Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1308

Archive 1305

Archive 1306

Archive 1307

Archive 1308

Archive 1309

Archive 1310

Resource question

Hello Teahouse, Does Iranian websites/news channel consider as invalid resource for Wikipedia? I am writing about persian hip-hop/rapper, problem is in their early time news agency didn't really had coverage of news as you may know or not, in Iran Rap was forbidden and become more like underground thingy. thats why i ask, for example their music careers joining bands or making one wasn't really a coverage. here is the link: User:Quiethend/Dariya & Sorena current stage of my writing is the most simple i can do without any promotional purpose, for writing more deeper details, source become less and less as there wont be much news channel to cover.

I already talk to ThadeusOfNazereth about draft as being denied and I am re editing it again, as I know I need to change my Discography too. I've been redirected to this page to ask my question. It would be good if any advice can help me to publish my first article aswell, I am ready to hear. Quiethend (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

yes ~2026-53922-32 (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Quiethend, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid we cannot answer the question "Are Iranian websites/news channels reliable sources for Wikipedia?" any more than we can answer the question "Are British websites/news channels reliable sources?"

In the case of Britain (and other Western countries) the answer is "Some are, some aren't", and we have to look at each. I guess that the same is true for Iranian sources.

Please go to the reliable sources noticeboard, where you will find several resources:

• WP:RSP has a list of sources which people have often asked about. There are a few Iranian sources listed there, but I'm afraid that most of them have been rated as "not reliable".
• You can search the archives of WP:RSN to see if a particular source has been discussed before.
• You can post a question at WP:RSN asking about a particular source.

Please read the "Overview" at WP:RSN, especially WP:RSCONTEXT: a source might be reliable about architecture, but not about music, for example. So if you ask about a particular source, make it clear what kind of information you want to use it to verify. ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

If this question is about coverage, we do not cover what is not covered in reliable sources. It is ideal to write based on sources you have, rather than write content and then try and find sources to back it up. CMD (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Quiethend. I looked over your article. Firstly, Wikipedia:Notability (music) is important here. I would also recommend you read User:ColinFine's comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-ColinFine-20261007101300-~2026-53890-63-20261007065400.

If you still want to go ahead with the article, you need to find independent sources about the duo and their career. Most of references you use in your article are not good enough. The BBC interview has some info about Dariya's background (he got introduced to rap at 13 years old, he got into the Iranian music scene in 2004), so it a good source for that. However, it is only a very short and surface-level promotional interview, and it is not about the duo. Have any other articles been written by local newspapers? or Iranian music websites? They need to be independent articles, not promotional interviews like the 2006 BBC source.

If you speak Farsi, you could ask for help looking for reliable sources on the Farsi-language Wikipedia. Foreign-language references are accepted on the English Wikipedia, but they need to be reliable. sahebkhabar.ir seems to be AI-generated and is not a good source. The sources about the Chaos music video are okay but they are not about the duo. I hope this has been of some help to you. — LeastConcern ^{(they) talk contribs} 16:21, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

If you need help locating or evaluating Farsi-language sources, you can try the WP:Local Embassy for that language, which is a list of bilingual editors who have offered to help with such requests. M kuhner (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

References help for draft

I need help finding references for Draft:Cumberland County League I originally submitted the draft for review on October 1st. It was denied the same day. All the references I have are databases though and I need help finding suitable references like articles. I need someone who truly can help me though, not just somebody who replies "Read this article" and then I spend another 2 hours looking for sources. I need help not just an guide. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 20:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you think the good sources exist? Nobody can help find them if they don't exist. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe that they do, but I just don't know where to find them. I can find databases but not articles. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 21:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@EzYop If you're unable to find any sources after intense searching, that's a good indication the subject simply isn't notable. Alternatively, if you're not sure what sources to look for, then that's a skill you need to obtain before you start writing articles. It's no good if every time you want to write an article, other people have to do the legwork for you.

If that's the case, it's completely fine. There's a lot to do on Wikipedia other than writing articles, and it's the single hardest thing to do. Athanelar (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Do you have any advice on where you search for sources. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 22:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

For sports in general Google News is still pretty good ime. You could also look at social media (I know reddit has pretty active sports discussion) but it may not lead to usable in depth sources. Also since this is a local league you might look into local publications (smaller regional newspapers for example) that might document the league. Packrat3860 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this EzYop (talk) (contributions) 23:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I found a local news publisher called Cumbria Crack that has tons of articles the link is https://cumbriacrack.com/?s=Cumberland+county+league Is this enough information? How do I know which articles to use? EzYop (talk) (contributions) 22:35, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

For pretty much any Wikipedia article, definitely including this one, the right articles to use are the ones where the reporter has already pretty much written your Wikipedia article for you - where they sat down and told the entire story of the subject. That's why the databases weren't good enough; they're OK for what they are but they don't contain a story.

There's an expression "The facts speak for themselves", and Wikipedia basically answers "No they don't". Sources where the full story is told, without any help from the subject, are the main thing. (Using databases later, to add some info that the real stories didn't include, is fine.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:26, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank You! This was extremely helpful! All of the articles are kind of just niche score and League updates like "Unisun Athletic has a dominating lead." etc. Which is not very helpful. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Any advice on like how to make the best of what I got or to find better? EzYop (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

To make a Wikipedia article for a sports league, you really do need to find where reporters have written big chunks of stuff about the league itself.

Think of my hometown and its men's curling league: a bunch of mostly older men in a rundown rink in a tiny town in the middle of nowhere, who got together for fun. No reporter ever showed up - why would they? I'm sure there were stories, but not the kind that reporters need. So the only record of it is the mentions of who won in the local paper - if Jim remembered to submit them in time.

The league you're talking about is of course far bigger and better than that, but it's still possible that reporters never had much of a story to tell about "the league" as a special topic. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:09, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! EzYop (talk) (contributions) 18:44, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

An add-on to my previous answer: There are millions of stories out there that have never been told in reliable sources. It's normal for people to see Wikipedia and think this is where those stories can finally be written - but it isn't. We just repeat what's in the reliable sources. "The Untold Story of ..." is just not our thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:51, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Alright thank you. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 15:53, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

the {{find sources}} template gives a useful bunch of links for a start. Add archive.org to those and, if all else fails, ask at a local library assuming this league is local to you.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Athanelar (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh my gosh thank you so much for this. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 23:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Further to the above, 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. Help:Find sources also has some good tips.

You might also find WP:Referencing for beginners useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Big rec for local libraries. Also if there are museums or archives in the area I've had good results just asking them if they have anything in their collection about niche topics. It's probably easier if you're a local and can go there in person, but even over email I've found most places like that are very happy to help even if the collection is not technically public.

Some promising leads from List of museums in Cumbria

* Ruskin Museum

* Museum of Lakeland Life & Industry

* https://thebeacon-whitehaven.co.uk/

* Dock Museum

* https://maryportmaritimemuseum.org.uk/ (website is maybe under construction)

* https://www.helenathompson.org.uk/

Another angle to consider for museums and archives is larger collections that might have information on this and other local leagues, like for example the UKs national football museum (as it is a football league) or the museum of the north of England (where the league is located). Packrat3860 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't live locally there though. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 22:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about copyright images.

I am very familiar with copyright and images.

I had a random question though, I am sure it has been answered before and was wondering where I might be able to find that information:

If one was to have their headshot taken by their employer and photographer wasn't technology savvy but was willing to fill out a WP:CONSENT just on paper; From what I understand that would be good enough. However do we have a template/page for that? Or is there a past archive that someone remembers that goes over this? Of course if there none of these, I am assuming the one at WP:CONSENT is good enough. Just the wording may need to be adjusted slightly to make it printable. I should note, I am aware of this essay on commons commons:Commons:So you want to upload a photo someone else took#How to make this happen. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I am going to ask the same question at Commons instead. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Mentorship question

I have a friend User:Berejere whom I invited to join WIkipedia, he accepted and I would like to help him out. Is there a way I can be a mentor but for only one person? Or is there a similar program that I can enroll in? What is my best option? EzYop (talk) (contributions) 22:45, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Given that you yourself are a very inexperienced editor, it's probably better if your friend takes on a more experienced editor as a mentor. Either way, there's no need for you to be his formal 'mentor' for you to give him advice or anything like that. Athanelar (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Alright, Thank You! EzYoptalk 00:19, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Need help with an AfD notice

I am trying to undo the editor at Anti-Slavic sentiment over a closed AfD but some edit filter wont let me. That editor is now blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Aeroes (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aeroes, welcome to the Teahouse. I have reverted the editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

There has to be a better way to discuss

I've nominated a redirect for deletion, and I did it by copypasting wikitext from the discussion below and editing the links. Surely there has got to be an easier way to do this? EtalonGlapfh (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi EtalonGlapfh, welcome to the Teahouse. See STEP II at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#How to list a redirect for discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

An easier way, which is noted in the box at the side of the steps there; use WP:TWINKLE which makes a lot of processes like this one a two-click affair. Athanelar (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking for active WikiProjects to help improve my page

I looked at the obvious projects like bodybuilding and Wikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitness to help with my page Ryeley Palfi, but the pages were either inactive or thought to be inactive. How do I look for active projects that would be able to help out? J390 (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

You could try wiki projects Youtube and Biography EzYop (talk) (contributions) 22:49, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe that you're asking about Draft:Ryeley Palfi. The template at its head says "Please help demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention." If by "help improve my page" (above) you mean "find usable sources for my page", you're asking people to do the most difficult part of the work. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:29, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft for a multilingual Telegram social game

Hello everyone, I am relatively new to English Wikipedia and am looking for assistance in submitting a new draft for an automated social deduction game bot called "Almex Pro Mafia." It has gained significant traction, operating in over 1,500 active communities within 5 months. I have already prepared the complete article using the appropriate Wiki markup and the Template:Infobox software structure to ensure it meets Wikipedia's layout guidelines. The subject is well-documented in independent secondary sources, including a detailed analytical case study on vc.ru and a technical release report on Medium. Since my account is very new and lacks editing history, I am concerned about potential speedy deletion or layout mistakes if I submit it directly through the Articles for Creation (AfC) wizard myself. Could an experienced editor please review my prepared markup text and help me submit it as a formal draft to the AfC queue? I would be happy to share the ready-made wiki code and secondary source links here. Thank you so much for your guidance and time! Sarah Shahi k (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Let's start by seeing your sources. Without good sources, everything else is a waste of time. URLs, please? DS (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, DS! Here are the independent links for the project. Detailed case study on vc.ru: https://vc.ru/life/3181060-fenomen-almex-pro-mafia-kak-tekstovyi-bot-v-telegram-avtomatiziroval-klassicheskuyu-igru-i-za-5-mesyacev-zahvatil-1500-grupp

I have been closely following this Telegram gaming sector because automated text games are becoming extremely popular right now, and there is a massive audience interested in this niche. Sarah Shahi k (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

It looks like vc.ru allows its members to edit, or maybe even allows the public to edit. Wikipedia does not accept sources where editing is allowed; for example, the Артём who posted that material could be anyone, and there is nobody checking his work.

This is explained at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:54, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, and I apologize for the mistake. As I am completely new to Wikipedia, I don't know all the rules and guidelines well yet. I did not realize that vc.ru functions as an open, user-generated platform without editorial oversight. If possible, could you please teach or guide me on which tech magazines or sources are accepted here and which are not? This would really help me learn the standards. I will stop here and look for proper alternative sources. Thank you for your time, patience, and for correcting me. Sarah Shahi k (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

One important rule/guideline; please don't use AI to talk to other editors. Athanelar (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Sarah Shahi k, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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) 16:32, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice I’ll spend some time learning how wikipedia works before trying to create an article and I think my English isn't very good so I sometimes use AI to help me express myself and I hope you understand me about this but I’m also happy to see that people here are so kind and willing to help others improve and correct their mistakes thank you for your support. ~2026-54572-32 (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I have also question about my user name why my name changed to ~2026-54572-32 from sarah shahi Sarah Shahi k (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Most likely because you hadn't logged in at the time. (If you used the same device and the same browser to write your comment of 06:56 that you had used to write your comment of 06:43, did you log in between making those comments?) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:18, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

thank you I understand Sarah Shahi k (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Wording in the 'About mentors' pop-up

Hi there, I just made an account here and I noticed only he/him pronouns are used in the 'About mentors' pop-up (that you can get by clicking 'Learn more about mentors' on your profile page) and I was wondering who/where to ask to make it gender neutral? Thanks! Izzardus (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Or is it tailored to the individual mentor's pronoun preference? Izzardus (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest reporting it. You can do this on the home page with the ... button! EzYop (talk) (contributions) 22:46, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I must be blind because I just can't seem to find it... I can only find the button for reporting user behaviour. Izzardus (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to report it. The mentor assigned is UtherSRG, who uses he/him pronouns. I would expect it to tailor to the mentor's pronoun preference, though I do not have the ability to check at this time. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:22, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

If the question was about a popup relating to mentors in general, even if it appears when looking at a page for a particular mentor, shouldn't it be worded appropriately for mentors in general? ~2026-52276-33 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Izzardus: The text is made with MediaWiki:Growthexperiments-homepage-mentorship-about-mentor-par1 and MediaWiki:Growthexperiments-homepage-mentorship-about-mentor-par2. If you click "View source" then you can see both have code like {{GENDER:$1|He’s|She’s|They’ve}} volunteered to guide newer people. As you can probably guess, it adjusts the text to the specified gender of the mentor. You can set your own under "Gender used in messages" at Special:Preferences. The code like {{GENDER:|Your}} {{GENDER:$1|mentor}} may be more puzzling. Some languages have different male and female versions of "Your" and "mentor" but English doesn't so there is only one word here. Spanish at MediaWiki:Growthexperiments-homepage-mentorship-about-mentor-par1/es says {{GENDER:$1|mentor|mentora}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Bill titles?

I've noticed that articles on Wikipedia about bills and laws, at least those passed in the United States, have inconsistent titles. While some just have the bill title, such as "Example Act", others have the year as well, such as "Example Act of 2026", even when there's nothing to disambiguate. Is there a reason for this? ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48129-52: If the year is included then it's usually part of the actual bill title and not done for disambiguation purposes. Do you have a real example? There are three articles with "Act of 2026" in the name and all are actual titles of the bill. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

The Comstock Act of 1873. At Congress.gov, the bill is just called "A Bill For the suppression of trade in and circulation of obscene literature and articles of immoral use", and the archives of the 42nd Congress instead call it "An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, obscene Literature and Articles of immoral Use". The term "Comstock Act" is not the bill's official name, and, since there's no other Comstock Act, I don't see the need to disambiguate. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

There's also inconsistency the other way, as the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act is officially the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969. See https://www.congress.gov/bill/91st-congress/house-bill/6543/text ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

When you have an encyclopedia made by large numbers of volunteers over 25 years, consistency is not something you can really expect. Experienced users are allowed to make articles directly in mainspace, and name them as they please; unless someone objects, the name stands. All of the names discussed here are well-formed and identify the topic clearly, and that's as much as we can reasonably expect. M kuhner (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I see. Would it be acceptable to make a request to move some of these pages? ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

You would first need to build a consensus on the talk page before requesting a move. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48129-52: Common names like Comstock Act of 1873 can also be used. Google shows it's common but I haven't evaluated whether it's more common than "Comstock Act" alone. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Need help from an Extended Confirmed editor (COI / Contentious Topics)

Hi everyone,

I am looking for advice or help from an Extended Confirmed editor regarding a new page for Ukraine: The Latest, a daily news podcast produced by The Telegraph.

I have run into a catch-22 between two Wikipedia policies: 1. **Conflict of Interest (COI):** I am affiliated with the podcast, so per COI guidelines, I must not create the page directly and should go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process or ask an independent editor. 2. **Contentious Topics (GS/RUSUKR):** When I submitted through AfC, the draft was speedily declined because my account is not yet Extended Confirmed (<500 edits / <30 days), which restricts direct drafting under the Russo-Ukrainian War topic umbrella.

The podcast itself is highly notable—it has accumulated over 16 million listens, won multiple national journalism awards, and its founding presenter (David Knowles) already has a Wikipedia article.

Here is a selection of the independent secondary coverage: Press Gazette: In-depth profile on audience size, 16m listens, and coverage strategy The Moscow Times: Coverage of show origins and editorial role The Guardian: Operational background Major Awards: Winner/shortlisted at the Media Freedom Awards, The Press Awards, and Digital Publishing Awards.

Since I am barred from drafting this myself due to ECR rules, what is the best way to get an independent, Extended Confirmed editor to review these sources and help launch the draft? Draft here if necessary: Draft:Ukraine: The Latest

Thank you! Magdalenaad98 (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Magdalenaad98 Hello. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do until you are extended-confirmed. You're not permitted to make any edits about the war on any page, including asking others to edit for you to get around the rules. You'll have to just allow an article to organically develop in the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of your podcast by independent reliable sources and chooses on their own to write about it. That's also the best indicator of notability; people attempting to force the issue and create articles about topics where they have a COI do not usually succeed, especially as new users without prior experience. Please see WP:PAIDADVICE(even if you are not paid or the podcast is not monetized). 331dot (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Magdalenaad98 Tbh, I this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and you will struggle to satisfy the criteria for a WP page. There are criteria for a WP article and a subjective view of notability isn't sufficient. The articles you link don't have significant coverage (and I didn't see anything promising from a quick Google search that would suggest you will find any) and the awards you've named aren't major enough, refer WP:42. I would recommend you create a Wikidata page for the show. You can also try to add section of say a couple of paragraphs to the article on Knowles noting this will be subject to editing (including deletion) by other editors. Mme Maigret (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Just so you know: Use of LLMs to write articles or discussion comments on English Wikipedia is not allowed, with very narrow exceptions. The guidelines are at WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMCHAT. Please be sure to use your own words only. Don't worry if it seems unpolished; that's perfectly okay. M kuhner (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Adding Airlines based in an Airport to that Airport Tag

AeroLogic (Hub only), Condor, Discover Airlines, Lufthansa, Lufthansa Cargo, Lufthansa City Airlines and Lufthansa CityLine are all based in (except for AeroLogic) FraPort (Frankfurt Airport). I'm wondering if I should add the Category:Frankfurt Airport to them. Also, I'm thinking of making a overview box for FraPort like there is for "Airports in Germany", although I'm not certain how (I'll find out though). Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

And should I also link the Railways that go through/end at Fraport to the Category? Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Standard way of honours and decorations

When I look at the honours and decorations of Emmanuel Macron and Giorgia Meloni, they look very different. What is the standard way to go about this? Creating a table, or a bullet list? Personally I like it when you can see the ribbon bar, then the title, then the date etc. However I will follow the practice of the english wikipeida. I was looking at the Manual of Style/Biography, but I couldn't see anything regarding honours and decorations, maybe I'm looking at the wrong place? Thanks in advance! Patandor (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

There is no standard as far as I know. But I disagree that Macron and Meloni's treatment look different. The articles in fact seem to take a similar approach with Macron simply having a lot more than most people and more than Meloni in particular. It is pretty common to add a section to a bio for "Awards and Honours". For most people, this is usually a paragraph or two of prose or bullet points if there are for example 3 or more awards. Macron is one of the few tables I've seen, but this seems like a pragmatic, commonsense formatting solution rather something to be taken as a guide for anything other people with such a large number of honours (amenable to standardisation). Mme Maigret (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

What if we take another example with a longer list, Sergio Mattarella, he has many honours (and in the same format as Meloni). However, since there are no standard as far as we know, are we just free to do it in the way we prefer? If I prefer to do it like on the Norwegian one, is that okay to do? I'm not saying that I'll be replacing what's current, but if a new person get it an honour, then a paragraph would be neat. However, let's say a person with 10+ awards, can I still do it that way I'd like? I don't mind writting a paragraph for one award, bullet points (if there are for example 3 or more awards) or creating a list. But I'm asking out of curiosity and making sure that I'm doing this in the right way :-) Patandor (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Patandor Yes, I think it's fine for you to do it that way. If someone doesn't like it, they'll just revise it. But since you're the one putting in the work, go for it. Mme Maigret (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Multiple sandboxes

Can I use multiple sandboxes to write articles and have another editor check them out and add them to the main page?

Hello other editors, I'm confused. I'm a bachelor's degree graduate student. I want to ask this.

Can I write multiple sendbox with references? I've heard there's a six-month limit.

And I've heard many stories about the platform being strict and people editing the main page getting banned. So, I'll write multiple pages in the sandbox, labeled Tropic, and add the link them to my user page. So, if someone is confused about a main page article, they can check out my user page, read my sandbox, and add it to the main page. Can I do this? WP:TH , WP:HISTORY and WP:RELIGION 刘宸宁 (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello. It's best to use the Article Wizard to create and submit drafts. Sandboxes are more of a testing area than a place to write a draft(though you can have multiple sandboxes).

Writing a new article is the most difficult thing to do here, it is unwise to attempt without first building a history of editing existing articles in areas that interest you, and using the new user tutorial.

The six months you speak of is the fact that drafts are marked for deletion after six months of inactivity. All that is required to avoid that is editing the draft. Drafts deleted for inactivity may be restored via WP:REFUND.

I'm not sure what you refer to by saying "people who edit the main page get banned"; I think you mean a block, not a ban which is something different. The content on the Main Page is usually determined by community processes, not a single editor. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@331dot My mistake I am talking about Block.

I already write my article papers with references and I have other books as sources, I look in Wikipedia and I think I can give better references but I'm new so other editors won't trust me so I'll write in the sandbox first and write good examples.

And I think creating several different sandboxes with different tropes will be accepted in Wikipedia. So I'll do this first step and I'll request other editors to check my sandboxes to see if they are better written than the main page. 刘宸宁 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult for others to see your sandboxes, they are not indexed by search engines. Your edits should be towards building this encyclopedia, not merely editing sandboxes that you have no intention of seeing added to the encyclopedia. And if you do want to add them to the encyclopedia, you should submit them via the article wizard. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@331dot I'm very nervous about editing. I can edit it, but I can't argue with other editors.

So, following your instructions, I'll write three or four sandboxes with different topics, then submit them to the Article Wizard.

I also understand that editors can't see the sandboxes directly But I saying this

if I go to the main page article of talk page where I link to my sandbox and request them the editor to check it by comparing with main page. 刘宸宁 (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Writing them in Draft will be a little easier than in sandbox. You can find a beginner guide in WP:My first article.

Please don't be nervous. Everyone on this site started as a beginner and made some mistakes. The plan of submitting your articles for review by others is a good one and you will get useful advice on how to make them better. M kuhner (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, don't be nervous. Mistakes are easily fixed. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok everyone , thanks for your suggestion. 刘宸宁 (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

If you are writing an article on the Wikipedia site, you should be intending to publish it here (add it to the encyclopedia). If you simply want to write text and have others able to see it, I would suggest making a blog. You should not use your user space as a web host: WP:NOTWEBHOST. Since anything you put on Wikipedia is public, even in your user space, material there could be edited by others, or deleted.

Apologies if I have misunderstood your question. M kuhner (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm actually going to write with article references, and this is my only confusion:

Can I use multiple sandbox pages with different tropics? 刘宸宁 (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that you focus on one draft instead of having more than one going at the same time. That way, you will only make mistakes on one draft instead of several at once. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for suggestion 刘宸宁 (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

刘宸宁: Just on terminology, you really only have the 1 sandbox. But to answer what I think is your question: yes, you can create your own user pages to write draft articles. The format is User:刘宸宁/Tropic. The other way to create a draft page is using Wikipedia:Drafts, which, as 331dot noted, is often preferable and includes an AfC banner. Mme Maigret (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

You may, within reason, have as many sandboxes as you wish, for drafts, note-keeping or testing edits.

We would, though, recommend you start slowly and build up experience before you get too ambitious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

wikipedia article

Hello!

I would like to ask whether I might qualify for my own Wikipedia article.

I am a Norwegian TikTok creator, and in 2024, when I was 14 years old, one of my videos went viral, reaching approximately 70 million views and 8.2 million likes.

The video also attracted attention from other TikTok creators. For example, S1mon_g, a creator with around 187,000 followers, made a video about my viral video.

I would like to know whether this level of attention could be sufficient for a Wikipedia article and what requirements I would need to meet.

I understand that Wikipedia requires reliable, independent sources, and I would appreciate guidance on how to proceed correctly.

Thank you for your time and help! ~2026-54346-74 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that it would. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:Popularity does not guarantee notability. To have an article about you here you would need to be the subject of sustained, in-depth coverage about you by reliable sources with no connection to you. Having one video go viral does not qualify you for inclusion here I'm afraid. Athanelar (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-54346-74 Wikipedia doesn't just require reliable, independent sources to verify information, it requires that a subject have significant coverage (ie be discussed in depth) in reliable, independent sources. The subjective criteria that you've noted – social media reach – just aren't the criteria for a Wikipedia article, refer WP:ANYBIO and WP:42. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

IP Block Exception to use a VPN

I have read WP:IPECPROXY but I'm still somewhat confused.

I habitually use a VPN for privacy purposes. I'm not a political dissident or anything that would make a VPN required, I just prefer it. I'm not sure if it'd be considered frivolous to ask for an exemption to the block while logged in just because I want to. But it is a bit annoying to have to turn it off to edit, and there's a policy in place to accommodate it, and I'm not using it to circumvent anything. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

It would be rather unusual to grant an exemption for such a minor annoyance or inconvenience. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

taxobox

hiii can I get some advice on what taxoboxes and species boxes are and how they differ? and also some advice on how to set them up while editing and some of the things I should include in them. YourLocalUSBport (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

One of the best ways to learn this is to look for top-quality articles on subjects that are interesting to you, and to click "Edit" - using Source Editor, not Visual Editor - to see how they've done it. When you're done looking, click Cancel; no harm is done, and you learned something useful. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:24, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

And while you can't simply copy the words of their article for your own use, you CAN simply copy the way they built their tables, boxes, or other templates, to use them yourself. Copy them into your sandbox and modify them to figure out more about how they work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:33, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

ohh, thanks! I've been mostly just using visual editor, which prob limited me a bit. thanks for the advice! YourLocalUSBport (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

If the source editor doesn't basically make you run away screaming, then in my opinion you should consider always using it. You do have to learn something, but you can get by with not learning much - and people forget to say that because the visual editor isn't perfect, there are things you have to learn for it too. (Which seems unfortunate, because I think if it doesn't offer "no surprises and nothing to learn" then it doesn't really offer much of anything.)

To me, the visual editor is a bit like driving while sitting in the back seat; you can't see very well, and some important things are hard to reach. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:59, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I like that analogy and I would agree. :) 331dot (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Balancing boldness with content removal

Hello! I have a question about removing content on Wikipedia. A lot of the articles that are recommended to me from "Suggested Edits" for tone editing seem to have material that (at least to me) seems only tangentially related to the topic at hand, if that.

I realize that editors are recommended to boldly make changes they feel benefit Wikipedia. At the same time, the pages I could find on content removal suggest editors should be cautious about removing large amounts of content, and should discuss it on the talk page first. For pages that don't get much traffic, is this really practical, or should I just go with my instinct and start deleting?

Furthermore, if I'm pretty much only removing content from Wikipedia, am I really helping it?

A good example of what I mean regarding irrelevant content can be found on the page for the Foundation of Intentional Community, though I've come across multiple other pages like it that I'm not sure what to do with.

Thanks for the insight. Astordil (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

For this specific example, I think there's nothing wrong with boldly removing it; if anyone objects, that's when the discussion can kick in. If you are feeling unsure and want to post on the talk page first, the general advice is that if no one responds in a week, you can go ahead and do your thing.

In general, people differ in philosophy when it comes to this; you might find meta:Deletionism an interesting read. I personally see nothing wrong with spending most of your time trimming down articles (as evidenced by my user page:)) so you are definitely not alone here.

LkL-70547 (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the link- it was an interesting read, I definitely agree with it for the most part- and for letting me know the etiquette on waiting for a talk page response. It's good to know other contributors also work on and value trimming things down. Astordil (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I seem to be spending all my free time lately removing content from Wikipedia (I'm part of the anti-LLM group), and I think it can be just as valuable as adding content, if the content being removed is bad.

The article you link to has serious issues. I like the edits you've made there and don't think you're overstepping. In any case, part of WP:BOLD is that occasionally someone will object and you can back off: this is normal and not a problem. I would encourage you to make edits like this when you feel they are needed.

I would avoid doing all the removals in one big edit. Medium-sized bites, with good edit summaries, avoid freaking out the anti-vandalism patrollers and also make it easier for someone objecting to limit their objections to specific passages rather than reverting the entire thing.

Thanks for your thoughtful attention to improving the encyclopedia! M kuhner (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement, and the advice regarding the best way to delete large amount of content. I certainly wouldn't want to be confused for a vandal.

Yes, I actually became motivated to start contributing to Wikipedia because of my thoughts on LLMs. In the world we live in, we need good, accurate information that has been curated and revised by humans more than ever.

I'll keep what you said in mind, especially regarding edit summaries. I've seen enough badly written changelogs to know the importance of documentation. Astordil (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, if I'm pretty much only removing content from Wikipedia, am I really helping it?

If the content you're removing truly is bad content or content that doesn't belong here, then absolutely yes you are helping Wikipedia by doing that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:31, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

(Skill and judgement needed of course, to remove only the parts where most people would agree they're bad or don't belong. People have gotten into serious trouble when they sincerely meant to help but removed a lot of stuff that the majority thought should be kept.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:55, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

From looking at their edits so far, I am pretty confident in Astordil's judgment. In any case, serious trouble usually comes from doing mass quantities of removal, or touching articles you aren't allowed to edit, or refusing to stop when asked: not careful hand edits of a single article. The worst that will generally happen with that is that someone reverts your changes, and then you go to the Talk page and discuss.

If you blank a whole section, this raises red flags and a clear edit summary is a must. With the edit summary, it's generally fine (speaking as someone who does this daily).

