to use names, but I am failing to actually use the names (I am not sure how to). Also, is The Economic Times a WP:RS? Waited2seconds (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Waited2seconds: the following source code:

Some wild assertion.<ref name="foo">the really great reference</ref> Another wild assertion.<ref name="foo"/>

results in:

Some wild assertion. Another wild assertion.

since I do not use the visual editor, I hope you can use the source editor. -Arch dude (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked up The Economic Times at WP:RSN and found Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 421#The Economic Times. As the discussion was inconclusive, I suggest using the source with caution, see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. TSventon (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Gaelic speakers/reader

Hi Folks, does anybody know any regular gealic speakers on Wikipedia who can translate loch names on a regular basis. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of the editors in Category:User gd-5 don't seem to have edited recently, but in Category:user gd-4 @SaoiDunNeachdain seems to be current, while @Akerbeltz says they've moved to gd-wiki, but I see they've edited here within the last two months. Whether either of these would be willing is another matter, of course. ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there any particular lochs that you have in mind? I have a book of Scottish place names, and know some online sources, which might help. (Incidentally, the name of the language is Gaelic.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@AndrewWTaylor: This one Loch a' Bhaid-luachraich. scope_creep^Talk 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I'm happy to answer questions, just put them on my Talk page, just not doing that much in mainspace any more. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep Interestingly, Google translate, when prompted that this is in the Irish language, gives the English translation as "Loch a'Baid-luachraich" whereas Microsoft's equivalent (via Bing search) says it is "the lake of the rush". Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's the 'loch of the clump of rushes'; luachair 'rush(es)', genitive luachrach, bad 'clump, cluster', genitive baid, bad luachrach 'a clump of rushes' and then some more genitive marking piled on tope. In proper Gaelic spelling it would be loch a' bhaid luachrach (never trust machine translation when it comes to Gaelic word spacing... in fact, better not trust it at all when it comes to small languages!) Akerbeltz (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge conflicts - is there something I am missing?

I see that it has a diffing system, but on the merge conflict page, is it really asking me to open a new tab, switch both to code view and hand merge manually myself? The edit conflict help page states "Both the source code editor and the visual editor use CVS-style edit-conflict merging, based on the diff3 utility.", but I can't really find merge tools on the merge page. Dr pangloss (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

January 9

Access to citation indexes

Hi, I'm wondering how to determine WP:NACADEMIC #1, and specifically how to access the two citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus. It seems that they require subscription to access them, so I'm wondering if there is a way to ask if someone could look them up, like asking about references at WP:RX?

I'm specifically wanting to check Draft:Elizabeth Miller (geologist) - the draft has been declined at AfC, with reference to WP:NPROF, but the decliner also said " Significant secondary coverage is needed" (although WP:NACADEMIC explicitly states that many academics "are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.") I was able to see on Scopus that Elizabeth L Miller has authored 106 papers, and Google Scholar shows that some have been cited 200, 300 or 400 times, so I think there is a good possibility that she does meet Criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC - but how do I confirm that? Many thanks, RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @WeirdNAnnoyed: who declined the submission. Polygnotus (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you're trying to meet WP:NPROF criterion 1. I would have accepted that as evidence of her impact in her field (my main concern was the sources being mostly non-independent). Geology isn't my discipline so I don't know what citation rates count as high-impact. As for getting access to citation databases, I can't help you there. However, I work at a university so it's trivial for me to get that data. If you'd like I can try to do some digging on her citations and h-index and get back to you later today or tomorrow. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'd really appreciate that. The draft does need editing - I see on the draft creator's talk page that they have been advised that another draft bio didn't have the appropriate tone or format. I'll check back in a couple of days when you've maybe been able to check her citations and h-index, and I'll be happy to do some editing on the draft. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Clandresen: who created the draft. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

RebeccaGreen, I know nothing about geology. Still.... I see within the draft "This paper proposes a much simpler history of Cordillera than that proposed in Colpron and Nelson (2009)." It's normal for a paper to propose this or that. But how has this proposal been received by other, unrelated geologists (not her frequent co-authors/collaborators, etc)? If Lieber and Novotny (2018) described the history as "remarkably perceptive and highly convincing" [NB entirely fictitious example], then saying so would I think add evidence of notability to her work, and thereby to her. And of course it's not just unalloyed praise that would have value; what's wanted is evidence of the importance of her work, in the eyes of her peers. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The current draft needs editing, which would be worth it if she can be shown to be notable through the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. As the WP:NACADEMIC Specific criteria explain, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." That is why I would like to access the citation indexes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

