Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users, as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

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

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

References needed

Hello, this is my first time creating a Wikipedia page; see Draft:Michel Goguikian. I have added references wherever I thought them necessary but the article was declined for some missing ones.

I've got the following section:

Michel Goguikian was born in Lebanon into a diplomatic family. His father, Ambassador Jean Goguikian, Lebanon’s first ambassador of Armenian origin[2], held several diplomatic posts, including at the United Nations where he participated, among others, in the first International Symposium on Industrial Development held in Athena in 1967[3][4]. Michel was raised in an environment shaped by international affairs and later earned degrees in economics and finance in the United States. He eventually became a naturalized citizen of Venezuela and Spain.

I've added reference links for the "first ambassador or Armenian origin" and the United Nations sentence.

Do I also need to add reference links for the degrees in economics this person obtained? These are proving quite hard to find.

Thank you. MBG2025 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

For an article about a living person, you need a citation for each statement in the article.

How do you know he has a degree, if not from a source? Do you know this person, or work for them?

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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get on it then. :) MBG2025 (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@MBG2025 The first (and maybe most important) part of "getting on it" is just to answer Andy's question. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@MBG2025 What does "Michel was raised in an environment shaped by international affairs" really mean? You might want to remove that. (It probably applies to every human on Earth.) Unless it means something like "his parents were ambassadors", etc., which of course, if something like that is what you mean, and you want to say that in the article, it needs to be sourced. David10244 (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I see that you've quickly resubmitted this draft, after making one or two tiny changes to it. I can make an absolute guarantee that in the form it is today (30 November), it will fail. The sources are not the right kind, and you have not done anything about that.

If this draft was a broken-down car that you needed to fix, then what you've done is like just wiping the windows. You haven't fixed anything. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

could you explain more what you mean by “The sources are not the right kind”?

I used sources very similar to other biographies accepted on Wikipedia. I’m very new here and have read the documentation but am still missing much.

Could you maybe recommend tutorials or other pages to be able to improve my understanding of what is acceptable?

Thank you. MBG2025 (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you fully read the material that Andy linked to a few days ago? Those should help. I would also recommend WP:42. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Need neutral uninvolved eyes to ensure I understand everything I did wrong

Not here to re-litigate. Just want to make sure I know all my wrongs to apologise for in future appeals. I am currently topic blocked and my past disputed and disliked edits includes this[1] and this[2]. In my list of wrongs, I lazily used a LLM in ANI thread when cautiously pondering how to best answer off-topic and politically triggering questions without escalating tensions.[3] That backfired as it wasn't transparent. I did however answer a same repeated question later without LLM to show how I would have answered it regardless if it aggravates.[4] I am aware of my bludgeoning or repeating myself on talk (asking for clarification repeatedly)[5] [6], and repeatedly disagreeing that my proposed edits weren't original research or violated any policies etc)[[7]]. I also didn't follow DRN rules, but accidentally, when I eeported someone to ANI for reverting edits that most weren't even being disputed.[8]. But I know it's my responsibility to read all the DRN rules. But personally, I feel an indefinite block seems overly harsh for all this. As I had good intent, only broke DRN rules unintentionally, my edits were well sourced direct from mainly experts in The Conversation and Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law, was willing to avoid edit warring and wanted DRN to resolve. I figured a warning would have sufficed if it's at least not of bad intent but rookie mistakes. Tho in hindsight, I think a topic block was more beneficial to me as it not only helps me cool off but gave me time to properly reflect and create essays to personally help me or others avoid very same mistakes above.[9][10] I only intend to cover my bases, so I know what to apologise for entirely in any future appeals. Please only neutral uninvolved parties to explain if I missed any. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @JaredMcKenzie.

I don't know for sure, but I guess that the reason that nobody has answered you so far is that nobody is prepared to wae through the wall of text to even work out what you are asking, let alone dig into the diffs you link to and try and understand what is going on.

Basically, this is not an appropriate question for the Teahouse. I'm not sure where is - perhaps WP:AN, though it doesn't seem to fit in any of the heading at the top.

Have you read the guide to appealing blocks? That may give you a better guide. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Ok, I will make it very simple. An editor, who voted for me to be blocked, made allegations that these edits here are pov pushing / against policy.[11] I genuinely do not see it. If anything, these edits were made to improve Wikipedia and give readers a complete picture. I still genuinely believe that to be the case tho it's possible I may be wrong about these accusations made at me. If they violate policy, I want to understand as I am sincerely unaware. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw some of what happened.

You seem to still be convinced that making someone unhappy was the problem, and it never was. Smoothing things over with someone who you had a fight with is not the point at all. (It's a nice thing to do, and if you can you should, but it's not the main thing.)

There is no magic planned apology that can cover for what happened, because it's necessary to listen to each individual and react to them in real time. But I think the biggest positive step you can probably take is to admit "The edits I wanted to make on that topic were basically all wrong, I don't know the topic nearly as well as I used to think I did, and if someone disagrees with me about the topic I will start by assuming I'm probably wrong again."

That's pretty harsh, but also unfortunately pretty close to the truth. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion but I didn't come here to discuss the subject. Just want to cover my bases but don't think content policy is one of them. Also I do remember you. You also said my sources were unreliable. But a different Teahouse host contradicted you and said it was a reliable source.[12] Regardless, my edits were only mirroring a subject expert with a degree in international law - I don't claim to be an expert but I believe they are. If anything, I am probably closer to being guilty of plagiarism as I maybe too closely mirrored what they were saying. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Content policy is not the point. It was not basically a policy matter. It was not basically a problem of relating to people. It was you being flat-out wrong about the facts. You refusing to see that you were flat-out wrong about the facts was exactly what went wrong. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, if the issue that lead to my block is about me being flat out wrong on facts then even tho I disagree - I believe it's for the community to decide. Not me as I am only just one editor here and it's the community overall that bears that larger responsibility in the end. I understand the best I could really have done in my past dispute - is tell others that Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law is a good source and the info they present is all true. But if hypothetically a RFC or the community consensus do not agree later, then I assure you I have zero intentions in arguing further, as that would be against community consensus. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The community DID decide. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers They didn't. DRN[13] never reached that final stage. I had primarily criticised a section for being full of original research that is also likely wrong, and needed to either be deleted entirely, or needed to show the sourced info from experts saying the exact opposite to them. I should mention after my topic block - that problematic section has now been completely removed by (others) without my input who also recognise it's unacceptable original research.[14] Also I noticed the editors who disputed me before, have not challenged this. So the article has already resolved itself without needing my input when more experienced editors had arrived to edit it. And I am 100 percent happy with the article's current revision (that is far better than the flawed version I fought against) and do not want to change the article any further, as I support and fully agree with it now. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie

• You say you're not here to re-litigate then, rather than a simple explanation, you rehash what happened (with links!) Then demand to hear only from people who didn't comment before. Honestly, your Teahouse query isn't getting off to a very good start.
• You didn't just use AI but you used in an ANI thread?!
• You weren't indefinitely blocked so why are you explaining - I thought you didn't want to rehash?
• Your response to TooManyFingers was rude suggesting that you haven't reflected long enough.
• What future appeals? Are you planning to do something to get ANI'd and topic blocked again?
• As TooManyFingers pointed, apologies don't matter. Learn the rules and stay out of trouble.

MmeMaigret (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

My intent was not to "push a pov", or to be rude to others. I have at least reflected on what to do if I believe Wikipedia is wrong yet the community opposes me. My reflection[15] is simply if the community decides I am wrong, it's not my responsibility to try to fix Wikipedia further. But please note I never actually got the chance to reach this final stage on DRN. I was frequently accused of not being here to build an encyclopaedia (WP: NOTHERE) but I assure that was never my case. After my topic block, I have abided to it, and contributed constructively such as improving articles, and the creation of 2 new articles[16] [17] to demonstrate that I am both capable of building an encyclopaedia, and my intent to do so. However if my question to know what to apologise for in future appeals, isn't welcome on Teahouse, then I can take a hint and will leave it here. Thanks for your time. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place like any other with policies and procedure and a culture. Think of it like a company or a social group. You don't know the all the unspoken rules and other people have been there longer than you. For you to go to ANI this early, doesn't reflect well. To get topic banned is even more grave. But you're still talking about how unfair it was. If people just thought you said the wrong thing, you probably would have just gotten told off but you got topic banned. So my advice would be to set aside what you know, or think you know, and actually figure out how things work. Also, no one's surveilling you. You don't need to prove to anyone you know how to be constructive. Your record will eventually prove that. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

But to answer your implied question - if you want to know what to do in future appeals (since you seem determined to go to ANI again), go to the ANI noticeboard, read the page or the archives, see what (if any) apologies were received well. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret I am not an experienced editor like you. I used LLM for a crash course to reduce the high learning curve on Wiki policies, but unfortunately it did not fill me in about not going to ANI too early. So thank you for telling me that unwritten rule. I will remember that. But here on this thread, I only rehashed things that I admit fully that I did wrong and am not disputing it. I am just requesting if there were additional things I have to apologise for. The key reason that prompted me to ask is that I have noticed other editors, who cast ugly aspersions and edit war, yet only get blocked for a few weeks after warning. I never got a clear warning and personally always felt my first time topic block was maybe too harsh. And as you say indef blocks are typically only for the most grave crimes but I just don't think I reached that level, and feel a warning instead would had been more proportionate. So maybe I missed something. I just needed to be sure before submitting my appeal in future. I already created a draft appeal letter for future.[18] But nonetheless if Teahouse do not want to deal with this albeit intensive question, I will respect it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Something to note; ban appeals are generally made at the admin's noticeboard, rather than ANI, so looking through the archives of that page is likely to be better. There a couple of ban appeals on that page currently. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to contradict you, but pushing a POV was exactly your intent, though I think to a person who's in the process of doing that it doesn't feel to them like that's what they're doing. Pushing a POV probably often feels like trying to bring truth to a description or debate that has been based on serious mistakes until the POV-pusher came along. (That's more or less how it felt to me when I did it.) TooManyFingers (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Unfortunately that is where I cannot agree. It was explicitly called as POV pushing with these edits - [19] [20] [21] but I genuinely don't see it. I merely added in sourced info from a RS and if they are pushing a pov, then it means legal experts and scholars are pushing pov, as I only cite them faithfully. I believe neutrality is proportional to what reliable sources says on the matter and they all emphasise this in their articles. But I guess we can agree to disagree. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, we cannot agree to disagree. It was called POV pushing because that's exactly what it was. You saying you "genuinely don't see it" is exactly why your topic ban needs to continue; your genuine not-seeing is a fault you currently have. I'm sorry for putting it so bluntly, but there it is. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Editing restrictions on Wikipedia are preventative, not punitive. I.e., we block or ban people to prevent them from continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia, not to punish them for wrongdoing. If ever you're sanctioned in some way and want to apologise or appeal, then ultimately the goal therefore is not to demonstrate some kind of moral contrition, but rather to demonstrate that you aren't going to repeat the (perceived) disruptive behaviour. The best way to do that is first and foremost to demonstrate to the community(/the admin who sanctioned you) that you clearly understand what you did, why it was detrimental to Wikipedia, and what you plan to do instead going forward. For example, if someone were sanctioned for repeated edit warring, their apology/appeal would probably look something like "I understand that by repeatedly re-inserting disputed content into this article without seeking consensus on the talk page, I was engaged in an edit war and contravening WP:ONUS. By doing so, I understand that I compromised the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and allowed my ego to dictate my editing decisions rather than my desire to build an encyclopedia. In the future, I'll seek dispute resolution or third opinions in the case of content disputes and refrain from repeated reversions of article content."

That's what we want out of an 'apology' or appeal; an understanding of what led to the edit restriction, and why it should be lifted. Athanelar (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What was difficult for me to process is how some editors would describe my edits as pov pushing or disinformation. But sources I primarily relied on are the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law and a subject expert from a community-recognised RS per WP:THECONVERSATION. And because of their reputation, I didn't ever doubt their credibility so I added their expertise in. So the reactions to my edits was unexpected for me. I did try to work things out on DRN but my topic ban happened before the process was finished. I am merely trying to understand how to avoid same situation but I do believe I was following what high quality sources said in my key edits.[22] [23] And I can't apologise for relying on sources that seem reliable. I can however commit to handling disputes more calmly and stepping back earlier when it becomes clear I cannot reach an agreement with them. [24] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

POV pushing doesn't necessarily mean your information is incorrect, it can just mean giving undue or unencyclopedic focus to certain information that aligns with the viewpoint you're trying to promote. Saying "but my sources are reliable" isn't an answer to an allegation of POV pushing. See WP:CIVILPOV for example. Athanelar (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar I was only trying to be a good editor when I see errors. There is important context that hasn't been mentioned. I noticed a large section of the article making problematic claims that were the exact opposite of what relevant subject matter experts are saying. They didn't cite any reliable sources and much of it seems to be Original research. (WP:SYNTH). That's inconsistent with standard Wikipedia policies. I already knew there was no legal experts making that bold assertion and instead there was multiple prominent scholars saying the opposite. Yet the article didn't include any of their viewpoints and that imbalance struck me as not neutral, and I raised this on DRN.[25] What would you or anyone had done in this situation? Ignore the original research or the fact that many legal experts are saying the opposite? My understanding is if a bold section is unsourced and mostly original research and contradicts established scholarship without backing then it needs to be minimally corrected by adding scholars that contradicts it, or be removed entirely. After my topic block, another editor deleted that entire problematic section and nobody challenged.[26] So underlying issue has been dealt with and the article no longer conflicts with what many reliable sources say. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie As an innocent bystander, I have to note that you have mentioned the Max Planck Encyclopedia a bunch of times here and at DRN, or ANI, or wherever the other threads were.

Repeating the same points over and over again does not help. It's not that others don't understand what you are saying -- if that were the case, then maybe repeating yourself would seem to help (but it doesn't).

It looks to me like other editors do understand what you are saying, but they disagree. And then you repeat yourself.

You start to go down an introspective path with "What was difficult for me to process is ..." Unfortunately, you go right back to arguing and re-litigating in the next sentence: "But sources I primarily relied on...".

I hope this view helps a bit. (You should be a lawyer.) David10244 (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@David10244 I understand a scholarly consensus is the position of multiple RS that isn't contradicted by other expert sources and Max Planck seems to meet that standard. My introspection was only there to improve my understanding of how to best deal if I ever come across similar issues in other parts of wiki and not repeat past mistakes. After a month here, my understanding has evolved to go find scholarly consensus, understand not every editor will accept these experts so don't continuously argue with them, esp if my own tone is unproductive, but instead calmly reach out to the wider community and have them ultimately decide what's best. That seems the most sustainable path for similar situations in the future.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

In other words, you're immune from being mistaken about any particular thing, and if anyone points out that you might be mistaken about something, you will just ignore them and go talk to someone else instead. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Or, to place it in a more suitable context, that message can just be read as "Despite what anybody says, I'm still right about the thing that got me into this situation". TooManyFingers (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Musical artist new article declined

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I’m reaching out for some guidance regarding my draft article about Rea Nuhu. I have made significant revisions to the draft, especially in terms of formatting the references properly, improving the structure, and ensuring that all sources are reliable and clearly cited.

However, the draft has been declined again, and I would greatly appreciate your help in understanding what specific improvements might still be needed. I want to make sure I’m following Wikipedia’s guidelines correctly, especially regarding notability and sourcing.

If you have the time, could you please take a look at the updated version of my draft and let me know if there’s anything I should adjust or strengthen? Your mentorship has been very helpful to me so far, and I would be grateful for any direction you can offer.