(I used mass rollback for the first time last week, which really can get you in trouble. Deleted about 500 edits. Went to bed very nervous, woke up to...two thank-you notes.) M kuhner (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up to Question about AfC review waiting time

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1306#Question about AfC review waiting time

Thank you, that is helpful. I just want to make sure I understand correctly before removing references. Earlier feedback on the draft was that there were too few strong sources demonstrating notability, so I have spent quite a bit of time finding additional material. Since Lodwick spent most of his professional career in Norway, many of the relevant sources are naturally in Norwegian. Am I correct in understanding that the issue is not the number of references itself, but that I should distinguish more clearly between sources that merely verify individual facts and the independent secondary sources that actually help establish notability?

For example, would it be better to keep a smaller number of substantial newspaper articles/reviews and remove references such as employer listings, production listings and similar sources where they are not needed to support a specific factual statement?

I would really appreciate any guidance on what you would consider the strongest sources in the draft, as I want to make it as straightforward as possible for an AfC reviewer to assess.

I am especially interested in understanding whether the Norwegian-language independent newspaper coverage is sufficient for assessing notability, provided that the sources contain significant coverage of Lodwick. Thanks again for taking the time to look at it.

BR, May MaySundAnd (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

"The whole story of Lodwick in one single source, with no help from him" - that is the best. Three of those, each one of them being complete by itself, is almost certain to be enough. When that isn't possible, get as close to it as you can, and hope. If you can't even begin to get close to that, it may be necessary to reconsider the idea of writing an article.

If all the good sources are in Norwegian, that's OK - as long as they fit the description in my first sentence. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:08, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MaySundAnd, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not going to address your particular sources, but give my general view.

In my view, the purpose of a citation is to provide verification for a claim in the text: nothing else.

So any sources which do not do that, or which verify exactly the same fact(s) should be removed - keeping the strongest, of course.

The majority of the sources should meet all the criteria in golden rule. Sources that meet only some of them can sometimes be used to verify uncontroversial factual information (see primary); but if a piece of information in an article is supported only by primary sources, the question may arise as to whether it actually encyclopaedic. Some kinds of information are clearly worth including from primary sources - places and dates of significant events, for example; but if nobody has thought an incident worth commenting on, perhaps it doesn't belong in the article. ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for tihs! Honestly, its really reassuring to hear especially knowing that even people who have been doing this for years don't know or memorize every single rule or guideline!😂

I think I'm just gunna stick to making small edits and maybe some mediums for now and gradually build myself up to doing more.. I think once I get a bit more familiar with the interface and how everything works, my confidence will naturally grow, It feels like a completely different world when you're on the editing side of things.. I just pray everyone is as nice to me as people have been on here so far, because I've seen videos on the wiki edit wars and DAMN, that is far too much drama for me.. but anyway thank you so much for taking the time to explain all of that I really appreciate it so much!!!

I think I'm gunna have a go at putting together a proper user page too.. baby steps for me! Hopefully in a few months, I'll look back at this and laugh at how terrified I was to click the edit button 😂 Pineapples4char (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

SORRY FORGOT TO SIGN IT OFF Pineapples4char (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Akpan Daniels

I am requesting help with an independent editor for a biography since I am the subject in the article. I am happy to share all supporting references and information necessary.

thank you Letsgopublic (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You may be approached by scammers, please read the scam warning.

You're not likely to find someone to write about you here. You could post at requested articles, but that area is so backlogged that it's useless. You could use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft, but almost everyone who attempts to write about themselves fails at it. Please see the autobiography policy.

My advice is that you go on about your life as if you had never heard of Wikipedia and allow an article about you to develop in the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of you in independent reliable sources and chooses on their own to write about it, summarizing what that coverage is. The coverage should be significant, meaning critical analysis and commentary about the topic, not just documentation of its activities and qualifications. Trying to force this issue and do it yourself(directly or indirectly) is not likely to work.

A Wikipedia article is also not necessarily something to desire. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a safe space for newbies right?

Okay so I know I'm gunna sound like a complete newbie here 😭 I’ve actually been using this for YEARS, but I’ve never properly joined or contributed to anything (although I did donate £2, so I feel like I’ve done my tiny bit for the cause 😅) The thing is, I genuinely really want to help and get involved properly, but OH MY GOSH, its all so overwhelming?! There’s so much information, so many rules, so many different things you can do, and I genuinely have no idea where to even begin with this.. So far, I’ve just been making little easy edits that come up on my profile, mostly adding links and things like that, which is fine, but I want to do MORE. I just feel like I’m standing in a room full of buttons with absolutely no idea what any of them do, and I’m terrified of pressing the wrong one and accidentally breaking something.. I promise I’m not completely useless with technology, but this is a whole different world and I feel like I need someone to hold my hand and explain it to me like I’m five because it's 11pm on a Friday night and I'm flustered.. s Pineapples4char (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

apparently I really am that useless because I pressed at topic without finishing my questions but basically my question is where do I start? What should I actually be doing? What’s safe for a beginner to get stuck into? And how do I go from adding the odd link here and there to actually being useful? I really do want to contribute, I’m just slightly terrified of touching anything at the moment. 😂😭 Pineapples4char (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pineapples4char: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1308. You should have access to your homepage, where you can ask to be assigned to a mentor as well as receive suggested edits. There is also the task centre, which offers different ways you can contribute to the encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:26, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you I was having a look around last night and It was all so helpful! Pineapples4char (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

As well as what @Tenryuu says, please don't ever worry about making a mistake. Everything can be fixed and reverted on Wikipedia. We expect new editors to mess up sometimes :) qcne (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry; it is nearly impossible for you to make a mistake that can't be reverted in more than 30 seconds. As long as you are acting in good faith, you are fine. My advice is that you should do what you find fun. When I started editing, I started with newcomer tasks. Then, I got really into writing articles. After that, I got into answering questions like your's here at the Teahouse. The reason I kept coming back every day for the past 2 years was that I loved editing Wikipedia. You don't have to stick to one type of edit or subject to edit; just do what you find fun. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Thats also really reassuring thank you! It was all getting to me because everytime I'd come on here to read an article I'd see a quote saying 'needs more citations', 'written like an essay' and I sat there like you know what, I could probably fix these in an hour what's stopping me haha Pineapples4char (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Glad to see someone being thoughtful about such matters. Editing without going wrong was easier twenty years ago when most articles were so bad, it was difficult to make them any worse. Since then, we have gradually made most of the bigger aricles mediocre, and some are even kind of good. Meanwhile we have accumulated thousands of guidelines, standards, customs, and conventions. So many that nobody understands as much as one tenth of them, and so nobody expects that they will always be followed.

Just do your best, check your watchlist every time you log in, and don't freak out when somebody erases your hard work. Study the edit record for explanations of particular changes, and make sure each of your own edits is clearly explained. And yes, that's one of the rules or guidelines that are often disobeyed.

Try to think like, "I still think my version was better but the other editor's version is not really rotten, and the difference is not worth spending an hour or three in a dispute." Of course, sometimes the difference really is worth an hour or three, in which case, discuss it calmly in the Article Talk Page. Some of our editors are real jerks but Shhh! Don't let them know you know about it.

Write a User Page to help others understand who you are and what you are about. Participate in User Talk Pages, getting and seeking advice from those whose work you have come to respect. It ain't entirely easy for anybody, but if we don't push each other too hard we can usually work harmoniously. Oh, and if there are meetups of editors nearby, go there. Here in New York we have at least one meetup per month with chairs lined up and sometimes we even follow proper rules of order. In other places they gather around one table in a restaurant or library. Whatever; actually meeting the people behind the goofy names can be pleasant and informative. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

This is so classic, @Jim.henderson!😂 I think you should develop it into an essay for Wikipedia posterity. Augnablik (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pineapples4char, this emoji 😳 is probably the way 99.9% of us felt after discovering all the “thou shalt nots” after coming all the way on board with Wikipedia.

Even … and please keep this in mind when you find yourself in your first editorial challenge … if the other fellow seems 10’ tall and brandishing a bludgeon. Augnablik (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

If someone comes at me with a bludgeon over an edit, I'm logging out and going back to being a reader 😭😂 Pineapples4char (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Figuratively speaking, of course. But here is a magic spell that you might want to use if you face such a skirmish over the next six months or so: “Please don’t bite the newbies!” Augnablik (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll definitely be keeping that magic spell handy just in case!! I've actually just made my first proper edit to an article about a band I absolutely adore because it desperately needed updating, and genuinely I don't think Id have had the confidence to do it without all these lovely reassuring messages here.. so THANK YOU AGAIN!! 🥹❤️ You've all made this feel so much less terrifying Pineapples4char (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Gtswcy drg5 f4iy thought. U

jyjiyrtvhut uueeue6e juyge juyge jhb

~2026-54446-20 (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Jackson 5 discography - problem adding missing listing

I noticed the Jackson 5 discography for singles was missing the 1971 hit "Got To Be There" that reached #4 in the US pop and R&B charts (I don't know about other countries). I tried using the simple editor to add the listing. However, it shows the title in bold (center aligned). How to fix? Thanks in advance!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Jackson_5_discography&wvprov=sticky-header#Singles Packzap (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, I just double checked the liner notes for the Jackson 5 Ultimate Collection CD I have, and it shows the 1971 single "Got To Be There" attributed to Michael Jackson (solo) rather than the Jackson 5. So, that's why it wasn't listed. Can a cross reference be shown? Or, shoudl I just delete my addition? Packzap (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Packzap If you can show with some kind of decent reference that it was literally billed as Jackson 5 during the 70s around the time it came out, then I think it should be added, maybe with an asterisk explaining the difference. If it was treated in the 70s as a Michael Jackson song, then maybe it's less important to put in? But your question is obviously not crazy, and if your addition has a reference and has its facts straight, I wouldn't argue with it. If some Jacksons experts think it's wrong, let them remove it - but you're more likely to find those experts on the talk pages of the articles you're referring to, not here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:55, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Weaponization of islamophobia

Hello,

There is a page related to the 'weaponization of antisemitism'. Will there also be a page dedicated to the weaponization of islamophobia?

Regards,

Abraham ~2026-54138-95 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

If it is the topic of major reliable mainstream coverage, yes. If it is the topic of unreliable coverage, or if it's not getting major treatment but more minor mentions, then no. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:51, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

The existence of one page does not greenlight the creation of other similar pages, nor does the removal of a page hinge upon whether similar pages exist. This is what Wikipedians refer to an "Other Stuff Exists" argument. The basic question is whether there are sufficent sources present in multiple, published sources with reliably accurate content dealing with a topic; and, secondarily, whether someone is motivated enough to create such a page. Islamophobia is not a bad piece. Whether there is daylight for a parallel piece on Weaponization of Islamophobia without it being duplicative (a so-called "content fork") is ultimately a matter for subject experts to decide. Don't mistake the lack of a specific piece for any lack of concern by Wikipedians. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Terry Ananny and newspapers

Hello, I am Dare2Leap.

For context: Terry Ananny (listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ananny) is an artist who tried to include her own article in Wikipedia, got AfD-ed and blocked, then sprung up sockpuppets to try to reinstate her article. She tried to include some sources, like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_147#Terry Ananny draft here, but most of them were art gallery websites or primary sources (except Magazin'Art).

While searching for sources, I created a free account in newspapers.com and found newspapers that mention her in https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?keyword=terry+ananny. From the previews that were available with a free account, potential newspapers that significantly mention her are Calgary Herald (February 18, 2003 page 38), the South Vancouver Island Media Guide (December 22, 2006 page C1), and the Ottawa Citizen (December 5, 2009 page 43). Without a free account, previews are blurred.

However, I can't see full newspapers because it's paywalled. Does anyone here want to try and verify that these are significant?

Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 07:04, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Since you're extended-confirmed, you should have full access to newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library. See WP:NEWSPAPERS. Athanelar (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

What is your connection to Ananny? What led you to search for sources about her? Theroadislong (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

While it's not impossible for an article to be created under such circumstances, it would need a remarkable increase in the coverage of her, over what was reviewed previously, not merely "mentions" in newspapers. It would have to be subject to intense scrutiny. We should also let User:Freshacconci about it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dare2Leap "Significant" means the reporter tells the full story of her whole career, so that what they wrote is good enough and long enough to actually be your Wikipedia article all by itself - or at least pretty close. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:52, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Person of the same name

I need to reference a less person (but known) on a more famous person of the same names page. Where should I put this? They do not have a current Wiki, but quite an established YouTube channel. ~2026-54439-46 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry. For added context they are the same age and birthday-so potentially more confusing ~2026-54439-46 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello. If what you are saying is you want to mention that a person of the same name and same birthday as another, on the article about that person, you would need an independent reliable source that discusses such a coincidence. You could not just cite your own personal knowledge or the mere existence of this other person. [[User:331dot|] (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

The person is a known poker player in the UK and has a followed and known YouTube channel ~2026-54439-46 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

One example where that occurs is Peyton List (actress, born 1986) and Peyton List (actress, born 1998). 331dot (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

But what if they are known but not Wiki known? But also same name and birthday so, hence confusion. For context, this has happened in casual conversation ~2026-54439-46 (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

If the lesser known of the two does not have a Wikipedia article then, unless there are reliable sources that discuss the issue, just don't mention them at all. Meters (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

"She has sometimes been confused with a British poker player who shares her name and birthday." With an extended footnote (Template:Efn) that provides evidence for such a confusion. If the poker player ever gets an article here, careful adjustment of titles can avoid problems. (In addition to 331dot's pair of examples, there are Tommy Godwin (cyclist, born 1912) and Tommy Godwin (cyclist, born 1920). If that pair also had the same birthdate, their articles could be retitled, perhaps to "Tommy Godwin (endurance cyclist)" and "Tommy Godwin (track cyclist)".) However, if the confusion isn't attested other than "in casual conversation", then ignore it. (My own casual conversation is replete with misunderstandings, and perhaps yours is too.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:41, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

There is an essay that is somewhat related to this matter that is worth reading. As well as being relevant, it is also amusing. It is Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the following two replies are in the wrong section, and belong in the next section below. --ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Confused? Why would I not know the sources about me? You know, like: who I am?

It IS a "good thing" to cite etc post sources for things that get said? Did I post some source somewhere by mistake? I don't think I've posted any source on this issue because of the Conflict Of Interest. Marty Watt (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, yea. Sorry my mistake. Marty Watt (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Setting up my Talk page

I noticed that there are users who have interesting talk pages. Are there any particular rules about what can go in and what cannot? BoldedExclamation (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Your talk page is for communication with other editors. See WP:OWNTALK. Meters (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you actually meant your user pages in general, rather than your user talk page specifically. If that's the case, see WP:UPYES. Meters (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I did mean my user page. Thank you for the help :) BoldedExclamation (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome. Meters (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:User page design guide which has all sorts of resources and guides for adding bells & whistles. PeterCooperJr (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you! BoldedExclamation (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I have a small Greek phrase I'd like to get translated, is there a way to request help from any Greek speakers?

Feel like there's a way, I just don't know how to do it LincolnMagnus (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I think you might be looking for the Wikipedia:Local Embassy, which has a list of people willing to help with various languages. PeterCooperJr (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@LincolnMagnus: You may also find help at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. DuncanHill (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Multiple move requests because of a common reason

Hello, I opened move requests seperately today as many users didn't feel right to raise large number of requests in a single RM, TRAINWRECK was often mentioned, context - Talk:Naari (film)#c-Pppery-20260930000400-Requested move 30 September 2026

But it's also tedious for users to actually go to every article to give their comments, so, generally, how are these requests supposed to be handled? Iamcarbonmatter ♥ xoxo ✦ 18:49, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

The answer to your question is literally written near the top of the now-closed discussion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:40, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha Iamcarbonmatter ♥ xoxo ✦ 19:44, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Creation of article

How much experience does someone need on Wikipedia to create an article? I'm planning to make an article about layer cakes (on french Wikipedia) and I'd also appreciate help looking for references. Thank you in advance! -)Anypup(- (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

The requirements and standards for articles are entirely independent to each language edition of Wikipedia, so you'd be best off asking on the French Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! But should I delete my question? -)Anypup(- (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

This page gets archived often enough, so we don't delete for the kind of reason you're thinking of. Thanks for being considerate though. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:12, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, queries and answers here can be instructive to the very many other people who read them beyond the original querist. Over the years, much of what I have learned about Wikipedia has come from reading Qs and As here and on the Help desk, often matters that I would never have thought to ask or look up myself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@-)Anypup(- To answer your question, one approach is to look at our article layer cake and work as mentioned at WP:TRANSLATEUS. You may get other ideas from using the template {{Find sources}}, which in this case would give Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I translated the layer cake article into french here :) -)Anypup(- (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Tables and accessibility

Hi all! Does Wikipedia follow (or strive to follow) WCAG guidelines?

WCAG 2.0 AA guidelines suggest avoiding merged cells in tables, however they are all over the place. Just curious if we are 1) aiming to follow said guidelines, or 2) using the correct markup to make these tables accessible. With a mission of accessible information for all, it seems like that would align with Wikipedia values. Ads Augs (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ads Augs: You can ask this question here for better clarification. Jô^hola 21:51, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Where do I find a Wikipedia article that acually needs revision?

Where do I find a Wikipedia article that acually needs revision? SilkyDePistachio (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Try Category:Articles needing attention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:51, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Another option is to join a WikiProject on your area of interest, if there is an active one; they may have lists of articles they'd like to see worked on. You can search for WikiProjects at WP:WikiProjects. Not all are active, but active ones can be quite helpful for this. M kuhner (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Any article with tags like 'citation needed', 'clarification needed', 'needs update', etc. Technically, every article needs to be revised at some point because Wikipedia is a work in progress JuniperChill (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Somebody please talk to them

Just saw this, and I just can't cope. If somebody uninvolved could please explain MOS:NOPIPE to them, because my effort was clearly wasted. Paradoctor (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: I don't think they even read the messages on their talk page or check notifications. So how would another editor explain to them? You may just have to fix the edits yourself. Jô^hola 21:44, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I tried. The diff above was them reverting me for my pains. Surely you're not suggesting I start an edit war? Paradoctor (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: Oh, I didn't notice since they manually reverted your edits.

I have undone their last edit with a note. Hopefully they read the edit summary and act on it since it's an article they are working on. Otherwise, you may have to report them. Jô^hola 22:30, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. (sipping tea). Paradoctor (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Recovery of new account

Hello, I just found my former and first Wikipedia account ClementJoseph04 (talk · contribs). I had earlier forgotten the login details which made me create a new one, my current account. Is there any way the both can be merged or perhaps a way to note that the both accounts are related. Thank you. Jô^hola 19:59, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

You can just write on your user page "My past account is ClementJoseph04 (talk · contribs)" or something similar. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:18, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@JohnLaurens333: Sorry for asking again.

Please can you fix my userpage in such a way that the "userboxes" and "infobox description about myself" will stay out of the main box containing the flag and move to the left and right respectively? Thanks. Jô^hola 21:30, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not great at the technical parts of user page (I usually just slap some code on and hope for the best), but the user page design guide could be of use to you. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 00:15, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Proper application of WP:SYNTH and WP:N for common phrases?

Hello all - I've recently been participating in an AfD discussion on a rhetorical catch-phrase that is commonly used to represent a logical fallacy, Think of the children. Another Wikipedia editor, @Zxcvbnm has noted that one of the rules that this article is violating is WP:SYNTH, which is reasonable, since quite a bit of the article is using many different sources to represent how the phrase has been used over time. I found a few other phrases that are listed in the Template:Fallacies box, including Agree to disagree, I'm entitled to my opinion, and Catch-22 (logic), and the editor indicated that perhaps these also fail WP:SYNTH.

I have read through WP:SYNTHNOT and WP:GNG a few times, but most of the advice provided there are focused on nouns - people, places, things. However, I'm unclear about how these wikipedia policies apply to more abstract concepts like popular phrases. I can understand that some measure of notability is required to prevent wikipedia from becoming like a phrase book, but I'm having a harder time drawing the line using WP:SYNTH as a principle. In my mind, having several cited usages of the phrase in high-quality sources would be sufficient to show notability? I definitely think that there should be some distinction, so that Category:English phrases is different from the Wikitionary page of the same name .

I know that WP:SYNTH is intended to be part of WP:NOR, and I think that the feedback I'm seeing in the AfD is that for an article to be valid, there should be high quality secondary sources that discuss the phrase, not just using it in passing. I believe that there do exist some articles that are focused specifically on the notability of that phrase, but it's also confusing to me if this article should solely be focused on the phrase itself and how it's used, or if it can also be an indication for a larger article on how children are used in political rhetoric, which is commonly how theorists/legal experts/political commentators use this phrase.

Would anyone be able to point me to any more specific wikipedia articles on applying notability/synthesis to more abstract concepts like this? Or provide a few examples of past AfDs that are able to illuminate this better? Many thanks in advance.

ChunyangD (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

To have an article "Think of the children", there would need to be multiple entire source articles devoted completely to studying and discussing that phrase. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:49, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Based on Not in Front of the Children there is at least one book on the concept. It seems like maybe a bit of a stretch but not a lost cause. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Does "Not in Front of the Children" discuss the CONCEPT of child safety or the literal phrase "think of the children"? Because there seems to be a huge amount of conflation going on between one and the other. Having a title that simply contains the phrase or a variant of it is insufficient per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:20, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I have not read the book and I don't have a well formed opinion on whether or not an article is warranted. I was only trying to point out that there is some scholarly material on the concept and therefore there's at least a chance that the phrase itself has some significant discussion. There's also a good chance that there isn't and the AfD discussion will conclude that the article should be removed. It looks like the proposal already has a spirited discussion, so I trust we'll end up with a well researched consensus. Packrat3860 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Ooo, I have institutional access to the e-book version here!

I can confirm that the literal phrase "think of the children" does not appear in this book. The closest it gets is in the title itself, where it is "Not in front of the children". It appears that the author instead uses the phrase "harm-to-minors rhetoric", as in this example (p256):

Worries about media violence are thus, like worries about sex and vulgarity, largely symbolic. This is by no means a reason to belittle them. But we should at least be clear about what is really going on with harms-to-minors rhetoric. As historian Rochelle Gurstein observes, the notion of quantifying aesthetic experience "in a meaningful way is remarkable for both its philistinism and naivete"; simplistic theories of causation should not be a crutch on which to lean what are essentially moral arguments.

I think in this case, this particular book is not focused on the phrase, but is focused on how children are used in political rhetoric related to censorship. I believe that this is often how the phrase "think of the children" is brought up, but ZXCVBNM makes a good point on WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Quoting from that section:

In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics is grouped, seen or renamed. In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such

Should we therefore consider this book to be about the 'children as political rhetoric' topic, for which the phrase 'think of the children' is often used as a cliche to identify when others are using this appeal to emotion?

ChunyangD (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

"Not in front of the children" and "Think of the children" are quite separate. They're related but not the same meaning. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:39, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I think that the challenge is that this phrase is so very commonly used, mostly by people who are criticizing those who are using children as tools of rhetoric for Moral panic, that it's actually hard to find specific articles only studying that single phrase. Instead, most of what I find treat the phrase as a common cliche that everyone has already heard of. Those who are using the actual rhetorical device often do not actually utter that phrase, because it is over-dramatic and satirical. It's primarily those who are pointing out that their political opponent is stooping to an appeal to emotion who end up using this phrase.

I did find this article, which relates "pearl-clutching" with "think of the children": []

It is mentioned in one paragraph in this CBC article: []

As well as this thesis [], which starts its introduction with:

"Think of the children!" has become a common rhetorical argument against any issue that poses a potential threat to our youth. Protecting children is an often non-partisan and largely unifying issue that draws support from all communities. After all, who is opposed to the protection of children?

Even in the Meany and Shuster book, "Art, argument, and advocacy", the phrase "think of the children" only comes up in one paragraph, which I quote from p65:

Appeal to emotions. This fallacy is what it sounds like. Speakers routinely try to play on the emotions of the crowd in lieu of making real arguments. "I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but won't someone please think of the children?"

However, sincethe phrase/cliche/meme is very recent and has a very specific origin (Helen Lovejoy saying it in a 1996 Simpsons episode, to begin with), there are not as many high quality secondary sources written about the history of the phrase, because ... there is just not that much history to uncover there.

ChunyangD (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

This might be a naming problem. Rather than focusing on the popular saying or cliché, what is the concept behind it that a sociologist might use? Might this not be something that could be discussed under the rubric of self-censorship, for example? Not every slogan or saying should have its own page. A subsection of an existing applicable broader topic may well be the way to go. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Interesting idea! I personally found the Wikipedia article (and the associated AfD discussion) because I was literally googling "think of the children" as a logical fallacy - I know that it is a subset of an appeal to emotion, and that it's most often used in current internet censorship political debates, so that's what got me into it. As far as I can tell, it does seem like there are several legal articles, academic books, journal articles, as well as op-eds and other secondary sources that analyze the concept of using children as political rhetoric. Some of these articles directly address the phrase itself, which appears to be popularized by a Simpsons character, but at this point, it seems to me that it's often used by commentators to identify when "children" are being used as a political fig leaf.

I do agree with other editors that WP:SYNTH should likely mean that edits should be made to cut down on some of the bulk of the current article. There are several citations and references, where the phrase is only used in passing, as a title or as a footnote. However, it does appear to me that there are also sources that are currently used that actually go into this specific saying, how it has been used over the last thirty years, and its political/legal impact.

In the AfD, there has been discussion that perhaps a page titled "Children in political rhetoric" might be a reasonable name for a Wikipedia article, and that does seem reasonable to me. However, I'm still not sure about what the Wikipedia guidelines are for determining if a popular saying or cliche is notable or not. It seems to me that this particular article is as well-sourced (and was even a Good Article in the past) as any of the other articles in Category:English phrases, so I would love to better understand what kind of guideline I should have in mind to determine notability here.

Thank you so much for the guidance! Really appreciate it.

ChunyangD (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Promotion of Article from Start Class

I was archiving sources for this article and upon reading it and checking the talk page, noticed the article was still at start class. Looking upon the quality and content of the article and cross-checking with Wikiproject Figure Skating and the general content assessment guidelines, I felt the article could be promoted to at least C-class. How would I go about this process? Would I need to submit an appeal to the Wikiproject, or would I just be able to change the class in the source code of the article’s talk page?

Cheers. 붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 19:38, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

You can just boldly edit the talk page template(s).

You could also use Rater, tool which both recommends article grades and can apply them for you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 19:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. 붉은혜성라이카/BlazingCometLaika 01:24, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Adam Hagara

I've changed it. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Im back again.. sorry! Am I being too careful or is this normal?

Yeah its me again, I'm sorry. SO I think I'm finally starting to get the hang of this, but I have another question, and this is going to sound mildly ridiculous and maybe a little paranoid but I've picked an article to work on and I've been going through it carefully, checking things, verifying the right words in the sources and generally trying to make sure I'm doing everything properly, like I have about 20 tabs open right now. The problem is, I've literally been at it for nearly 4 hours.. and I've only managed to get through 2 sections. 😭 Is that normal?! Am I being ridiculously careful? I genuinely thought I was making good progress until I realised 4 hours had disappeared.. I'm also wondering whether I'm going about the editing process correctly, like I've been making changes, publishing them, then going back in to work on another bit and publishing again doing summaries each time. Is that generally the best way to do it? or should I be making all my changes then publishing once?

I know these probably sound like silly questions but hey I dont wanna cause absolute chaos on here! Anyway apologies for rambling, I seem to have developed a habit of writing essays every time I write a bloody question on here 😂 Thanks again for all the help and patience! Gotta love a bit of tea 😉❤️ Pineapples4char (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Publishing in very large chunks is inconvenient and usually not a good idea. I suggest publishing in such a way that if someone sees that one of your edits was in error, they can revert that one without ruining the rest of your work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:25, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

(But if the same word is spelled wrong 20 times, do correct all 20 at once, because the other way would then just waste time. I'm sure you see what I mean.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:34, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense! Thats actually what I thought initially, so I've been doing it pretty much paragraph by paragraph.. I just wasnt sure if constantly publishing little edits would get annoying for everyone, thanks so much! Pineapples4char (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

For the rest of what you said, I think all of that is "person getting used to a new thing" and just let it happen. You sound fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:02, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Pineapples4char, I can totally understand what you are going through....as a new editor myself, I had the same questions....but I guess its normal to spend hours and hours working on an article trying to perfect it. I found it also quite addictive, so be careful :) I try to edit section by section, but then sometimes it may happen that I need to fix small mistakes...and that is ok. Have fun editing ! JoyWeaver (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

YES!! Thats exactly what I've been going through! Once you get the hang of it, its SO addictive on here, I kept thinking 'just one more thing' and suddenly four hours had dissappeared!! Glad its not just me 😂 Pineapples4char (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Expanded too far?

Hi, as a new editor, there is concern of mine if me expanding a article too much is a issue, especially if the article has low amounts of visits or editors checking it. I have expanded the article Beatrice of Portugal, Countess of Alburquerque significantly on it's sources and content, but there has been no engagement on the article's talk page to my message on these changes or any questions on the prior content of the article that I am asking on where the information came from since it had no citations.

If anything I did during editing is agaisnt guidelines or norms could someone let me know? Is there any ways the article could have more involvement by editors on it's content or sources? I will answer any question asking for clarification. PalimpsestEditor (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, PalimpsestEditor. I think that it is fair to say that this person who lived almost 700 years ago and didn't seem to have accomplished very much is a pretty obscure topic. I am struck by the reality that several basic biographical facts are disputed. Also, various sums of money are discussed with no way for readers to determine if they are modest sums or vast fortunes. It seems very likely that you are the Wikipedia editor who knows the most about her and is the most interested in her. So, changes to the article are a matter of good editorial judgment. What makes this person notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article rather than a brief mention in the article about her father? Convey that through your prose. That's more important in my view than the length of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Thanks for the advice, will try to make the article more acessible to modern readers which includes clarifying on what the amounts of money mean, removing information that is not needed and making the disputed information more clear. Will not make her seem more important than what evidence or sources allows.