She is notable. Both as an established full professor at a well known notable university and from having more than five papers with >100 citations on each which she does. There is other stuff there is as well that makes her notable. Hope that help. scope_creep^Talk 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I was thinking. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Reverting war

I have a problem with this guy that is constantly adding wrong item to the article Millennium Prize Problems. Some help would be useful to block such a user. Thanks beforehand. Pra1998 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Send it to AIV. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 15:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are not indexed by Google

Hello! Could you please explain why a page may remain unindexed by Google 90 days after its creation, even though it is indexed by other search engines? Sanidelle (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Articles need to be patrolled by a New Pages Patroller. If that's occurred, you'd have to ask Google why something is not indexed, we have no control or influence over their algorithms. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sanidelle Even after the article has been patrolled (which you can check by going to the history page of the article and clicking on "View logs for this page" at the top), search engines may not actually do their indexing for some time afterwards. However, I find that if you make even a minor edit to the article once it is available for crawling, it will be indexed very quickly because Google etc. know how useful Wikipedia articles are to those doing searches. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sanidelle: Yes, Google appears to monitor recent edits but there is no edit when noindex is automatically removed after 90 days so Google will not know it unless they revisit the page for some reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"Edit source" v "edit"

It's a while since I edited Wikipedia and when I just went to do so the option to "edit" does not appear but appears to have been replaced by "edit source". The thought of doing so using code is beyond me. How do I get back the old way of editing where I could see what I was doing? Stagememories (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stagememories You probably want to use the visual editor wherever you can. Look at your settings at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and you'll see how to set that up. Instructions also at Help:Introduction. The visual editor isn't easily available everywhere and has some minor limitations compared to the source editor. See Help:Cheatsheet for a brief introduction to the good stuff you can do in source editing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. I have twice now set the preferences and saved them but the toolbar does not appear. Is it hidden somewhere? Stagememories (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

On a PC (I don't use a phone to edit), it is not a tool but a separate word next to "Read" in the horizontal menu at the top of the article. One says "Edit" = visual edit and the other says "Edit source". Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm using a PC. This is the problem. I was used to seeing the word edit but now only get "Read - Edit Source - View History" with no mention of "edit" alone. This is my problem! Stagememories (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Then I am pretty sure you haven't ticked "Enable visual editor" and saved at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. If you are sure you have, you need to take this up at WP:VPT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely have, so I'll do as you suggest. Thanks. Stagememories (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stagememories but first, don't forget to look at your configuration of the dropdown menu just below the tick-box for the visual editor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

All fixed. I had somehow changed the "Editing mode" setting. Someone directed me to the place to fix this. Thanks for all your help, Mike. Stagememories (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Co-prince of Andorra for French Republic

Greetings everyone ! I have an idea for articles about those who were "Presidents of France". Click on the link to see the list of people concerned.

A "President of French Republic" (Link points to the article about this political function) is also one of the "Co-princes of Andorra".
Is this sensical to add this tenure in the infobox of an article about a president ?

I'd like to do it but a "President of France" is automatically one of the "Co-princes".
I prefer to ask because a "French President" is a co-prince ex officio and therefore it is maybe non-sensical to add this information in an infobox. Anatole-berthe (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see it as non-sensical. Wouldn't be known automatically.Naraht (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Help in expanding an article

I would very much like to expand the article on Christopher M. Reddy, marine chemist. Although I took the Gypsy Horse article from a stub to a full article, I worked with Montanabw on this, and I am a neophyte in Wikipedia, and this has been sometime in the past. Could an editor in living biographies work possibly work with me a bit? I know how to edit a page and I am quite familiar with using objective, reputable sources to substantiate content. I am not as familiar with how to go about this as I would like. Thank you. SFGMary (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

SFGMary, as you expand the article Christopher M. Reddy, please remove external links that appear in the body. (As a pair of examples, we now read "recognized Reddy’s achievements as a science communicator with the Ambassador Award": as currently presented, both external links are improper, although either would be usable within a reference.) Just do your best improving and augmenting the article; and when you don't know what to do, or know what you should do but don't know how to do it, ask here. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Pudendal neuralgia to Template:Peripheral nervous system disease

Hello,

request adding this condition to the template above. Probably needs a new section "pelvis" under "arm" and "leg".