Thank you very much for your time and support. Best regards! Negra.perlog (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Let's look at why this was declined on 11 November, Negra.perlog. I quote: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage.... Since that time, the draft has been slightly improved, but -- as far as I can see -- not a single reference has been added. Do sources exist that provide significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject? If they do, use them and cite them. If they don't, no article can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Negra.perlog I'm only saying something that Hoary already said, but in simpler words.

None of your sources have written a long article about the history of Rea Nuhu. Interviewing them and making announcements about them are just little things that don't count. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello — thank you for taking the time to review my draft and for the feedback.

I understand the concern raised about “significant coverage”. I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that the sources I provided are only passing mentions. My draft is supported by multiple independent, published, secondary sources that give substantive coverage of Rea Nuhu’s career, including feature articles, interviews, festival coverage and reviews that focus specifically on her work and public impact.

To make this explicit and avoid any misunderstanding, I have done the following and can paste full citations on request:

• Collected national and regional press articles that profile Rea Nuhu (feature-length pieces or multi-paragraph profiles, not just event listings).

• Added in-depth interviews and feature segments published by independent media outlets (print and online).

• Included coverage of Rea’s festival appearances and releases in reputable music/entertainment outlets that discuss her songs, reception, and career—again, not only short announcements.

• Marked which sources are independent secondary sources (i.e., not self-published, not social media, and not press releases).

A few clarifications about Wikipedia’s notability guidance that I relied on: significant coverage can be established by multiple independent sources that together provide sustained attention and context about the subject (not necessarily a single long article). If any of the individual sources I submitted are considered borderline, taken together they demonstrate the subject’s coverage and impact.

Thank you for your time and for any further guidance on which sources you want to see strengthened. Negra.perlog (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

In-depth interviews are still just interviews.

To Wikipedia, the only impact that counts is their impact on independent publishers wanting to produce stories. Having the subject sitting there makes the publisher non-independent. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Taking several inadequate sources and imagining that they ought to count for one good one is (a) not valid reasoning and (b) deliberately and systematically rejected by Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can help me write this article? It is very important for me to be accepted. Negra.perlog (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Negra.perlog Why is it very important? qcne (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I have declared that I have a conflict of interest with the person in question. Since I manage the artist, I need to elevate her image and reputation in Albania. I’m being very honest, which is why I need someone’s help. Negra.perlog (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Negra.perlog Why is there no Rea Nuhu article at Albanian Wikipedia? Wouldn't it make sense to start there? TooManyFingers (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi how do I update a club crest on the website?

Our football team has recently updated its club crest to a new modern one. How do I update the crest on Wikipedia? Nahnuk (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That depends on the nature of the image; which team? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Harland and Wolff Welders fc. Was able to delete the old crest but can’t attach the new one. Nahnuk (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nahnuk If you link the WP-article you're talking about and a link to the crest, you might get lucky and somebody will do it for you. Anyway: go to WP:FUW. Chose Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc. Then you can add it to the article, or ask for help again. And, you know, links. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You assume the logo is non-free. Many are below the Threshold of Originality and can be uploaded to Wikimedia commons, hence my qualifier "That depends on the nature of the image" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep, they often are. If it's not, it can be moved at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I have the image of the new crest but not sure how to send it attach it Nahnuk (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Welders fc badge

this is the badge Nahnuk (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Nahnuk.

I see that you have now inserted the crest into the article.

However, you have made the following claims, with legal force:

1. The logo is your own work
2. You own the copyright in the logo, and so have the legal power to assign it and grant licences
3. You have granted a licence that will allow anybody, anywhere, for any purpose, to copy and change the logo provided they comply with some conditions (principally, attributing its source).

Are any of these true?

If not, then you should immediately go to c:File:Harland and Wolff welders fc crest.jpg and request deletion.

Unless these claims are all true, the only way you can use this image on Wikipedia is by uploading it as a non-free file to Wikipedia (not to Commons) in the way @Gråbergs Gråa Sång has already explained.

Also, I observe that the article Harland & Wolff Welders F.C. has no sources with significant coverage, and therefore does not establish that the team meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I have tagged it for this, and for problably being non-notable. It is likely to get deleted unless somebody can find some substantial, independent, reliable sources (see WP:42) ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi yes all content is mines. So free to be added without copyright infringement. Reference the material added I am part of the social media team at Harland and Wolff welders football club. All information added is accurate and can be verified by football club. Nahnuk (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

We have been set up to modernise the welders content as most of it was outdated and not accurate. The badge was changed in August 2025 and all the content that was innacurate or outdated has been removed by me. Nahnuk (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I have left some advice about CoI editing, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nahnuk, to be clear, when you uploaded the logo to Commons, you are saying that anyone - including your competitors, rivals, detractors, etc - can use it for anything - including to taunt or mock you, in ads, or even as their own logo - as long as they credit you. Are you quite sure that's what the club wants to do? Meadowlark (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Finding this all very overwhelming. People taunt rival teams on socials all the time. I’m not sure I can stop that anyway. Nahnuk (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This is all very new to me as I do the clubs TikTok stuff so trying to update as I go along. Nahnuk (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Daniel_Heyen

Hello, I need help with the article Draft:Daniel Heyen that I would like to contribute. My first submission was declined due to "not significant coverage". Is this because most of the references that I added are not independent enough (personal website + university website)? Or rather, that notability has to be established with more sources showing public engagement? In this case I could add further articles and radio audios featuring the person Daniel Heyen such as https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/climate-engineering-riskantes-herumdoktern-am-klima-1.3710959 and https://www.srf.ch/audio/wissenschaftsmagazin/umstrittenes-geoengineering-zurueck-in-der-klimadebatte?id=e3a238eb-3b3c-487c-862b-bdaf95447e15. Would that be enough to demonstrate notability or what else would I need to show? I have seen other articles on economists with shorter sections about their public engagement, so I am wondering if this is really the missing point. Frederikho (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

See the golden rule for a good rule of thumb on how to establish notability. Athanelar (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:NACADEMIC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You can use university websites to provide the sort of information required by WP:NACADEMIC; the sources do not need to be independent in the way general referencing should be. You can also use citations of an academic's own peer-reviewed publications (and sometimes academic text-books if appropriate) without the normal requirement for secondary reviews, because the process of peer-review counts as endorsement by an independent expert. To be honest, when I look at that draft, the main negative vibe I get is that it reads a bit like a resumé, the "Reception" section looks a bit promotional, and anything with a big smiling picture of someone looking smart in a crisp suit is likely to arouse a reviewer's suspicion that an article might be written by a close associate of the subject with a view to boosting their prestige; it's nearly as reject-triggering as mentioning Forbes 10-under-10 lists or calling the subject an entrepreneur. Elemimele (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

"anything with a big smiling picture of someone looking smart in a crisp suit is likely to arouse a reviewer's suspicion that an article might be written by a close associate of the subject" That would be a really dumb—and, worse, damaging—thing for a reviewer to assume. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

While it's not an assumption a reviewer should make, I do think it's a reasonable observation; Resume-like articles do seem to have a habit of being accompanied by resume-like pictures. Athanelar (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

And so do many others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was drawing attention to a possible unconscious bias I've noticed, but in an unnecessarily flippant way. Elemimele (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your impressions of my draft. I was not sure which tone to set in the article. In my first submission yesterday, I focussed on the mere facts (like career positions). In the next version, I now added more on the reception in the media to emphasise that the person I am writing on is regarded as an expert on his field and influences public discourse. But of course I don't want to overdo this.

Any advice on what to do to improve the article? For example, I added short one-sentence summaries of what the person stated in a given medium so that Wikipedia readers can quickly get an overview over his public positions (see e.g. the last one in SWR Kultur). Should I use less of that?

What are other ways of making it appear less like a promotional resume when this article is about a person who acts as an academic and public expert on a particular topic? Frederikho (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not about changing the appearance. It's about simply deleting those parts from the article, and instead restricting the article to only restate what is in independent reliable publications.

"Setting the record straight" by correcting or supplementing what's in those independent publications is simply not an option. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. But I currently do not see which parts of the draft deviate from what the sources state. If there are any such parts, please point them out to me. Frederikho (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you're okay up to the first paragraph of "Research contributions". I'd keep it very factual about what he researches on; you don't need to say he's published in peer-reviewed journals; it'd be better simply to state in what areas he researches, and give selected peer-reviewed publications as citations supporting this. You could add a selected publications section if you wanted. I think the "Reception" section is awkward because it looks like it's advertising his importance; it might be better to roll this into as short a summary as you can, and put it at the end of Research Contributions. I would be inclined to pick a couple of examples with the biggest impact as examples, rather than catalogue all his media appearances. I don't think you're on a lost cause; a solid academic who also gets quoted in SDZ and Tagesspiegel ought to be a pass. Elemimele (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current form of the article uses too many sources that are from Heyen himself (quoting his work, or interviews with him). Cutting out some of the parts based on those sources might actually improve the article. If editors who do good work on academic articles disagree with me, then take their advice instead. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed the sources are not so much about him as a person, as he is in the media when commenting his area of expertise. I find that natural for someone who is publicly engaged in the role of an expert (as opposed to the role of a celebrity for example). But I see how I could shorten the reception part.

And yes, I would be grateful if there are others here who can give me tailored advice on academic articles. Frederikho (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@amandaeliasch

I am trying to up date the above, which is out of date and incorrect. It keeps getting deleted I see, yet it is completely wrong and some people are trying to make politics more important than it is and do not mention the films that Amanda Eliasch has done and doing, how do you get people on here to do proper journalism rather than political bias? PhyllisGreat05 (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @PhyllisGreat05, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your edits to Amanda Eliasch have been reverted because they added information without citing a suitable source, in contravention of our policy on biography of living persons.

If you wish to recommend some changes to the article, please discuss them on the article's talk page Talk:Amanda Eliasch.

Wikipedia does not purport to be journalism. It is an encyclopaedia, and summarises what reliable published sources say about a subject. ColinFine (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, first of all, 'journalism' is explicitly covered under our list of things Wikipedia isn't, see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ORIGINALITY, so nobody here should be doing any 'journalism' at all. Athanelar (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I see however that Wikipedia has tagged an article to Eliasch with a disreputable rag!! I have just been listening to on Lady Colin Campbell's you tube and she sounds anything but that. I felt her page should be updated and after all Politico is not God and is definitely explosive. I see also other people complained too. Perhaps it should be written in a more balanced way? Any advice on doing this would be good as all my attempts this morning were scrubbed like a naughty child? PhyllisGreat05 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

What information on that page do you believe is incorrect, and what source is it attributed to? Athanelar (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me just Eliasch does not sound political she is interested in History and has done a film about The Earl of Oxford, Shakespeare and Marlowe. Tudor England and in the middle of this is a quote from Politico it just doesn't add up. When I tried to change it and make the page neutral I was deleted. I just listened to Eliasch on Lady Colin Campbell's you tube. She sounded bright and informative not a lunatic described on your pages. If you can help it would be great as I get deleted. PhyllisGreat05 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, what specific content do you have an issue with on the article? Athanelar (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it is dangerous and it is written in an inflammatory way with references from politico and an old blog apparently. I think it should be neutral. Wikipedia says it is neutral this page is not. PhyllisGreat05 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral, not balanced. See WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE.

We merely summarise what is reported in reliable secondary sources, we do not attempt to create a 'balance of opinions' in any way. If the (reliable) sources lean a particular way, then our content will naturally lean that same way. That is precisely what makes us neutral; we do not exercise any editorial control to attempt to counteract a bias in the sources. If the reliable sources available about Eliasch contain a lot of reporting on her political views and activities, then we include that content, regardless of whether or not it's representative of her actual personality. It doesn't matter if 90% of her activity is whippets and authorship, if the reporting about her is mostly about her politics, that's what we have to write. Athanelar (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Well that weird as I found only history whereas the person who has written the this has clearly gone down a very old defunct rabbit hole!!! The Muslims wear clothes that are not compatible with our way of life in England, Scotland and Wales, and are violent and abusive to women and gay men, our population here, The USA and in Europe are attacked regularly. This week is the final straw. It is enough. We will fight back. We are fed up and those that do not want to integrate, they should leave for countries that suit them and be honest. Certainly not take subsidies and live here for our health service etc. They have encouraged our fear of ‘political correctness’ which is nonsense. Katie Hopkins lost her job but Sadiq Kahn [sic] has not? They have lived off our fear of being accused of racism but enough is enough. A Muslim of this sort cannot be welcome in this country. Take off the burka, take off the Hajib [sic],... show your face and join in or get out... Let's wake up and know that a 'Fox is in the chicken house'.

I think it should be removed in this day and age it looks outrageous and in her interviews Eliasch never mentioned any of this PhyllisGreat05 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a reliable source that reports this and copies of her posts that say this, if they are incorrect you will need to take this up with the source BuzzFeed. Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@PhyllisGreat05 Consider the case of any politician who you personally oppose. Should history's opinion of that politician be dictated by the politician themselves?

Wikipedia pays no attention to how a person wants to be remembered, because nearly everyone wants their own best parts to be emphasized and their own faults to be minimized or erased. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I have contacted @AmandaEliasch and she said that it was spam and hate mail, that her blog does not exist any longer that she had nothing to do with this and that the wikipedia writer patched a lot of stories together that were not true. She said that it was lies but that she had a terrible person working for her who was black mailing her. I personally think that if you all look into this you will see she is a historian artist who is a whippet breeder. Going for a drinks with Nigel Farage does not make you a racist it makes you informed. It is vile and up to you all if you want to keep it but it's not correct. PhyllisGreat05 (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

As we have tried to explain many times now, we have absolutely no interest in what she says about herself. We summarise what other people have said about things in reliable sources (including Politico). Athanelar (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

how best to disclose paid editing

Hello,

I have recently become a Wikipedia editor and look forward to joining the Wikipedia editors community. I believe in transparency with my work and want to disclose that I will be paid to create and edit one article. I am a freelance editor and do not work for any company or third party. An editor colleague recommended me to a person who is interested in having an article created on Wikipedia for them to highlight their work and wanted to go with a trusted source rather than editors who have been soliciting them for article creations. It is in my opinion, after spending extensive time reading through Wikipedia standards and requirements, that the person is certainly notable and meets the criteria for a Biography of a Living Person. The person is, in fact, referred to in various existing Wikipedia articles. Creating this article and doing the edits is time consuming and requires skils, and therefore I strongly believe I should be paid for this work; the person whom I am creating the article for has agreed to this. My question is how to best disclose this information. I have been told to put it on my Talk page and include the client's name. Is this all I need to do? Should I make a case for being paid for my work? Should I indicate that this is not a marketing endeavour and is a sincere effort to create this article for the Wikipedia community?

Thanks for any advice about this. Kim Wilson copyeditor (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kim Wilson copyeditor Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. You should write on your User Page that you have been paid by the subject of the article to write the article in question.

Note that most volunteer editors take a very dim view of paid editors, so don't be surprised if you face significant scrutiny on your edits. The vast majority of us edit for free, because we believe in the core purpose of Wikipedia (free knowledge), even if the task is time consuming and requires learning skills.