My concern for this expansion also includes however that much of the uncited information on her basic biographical information (such as date of birth and death), is repeated multiple times when refering to her outside the article in other articles. Because of this I am not sure if I can just change information on many other english articles just because my sources say different information on disputed information. PalimpsestEditor (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm only making Cullen328's point again differently: If you have done anything wrong, the fault could only be "making a person seem more important to history than they really were". And I also agree with him that you are a better judge of this than I am. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Help with fixing a Redirecting page

I’m interested in creating a article for certain page which is redirecting to another page, how can I stop the redirection and create a article for the page. I'm ready to write a article for this subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Raigama&redirect=no Wijaya Kumara (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest given you're a very inexperienced editor that the best approach would be to draft the article at Draft:Kingdom of Raigama and submit the draft for review via AfC when you believe it's ready rather tham going right ahead to writing the article in mainspace. Athanelar (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello Athenalar, I have finish writing the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kingdom_of_Raigama and published it. Did I do something wrong? What should I do. Thank you Wijaya Kumara (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wijaya Kumara Nice, I've added a template to the top of the draft which will allow you to submit it for review when you're ready; just hit the "submit" button on the template. Athanelar (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Wijaya Kumara, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I agree with Athanelar. I notice that the existing redirect, before it was redirected, had only one source cited, which is never enough to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

My advice is the same. You should write the draft article in draft. When the page is accepted, the AfC reviewer can deal with the redirection issue. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all Wijaya Kumara (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Darlings Beauty Lab: are these sources sufficient for an article?

Hello. I am an owner of Darlings Beauty Lab, a nail salon in New York City. I have disclosed my connection on my user page. Before creating a draft, I would like to ask whether these sources provide enough independent coverage for an article about the salon.

Vogue: https://www.vogue.com/article/japanese-manicures

British Vogue: https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/what-is-a-japanese-manuicure

The Times of India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/beauty/the-princess-of-wales-skips-polish-at-wimbledon-for-a-japanese-manicure/articleshow/132462284.cms

Jamie Rosen / Beauty Notes: https://officeofthesurface.substack.com/p/vol-86-bushy-brows-buff-nails-body

The Vogue articles quote a co-founder about Japanese manicures. Jamie Rosen describes her own visit to the salon.

Would these sources meet the notability requirements for a company, or is more detailed independent coverage needed?

I used ChatGPT to help prepare this question in English. Thank you. Darlingsnyc (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Darlingsnyc: IMO, your proposed draft/article is not notable (it is not covered by independent, neutral sources). Currently, it has only one primary source as reference as far as I can find. Please read WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.

Edit: The sources you listed above do not qualify as independent, reliable sources about the (your) organization. They describe something else entirely. Jô^hola 21:36, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

You cannot use ChatGPT to help you with anything on Wikipedia, not even for asking a question. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:46, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Darlingsnyc, and welcome to the Teahouse.

To be honest, your attempt to create this article is very very unlikely to succeed, and the chances are you will be wasting your time trying.

First, creating a new Wikipedia article is extremely challenging for inexperienced editors. 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.

Secondly, most companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability: unless you begin with a cast-iron set of sources where people wholly unconnected with your company, and with no involvement in any way of people or organisations connected with your company, have chosen off their own bat to write at some depth about your company, then you are certainly wasting your time. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:golden rule.

Thirdly, when somebody tries to write an article about themselves or their company, they are almost always doing it for the purpose of promotion (which has a wider meaning in Wikipedia than in general use) and that is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia. Please see WP:BOSS.

My advice to you is to forget that Wikipedia exists, and continue to promote your company in places that permit this. ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Translation help needed

So I translated an article to English. However it saved as a draft. How long will it take to be posted as an official translation? The translation is here User:Yeahhellyeah/Administrative division of Khabarovsk. Thank you. Yeahhellyeah (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Submit it for review with {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft's page. (Standards and practices between Wikipediae vary, and the English Wikipedia is one of the strictest.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 05:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Yeahhellyeah (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Yeahhellyeah, and welcome to the Teahouse.

An "official translation" isn't a thing in Wikipedia. Different Wikipedias often have articles on the same subject, and those articles can start off as translations (though they often diverge after that), or they can be created independently of each other.

The two requirements are that if you copy or translate from another Wikipedia, you attribute the source (which you have done in your edit summary: thank you), and that the article you submit meets the requirements of the destination Wikipedia. As Jeske said English Wikipedia is often the strictest, so it is quite often the case that a translation of an article from another Wikipedia is not acceptable as it stands, and it needs considerable work. Please see WP:Translation, and WP:GNG ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Mike Daley

Is my draft ready to resubmit? (Draft:Mike Daley (producer))

Hi, I'm Mike Daley, a songwriter and producer, and I've disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page and the draft's talk page. My draft Draft:Mike Daley (producer) was declined four times in 2025. I've since rewritten it: I removed the interviews and promotional content, and every claim now has a source.

I'm a credited writer on four songs that have their own Wikipedia articles: "All the Way Home" (Tamar Braxton, Hot 100, RIAA Platinum), "Mr.Mr." (Girls' Generation), "Boss" (NCT U) and "Candy" (Baekhyun). Independent coverage includes a GRAMMY.com article discussing my work on two NCT 127 songs, and a Hankook Ilbo review that names me on "Candy."

Does this meet WP:COMPOSER, or do I need more coverage before I resubmit? Thanks for any feedback. 7210Mike (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

(I gave a mistaken response, and self-reverted after realizing my mistake.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:15, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: get an acquaintance whose frankness you trust to first read WP:Composer, then your Draft, and say whether they think your Draft meets the criteria.

Also: remember that Drafts can be declined even if the subjects meet all the Notability criteria, because of deficiencies in structure, referencing and so on. "Declined" just means "needs more work". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @7210Mike, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Do any of your sources have in-depth critical commentary about you, specifically? On a quick look, it doesn't appear that way. If not, then those sources will not do.

Unfortunately, producers are one of the classes of people who tend to be in the background, and do not often get written about, and so rarely meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Krishnan Vasant Draft Talk

Sir why you delete my article? Prasadpaturi (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello Prasadpaturi, Draft:Krishnan Vasant was not deleted, you moved it to mainspace, and it was returned to being a draft as per the review statement "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines" . Arjayay (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

he has done 16 films sir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavemic_U._Ary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._Vasanth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Kartik_Kannan how many more films he need to make sir? Prasadpaturi (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Prasadpaturi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It doesn't make any difference how many films he has made.

Notability is not about what a subject is, or has done: it is about whether enough independent writing about them has been reliably published to base an article on. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

coffee houses

I hate tea! ~2026-44142-71 (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, anonymous editor, and welcome! The Teahouse is just a name picked to indicate the atmosphere this page is intended to convey; it's a somewhat more casual place to ask Wikipedia editing questions than some other noticeboards on Wikipedia. You could just as easily consume coffee while you ask questions at the Teahouse or variations of that nature – the particular drink matters less than the editing help. Do you have any questions about editing Wikipedia we can help with? Best, Perfect4th (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Salutations, coffee enjoyer!

This was rather funny, however you can drink whatever you’d like while talking here. This is a place for asking questions to learn about Wikipedia. Please do share any Wikipedia questions you have, next time! Agar!! - talk with us, we’re sad and lonely!! :( 14:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Yet another example of Great British imperialism over poor, oppressed colonial peoples like Canadians and Americans. ;-) Carrite (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh nooo, whatever shall we do?? D= (LOL) Agar!! - talk with me, I’m sad and lonely!! :( 21:46, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Try boba tea! It's great. 🧋 Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 16:35, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Subject: Assistance with an academic biography — Nenad Blau

Hello,

I am Nenad Blau (Wikipedia username: Nenadblau), a clinical biochemist and Professor Emeritus of Clinical Biochemistry at the University of Zurich.

I would appreciate guidance from an experienced Wikipedia editor concerning a possible biographical article about my scientific career.

My research has focused on inherited metabolic diseases, particularly phenylketonuria, tetrahydrobiopterin deficiencies, and pediatric neurotransmitter disorders. My academic career has included appointments at the University of Zurich and the university children's hospitals in Zurich and Heidelberg.

I have published more than 450 scientific papers and received the Horst Bickel Award (2001), Gowland Hopkins Award (2005), and Asbjørn Følling Award (2011).

I have assembled biographical information and references with assistance from ChatGPT, but understand that an independently written, neutrally sourced article is required.

I am the subject of the proposed article and wish to disclose this conflict of interest. Could an experienced editor advise whether sufficient independent sources establish notability and whether someone would be willing to help prepare an appropriate article?

Thank you for your assistance.

Nenad Blau Nenadblau (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I would first urge you to read the scam warning. Since you have publicly asked for help you may be approached by scammers. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome! I won't comment on your main question because I know others here will do that part much better, but I sincerely urge you - for your own advantage - to discard every part of the ChatGPT material without trying to save any of it in any way. It invites instant rejection from Wikipedia, but the reasons we reject it here are also good reasons for you to not make use of it anywhere else. (My summary of the reasons: AI throws in material indiscriminately because it is incapable of judging basic values such as true or false, relevant or irrelevant, important or unimportant, and its responses are clearly phrased as if it did have the ability to judge.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:22, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome, @Nenadblau.You are certainly well noted in your field, going by a quick search online. The issue as far as qualifying for an article is whether you are also what Wikipedia defines as notable, which is not the same. that, third-party authors need to have written about you in reputable publications, pointing out your distinctive contributions in your field.

Definitely turn down any offers from people, as @331dot advised—even from those who identify as Wikipedia editors. There are countless sad tales of others who’ve come to the Teahouse with requests like yours and ended up with quite reduced bank accounts but no articles (or at least not usable ones).

Although I have found AI-originated searches for publications very helpful, that’s only if they are used the right way: as suggested publications to be carefully checked out. And a common problem with publications searches is that they turn up articles and books by rather than about the subject of a potential article. Or about the subject, yes, but in promotional material put out by the publisher—which is a Wikipedia no-no.

I don’t know the success rate of new editors hoping to get an article written about them, but it seems next to nil, in my experience to date. You might be the rare exception, but the odds aren’t great. Best would be to leave it to someone completely unconnected to you to discover you and write one, and you—assuming you’d like to be an editor and writer—come on board with us, perhaps focusing on the many articles that could use exactly the content expertise you would bring in addition to editorial skills. Augnablik (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Help with making a pending photo request live

Hello! I am looking for quick help for my edit request to add a photo. I posted an edit request on Talk:Who's Who in Colored America to enhance the page using this historical photo.

The photo is an official 1940 NYC Tax Department municipal record that has been on Wikimedia Commons for about a month. Because the image is an internal asset thumb|right|300px|The apartment building at 2317 Newkirk Avenue in Brooklyn in 1940... with no copyright or compliance issues, it should be good to go.

The template request queue has a very high backlog right now. Could someone check my formatting on the article talk page and help me move the file code live? I would appreciate the help! I have a COI and so cant do it myself.

Genes100 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Genes100. I added the image although I trimmed the caption a bit. Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Cullen328! I appreciate you taking the time to review the file and moving it live. Genes100 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

What was wrong with the source Code on my edit on 2026 Major League cricket season

? 🏏Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 19:24, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @CricketPlayer233.

You removed two lines of table markup:

!colspan=6| 5 players
|}

The second of these meant that the table is no longer closed properly. ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done, @CricketPlayer233 I fixed the markup at end of table so it's now closed properly. You added }} at the end of table instead of |} Cmr08 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:CT/AP ECR restrictions apply on talk pages?

I would have asked on Talk:United States Department of Defense, since that was the original place I asked, but under a literal reading of what was replied there by Donald Albury, asking this very question on that Talk page would be a violation of ECR - which is the subject of my question: I wanted to make a few small edits on the DoD page (I found a duplicated ref and a few things that looked like typos), and noticed while editing an ECR notification - which was confusing to me since the page wasn't actually ECP in software. I asked in the talk page (wondering if I should be actually making the edits or making Extended confirmed edit requests), and one of the replies said, literally, that "it is true that an editor must be extended-confirmed to edit the article or talk page" and "do not try to edit either the article or the talk page until you are extended confirmed". While I have no objection to these policies in themselves (although, I would have liked to have the edits I was thinking of be done by someone, but if the policy really is that stringent I suppose I just can't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), I have gone and read the page for CT/AP and AP2 and from my reading of it and general policy:

• There is no topic-wide extended-confirmed restriction that I could find on CT/AP or AP2
• I couldn't find anything indicating talk pages are supposed to be affected (AIUI they aren't supposed to be affected anyway except in exceptional case? At least that's my recollection)
• The concept of ECP generally appeared to me to be that non-EC users are meant to make edit requests on the talk page
• I would be quite surprised if ECR on the Talk page applied with no notification of any kind whatsoever at any point during editing (ECR is notified through Editnotices on the normal page but not on the Talk page)

...so do I have a way of editing or asking for the edits to be made by someone, or does policy in fact bar it entirely?

(@Donald Albury: AIUI it is customary to ping ppl on convos about them) GabrielTFS (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

The concept of ECP generally appeared to me to be that non-EC users are meant to make edit requests on the talk page That is how it works when an article is EC protected. When a topic area is under EC restrictions, it means that you as a non-EC editor cannot edit in that topic area at all; which includes making edits to articles, edit requests on talk pages, discussing the topic elsewhere, etc.

That said, WP:CT/AP indeed doesn't seem to mention that ECR applies in this topic area, only that the standard remedies apply. Not sure if that's an oversigjt and it should be there; other CTs like WP:CT/PIA specifically mention that they're under ECR. Athanelar (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice's mention that "STOP: YOU MAY ONLY USE THIS PAGE TO CREATE AN EDIT REQUEST" seems extremely confusing if the intent is that one is not, in fact, supposed to be allowed to create an edit request. I have not found a similar explicit mention for CT/AP, but is it not intended for ECR to imply talk requests are allowed? CT/PIA certainly seemed to me even more contentious than CT/AP in the sense that having more stringent restrictions on it would make sense - the inverse would be strange to me.

And furthermore, Wikipedia:ARBECR reads to me like it's supposed to be that EC restrictions applied by ArbCom to specific areas would leave it fine for ppl to make requests in Talk pages - is it outdated? Certainly Wikipedia:CT/PIA seems rather quite explicit that it also applies to talk pages (except edit requests) - I would have read this to imply that, by omission, other CT topics are by default fine to edit Talk pages of, but if Wikipedia:CT/AP was meant to have the same restrictions as Wikipedia:CT/PIA then certainly it should be adjusted. (...and if it is meant to allow Talk page edit requests, perhaps it should be more explicit if the result otherwise is confusion like this x)) GabrielTFS (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar, that isn't the case. The extended confirmed restriction explicitly allows constructive edit requests from non extended confirmed accounts. An article being just extended confirmed protected to my knowledge still allows discussion by non XC users on its talk page as it would if it isn't XC protected. American politics isn't under the extended confirmed restriction, so non-XC users discussing on the talk page should be fine. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think ECR is within the toolset given by the CTOP. But they can protect the page, so I suppose even if the page isn't extended confirmed protected it probably shouldn't be edited by non XC users with the restriction in place. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

So, is it allowed for non-EC users (e.g. me) to create a (non-disruptive) edit request on Talk:United States Department of Defense?

The Mainspace page, I won't edit directly, given that it is explicitly marked as ECR in Editnotices (now that I understand the lack of ECP is, apparently, ordinary), and I would find it much more effort to ask for it to be removed than to simply create an edit request.

But, as to the talk page, I would quite certainly like to know for sure whether I'm supposed to be able to create a (non-disruptive) edit request on it, given that I really don't want to anger admins if I am in fact not supposed to create edit requests.

(...and I suppose I would like to know if I'm supposed to be able to talk there as an ordinary matter, but I was just planning on making an edit request so it's a lesser concern in that regard) GabrielTFS (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

As I understand it, despite the lack of ECP, the main page of the article is off limits for a non extended confirmed account. The edit notice was put in place as an administrative action and so I believe it (in theory) carries the same effect as ECP on the page. I'm not sure on the talk page, and I am asking about it. Since the edit notice is an arbitration action I believe you would need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Appeals and modifications of enforcement actions to appeal it. I don't really understand why there is a lack of ECP, as it doesn't seem too ordinary to me, but I mostly don't involve myself within American Politics articles so perhaps it is regular in that topic area. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:19, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

For TV series release dates what is used?

Often now new series of shows are released episodically accross many days, however they are also on occasion simultainiously uploaded to streaming services (e.g: bbc iplayer) avaliable from the first day to all episodes.

So if an article states "Original release date", it would be my understanding that that is the first day content is publically avaliable would be the day all content is released online, regardless of television broadcasts.

I am not refering to content that has been pirated. MrEthqn (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

A very specific TV show question like this might find better answers at WP:Wikiproject Television. The header for that WikiProject recommends this page for TV show formatting issues: MOS:TV. Hopefully that will answer your question: if not, I recommend asking at the WikiProject. (Nothing wrong with asking here, but this may want specialist knowledge the Teahouse doesn't have.) M kuhner (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Please see WT:MOS question

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOS § Bacterium vs Bacteria. I should have asked that right here in the first place, but basically: I was asking for the (sub)section or the shortcut link for the guideline to summarize changing between "bacteria" and "bacterium". CheckNineEight (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Translation tools

Can I use translation tools to extend an article from the same article in another language? e.g. an article in English is lacking sections that are available in the Japanese version of the article.

The page "KRL Commuterline" is much longer in Japanese and Indonesian and i'd like help flesh it out if I can. I-like-Arm64 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@I-like-Arm64 Yes, in principle, if you follow advice at WP:TRANSLATE. However, the main issue is that you need to be able to check that the sources in the foreign languages really do WP:verify the summary that has been placed in the Japanese or Indonesian articles. This means that it is best if you have a good grasp of these languages, and hence don't really need any translation tool. I see that you speak Indonesian, so maybe you should restrict yourself to using that article. Thanks for wanting to improve en:Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you may like to check out Wikipedia:Teahouse#Translation help needed and the links it provide. JoyWeaver (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Modifying graphs

I wanted to update the graphs on several articles (for example Agriculture in India#/media/File:Agricultural output India.svg). Is it fine if I use data sourced from public sources (E.g. World Bank, IMF, FAO) and make a graph on my own on Excel/some tool and then upload? The source data is under CC BY-4.0 licence for the World Bank). Needless to say, I will cite the source and donate whatever copyright I have on the image created by me

I am a little challenged with graphic tools, don't know anything about creating svg files, will probably upload a high-quality png or jpeg

Thank you! Ar1201u1 (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Incomplete draft

I requested other editor to review my incomplete draft article. Am I following the right approach to writing articles?

Hello editors, I've already asked at Wikipedia:Teahouse, and every other editosr has helped me for guiding the Wikipedia platform. Thank you everyone.

I'd like to show my Incomplete first draft. Am I following the correct approach to writing articles? I guess It will take more time 20 days I completed article upto 25%. But recently, I have been doubting whether the article will be accepted, so I'm submitting it here for review. Please check my article and let me know what's missing in the comments. Draft:Three Ancestral Lineages of Yunnan 刘宸宁 (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to review this, 刘宸宁, but two points. First, there's a problem with the very first sentence: The Tri-Genealogy Hypothesis (Chinese: 三系起源假说) is an ethnological, linguistic, and genetic framework that suggests that most ethnic minorities in Yunnan Province, China. After "suggests that", you have a noun phrase ("most ethnic minorities in Yunnan Province, China"); however, you need a clause. The clause may have that noun phrase as its subject, but it also needs a predicate (e.g. "are closely related to the Han"). Secondly, within the template used for one source, you have author=Yang, Z., Chen, H., Lu, Y., Gao, Y., Sun, H., Wang, J., Jin, L., Chu, J., & Xu, S. This implies a single person. It should instead be author1=Yang Z. |author2=Chen H. |author3=Lu Y. et cetera. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:35, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @刘宸宁 , I just briefly reviewed your article and corrected some structuring issues. But just reading through it, the article seems to have a lot of grammatical and sentence formation issues. Please go through the article to review them. JoyWeaver (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok i will fix this problem 刘宸宁 (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I really don't think these 2 articles are needed, should I move them?

SOOOOO, 2 new articles named C-3 (TV channel), & Verity (web series) have been published to Wikipedia, and I'm not for sure if I should move them, should I move them (for Verity, a.k.a. the yellow minecraft ball, I should move that to Analog horror), and for C-3, i should move that to Nickelodeon) Frappe23J (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Frappe23J, there's a few things to think through here! The first one is whether C-3 and Verity are notable enough to warrant their own articles. The second one is if they're not notable enough, where (if anywhere) they should be mentioned. I only peeked at Verity and at a glance it looks notable enough to be its own article. But let's consider what we would do if we wanted to merge it into another article - the first step would be finding out what genre reliable sources say it is. Analog horror isn't mentioned in the Verity article, but I haven't looked through all the sources to see if they do actually call it analog horror. It might be another genre entirely! Let's say it is analog horror, though - I notice that all the examples in the analog horror article have a short blurb but also have a wikilink to their own separate article. To me this suggests that if we did find sources classifying Verity as analog horror, we have two options. If Verity isn't notable enough for its own article, it probably shouldn't be on the list with the other examples. If it is notable enough, it probably should be treated like the others: a short blurb on the analog horror page, plus a wikilink to its main article.

But all of that is theoretical until we assess whether Verity is indeed notable. Looking through the history, I discovered that there was a very recent AfD which resulted in a WP:SNOW keep. So there's consensus it's notable, and now step two is finding out what genre reliable sources classify it as. That might be your next task, if you're interested! Meadowlark (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Frappe23J. Please don't use LLMs to communicate with us. We are volunteers giving our time freely to advise and help people: please show us the respect of communicating with us yourself. See WP:LLMTALK ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

okay, I'll delete the LLM Frappe23J (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Left-floating images

positioned incorrectly when page viewed in wide mode.

For example the left-floating image of a turtle plastron at Written Chinese#History. It is supposed to appear alongside the first paragraph of the section (and does so when the page width is 'standard'), but when the page width is 'wide' it ends up appearing two paragraphs further down, after the material it actually pertains to.

My attention was initially drawn to it because it was combining with a poorly placed clear tag to create a massive blank space in the middle of the page, but even having fixed that it's obvious that the formatting is wrong, and I can't figure out how to correct it. Is there actually a way to fix it from an editing standpoint or is it just a problem with the template / theme? Throckmorpheus (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't know the current state of image placement, but it has been a problem in the past, and there used to be a sensible suggestion that (a) we should certainly stop writing anything like "the image at left" in articles because we don't have a clue where it will be on the reader's screen, and I think also (b) we might as well quit specifying image position when inserting the image, because it's the specifying that's causing the problem. Just un-specify it and don't say where it is. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:55, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Throckmorpheus: Fixed with {{stack}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Featured Article Criteria

So I created an article called List of tornadoes in Turkey and currently I think it fits the criteria but I dont know if an unfinished list (Since it is about tornadoes, amout/number of events usually change) could get featured. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 17:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

See WP:FLCR for the featured list criteria. At the moment the article you linked does not appear to meet those standards, although it can definitely be improved to such. The criteria on completeness mentions "a complete set of items, where appropriate" and so that shouldn't be a major issue. Eoline 17:23, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you please tell me how can I fix this issue in this article? ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 17:26, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest putting it up at peer review so that you can get multiple in-depth comments from different editors; I personally do not work a ton with lists of that type and so the biggest comment I can give is that it appears incomplete past 2008. Eoline 17:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

How to wikilink to a subsection with a wikilink in the title?

A few times I have wanted to wikilink (e.g. in an AfD) to a subsection of a page which has a wikilink in the title. for instance a subsection "Help with page [[SomeNameOrOther]]". Searching the docu I did not see and way to do that, maybe there is a method. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Just ignore the link brackets like [[Pagename#Help with page SomeNameOrOther]]. For more complicated code it can help to click the section in the table of contens and then copy the anchor from the address bar in the browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think ignoring the brackets works, but using the full link will. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Ignoring the brackets works in your example. If you have another case where it doesn't work then you can post the real case. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Mea culpa, you are right. I tried it some months ago and it failed, but probably I just typed that in wrong. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Why isn't a template working

So i was testing on the wikipedia sandbox then it was like this 126 years, 10 months and 3 days (see source) and it wasnt showing for some reason Wikipedia:Sandbox. Se eu fosse um peixinho e soubesse nadar (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you're asking, Se_eu_fosse_um_peixinho_e_soubesse_nadar, but is it answered by learning that the sandbox is set up to have any content soon flushed out? Incidentally, your list of contributions has me starting to wonder whether you're here to build an encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:04, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Se eu fosse um peixinho e soubesse nadar: I found your edit . An earlier edit had left an opening <!-- without the closing --> Everything inside <!-- ... --> (or until the end of the page if --> is missing) are source comments which are not rendered. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Se eu fosse um peixinho e soubesse nadar

I clicked accidently on your username here, which should be linked to your userpage. But your userpage redirects to the article about the letter A. Please remove the redirect! Thank you! Maresa63 ^Talk 19:27, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Eligibility for a Wikipedia Biography

I am a retired airline captain from Kuwait with 44 years of aviation experience, including Boeing 747 operations, flight training, examining, and civil aviation regulatory work.

I would like to know whether I qualify for a Wikipedia biography and what independent published sources are required.

Could you please advise me on the correct procedure for submitting a biography for review?

Thank you. ~2026-54523-11 (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, you can check out the Wiki Notability criteria for articles to be created Wikipedia:Notability. Sure you can create a draft of the article (Wikipedia:Drafts), if you think it meets the Notability criteria, but submit it for Article for Creation (Afc) process to be published. Also declare your Conflict of Interest with the article as mentioned in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Pls also note, you cannot use AI to write articles (see WP:NOLLM) JoyWeaver (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Posting based on other discussions on the Teahouse; please be aware of scammer who might try to contact you; read Wikipedia:SCAM JoyWeaver (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-54523-11, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please see my reply above to another question (#Darlings Beauty Lab: are these sources sufficient for an article?). That person was asking about creating an article about their company rather than themselves, but nearly everything I said applies in your case too.

From what you've said above, it sounds as if you are somebody who has been doing their job, like millions of other people. What is there about you that should make an international encyclopaedia take notice? ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the main factor for writing an article about someone is the major public coverage of their life and career that's already been written. Major commercial pilots, as a very important aspect of their jobs, work quite hard to avoid the two most common ways that someone like them might receive major news coverage: a disaster, or heroic efforts to prevent a disaster. For maybe 99.9% of commercial pilots, the absolute ultimate in career success would be a long boring record of perfect flights, with (hopefully) a long ledger of large paychecks to show for it. That is not the kind of story that usually gets a reporter's attention. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Not based on anything you’ve disclosed, sorry. Being a pilot with a distinguished career isn’t sufficient. You need to have been written about twice in reputable publications (and not a passing mention but substantially). Or you need to have won an award and, not just any award but, a fairly exclusive one. Hope that helps. Mme Maigret (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft lead and title

Hi. I wanted to ask if the title name and lead section of this article draft Draft:White genocide conspiracy theory in South Africa is appropriate.

The body of the article talks about the genocide subject, the main white genocide article on Wikipedia, uses the word "conspiracy" in its lead, but I haven't found a source that says it like how I wrote it "White genocide in south Africa is a conspiracy theory..".

Some of the news articles, I've cited do refer to it as a concipiracy, but in an indirect way, another source [] has a section where it says "concipiracy theories" and beneath mentions the topic in relation to south Africa. But organization like UN and other bodies never use that word.

I wanted to know if it's appropriate to write it's a concipiracy (in south Africa) without a source that fully backs up that claim. Omniking2100 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Your question is good. The answer is (as you might have expected) a very clear "No". More details are at Wikipedia:No original research. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:03, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

yeah okay I appreciate the answer and I'll remove it. Omniking2100 (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Photo of the youngsters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk:2026_French_lycée_protests#Photo_of_the_youngsters

On French Wikipedia, they are discussing what should be done about photos of youngsters. Some people are saying that this is irresponsible and are considering things like blurring out images.

Example:

Oui c'est plus que limite. Perso je floute les visages sur mes photos. FreCha (discuter) 8 octobre 2026 à 11:22 (CEST)

oui ça va pas du tout. Je les ai enlevé, dommage parce qu'elle sont bien. Les remettre une fois floutées sur Commons. Il y a un outil pour ça ? Quelqu'un peut s'en charger ? Siphonopho (discuter) 8 octobre 2026 à 12:55 (CEST)

And with . They're still discussing. ~2026-54415-75 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. We cannot advise you on issues at the French Wikipedia, which is a separate project with its own editors and policies. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-54415-75 As you've already raised this on the relevant talk page, it's not really clear what you want from the Teahouse. Mme Maigret (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you, but the main reason I brought this up is to discuss matters concerning English Wikipedia, not French Wikipedia nor the specific page.~2026-54415-75 (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-54415-75 It wasn't really clear what you wanted. Is it to discuss whether photos of children should be blurred? The Teahouse still doesn't seem like the appropriate place. Maybe try the Village Pump. Mme Maigret (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, but I don't have the tools to move the contents to wp:vp. ~2026-54415-75 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: how to request an article on Robert K. Fitts

Full disclosure: I'm a publicist and I represent Robert K. Fitts, an author and historian of Japanese baseball. I understand I shouldn't write an article about him myself, and I'd like advice on the right way to proceed.

Fitts has written eleven books on Japanese baseball, published mainly by university presses (University of Nebraska Press, Southern Illinois University Press and McFarland). He received the Society for American Baseball Research's 2025 Henry Chadwick Award and its 2013 Seymour Medal, and he is a curatorial consultant to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. His most recent book, In the Japanese Ballpark (2025), was mentioned by Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/03/30/metropolitans-a-m-gittlitz-book-review

I asked about notability at WikiProject Baseball, and an editor suggested I ask here. Would the best route be Articles for Creation, Requested articles, or something else? And does he appear to meet the notability guidelines for authors? I can provide independent sources. Thank you. John G. Ekizian ~2026-54731-81 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The best thing to do would be to use Articles for creation. I would also suggest that you create an account so it is easier to disclose as a paid editor(which you are as his publicist). Please see WP:PAID.