It's too complicated to edit this template, I don't know how to do it correctly.

Also I noted on the talk page of the template another user requested to add some other conditions to it.

Many thanks if you can help Moribundum (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Moribundum. TT:Peripheral nervous system disease is the best place to suggest this. ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for answer but unclear. Do you mean the talk page of the template (Template talk:Peripheral nervous system disease)?

There is a request on there dated 2012... nobody is looking at that page. Moribundum (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Org Chart

Hello!

Obviously I do not have the stats to apply for administrator in a de facto sense, however I was wondering if there was a lower level role I could apply for. NotQualified (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Like Pending Changes Reviewer, New Page Reviewer or Rollbacker? They can all be requested here. Just be sure that you meet the requirements for either of these powers before nominating yourself. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sorry, the answer is no, because you are NotQualified.

There is a list of user permissions at Wikipedia:User access levels, however the reason for additional permissions is to help you contribute to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Hat collecting for its own sake is discouraged. TSventon (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

NotQualified, yes, please read Wikipedia:User access levels. You are already extended confirmed. Administrators may be reluctant to grant optional advanced access levels given the problems identified on your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Edge Case sourcing question

Wikipedia operates on a basis where sources are got from Reputable Sources typically and people can't cite the person themself or something they made.

What if a source comments on something that someone said, such as a Twitter post, but didn't include it outright. Am I then allowed to quote what someone posts online to provide context, or does an Reputable Source have to explicitly mention the post?

e.g. "Mr. XYZ expressed on Twitter last night his thoughts on the economy..." NotQualified (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

An independent reliable source noting that comment is what lends significance to it. People say a lot of things; most are not worth recording in an encyclopedia article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes but if they acknowledge it, but I need it for context, can I use it NotQualified (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@NotQualified, editors aren't investigative journalists pulling together a story. Editors are summarizing what independent reliable sources have written about a topic. Schazjmd (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I know that but if a source has written on a tweet, and they specifically mention that tweet, but they do not include the tweet, is the tweet a source NotQualified (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're asking now. It depends on the context, but generally you could also cite the tweet in addition to the reliable source (assuming there is no question that the tweet that you're citing is the one mentioned by the RS). Schazjmd (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the follow-up questions. Obviously I misunderstood what you asked originally, so I appreciate you clarifying it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

thank you for all that you do! how would i cite a tweet? is there a specific wikipedia function or is it the same as other citations? NotQualified (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Here you go: Template:Cite tweet Schazjmd (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

is there a tutorial on how to browse the wiki on wikipedia, ive no idea where you find all of these things lol NotQualified (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

also how did you customise your name? NotQualified (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

1. I don't know of one (maybe someone does and will mention it?) but after awhile, you learn how to search for things. You can see on my user page how I've collected wikilinks to things I find. (You can always browse Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia to get an idea of all the stuff that's out there.)
2. Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature

Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

meta question here, where is the code for wikipedia? ive always found things are a bit clunky, especially the lack of concurrent editing NotQualified (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

test NotQualified (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

checking if this is right now NotQualified (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

it works now NotQualified (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If you'd like to experiment with your signature, NotQualified, please do so in your sandbox. -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

"where is the code for wikipedia?": I don't understand, but does the article MediaWiki help? -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

well wikipedia has to have a source code which people maintain, right? where is that repo NotQualified (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

sorry! NotQualified (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

January 10

Section, image; section, image; section, image....

The layout of Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart presents no hindrance to understanding, but is unusually ugly. (For the layout, the editor to blame is me.) Perhaps I'm caffeine-deprived, but I can neither think of a potential solution nor find one within Help:Pictures. (Alternating left, right, left, right ... would reduce the monotony and save space, but would bring its own problems.) Suggestions? -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

As a reader, I think Help:Pictures#Without_flowing_text to the left would be easiest to view. Heading identifies the image; image immediately below heading; then text; next heading... Schazjmd (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

But Schazjmd, if I understand this right, it would lead to yet more empty space and a (visually) longer article with more need for scrolling. If so, then no. But I appreciate the suggestion that the captions are pretty much redundant. (They were added back when virtually all the images were in a gallery near the foot of the article, an arrangement that required captions.) I shan't remove the captions till either the larger problem has been resolved or it's clear that there is no good solution to that larger problem; however, I'll keep their removal in mind. (Pinging NeoGaze and CurryTime7-24.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)