You should also have a plan in place for if the article you create is significantly edited, draftified, or deleted in-line with our usual policies for whatever reason - do you then give the subject a refund? etc. qcne (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this response! Very helpful. Yes, I can appreciate that volunteer editors frown on people being paid to contribute. I hold Wikipedia at a very high regard becasue it is open-source information and has many contributors. For this, I am absolutely okay with the article being edited substantially afterwards as is the person whom I am doing the work for. My only objective is to do the best I can at this stage and put it out there. Kim Wilson copyeditor (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You should put it on your user page(User:Kim Wilson copyeditor). Whether you are doing it for formal marketing purposes or as a paid favor to a friend/acquaintance is a distinction without a difference. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kim Wilson copyeditor Welcome, and thanks for asking first! Start with going to User:Kim Wilson copyeditor and write something like "I have been paid X to write a WP-article about them." Then you start a draft, work on it until you think it'll pass, and then you submit the draft for review. I recommend Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

A little confusing, Mr Gråberg. You mean "I have been paid by X to write a WP article about them", right? How much they have been paid isn't important. Bishonen | tålk 15:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC).

Hello, Bish. That's what I meant, yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kim Wilson copyeditor: welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for being open about your status.

I would add the following to what others have said: 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.

Assuming you are talking about Draft:Gerard Naddaf, you have done what most new editors do when they try to create an article before they have learnt much about how Wikipedia works: you have written it backwards.

• First, find sources about the subject, written and published completely independently of the subject, and published in reliable publications. (see WP:42).
• Then, if you can find several such sources, put aside everything that you know about the subject (especially anything you got from the subject) and write a summary of what those sources say - even if you think they are wrong, or they say something that the subject does not like.
• If that gives you a viable encyclopaedia article, you can add a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information (date,s places etc) from non-independent sources.

ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I am in the process of gathering other sources and making a fair amount of edits before resubmitting. I just wanted to ask the community about this piece first before I moved forward. I'm trying to do the best job I can and be transparent about it. I appreciate the assistance and recommendations from everyone. Kim Wilson copyeditor (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kim Wilson copyeditor: Why are you not following the instructions at WP:PAID? It's quite simple, just put a template on your user page as described. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I just wanted to ask the community for advice on this before I did that. I am in the editing stages of the article and plan to put it on the Talk page but was curious what others had to say. Kim Wilson copyeditor (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kim Wilson copyeditor You appear to have had the draft started and already declined once. That is one reason we ask paid editors to declare their status before they start writing: your draft is already visible to readers who know where to look for it. One major issue with drafting biographies of living people is that by policy we demand inline citations for all facts. At present, there is nothing to support the "Education" section. No doubt you received this information from your client but Wikipedia still demands published sources, some of which can be self-published as described at WP:ABOUTSELF. Otherwise you must remove these parts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kim Wilson copyeditor You are required by Wikipedia’s rules to put the WP:PAID declaration on your user page, and ideally you should do that before you start a draft, or submit a draft for review. There is no waiting to "ask the community for advice on this before I did that".

You have received excellent advice from experienced editors. Nothing the "community" can say will contravene that advice. If you don't follow that advice, an administrator might decide to block you from editing.

Once you follow the Paid disclosure rules, I wish you well in your editing. David10244 (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kim Wilson copyeditor Also, the purpose of an article on Wikipedia is not to "highlight someone's work", but rather, to summarize what has been published about them in independent, reliable sources. Just so you aren't surprised if the draft that you submit gets declined (again?) for not having all of its statements linked to such sources. David10244 (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

So, again I ask, why are you failing to comply with the requirement to read WP:PAID and follow the instructions? You keep beating around the bush. No more excuses. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Another thing that must be asked: Exactly why does your client want an article about himself on Wikipedia? Is it vanity? Publicity? Search engine optimization? Desire to use Wikipedia as a free web host? All of those things are prohibited here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not beating around the bush, and I simply haven't gotten to it yet. It is on my agenda for today. I want to do it properly, which is why I am asking this question in the first place and before I go ahead with it. I had submitted the article initially, and I did declare paid in the article creation process because there is an option for that in that process, which I chose. After the article was declined, a couple people graciously left me information about how to place it on my Talk page. I wasn't previously aware that had to happen. I'm in the process of following up on the edits recommended to me; they were very good recommendations, and I thanked everyone for their help. Much of this work is not paid by the way, including these communications.

I am not sure why you are attacking me in this way; I haven't experienced this hostility yet on Wikipedia and don't feel comfortable asking questions if this is what happens. There is nothing about vanity going on here. The client has been approached by a number of Wikipedia editors who have solicited to do this work for them and be paid, so the client thought to go with a trusted source instead of paying someone who they don't know, which from my research was a very good idea and smart of him not to go with a solicitation of a supposed Wikpedia editor who is asking to be paid. I'm not sure I understand exactly what is going on here, but it doesn't feel good. There are almost 14,000 editors who have declared being paid in some way on Wikipedia. I can't imagine for a second that every single article on this site has not somehow been commissioned or started by an individual--the point is to get it out there and allow editors to do their work. I was excited to become a Wikipedia editor and learn how to navigate the process, which I am still determined to do, but I want to try to do it in the best way and most honest way possible. That is my only intention. I have received a lot of constructuive feedback so far, so I have hope that this journey will continue. Thank you for your comments. Kim Wilson copyeditor (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not attacking you, I am asking an honest question what is motivating someone to have an article about themselves on Wikipedia, and listing some of the wrong reasons, reasons that also happen to be common around here. It is commendable that your client chose not to pay for the services of a scammer and went to a trusted person to do the job.

As for the disclosure on your user page, it's a trivial simple thing to do, just put the template {{paid|user=Kim Wilson copyeditor|employer=|client=Gerard Naddaf}} on your user page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. Perhaps I caught the wrong tone. Apologies if I came off defensive. I will place this information on my Talk page today and better respond to the motivations. At least what I think; I can’t speak for the client. Best. ~2025-38077-67 (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Remember to log in before you edit! Otherwise your userame will show as it just did. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

In addition to what everyone else has said, I think really the most crucial thing you should do is read WP:BOSS, explain to your client that paying for Wikipedia articles about oneself is a foolish and doomed endeavour, and go find a different commission to fulfill. Athanelar (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, @Kim Wilson copyeditor there is no case to make that this isn't a marketing endeavour because, well; it is, isn't it? This person wants an article created about themselves because they want to, in your words, "highlight their work." That's promotion, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia.

Seriously, I cannot stress this enough. I've only been active on Wikipedia for a couple of months and I have already seen countless paid editors try and fail to create "neutral" articles about their clients, and I sincerely doubt you will succeed where many, many others have failed before you. Please do not waste your own time trying to fulfill this order, your client's time waiting for an article that will never come, and our time having to explain to the umpteenth COI editor precisely why their draft keeps getting declined. As I said above, read WP:BOSS and relay the information therein to your client. Athanelar (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I have read through this information and will pass it over to the person, but I am planning to move forward. Kim Wilson copyeditor (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Translating: Reuse or omit (unchecked) references?

When translating large articles from another language, should I reuse sources? I understand that ideally, you would check them all before copying them and translating the title. But I'd rather focus on the text itself as the target article is very short.

So, given that you will not check the source links, which is better:

a) Do not copy references from the article

b) Only copy text that does not need a reference

c) Copy references as they are from original article

If (c), how should I let future editors know that no cleanup has been done to the orignal article's references?

Thanks for your help,

JP Jp1008 (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

IMO adding material without reliable sources is a bad idea irrespectively its source. If you bring the sources at least other editors have a starting point in evaluating the new material. Without any sources it will be easily challenged and deleted.A.Cython (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You're translating, not writing the article, so it's perfectly okay to include the sourcing from the original article without checking it personally. For online sources, it's easy to declare what's happened, because they have a parameter "date accessed", which you can leave with the date in the original article. If you are able to check the source, you can update it to the date you are translating. Since you are providing a source, you're not generating unsourced information - you are merely trusting that another editor actually checked the source (and by indicating that your edits are translations you are both crediting the original author, and indicating who read the source). Realistically, many articles will be based on multiple off-line sources of which you won't have access to all of them, so you cannot physically check all the sources. You could leave out information where you can't check the source, but that would deprive the reader (who may be better resourced than you) of the benefit of the original article - it would be counterproductive. Our keystone is verifiability, not verifiedness: the source must be given so that the reader knows where the information came from, and can check it; there is no certification that the information we give is correct and reflects the source accurately - and this is one of the reasons we do not cite ourselves. Elemimele (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You're translating, not writing the article, so it's perfectly okay to include the sourcing from the original article without checking it personally.

This is really quite bad advice. Standards for verifiability don't disappear because you're translating; your responsibility as an article creator to ensure the information you're including is sourced and verifiable still stands. If you can't verify the info because you don't have access to the sources or etc, then the job of translating the article should be left to somebody who can. The standards on non-English Wikipedias are known to be laxer than on enwiki, and it seems very ill advised indeed to suggest we should be porting pages over from those wikis without checking that the sources are any good. Athanelar (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it's reasonable to conclude that THE most important qualification for translating any Wikipedia article is the ability to fully read and judge the sources behind it. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

(I want to be clear that my response was only about translating a complete article from another Wikipedia over to this one. I suppose it would equally apply to being unqualified to significantly modify any parts of English Wikipedia articles for which I'm unable to fully read the sources.) TooManyFingers (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd disagree; to take a concrete example, if I'm translating something about organ building and it cites Sumner's "The Organ" and also Adelung's "Einfuehrung in den Orgelbau" I'm capable of reading both, I have read both, but I no longer have a copy of Sumner. I can't verify a reference to Sumner, but I do know that Sumner is a respected (though dated) source. I can assess the quality of the source, but I cannot verify the page number of the citation, nor can I be sure exactly what Sumner said (though I'd probably pick up on a major factual mess-up because of my own knowledge based on Adelung and similar). I could deal with this by quoting only Adelung, or finding another alternative, but since many English readers will have Sumner, it's definitely unhelpful if I deprive them of a page reference that will probably allow them to read for themselves.

I see it as being a bit like a page patroller or AfC reviewer. If articles could only be accepted by someone can understand and check every citation, then many specialist articles would never be accepted (unless the reviewer removes anything they can't check!). A reviewer should be able to assess whether the sources are reliable, and should be able to assess, at least at a spot-check level, whether the article's editor is reflecting their source material accurately. But there is an element of trust; if the reviewer has access to only 75% of the author's sources, they are in a position to accept the rest in good faith. Realistically, it is very unlikely that any translator or reviewer will have access to exactly the same range of sources as the author of a highly specialist article - even the six UK copyright libraries won't have every foreign source. We shouldn't be naive about misquoting and bad use of sources, but nor should we be parochial and assume that if we haven't seen something with our own eyes, it is unusable (a common problem at AfD!). Elemimele (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This is true. But we're talking about a translator who proposes avoiding sources and just providing an unsourced translation. TooManyFingers (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's definitely a very bad idea. Sorry, I may have misunderstood the situation. I never translate anything that I don't think is well-sourced, and nor should anyone else. Translation, if you do it properly, is hard work; without adequate sources in the translated product, it's going to get rejected by an AfC reviewer or sent to AfD by a new page patroller (quite rightly!), which is a heartbreaking waste of effort. Not recommended. Elemimele (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Not at all @TooManyFingers! I asked because I want to do my best. Thought experiments are useful in the siences and math and science precisely because they force analysis to find explanations, by reductio ad absurdum. In this case it has worked brilliantly (thanks!) to generate an enriching discussion on policy, criteria and Wiki common sense. I appreciat it. Jp1008 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that I misunderstood. Thanks! TooManyFingers (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Athanelar. I take the responsibiliy of citations very seriously in general in my edits and I have several books on the subjects I am working on. In my previous edits improving english pages, I tackled relatively short pages, for which I used my books, serious and official websites, etc. The number of citations in other languages were few.

What generated my concern, is that I am now editing a major article of a famous church in Florence. The page in italian and even the one in spanish has a lot more information than the one in english, as well as lot more citations. Moreover, they are much better written. As a result, wanted to know how to proceed on the citation front.

(My) Takeaways of the discussion for others and/or for eventual Wiki Help page:

Translating an Article: How to Use its References

General Guidance

• "Many articles will be based on multiple [books, and] you won't have access to all of them, so you [may not be able to personally] check all the sources. [..] You are translating, not writing the article, so it's perfectly okay to include the [important] sourcing from the original article" (Elemimele). "However, standards for verifiability don't disappear because you're translating. Your responsibility as an article creator [is] to ensure the information you're including is sourced and [adheres to Wikipedia standards]." (TooManyFingers)
• Very long articles may have a lot of references. Determine which sources are the most important, so you can prioritize what to validate first. Validate those before using them into the translated article, unless it is a widely accepted fact for the topic that needs no citation.
• If you cannot properly validate a source that supports a very specific fact, especially if it can be contested, do not include that fact in the translation. You can comment about it in the Talk page of the article to get help on the reference and/or fact.
• Be cautious when translating / expanding an important article. If unsure on how to proceed, ask for guidance in the article´s talk page or in the Tea House.

How Validate Key References by Type

BOOKS

• Prioritize books that are more general and therefore a richer source of information for the non-specialist.
• Find if there is an english translation of the book and of so, use that reference.
• If no translation is found, use the original reference data. Don´t forget to translate the title.
• If you have validated the book reference but you cannot validate the page of the english version, do add the reference without the page data.

WEBSITES

• Prioritize official websites (museums, institutions, etc.).
• Check the link is still working. Find out if there is a toggle to an english version of the website.
• Visit the websites of other citations to validate they can be of general interest (and the link is not broken)

Jp1008 (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Reusing references from other articles

Reentering book references seems illogical.

Is there a way to reuse references from other pages? I am editing articles on a similar topic and I have created references to high quality, reference books that are for the general public, so I know they are correct and relevant.

The Citing sources help page only explains how to reuse references within the same article. Can I use the ISBN to search somewhere for the book? Is there a trick to do this? Or is the only way to copy paste the same data in every article?

Thanks! Jp1008 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If there are references that you know you're likely to reuse, one stopgap is to create a file (just on your own machine) called something like WikiRefs.txt, where you paste good references separated by blank lines.

Certainly it would be nice to have a searchable list somewhere on Wikipedia, with references already formatted for use. If it was open for updates, it might be hard to keep vandals from poisoning it though. And if it couldn't be updated, it might be less useful. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Now it makes sense, thank you. And tip is good also, as you may forget where you have used a particular citation when you have many books on the same subject after the fifth article.

My suggestion is to add this answer in a help page (or create a new one) as it seems many editors would have the same question. Jp1008 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

(Vandalism might even be less of a problem than well-intentioned editors messing things up by accident.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with TooManyFingers. It's fine for you to reuse a reference in a different article, because you have (presumably) seen the source yourself and verified it. Equally, it's fine for you to keep a list of such citations for your own use, for example on a subpage of your user page.

It is more problematic for anybody else to use your citations, because, as a general principle, nobody should add a citation to an article unless they have seen the source themselves and verified that it supports the information it is claimed to support. (See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I admit that I didn't even think of the material in the second half of your response, but of course that's important. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Person page review help requested

Hello! This is my first Wiki submission and it looks like I need some assistance reviewing and neutralizing this article (see Draft:Branden Spikes). I've added some additional citations and done some

I would greatly appreciate it if someone would review it and let me know or directly suggest any edits to insure reliable content. Smartin408 (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Smartin408, based on your talk page, it seems like you have a conflict of interest with the subject; editing in areas where you have a COI is strongly discouraged here because it is so difficult to adhere to Wikipedia policies, especially as a new editor. Creating a new article is already the most difficult task for a new editor to do even without a COI, and requires extra care for editing about living people.