If you have independent reliable sources that provide critical analysis and commentary about his work as a historian, an article may be possible. If the sources discuss his books rather than him personally, his books may merit articles but not him personally. It depends on what is said. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-54731-81, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please make sure you read WP:PAIDADVICE. ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Are the books the subject of 3 or more reviews in reputable sources? Mme Maigret (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Manual of Style Exception and Dispute Resolution

Let's say I thought that one specific instance of adhering to one policy of WP:MOS resulted in worse presentation of an article and I disregard it per WP:IAR. Another editor disagrees because they strictly adhere to the specific policy, even though I argue that it goes against the spirit of that specific policy and following it in that specific instance creates a worse result. If no agreement is reached: since a violation of a policy did occur but I felt it was justified in that one instance (again, per WP:IAR), is it still appropriate to pursue dispute resolution despite WP:DISCFAIL stating that the edit being asked for can't be a violation of a policy? Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Giant Blue Anteater If you want opinions on your dispute, you're going to need to be specific about what the actual dispute is. Nobody can give you an answer based on this hypothetical, because we don't have enough information to say whether you're correct in assessing that the other person's preference is against the "spirit of that specific policy". Athanelar (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Assuming this is about Metaspriggina – I prefer your layout for the first section of the article to the current version by Hemiauchenia, with its centred image. Maproom (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion, but I'm not sure WP:IAR carries as much weight in discussions as it may have once done simply because Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, for the most part, have been tweaked and otherwise improved over the years to make up for some of the shortfalls they might've had early on when the project wasn't as structured. It seems (again just my opinion) that simply arguing IAR tends to be perceived as saying "I'm right because I said so, you pedant", which means it tends to be ignored; I think some see it as the last fallback for those unwilling to adjust their approach and try to find some middle ground. It would probably be better to find some way of reaching common ground within current policies and guidelines with maybe adding a smidge of IAR in some cases where it might help reach a consensus.

FWIW, if this is indeed about what's happened (what's happening?) at the Metaspriggina article, then trying to resolve things through WP:REVTALK is simply not going to work. It would be much better to start a discussion about things on the article's talk page and see whether a consensus can be reached. While it's true that Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD, it also wants us to follow WP:DR when others disagree with our boldness. Discussing disputes/disagreements on the article's talk page gives both sides the chance to engage in dialogue on how to improve the article instead of just firing off one off edit summaries. It also makes it easier for others to be notified per WP:APPNOTE and join in. Bold editing only works as long as others are WP:SILENT, and a different tact needs to be taken once somebody speaks up by reverting (unless they're clearly advocating something that's in violation of major Wikipedia policy or guideline). When it comes to the way images are arranged in an article, it's important to remember that not every reader of the article uses the same device or will see things the same way. This is why discussion involving multiple people is often helpful in resolving such issues because it someone else might be able to see something (no pun intended) that the two sides in disagreement might not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

About writing an article

I need help to write an article ~2026-53778-51 (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I have left the full guidelines on your talk page. You can read Help:Your first article this and start from here. Kartheek1025 (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! It is amazing that you want to edit and contribute to the project

I would recommend reading the notability policy to assess whether the subject of the article is notable and will meet the criteria for inclusion. It is best to do some editing first before you start creating new articles, that would allow you to become familiar with policies regarding notability, neutral point of view, verifiability, reliable independent sources, etc. Ar1201u1 (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Mozambique Revolutionary Committee

Can someone please help me improve my draft: Draft:Mozambique Revolutionary Committee

I recently created this draft on this former Mozambican rebel insurgent group. Despite being the second-largest independence movement during the Mozambican War of Independence, the details about this group is still obscure. Can someone please help me? BuddyHeigh (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I see a lot of scholarly coverage for the group on Google Scholar. See if it would be helpful Ar1201u1 (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Help!

I made a misstep and now an article's talk page got categorized as a redirect class. What do I do? CheckNineEight (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@CheckNineEight I think I've fixed it. Is that OK? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess that'll do. Although, WP:AFDMERGE adviced against removing the template. Now I'm curious of what's actually happening, why reverting my mistake didn't change back the category. CheckNineEight (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@CheckNineEight: Talk pages are not categorized by class. The categorization displayed on the talk page is for the corresponding non-talk page which was a redirect for five minutes. Pages are cached for performance reasons so the talk page may have continued to display a redirect class some time after the article was no longer a redirect. Any talk page edit would have fixed it by rendering the page again and reading the new status of the article. A purge of the talk page would have updated the talk page display without needing an edit. A null edit might have been needed to also update the category page. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh. Now I know! Thank you, PrimeHunter!

Resolved

 – CheckNineEight (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about disputed Talk-page collapse notice

I have a question about Talk-page procedure.

At Talk:Sam Vaknin#Comprehensive BLP rewrite: self-sourced clinical material and due weight, a long rationale I posted was collapsed with a notice stating that it was LLM-generated text and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. I dispute that characterization, and I am concerned that the hat states a contested authorship claim as fact rather than addressing the policy substance.

This was the result of substantial research and review on my part, and I am concerned that collapsing it may prevent the underlying policy points from being addressed.

Is it appropriate for me to request that the hat be removed or reworded, and if so what is the best process? Should I ask on the article Talk page, at WP:BLPN, or somewhere else? I do not want to edit-war over Talk-page formatting. Dtf1978 (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dtf1978. Did you use LLM for all or part of what you posted? For reference, the user who collapsed your content, Slp1, is a Wikipedia administrator. That in and of itself, of course, doesn't automatically mean they're right, but it could mean they made a judgement call based on their experience dealing LLM stuff over the years: I believe there are ways of checking. While using LLM might seem fine to some, relevant Wikipedia policies/guidelines strongly oppose its use not only for editing articles but also for talk page discussions (see also WP:LLMCOMM). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

No. The rationale was based on my own review and research. My concern is that the collapse notice states a disputed authorship claim as fact and excludes the rationale from consensus assessment without addressing the underlying WP:BLP, sourcing, and WP:MEDRS issues. Dtf1978 (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

LLM material is correctly treated by collapsing and ignoring, because it contains nothing legitimate to consider. If it was not LLM material then you'll need to contact the administrator who collapsed it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:49, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

This rejection of LLM is all-encompassing; even if you merely used it to tidy things up, it's unacceptable. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

The exceptions to WP:NOLLM as at now say otherwise and are explained in more detail at WP:LLMRESP. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:57, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I think anybody would have a hard time not thinking that collapsed section wasn't at a minimum heavily written with LLM. There is about two sentences or so worth of actual Wikipedia argument spread out over nearly 2000 vague, slop-speech words. Escalating this was not a good idea; I'm wondering if this is an AI noticeboard or ANI issue that requires a formal restriction of you using LLM in any capacity whatsoever on English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

My concern is that the collapse notice states a disputed authorship claim as fact

The collapse notice says This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Could you point out where in the collapse notice it "states a disputed authorship claim as fact."

From this, your few edits here that involved text, and your attempted AI draft at French Wikipedia , I think you're extensively using LLMs, far past the very limited usage we allow. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs Their comments here are AI generated too. Weird equivocating like describing allegations of AI use as a "disputed authorship claim" are 100% glowing neon red flags (and the overall complaint about speculations of AI use is WP:AIUNPROVEN). The "Wikipedia contributions" page on their userpage is also pure WP:Canned user pages slop. Athanelar (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, the disputed authorship claim is so weird to say, that I didn't even realize that was their interpretation of the collapse language. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia update for a business

I have a declared conflict of interest with Tropic Skincare and submitted an edit request on the article’s talk page 20 days ago: Talk:Tropic Skincare#c-LCR5891-20260923131400-Daylon124-2021-04-15T18:06:00.000Z It hasn’t been reviewed yet. Is there a better place to ask for an uninvolved editor to look at it? Thank you. LCR5891 (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@LCR5891: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1308. I suggest you use the {{edit COI}} template to get the eye of someone who reviews edit requests. Of course, this may still take some time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:16, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

You should add {{edit COI}} somewhere near the top of that request so it goes in the COI "queue". That said, there are almost 1000 articles waiting for review of a COI edit request. It will probably be a while before somebody gets to it. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Formatting issues

Hello,

I tried to translate a French wiki page in English (Draft:Arithmetico-geometric sequence (linear recurrent sequence) - Wikipedia), and I'm encountering two formatting issues:

1. In the table of contents, the mathematical content is displayed incorrectly
2. In the last example in the “Examples and use” section, there’s an alignment issue.

Could you help me fix these issues?

Thanks! Dédé25lib (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dédé25lib, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The problem in the first case is that it is using <math/> in a header. In the French article it instead uses the template {{math}} (but requires some extra coding, because "=" has a special meaning in template calls - see Template:math for an explanation.)

I don't know whether the version with the template will work in English Wikipedia or not: it is possible that the underlying Module may be different. Have you tried it?

For the second issue, the problem is that the list (starting with "*") automatically indents, but when you have a linebreak (by starting a new line in the source) you need to begin it with ":" which means "indent".

I have no idea whether you can do this with the Visual editor or not, as I always use the Source editor.

By the way, I notice that most of your examples do not yet have any citations. ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks to your comments, I managed to resolve the two formatting issues mentioned, thank you !

As for the sources : I haven't found any examples in quality references, but I'll keep looking for. Dédé25lib (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @Dédé25lib.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

This means that if you write anything at all in a Wikipedia article without first finding a reliable published source, you are writing it WP:BACKWARDS, and risk having to rewrite or remove it if you are unable to find sources for the specific information you have given.

(I suspect that quite a lot of mathematical articles contain rather a lot of original research, which is not permitted, and such articles would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today. They often date from an earlier era, when we were not so strict with our standards) ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove an example then, as I haven’t found any reference Dédé25lib (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposed article on China-Scotland Relations

I've noticed that the topic of China-Scotland international relations has no coverage on Wikipedia. There is a China-United Kingdom Relations page but there is no mention of Scotland there. China and Scotland have a relationship over and above the relation China and the UK have, as evidenced by the Scottish Government's three China five-year strategies they have pursued. There are several scholarly and newspaper articles about this topic. I was wondering if such an article would be suitable. Gabrielburst (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gabrielburst The answer to "should an article exist about X?" is always "are reliable, independent sources discussing X in depth?" I.e., is our requirement for notability met?

You suggest that these kinds of sources do exist. If you have at least three sources that meet all the requirements of WP:42 then chances are good you could succeed in writing an article about the topic. You may want to follow Help:Your first article for some guidance. Athanelar (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am still unclear what counts as an article about the topic. This article for example https://wnus.usz.edu.pl/ap/en/issue/67/article/349/ is about Scottish relations with Asian countries, but it primarily discusses Scotland's relations with China before any other country. Would such an article count? Gabrielburst (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

In a case like that, the amount of material in there that is on your topic does count for something, based on how much of it there is. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

We obviously can't just invent what goes into articles, we need to get everything from the sources; this means that besides the quality of the material we also have to be sure that there's physically more than enough of it to write from. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:52, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

(One of the important features of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:No original research; if you know a certain idea to be true but have not found a reliable source that directly supports that idea, then it can't be included.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Gabrielburst, as an American, I am far from an expert, but my understanding is that the the Scotland Act 1998 says that foreign affairs and international relations are the responsibility of the UK government. That calls into question the validity of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not impossible that such an article could exist. For example closer to home, the US federal government is responsible for foreign policy but the state governments still sometimes have relationships with foreign governments (e.g. JB Pritzker in Mexico). I think in the case of the US states there's probably not many cases where there's enough coverage to merit an article (maybe not any), but the statutory limitations don't rule it out entirely. Packrat3860 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Certainly a good point to raise and partly the cause for my concern. But I think despite not having formal diplomatic relations, Scotland still maintain international engagements itself. They have nine government offices outside of Scotland which aren't technically embassies but undertake some similar functions. ~2026-55025-14 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Requesting Independent Review of Reverted BLP Edits

Hi! I am hoping that someone can provide some feedback about a recent edit I attempted to make on a BLP article. The changes I made were reverted and when I shared a breakdown of my overall changes and asked for clarification about what exactly was and was not acceptable, I was directed to seek independent review to further clarify. The full history of the aforementioned conversation can be found here:

the existing talk-page discussion

The reverted work was not one singular change: it included legislative additions, reference/correction work, wording changes for accuracy, condensation of the election section, cleanup on the legislator’s effectiveness-ranking, and a much larger ethics-section condensation. These changes were made over several saves, rather than one isolated edit. **I am not asking anyone to come in and approve or restore the entire revision**. The main question that I have is which parts were appropriate, and which parts need modification, as I have not yet really received a clear answer about what the exact concern or issue was with the original changes to begin with.

One additional important note about the ethics section in particular is that it currently carries an excessive-detail maintenance tag and also presently contains outdated information related to the outcome of the ethics investigation and the ethics commission’s findings.

Overall, I would like to fully clarify whether the sourced legislative additions are appropriate in the body, whether or not the ethics condensation preserved enough material for BLP/NPOV and if not, what specific facts need to remain in order to prevent an edit/condensation from going too far. I would also like to clarify whether or not there was something specifically promotional or analytical in the wording.

I would also like to additionally state, I have already elaborated on any concerns about COI on my talk page and I have no personal, professional, financial, employment, or other external relationship to the subject referenced in the article.

I am open to any type of recommendations about revisions and I am happy to leave out anything that does not satisfy policy. Primarily, I am looking for some type of actionable feedback if possible, so that I can continue improving my editing skills and learning more about how to tackle updates on topics that interest me, despite their possible controversial nature.

PorkNBeanz (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

PorkNBeanz, it look to me highly likely that you used AI to compose your question here and to formulate your edits. This is not acceptable. We want human communication only. Your edits appear to be reputation management. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy. What is your connection to this politician? Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty clear (despite claims to the contrary) that your goal is not to improve the article, but rather to remove or cover up unfavorable content. You can't do that. I think there's unfortunately not much more to discuss. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Cullen328 @TooManyFingers, thank you both for taking the time to respond and review my request for an independent review. I wanted to address a couple of things that were stated by you both and then make a request regarding clarification, as I have yet to receive any solid information about what part of the content is actually problematic.

To clarify in full, I am not utilizing AI to compose my questions/responses here on Teahouse as was stated. I am unsure if my particular prose or way of stating things happens to be conflated as AI usage, or is there is something else specific resulting in that concern, but I do apologize for any confusion my writing style may have created regardless of if it was intended or not.

As I stated in what I initially posted on my talk page, I have 0 connection to this subject, I just live in the area and have access to ample coverage regarding this subject from local and state news sources, thus making it a personal interest of mine only. I don’t get much time to make edits here, but when I do they are almost entirely dedicated to political/legislation based pages.

I have heard from multiple people that the edits appear to be COI, “reputation management”, or not in line with NPOV, but nobody has actually pointed me to any particular part of the edits that I made that were problematic. I took the approach of splitting the edits apart into sections as to what was actually targeted to hopefully make it easier to isolate what the exact issue was; however, there has been little to no actual feedback that states something like “This portion was an issue because X…” or “This may be overall factual, but doesn’t carry appropriate weight against Y….”. At this point, I think the most helpful thing would be to receive that clarification, especially against the breakdown I submitted previously, so that I can understand moving forward what is and is not acceptable, and also to fully clarify whether or not any of the independently acceptable changes can be separated from the disputed sections.

Again, I thank you both for your time and attention to the concern that I raised and I look forward to hearing back from both or either of you so that I may adjust my process and edits moving forward across all pages I may touch. PorkNBeanz (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

PorkNBeanz, two words of advice: be concise. To elaborate a bit, write like a human being instead of a robot. If you are not using AI (and I am unconvinced), then you have developed a style of writing that is off-putting and comes off as an excellent imitation of AI writing. No, I am not going to spend my valuable volunteer time dissecting your edits in detail. Multiple editors have already expressed the opinion that they are inappropriate and so further discussion is unlikely to be productive. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

My History of Reading Wikipedia

Hello, My iphone keeps a history of what I search on, but my desktop computer does not. Am I missing a setting to allow my desktop to also record my searches?

Thx Ray FLESHER

RCFlesher (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome! Are you using the Wikipedia app on your phone? I expect that's what makes it so different. On desktop, is there a menu item called History? That would show you everywhere you've been on the internet, including Wikipedia. That "History" may also allow you to type into its search field; in there you could type Wikipedia or some word you remember searching for earlier. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Flamininus/Flaminius hatnotes

I noticed that Flaminius redirects to Flaminia gens and Flamininus redirects to Titus Quinctius Flamininus without a link to suggest the other possible name. Since these 2 names are so similar, would it be appropriate for these articles (especially the Flaminia gens) to have a hatnote linking to the other to help out people if they get confused or misspell either name? I'm still pretty new and I don't know what is considered best for the project.

And also, I made this exact mistake so… yeah. Thanks in advance! DefNotaHedgehog (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the re-directs are similar, but the title of the two articles are not similar. However, if it creates confusions, I believe that a headnote is needed. I'll add them. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

How to request move on an article

hey I want to request a move on Religious language to Religious language (disambiguation) how can I do that? I do have twinkle to help me Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@The Ars Goetia A move doesn't seem to be necessary here. Per WP:DABNAME: The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page. I.e., (disambiguation) would only be necessary in the title if there were an actual article called "Religious language". See for example Jupiter (disambiguation) which contains a link to Jupiter (which is about the planet)

Since there is no article called "Religious language" which needs to be disambiguated from the disambiguation page itself, the disambiguation page in this case can remain as it is. Athanelar (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t know that about disambiguation articles, thank you Athanelar Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

A question for long time users.

I have a question for long-time users about the history of the WP:MMS. To be clear, I'm not trying to go forum shopping; I am simply interested in how the system has been used in the past. For reference, there is WT:RFC#Mass messaging RFC notifications, that is talking about that.

However, I am hoping someone can point me toward older essays or archived discussions that shed more light on its history. I have only been editing since 2024. Although I have a decent edit count, I am still unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia's technical and historical aspects. I assume that there are older discussions documenting its use, and I would like to read up on them.

For context, I am a member of WikiProject Schools and have started a very large RfC that is still pending at WP:RFCNC(S). One of the WP:WPSCH coordinators mentioned that this sort of notification was common practice. Now, I have participated in my share of RfCs and read through quite a few archives I also keep up todate with our current guidelines. But I never heard of the system being used in the way that it was described to me; that it is customary to involve members of a project, for a potentially far-reaching policy RfCs that directly concerns them. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Page Move

I made a sandbox page and submitted it but it suggest that i should move it to the draft namespace, but when i do that it says i dont have permission. what do i do? Ltxwn (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

The reason you can't move the page is because you are not autoconfirmed. However, as you are new to Wikipedia, I would not recommend moving your draft. Wikipedia has a lot of rules regarding notability, verifiability, and, most relevant to your draft, biographies of living persons. It is easy to create a draft that is unsuitable for Wikipedia if you don't know what you are doing, which could lead to it getting draftifyied or deleted. If you continue to work on your draft and submit it for review when you believe it is ready, Articles for Creation reviewers will check the draft to see if it is suitable for Wikipedia and publish it if the article is ready. Additionally, I declined you draft because it had no citations. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Article Draft Help!

Hi there, I'm currently editing Draft:Gustafson Porter + Bowman and have disclosed my conflict of interest on my talk page. I've edited a few times based on varying comments and was wondering if anyone has any advice for the article?

As recommended, I've limited the awards to just prestigious (recommended to only note awards from List of architecture awards) wins. selected projects are in a list with a short line about each work (was asked to add a summary of what was done for each work but didn't want to go overboard as they've got their own pages) and kept the History and Intro to just facts about the Practice rather than employees / marketing text.

One of the comments also mentioned there was limited prose but I've seen articles about architecture firms with shorter pieces - unless there is something missing?! I worry adding more will make it more of an ad??

Hoping this is the right place to ask and thanks in advance!

GP+B (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

For the articles about other firms, we can't accept a poor-quality new article, regardless of the existence of poor-quality older articles; please see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Facts about the practice are all promotional/marketing material, unless they were published by reliable third parties with no connection to the firm and the firm did not supply them with the information through a press release, interview, or other method. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:20, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

In other words, this is likely not a flaw in your writing skill or style, but likely a problem of having too little legitimate material to work with. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the vast majority of really good architects are simply not the subject of major coverage. It seems to me from far outside the industry that to get such coverage, an architect generally needs to either win a flashy contract in the multi-billions range or have a disgusting scandal named after them, and too often it's both. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

how to create biography page of Scientific person

 Courtesy link: User:Shailendrasaraf/sandbox

We have created the profile in the sandbox but we are not able to see the review for submit option. We have published the profile but it is not showing yet on public domain Shailendrasaraf (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

If you want to submit it for review, you should submit your draft through Articles for Creation. You should just be able to copy paste the content from your sandbox page to the draft page that is created once you create your draft page. From there, you'll see the option to submit it through the AfC process, and it'll be reviewed from there! 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 04:30, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@Shailendrasaraf: Just so you are aware, if you are not the subject, Shailendra Saraf, please do not use a username that suggests you are Saraf himself per our username policy. Second of all, please ensure that each account is limited to one person only. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:28, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Errors in Sinking of the Titanic

I can't change these sentences because I'm a normal user, but can one of the 'higher ups', I guess you'd call it, change this sentence in Sinking of the Titanic please? In the first paragraph, it says, "resulting in the deaths of up to 1,635 people." I don't know WHERE they got 1,635? We have already narrowed down how many were on board and how many survived, thanks to Encyclopedia Titanica, where we now know 2,208 passengers and crew were on board (not 2,224), 1,496 perished in the disaster, and 712 survived. I just recently changed the numbers on Lifeboats of the Titanic. I would also like if someone changed, "but was travelling at a speed of roughly 22 knots" to 21 knots (because that was Titanic's service speed. I may be missing something though). It also says 710 survivors, but there were, as we know, 712.

In one sentence, it says that Titanic had a crew of 892 and 1,320 passengers, but Encyclopedia Titanica states that there were 891 crew members and 1,317 passengers made up of:

324 in First Class 284 in Second Class 709 in Third Class 891 crew members

In the section "Iceberg, right ahead!", it says, "Murdoch is generally believed to have given the order "hard a-starboard"..." It is not "believed," it is known, because in Quartermaster Robert Hichens' testimony, he was asked by Sir Rufus Isaacs, "Had you had any instructions before she struck? Had you been told to do anything with your helm before she struck?" Hitchens replied, "Not immediately as she struck; the ship was swinging. We had the order, "Hard-a-starboard," and she just swung about two points when she struck." Issacs asked again, "You got the order, "Hard-a-starboard"?" Hichens replied, "Yes." You can read the rest at https://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq03Hichens01.php

Next, in the section "Preparing to abandon ship," the last sentence in paragraph seven says, "A lifeboat drill had been scheduled for the Sunday morning before the ship sank, but was cancelled by Captain Smith for unknown reasons." But this is simply not true. Smith cancelled due to weather conditions that would make the boats rock and be unsafe. We know this because of testimony from lookout Archie Jewell. It was not "unknown reasons."

In the section, "Last minutes of sinking," the second sentence of paragraph four says, "It was said to have reached an angle of 30–45 degrees...", but modern consensus says she reached an angle of 20 to 25 degrees before splitting according to Titanic: Honor and Glory.

Those are just my things. Would really like it if someone changes them. Thank you! ~2026-50193-88 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, a lot to unpack here.

1) you did not change anything in the lifeboats article. You first removed information claiming "we don't know" and then I fixed that information. And THEN you added the wrong information as well as misinformation about "6 people dying on Carpathia" (when in fact it was likely one; even that we are not completely sure about). See here for the actual confirmed numbers: https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-passengers-and-crew/ (not counting one person whose presense is dubious and seriously in doubt as of now)

2) A lot of these "errors" aren't errors but rather covering the fact that the recollection is not the same as the other. Just one example: Archie Jewell may have said "weather was bad" but another witness disagreed and said something "It was probably church service" - since the man who actually made the decision died, "unknown reasons" is, in fact, right. Cherry-picking sources is not the way to go about this as you seem to be doing here with inquiry testimony AND with the numbers.

3) This should have been taken to Talk:Sinking of the Titanic to get relevant scrutiny, not to the Teahouse. I and others already keep that article updated as best as we could while keeping it as neutral as possible. The information you are disputing is based on multiple books and research and cross-checking.

The only issue I have with that page is the numbers are not matching the modern research of 2,207 with 1,496 deaths and 712 survivors; the admin is not yet convinced. Omnis (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-50193-88 Encyclopedia Titanica itself likely can't be used as a source, because it appears to consist of user-submitted content. I haven't checked, but maybe if its content has reliable, independent, published references of the kind that would be accepted in Wikipedia, then those souces could be used as references for, as an example, the number of people on board. David10244 (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

@David10244, I can reassure you it is a great source of information for Titanic and, in fact, used in most articles related to Titanic. The message board/forum is user-generated. But the website itself contains information on all the people aboard and with citations as well as numerous otherwise inaccessible newspaper articles. Additionally, it has articles written by highly respected historians in the field about, for example, some rather overlooked individuals like the only junior officer to die that night; specifically about his dreadful first voyage as a teenager.

Of course, as with anything, always worth getting multiple sources if possible! Omnis (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

And you are right, the site is the best source for number of people aboard (in fact, the website maintainer is working with historians to recreate the list of people aboard Carpathia the day it rescued Titanic's survivors!). That is being updated whenever new information comes to light. Omnis (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

@Omnis Scientia Ok, thanks for that. As long as there are citations, and I presume that any Wikipedia article-stuff should use those citations, and not cite Titanica itself. Right? David10244 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@David10244, both can be and are. The citations in biographies, for example, are rare archival material - crew manifests, death certificates, rare newspaper accounts etc. - so are not otherwise accessible in most cases. So it is usable for biographical information if the citations are not accessible directly.

The articles by historians are also cite-worthy on here. These are by people whose books you will find cited throughout Titanic wiki articles. And this also includes the decades worth of research into the number of people aboard the ship.

The message board is a different thing entirely, I would note. That is for users to discuss findings and debate and whatnot. A user is only able to partake there; they don't influnce the biographies and whatnot. Omnis (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Omnis Scientia OK, thanks. David10244 (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason why this should be discussed here, rather than within Talk:Sinking of the Titanic, which is likely to be watched by a greater number of people who are familiar with the relevant sources and their relative reliability. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for help with protected MSM redirect Copy Subject

Hello, I need guidance about the Wikipedia page “Mustafavi Students Movement” (MSM). In November 2022, the article was changed into a redirect to Minhaj-ul-Quran and the page was indefinitely protected due to persistent sockpuppetry.

I no longer remember the email or account I used at that time. I want to follow Wikipedia’s rules and understand how to request a review of the redirect and its protection. If the topic meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements and reliable independent sources are available, what is the correct process for proposing an article?

I do not want to bypass page protection. Please guide me to the appropriate process. Thank you. ~2026-54417-69 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I no longer remember the email or account I used at that time. Was it, by any chance, one of the sockpuppets that caused the article to be protected? Athanelar (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-54417-69, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Are you @MJawadMustafa, the editor who made almost all the edits to Mustafavi Students Movement? If you are, then you - not just your account - are blocked, and may not edit Wikipedia under any account or anonymously as long as the block is in force. See WP:Guide to appealing blocks.

The article was converted to a redirect because it was completely unacceptable, having almost no sources which met the criteria in the golden rule, and being promotional. It was then protected after another editor, since blocked, removed the redirect.

The only way this article could be reinstated is if an editor who is not blocked found several sources that met all the the criteria in the golden rule (written with no contribution of any sort from anybody connected with MSM or associated institutions; published in a reliable source; and contained in-depth commentary on the organisation, not just on individuals people or activities), created a new draft using articles for creation, set aside everything they personally knew about the organisation, and wrote a neutral summary of what those independent sources said about it. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the situation. I can confirm that MJawadMustafa was my old account, but I no longer have access to it and do not remember the email address associated with it.

I understand that I must not bypass any existing block. Could you please guide me on the appropriate process for addressing my old account's status and, separately, whether a neutral draft about Mustafavi Students Movement could be submitted through Articles for Creation based on independent, reliable sources?

Thank you for your guidance. ~2026-54417-69 (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-54417-69. I pointed you, above to Guide to appealing blocks. Basically, you need to make clear that you understand why your were blocked, and give a credible reason why the block should be lifted. ColinFine (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-54417-69 To be completely clear, you cannot and should not worry about a new article while you are blocked. Getting yourself unblocked is not just incidental-- as mentioned, the block applies to you, not just to any of your particular old accounts.

You cannot edit any articles, or submit any drafts, using any account, while you are blocked. David10244 (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism of release dates - why?

I've just started reviewing recent changes for vandalism and I've noticed a fairly regular kind of vandalism is when editors change the release dates of a TV show, song etc.

I'm wondering, what's the possible motivation for this kind of vandalism?

Examples :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_%26_Holly%27s_Little_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1379585062

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Am_Your_Gummy_Bear&diff=prev&oldid=1379583055 GreyZoneLife (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@GreyZoneLife: IP addresses involved in vandalism show be blocked if sufficient reasons are found for violation. It doesn't matter the rationale or motivation. Jô^hola 21:47, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I am of course following the guidelines and will do regardless of motivation. I'm just trying to understand why this would occur - it's not the quickest way to vandalise an article (they typically edit various parts of the article) and I can't think of any positive impact for the vandal. GreyZoneLife (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@GreyZoneLife: Well for me, I don't take editors with IP addresses serious.

There are different kinds of people using the internet these days. Jô^hola 22:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

@Josedimaria There are a few long-standing, good, experienced editors who do not want to create accounts, for various reasons. But I understand your thinking, even if it's not Wikipedia's policy to give these editors less consideration. David10244 (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Vandals want to cause lasting damage. They may hope dates are harder to notice than something else. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:48, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

This has been going on for years. I don't know if anyone has ever come up with a good explanation for it. Note that the page WP:KIDSTVDATES was created more than ten years ago. CodeTalker (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for independent review of a biography draft

Hello, I am Wang Huiling, a Chinese non-fiction writer. I have disclosed my conflict of interest and created a draft at Draft:Wang Huiling.

There is independent coverage of my work in The Guardian and Chinese publications, including Lifeweek, as well as academic research.

Could an experienced editor advise whether these sources establish notability and whether someone independent might be willing to help develop the draft? I understand that publication cannot be guaranteed.

Thank you. Linglingdaren (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Linglingdaren, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Since you have cited no sources in your draft, it is impossible to answer your question.

Whether a source contributes to notability does not depend just on whether it is a reliable source. It also depends on whether it is independent (that is, the person who wrote it was completely unconnected with you, and nobody connected with you had any part in creating the source - including interviews and press releases) and it contains significant coverage of the subject - that is, you, not just one of your works. Please see [[WP:golden rule|}].

Please note that writing an article is one of the most challenging tasks there is for a new editor, even without a conflict of interest; and that writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is so insanely hard, that very very few people have ever succeeded. Please see autobiography.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. Thus an article about you will not, in general contain what you want people to know about you, but what independent people have published about you - even if they are critical or unpleasant. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I understand the conflict-of-interest concerns.

I have compiled independent media coverage and academic research about Wang Huiling. Could an experienced editor please assess whether these sources establish notability?

Independent media coverage:

1. Sanlian Lifeweek (2020): https://www.lifeweek.com.cn/article/115088
2. Beijing Youth Daily (2021): https://finance.sina.cn/2021-11-09/detail-iktzscyy4589928.d.html
3. Sanlian Lifeweek (2023): https://www.lifeweek.com.cn/article/192475
4. The Guardian (2025): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/15/xi-directs-quashing-of-chinese-feminists-even-as-he-praises-advances-at-womens-conference

Academic research:

1. Convergence: https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565251375536
2. European Journal of Cultural Studies: https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494251388530
3. Women’s Studies International Forum: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2026.103302

The draft is at [[Draft:Wang Huiling]].

I would appreciate an independent assessment of these sources and guidance on how to proceed in accordance with Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidelines.

Thank you. Linglingdaren (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Linglingdaren,

To start wth, please don't use an LLM to write your draft or to communicate - we are taking the time to reply to a human, not a robot. Furthermore, such use is banned by WP:LLM and WP:LLMTALK.

I'm not an expert in the subject area, so I'll leave determining notability to an editor more experienced with Chinese news outlets. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 21:50, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Linglingdaren, we are all volunteers here. You'll be more likely to get assessments of those sources if you include clickable links to them. Maproom (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Linglingdaren, you need multiple suitable sources, usually three or more. A suitable source meets all three criteria in WP:42. I've looked at the first two 'media coverage' links and they are interviews, which are not independent, so they are not suitable sources. Once you've found those sources and incorporated them into the draft, go ahead and submit it - otherwise you're asking for someone to review the draft before it gets reviewed, which we don't do because it doubles the workload. Meadowlark (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

The Guardian article is legit and substantive. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:11, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. I’m sorry for using AI to help with translation, but my English isn’t very good, so sometimes I have little choice….I’ll do my best to avoid using it as much as possible.

Below are a few more articles about me, as well as academic studies of my work, that I’ve selected for your reference. I would be grateful if you could take a look.

Thank you again for your time and help.

Five Independent Sources on Wang Huiling (王慧玲)

1. The Guardian (15 October 2025)

“Xi directs quashing of Chinese feminists even as he praises advances at women’s conference”

An international news report discussing censorship of feminist voices in China, including Wang Huiling and the suspension of her social media accounts.

Read article

2. Beijing Youth Daily (9 November 2021)

“She Helps Them Escape the ‘Grassroots’” (她帮她们逃离“基层”)

By Zhang Han. An in-depth feature examining Wang Huiling’s background, public influence, followers, and the publication of her book Grassroots Women.

Read article

3. The Paper (2023)

“Grassroots Women in the Age of Short Videos: Empowered or Obscured?” (短视频时代的基层女性：被启蒙还是被遮蔽？)

An independent analysis of Wang Huiling’s feminist commentary, online influence, and the broader social implications of her work.

Read article

4. New Media & Society (2025)

“Talking Back from the ‘Grassroots’: A Subaltern Feminist Counterpublic and the Challenge to the ‘Leftover Women’ Discourse on Bilibili”

By Anqi Peng. An academic study examining Wang Huiling as a case of digital feminist activism, focusing on class, gender, marriage, and online counterpublics in China.

Read academic paper

5. Women’s Studies International Forum (2026)

“Digital Sisterhood: Live Streaming Feminism and Network Resilience in China”

By Shu Li and Yue Jiang. An academic study examining Wang Huiling’s livestreaming activities, feminist communities, and resilience under platform censorship.

Read academic paper Linglingdaren (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I think you are notable by our definition, but you really should simply wait for someone independent to write an article about you. Our policies about LLM use are strict and writing an article from scratch on Wikipedia is already a difficult task, and a nearly impossible one for those without experience working on Wikipedia. I fear this would be an incredibly frustrating experience for you. So go, and continue doing the good work you're doing, and I hope you're successful. Your cat is adorable by the way; I'm a sucker for cats, and at the moment have four housepanthers and one housetiger of my own. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind reply and encouragement. It would be wonderful if an independent editor could write the article. This is my first experience with Wikipedia, so I’m not really sure how things work.

I just hope more people know about the work I do, the realities of life for some groups of women in China, and what I’m fighting for.

I actually love black cats! But I had already rescued four cats of other colours before I had the chance to adopt one. 😂

Have a lovely day, and thank you again! Linglingdaren (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @Linglingdaren.

I had specifically told you that a source based on an interview does not count for notability; but your LLM doesn't understand such things, and the first two sources it cited are interviews. That is just one of the problems of trying to use LLMs to write or to communicate with other editors in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I understand now that interviews are not sufficient to establish notability. I’m new to Wikipedia and still learning its rules. I appreciate your patience and guidance. Linglingdaren (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Fixed Colin Fine's link: WP:Golden Rule. David10244 (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Restore page to draft

I created a page that was stable for years and apparently there was a deletion discussion that i never saw.. i was wondering if someone could restore the page WMT Digital to draft so i can work on it? Thank you. Sportsfanlegend (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sportsfanlegend Pages which were deleted via AfD can't be undeleted. Since the article was deleted for a lack of notability, you'd need to write a new version which demonstrates that the company now meets the notability requirements whwre it previously did not. Considering it was deleted just a month ago, it's highly unlikely anything significant has changed re: notability.

That said, if you still want to do it, your best bet would be to write a new version of the article as a draft at Draft:WMT Digital and submit it via AfC.

I do have to ask, do you have a particular reason to want this company(?) to have an article so badly? Athanelar (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and I should note that if you disagree with the actual deletion and want to open a deletion review you can follow WP:DELREVD. Athanelar (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Unless you have direct links right now to completely different sources than the ones used before, containing significant in-depth coverage of WMT Digital, then there is nothing valid you could possibly "work on". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:23, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Pretty snarky answers here... There should be a number of administrators willing to restore the deleted material for further work, bearing in mind that what is said above about the need to rewrite things with new sources demonstrating notability before another attempt is made to bring a topic to mainspace is true and important. Drop me a message if nobody comes to your aid and I will help you find someone. Stay away from Articles for Creation, it is a backlogged, dysfunctional mess. —tim ///// Carrite (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe my answer was the only one that could be called snarky, and I apologize for that. I could have said what I meant without that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, to clarify "can't be undeleted" - they can, there's no technical reason against it. You'll need to ask on Requests for Undeletion - and have a valid reason.DS (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

No, @Sportsfanlegend, do not stay away from AFC. It is backlogged, just like New Pages Patrol, but it is not a "mess". David10244 (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@David10244 You pinged the wrong person. @Carrite I would be genuinely interested in your feedback as to why you think AfC is a dysfunctional mess. I've been embarking on a project to improve both the author-facing and reviewer-facing side in recent months. Do feel free to drop me a msg on my talk page with any feedback you have. qcne (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Tai Kadai

Suggest to the administration and other editors that they create an organisation for Tai Kadai for the entire Tai/Dai community.

Hello everyone, I would like to propose creating a WikiProject specifically for the Tai-Kadai community.

I am quite new here, so I do not know much about how minority communities can be promoted, but when I explored this platform I found that there are WikiProject groups that help to improve articles.

Tai-Kadai includes several distinct communities, and there is little information about their religion, culture and language. However, they also share many similarities. In my view, we should create a group for this, so that we can improve Tai/Dai community articles together.

Every Tai community is connected, so we should bring together their cultural identity and, for those communities that do not yet have representation, we can create new pages for them.

Here, I can see different regional WikiProjects: WikiProject India, WikiProject China, WikiProject South Asia, and WikiProject Southeast Asia. In some cases, there are conflicts between them over historical debates, and Tai-Kadai does not get a chance to present its religion, language and culture (I think this happens sometimes in historical debates, but I am not blaming anyone). To address this, we need to create a WikiProject for Tai-Kadai. Write in the comments what you think of my idea. 刘宸宁 (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Tai kadai groups name :- All tai people , Dai ethnice , Shan , Tai mao , zhuang , tai Khamti , Ahom , Tày Tac ,Tai Lü ,Khün, Phuan, Thai Song

Everyone can check it on the Tai people page; sorry for not providing this page earlier. They have a very large community, so it is difficult to describe it fully here in a comment. 刘宸宁 (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

刘宸宁, please see "Creating a WikiProject" for how you should (and shouldn't) go about attempting to launch a new WikiProject. It also suggests that for many situations, people dreaming of launching a new WikiProject would be well advised not to attempt this but instead to set up a "task force" within an existing WikiProject. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:16, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Probably the best place to discuss a new topical WikiProject is in the old WikiProject that includes your topic. In this case, it seems to be the Southeast Asia one. The editors there may think it is a good idea, perhaps because your topic is so much discussed there that the new WikiProject would leave room there for other topics. Another place to discuss it is in the Article Talk Pages most important to the new group, such as relevant linguistic articles. Basically what is required to start a good new WikiProject is a large group of active editors who want a home for coordinating their work on the topic. Some new editors make the mistake of creating a WikiProject because they hope to bring more attention to the topic. This method usually fails. The best time to make a new one is when the topic has so much attention, it overwhelms the existing, related WikiProjects. Jim.henderson (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I understand, but I'm new here, and it takes time to find an active editor. I will talk to them soon. 刘宸宁 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Adding Airlines based in an Airport to that Airport Tag

AeroLogic (Hub only), Condor, Discover Airlines, Lufthansa, Lufthansa Cargo, and Lufthansa City Airlines are all based in (except for AeroLogic) FraPort (Frankfurt Airport). I'm wondering if I should add the Category:Frankfurt Airport to them. Also, I'm thinking of making an overview box for FraPort like there is for "Airports in Germany", although I'm not certain how (I'll find out though.) And should I also link the Railways that go through/end at Fraport to the Category? Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Jlittlebigbeard, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Didn't you ask this last week? The fact that nobody answered you suggests that nobody here has an answer for you.

I suggest that you either be BOLD and do it, or ask at the talk page of WP:WikiProject Airports. ColinFine (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I was just double-checking. Thanks for answering. Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jlittlebigbeard I'm not saying it is or isn't a good idea to make an overview box because I have no clue, but the best way to find out how to get that kind of box is also quite an easy way: go to the article with the best kind of overview box for your purpose, click Edit, make sure you're using the source editor not the visual editor, copy ALL of the box (make sure you get the whole box including whatever it takes to begin and end it correctly), and click Cancel to quit editing. Then go to your personal sandbox (which is User:Jlittlebigbeard/sandbox or any other sandbox you may have created under your user), paste it in, and change things around (using only the source editor) until it does what you want.

Visual editor sometimes "tries too hard" to help you by adding things you might already be adding by hand, sometimes accidentally giving wrong code. If you like visual editor you can of course continue to use it on normal things any time you want, but avoid using it for what I will informally call "fancy stuff" like special boxes. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:04, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Need help understanding vandalism

I have come across the page of Samuel Leeds, and there are certain issues with the page. I wonder why it uses a Instagram as a reference. Normally, I would remove it, however, the page history and talk page is giving me a gut feeling that I shouldn't.

Someone, on 9th Oct 2026, added "Con artist" to the page's lead section. The only sources calling it is by a politician during a debate. (Which is added in at the end of the page.) I wanted to know, if it would be considered vandalism? or Would the words of a Member of Parliament be considered as official and it should be left it like that? Idr888 (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Idr888, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Good question.

While it may not be vandalism (which has a narrow definition in Wikipedia) it is certainly inappropriate for Wikipedia to call him that unless the bulk of the independent sources about Leeds do so (and in my opinion "con artist" is too informal for Wikipedia in any case).

It may be appropriate to note somewhere in the article that said MP did call him that, with an appropriate citation - that will be an editorial decision.

Instagram is not normally acceptable as a reference source.

I suggest you read WP:BRD, and decide whether (in each of these cases) you prefer to be BOLD or to begin with the DISCUSS stage on the talk page. ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine Thank you for the guidance... I have reverted the "Con Artist" edit. I have read WP:BRD, and after seeing the edit history and talk page, I think, someone senior should engage. I have seen a lack of engagement in discussion from an editor, although, the discussion was opened by an account which was banned due to sockpuppetry, yet not engaging in the discussion seems a bit unethical (my humble opinion). Is it a common practice to not engage in discussion with sockpuppets? Is there any policy for not engaging? Also, how would one identify before hand that an account is a sock or not, to abstain from responding to them? I know its a bit off the topic, but Samuel Leeds page is a good example. Thank you. Idr888 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets suggests that you just report socks and otherwise avoid interacting with them. If you're familiar with a sock, you could identify it by its behavior, but expecting editors to do so for the multitude of socks out there is not realistic. Sometimes, you do engage with an editor in good faith who ends up being blocked for sockpuppetry. You take any clean up actions suggested by the "Dealing with sockpuppets" and move on. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 Thank you. I will read it and get back to Teahouse, if I have any more questions. Idr888 (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Latvian phonology inaccuracies and referencing

Hello!

Latvian phonology

The IPA notation of pitch accent in Latvian as is standard in Wikipedia and Wiktionary seems to be outdated, using a macron for the level tone, the grave accent for the falling tone and a circumflex for the broken tone, whereas in contemporary native sources the falling tone in vowels is marked with ː and not marked in diphthongs and mixed diphthongs, the level tone in vowels is marked with ːː in vowels and with ː in diphthongs and mixed diphthongs, and the broken tone is marked with ː and superscript ʔ in vowels and superscript ʔ in diphthongs and mixed diphthongs.

The former notation is only used in Latvian phonetic alphabet transcriptions, with a tilde being used instead of the macron. The use of the macron in IPA transcriptions on Wikipedia is justified with the use of the tilde for nasalisation in IPA, I suspect this to be a remnant of outdated attempts to represent Latvian pitch accent in IPA. Compare [luõks] in LPA with [lu͜oːks] in IPA.

Additionally, many vowel qualities are represented not in accordance with modern literature, especially in diphthongs: the [e̞] element is transcribed as [ɛ] in diphthongs, the [ɔ̝] element –which closes to [o] in the [u͜o]diphthong – is transcribed as [ɔ] in that diphthong and [ɑ̽] is transcribed as [ä].

I assume this all to be a result of the use of older literature, especially in the question of vowel qualities (the sources in the Latvian phonology page are both pre-2000, before modern acoustic studies). However, I am not so sure about this judgement when it comes to pitch accent representation. Is this a Wikipedia only standard and should it overwrite contemporary literature?

Since I have not meaningfully edited Wikipedia before I also ask if it is accepted to use references to non-english literature on the english language page, as the source on this that I am most familiar with (which is also the main source in the field of Latvian linguistics) is also in Latvian: Grigorjevs et al. 2013. "Latviešu valodas gramatika". LU Institute of the Latvian Language. I would like to correct this page using mainly this material if it is acceptable by Wikipedia referencing standards. CentralName (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Citations to non-English literature are welcome, provided they meet our usual requirements for their reliability. Please be bold! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

As you're new to editing, definitely take Andy's advice to be bold. However, be prepared in the case of a revert to discuss the topic on the article's talk page. WP:BRD is a good approach to take to improving articles while keeping everything collaborative and productive. If you run into issues with another editor after this, also check out WP:DR for how to solve disputes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@CentralName, yes, as people have said above, non-English-language reliable sources are just as valid as English-language ones, and the one you've identified seems to be reliable. That said, I'm not seeing the work use the diacritics that you use to write those Latvian vowels, even though they appear when considering the phonetic details of those vowels. That's a useful distinction to keep in mind when evaluating which parts of the article may be out of date. Kisseran (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Military Historian

New-ish author here. I'm considering preparing a draft biography of military historian and author Robert L. O'Connell, as I don't think he yet has a page here and, in my opinion, is a good candidate. I'd appreciate some experienced guidance about both notability and process. I am a long-time writer, an attorney (now retired) and looking for an outlet for my time, energy and skills. And to have some fun doing so. For transparency, Mr. O'Connell and I worked on the same floor of the same government office building more than forty years ago. We were not close colleagues, and since that time our contact has been occasional, sometimes with several years between emails, together with an infrequent lunch. I have no financial or current professional relationship with him, am not acting at his request, have not talked with him in recent years or mentioned the possibility of this project to him. I'd receive no compensation or other benefit from an article. My interest arises from a long familiarity with his published work and my own interests as a some-time student of military history. My own past reading of his many books, and, now, some preliminary research indicates that he's produced a strong body of books over the last several decades. Multiple works have received independent reviews in publications like The Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and other periodicals. My opinion is that this coverage could satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards for authors, but am advised that this judgement is a critical factor, with nuances. So, I would welcome an independent assessment before putting a lot of work into my first major Wikipedia project. If the sources appear sufficient, I'll work to prepare a neutral, sourced draft. Then submit it through Articles for Creation? Publish it directly? What is best practice here? I'd be grateful for advice about whether my limited prior connection has been properly disclosed AND whether the coverage appears sufficient to justify proceeding. Also, as the project m moves forward, what ate the rules would be about me contacting him and asking for his support, while maintaining neutrality. (I think I could do write this without actual access to him, but am curious about the rules.) Classic Photographers (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Articles are typically written without involvement of, or even the knowledge of, the subject. A potential subject cannot grant or deny approval for an article about them here, any more then they could deny permission to The New York Times or CNN to write about them. You are certainly free to inform him you intend to write about him, but you would need to tell him you must summarize what independent reliable sources- good and bad- have chosen on their own to say about him. He couldn't ask that any article display the text he might prefer. If he asked that you not write about him(as he might not see an article as desirable) you are free to respect that, but that's not binding on anyone else.

It is not uncommon to ask a person to upload a selfie of themselves to be used in an article(they could provide an image to you, but that's a tad harder to upload in terms of copyright). They may also have sources you are not aware of that they could provide you with.

Unless you have had drafts accepted in the past, it is best to use the Articles for Creation process so that issues are found beflre.the draft is formally part of the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Very useful. Thanks. Based on this, I will maintain neutrality by avoiding direct contact with the subject during this project. Next issue for me is a preliminary assessment of this subject for notability. Any thoughts out there? Classic Photographers (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Classic Photographers, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Well, done, you seem to be taking a thoughtful approach to this.

I suggest reviewing each of your potential sources against all the criteria in the WP:golden rule.

Common problems are:

• sources clearly based on an interview or press release - not independent
• sources which discuss something other than the subject in depth - no significant coverage. You say his works have received reviews; but unless those reviews say something non-trivial about the author, they will not contribute to establishing notability for him (though they might for the works in question).

If you have several sources which meet all those requirements, you probably have notability; if not, you probably don't. Some of the non-independent or non-significant sources may still be useful, but only if you have enough solid sources to establish notability in the first place. ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to WP. Assuming your subject is "Notable," which means is (1) substantially covered in (2) multiple, (3) independent, (4) published sources of (5) presumed accuracy, my advice to you would be to have nothing to do with the Drafts/Articles for Creation process, but to publish straight to mainspace. AFC is backlogged, some of the volunteers there are jaded, and it is nothing but a bureaucratic tangle that will suck every bit of joy and goodwill out of your soul... I usually write about dead people but have written about living people. My advice to you in this regard would be to write your piece first and to ask for clarifications and corrections later. Also, plan on having the article unillustrated at the time of launch, since WP's photo rules are strict and the people enforcing them are stringent. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or if you want to communicate without prying eyes, my email is MutantPop@aol.com. Good luck and happy editing! —tim //// Carrite (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Classic Photographers Contrary to this advice by @Carrite, new-ish editors are strongly encouraged to use the AFC process. Yes, AFC is backlogged.

But if you publish directly to mainspace, the onus for review just shifts from AFC to NPP (New Pages Patrol).

That's a very harsh critique of AFC there. If a draft is not compliant with Wikipedia's policies when it's submitted to AFC, the cycle of a few declines (that come with reasons), followed by article improvements and resubmission, followed by the article being accepted, is common.

If the subject is not shown to be notable, especially if independent sources aren't added to the draft, which talk about the subject in depth, then the draft may never get accepted (and rightly so).

Carrite, sorry if you had a bad experience. I disagree with your advice. David10244 (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Here's my take-away on the advice to date. It seems that first establishing notability is the key. While there are objective criteria about notability, their application may be difficult, may appear subjective, and, thus, getting buy-in on notability is a crucial gating factor. Once that is established, those particular concern about possible self-aggrandizement or diminishment of the Wiki platform shifts into more easily addressable concerns about good research practices, writing and editing -- less controversial, perhaps more easily addressed by a trained writer. So, assuming I'm right about this, doing convincing research and a good write-up establishing notability is probably my next best first step. Spend tine on it. Don't just assume. Once the Wikipedia community is satisfied about that, the rest becomes much less...fraught. Does that sound right? Any advice on presenting my research findings about notability, in form and placement on the platform? By the way, I am approaching this article creation process as an interesting game or puzzle, to be solved within its own rules. I love challenges like this and my goal is to prove myself as an excellent editor and rule-follower, since that's what it seems to take to play this game. Many thanks to all! Classic Photographers (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Showing notability is not so complicated; it's simply the available sources that are reliable and independent. Search for reliable biographical publications about Einstein and you'll find thousands and thousands of pages' worth of material. Do the same for me, and you'll find absolutely nothing. EPORIBM is a stupid acronym I just made up, for "enough pages of reliable independent biographical material". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:06, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

My sense is that the nuances of establishing notability -- while obvious to insiders -- is a powerful gating device that keeps new articles within the provenance of those who understand how to interpret and work within those nuances. (Like, just for one for example, the difference between notability of a body of work and the notability -- or lack thereof -- of the author of the body of work.) And most subjects, I suspect, fall somewhere between Einstein and total lack of sources, leading to judgement calls. And by the way I do really appreciate the input from everyone who has responded. I'm still pondering how to best frame my subject and present the results of my research in a way that will allow a solid group judgement of notability, as practiced by the editors here. When/if I can accomplish that, I'll turn my attention to writing a good draft for further review and comment. Classic Photographers (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Team Fortress 2 and European robin

Would like to suggest mentioning the video game Team Fortress 2 in the European robin article. The game's cosmetic item Chicken Kiev replaces the Heavy's head with a team-colored Red Army Robin head. The Team Fortress Wiki documents this design: https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Chicken_Kiev

If a suitable reliable source can be found, I think this would be a worthwhile addition to the article. What do you think? MBKuri (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, MBKuri, welcome to the Teahouse! I would say no; even if a reliable source is found, this kind of trivia doesn't really add much to the article. See MOS:POPCULT: Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist. [...] The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah if there is a history of this being referenced across medias (such as the akira slide) then it very well could make the argument to be included in a "in popular culture" section or similar but one game would not be enough Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia article copycat

Hi. I am working on an article Tooth-billed pigeon so it can get to GA status. however I checked the Copyvio detector, and it says the article has a 80% percent of plagiarism. But the website that we apparently copied from copied us exactly. Every word for word. And I don't want someone to quickfail it just because of a misunderstanding. So I want to clarify it Emmanbotan🌹 (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

So many sites mirror, overtly or covertly, Wikipedia, that an article of ours which has been online for any amount of time (even just hours, certainly days, and certainly certainly 20 years like this one) will have been replicated elsewhere, therefore running a copyvio check becomes a bit pointless because it will inevitably send you down all sorts of 'who copied whom, and when' rabbit holes. Which, I realise, doesn't help you, but which I'm just saying empathetically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Emmanbotan You can put Template:Backwards copy on the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I have applied the Template for you. Special:Diff/1380262607 All the best EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Bias in articles of fictional characters

I have been doing the suggested edits that are labeled as "revise tone" for fictional characters. Many of the bias found by the bot is in the category about the abilities of the characters. Should I change the tone of those parts? FlameOutsideOfStaff (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, FlameOutsideOfStaff. Articles about fictional characters written by fans can often violate the Neutral point of view and are sometimes written from an inappropriate in universe perspective. You should try to correct such problems and only include content that neutrally summarizes the sources. You can find additional advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Also see WP:FANCRUFT which is an essay about this kind of issue. Athanelar (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding obvious interpretation of literature (Insects)

Hi, I am currently working on the Colobopsis imitans article. In paper A, their species associations are mentioned. Let’s say it is said that they associate with species B and C as an example. A year later, paper D (taxonomic revision) is published and in this paper species B is split into lets says 3 different species. I can, from this information look at with which species C. imitans was associated, and where (the 3 species are geographically in different areas) and point the obvious conclusions that C. imitans is associated with those new three species even if they were considerd as one species at the time of the publication and hence 2 species were not mentioned as associating with them. Hence I am asking if I can add these obvious conclusions into wikipedia without there being any source that makes these obvious conclusions. I’m not sure if this counts as Original Research, since almost all myrmecologists would probably reach the same conclusion. If this counts as original research, can i publish my conclusions of those papers on somewhere else, and then cite that on wikipedia? I am a published myrmecologists with citations and am currently collaborating on a new species description (unrelated) too. See @faddaf on Naturalist for my ORCID and more info. And hence, I believe my small notes publication would be reliable enough to be cited in wikipedia. My interpretation of the literature would be conservative in its assumptions to avoid overconfident conclusions. Thank you for the help.

Another question is that if I am allowed to point out uncertainty of information, justified by the context of literature but not by any paper alone. Faddaff (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I just want to note that if you are a published myrmecologist and you're citing your own paper/publication you realistically have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from making such a change directly per WP:COI.

I don't know enough about biology and classification to have a well formed opinion on whether such a conclusion is below the bar of WP:SYNTH, but I would be careful about using such a justification if I thought there was any significant chance of it being challenged. Packrat3860 (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE (part of the COI guideline you cite) says): "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason..."

Caveats apply, but there is no "strongly discouraged".

WP:EXPERT is an essay, not a policy, but has more advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:29, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I thought the guideline at the top would still apply. COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. So you can cite your own publication but you should propose changes on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. Is that not the case? Packrat3860 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

No; which is why SELFCITE is included as an explicit exception to that summary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I see. I think that segment could stand to make the exception a little more obvious then. The other subheadings in that section aren't necessarily exceptions (although now I want to go back and read them more closely). Point 7 under "Advice for expert editors" in WP:EXPERT puts it more clearly with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline does allow an editor to include information from their own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them.

Thank you for clarifying. Packrat3860 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

No you can't, because this is not obvious at all. You may know from your own personal experience that it's true, but we're not allowed to use personal knowledge here. Imagine this situation: There are four different species, A, B, C and D. But species B,C and D are very similar and in 1990 people thought they were all the same, and called it "E". Species A associates with B only, not with C and D. In 1990, someone observes this association and describes it, saying A associates with "E". They may or may not have noticed that there were also individuals of species "E" that didn't seem to be associating with A, but they saw some were, so they said the "two" species associate. Now in 2000, someone notices that E is in fact three different species. Your logic would now mean that we claim an association between A and all of B, C and D because they are all E. But the fatal flaw is that there never was a global association of A with all of E. We just didn't have the classification to see the detail. So we have to wait until someone checks that A really associates with all interpretations of the new "E", i.e. all three subdivisions. This illustration may be way off the mark for the specific example you're thinking of, but it illustrates why SYNTH is dangerous. What you can do is say that A was shown to associate with a species that was subsequently divided into three species, because that's true and reflects the literature. Elemimele (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my point because I made an oversimplification. The taxonomic revision of the host species concerned Eastern mediterranean Crematogaster scutellaris group ants. These ants are ecologically extremely similar. Only one species is always found in one site never 2:

It is an interesting fact that the species of the Crematogaster scutellaris complex, which are highly aggressive and territorial [17,30], tend to ecologically exclude one another. We have already observed this pattern in the distribution of C. scutellaris and C. schmidti in the Northwest Balkans [30] and do not know any convincing case in which more than one species of the C. scutellaris complex were detected at one locality. No ecological or phenotypic differences between the species of the C. scutellaris complex are known, and the taxa appear to occupy similar thermophilous woodland habitats [10,17]. Based on the more northern distribution of C. schmidti, we suspect a lower thermophily than in C. ariadnae sp. n., C. graeca sp. n., and C. ionia. Concerning the speciation of the latter three, the separation of their ranges by the deep waters of the Aegean Sea over millions of years suggests speciation through geographic isolation: C. ariadnae sp. n. on Crete, C. graeca sp. n. on the southernmost area of the Balkan mainland, and C. ionia in Anatolia. Similarly, the speciation of C. scutellaris and C. schmidti was probably also initiated by separation into a western and an eastern refugium (source)

Since they spatially completely exclude each other, an association recorded in Crete with the old concept of the species only has one possibility, that is whichever species lives in Crete. Moreover, In many scientific papers scientists are aware those species were undescribed and hence note them as for example Crematogaster ionia sp1 or Crematogaster cf. ionia. In these cases, we can be certain that these were placeholders for those non-described cryptic species.

After posting this comment I dived a little into literature and found direct evidence, directly stated for all of suspected species except Crematogaster ionia (the real ionia, after the revision) and Crematogaster graeca. However, Data of association from the Ege region of Türkiye exists for a Crematogaster species there(in the literature), it can only be ionia, since only ionia is found there, as these species are geographically separated. This is very certain information that I plan to write inside a unofficial casual text that Ill publish somewhere.