The most important problem is you have not demonstrated that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines; it seems unlikely that he qualifies for a Wikipedia article if these are the best sources you can provide. For example, the Brian Krebs piece is self-published and thus cannot be used as a source about Spikes per Wikipedia policy. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. This is great feedback. I'll definitely make sure full disclosure is in place and properly reviewed to adhere to the Wikipedia COI policies. I'll also look for links to other mainstream sources and publications. It may never get out of draft but this is definitely a good learning experience for me. I appreciate your help. Smartin408 (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

And it comes across as if an AI wrote it, with vapid AI-like wording like "thought leader" and "forged his career". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Feedback appreciated. Those were just the words that came to mind for me. No AI here - just too much time in management, I suppose. I'll try to use more and direct succinct phrasing. Thanks! Smartin408 (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thought leader? I think that's an especially vapid and pretentious (at the same time) phrase. David10244 (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

"Initially he was thought leader, but the people who thought him leader were soon disabused of that notion. He was follower through and through. Later on, he was thought pointless." TooManyFingers (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Requesting page edits

Hi, I would like to request some edits to the page about the company I work for to correct some out of date information but I had some trouble using the Edit Request wizard. Is it best if I put our requested edits into the Talk tab of our page?

AsureQuality - Wikipedia

thank you ~2025-37932-45 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-37932-45. You're welcome to put requests onto the article talk page.

The problem with doing so is that it is unlikely that many people are watching that talk page, so your requests may well not be seen by anybody. (That is why we recommend using edit requests. What was the problem with the wizard?

Much more pressing is that fact that @Athanelar has nominated the article for speedy deletion. ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Credit where it's due, I did so only after seeing this post and heading to look at the article myself and finding that it has the usual situation of a small corporate article. Athanelar (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

But that wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion if it makes a claim of significance (which it does). Best to take this to AFD if you think it isn't notable. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Ahmadreza_Asgari

I hope my follow-ups won’t cause any issues for my account. I published a draft that hasn’t been reviewed yet. I wanted to kindly ask someone to check it, and if it’s approved, please proceed with transferring it

Draft:Ahmadreza Asgari He is a player of the Iranian national kabaddi team. Lalook (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

As the notice at the top of your draft says. Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Athanelar (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, but they answered earlier than that. If you can check the article, PleaseLalook (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Your draft can only be reviewed by an approved AFC reviewer, which I am not. All you can do is be patient and wait for a reviewer to get to your draft, I'm afraid. Athanelar (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok ok

just tell me How can i find AFC reviewer sir? Lalook (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You sit and wait, or you improve the article while waiting. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Your article has already been submitted for review. An AFC reviewer will look at it eventually; as the notice at the top of your draft says, the current estimated maximum wait is 7 weeks.

You don't need to do anything else at this time. Just wait for your draft to be reviewed. Athanelar (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Earlier than what? You've been waiting a little more than 1 week. They told you 8 weeks. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for feedback on Draft:San José de Vista Hermosa Hacienda

Hey!

I have been working on the article Draft:San José de Vista Hermosa Hacienda, talking about a historical landmark in Mexico, for a university assignment.

One part of the assignment asks me to reflect on feedback I receive from Wikipedia editors, so I would appreciate any comments on the article, especially regarding whether it meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements.

Thanks a lot! :) Fragce (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Fragce You have submitted it for review and it is pending. We cannot guarantee a speedy review as reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers. We can't accommodate any deadlines you might be under; if your teacher/instructor has a deadline for you, that is extremely unfair to you. Your teacher should review the Wikipedia Education Program materials to design lessons that don't depend on deadlines. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand the review process takes a while. I’m not asking for a faster review, though. I was just hoping to get informal feedback from more experienced editors to hear what they have to say about my article. Fragce (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Fragce. Your draft is quite confusing. It variously describes your topic as a stretch of land, and then as a building in the singular, and then as a hacienda, and then later lists a variety of different buildings. Please edit for clarity. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

[hCaptcha] There was an error in your callback.

Has there recently been a change to hCaptcha such that anonymous edits to Wikipedia pages now require a browser which supports the measureOptions parameter to the performance.measure() method? In my browser's developer console I see the message "TypeError: performance.measure(...) is undefined" but my browser isn't so out of date that the method itself doesn't exist.

Maybe the use of this performance check is optional and can be skipped, so that the hCaptcha can be shown. If not, I assume that performance.measure() is being exploited as a browser fingerprinting method, which feels wrong. ~2025-32911-59 (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Here are two options: Register for a free, easy, secure and anonymous Wikipedia account which allows you to bypass captchas. Alternatively, ask your highly technical question at Village pump/Technical. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Registering for an account (on the English Wikipedia at least) requires passing another hCaptcha. Also, you don't start being able to bypass CAPTCHAs until autoconfirmed, IIRC. OutsideNormality (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-32911-59 Could you post your browser make and version? I'll pass this onto folks who are testing out hCAPTCHA deployment. Sohom (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks offering to do that! It's Firefox 102.4.0esr which probably identifies me almost as much as an email address. (Thanks to Cullen328 too for the sensible suggestions. I didn't know until now that email addresses are optional for Wikipedia accounts). ~2025-32911-59 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I've filed T411576: hCaptcha: Don't use performance.measure() to track fixing this. KHarlan (WMF) (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you. ~2025-32911-59 (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, this is not what you are asking about, but I feel obligated to mention that if you create an account, we strongly recommend adding an email! We have fewer tools for stopping your account from being taken over, or for account recovery generally, if there's no email on the account. EMill-WMF (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Someone has commented on the Task that:

https://caniuse.com/?search=performance.measure says support exists for it in Firefox 102

but they probably should have linked to:

https://caniuse.com/mdn-api_performance_measure_measureoptions_parameter

which shows that Firefox 103 is actually necessary for the specific parameter that I think is being used. ~2025-32911-59 (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I see the investigation is going really well now. I'm impressed with how collaborative the community is being, and the amount of careful thought that is being applied to finding the best solution. ~2025-32911-59 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Question on Notability

Hi! I want to create an article for a webseries. However, it is a heavily praised fan-work on YouTube and most sources of it are either analysis' from other YouTubers, Google Docs and Twitter posts. Would these sources be credible, and would this article be notable enough for me to write it? WorldwideParasol (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@WorldwideParasol Welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, I doubt it. What is the name of this webseries? The requirements are pretty strict, see WP:GNG. And Wikipedia is more geared towards using old media as sources (newspapers and books) than using more modern stuff like youtube reviews and Twitter posts (yuck). Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@WorldwideParasol: It isn't just youtube reviews and twitter posts. Any user-generated self-published content is generally unacceptable to cite as a source. Sources we cite must be reliable with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Self-published stuff generally isn't unless the content is self-published by a bona-fide journalist, or a scientist writing about their field of expertise.

See WP:Golden Rule (it's a short read) to get an idea of the sort of sources needed. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The main reason Wikipedia doesn't really do that kind of articles is that, to Wikipedia, every Youtuber and every person on Twitter is regarded as "just some guy" who isn't trusted for solid information. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Did anyone notice the template change?

This can't just be me- I looked at the template for submitted AfC draft articles and I remember it being "This may take 2 months or more" but now it says "This may take 8 weeks or more". What's the reason for that? BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: See above. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

huh BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@BluePixelLOLLL I am asking someone called Sohom Datta to take a look and answer your question. Polygnotus (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@BluePixelLOLLL There is a backlog drive going on to reduce the number of backlogged drafts in the queue, so the drop is expected and there should be faster reviews while the backlog drive is going on :) Sohom (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta Well, 8 weeks is technically a drop from two months, I suppose! David10244 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

A very small issue

This is a trivial issue but it bothers me anyways. The "expand section" tag on the Chewbacca page looks normal, but the same exact tag on the Luke Skywalker page has a space between the word "it" and the period. I've tried many things but cannot get that space to go away. Any help would be appreciated. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I can certify (and swear an oath if necessary) that I absolutely do not understand this discrepancy. It is Weird. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The force is strong on this one. (someone had to say it)A.Cython (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

In that case, according to the usual descriptions of gravity, the template probably just isn't heavy enough. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I would guess its probably something to due with the page itself rather than the template. See my sandbox, which has the two templates pasted side by side, but doesn't have the issue. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That template (specifically {{Protected page maintenance message}} which is transcluded onto {{Expand section}}) displays differently depending on the page's protection level and the reader's account rights. There's a bug that appears for semiprotected pages only. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the template. All I did was move the period inside the double closing braces surrounding the message. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist That change causes alternative messages displayed by {{Protected page maintenance message}} to not have a period at the end. For example, logged-out users viewing a semiprotected page will see "making an edit request" without a period. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I have made an edit request at Template talk:Protected page maintenance message for what is hopefully the correct fix. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I undid my original edit and implemented the edit request. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

(ec) Hi, Anachronist! The template indeed looks correct now but, IMVHO, you masked an error, not fixed it. I suspect the unnecessary space is still being adedd, it just lands past the period now, which makes it invisible to us.
I have no privilege to edit those templates so I can't verify it myself, but the error is probably the last space of the line handling the autoconfirmed case in the {{Protected page maintenance message}}, which leaves a space past the {{{1}}}. --CiaPan (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The Expand section template is actually now incorrect, which can be verified by viewing Luke Skywalker#Reception while logged out and noticing that it doesn't have a period at the end. @Anachronist Could you please revert your edit to {{expand section}}? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I have undid my change, and implemented the edit requested by Helpful Raccoon. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Translating another editor's words

This is indirectly inspired by a recent Teahouse topic on translating entire articles from other-language Wikipedias.

Sometimes, entirely separate from issues of sourcing, I find the words of a fellow editor of the English Wikipedia (not a source, but Wikivoice) that are in poor English - or not in English at all. If they are in a language I understand, am I free to translate their words to proper English as a mere matter of copy editing? TooManyFingers (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:BOLD and WP:BRD (I assume you're talking about article content; this would not apply to discussion comments}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Thank you. (If I ever felt a need to translate a discussion comment, I would leave the original in place and provide the translation "speaking as myself", but I've never run into that.) TooManyFingers (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for New Page Patrol on "The Wild Cooperative" (noindex tag still present)

Hello! I created the article The Wild Cooperative on October 1, 2025. As of December 3, 2025, it's over two months old, has no deletion tags or maintenance banners, and meets notability with reliable sources on the band's history and discography.

However, the page source still shows `<meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow">`, preventing Google indexing. Could a New Page Patroller please review and mark it as patrolled to remove the tag? Thank you!

Link: The Wild Cooperative

Best regards, Steven Stevenxu1006 (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that it takes 90 days. Why the hurry? There are no deadlines here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I have moved it to Draft:The Wild Cooperative after looking through the sources, which are mostly announcements and references to user comments as "reviews". It is far from clear what criterion of WP:BAND is met by this band, therefore it isn't ready for publication in mainspace. It would qualify for deletion, in fact, so it's better to incubate in draft space and improve it to the point where it's acceptable.

As a new editor, you should have submitted it for review in the first place. Now you can. But find better sources before you submit it for review! See WP:Golden Rule for the sources required. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on my first article Draft:Chicken (leg piece)

Draft:Chicken (leg piece)

Hello everyone, I am a new editor and I have created my first draft article in my sandbox. The topic is related to chicken leg/chicken leg piece as a poultry meat cut. I tried to follow Wikipedia’s, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Manual of Style guidelines, and I used reliable sources such as textbooks, government nutrition data, journal articles and meat-industry references. Before I move forward, I would really appreciate feedback from experienced editors. Could someone please review my draft and let me know...(: Non-Veg Craft (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This is awkward... After you submitted your draft for review, it was moved to mainspace by an inexperienced editor instead of an official reviewer. This is technically allowed, but the other editor probably shouldn't have short-circuited the draft review process after you submitted the draft. I'd say it should be moved back to a draft, but I'll leave that for someone else to decide. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I can see no reason to return it to draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Haven't checked the sources, but this looks like a reasonable article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@Pigsonthewing Thank you for taking a look at the article and sharing your feedback. I appreciate your time and guidance. Non-Veg Craft (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Non-Veg Craft No problem. Another thing you can do: go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and ask to have the article moved to Chicken leg. I understand that that title was taken, but now that this article exists, it's reasonable it should have that name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you for the suggestion. That makes sense Chicken leg is the more natural and standard title. I will submit a request at Requested Moves to have the article renamed accordingly. Non-Veg Craft (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I did the move. DMacks (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@DMacks Thank you for much... Non-Veg Craft (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne found a reason it shouldn't be in mainspace, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Non-Veg Craft, do you have any connection to the account It's MD Kabir? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 08:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Non-Veg Craft, one thing you can work on is de-WP:ORPHAN-ing the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Translation COI question

Hello, I have posted a question as instructed but received no responses in either the live chat or the help desk for AfC. An article Draft:Dystopika was rejected for AfC for suspicion of being made with an LLM. It was originally translated from Russian, so I cannot speak on whether or not it was originally made with an LLM. However, per Wikipedia rules, I disclosed that I have a COI (see Draft talk:Dystopika) and only made changes to align with US based sources and natural speech. Due to this am I allowed to change the article significantly to ensure it was not created with an LLM in order to comply? DigitalPhantoms (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Claire Dodgson

 Courtesy link: Draft:Claire Dodgson

hello I wanna get help for editing draft: Claire Dogson Winter (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jaredryandloneria: What help do you need?

Also, I added a subheading for this query; please "subscribe" to the section, so you will be notified of other replies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Editing for that page because is really hard to find a source Winter (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

If it is really hard to find a source, then the person is probably not eligible for a Wikipedia article (or maybe not yet).

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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jaredryandloneria If it's hard to find a source, then how do you know all of the info that you put in the draft? Where did that info come from?

If you found that info in reliable sources, then those should become the sources for the article.

If the source is your own knowledge, then you might not have the basis for an article. An article should consist only of material that you summarize and paraphrase from independent, reliable sources. Andy has given some good links (in blue); please click those and read them. David10244 (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

An album article

In an album article, when you add a see also section on that article example The Album of Blackpink, is it ok to add other K-pop group albums because they release a day after the release? And also is it ok to add an IMDb external link if it’s available on IMDb? ~2025-38116-64 (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

To me, released on the next day seems like not a good reason at all. And don't add an external link to a "see also", even if the see also was a good one. TooManyFingers (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

So what is the correct use when putting See also section in the album article? And external links is a different section that’s after references. I actually meant is it ok to put an external link on a song article since it has a music video? Like an IMDb title link. ~2025-38167-51 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-38167-51. This is explained at MOS:SEEALSO. ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

"See also" is for things that are strongly related to each other in some logical way - not just related by accident (which should be ignored, like ignoring an album that was released the next day), and not just belonging to the same category (for which you would just use categories).

If there was an amazing coincidence where two bands released albums one day apart and then those two bands merged into one (making the bands obviously very strongly related), then you might tell the story of the albums being released so close together. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38167-51 For albums, films etc we have specific templates that may be used as external links in relevant articles. See WP:IMDBTEMPLATES. Please don't use IMDb as a source/citation, though, as we don't consider it reliable, since it is user-generated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Should we revive the WP:Bowling Project

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bowling

add Approve or Oppose with your Reason down below YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere. Like (probably) 95% of the people here, I have no interest, and don't care either way.