For C. graeca I for now couldnt find anything. If I cant find anything for the localities of this species (Exact coordinates matching in another paper describing an association), I will state inside of that personal publication that similar associations with local Colobopsis is expected for this species, although not directly recorded giving justification of course. Also Camponotus lateralis is associated with C. graeca with the same manner recorded directly in the literature, C. lateralis is also associated with the same manner with all the species mentioned here so it is likely this species associates with other Camponotine ants in the same manner just like all the other species mentioned here.

I'll write a casual text on this and publish it on somewhere unoffical like inaturalist Journal page, where people can also add their thoughts there. I am not planning to Own any page on wikipedia, and if someone for example in the talk page debates my editing with appropriate literature review, I will go along with the majority consensus reached there, among peers (people involved with myrmecology in any way) no matter what I myself think.

You are free to dispute this in any way, I am open to talking here, and I wouldn't do anything that I think is against wikipedia rules. Faddaff (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Well in the ege region schmidti is also found but schmidti and ionia existed before the revision and can't be easily confused. Faddaff (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The association described was between ionia and Colobopsis not any Crematogaster Faddaff (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@Faddaff This is getting very technical for the Teahouse and is unlikely to be seen by WP insect experts. I suggest you summarise what's here on Talk:Colobopsis imitans and then ask those interested to take a look by posting a link at WT:WikiProject Insects. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Mike's right, and I'm sorry I misunderstood the geographical side of it. But basically, if you're having to do a detailed argument of why something is the case, you should probably be aiming to publish that as primary literature rather than draw it as a conclusion here. We're a tertiary source, and we're already stretching a bit of a point on a lot of specialised biological articles when we overly-rely on primary literature. But yes the insect people will give you a more informed response. Elemimele (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for everyone's input. I'll follow Mike's advice and focus on writing that text.

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to close the discussion somewhere when it has finished, I don't see an option for it.

Goodbye. Faddaff (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

No need, Faddaff. It's possible to put a "Resolved" label at the bottom, but most people don't bother. The thread will be archived in due course, and until it is others will be able to read it and may learn useful things from it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Review

Hello,

I have written a draft and plan to submit it for review. If I wish to make some changes after submitting it and before the review begins, is that possible ?

Thanks for your answer ! Dédé25lib (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

You can continue to edit your draft after submitting it, yes. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 18:02, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

In fact we recommend doing so if you can come up with improvements. The review will be conducted on the state of the article at the point the reviewer selects it.

However, don't do something halfway and leave it in a broken state (like putting in a bunch of claims and leaving the sources to add the next day) or you might get a review on the broken version. M kuhner (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up to Wikipediholism test

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1307#Wikipediholism test

I have not got my answer. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 02:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything involving commons.js. The page Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test links to an automated version of the test here where you select your answers and it tallies up your score as you go. Athanelar (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Can someone help in draftying these articles?

Hi. I have come across a series of articles where the articles have been moved from the draftspace to the mainspace without much content being added or relevant in such a way that is not yet ready for the mainspace. Is there a way, I can start a discussion on it and get them moved back to the draftspace or can someone help in reviewing it and decide?

1. Visakhapatnam Zilla Praja Parishad
2. Guntur Zilla Praja Parishad
3. Prakasam Zilla Praja Parishad
4. Kadapa Zilla Praja Parishad
5. Prakasam Zilla Praja Parishad
6. Nellore Zilla Praja Parishad
7. Kurnool Zilla Praja Parishad
8. Prakasam Zilla Praja Parishad
9. Chittoor Zilla Praja Parishad
10. Krishna Zilla Praja Parishad
11. Srikakulam Zilla Praja Parishad
12. West Godavari Zilla Praja Parishad
13. East Godavari Zilla Praja Parishad
14. Vizianagaram Zilla Praja Parishad 456legendtalk 04:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, this user frequently creates template articles, where an existing article is taken as a base for a new article but the new article is not updated appropriately and is left with pieces of the existing article. I was involved in rescuing multiple such articles with empty and copy pasted information. Can refer to 2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council election and 2025 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council election. 456legendtalk 04:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I clicked on one of these and read in a template: This article may incorporate text from a large language model, which is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. This surprised me. LLM slop gets many things wrong, but tends towards a soporific kind of syntactic slickness. By contrast, East Godavari Zilla Praja Parishad tells us: Zilla Parishad is one of the 28 district-level tier of local government body in the state of Andhra Pradesh. It has 27 Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary Right. Only @Catfurball can answer this, as they were the one who added the LLM template. Nevertheless, I feel these articles need to be moved to the draftspace. What procedure should I follow and where should I initiate a discussion for this? Or is there someone who can assist or guide me on this? 456legendtalk 10:11, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

If you are in doubt about LLM text, the AI noticeboard WP:AINB can help. (Please forgive us the mess, we are transitioning to a new noticeboard structure and are in an awkward inbetween place right now.) You can also look at WP:AISIGNS for points to look for to confirm or deny LLM. M kuhner (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary look what I have found, LLM content on Guntur Zilla Praja Parishad 456legendtalk 00:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@456legend: You could move them to draft space since they are not ready for main space, but then the creator will undo you and move them back to main space. And if this happens you might have to report this editor, since these articles are poorly created. Catfurball (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Catfurball Hey, thanks for the reply. They will certainly revert them back, based on their recent behaviour on 2026 Andhra Pradesh urban local bodies elections. I have reported them on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sandeep kumar 83 for this. Would wait to see the outcome for now. 456legendtalk 15:45, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi 456legend. Unless the draftification is the result of a community consensus (e.g., an AfD outcome), it's non-binding, and anyone can move the page back to the mainspace as explained in WP:DRAFTONCE. In such a case, your options are then to improve the article yourself, tag it with appropriate maintenance templates if you think it can be improved but don't want to or know how to do so yourself, or nominate the article for deletion via WP:AFD. The only reason you should be going to ANI is if you feel there are behavioral issues that need to be addressed. You also might want to read WP:ANIADVICE so that you get a better idea as to what you might be getting yourself into. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

For the specific case of an article believed to be LLM, AINB might be a simpler route than ANI. M kuhner (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up to 'Proper template usage'

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1307#Proper template usage

Hello. My Teahouse inquiry was unfortunately arhived, so I'm following that up here. Headquarter8302 (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

You said "I've seen that some pages use a plain table or a simple description list to describe such information". Can you give examples? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:27, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Here: USB flash drive#Technology. As of publishing this, it's a standard wikitable. Headquarter8302 (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I know of no template for this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:21, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Headquarter8302 Am I right in thinking that you mean the kind of pictures and diagrams in which the parts under discussion are labelled, there are arrows pointing at where the action happens, and all that type of thing? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Sort of. I don't know the exact specifics of what format to use, I'm simply wondering if there's an official template to be used that can replace the wikitable in the aforementioned article section Headquarter8302 (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I think maybe you should visit Wikipedia:Graphics Lab and see the samples of some of what's possible at . TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Crop photo

Hi, I would like to crop the photo of Katherine Heiny to show more of her and less of the background. Can someone point me in the direction of the instructions. Thank you. ~2026-44470-60 (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

You need to do so on Wikimedia Commons: see c:COM:CROPTOOL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, rather than cropping the image at Commons, you can arrange to display a "detail", a portion, of it in an article. To help others who like me are bad at reading documentation, I've put some examples of this at User:Maproom/cropping. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Maproom Thanks, I've just done it. Blackballnz (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem with that method is that while you have made the image better on this, the English-language Wikipedia, the improvement is not available to any other project. If you crop the image on Wikimedia Commons, it will improve it on Wikidata, and on any other Wikipedia that is using it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

There are times (for example when cropping out other people to show just one) when cutting the original would be wrong, and for those the "detail" function is best. But when the problem is just a lot of non-relevant background, Andy's point is right. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:33, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Even when cutting the original is wrong, a cropped version can be uploaded—including by using the tool I recommended—to Commons, as a derivative image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:20, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing @TooManyFingers Thanks, I'll have another look at it. ~2026-44470-60 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I've cropped it on Commons. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

New Article

I want to write a new article about Air Vice Marshal Ian Lawson, primarily about his military career but also about his civil and early life. I note his name is already included in existing wikipedia articles, for example, a list of former commandants of royal air force college Cranwell. I have never written on wikipedia and would like some help with starting. For example, do i create a page linked to the list of Cranwell commandants and work from there, or create a page and then create the link his name on the Cranwell article? I note that most biographic articles about military personnel have a standard format. Where can i pick up the template for this format? Knottyperson (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

You can start here for general help with creating the article. To copy the template from another article, just click 'edit source' on (the other article) and copy the relevant template from there. DS (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

thanks - I'll develop in a sandbox version first (I assume it is an easy exercise to move from a sandbox to a full article when I've done some practicing) Knottyperson (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Best to have someone else check it for quality first, though. DS (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Knottyperson We usually put drafts in a special WP:namespace. As we already have three Ian Lawson, I suggest you use Draft:Ian D. N. Lawson, which you can create by clicking on that redlink. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Knottyperson, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

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) 16:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that if you want to write a new article, the first thing to do is spend some time editing existing articles. Things often end badly when people jump into the deep end of the Wikipedia pool without first learning how to swim. Spend a month or two figuring out how things work and how to edit and assembling sources for your project and THEN move to starting a new piece. Happy editing! —tim /// Carrite (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The links get create after the article is published. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Asynchronous Procedure Call

Hello, i am a new to editing and would like to improve to Asynchronous procedure call. The page says it relies on a single source, and the implementation section is only two sentences about windows.

I have these Microsoft pages open:

• https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sync/asynchronous-procedure-calls
• https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/processthreadsapi/nf-processthreadsapi-queueuserapc
• https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/kernel/types-of-apcs

From these i have added couple of points that each thread has its own APC queue, that an application queues one with QueueUserAPC, that a regular user-mode APC runs only while the thread is alertable (SleepEx, SignalObjectAndWait, MsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx, WaitForMultipleObjectsEx, or WaitForSingleObjectEx), and that ReadFileEx, WriteFileEx, SetWaitableTimer, and SetWaitableTimerEx use an APC as the completion callback.

Is implementations the right section for this, under a Microsoft Windows heading?

TheNookAuthor (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

You may be lucky and get a response from someone here who is knowledgeable about the internals of Microsoft Windows (which is not me). You are more likely to get a response by posting your question on Talk:Asynchronous procedure call and/or one of the relevant projects. Go to Talk:Asynchronous procedure call and post your question there (use the "Add Topic" at the top right), and then look at the projects and do the same for one or more of them, e.g. WT:SOFTWARE. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

In relation to your question about where to put it the info, my advice would be the same - ie add a topic on the talk page. But in relation to the "single source" template, your edits don't address this issue – Microsoft only counts as 1 source no matter how many different pages you cite. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

How to make a portfolio for myself?

Hello, I am new to wikipedia. i wanna learn how to make my own article

Dennmi (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dennmi, Welcome to the Wikipedia community!

I recommend that you start with some basic edits first and then gradually move to creating new articles on notable topics. There is a lot of stuff to be done and every small bit counts, and it would be better if you are aware of content policies and guidelines before creating new pages. A lot of learning happens as you edit

One good way to start is to click on your profile icon on the upper right-hand corner, go to preferences, and in the "User profile" tab, enable "Display newcomer homepage" (these options will be at bottom of a page). Once you save the preferences, you will see automated suggestions for articles that need editing. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you face difficulties Ar1201u1 (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Dennmi, by a portfolio for yourself and your own article, perhaps you mean an article about yourself. If you do hope to make an article about yourself, first read Wikipedia:Autobiographies. (Tl;dr? It's very simple: Don't attempt to create an autobiography.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I think they meant portfolio of article, but yes, they should follow what you said if that was the intention Ar1201u1 (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I read it as a user/profile page or an article with them as the subject. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dennmi, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

I would echo what the others have said, and add the following:

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.

Like the others, I'm not sure quite which meaning of "portfolio" you intend. I'm guessing it's "a collection of your work".

Forgive me if this comes across as suspicious, but I wonder whether you are intending to develop a portfolio in order to offer your services as an editor for pay? That's what artists often have in mind when they talk about their portfolio. If that is the case, then I would advise you that you have a long and difficult journey, and I would be surprised if you can make it pay.

Paid editing is permitted, but under some restrictions (see that link for details). Most of the people offering to create Wikipedia articles for pay are, frankly, scammers, who either don't know or don't care about Wikipedia's policies. If you become one of the good ones, great: but you'll need to be very conversant with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and honest with your customers about the likely results of your efforts. (Since most people, companies, and organisations, in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, most people cannot "get a page in Wikipedia" however much they pay).

I hope that my warnings do not put you off become a participant and contributor in this (in my view) most wonderful example of a collaborative project for the benefit of all humanity. Happy editing! ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Is my draft ready for AfC? I have a COI

Hello. I have a declared conflict of interest: I am the subject of my draft at User:Gheliou/sandbox, and nobody is paying me to write it. I have not submitted it, and I will not move it to mainspace myself.

My concern is notability (WP:BIO). My sources are:

• A CBC News article and a PocketGamer.biz article where I am quoted as studio manager
• Press releases and trade-press items on a studio opening I led
• Two interviews or profiles published by Nova Scotia government business agencies

I have no feature-length, journalist-written profile yet. Two questions:

1. Would these sources count toward notability, or should I wait for more (or more recent ones)?
2. Are the government-agency interviews acceptable for the basic facts I used them for (birthplace, one quote about the industry)?

Thank you for any guidance. ~~~~ Gheliou (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use LLMs to communicate with us. Half the URLs don't work in the sources, another sign of LLM use. LLM use is forbidden on English Wikipedia, except for a couple very specific exceptions, neither of which is applicable here.

In any case, the sources do not establish notability. An interview with you is not independent coverage of you. None of the other sources, as far as I can tell, do anything other than mention you in passing; not a single one entails significant coverage about you.

Checking myself, I'm not finding alternate sources that demonstrate your notability, by Wikipedia's definition. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Fair point about notability. On the use of LLM, I was too afraid of breaking formatting rules I'm not familiar with. 2 links were oddly shaped indeed.

Not arguing in either case. Comments appreciated. Gheliou (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

You'll find that people are very willing to forgive beginner mistakes in formatting, spelling, and grammar. However, they are much less willing to forgive LLM text. So, be bold and make human mistakes: it will be fine. (Speaking as someone one of whose early edits turned an entire noticeboard purple!) M kuhner (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Without looking at your page, I'd say no. The only source that might count as reliable and independent is the CBS source and you've said it's not in-depth. (Interviews, profile page, and press releases don't count.) Since you need two in-depth sources and you don't have them, you don't meet the requirements for WP:Notability. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Source advice for a possible biography of Sean Murphy (author)

Hello. I work with Sean Murphy and 1455 Literary Arts on publicity, so I have a conflict of interest.

I’m seeking advice before preparing a possible biography of Sean Murphy, the author and cultural critic who founded 1455 Literary Arts. His work includes the memoir ''Please Talk About Me When I’m Gone'', the story collection ''This Kind of Man'', and the poetry collections ''The Blackened Blues'', ''Rhapsodies in Blue'', ''Kinds of Blue'', and ''Red, White, and Blues''.

I would appreciate guidance on the general notability guideline and the creative-professional criteria, particularly coverage of a writer’s collective body of work.

These are three sources I’d like help assessing first:

• Midwest Book Review, Small Press Bookwatch, August 2024 — the ''This Kind of Man'' entry contains a synopsis, a short critique, and a biographical note.
• [https://www.washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com/features/how-sean-murphy-sees-story Sarah Trembath, “How Sean Murphy Sees Story,” Washington Independent Review of Books, September 24, 2024] — an interview with discussion and evaluation of the fiction by the interviewer. I understand that Murphy’s own answers are primary material.
• [https://www.mvtimes.com/2015/05/06/noepe-writers-in-residence-share-their-latest-at-the-west-tisbury-library/ Jack Shea, “Noepe writers in residence share their latest at the West Tisbury library,” The Martha’s Vineyard Times, May 6, 2015] — a group-event report with literary commentary on Murphy and mentions of his memoir and novel.

The User:AshtonElo/sandbox contains the fuller candidate list, including:

• An Identity Theory interview with introductory criticism of ''This Kind of Man''.
• Northern Virginia Magazine coverage of his literary organizing and 1455’s festival.
• Other book reviews, interviews, and podcast appearances.
• Commentary on ''Red, White, and Blues'' by Ron Charles and Greg Olear.
• Supporting award and publication records.

The notes identify limitations, including Olear’s disclosed friendship and past working relationship with Murphy, interview answers that are primary material, and sources whose editorial reliability needs assessment. Author-supplied listings and the Kirkus Indie review are identified separately.

There is also a separate inventory of Wikipedia articles citing Murphy’s music criticism. Examples include [[Lizard (song)]], [[Village of the Pharoahs]], [[A Passion Play]], and [[2112 (song)]]. These cite his writing about other subjects. I’m unsure whether that source-use context is relevant to the creative-professional criteria.

My questions are:

• Does the combined coverage provide a reasonable basis for an Articles for Creation draft, or is stronger independent secondary coverage needed first?
• Which sources contribute meaningful evidence, and which have insufficient reliability, independence, or depth?
• How should reviews of his works be weighed alongside coverage of him personally, and does the use of his criticism add anything relevant?

Thank you for your guidance. AshtonElo (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Midwest Book Review, Small Press Bookwatch, August 2024. Says little, and unsigned.
• Sarah Trembath, “How Sean Murphy Sees Story,” Washington Independent Review of Books, September 24, 2024 You say "an interview with discussion and evaluation of the fiction by the interviewer. I understand that Murphy’s own answers are primary material", but Trembath's contributions are enthusiastic rather than informative.
• Jack Shea, “Noepe writers in residence share their latest at the West Tisbury library,” The Martha’s Vineyard Times, May 6, 2015: Two short paragraphs on Murphy, within an article about an event involving ten writers.
• Does the combined coverage provide a reasonable basis for an Articles for Creation draft[?] I can't see how it does. [I]s stronger independent secondary coverage needed first? Yes.

-- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:24, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, please don't use an LLM to communicate (WP:LLMCOMM) or to write or copyedit an article or draft (WP:LLM). Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Are there any in-depth reviews of his work in reputable sources? Mme Maigret (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

When is template 'Personal attack removed' appropriate?

{{Personal attack removed}}

I noticed this comment on a talk page Talk:Helium-3#Disgusting, unsightly typo which seems egregious to me but I'm not sure if it qualifies for removal. Thanks!! TAF International (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi TAF International. That comment was made in November 2014 by an unregistered account. The original post actually contained some profanity, but another unregistered account removed that word about a week later (could've been the same person). The post probably should've been archived along time ago, but for some reason it wasn't (maybe because it remains unsigned) by the page's archiving setup. Marking it with {{personal attack removed}} at this stage seems (at least to me) pointless and maybe overkill: calling someone in particular illiterate is not good, but this seem to be referring to Wikipedia as a whole. The post should probably just be manually archived (after being Template:Unsigned comment). If an admin wants to go back and revision delete the profanity, then that's up to them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I've cleaned up that talk page and removed the section in question, which was clearly made in bad faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR

I'm a bit confused about the Original Research policy. Does this policy mean that the observation of objects physically (and subsequently noticing facts about them) is original research?

For example (made up), is saying "there are 150 spaces at this car park" (which came from a car park sign) considered original research?

Another example (also made up), is just saying "there is a car park" also original research?

Thanks. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 04:12, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The policy means that we can't state facts in Wikipedia's voice that aren't attested in reliable sources or readily observable to anybody reading the article.

If there was a photo of the site showing the existence of a car park, you could probably say there's a car park. To say "there's 150 spaces" you'd need a source. If there's a photo in the article of the sign saying that there's 150 spaces, you could say "According to the sign at the car park, there are 150 spaces." You probably couldn't say "There are 150 spaces" and leave it at that.

But the policy's really more for cases like "Well, I know that John Doe was born in 1974 because I went and asked him and he told me himself" or "I know the molecular structure of Unobtanium because I was on the research team that first observed it" or "The phonology of this language is like this and I know because I'm a linguist and I observed this language." The real point of NOR is "we can't take you at your word, no matter how certain you are; this information needs to be published somewhere reliable before we can use it."

There's also a very common form of original research called WP:SYNTH, which is where somebody takes one or more sources and combines or extrapolates them to infer new information which is not explicitly stated in the sources. There's a couple of examples given at that link if you're not sure exactly what that means. Even if the claim that the person creates via their synthesis is logically possible or even factually correct, it's still inappropriate because the claim is the result of the original thinking of the editor rather than being explicitly stated in the sources. Athanelar (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that! That was really helpful. Really good explanation. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 04:36, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

See also {{Cite sign}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:25, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Further to Athanelar's really good summary - especially regarding the "Unobtainium" paragraph: Wikipedia is not some kind of formal legal process, and the existence of a rule like this does not oblige Wikipedia to pursue every possible case. The rule is there to catch actual bad cases in such a way that those bad cases "don't have a leg to stand on", and is therefore a strict and absolute rule. But its judicious non-application to cases where it isn't actually needed seems to me to be part of how it works. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Need help to acquire photo for article

Hello, I recently worked on the article Shubhalakshmi Panse. I wish to add a photo of her, to make the article visually better. I read that we need to use license free images on Wiki. So I tried to search on google with the filter for CC license. But couldn't find any image in that category. Can anyone help me acquire a photo of Ms. Panse? JoyWeaver (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@JoyWeaver Not license free, but one with an acceptable license:. Which excludes pretty much any random pic of a living person you find online, unless you're very lucky. The "answer" is that very often there isn't a pic of a living person we can use, so we have to do without. I checked Youtube for "free" videos (you can filter for "Creative commons"), but no luck. If you want, you can try to contact the article subject directly and point them to Wikipedia:A picture of you. Some article subjects like the idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on Youtube as well. Sure let me try to ask the subject for a picture. JoyWeaver (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@JoyWeaver It's a real problem to casually ask subjects for a picture, because subjects have not studied the requirements and will most often send something they have no right to be sending. Making them read Wikipedia:A picture of you is the way, not just asking them - and if you know they won't do that, then you're stuck. (I guess the way in that case might be for you to read it, and start a cumbersome conversation about it rather than a direct picture request.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

You can also take her photo yourself. Mme Maigret (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes I agree, that asking them for a picture is a tough option. I could not find her LinkedIn page, where someone can message. I don't know how to do that without revealing my identify, as I don't have dummy gmail ids. I read something about burner, is that an option? I don't know them personally, so can't click their photo myself. Is there a way I can ask other Wikipedians to contact her? JoyWeaver (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

You can try https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Permission_requests. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

The only licensed image I find is from "getty image: Bloomberg", so should I request them via this link? It seems a little complex for me to go via this route, as I am not aware of licenses etc. I liked the idea of asking the subject itself, so it there a similar forum to contact the subject? JoyWeaver (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking again, this doesn't seem to made for "please ask the subject for a pic", so maybe it doesn't help here. If you try to contact her, perhaps Wikipedia:Example requests for permission can give you some inspiration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi JoyWeaver. Pretty much anything you find attributed to Getty will typically mean it will be licensed in a way that's too restrictive for either Wikipedia or Commons because Getty is in the business of selling licenses to use its images (i.e., images created by others who have asked Getty to help them make money); moreover, such images are almost never allowed to be uploaded locally for use as non-free content per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because of non-free content use criterion #2. Whenever Getty is involved, it usually means Getty and the image copyright holder is trying to make money; so, asking them to release their image under a free-enough license would kind of be like asking them to shoot themselves in the foot. Getty, of course, is more than happy to sell individual licenses to people/organizations wanting to use one of their images, but only with some serious restrictions in place.

Anyway, given that Shubhalakshmi Panse is alive, a non-free image of her will almost certainly not be allowed per WP:FREER; so, you're going to have to hope someone either creates or has already created something free enough for Wikipedia/Commons purposes. Some people have had luck contacting individuals or their representatives for such an image, but (I guess) there's always risk of a little quid pro quo: they might want you to start editing on their behalf or otherwise be their "Wikipedia representative" in exchange. Most of the time, it's just luck when such an image is found; either someone takes their photo and posts it online under a free enough license or they're at some government function/event where they photo is taken by an official government photographer for a country where such works are considered to be within the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Her Linkedin page is the first thing that comes up in search results when I google her. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

yes can you message her asking her for her photo along with Wikipedia:A picture of you? I dont have a anonymous linkedin profile to send her a request myself. JoyWeaver (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Finding a way to make two separate articles out of one

Hi. I looked at the article on Prathyangira Devi, and noticed that She has been conflated with Narasimhi Devi. These are two different lion-headed goddesses in the Hindu pantheon, but both have different iconographies and mythological origins.

Is there I way I can recommend making two different articles (which I have the research materials for) or to just go ahead and edit the original, provide references, and just start a second article on Narasimhi.

Most places just copy paste what is on the current page as is, and that is not borne out by archeological research or an analysis of ancient texts. Checkingthefacts11 (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Checkingthefacts11 The question is; do you have reliable sources identifying the two as separate deities? I notice in your contribution history that, for example, when editing Jyestha (goddess) you said you Added in scriptural reference from Skanda Purana... you should be aware that scripture is not considered a reliable source in and of itself, we need to cite interpretations of that scripture, because otherwise we'd be relying on our own interpretations, which is not allowed.

Please also be mindful of your biases and remember that Wikipedia is not written from any particular point of view. Articles about deities should not be written from the point of view of a worshipper. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. Athanelar (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Approval of Draft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Link - Draft:Somasekhar Sundaresan

I wrote everything from scratch again and again, then converted it to code and submitted. Still it was rejected. What should I do? Excuzi (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

How did you "convert it to code"? Athanelar (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I used Gemini, but I made sure none of the texutal content, even punctuation or citations or anything at all was altered from what I wrote myself. I just gave it content and told it to convert it to code without making any changes at all. Excuzi (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Television sources for a biography

Hello, I’m Dave Nassaney, also known as Caregiver Dave. I’m asking about a possible biography of myself, so I want to disclose that conflict of interest.

My television appearances are listed at https://caregiverdave.com/in-the-media/ and continue on page 2.

How can I determine which broadcasts qualify as significant independent coverage under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines? I understand that interviews and independent reporting may be treated differently.

No draft has been submitted. ChatGPT helped organize the source links and phrase this question. I’m seeking guidance on evaluating the original sources before a human editor writes any article. Thank you. DaveNassaney (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DaveNassaney. Thanks for disclosing your ChatGPT usage. We actually prohibit the usage of chatbots like ChatGPT in the writing of article content, and we highly discourage you using it to research sources. See WP:NOLLM.

As for your query: an article on Wikipedia is only possible if the subject meets our criteria for inclusion, in this case it would be Wikipedia:Notability (people). Interviews do not count towards this criteria. We would instead be looking for (as a rule of thumb) about three independent sources that discuss/analyse/critique your life based very specifically not on press releases, full interviews, or from unreliable sources like social media.

If you can't find three sources that each meet the golden rule, an article would likely not be possible at this time. qcne (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Tangentially related, about we highly discourage you using it [LLMs] to research sources. I don't think that's what WP:NOLLM is about; is there any existing concensus on this? I have been under the impression that it is fair-game and even to some extent encouraged as they can be more effective than Google in the age of SEOs. LkL-70547 (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's encouraged, but rather accepted where used by experienced editors whom we trust aren't going to let it creep into copyediting and even writing their article. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I think some of the grumpiness you may encounter around it comes from seeing people misuse LLMs thinking that it's allowed as long as it's in some way related to the sources.

If you use an LLM for a query like Please search the web for sources covering the founding of $COMPANY, don't include official press releases or the company website and then you read those sources and decide whether or not to include them and write the copy and the edit summary and so on I don't think anybody is going to object (or probably even know). I have done that before on occasion, especially when the "AI Overview" of my search engine is hinting at a source I haven't been able to find yet.

But there's a lot of folks who have clearly written some initial copy, plugged it into an LLM and said "please add sources" and then uncritically dumped the output into Wikipedia (without checking whether those sources exist or if the LLM has decided to "help" by rewriting parts of the copy or what have you). Then when someone asks if this was written by an LLM they say "oh I just used it for sources". In such cases it is simpler to suggest that they rewrite without using an LLM in any way. Packrat3860 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Definitely so. I use it to find sources too sometimes, especially in more niche topics (like the Holz Hausen firewood stack), but I wouldn’t really recommend it to newer editors since the latter approach you explained often occurs and then their work ends up at AINB. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 14:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Dave.

qcne has summed it up pretty well. We have a great essay here called WP:Popularity does not guarantee notability which applies quite well to your situation. There are a lot of people who find themselves confused at why we don't consider them notable despite them having had a bajillion media appearances, being featured in this and that publication and so on. The thing which makes you notable here is that some outlet completely independent of you and with no input from yourself has decided to take notice of you and write about you in-depth. In other words, you need to be the kind of person who is so interesting that people start writing biographies about you without your input. That may seem like a rather high bar, and it certainly is. The vast majority of people on the planet don't qualify for an article here. After all, if appearing on TV a lot of times made you notable, we'd need an article for every weather anchor on the planet. Athanelar (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you just being in a broadcast would count as significant coverage, similarly being on a podcast. If someone makes a TV program, film, or documentary about you that would go towards showing that you're notable because someone considered you worthy of coverage. But for example, actors don't just qualify for a WP article by being prolific. They need need sig cov like everyone else. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I did a Google search on Dave Nassaney, also known as Caregiver Dave; he is not notable and if an article would be created it would be nominated for deletion. Catfurball (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for guidance on a biographical article about a Marathi writer and lyricist

Hello,

I am a Marathi screenwriter, lyricist and poet from India. I would like to understand whether my work and career meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a biographical article.

I have published Marathi ghazal collections and have credits in Marathi films. I have also found some newspaper coverage, literary references and a radio interview relating to my work.

Since I am the subject of the proposed article, I want to follow Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines and avoid creating a promotional page.

Could an experienced editor please advise me on whether my available independent sources may be sufficient, and how I should proceed?

Thank you. ~2026-55396-92 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-55396-92 Please don't use AI to talk to us.

This editor's advice: go on about your life as if you had never heard of Wikipedia. There is nothing to be gained by having an article here, because A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. Athanelar (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Make a non-self sponsored page

How do I make a page like this for my company without it being declined as "self-promotion"? Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Mitchell2526 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The first step is to ask yourself why you wabt an article about your company. The vast majority of the time, the answer is something like "Because other similar companies have articles" or "to raise awareness about what we do" or "to make sure people can find the info we want them to find." All of these are considered promotional here and if those are your intentions then the answer is that you should not write an article about yourself. Athanelar (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mitchell2526, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In all probability, you don't: see WP:BOSS.

Most companies and organisations in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability: this has nothing to do with how important or worthy they are: it has everything to do with whether several people who have no connection with them and have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the organisation, have chosen to write in some depth about the organisation.

It follows that the only possible way for you to create such an article is to find several sources that each meet all the conditions in golden rule.

If you can find these, then it is possible to proceed. You would next need to effectively forget every single thing you know, think, or believe about your company, and write a summary of what those independent sources said about it. Even if they leave out things that you think are important. Even if they are critical or nasty about it. Even if they bring up matters that you really really really don't want people to be reminded of. (Actually, if there are such matters, it's probably more likely that your company is notable than if there aren't.) Even if they are wrong, according to your personal knowledge.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to send a draft to an editor and have it checked before submitting for approval to avoid a self promotion punishment? Mitchell2526 (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mitchell2526 the way to do that is to submit a draft article via WP:Articles for creation, which you already have experience with. qcne (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Editing

Quick question: Can you collaborate on article editing? Sabres Jayce (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Of course! Every article here is a collaborative effort. If you look at the history of any article you'll see multiple editors have contributed to each one. Athanelar (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sabres Jayce, did you perhaps mean “can you collaborate on articles by teaming up with another editor and submitting work on the article jointly?” Augnablik (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

When you write a Wikipedia article by yourself, it is still never yours - you can't supervise it or own it, and anyone is always able to see it and change it for any reason. Normally when someone is writing by themselves we don't interfere, but that is only to avoid being rude or appearing rude. Being able to collaborate on Wikipedia is built into the system and is totally expected.

• BUT it is very strictly forbidden for @Sabres Jayce to be shared. Every person must have their own individual account and must never use anyone else's account even temporarily.

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:59, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about draft notability

Hello, could someone advise whether the independent sources in my draft are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia's biography guidelines?

Draft:Ali Mohammed Mahdi

Thank you. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @AliMohammedPhoto. That was an easy decline. None of your sources provide independent critique or discussion of this person. They're all very clearly paid-for promotional pieces. qcne (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@AliMohammedPhoto: Please note that if you know, work for, or are Ali Mohammed Mahdi, you have a conflict of interest and need to follow the the guidelines at WP:COI. If you are being paid to create an article for him, see WP:PAIDEDIT. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 16:12, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I am the subject of the draft and understand the conflict-of-interest guidelines. I am seeking independent advice on the sources and will follow Wikipedia’s guidance. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @AliMohammedPhoto, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Have you read autobiography, which explains why we very very strongly discourage anybody from writing about themselves in Wikipedia. Your chances of success - especially as an inexperienced editor - are so tiny that it is almost guaranteed that you are entirely wasting your time and effort in trying to create an article about yourself. My advice is to forget that Wikipedia exists, and go on with your work. If you are, or become notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) then sooner or later somebody unconnected with you will create an article about you. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine,

Thank you for taking the time to share your advice and explain Wikipedia’s guidelines. I appreciate your honesty and understand your concerns about conflict of interest and writing about oneself. I will take your advice into consideration and focus on my professional work while ensuring that any future article about me is supported by independent, reliable sources.

Thank you again for your time and guidance. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@AliMohammedPhoto What is your connection to @Sarbastazeez, another Iraqi sports photographer, who also submitted an autobiographical draft today and asked the exact same question you did? qcne (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello Qcne,

Thank you for asking. I do not have any personal or professional connection with Sarbastazeez, and I was not aware of their draft or question before you mentioned it. I submitted my draft and asked my question independently.

Thank you for checking. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@AliMohammedPhoto

Your question:

Hello, could someone advise whether the independent sources in my draft are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia's biography guidelines?

Their question:

Could someone advise whether the independent sources in my draft are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia’s biography guidelines?

Both of you are Iraqi sports photographers. Both of you submitted autobiographical drafts today. Both of you used mostly the same source publications of which most followed the same structure.

Please don't insult our intelligence. qcne (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@AliMohammedPhoto: To be clear, you're not in trouble. If you are transparent with us about what is going on here, we can help. Please disclose whatever connection you have with User:Sarbastazeez. Thank you. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 18:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello John,

Thank you for reaching out and for clarifying. I want to be transparent: I have no personal, professional, or financial connection with User:Sarbastazeez, other than any interactions that may have taken place on Wikipedia, if applicable.

I am happy to clarify any specific concerns or answer further questions. I want to follow Wikipedia’s policies and contribute constructively.

Thank you for your time. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@AliMohammedPhoto Are you communicating with us via a chatbot like ChatGPT? qcne (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Article proposal

We should make an article about controversial YouTubers that got banned Jason1110TS (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Youtube has a vast number of "Youtubers". The huge majority are not "notable". If you can demonstrate that a "Youtuber" (whether or not banned from Youtube) who doesn't have an article is notable, then you can create a draft about that person. (Urging other people to create an article is seldom successful.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't you think a Medium or Substack article might be better? Mme Maigret (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

To make a Wikipedia article, the literal topic "Controversial YouTubers that got banned" - in those exact words - has to be already the topic of major coverage in several different sources. We can't make an article by seeing that there are quite a few of those people and putting them together ourselves to create something. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I need to have my Wikipedia page improved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Wikipedia friends--

I've long had a professional page and we are longtime supporters. My article needs serious updating and improvement. In the last year or so, I've received emails from persons saying they are Wiki editors, but I've found in researching them that they are scammers. May I ask for your help and any vetted referrals you might offer? I wish to engage someone with professional / or high-level volunteer experience with this.

Many thanks,

Marguerite Feitlowitz

Mfmushroom (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mfmushroom: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1308.

I wouldn't pay any money at all, as no article is ever going to be locked into a particular revision. You may want to leave an edit request so that a willing volunteer can incorporate changes for you; please make sure to add those to Talk:Marguerite Feitlowitz and be ready to share reliable sources, especially if this is new information that is to be added. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RE: Incorrect Data on Page

I am new to this and not sure how to approach the discrepancy in the Article Henry Newton (Canadian politician) 1731 - 1802

His second marriage to Anne Stuart is correct; however, she is the daughter of Gilbert Stuart Sr. 1724-1793.

Anne's brother is the painter Gilbert Charles Stuart 1755-1828

Thank you for helping with this. Gramz History (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

How do you know this? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Done. I found sources at the article on Gilbert Stuart Newton, son of Henry Newton (Canadian politician). The son's article cites his entry in volume 40 of the 1894 edition of the Dictionary of National Biography in addition to Eaton, Arthur Wentworth Hamilton (January 1915). "Rhode Island Settlers on the French lands in Nova Scotia in 1760 and 1761". Americana. New York, NY: National Americana Society. p. 41 – via Internet Archive.. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Why am i not able to create articles?

Dear admin, i have been on this account for nearly a week now and have more then 10 edits. Yet i am not granted rights to create any articles or edit protected pages. Muniyammal.Bhanumathi (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello there! You need to have made your first edit (not register your account) for more then 4 days to get the autoconfirmed permission, you can then create articles. I see that you have only made your first edit 3 days ago, so you will have to wait 1 more day.

More information: WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 06:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Muniyammal.Bhanumathi If you aren't autoconfirmed you can make it in the draftspace and send it for review when it's ready. Strongshorts (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Is Suggestion Bot working?

About 3 days ago, I used the SuggestBot to give me edit suggestions on my talk page, but they haven't shown up. It said it would pop up within minutes but it has been quite a lot of minutes so I am just wondering whether I did something wrong or it's just down. Thanks, PixelsRCool (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Per User:SuggestBot#Current status (permalink): SuggestBot will be down for maintenance over the next few days as we have to make updates to its infrastructure...it may or may not post suggestions if you ask for them, and it won't post to our subscribers. Its updates of the Community Portal will not be affected. SuggestBot does not seem to have made suggestions since July 2026, when Nettrom last updated "Current status", as previously noted at User talk:SuggestBot#No suggestions (permalink) a week ago. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

User talk:SuggestBot#c-Nettrom-20260811124500-Ost316-20260804205700 for my own reference -- Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:16, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The Buffalo Sports Curse

I've already made one wiki article but this one I think is going to be tougher. I would like to know if anybody could help. I'm not sure how but I'm pretty busy most of the time so we can't communicate easily. I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly because I'm new. Also I'm not keen on waiting the some 7-10 days until my first wiki article is either approved or not so yeah. Bspstheman (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, so you're new enough to not know if you're doing it right and busy most of the time and it's a tough article and you don't want to do it alone ... and you don't want to wait either ...

If it's all those things at once, - which you yourself just said that it is - then this is insane and just forget it. If you come back another time when you're not busy and you don't mind waiting - that could work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean I guess but I feel like I might just do it for pleasure because what I meant by busy is I do this LATE. And I am fine with waiting as long as I know something is going to happen. It's like sending fan mail and 4 years later unprompted the letter comes back. by then you will have forgotten about it. Do you get what I mean? Bspstheman (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Late as in behind schedule, or late as in late at night? If you're in Buffalo, your "late night" is not so late in LA or lots of other places. And 3 AM at your place is 7 AM in London, if I got it right. Besides, there's no need for Wikipedia editors to work at the same time. But: working with others on an article is likely to be pretty slow, anything can happen (and it usually does), and if one of you gets impatient then the other one is going to bail.

Unfortunately, almost all of the "guaranteed success" articles already got written years ago. The closest thing to guaranteed success is having three monster-sized sources where every one of them goes on and on in great detail with their opinions about the Buffalo Sports Curse, and bonus points if their article is literally called "The Buffalo Sports Curse".

I sincerely hope it turns out great. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:03, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Bspstheman (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bspstheman. You can create a WP:DRAFT and submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think its ready. Creating a draft will allow you to do things at your own pace and others will pretty much leave you be as long as you don't start violating any main Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The only other thing you will have to make sure of is that you work on in enough so that it doesn't get tagged for speedy deletion as an abandon draft; so, if you work on improving it at least once every six months, you should be OK. You can invest as much time/energy as you want in the draft, but you might want to first assess whether the subject you want to create an article about is actually Wikipedia:Notable because a lack of Wikipedia notability is something that can't really be WP:OVERCOME. If you're looking for help with the draft, perhaps try asking on the talk page of a relevant Wikipedia:WikiProject: one of its members might even be able to help you assessing the subject's Wikipedia notability. FWIW, creating an article in the WP:MAINSPACE is allowed (unless there are some technical restrictions in place preventing you from doing so), but it immediately places the page under higher scrutiny. Once something has been added to the mainspace, it's there for anyone to edit (for better of worse), and it's also there for someone to tag/propose/nominate for WP:DELETION if they feel it has issues that simple can't be overcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

thanks, I'll do that soon. Bspstheman (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:There is no deadline it says some other things that might be reassuring. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

You haven't made one wiki article yet. You created a draft on Juan Pedro Franco in your sandbox. I've added a button there that allows you to request it be reviewed as explained by Marchjuly in his comment above. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I need help to make the Estonian 2026 education strike page, any tips?

Hello, Creator of 2026 Estonian education workers' strike here, I need some help to expand the page about the one-hour strike, any tips on expanding the page?

Oh yeah here is the questions answered:

Q1: Why not use images?

A1: Well. sadly ERR images are copyrighted. including articles image. (from what I searched)

Q2: Why do you want to expand it?

A2: Well to include more information about this information.

If you have any questions please ask me or any tips. If you want you can edit the page to include more information.

Thank you. - AWorldWithout (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @AWorldWithout, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Irrespective of how important this event might be for teachers in Estonia, I think it very unlikely that it meets the requirements in WP:EVENTCRITERIA. I'm pretty sure that your current sources are not sufficient to do so. Remember that Wikipedia is not a news organ.

Note that unless you begin by finding several sources that each meet all the criteria in the golden rule, you are probably wasting your time in trying to create an article. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

it was metonied on alot on news things. I know wikipedia is not a news organ, it is an Event. which because strikes are techinally notable if it is menoited by least several sources (either news one or trusted ones) there is alot of Estonian (I think) news article about the strike. im still new, but I made sure it is notable by at least sources, that's probably why im editing the page to add more information (or sources) AWorldWithout (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

A one-hour strike is an important symbolic act, and may have an important influence on Estonia's policies on education, but a one-hour strike is only a method of communication by the teachers. The message they sent is an important one, but the actual literal event was "for an hour there was no instruction". That is a very boring "event".

I am not Estonian, but I think the real Wikipedia article that Estonian teachers must be hoping for is a future one called "Estonia's education reform of 2027". This strike will belong as a sentence in that article, as part of explaining how it happened. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:19, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Another way I could have said it: This strike proves that Estonians are arguing about education. Unless there is violence or other very major events connected with the argument, we should not try to write an article until the argument has been settled and the final results can be analyzed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

be carefull so you Don't getlocked Out ~2026-56021-92 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about draft notability 2

Could someone advise whether the independent sources in my draft are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia’s biography guidelines?

Draft:Sarbast Azeez. Sarbastazeez (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Sarbastazeez. You have submitted your draft for review: that is, for a reviewer to look at the sources and decide whether they are adequate. We do not do pre-reviews.

Have you read autobiography, which explains why it is that almost nobody ever manages to successfully create an article about themselves in Wikipedia.

As I said to AliMohammedPhoto just above, My advice is to forget that Wikipedia exists, and go on with your work. If you are, or become notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) then sooner or later somebody unconnected with you will create an article about you. ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Based on your explanation, I understand that the rejection was not due to the quality of the articles. For your information, my sources include internationally recognized and reputable media outlets. You are welcome to verify them yourself.

However, I still do not fully understand the reason for the rejection, and some aspects of the decision remain unclear to me. My sources come from respected media organizations with professional international standards, which is why I find the outcome difficult to understand.

I sincerely hope that the Wikipedia reviewing team will ensure a fair, transparent, and impartial assessment of my draft. I respect Wikipedia’s policies and the work of its volunteers, and I would appreciate a clearer explanation of the specific issues that led to the rejection.

Kind regards,

Sarbast Azeez Sarbastazeez (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Sarbastazeez. No, your sources do not establish any notability and I have declined your draft. What is your connection to Wikipedia:Teahouse#Question_about_draft_notability? qcne (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Let me be frank with you: my work has been featured by several reputable, high-quality international channels—not just one. You are welcome to verify this through the sources. Furthermore, I do not use any artificial intelligence tools; I can prove this to you by sharing my screen if you wish. I simply hope to receive the full recognition I deserve. My work has appeared on outlets such as Rudaw (Kurdistan)—which is widely recognized as a professional, international-standard channel—as well as Kurdistan 24, and various Qatari, Jordanian, and Iraqi channels. I trust that your esteemed team will ensure I am given fair credit. Sarbastazeez (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

You have already received fair credit here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Can you please answer qcne's question?

Your work may well have appeared in all sorts of places, and I congratulate you on that success. What you need, however, are sources completely independent from you who have chosen to write in-depth about your life and/or work and then had this writing accepted by a reputable publisher. Interviews with you are not considered to be independent - anything you have had any input into is not independent. Having your photo featured somewhere without any discussion about your life and work is not significant coverage. Can you point to a source you believe meets all three criteria in WP:42? Three sources like that usually means an article is possible; if those sources do not exist, the article cannot exist either. Meadowlark (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Sarbastazeez, if a publication uses one of your photos in an article, that contributes nothing to your notability. Any such article is neither independent nor significant coverage of you as a person. So, which of your references are reliable, fully independent of you and devote significant coverage to you as a person? Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I was the first photographer from the Kurdistan Region to arrive in Qatar—a fact you can transparently verify by searching for my name, Arabi Sarbast Aziz. My work has been featured by the media outlet Rudaw (an independent Kurdish channel), Kurdistan 24 (a government-affiliated channel), the Qatari newspaper *Al-Watan*, and numerous other websites. Best regards. Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sarbastazeez you do not meet our criteria for inclusion, and my decline of the draft still stands. qcne (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

    https://magazine.imn.iq/ryadh/9977-سربست-عزيز-عدسة-بدأت-من-الشغف-ووصلت-إلى-كأس-العالم.html

        https://www.rudawarabia.net/arabic/categories/sport/1367993

   

https://alsabaah.iq/index.php?newsid=137404 Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

You can verify the sources included in my draft; they are credible. I kindly ask for an impartial review—I deserve that much. Please take the time to read them carefully; I have provided eight highly reputable sources. Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed them. They do not meet our criteria for independence. You still have not explained how you came to submit this draft and ask this question at the same time another Iraqi sports photographer also submitted an autobiographical draft and asked exactly the same question. qcne (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I do not know anyone; I simply submitted my draft and provided my information. I did not include any unverified or unknown details. I respect Wikipedia’s policies, but for context, I should mention that I was ranked as the second-best photographer in Iraq by certain archival/memory-documentation platforms. Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Best of luck with your career, you do not meet our criteria for inclusion at this time. qcne (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I am a media professional who has been working in the field since 2010. I have won numerous awards and covered many tournaments, yet I do not know why my application to join the best site in the world was not accepted. It is truly, deeply painful. Best regards. Sarbastazeez (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

You seem to gravely misunderstand what is done here. Wikipedia is not a platform where people "apply" to join and tell about themselves, like social media platforms are. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone says about themselves, we want to know what others say about them. This is usually very difficult for someone to do about themselves, especially without prior Wikipedia editing experience, and almost no one succeeds at it. By "almost no one" I mean that the number of successful autobiographies in the last 14-15 years can probably be counted on one hand(out of tens of thousands of attempts). Are you the rare person who can succeed where almost everyone else fails? It is possible, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. Please read our autobiography policy carefully.

If Arabic is your primary language, you may want to consider editing the Arabic Wikipedia instead. Each Wikipedia is separate, with their own policies, and your content may be acceptable there. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Qcne's decline was correct. I think there's a language barrier here you're having trouble with. People keep trying to tell you that what is needed for an article about a subject is reliable, independent sources that are about you, not articles by you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Barnstars

Hello other editors, I'd like to ask a few simple questions out of curiosity. I was shown that senior editors have different types of rewards and barnstars. I'd like to know how a new editor can earn these barnstars. 刘宸宁 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @刘宸宁, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is no such thing as a "senior editor". Some editors have more experience than others, but we are all learning, and there is no ranking. (Not even administrators: they are the janitors of Wikipedia, who have requested and been granted access to certain tools (like the keys to the cleaning cupboard) so that they can perform their janitorial functions, but they have no higher status).

Barnstars are awarded by individual editors to individual editors who think they merit them: that's all. There is no status attached to being awarded a barnstar, and the way to earn one is to edit in a way that attracts another editor's attention in a good way, so that that other editor chooses to give recognition. ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

But @ColinFine,you are one of the very Wikipedians I’ve long thought of as a perfect example of a senior editor! 😂 Augnablik (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

In short, the awards are unofficial and there is no system. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:27, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

.I understand clearly 刘宸宁 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

how to donate to wikipedia

i want to donate ~2026-55377-20 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

Please go to Wikimedia:Donate ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Experienced, unbiased editor needed for Cass Review

Request for editor of cass review

Hi all I made a bit of a mess on the Cass Review, edit warred like a fool, and now the edit war is continuing. Could an experienced editor, preferably without strong convictions on the subject, please hop on and help me fix the mess I made? Editing-dude144 (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

How would that be different from just leaving the article alone and letting yourself lose the edit war? Why not just do that? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

its not about winning anything, I felt responsible and the article didn't have many other editors before I posted this.

Now it does. Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If retired before

If retired before but then months or over a year later, returned is that allowed if not creating drama? And not using template saying retired Cwater1 (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If you more or less abandoned Wikipedia for any length of time, and your leaving did not involve any controversy or anger on Wikipedia (i.e. you didn't get banned or anything), and you didn't show any "retired" template, then welcome back, there's nothing special you need to do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:00, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess I have obsession or interest in contributing Wikipedia again. I was gone from June 2025 to August 2026. Many articles are long overdue of improvements and expansion as recently been doing. Cwater1 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

As long as your edits are good and you treat everyone well, come back whenever you feel like it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The presence or absence of a "Retired" template is not relevant. Just like classic rock bands, Wikipedia editors can come out of retirement whenever they so choose. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

My only thought about the template was "if you did have one but you're back, you should take it down". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:31, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I probably won't use the template in future even if take long hiatus again to avoid confusions. Cwater1 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Is a linkedin profile a relevant citation for a listed job title (CIA Directorate of Operations)?

On the article for the Directorate of Operations (CIA) Aaron Wegert is listed as the Deputy Director of the CIA for Operations, yet it states that a citation is needed. His LinkedIn profile lists "Deputy Director for Operations at Central Intelligence Agency" as his role within the CIA and based on his activity on there, it appears that he interacts regularly and contributes to the comments and posts made by official and known members/former members of the acting intelligence apparatus.

It also states that he "Transitioned from clandestine service to overt status under President Trump in mid-2025” and prior to that, he was a postdoctoral researcher in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity/cyber warfare at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS).

It appears that he became the Deputy Director of the CIA for Operations in July 2025, having transitioned to overt status around that time. Drum.Hell.Her (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

LinkedIn is most certainly not a reliable source as it is user generated content. See WP:UGC. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Drum.Hell.Her, the very next section of that policy is called Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. See WP:SELFSOURCE. This explicitly creates an exception that applies here. An independent source would be preferable, though. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Not disputing that, but I have come across several LinkedIn profiles over the years where someone is claiming to be associated with an organisation, but isn't. The problem is that individuals can add pretty much anything they want to their employment history, and AFAIK LinkedIn doesn't in any way try to verify those. (In fact, quite the opposite: I once spent months and months trying to get LinkedIn to remove someone from our company profile who had nothing to do with us; their stance was basically "prove to us that this person isn't working for you", which I'm not sure is even possible.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I read the guidelines outlawing social media and self-published sources after I'd asked this question on teahouse :S Drum.Hell.Her (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Drum.Hell.Her: His LinkedIn profile fails point 1 and 2 at WP:SELFSOURCE. I didn't find other sources so I have removed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if that response was brusque. There's nothing wrong with double checking and this is the perfect place to ask questions like that ^-^ Packrat3860 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Request my draft for review

Hello other editors, my draft is almost complete, and I need to correct some grammatical errors. I request you to please check my draft once so I can understand if there are any errors. Yesterday I received a warning for a large language module in my draft. I'm a little confused here because I don't use AI-generated . But I only used Google translation app to translate the Chinese text into English, and I rewrote their text, sometimes it was misspelled. So if I'm doing something wrong, please help me with the correct guidance , and I request the editor to please check my draft once and give their statement.

Draft:Three Ancestral Lineages of Yunnan 刘宸宁 (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

刘宸宁, at the foot of Draft:Three Ancestral Lineages of Yunnan, we read "I will complete this page later." Good. Complete it, submit it, and then read any comments or suggestions that it gets. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hoary Okay, thanks for the encouragement, but I'm confused about the LLM warning. If the other editor thinks it's LLM based, but I'm not using an AI generator, how can we convince the other editor that this draft isn't LLM-based? If they don't believe it, I'll have to rewrite it again. 刘宸宁 (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable question, 刘宸宁. It's rather a topical one for me, as just a week ago Rosiestep asked me about the appearance of LLM assistance in what I'd added to the article Bas Aarts. As you'll see there, I denied having had any such assistance. Rosiestep was persuaded by my denial, but I have to say that I find it unimpressive: if I had received LLM assistance, I could have lied and written the same denial. It was Suðurhafsljósæta who wrote about the appearance of your use of an LLM. Normally I'd suggest doing what I did: asking them straight up for evidence of LLM assistance; however, I see that you've posted an invitation to something related but different; I'd give Suðurhafsljósæta time to respond to that before asking questions or making requests. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hoary Okay I understand, I'll wait for it but I am currently busy with my personal work, I'll fix the error in the draft at night. 刘宸宁 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, just noting that I've replied to 刘宸宁 on their talk page. :) Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

okay i'll look into it 刘宸宁 (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I see you said I only used Google translation app to translate the Chinese text into English. Please note that Google Translate does employ Gemini nowadays, so your texts would indeed be considered AI-generated. We vastly prefer you to simply write with your own words. LkL-70547 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@LkL-70547 I'm really sorry, I think Google Translate isn't a web AI. I'm using Google Translate for the translation part .

Another editor pointed this out earlier: "You're using Google Translate, so many of your sentences don't sound right, so I'm translating them first, then rewriting the parts that need it most."

But I have to review my article. If any part seems odd, let me know on my talk page.

Another editor told me, saying he's an expert in English, and he'll fix the mistakes in my draft. 刘宸宁 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

It does utilize AI now. It didn't in the past. Unfortunately I don't know which translators (if any) are non-AI these days. Regardless, for English Wikipedia we do require that you be proficient enough to communicate in English yourself - it doesn't need to be perfect. If you don't feel capable of editing without the use of translation tools it's better to edit projects in your native language instead. They often need editors far more than English WP does. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 20:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat I'm sorry about that, but I'm not using an AI generator, and I've already mentioned here that I'm only using Google Translate for translation, then I'll rewrite it.

I have not any intension for breaking the Wikipedia policy and thanks for the giving the advice and I'll focus to write english myself .

I received the same comment from another editor, and they suggested using the Wikipedia Chinese platform, but I explained it to them, and they accepted my vision – I want to provide Chinese sources from the Wikipedia English platform, and I received the Barnstar.

You can see our conversation here. istalk 刘宸宁 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I do understand that you aren't generating the content from scratch, but because it utilizes the same technology it can be prone to the same errors, which is the reason it's generally not allowed (and presumably why your draft was flagged). If you do manually review and revise it top to bottom that is permitted, just be sure that everything is properly cited to WP: RELIABLESOURCES. Other language projects may also have different standards, so sometimes articles (or parts of them) that are allowed there may not qualify for inclusion on English WP. Translations can be tricky because of this, regardless of whether they're done manually or automated. Having an experienced editor assist you will certainly help though. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 20:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice.

You're right, I'll read it again and fix the mistake on the draft page. 刘宸宁 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Unable to remove templates after non-admin closure

I have non-admin closed the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15 (software engineer) (3rd nomination) but I am unable to remove the templates. Please advise. Abayomi2003 (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: User edit count is 10 before involving in AfD discussion: 1 to userspace; 9 to WP space; 0 to mainspace. I have undone this user's closure of AfD. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 09:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

And also stale by 18 months. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 20:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

How to move out of my sandbox

I have been working on an article (User:BFP1/sandbox) in my sandbox, which will be titled Loach & Clarke. Brass Founders. I have been using templates which are useful, but they make editing difficult for me (eg moving and deleting images) compared with the old text editing. Can this be accessed when needed? However, although it is obvious the article needs tidying up, I would like to move it into Wikipedia 'proper'. The Wikipedia instructions do not seem to relate to my layout. Therefore, I would appreciate help in the move. BFP1 (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@BFP1 I see that you have now moved this to Loach & Clarke. Brass Founders. I think that WP:Precision suggests a better title would be just "Loach & Clarke". The full stop in the title is very unusual. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That kind of full stop was ordinary in centuries past, but is now probably best described as an affectation. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@BFP1 I don't see references talking about this company, or explaining why it is Wikinotable. David10244 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Provinces of Tarragona

everyone!!!!! plz make more info 4 provinces of tarragona bc i am the only one editing villages in tarragona!!!!1

plz BulgarianinCatalunya (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedians will do what they wish, @BulgarianinCatalunya. To find users that may want to help you, I'd suggest reaching out to members of WikiProject Catelonia (a "semi-active" WikiProject) or WikiProject Spain. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

ok thank you :thumbsup: BulgarianinCatalunya (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Advice on sources for a Partridge Homes article disclosed conflict of interest

Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia. I am a director of Partridge Homes, an estate and lettings agency, and have disclosed my connection on my user page.

Before creating a draft through Articles for Creation, I would appreciate advice on whether the following sources provide sufficient coverage under Wikipedia’s company notability guidelines:

• https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2026/05/family-agency-in-talks-to-manage-third-lettings-book/
• https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2111991-record-rental-growth-for-west-midlands-letting-agent-despite-national-downturn
• https://www.propertywire.com/news/west-midlands-lettings-firm-adds-block-management-service/
• https://thenegotiator.co.uk/news/agencies-people-news/partridge-homes-prepares-for-block-management-launch/

Some of these articles cover the same announcements. I’m unsure whether they offer sufficient independent coverage or would be considered routine business news.

Would these sources support a draft, or would more substantial reporting be needed? Thank you for your guidance.

PropertyPerson (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these are fairly WP:CORPTRIV. Also mostly not independent since the facts are stated mostly in the form of quoting someone from Partridge Homes. And even if they were better sources, the last two have no byline and are written in a manner that looks more like a press release than independent reporting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@PropertyPerson You need sources that talk about the company, explaining why it is Wikinotable. This looks like a company doing ordinary company things. David10244 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

DRV process

Hello, Dare2Leap here.

I am new to the DRV process and after reading WP:BFDI, I thought that I'd create a DRV, since the article was similar in topic and BFDI was undeleted after new sources were presented. But I got messages saying that "DRV is not AfD round 2". I asked for explanation, but didn't receive a response, and I couldn't find the policy for it. It was posted despite the proposal text being similar to BFDI. So can anyone here explain this? I also have a draft named Draft:Hermitcraft under AfC and I wonder if that is the cause. I am sorry in advance for any inconvenience that I caused.

Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 15:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dare2Leap I'm looking at your DRV now, and specifically at your "three best sources";

You've championed the La Repubblica source, but it offers literally nothing in the way of SIGCOV about Hermitcraft as an organisation, a server, etc. It's literally just a local interest piece about how they're building an Italian village on the server. Myself and others have explained the kind of sources you need at length, it's disheartening to see that you come back with yet more low quality sources like this.