But I will point out that you can "revive" till you're blue in the fact, but if you don't have several people actively interested, and willing to spend time working on the project, "reviving" it will be an empty gesture and a waste of time. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean arent most of them dead? (inactive) YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best way to really promote the topic of bowling on Wikipedia would be to look for articles on that topic that need improvement, and fix them up. I think the best project for bowling is, when you get done editing, go bowling! :) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean I want to revive it because I do leagues for my school and a league that they have YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You know your school bowling league is never getting an article on Wikipedia, right? TooManyFingers (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Then ... I'm guessing you only mentioned them because the whole thing has inspired you to try to improve Wikipedia's coverage of bowling. That's great! I hope you find lots of good sources of bowling information to improve articles or write new ones. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

could it be like for PBA Players (Ex: E.J. Tackett Kyle Troup) YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I understood your question. Could what be like for PBA players? TooManyFingers (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Add like a daily article about bowling in the WP:Bowling (for ex. ej tackett or 9 pin no tap bowling) YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

like what they do on the main page YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh I get it!

I don't know the answer, but someone somewhere will know. :) Sorry I wasn't more helpful.

One thing: I wouldn't try changing it daily. The main page has enough people to keep working on it, and they always have tons of possible choices for what to put up next. Bowling doesn't have those advantages. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Like I would do it. YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

query re reliable source on youtube

Is Sony Music Entertainment India Youtube channel a "reliable source"? I have used it as a reference for a music album CBS had released in 1990 and CBS was subsequently sold and now Sony Music has the copyright. They have uploaded the album on their YouTube channel. Thank you. Prachi Khandeparkar (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Prachi Khandeparkar, and welcome to the Teahouse.

WP:RSPYT says "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability".

So things posted on their official channel are probably reliable sources; but in most cases they will be primary sources, so limited in what they can be used to verify.

The date of release of an album is probably something that this can be used for. But (as always), if there are no independent sources about the album, there is a question of whether it deserves to be mentioned in an article at all. ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

True, it's a primary source. I think I will place it in the External Links section. Prachi Khandeparkar (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

What to do in order to get the draft approved?

Hello there, is there anyone I can ask for help for my draft that keeps on getting declined? APpreciate your help in advanced

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WristAficionado

I've revised the content many times as I worked with the editors but it still get declined TravelingEditorWA (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @TravelingEditorWA.

I observe that not one of the eight sources you cite has "WristAficionado" in the title: this is not definitive, but suggests that they are lacking. I've only looked at the first four sources, but I'm pretty sure that you have not a single adequate source for a Wikipedia article. Not one.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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.

The advice I will give you is:

1. Throw away everything you've done so far.
2. Find at least three sources which meet all the criteria in the golden rule: no involvement in them of WristAficionado or its people in any way; published by a reputable publisher; and containing a significant depth of information about WristAficionado.
3. If you cannot find three such sources, give up and do something else.
4. If you can find three such sources, then effectively forget everything that you know about the company, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. Even if they leave out something you think is important. Even if you think they are wrong. Even if they say horrible things about the company or its people.
5. If that gives you a viable article, you can then add a small amount of uncontroversial factual information from primary sources - such as dates, and locations.

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.

And that advice is even more important for paid editors, who should also carefully read WP:YESPROMO and WP:BOSS. ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

As with 99% of the world's companies, this one simply doesn't appear to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. See our corporate notability guidelines at WP:NCORP Athanelar (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@TravelingEditorWA One source is clearly a blog (at www.ablogtowatch.com) and the domain name of another source looks like a person's name, so I doubt that either of those sources has editorial control and fact-checking.

The "Media Coverage" section (improperly capitalized since Wikipedia uses sentence-case for headings) looks like an attempt at an in-article justification for the subject's notability, but it devolves into promo territory.

The references are malformed; have you actually looked at the article as it exists now? Especially all the bunched-up numbers just under the References heading? I find it strange that you didn't ask for help fixing that issue. And it all does sound like AI, which was mentioned in the decline notices. David10244 (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia page

My name is Bill E Gates JR. Im an American politician I am currently a declared candidate for Governor of Minnesota im trying to see how i can get my wikipedia page made. You have me listed as filed papers over declared in Minnesota 2026 Governors race. ~2025-38000-16 (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-38000-16 Bill.

Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project. There is no service to create articles for people. (There is requested articles, but in all honesty, most requests remain there forever).

If you want there to be a Wikipedia article about you (which will not be "your page" - see WP:OWN) you're going to need to make it yourself, or get a friend or associate to make it. Whichever of those you choose, they will at least have a conflict of interest, and possibly be a paid editor, which they must declare; and the formidable challenge for new editors of writing an article is even harder with a conflict of interest.

Basically, Wikipedia is not for telling the world about yourself, whoever you are. I suggest you read WP:BOSS and WP:YESPROMO.

One more point: it is likely, now you have posted here, that you will be approached by people offering to create an article for pay. Most such offers are scams: see WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38000-16 If you do go ahead and draft an article, which is allowed provided you use the articles for creation process owing to your COI, please check that you can show using secondary sources that you meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians. Merely being a candidate for office is not enough. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Finding pages to edit

Im really new to this site so i want some pages to edit, preferably historic ones, can anyone reccomend any please? Pigeon Wings (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Pigeon Wings, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

You might like to have a look at the Task Center. Or also, choose a WikiProject that interests you, and see if it has a list of articles awaiting attention. ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Just read a lot of articles and if you find outdated information, edit it. That's what I do. About historic ones, It is unlikely to get an outdated information as history itself is about old incidents. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Need guidance on submitted my Draft:Dark meat

Draft:Dark meat

I have now submitted the draft for review at Articles for Creation, but I would appreciate some guidance on a couple of points:

1. Since the draft is already submitted, is there anything else I should do, or should I simply wait for the review?

My earlier article, Chicken leg was moved to mainspace by another editor shortly after submission, so I want to make sure I follow the correct process this time without causing any issues.

2. If you have time, could you advise whether the draft looks appropriate in terms of structure, sourcing, tone, and scope for a standalone article?

This is a scientific/food topic with strong secondary sources, and I want to ensure it aligns fully with Wikipedia’s expectations.

Thank you very much for your help as I continue learning the review and draft processes. Non-Veg Craft (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Non-Veg Craft: Seems fine. Improvements can always happen live. There is no requirement to submit articles for review. It's just there for people who are really struggling with the basics. GMG^talk 15:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. Since I’m not autoconfirmed yet, I don’t have the ability to move pages myself. If I continue creating well-sourced articles without using AfD, would an experienced editor or reviewer normally handle the page move when the draft is ready, or should I still request a technical move at WP:RM/TR? I just want to make sure I follow the correct process and avoid the situation from my previous article, where another editor moved it unexpectedly. Any guidance on the best practice for non-autoconfirmed users would be helpful. Non-Veg Craft (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Non-Veg Craft: Oh. My bad.  Done GMG^talk 15:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Also you just need to wait a few days and the auto-confirmed will kick in. GMG^talk 15:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo thank you for reviewing and moving the draft to mainspace.

I appreciate the quick help and the clean technical move. I’m still learning page processes, so this was very helpful. Have nice day dear...(: Non-Veg Craft (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

As with the chicken article, I am surprised this did not already exist! Thanks for your contributions :) jolielover♥talk 15:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover Thank you for the kind words. I was also surprised that the topic didn’t already have a standalone article, actually i am chicken killer.../-\ so I’m glad I could help fill that gap. I appreciate the encouragement! Non-Veg Craft (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Non-Veg Craft There is a mention of dark meat at Poultry#Cuts of poultry and possibly in other articles. You might like now to add a {{main}} link there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll review the related sections and add a main link at Poultry#Cuts of poultry where appropriate.(: Non-Veg Craft (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

How to upload files?

How to upload files? I dream of koala brothers (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @I dream of koala brothers, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

Have a look at Help:Upload.

Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia Foundation projects) take copyright very seriously, and it is often the case that an image we would like to upload is not acceptable for copyright reasons, as explained in that link. ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

query re non-English language secondary sources

Is it alright to include citations from secondary sources in languages other than English in an English language article? How does one figure out if they may be considered "reliable sources? Thank you. Prachi Khandeparkar (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Prachi Khandeparkar, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, non-English sources are acceptable, though English sources are preferred if they exist.

As for reliability: exactly the same as for English sources: see WP:RS, and you can also consider searching the noticeboard to see if the source in question has been discussed before, and asking at the noticeboard if it hasn't. ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Prachi Khandeparkar In addition to what ColinFine said, it helps greatly if you can read the non-English source yourself. David10244 (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Question about notability for places

I was looking through some of the pages marked unreferenced and I have come across many random location/small villages that have no sources and basically no information (Bērzkrasti as an example). Do these articles meet the WP:Notability requirement? I stumbled across WP:GEOLAND which seems to suggest they might, but I was a bit confused if that notability still counted if there are no references (most of these pages have been uncited since their creation). I was considering nominating them for deletion, but I didn't want to do that if they serve some purpose. Thanks for the help! Ajheindel (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

There are a large number of place stubs that have been created by now mostly blocked editors which so not in fact meet the notability standard and we are in the long process of cleaning up. Feel free to nominate them individualy and after conducting WP:BEFORE. I would advise against bundling them together as those deletion discussions tend to be less productive. Note that passing GEOLAND does not confer notability, it just indicates that there should be SIGCOV about the source accessible somewhere. If no SIGCOV actually exists then feel free to nominate for deletion, even when it clearly passes GEOLAND or another SNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that is what I inferred from the policy pages, I can try to help with that then. I will look through WP:BEFORE, just a quick question about the deletion process, should I follow WP:PROD, i.e. putting the template on each page with the reason for deletion, or should I follow WP:AFD? These seem fairly uncontroversial, so I wouldn't want to flood the AfD page with them. This is my first time nominating for deletion, so I just don't want to overstep. Ajheindel (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Are you certain of that? GEOLAND is a notability guideline. Not sure what the concensus is on this but the policy states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". So I assume passing GEOLAND, does confer notability as long as the place is a real permanent + officially recognised geographic entity and there should be RS that can verify basic facts on it. But it doesn't need detailed articles or "significant" secondary coverage. I did not create this article but should this stub be also then deleted?[27] My understanding is that GEOLAND policy exists precisely so it doesn't need the same depth of coverage as a biography or a company. So many Geo places that have minimal coverage on English language sources, can still survive AfDs because they pass GEOLAND. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

A presumption doesn't confer anything. See WP:N "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." You appear to be mistaken about a great many things, for example coverage in all languages counts towards notability not just english. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Perhaps I am mistaken about many things so apologise if I am wrong on this, as I am learning. I did not say that other languages didn't count. But I only meant that I personally observed many Wikipedia articles on small towns that are insignificant in population and only got a handful of basic English language RS, and yet are still deemed acceptable because the barrier for wiki acceptance seems rather low for legally recognised/populated place per relevant policies for places. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

When did you personally observe that? You don't appear to have ever been involved in any deletion discussions so its hard to figure out what you are referring to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I was asking to learn. My understanding is if it passes GEOLAND and has verifiable sources confirming that it's a real, legally recognised and populated geographic entity, then it is presumed notable. GEOLAND itself is a SNG and topics that meet an SNG, are considered as notable. I have seen heaps of articles of small towns on Wikipedia. An example is Wallabi Point, New South Wales, that is clearly a stub and only has 3 verifiable references that only minimally support the basic facts like name, location and number of people. It also only has one sentence in lede. Based on this, would Wallabi Point easily meet Wikipedia notability standards for articles for geographic locations? I think it does but again, I am new to this policy. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Topics that meet an SNG are presumed to be notable and thats it, there is no "considered as notable" anywhere. Remember that notability is not determined by whats in the article, but by all extent coverage on the topic... Just because an article doesn't include sigcov doesn't mean that sigcov of the topic doesn't exist. If the coverage actually doesn't exist then the presumption was in error. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I understood what you meant there. Notability is "presumed" if it is believed to meet GEOLAND criteria and I agree with you, it still needs independent RS to activate such notability. There's no disagreement there. My confusion was that you also said it requires SIGCOV. But GEOLAND does NOT require SIGCOV or "significant coverage". SIGCOV is a vital part of WP:GNG, but not GEOLAND. The requirements of GEOLAND requires only verifiable existence as being a legal place and significance as a "geopolitical entity" and not needing analysis in in-depth details. :/ JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you're confused "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." is a quote from WP:N and nothing on wiki is ever truly required (IAR is policy after all). If you have a question about something I said perhaps you can be specific? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back It doesn't seem right to me about specifically the "Significant coverage" part. I agree it absolutely needs to be deleted if there's no reliable sources at all. No argument there. But not if it merely lacks SIGCOV. If SIGCOV was required for every small town then it means over half of all Wikipedia's current articles on small towns can now be wiped out. That don't seem right. I also read GNG applies if there is no SNG. Given GEOLAND is a SNG itself, there's no requirement for sources to also give a small town significant coverage, as long as it meets GEOLAND fully. Thanks for your reply, but think I will ask others on this to confirm for sure. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding what I'm telling you... If you were you wouldn't have used "required" again but you did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back @Horse Eye's Back Specifically my only confusion was over your reply to OP explicitly saying that articles on small towns must have SIGCOV, or it should be removed even when it clearly passes GEOLAND. That is what you are saying? Or did I misunderstand? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Subjects which pass GEOLAND may still be deleted or merged, especially if they lack sigcov. And if you're using the word "must" then you clearly haven't understood what I've said about IAR... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back "May" still be deleted. That's somewhat vague tho. What would make it deleted if it passes GEOLAND and has enough sources to confirm it's a legally recognized populated place? Sorry but I just want to be sure I am understanding it right, but your replies aren't really that comprehensive. I may need to research this more but my only question to you is - Does an article on these small places necessarily need to satisfy both SIGCOV and GEOLAND? I think it only needs GEOLAND and that's typically enough. It doesn't need SIGCOV in my understanding. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:N says that even GNG and SNG together aren't enough... It may still be deleted, especially if it lacks in-depth coverage or falls under WP:NOT. This isn't vague, its how a consensus based system works. Each case is a new one and is evaluated individually. If you're looking for hard rules or instructions which you can feed into an AI for it to meet stop, we don't have those on here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Really? This is specifically for articles on small towns. Are we talking about the same thing? Could you kindly link me to the page that states that for articles on small towns, it can be deleted especially if it lacks in-depth coverage? The only article I can find is this one - [28] which doesn't mention that they require SIGCOV or in-depth analysis to be accepted. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:N "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." applies to all articles. I feel like you're going out of your way to deny what has very comprehensively been explained to you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Dude there's always going to be exceptions to the rule. That's not what I ask. I only meant do articles on small towns typically need SIGCOV? In general. If most generally don't then you should refrain from implying that they generally all need to have SIGCOV, or be deleted. The risk of deletion if article on Small Towns don't have SIGCOV, but fully satisfy GEOLAND and have RS to support GEOLAND, seems negligible. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This isn't about exceptions to the rule, that is as close to we get as having a rule. Typically all articles need some form of sigcov to exist in order to have a stand alone article, something can be due for inclusion just not as a stand-alone, note the guidance in GEOLAND "It is advised to include identifiable minor geographic features within articles for larger features." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie All rules in all parts of Wikipedia are interrelated with all the other rules. And they are all subject to interpretation - if a rule is giving a bad or ridiculous result in a certain situation, there's almost always a way for reasonable editors to make the right thing happen anyway.

I suspect that you have a very common and normal habit of studying the rules and pressing for them to be followed, and in principle there's nothing wrong with that. But on Wikipedia, to properly fill the role of an "everything by the book" person, you can't just know rules. You also have to know how all those rules relate to each other, know which rules are relevant to certain kinds of situations, and at the same time keep in mind what ways they're all supposed to serve the main purposes of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not new. Its rules have been changed when necessary, to fix flaws in how the rules worked or to improve Wikipedia. Some of those changes have made things more complicated. Some rules are better-made than others. There is definitely a hierarchy of more important and less important rules.

Sometimes, you personally are getting stuck on one rule, pushing for it to get applied strictly, not realizing that a lot of other rules also apply at the same time, and some of those other rules might actually be more important or more relevant to the situation.

I think a lot of editors here are trying to get you to see that you can't ever grab one rule and run with it - you need to find a wider focus that helps you see all the thousands of rules and guidelines have to work together as some kind of system. You don't have to see the whole thing at once, but right now you're obviously not seeing enough of how it works because it isn't yet starting to make sense to you.

I think the goal is two parts: finding a wider view that prevents you from focusing on single rules, and, when someone introduces a different point of view, finding a way to widen your focus even more so you can get the new point of view plus your original point of view, both at once.

I have no illusion of that being easy or simple. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Yep, I understand on Wikipedia, not every editor is the same on a policy.[29] Tho I wasn't pushing others to abandon SIGCOV but saying it probably wasn't strictly needed for articles on places. I also am learning myself whether if it was acceptable to create a new article on small towns without having a SIGCOV. Because it would be a major barrier to me for "Bohnock" article, as I couldn't find one. I was alarmed when Horseeye suggest there's grounds for rightful deletion if articles on places, didn't have SIGCOV even if passes GEOLAND[30], so I wanted to be sure that's the current policy, but couldn't get a comprehensive direct answer here. That's why I later asked others and got direct answers and there seems to be a unanimous concensus[31][32][33] that advise it's not absolutely needed to have SIGCOV for places as it's got "low barrier", tho it be preferable. So technically I did seek a wider view of Teahouse experts to learn about a policy properly first. And you also seem to value that question too. [34] :) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to pick up on one point, sources do not have to be in English. An article about a Vietnamese town can use exclusively Vietnamese language sources. CMD (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Michael McKee

Can activist Michael McKee be added to Deaths in October 2025? He died on October 21. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/nyregion/michael-mckee-dead.html ~2025-38094-75 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38094-75 Yes, in principle if he is one of the people on our list at Michael McKee. You citation is behind a paywall for me so I can't check which McKee you are referring to. Whichever it is, please mention your source on the talk page of the relevant article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is a source that is not behind a paywall: https://www.ourtownny.com/news/formidable-tenant-activist-michael-mckee-dies-at-85-GA5233228 ~2025-38239-77 (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, If you meant this Michael McKee. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be the one, yes we can do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned my source on the talk page of the relevant article. ~2025-38349-54 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that Michael McKee. ~2025-38239-77 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Harassment report

Hi, please ban this user named "Quake1234" He told me to "go f*ck myself" using edit summary on Portal:Current events/2025 December 2: Revision history - Wikipedia which violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I tried to tell this before but all I got was a temporary ban. Thank you. ~2025-38084-30 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Please go to WP:ANI, that's the board for such matters jolielover♥talk 17:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

This temporary account is evading a block, and has been blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@PhilKnight Should that particular edit summary remain in the article history? David10244 (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I have revision deleted the edit summary. PhilKnight (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I was aware of that, but the edit summary is not appropriate regardless. Also evidently just feeding the trolls, seeing as the anonymous's only contributions (other than one edit) were relating to the edit summary. jolielover♥talk 06:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Shvut Raanan

Hi, may I move the article to the mainspace as a stub? _Dgw|Talk 18:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

A stub article on a person is a bad idea. The requirements for biographies force you to find full information anyway, so there's never a good reason to put up a stub biography. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It has 157 words. I read it and assume that it may remain as a stub. I would link from The Reservists (political party) to it. _Dgw|Talk 21:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Not true. What I told you before is correct: no stub article for a person. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

An article can meet our notability requirements and comply with our BLP policy, and still be a stub. There is no prohibition on stubs on people, living or dead. We have many, in sub-categories of Category:People stubs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Formatting help

Hello,

I'm not sure where to go for this because there isn't a "formatting help" noticeboard (that I can find)

I've started making a game log for the 1996–97 Golden State Warriors season unfortunately it's not formatting the way it should and has some inexplicable | in it and I want those gone, can someone assist me with the game log formatting?

Thank you guys so much YachtSee (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you find a good game log on a different article, and copy what they did. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I would like to point out a little piece of irony..... that's what I did. YachtSee (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Why would you copy one that didn't work?

Or, if it used to work, then figure out which one of your edits accidentally broke it. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Nothing broke it, I copy pasted it into the talk page, did nothing at first, and now it looks like that the whole time. YachtSee (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm... When you copied, did you go into "edit" mode on that other article first? This kind of copying won't work if you don't.

Also, are you using Visual Editor or Source Editor? I don't know how this would be done in Visual Editor because I didn't try it. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I used the source editor because it made sense to me. Also if you know how to fix it, why don't you help? YachtSee (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't actually know how, other than that I would do exactly what I recommended. I'm sorry. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The best place for technical questions including formatting help is WP:VPT Athanelar (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for actually helping. YachtSee (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Need to move Alicia Troncoso page to Alicia Troncoso Lora

Hello,

I’m looking for help with a title change on a Wikipedia article. The subject’s full name is “Alicia Troncoso Lora,” which is also how she appears on her previous French Wikipedia biography. Could someone please guide me on how to request this title change or let me know if anyone here is able to make the change?

Thank you! Stanley Bloom 3 (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia does not use full names as titles. We always use the name that the person is most commonly known by in the reliable sources. If the reliable sources usually omit "Lora" when referring to her, then we intentionally also omit it. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

In this case, most reliable sources and platforms refer to her as “Alicia Troncoso Lora.” In Spanish naming conventions, it’s normal to use two surnames, and this is how she is commonly identified in publications and official profiles. For this reason, I believe the full name may be the one most commonly used in reliable sources. Stanley Bloom 3 (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I just looked. A few of the sources, being formal listings, use "Doctora Alicia Troncoso Lora", but all of the ordinary uses of her name, including a caption under an official-looking photo, omit it. Wikipedia (at least the English one) always uses the ordinary everyday name as the title of the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Requesting review of Draft:Warm Cookies of the Revolution

Hello! I'm a new editor, and I would appreciate it if someone could please take a look at my article Draft:Warm Cookies of the Revolution. It was previously rejected for reading too much like an advertisement. The article has, I think, an appropriate amount of independent sources, so I think the main issue was with adhering to a neutral point of view (NPOV) in the tone. I've made some revisions since the rejection to try to adhere more closely to the NPOV. I used Braver Angels as a model article that I tried to emulate. But any feedback to help me improve my draft about Warm Cookies of the Revolution would be much appreciated! Surviving4 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Please check whether your article really follows everything at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). That's probably the most important thing. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

If you want your draft reviewed, you can click the 'Resubmit' button at the bottom of the red decline notice at the top of the draft. That will resubmit it for review, and a reviewer will get to it within the next 7 weeks or so at current estimates. Athanelar (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Next step after creating a "Draft page" for a client.

I've created a "Draft page". How do I "save" the page? And, how do I "Submit for review"? Those buttons/elements aren't visible. StevenVDubin (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @StevenVDubin. Press "Publish page" to "save" it. If you created this via the Wikipedia:Article wizard a button will be automatically added to submit the draft for review. If not, add the code {{AfC submission}}to the top.

You must also immediately declare your paid editing by following the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so is a breach of our terms and conditions. qcne (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @StevenVDubin, 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.

This is even more important for a paid editor, who should also read and study WP:YESPROMO and WP:BOSS before doing anything else. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Requesting help to move draft to mainspace

I’ve recently completed a new draft article: Draft:Goat meat cuts. It is fully sourced with FAO, USDA, academic meat-science literature, and high-quality news reports.

Since my account is not autoconfirmed yet, I cannot move the page myself. Could someone with the appropriate rights please review the draft and, if it looks suitable, move it to the mainspace?

I would also appreciate any feedback on whether the structure and sourcing align well with similar meat-cut articles such as Chicken leg and Dark meat, which I recently worked on.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Non-Veg Craft (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Non-Veg Craft. I have added this template so that Articles for Creation reviewers may check out the draft. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Non-Veg Craft A majority of your sources are AI-generated hallucinations. I have therefore marked the draft for deletion. qcne (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Is Croki notable enough for its own article?

Literally only a handful of people live there today but should there be an article on Croki? A hundred years ago (or 1830s to 1910s), it used to be this thriving dominant port before modern roads and railway were constructed.[35] There is RS (national media) detailing that rich history. Nowadays its a sleepy town that others like me will only stop over to go fishing for the infamous Manning Jewfish at its historic jetty. But Wikipedia doesn't mention the suburb. Thinking of creating an article for it - I live a fair distance away but able get photos of that place too if it helps. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JaredMcKenzie. The barrier is pretty low for populated places. Have you checked WP:NPLACE? Populated places that are legally recognised are presumed notable. qcne (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The number of permanent population is 34 people according to gov census and 22 private dwellings.[36] Would that be enough for notability under GEOLAND, or is it considered too small? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I would say that as it's a legally recognised place (per census) it meets NPLACE. qcne (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar@Qcne I am getting conflicting info so just have one last question here to clear things up. Do editors absolutely need (Significant coverage) in order for an article on a small town to be accepted? My understanding is that when it comes to places - NPLACE / GEOLAND do not need sources to give significant depth, only verification - that it's a legally recognized and populated place, and that's it. Or is there additional requirement that an article on small towns must require sources to give it significant coverage like in-depth analysis (long articles on history, culture, etc.) I don't see this mentioned here. [37] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep, the former: as long as you have something like a census record you're good to go. The barrier for NPLACE is ridiculously low. qcne (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I consider this ultra-low bar a strange quirk of Wikipedia. Near my hometown is a tiny place that as far as I know has only ever had the numbers Croki is down to now. It was never anything, basically. But it's legitimately here on Wikipedia. I know it's kind of weird, considering other things about Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's odd indeed that among the many things wikipedia is not, one thing it 'is' is an indiscrimimate directory of entirely unremarkable places. Athanelar (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

"Gazetteer" might be a more polite term. I believe when Wikipedia was first created, data from one or more public-domain online gazetteers was incorporated because it was easy to create at least stub articles automatically from them. This may have led to the assumption that any officially-recognised and named inhabited place was theoretically notable (in the 'documented' sense). I think now it's easier to go along with this than to start a resource-intensive, judgement-based cull of existing articles and oppose the inclusion of equally significant new places. Others may differ. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

And yet we do have a WP:NOTGAZETTEER so... go figure. Maybe GEOLAND needs some tweaking. Athanelar (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the current easy requirements for creating such articles are actually leading people to create more and more of them. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There is an essay at WP:SETTLETHRESH which suggests a new notability guideline to supersede WP:GEOLAND for settlements. It isn't yet accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks for showing this, I will keep my eye on it, as I am aware rules can sometimes change. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

"about.com" triggers the spam filter

I'm trying to publish my Simple English version of the article for Pingus, but somehow the text "about.com", referring to one of the websites in the Reception section of the original English one (equivalent to Impact here) triggers "the spam filter", so I've had to remove that review for now. Could I get some help adding it back? Childishbeat (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

About.com IS spam, or close enough. Just permanently take that bit out of the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

If about.com is [present tense] junk, this doesn't entail that this old page is junk. -- Hoary (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

How come you thought that? I'd be interested to know. Childishbeat (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Because it now is. It apparently used to be much better, but I didn't know that. Sorry. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

But if it wasn't then, couldn't it be added? Childishbeat (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I would follow Hoary's lead on that; is it acceptable to use only the archive link? Or does that hit the filter also? TooManyFingers (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

My ability to add the link https://web.archive.org/web/20080320062704/http://linux.about.com/od/softgame/fr/fr_Pingus.htm here in en:Wikipedia shows that there's no Wikimedia-wide edit filter preventing this. So try it in Simple English Wikipedia. If it's impossible there, then appealing for an exemption is a matter for Simple English Wikipedia, and you should ask there. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it does look like there is an entry in the global spam blacklist (not "edit filter") blocking it. The relevant entry is (?<=//|\.)about\.com\b, which blocks all about.com links including subdomains. I was unable to find other relevant entries in simple:MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or simple:Special:BlockedExternalDomains. Although I'm not sure why it is able to be added here, as I don't immediately see anything apparent at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist... OutsideNormality (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The spam blacklist prevents additon of new links. The about.com link was added to Pingus in 2006 [38] and restored after vandalism in 2015.[39] It was blacklisted in 2023.[40] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

How do I ask Wikipedia a question?

Wikipedia has gotten so large and complex that you desperately need a review by human factors engineers. I can't find the page where I type in my question. Russ, an old geezer who used to use Wikipedia a lot. Rhfarris (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

What is your question? If it's not about Wikipedia itself, the Wikipedia:Reference desk is where you can ask questions about a variety of topics to be answered by knowledgeable editors. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^blather 23:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rhfarris I'm also not exactly sure what you're after - are you just trying to look up something? If you are, does it work if you click the magnifying glass at the top of this page, and then type something in the box that appears? TooManyFingers (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a searchable encyclopedia, not a chat-bot. So to find something you simply use one or a few key words rather than asking a question. DMacks (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Citing information found in the item description of an item in a museum's collection

I am in the process of editing the page for Carausius II, and want to cite information from this British Museum item description (a relevant coin), particularly how the curators consider it to be a contemporary counterfeit. Wikipedia's automatic citation creator doesn't know what to do with the link, and there's little relevant information I can find online for such a citation. (The manual citation editor also does not seem to be well suited for this).

Any advice would be appreciated. Trombonist04 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this helps:
{{cite web |title=Coin; forgery (contemporary); overstrike – Museum no. 2011,4021.15 |url=https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_2011-4021-15 |website=British Museum Collection Online |publisher=British Museum |access-date=2025-12-04 |quote=Coin; forgery (contemporary); overstrike }} Cheers Harold Foppele (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any point in including a quotation which merely repeats the page title. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

What are the rules on making a new page?

Hello gentlemen and ladies.

As the title says: what are the rules on making a new page? Can anyone make a new page? Can only experienced editors make a new page? If you couldn't tell by now, I am interested in making a new page which is why I'm asking this.

Many thanks to all of you, God bless your tireless work. Slavaly (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Anyone can make a new page, but it is strongly encouraged to get practice editing existing pages and learning Wikipedia's policies before doing so. There's more info on the matter for newcomers here: Help:Your first article. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^blather 01:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Slavaly (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Slavaly. Anyone can make a new page, granted the topic is notable and you have reliable sources. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 01:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Slavaly (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Making a new article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. It requires a robust understanding of policies and guidelines like notability and neutral point of view, as well as technical skills like finding and citing sources and formatting your article in accordance with the manual of style. It's not something we recommend new editors try to do right away.

I would strongly advise that you first spend a while (at least a couple of weeks) participating in discussions here at the Teahouse and at noticeboards, asking questions, and editing already-existing articles to build the knowledge and skills I've mentioned above, and then come back to the article creation process later.