You should be aware of WP:BIKESHED. Consider all the time you're spending trying to push this draft through, and consider how much you could've contributed to the encyclopedia using that time if you weren't stuck on this one thing. At some point it's more sensible to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

Of the two dotesports articles you gave as your "best" sources, too; the first one is literally just a listicle. You seem to be fixated on the wordcount because of WP:100WORDS but you would first of all do well to heed that that is an essay, and secondly note that it says On examination, the 100 words may be judged to be not significant (e.g. rambling, off topic, not actually secondary source material covering the topic), but if there are less than 100 words, do not offer it as a possible GNG source.. The point of this essay is that anything below 100 words is probably not sigcov, not that everything above 100 words is sigcov.

Just from these two sources alone I'm really concerned that after all this time and debate you still don't seem to be familiar at all with the kinds of sources we need to demonstrate notability. Given that and the number of declines already on the draft, I am going to go ahead and reject your draft. Please take this time and effort to edit something else and become more familiar with our standards for articles. Athanelar (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar I am sorry for the discomfort that I caused; I did not mean to. User:Whipmywillows said on the video game wikiproject talk page that the Dot Esports article seem to be contributing a lot here. I have started another draft, Antimatter Dimensions, and it got accepted by User:Sulfurboy. I did my best here considering the limited coverage relative to its cultural impact. I have also done a lot of other things during that time, including getting OWID data visualization onto articles and updating 2026 Ebola epidemic statistics. So don't just judge me by one thing only, that is one of my request. Also, I did not just submit three sources, I also submitted seven more that have the potential to be notable. This has become a headache for me, but I will return if I have the time and nee sources have arrived. Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 17:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

You're not being judged by one thing - not yet anyway. If someone does a lot of small things right, but they also do one big important wrong thing over and over and over - even after many patient explanations - that person is eventually going to get judged for it unless they really change it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dare2Leap Causing discomfort is not the real problem. The problem is forcing others to waste their time fixing the mistake you kept repeating after you already knew not to do it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I likely (saying likely because I do not want to say "I DO NOT KNOW IT" as if I was the one above all else or the ruling authority) do not know it, but If I did, once again I am sorry. I will return if I have the time, and I will try alternate methods, like getting the Minecraft server to WP:GA status or editing the Hermitcraft/Minecraft wiki. I am also sorry for any uncivil actions that I did if any. Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 17:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Not knowing about something, after being clearly told many times - you see that this is potentially a big problem for you, right? "I'm not listening" or "I can't read" would not be good things to say about yourself. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

What do I do now? What about taking a break? I don't do well with differences in opinion, and I am obsessed with Wikipedia right now and it's negatively impacting my life after being involved in so many discussions and declines and rejects. I often get the urge to edit other articles because I did not get what I wanted. I want to reduce my involvement here, but I can't (for now), because then I get a notification saying that my draft whatever was declined/rejected or someone left a talk page message. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 18:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If you feel you need to take a break, do so. You can place the {{wikibreak}} template on your userpage to inform other users if you feel the need to do so. Otherwise, editing other articles is exactly what you should be doing. Creating new articles is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and when you're specifically trying to create new articles about things you're very passionate about, it's easy for a lot of enthusiasm and ego to get tied up in that and cause you to do things or behave in ways that you don't necessarily want to do. I encourage you to edit in topic areas that you're less passionate about. Athanelar (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

About receiving decline messages: When an article gets declined, you are allowed to give up trying to fix it. If you really do give up, meaning that you will never touch that article again, then you are free to ignore the decline messages and just pretend that article never happened. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dare2Leap Your message - the one beginning with "What do I do now?" - is in my opinion very encouraging evidence that you are a good person who sincerely wants to do the right thing but is having a private emotional struggle about also wanting to achieve big important goals quickly.

Wikipedia is slow. Wikipedia will never ever accept "Just let me put this up even though it's poor quality - I'll fix it tomorrow, I promise", because Wikipedia is the opposite: "Do it right, take a year if you need to, but it must be done right".

If a business builds things, they might do it for the lowest price, they might be the fastest, they might be the best - but never all three at the same time, only two. Wikipedia is done for free, and we try to be good, but we will never be fast. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:11, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

My draft was completed and I want to move on main page

Hello other editors, my draft is now complete and I'd like to submit it to the main page. If any active editors, please check my draft once and help me move it forward on main page. This was my first draft, and I was having difficulty finding references. With someone blessing, I've written the article in its basic form, and now other editors can add additional information to this draft.

I hope my article will be on the main page, and if you notice anything strange, please ask me on my talk page so we can discuss what can be done to fix it. Draft:Three Ancestral Lineages of Yunnan. 刘宸宁 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Your draft has been reviewed and "declined"; that means it needs more work before it can be considered for publication. Please see the feedback left at the top of the draft page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Yes, I already got the message that my page has been declined.

So I want other editors to tell me which part is wrong, that's why I commented on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, let's see what others suggest about my page and One person will help me to correct the English grammar, but he was busy right now, so he will correct it on my page soon. 刘宸宁 (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The decline notice already gives all the information you could possibly be asking for. Their explanation is already very specific, and I don't even see a way to make any of it clearer - something which I tend to complain too much about. So it's better to use that than to ask here, unless there's some very specific part that you didn't understand. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:42, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Just in case: There's a box, and the first words in the box are "This draft reads like ..."

Everything inside that box - that's exactly the stuff you came here to ask about. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, I was confused because it was written as a policy pattern, so I was just confused about what I needed to change. I might understand better if someone explained it in personally. 刘宸宁 (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It may have looked like what is often called a "form letter", but in fact that box was written just for you to explain why the draft was declined. Those are the reviewer's actual comments to you personally, not a template. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:11, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll have to read it again.

My mistake, it looks like a template so I didn't think I needed to read it.

But anyway, you told me that, thanks for pointing out the mistake. 刘宸宁 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Should I update a Wikipedia file redirect?

I am reading through the wiki articles in which the pre-restoration Anne of Cleve’s portrait is used (and update them if necessary) and notice that the general AnneCleves.jpg redirect to the old version thttps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AnneCleves.jpg&redirect=no

should we update it? I’m wondering what the intent of the editor is. If it’s to redirect to her portrait in general, then this redirection is out of date (and we should update it). But what if someone uses it INTENDING to link to the old portrait specifically? Then I will mess up their work

i need some advice from someone with more experience Cherry567 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Is the editor still around, the one whose work you don't want to mess up? If they've edited somewhat recently, then it would be a good idea to just ask them. But if they haven't done anything for years, that's different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Creating a Draft with a dead citation link

So I'm working on an article draft for an album, the issue is the album was originally released on streaming services on March 14, 2025. However, the album was released on April 18, 2025, with three additional songs on it. Both versions were available on Spotify for some time and now only the April 18 release is available, and the March 14 release was removed from Spotify.

The dead link issue is that the pre save link for original March 14 release was cited on the artist's Wikipedia article, however that link is dead, I had actually fixed the citation link on the artists Wikipedia page. However, I realized I need to cite the original release date of the album on the article for the album. I went to the revision history of the artists article to find the link and tried to see if it was archived in the Wayback Machine, but it was never archived.

not sure how I should go about citing the original release date of the album.

thank you MariaIsmene (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello MariaIsmene! Are there no other potentially Reliable sources of the original version's release date, such as in music magazines that might have reviewed it? They do not have to be linked to, or even online at all if the appropriate bibliographical details are given. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Well sort of, the only source that I could find was Genius Lyrics, which is deemed unreliable by Wikipedia. She's a small artist so it's gonna be tricky to find a review of her album. MariaIsmene (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Apple Music shows the release date as March 14, but Spotify Shows it as April 18. These two dates are obviously conflicting, but I'm not sure which is considered the official release date. MariaIsmene (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Citations

I need to find citations for the TV show "Galactic Agency" Can you find them for me? I don't want to risk getting blocked again. Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wee Willie Mitchell, see Help:Find sources. The most important part about becoming an editor is learning to find and use proper sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but can you find sources and citations for me to put into the article? Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

(Their whole point was "That's your job, do it yourself".) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Keep 'ya head on! Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

A suggestion, Wee Willie Mitchell. Just forget about Draft:Galactic Agency. The next time you feel a pang of desire to create an article, start by looking for the reliable, independent, secondary, information-rich sources with which to create the article and make it informative. If you can't find such sources, stop: ignore the pangs, and think of something else. And of course remember that very many articles that already exist are seriously defective: consider working on the improvement of one or two of these. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, but I just can't give up. I need to try and try again. I want to be Julie Chabrol (the creator) proud, and let her know that the show has it's fans. And that page is where the fans can get together. Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

That's very much not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. Athanelar (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It very much is. It's a place where fans can learn more about the show and share their ideas for the page on it's talk section. Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. We should absolutely avoid ever writing from a fan's perspective, or trying to make somebody proud with what we've written; that sort of thing is promotional. It's also absolutely not true that that page is where the fans can get together. No space on Wikipedia is appropriate for a fan get-together, see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOCIAL. If you want somewhere for fans to get together and celebrate this media, Wikipedia is not the place. Athanelar (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

That's what I was referring to. Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Except that no, it isn't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:43, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Temporary account ending

Hi, I wondered what makes a temporary account suddenly end. I thought they were supposed to last for 90 days but that hasn't been my experience. I prefer to use a temporary account to reduce the likelihood of becoming over-involved or protective of my edits. I edit from copyedit-required lists or on random patrol. What can make a temporary account suddenly end without explanation, in the absence of any communication or obvious misstep? ~2026-55567-51 (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

You will get a new TA if you edit from a different device, a different browser (or browser profile), of if you clear cookies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:43, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't knowingly do any of those things. I use more than one page of Chrome on a mobile (android) in order to refer to articles while editing (two slightly different Chrome icons), but have used those interchangeably all along so I don't know if that would be it. I've never understood why there are two types of Chrome on my mobile but it is useful. Maybe cookies automatically clear sometimes. ~2026-55567-51 (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Depending on browser settings, cookies may be set to automatically clear either when you close the browser or after X amount of days. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 18:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. That may be it. ~2026-55567-51 (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

How do you edit an article containing templates

I am very grateful to the editors who tidied up my new article 'Loach & Clarke'. I found it impossible to do the traditional editing in the presence of templates. In the History it shows that the other editors were able to use traditional procedures that I am familiar with, but seem unable access. How is it done? Also, I have added an important reference, No 3 (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.ar00134260&seq=140). How can this be modified so some relevant description can be added, and that it goes straight to the web site like the other references? BFP1 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC) The reference seems to be going to the web site in this message but not in the article.

@BFP1: WP:TEMPLATE may help, and Help:Referencing for beginners for help with references specifically. Athanelar (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I have managed to use Cite to improve the reference title and allowing it to go directly to the web site. However, I still do not know how to edit without a nearby template being activated and intruding eg when I type <ref. What am I doing wrong? BFP1 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Would the pen sign (on the top RHS) which indicates 'switch editor) be relevant? BFP1 (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Which editor are you using? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:43, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I can't remember now but there are only 2 options 'visual' and 'source'. What would the previous editors have used? BFP1 (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

My question is which are you using now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

i want to be experienced at editing

i just want to Eduardofromportugal (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Great, what's stopping you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:47, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

notices Eduardofromportugal (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Eduardofromportugal: Go to Wikipedia:Task_Center for some things you can do to get more Wikipedia experience. RudolfRed (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Why is my article so bad?

I dont really know what I did wrong, I just want to make my cartoon a bit more popular. I dont know what the hell to edit now! TomsonCartoonsWiki (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TomsonCartoonsWiki. You have a misconception about Wikipedia. We do not exist to promote or advertise your cartoon. Our articles are only neutral summaries of what reliable, mostly secondary sources state about a subject. If multiple mainstream newspapers or magazines talked about your cartoon, then an article may be possible in the future. qcne (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

But, I kind of wasn't trying to advertise, I was just making a article and hoping other people would ATLEAST notice it in someway. TomsonCartoonsWiki (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

That's still not permitted on Wikipedia, sorry. qcne (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

"I just want to make my cartoon a bit more popular... hoping other people would ATLEAST notice it in someway"—that is the very meaning of advertising. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's most important rule about writing articles is that you can only try writing one after the topic has already had major coverage in reliable media (reliable means no blogs, no social media, and no places where the public is allowed to edit). (It also means that interviews and announcements don't count as major.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:20, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about my pending draft on AUDPC and AUDPS

Hello! I am looking for some guidance on my pending draft: Draft:AUDPC & AUDPS.

This topic covers the Area Under the Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) and Area Under the Disease Progress Stairs (AUDPS), which are quantitative parameters widely used in plant pathology and phytopathology to measure disease progress over time. Surprisingly, Wikipedia does not currently have an article on these concepts.

I originally submitted the draft in early September. It was declined twice due to the fact that the text appeared to be generated by an LLM. While I fully wrote it myself, I had used an LLM to polish the grammar and style, which likely triggered the rejection.

Since the last rejection, I have removed all LLM phrasing, keeping just to my original writing. I re-submitted it, but it has been waiting for the review since then.

AUDPC and AUDPS parameters are frequently used by researchers and students in plant biology and phytopathology. Could a host take a look at the current version to see if it meets Wikipedia's standards? Any advice on how to successfully move this forward would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Ikocico (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It will be easier for you and better for the article if you stop trying to fix it, and instead delete the entire thing all at once and start over from nothing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:11, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The reason: "Phrasing" is a completely false description of the problem. LLM phrasing is not bad in itself. LLM gives worthless content. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Could a host take a look at the current version to see if it meets Wikipedia's standards? Any advice on how to successfully move this forward would be greatly appreciated. The main thing you can do at this point is wait. Drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, so the wait can be long. Teahouse hosts can point out any major stumbling blocks, but generally, they will leave the evaluation of a draft to the Articles for Creation (AfC) reviewers. Since you have responded to previous declines by reverting to an initial version entirely of your own words, you can wait to see what the reviewers say about the rest of the draft—and if the draft's sources show the subject meets the criteria for a standalone article (notability). Honestly, the sourcing is more influential than polish[ed] grammar and style—after all, we have an entire guild of editors who love polishing up prose, but no amount of editing will help if the subject fails the notability criteria.

While you are waiting, perhaps it may be a good idea to improve existing articles. This has several benefits:

• more reward for your effort than writing an article: adding to an existing article just requires a reliable source (and a refusal to use LLMs!), and it's more likely to stay up than a draft
• still helps readers
• helps better incorporate your eventual article into Wikipedia, as other articles will link to it (see WP:Build the web)

  AUDPS is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia

  AUDPC is, but only at Spot blotch (wheat) with little context for lay readers and Glossary of phytopathology, where neither it nor "disease progress curve" are even defined.

  Disease progress doesn't even have its own article (let alone measures for it, as you say above)—it redirects to Plant disease epidemiology, where the phrase is mentioned one (1) times.

If you would like, you can leave a note under a previous reviewer's comment that you have done as the decline notices instruct. Such a note will not prevent subsequent declines, but it may show reviewers that you are responding to feedback and engaging in the draft review process in good faith. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Sarbast Azeez

Hello Wikipedia editors,

I kindly ask you to review my draft, Draft:Sarbast Azeez, when possible. I would greatly appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you for your efforts and for helping improve Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Sarbast Azeez Sarbastazeez (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sarbastazeez: As it says at the top of Draft:Sarbast_Azeez, please be patient. There are many drafts that need review. You got feedback just a couple of days ago and made only small changes since then. RudolfRed (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you take a quick look at your account to see if it’s worth it or not? Sarbastazeez (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Sarbastazeez, I took the time to review your draft and explain the problems that you face in my response to your earlier question. You have failed to to present any real evidence that you are a notable person and you also do not seem to understand Wikipedia's standards. 99.9% of people who try to write autobiographies on Wikipedia fail. The vast majority of working photographers are not notable and therefore ineligible for Wikipedia biographies. What makes you different? Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You are absolutely right; everything you’ve said is pure gold. I respect your decision, and I respect Wikipedia’s policies. Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Tea house icon

I honestly want an icon for the Tea house in the GNOME/Nuvola/HumanIcons theme. Here’s what I want as an SVG: Teacup/Utah teapot (Make either, but make both! The more, the merrier!) And in pastel colors with some small amounts of dark colors. Oh, and it’s a fairy-styled house that also has an Alice in Wonderland theme! Reply if so! CuteLittleBlobs (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, CuteLittleBlobs. Feel free to create this image yourself. Or perhaps a volunteer at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab can assist you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

wow ~2026-56021-92 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

graphic labs - read blueprint ~2026-56021-92 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Is it rude to rely on the bot?

I have noticed that when I add a cleanup tag like {{bsn}} or {{unreferenced}} that User:AnomieBOT will come through afterwards and add a date to them. From this I assume that I'm supposed to date these. I am creating some meaningful strain if I prefer to just write the short version and let the bot add the dates? Packrat3860 (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Packrat3860. You are doing nothing wrong and the bot will "happily" do the job it was created to do. Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Packrat3860: Relying on the bot is fine and our servers can easily handle it. The only small problem is users seeing an extra edit in the page history. Many tags are coded to automatically add the date when substituted like {{subst:unreferenced}}. Check that it works with the used tag. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Strike s you have to understand the contract

strikes solidatery contract pros con s do or don't ratified notions motions grievances much more ~2026-56021-92 (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry but your confusing style of writing makes it impossible to offer any advice other than to do your best to write more clearly and to try asking an actual question. Cullen328 (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Strike s you have to understand the contract

strikes solidatery contract pros con s do or don't ratified notions motions grievances much more bi laws grievance committee negiougating contracts ~2026-56021-92 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? RudolfRed (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with original research in Wikipedia?

I'm guessing it's because it hasn't been established in reliable sources and not factually correct at first or something like that. Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

It comes down to "How can we successfully figure out who to trust?"

I can come here as a real expert who legitimately wants to contribute. I can also come here as a crank or a shyster, present fake credentials, and insert my "supposed expert" material that is actually worthless. Wikipedia has no way to reliably tell the difference between people who show up to do those two things, until it's too late. We have no way to examine the supposedly certified credentials of all kinds of experts from all over the world in various kinds of jurisdictions. So ... we refuse the direct opinion of experts. Instead, we wait until the material gets published in secondary sources that have good trust records and good reputations to maintain. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Gaming Fan 23, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There's another dimension here, beside what TooManyFingers said.

• Suppose you put some information in an article which you absolutely know is correct; but it hasn't been published, so you can't give a useful source.
• Next week person A uses that information for some purpose. That's fine.
• The following week, person Z changes it (maybe they have more up to date information. Maybe they think you got it wrong. Maybe they've been reading a conspiracy theorist and genuinely think that you've written What They Want You To Think. Maybe they're vandalising for laughs) - after all, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit.
• The week after that, person B uses the information, and it's different from A got. Even if it's important to them to get it right and they want to check, they've no way of doing so.

ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hello everyone! I just joined the wikipedia and I am ready to contribute to this amazing website!

I had a question that how do I use the sandbox? I can't find it anywhere and I am on laptop so please give me instructions based on that. Thank you for your amazing support!

ThePixelPanda26 (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. You can find the sandbox here. Please note that it is cleared every hour, so anything you want to keep should go in your user sandbox. Happy editing! PixelsRCool (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@ThePixelPanda26: There is a "Sandbox" link to a personal sandbox in a menu on a user icon at the top right. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ThePixelPanda26, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

I might be a suspicious old soul, but when a new user asks about the Sandbox, I immediately suspect that they are planning to create a new article. If that wasn't in your mind, then the next paragraph isn't aimed at you.

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) 18:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Suggestions for how I can show the source.

Hello editors, I'd like some suggestions from editors on how I can provide sources. I have a lot of sources, and I can contribute here on the Wikipedia platform. But I don't want to engage in historical debate; instead, I can provide references so that other senior editors can check the sources and add them to the main page. I need time for editing, and I have so many sources, I can't edit them one by one. I've heard that subpages also have options for you and other editors to check your sources, but I'm not sure if this subpage works the same way. If there are other types of options, it's more appropriate to provide sources and have other editors check and edit. Please let me know. 刘宸宁 (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

This is just not how it works at all. And nobody is asking you to engage in historical debate.

Of course you can edit things one by one. If you think you can't, it simply means you're doing bad work because you rush. Don't rush - there is no deadline.

In other words, no, this is not a good proposal and not a possibility. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers No, no, I mean, I'll work on my draft soon, but the point is, I can't focus on one tropic; I need time to improve the draft.

What I'm saying is that I want to write a source list so other editors can check it and decide which sources to include on the main page. This means I just want to write the references, and other senior editors can check them, and it would be great if they can edit based on the sources provided. 刘宸宁 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You do not need time to improve the draft, because there is no deadline. It does not matter how long it might take; if you intend to write an article, then every single reference, one by one, is your job. We do not have a group of slaves waiting in a back room to assign to you; you are a volunteer, and ALL the rest of us are volunteers too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I understand what you're saying, but the only question I don't understand is how to create a reference list.

Sorry to bother you with this unusual question,But I want to know if I can create a subpage to add sources and I think this will help editors find new things and use them in editing. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 05:49, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

In an article you're writing, you don't create a reference list. You just add each reference in the place where it belongs, and they are compiled into a list automatically.

But do you mean a different kind of list, outside of articles? I don't quite understand your purpose; are you saying you have a list of sources you'd like to recommend? If so, who do you think has been wanting those sources?

And what "subpage" are you referring to? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not talking about my draft, it was separate from Tropics.

I'm asking about creating a source list in a subpage like the one for Multiple Sources where I mentioned it. If other editors want to add something new, they can check out my subpage where I mentioned it several types of refrence and sources. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@刘宸宁 Are you saying you have a list of books to recommend and that you want to add this extra list of books into an article you're working on? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but not in my working draft, I want to create a separate page for the list of several books. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:39, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You can't make an article like that, unless this whole list of books (all together as a whole list, not separately) has already been the topic of major coverage itself.

There is no such thing as a subpage to an article.

Is a literature list allowed in your user space? I'm not sure. But this list isn't going to be "a real Wikipedia page", if you know what I mean. It won't be something the general public reading Wikipedia can find. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Are all the books on the same topic as the article you're working on? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@刘宸宁 Sorry to ask again, but I think this is a very relevant question: Who are the people that requested source books from you? Or if nobody requested them, then who do you think wants them? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Sorry for the late reply, but I'm not saying that should publish article source lists on main page and no one has asked me about request source books yet.

What I mean is that I want to list different types of sources on my personal page, like the various sources where I want to cite them.

I'm working on the Asian minority community. Many of their sources are no longer on Wikipedia. I'm learning how to edit pages, and that's time-consuming. Instead, I want to create a personal page that mentions the tropics and which books are needed. Another editor can check my personal page and add it to the main page. I have a bundle of books of different types for article . many minority communities don't have Wikipedia pages that's why I want to do this for that purpose. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 08:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Add it to the main page means add it to the big front page of the whole Wikipedia. Is that what you intended? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:37, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Noo

for example :-

.A tropic from a important article page(only tropic not other sentence from article)

.write about references and an explanation of why the book is important to the article

I will do this work on my personal page. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 08:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Another editor is not going to do that. You would be doing all of it by yourself. You are volunteering to do it by yourself. You can't "volunteer someone else" to help you, they are busy with their own things. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The books you're talking about - are you 100% certain that Wikipedia calls them reliable sources? That is another thing you would have to check by yourself - there is no one to do it for you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that another editor should do this. It'll be stored on my personal page, and ,I'll offer an idea that other editors can add to the main page. This is a kind of suggestion for a new idea not a request. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 08:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

When you say "the main page", it really means "the front page of Wikipedia", every time. People are not going to start understanding what you mean by that, so you'll need to choose different words.

(I know you don't mean that because you told me, but everyone who wasn't in this discussion is going to stay confused.)

So, what exact page are you saying other editors could add to? And what kind of things would they add? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

you can check it up ,down conversation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Packrat3860-20261018135200-刘宸宁-20261018083700 i am talking about this type of thing only.

My explanation is not good I am sorry about this .

For your question, I'll focus on minority communities in Southeast Asia, China, and Northeast India. This section provides limited information and few references about them, but these regions are interconnected, so other countries may help provide more information about different communities.

Other things editors can add include "inline citations and references" (such as book titles, authors, and page numbers) and use standard formatting templates to support the facts in those articles. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 16:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

If I may make a WP:BOLD suggestion, this conversation has been going back and forth a while, and a combination of a language barrier and this being a somewhat strange request is making it very difficult to give a straightforward answer. Given that what Liu Chenning is talking about is a page in userspace, would it be alright to suggest that they just do it and come back and discuss? If what they make is not an acceptable use of userspace then we can fix it or remove it if it's really not salvageable. But it's a lot easier to give a clear answer as to whether something is gonna work when you have the thing in front of you to discuss. Packrat3860 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, my example may be confusing because I can't explain the tropic properly if I talk for a long time, but so first I will make it this thing then I will show it here, then other editors will decide whether this kind of thing can stay or not. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 18:04, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I understand you may be confused and have a lot of questions about my purpose.

But what I'm doing will help many editors.

What I mean , I'm creating an independent source repository on my personal user subpage to document academic books about underrepresented Asian minority communities. My goal is to organize these reliable sources with short notes about which specific articles might benefit from them. This is intended as a passive resource library, so that any volunteer editor working on these minority topics can easily find and use verified the sources. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 09:10, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

If you have sources to suggest for a particular page you can use the {{Refideas}} template on the talk page as a way to make it known to other editors. Packrat3860 (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, it will help me to indicate where to add a specific reference to the main page. See my comment - 08:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC).

You will understand better what I mean. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 08:37, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Userspace gets more latitude and can be used for todo lists and drafts and such. But it's worth noting that they are not technically yours (see WP:UPOWN) and are still generally expected to serve the purpose of building the encyclopedia. I'm assuming good faith and maybe a bit of a language barrier here, so I'll say up front I think a list of sources you would like to use in main space (with your notes on how you plan to use them) is probably acceptable. However a couple notes of caution.

First, I would not expect many people to go sifting through userspace for source suggestions. If it's a to-do list for you that's not a problem. But if you want someone else to take action on it then you need to open up discussion on the talk page of the article(s) in question or relevant wiki project pages.

Second, if it starts to look a bit too much like a personal library and not suited for use in building the encyclopedia, someone may ask you to remove it or possibly remove it without asking. If that happens I think you'll probably need to accept that suggestion, so if this is important information to you make sure this page is not your only copy. Packrat3860 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion, it will help me. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 14:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: When you write "the main page", that means "the front page of the whole Wikipedia". Is that what you wanted to say? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, 刘宸宁. We use reliable sources to verify content on Wikipedia, and we do so by creating references to those sources. Please read Referencing for beginners, and try it. If you have doubts about the reliability of a source, check if the source has been discussed as a perennial source. If not, you can discuss it at the Reliable sources noticeboard, but only in the context of specific content. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328yess Thank for the suggestion, I check other main page refrence and I found some more refrence needed to include it in the main page. that's I got idea, can we make one list of refrence which refrence require the most.

that's why I am questioning here can we do this type of thing. 刘宸宁 (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

刘宸宁, the best place to suggest improvements to a specific article is the talk page for that article, whether or not it is on the main page. Articles shown on the main page have almost always received a lot of attention. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 05:51, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Translation assistance

Hi folks. I'm looking to use this source from the Munich Film Festival for a page I'm trying to bring up to GA, but don't speak German, and given that it's a direct quotation I'm not very comfortable quoting it based on something like Google Translate, or even quoting it indirectly in that manner absent some verification of its contents or direct translation from someone who does. Is there anywhere here where I could get that assistance? Alternatively, do you know of where on the German wiki I might go to make a similar request?

Many thanks in advance, CSGinger14 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

It's fairly short and seems not to be problematic to translate. Give me a few minutes (well that's optimistic, but a short time). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 There's a part here that appears to be a direct quotation from the movie itself. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of back-translating it and misrepresenting the original quotation; not sure the best way to handle that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers That, unfortunately, was the part that I'd hoped to include. Would you guess it might be better to simply forego it entirely? I was kind of excited to have a bit more direct commentary from the director himself, but do recognize if that kind of translation is only supposed to be done in certain contexts. Many thanks for your help in any case.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) CSGinger14 (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there an original of this quotation somewhere in an English context? I don't think even a professional translator would be 100% OK with being asked to translate back to the original language, especially with a topic like this where the terminology is politically and racially specific. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:54, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

i.e. in my opinion this is not difficult, but impossible to do. Or not responsibly anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers In fact I have. It's fairly similar to what google offered, but meaningfully different to the extent that I feel justified in my reasoning for the original request. In this case I'd probably agree, but more broadly I think there's a line a bit further out than the one you'd draw, though I respect your view on the matter and appreciate the effort irregardless.

Let me know if you ever need something similar done in French/Swahili. Would be happy to see what I can do.

All the best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Of course you can, and I started translating too, until I realized that it was racially-charged or racially-sensitive statements about politics from someone known for bold, provocative, and uncompromisingly-specific points of view. I would insist that unless you knew him well enough to faithfully and accurately reconstruct the way he would have said it in English, it's far too easy to give what seems like a reasonable account of it while distorting what he meant. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:53, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Wait sorry my bad I misremembered the top of your first reply. Presumed you asked “have you found” not “is there”. Did not mean to come off as hostile in any way.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh wait - do you mean that you did find an English original? I thought you meant you decided to translate this yourself anyway, and that was the topic of my response!

You're absolutely not hostile and I knew that already. I hope my weird off-topic response wasn't as bad as I think it might have been. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Yep, managed to find several spliced versions of it. It was the general director’s statement, so was published in several outlets (though somewhat difficult to find). Thanks again for your help, and trust me, I do see your point given its context.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Whoopi Goldberg article - edit request

In the Whoopi Goldberg article, I want the film Made in America added to the lead section. ~2026-55913-97 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Talk:Whoopi Goldberg#Made in America (permalink) and Talk:Whoopi Goldberg#Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2026 (permalink) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The request on the talk page has been declined as it would require discussion (which is out-of-scope here at the Teahouse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 17:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)