Like the rest of us, you're here because you want to contribute to an encyclopedia. Luckily, there are a lot of ways to contribute other than creating articles. You can copyedit (see gnoming), patrol the Recent Changes page to revert vandalism, get involved with a WikiProject you're interested in (like WP:AICLEANUP for me), read through discussions on boards like WP:ANI to see how disputes are handled here, etc. Athanelar (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Slavaly (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

See also the advice at WP:Your first article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Deleting an article

I want to delete a subpage I made. I don't know how to do that. This is the page I want to delete, by the way. I want it deleted because it's just Userboxes which have been moved to my main user page. Starry~~(Starlet147) 02:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Starlet147 Welcome to the Teahouse! You should add {{Db-u1}} at the top of the subpage and an admin will assess and delete accordingly. Jolly1253 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

G7 also works. Both templates are easy to add with twinkle. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Starry~~(Starlet147) 12:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Prediction of Near-Room-Temperature Superconductivity at 285 K in Ni0.93Cu0.07H5.0 at 140 GPa

Neither a question about Wikipedia nor a request for help with Wikipedia

We report the theoretical prediction of Tc = 285 ± 10 K in copper-doped nickel hydride Ni0.93Cu0.07H5.0 compressed to 140 GPa—the first material predicted to exhibit zero electrical resistance above water’s freezing point (273 K). This prediction emerges from the systematic application of three phenomenological scaling laws, independently validated across 5,779 experimentally confirmed superconductors ( = 0.960–0.993). Comprehensive Density Functional Perturbation Theory (DFPT) calculations corroborate all predictions: the structure exhibits dynamical stability, exceptionally strong electron-phonon coupling ( = 3.19 ± 0.08), and a high logarithmic-averaged phonon frequency ( = 1548 ± 18 K). The Allen-Dynes formula yields Tc = 285 ± 10 K, establishing perfect quantitative agreement with the phenomenological framework. The predicted critical temperature exceeds the current hydride record (LaH10, 250 K) by 35 K while requiring 30 GPa less pressure, rendering synthesis more experimentally tractable. This Zenodo record contains the complete computational data (DFT/DFPT inputs/outputs, EPW calculations, analysis scripts, and validation database) and the latest version (V11.0) of the manuscript submitted for editorial review. All data is provided for full reproducibility. Deymison Elias dos Reis (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your research, I'm afraid. Athanelar (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

What is your question about how to edit Wikipedia, or overcome some problem you are having with using it (which is what this page is for)?

Wikipedia does not host new scientific papers or Original research of any sort. Your text above appears to be the abstract of a scientific paper or letter, suitable for a Scientific journal. If it is copied from a journal, it is likely a copyright violation to post it here; however a link to the original published item might be useful for this discussion.

If it is published material suitable for summarising and adding to an existing Wikipedia article, you would be allowed to do so provided you follow all the appropriate procedures and guidelines including citing the paper/letter correctly. (What existing article might this be, Room-temperature superconductor perhaps?)

If you are proposing a new article for Wikipedia based on this and other material (several reliable sources will be required about whatever the subject is), please say so and we can give you links to further instructions, but be warned that creating a new article in Wikipedia is very difficult for those with no previous experience. I hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Deymison Elias dos Reis 140 Giga Pascals? That's a lot of pressure.

I think it's about 20 million PSI. And you're writing about a prediction.

Near-room-temperature superconductivity would be terrific if found, but the equipment and expense to achieve 20 million PSI means that this prediction may have little practical value. It may have theoretical value, but...

That's the issue with thinking that Wikipedia is the place to publish this. Not just that Wikipedia does not publish original research, but ignoring that, a paper like this needs to be published in a (hopefully refereed) science journal, read by people who understand the subject matter, then considered and discussed by those people. They may find flaws, or they might praise this as a meaningful breakthrough, and they can assess the importance of this work. But Wikipedia is not best suited for that kind of analysis and discussion by the scientific community, and it doesn't try to be. I don't think that the audience you need for this subject hangs out at Wikipedia. David10244 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Notability Draft:Neha Ahlawat rape murder case

Draft:Neha Ahlawat rape murder case

Can anyone tell me whether this case has notability? Otherwise editing is waste of time, and always someone will move to draft or reject draft.

1. 2025- https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/chandigarh-2010-neha-ahlawat-murder-case-solved-taxi-driver-monu-kumar-convicted-2827138-2025-11-27
2. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/neha-ahlawat-rape-murder-case-chandigarh-court-sentences-life-imprisonment-to-taxi-driver/
3. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/three-years-after-rape-murder-victim-s-kin/
4. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/one-year-on-cops-fail-to-make-any-headway-in-neha-murder-case/articleshow/9437446.cms
5. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/neha-ahlawat-murder-case-3-yrs-later-police-add-rape-charges/
6. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/neha-ahlawat-murder-case-15-years-on-chandigarh-court-convicts-taxi-driver/
7. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/neha-ahlawat-murder-chandigarh-cop-accused-arrest-9304922/
8. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/neha-ahlawat-2010-murder-case-chandigarh-cops-file-untraced-report-in-district-courts-6271779/
9. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/community/7-yrs-on-ut-cops-still-clueless-about-neha-ahlawat-s-murder-398810/
10. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/chandigarh/gruesome-murders-culprits-still-out-of-police-reach-598428/
11. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/neha-was-raped-killed-elsewhere-cops/

FloatingIslesLoreKeeper (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It appears that this is a "breaking news" case. I believe it's probably better to write nothing on Wikipedia until there is some kind of conclusion (for example, a court verdict). I don't mind when eager sports fans are hurrying to update the scores during a big game, but violent crimes are not the same kind of thing.

If other editors legitimately disagree with me, I'll go along with them. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It is not breaking news. The case is from 2010 and verdict was given and accused found guilty and convicted. There are sources from 2010, 2013, 2017, 2025. FloatingIslesLoreKeeper (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Then ,It is a notable case. hence, you can write an article on it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Your draft is Underlinked .please add it. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Please add more information TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Never mind,i will help you. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

People with two names

I am currently revising Eric Sim, and I need help with the name part. Eric Sim has two names, one being his original Korean birth name Shim Hyun-seok (Korean : 심현석) , and of course, Eric Sim, which is his professional name. He also has a nickname "King of Juco." Does anyone know how the first paragraph should be written in this case? Thanks. Airuang3004 (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

To me, the name already looks good and does not need changing. What was the problem? TooManyFingers (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, "심현석" is Korean for "Eric Sim", but that still doesn't include his birth name Shim Hyun-seok. My question is how would I add his original name to the beginning? Airuang3004 (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh! I apologize, I didn't realize that because I don't read Korean.

Would it make sense to remove 심현석 and put his birth name in Korean (not romanized) instead of that? Or is 심현석 needed? TooManyFingers (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea too. I'm also not sure if his name in Korean should be added with the romanization or not. Airuang3004 (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Please take a look at MOS:NAME and see if that has answers. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at it now? Thanks a lot. Airuang3004 (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Try to avoid the nickname until much later in the article, unless everyone is calling him that every day. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I know, thanks. Airuang3004 (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

How to check if you have edited an article before?

Hi! This is honestly a very small matter, but how do you check if you have edited a certain article before. I mean, sure I can scroll through the hundreds of edits I have done trying to find an article, but is there a faster way? (I’m on mobile btw)

When I looked at the search bar at my contributions page, it did not give me any option to search for a specific article, if someone could tell me how to do so, that’ll be great. Thanks!

Gileselig (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gileselig Taking Pierre Robert (radio personality), as an example, at "View history", there is a "Page statistics" link [41], and you can find yourself under "Authorship" if you expand it. At the bottom of your contributions page is a link to [42], which might be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for telling me this. It does work pretty well for smaller articles that I’ve edited, but doesn’t really seem to work if the article I’m looking for is major (e.g. Magnus Carlsen, Kim Jong Un.) as my name gets phased out of like the top 50 they provide. Is there a way to search for my name in this system? Gileselig (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gileselig Can't think of any, which doesn't prove anything. There is something called WP:BLAME, but I don't think it helps here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks for your help anyways :) Gileselig (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

ctrl-f at [43] will answer your original question, but it's not very elegant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gileselig If you go to your edit statistics (link at the bottom of Special:Contributions) then you can move to the area which covers your edits to mainspace. There is a "More" option which reveals all your edits and can be searched or even downloaded. That's more-or-less what GGS has suggested. I've no idea how easy this is on mobile but on a PC it is straightforward. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

On mobile, where it shows the edits sorted by namespace, each namespace row shows how many edits have been done in that space. Clicking on the number itself, gets a list of what they all were. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much @TooManyFingers and @Michael D. Turnbull, it does give me a full list on what articles I have edited, but it doesn’t have a searchbar to search for the individual articles. Is there one? Gileselig (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Because they are all showing on the same page, you can use ctrl-f, or any command your browser may use for "find in this page". TooManyFingers (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, not necessarily all of them are listed if the list is long. You're right that some kind of search function would help. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Alr thx! I can’t use ctrl-f on mobile but I don’t think there is any better way. Gileselig (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I have "Find in page" in the menu of my mobile browser, and that performs the same function. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

At the top of the page history screen in desktop view is a link called "Find edits by user", which takes you to this tool with the page field already filled in. You can use that to search the page history for your own contributions. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Want to understand SIGCOV and if it applies to all articles?

Apologies if this is a silly rookie question. But first what is SIGCOV (Significant coverage) exactly? And must all articles have it? Specifically for articles about small towns such as Wallabi Point, New South Wales. I read this and my understanding is that as long as articles on small towns satisfy GEOLAND/WP:NPLACE and have sources that can verify. Then that's enough. You don't need more like having sources to go in-depth. And census reports or gov sites that only mention location and population and nothing more - do not count as Significant coverage, but are enough to verify population and location and name. Is my interpretation of SIGCOV correct? And does all articles of small towns need SIGCOV in order to be accepted?JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Significant coverage is not a precise term. It means that the source's author wrote a large amount of material that is directly about the subject. If you're a band and I announce that you're playing this weekend, that is not significant coverage. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks. So basically a source that go into some depth. Must all articles have it? Specifically articles about small towns. I never got clarity on that. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you might be looking for Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, where there's a list of the notability guides for various topics. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The one about geographic places, under "artificial" (i.e. human-made), looks like the thing you're after. Yes, it basically says they get notability just for officially existing. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Thanks tho that didn't fully answer my question about whether if it also needed SIGCOV. I want to also know if all articles on Small Towns - need to also have SIGCOV or sources that makes large amount of material that is directly about the subject? Not just basic sources or non-SIGCOV that merely verifies it officially exists. Tho I have doubts it needs SIGCOV, as such a barrier would only make it impossible for Wikipedia to reasonably document all recognised geographic entities as many small towns lack any meaningful newspaper or special expert coverage. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie: sigcov has to do with establishing notability according to WP:GNG guideline, or others derived from it (like WP:ORG). For some subjects, such as recognised species, elected national-level politicians, and some geographical features, notability can be established via one of the subject-specific guidelines. Per WP:NPLACE, a "populated, legally recognized place" is one such subject, so no, sigcov isn't needed there.

That said, if there isn't significant(ish) coverage about a populated place in any published source, it can be difficult to create an article about it, since Wikipedia articles mostly summarise what other sources have previously published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I think I understand.

1. Significant coverage, on Wikipedia, is for one single purpose: proving notability. In the case of a person or a company, sigcov is a very big deal because if they don't show it then there can't be an article.

2. On the page about geographic places, it says: Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable.

That means they get an automatic free pass, and do not have to show sigcov. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing's point, that if there's no sigcov for a place then there isn't going to be much stuff to make an article with, is still true. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:NACADEMIC is a kind of special case too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie IMO you are right to be asking this whole question because everyone can see that Wikipedia is handling this case in a seemingly odd way. I believe it's amazing how well Wikipedia actually works in real life, but theoretically it sometimes looks insane. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing@TooManyFingers The reason I ask is because I am already considering making a new article for Bohnock. But got conflicting info on whether I should proceed. I can only really find RS that shows population size, location and name and that it has a boat ramp and a jetty under a bridge. Beyond that, there's only newspaper reports making brief mention mostly focused on personal stories of some residents who suffered a flood there and doing it rough, and some nice mentions from a promotional tourism website. I don't really have RS that gives a significant coverage on this suburb. I am not sure whether it's worth pursuing creating this article? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If it was about a person, I'd say "think again". But if you know and like this place, I say it's easily worth the effort to try. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I won't have much of a choice if it absolutely needs a RS that also gives SIGCOV. I can't find any and can't use that national newspaper report on the floods, as it's not typically known for floods, so that be undue. As long as there's no mandatory requirement for SIGCOV and simply it just needs sufficient sources to verify it's a real legal + populated place, then yes - I will indeed go ahead and try to create this article. & thanks for your nice words above.[44] :) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie: my more philosophical, opinionated, answer is that the answer should lie in Content policies and Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia:Notability (a guideline) is just a construct to help new users understand and get used to the policies, and reduce the amount of repeated discussions/thoughts over the same thing. As such, it reflects the current mood of some Wikipedians about certain topics. If you are looking too closely at the Notability guidelines you will find cracks.

The current mood is very strict on living people and operating organisations, but more welcoming of places. Previous moods were the "jesus-cruft purges" of 2010 (I have lost the diff with this quote, it was about about churches etc) and more recently the sportsperson purges.

About minimalist articles like Wallabi Point, New South Wales, if all content can be contained within its Wikidata - Wallabi Point (Q21898410) - and a prose summary can be written by Abstract Wikipedia (not yet deployed, could be a while) there is no need for the human-written Wikipedia article and one day we will just use a seamless placeholder. But maybe there is more information and it is nice to have it set up for someone to add something.

If there is more about a place like local newspaper coverage (however minor) and tourism board info that meets my mood for inclusion, but I think all knowledge has to go somewhere freely available, accessible and editable. Your mileage at Articles for deletion may vary, depending on when you go there. Commander Keane (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to avoid misunderstandings. I do in fact intend to make a decent article that satisfies GEOLAND. Just not able to do it with reliable sources that gives the suburb significant coverage. My plan for Bohnock is simply add a picture I have taken of the place. Add in population, map, location and the history that it was the first place in the region to build a bridge to connect the Manning delta islands to the mainland. (This is a really big deal as it paved towards a bustling farming community on those islands). Add in current facilities such as a boat ramp. And will use sources like gov census and council public historic archives. [45] I think for a small town, it has potential for an alright article.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There's a guide at WP:SIGCOV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If you're looking for guidance in policy Wikipedia:No original research says "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Wikipedia:Verifiability provides this in the description of the intersection with NOR "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy." hope this helps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

General

Why are the subtitles that used to appear on the left side of the wikipages no longer shown? ~2025-37691-51 (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-37691-51. Do you mean the table of contents? It's likely been hidden. At the top of the article, just press the button next to the page title to expand the TOC. You can then click Move to sidebar to attach is to the side again. qcne (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

In mobile view, the table of contents may also be a dropdown that you have to click on to show. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Notability assessment for fintech entrepreneur article

Hello Teahouse volunteers, I would like to get advice on whether a subject would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines before attempting to create an article. I want to make sure I'm not wasting anyone's time if the subject doesn't meet the threshold.

The subject is Sadra Hosseini, CEO of Ryft, a UK fintech company. Here's a summary:

• Third-time entrepreneur (founded The Luxe London 2015, Butlr 2019-2021, Ryft 2021-present)
• Butlr was acquired by OrderPay in 2021
• Ryft received UK Financial Conduct Authority authorization as a Payment Institution (license 972895) in 2023
• Received Innovate UK government grant in 2024
• Raised £7.4 million total funding including Series A in 2024
• Named Payment Systems CEO of the Year 2023 by CEO Monthly Magazine

Sources available:

• Tech.eu (Series A coverage)
• PYMNTS.com (funding coverage)
• PaymentExpert (Innovate UK grant coverage)
• FinTech Futures (funding coverage)
• Enterprise Times (funding coverage)
• FinTelegram (FCA license coverage)
• Prolific North (regional coverage)
• OrderPay official announcement (Butlr acquisition)
• Bdaily (2016 coverage of first company)
• Great British Entrepreneur Awards (2024 shortlist)
• Plus approximately 40+ other industry publications

My concerns:

1. Most sources are industry/fintech publications rather than general media
2. No coverage in Financial Times, Forbes, Bloomberg, Guardian, or Telegraph
3. Coverage is primarily about funding rounds and company milestones
4. Limited biographical depth about the person himself

My question: Given this sourcing, would a biographical article meet notability guidelines? Should I wait until there's coverage in more prominent publications like Financial Times or Forbes? Or is the current sourcing potentially sufficient?

I want to be respectful of Wikipedia's guidelines and editor time. Any guidance would be appreciated.

Thank you for your help! EditorUK2025 (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@EditorUK2025: if you want to show that this person is notable, you need to find sources that cover them directly and specifically, not just by way of passing mentions in discussing a business they are involved in, etc. Also, as you mention yourself, routine business reporting (funding rounds, M&A, appointments, etc.) do not establish notability in any case. It's difficult to say anything more definitive without seeing the actual sources, but based on what you've said there it doesn't sound like the notability is there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Great thank you for your response ill keep that in mind! EditorUK2025 (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up question: What would constitute sufficient "direct coverage"? For example, would a profile interview in a fintech publication like Sifted or TechCrunch that focuses on the founder's journey (rather than a funding announcement) count? Or does it need to be in general interest publications like Financial Times or The Guardian? Just trying to understand what level of publication would meet the threshold. Thank you! EditorUK2025 (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NPEOPLE for the guidelines on the notability of people.

A 'profile interview' would not be a suitable source because interviews are primary sources by default, and primary sources cannot be used to determine notability, only to establish basic biographical facts as per WP:ABOUTSELF

For a person to be notable, they need to have been written about in-depth in a reliable source completely independent of them. I.e., somebody else needs to examine their life/story/journey and report on it with no involvement of the person themselves. Athanelar (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @EditorUK2025, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people 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.

In order to establish notability, you need to find several sources that meet that specification - WP:42 is a summary of what you need to show for each source separately. ColinFine (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Should we do a GAA (Good article assessment) on Eminem?

I was thinking because of the fact it is very detailed and well connected. Its been about 10 years since Eminem got delisted from GA. YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere. You can open a reassessment for it. This might be helpful to you. Fade258 (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

How do I clear all notices?

I'm in Timeless appearance mode, and I noticed that my notices count is at 8 right now. I want to clear it because I don't wanna end up with a number that overlaps something else, but I don't know how. Can anyone help? BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't use timeless but from what I can tell there should be a "remove all" button or something to that effect. If not then you can try clicking on each notification individually in the list that pops up to remove them. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@BluePixelLOLLL: When you click on the notification button, there is a button saying "Mark all as read". Clicking that removes the notifications. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that worked! Thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Trying to create a page for a living persong but could not

I wanted to create an article for julia she is a color stylist and expert she is bring someting new that i want to show to the world But i cannot make the article my one page is deleted Sikandar kazmi (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If there are no primary and secondary sources (and those sources have to be reliable, see Wp:reliability for this Julia then it doesn’t classify as Wp:Notability. Wikipedia is not a promotion site, it is an encyclopaedia for reliable knowledge regarding, events, places, people etc. But they have to be backed up with evidence. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

What does it mean when a page is reviewed?

The title is the question. An article I submitted to articles for creation was accepted and I received another notification about it. Do articles get reviewed twice for their acceptance? Could I Do This? (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

What is the article in question? Athanelar (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I assume Deep Voodoo, which is this users only article creation I believe Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, yes! The article is Deep Voodoo. I got a notification when it was accepted and another saying that it was reviewed. I thought it was already reviewed when it was accepted. I'm just curious what it means when an article "has been reviewed". Could I Do This? (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh that message, it just means an editor has gone over and checked whether it is good enough for the main space, some articles in the main space get reviewed and placed back in a user’s sandbox or as a draft if they don’t qualify. I get those sometimes also Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, this & context from another answer made it make sense to me. Could I Do This? (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It's possible that the second notification was from the WP:New page patrol process. If the person who reviewed your draft is also a new page patroller, they might have both approved the draft and then marked it as patrolled at the same time. Athanelar (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

No, you will get notifications for pages which you have on your watchlist, and as you created Deep Voodoo (the page I assume you are talking about) then I believe you will get notifications for it.

If you are referring to notifications from a reviewer than that probably means someone has a query about it or wants it to be updated. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Could I Do This?! The answer to your question is 'sort of'. Articles on Wikipedia can go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, where an AfC reviewer will check for article compliance with Wikipedia policies. Very new users (<4 days & 10 edits) have to use this process, as should paid editors and those with conflicts of interest, and thus those articles are reviewed by AfC reviewers – new users tend to be the most likely editors to still be gaining familiarity with Wikipedia content policies. Any user with more experience than that technical limitation is capable of creating an article directly, but since that doesn't guarantee that a created article belongs in the encyclopedia, there's also a group (New Page Patrollers, or NPPers) that 'patrols' or reviews most new articles on Wikipedia. The two reviewing groups are separate, so an article that's gone through the AfC process whose reviewer is not an NPPer still ends up in the NPP queue. AfC reviewers who are NPP may also mark an article unreviewed if they wanat to get a second pair of eyes on it. If this seems complicated, don't worry about it; as an NPPer, I can tell you that AfC-accepted articles are considered some of the easier reviews, as we know they've already had reviewer eyes on them. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This answer makes sense to me, thank you for the level of detail you put in. So articles that go through that creation process are reviewed initially by someone on that side of things, and then New Page Patrollers review that process, if they aren't already part of the creation group. It seems like an odd redundancy if one group does the job of the other, but I'm assuming NPP does a lot more than just review accepted creations. Could I Do This? (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

NPP also reviews articles that have been created directly into mainspace and haven't gone through the draft review process. Athanelar (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood! It sounds like NPP is like an advanced group of AfC reviewers. It's still a little confusing in the grand scheme of things, but it feels like something that doesn't need to make 100% sense to me unless I was in the middle of it. Could I Do This? (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

You've got the general idea. While all new page patrollers can review drafts, not all AfC reviewers are new page patrollers. NPP is an additional level of quality control (with a few more rules) that's applied to most new articles, not just those that started as drafts. You can be confident that two different reviewers have given your article their seal of approval. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Creating an article that already exists in other languages

Hello,

What's the best approach when you realise that there is an article in one language (i.e. in French), but the same article is not found in another one (i.e. English) Is required to start creating a new article? Is there any translation option within Wikipedia?

Thanks Abulense03 (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

You could opt to translate the prose of the article directly; otherwise, another option would be to re-read the article's sources and rewrite the article from scratch in English using the information therein.

See WP:TRANSLATE. Athanelar (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a translation tool, but Wikipedia advises people to only translate partially with the tool, as all translation tools can have mistakes, instead it is preferred when a user has knowledge of both languages and can accurately translate. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Making bad translations is easy :)

Good translations are much harder.

I think it also depends on the article. If it's very well written and it's large, then it's likely to be worth your effort. If it's a little article or the writing isn't good, then it might be easier to make a new one. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Abulense03, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless the existing article in another language is sourced adequately by the standards of English Wikipedia (see WP:42) then it is probably a waste of time translating it. (It takes some experience to be able to evaluate sources). Procedures and standards vary between different Wikipedias, and English Wikipedia is said to be one of the strictest. ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I meant to add: I said it is probably a waste of time translating it, but it might be worth writing a fresh article on the subject. Since writing an article should always always always start by finding the independent reliable sources which are essential to demonstrate notability, that search will show whether or not there is any point in continuing to try and create the article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Guidance for editing a page for an org that changed its name

The LGBTQ organization The History Project has recently changed its name to Queer History Boston. I saw that an editor changed the title of the page and edited most of the page to reflect the new name. But then another editor reverted most of the edits (but not the new page title). So the page is now listed under Queer History Boston, but the old name is still used throughout the article. It's confusing and messy and I'd like to change it, but I want to make sure I'm going about it the right way. If I edited the article and added a citation to the org's blog post where they announced the new name, would that be sufficient to demonstrate that they're the same organization?

The article also still has the old THP logo. I've not been able to find a suitable alternative on QHB's new website, and I'm also not sure of copyright status for icons and other promotional branding taken from public websites. I'm thinking it would make the most sense to just remove the old logo, but curious if there are standards I'm not aware of.

Thanks in advance! Hawksquill (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Notifying User:Materialscientist, who made the revert. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Just as general reassurance, this looks to me very much like everyone including you has been acting in good faith and (mostly) correctly, and that it shouldn't be too hard to resolve. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Just to clarify, I'm not the user who had my edits reverted -- I just stumbled upon the page and was confused about why it looked so odd. Would it be okay for me to edit the page to include the new name throughout, add a line about the name change with a source, and remove the old icon? Or am I missing something about why the edits were reverted and/or community norms? Hawksquill (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The person who made the revert has been alerted, and in my experience (a) isn't likely to have reverted without a good reason AND (b) sincerely wants the proper outcome rather than a fight. So I suggest waiting and clearing this up with them after they respond. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding Notability (redux)

Hello once again, Teahouse! After looking through the comments and reading up on Wikipedia's notability stuffs, I have regarded my initial article planning as not notable. However. I found myself wanting to create an article for the gacha game Chaos Zero Nightmare. Before I rush into writing articles as a newbie, what precautions must I take regarding notability and what is some good advice to keep in mind while writing articles? (also, it would be rly good if someone can check whether CZN is notable or not. I believe it's good to go, but an extra opinion would be much appreciated.) WorldwideParasol (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Notability basically means showing it got major in-depth coverage from reliable publishers (where they really talk about its history, get into all its good and bad points, etc - AND at the same time is not an interview). The more places you can show a feature article on CZN that isn't an interview or an announcement, the better. Long reviews by trusted people, that kind of thing. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

We strongly recommend that you get some experience making smaller changes to existing articles, first. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

How to Foreground Notability...?

Dear Friends, With the very kind feedback of my mentor @GoingBatty and the gracious advice of @Robert McClenon I am asking here in the Teahouse about how I can demonstrate the notability of the article subject in a clearer way. I hope to eventually write a series of articles about public servants in my country so this is a great learning experience and I'm cutting my proverbial teeth on the following article Draft:Barry O'Brien. Out of necessity, I picked a public servant who is well known but about whom - understandably - a Wikipedia article has not yet been written. I feel that the subject meets all the criteria for notability. He has been written about impartially over the course of 20 years in all of the main broadsheet newspapers in my country and has been featured in a book. I suppose the sources (and the notability attendant upon those sources) will become clearer when I implement the advice of my mentor to write a footnote section but I'm just wondering if there is anything else I need to do to satisfy editors and the community standards. Also, if anyone has any tips on the best way to generate a footnote section, I'd be very grateful. Thanks for reading. A tea cup raised in salute through the ether. Publicservantsofireland (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There's only one way to demonstrate notability, and it doesn't involve foregrounding anything - except in the most primitive obvious kind of way.

Notability comes from the subject being told about, at length and in depth, by reliable publishers who are independent of the subject. (Independence is quite strict; interviews are not independent because the subject was there.)

So, include references to featured stories about the subject in reliable publications, or as close as you can get to doing that. The only "foregrounding" to do is to try to not have a huge number of other references that aren't of that type, getting in the reviewer's way. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

As far as foregrounding and all that, if you show that there's top-notch major coverage of the subject in reliable publications, but you're a terrible writer, I think reviewers would say the article stays but let's fix up some of this writing. :) Don't worry about your writing style, just worry whether your topic is notable enough to be writing about in the first place. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks so much for the tips & feedback @TooManyFingers Publicservantsofireland (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Publicservantsofireland To answer your "how to generate a footnote" question, see WP:CITE and note that for biographies of living people the citations need to be inline. You may find this essay helpful for some pitfalls to avoid. If you have sources in mainstream broadsheets - the sort that themselves have articles in Wikipedia - you will be well on your way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three sources is a good essay, but overall notability is more an art than a science. Your mileage will vary as they say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

How to cite a page of an e-book?

Help on citations does not provide guidance and cannot find a specific help page on this. Jp1008 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Answering my own question 🫢 ...

From WP:CITE "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number, the section title, or the specific headword." Jp1008 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. As long as you are legitimately showing where the material is, you're doing your job. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Does Help:References and page numbers also make a difference? TooManyFingers (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Does Modrinth meet the criteria of notability for an article?

Modrinth is an open source minecraft mods hosting platform, similar to Curseforge (which has its own section under Curse LLC)

The page Minecraft modding has a dead link to Modrinth, along with PlanetMinecraft.

Unlike Curseforge, it is relatively new, started around 2020. Finding wikipedia:independent sources about it doesn't seem to be exactly possible at the moment. DenizBlue (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

No independent sources means it can't be notable yet, sorry. If in the future some major stories get written about it in reliable publications, then it could become notable. One big "catch" is that interviews don't count - they have to be writing just because they decided to, not because the creator is there or whatever. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Carmela Conroy

I submitted a draft article (Draft:Carmela Conroy) and the "review in progress" notice has been displayed for over 48 hours with no update. The notice says to seek help if it's been more than 12 hours. Could someone advise on next steps, or is there a way to request the review be completed or reassigned? I appreciate your time. RiverHouseWriter (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Note to anyone looking at this request:: it appears this request has been completed about an hour ago (19:02 UTC) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Citations for academic degrees

Were would I find citations for a living person's academic degrees? Is the biography of the person posted on his organization's website a suitable citation? PoliceEditor (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not the highest quality citation, but if it's for a simple claim then it should be fine. Independent sources would be preferable though. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:ABOUTSELF, probably, given the organization is reputable. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

a page about me

hello, i was wondering if someone could make a wikipedia page on me as i am a good and upcoming footballer with a lot of potential and you could look at my posts to see and look at cymru football which has evidence of me scoring a lot of goals and thriving in my league, i also want to get more visability from scouts and hopefully get picked up by a pro level team, ~2025-38139-33 (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia--we don't have "pages", we have articles on notable subjects as defined by our policies and guidelines. We're not interested in the "up and coming"--to qualify for an article, one needs to have already arrived. This is not social media, and this is not a place to "get more visibility" or otherwise promote yourself. If that is your goal, there are a a variety of alternatives outside of Wikipedia.

Please check out the links I have included above, and feel free to ask further questions. Thanks! --Finngall ^talk 21:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-38139-33, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I wish you well on your career, but that is absolutely not what Wikipedia is for.

Only if you are notable in Wikipedia's special sense - which basically means that you have been written about by people wholly unconnected with you, in reliable publications - can there be an article about you.

What you are wanting to do is promotion, and that is forbidden on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There's an old expression you sometimes hear after an incredible game, "That was one for the history books!"

Wikipedia is basically history. And most of the people with articles are also, umm, history - people whose careers are over, or who have died. There are articles about living people with current careers, but we do our best to make sure that they're people who already have history-books type of recognition before we write about them.

Wikipedia's notability requirements mean that if a person or company could use Wikipedia's help for their career or business, they probably can't have it. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

ARTICLE DECLINED

just wanted to ask for help for the article I made Draft:Keeton & Co Real Estate I added the needed info for it but the reason it was declined is it says it is more reliant on the company's website. But I saw a wikipage of a company where all of the links are from their company bit it was still approved. Can anyone help me make this published? VeneLaude (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That another article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. There are many ways inappropriate content can be on Wikipedia, this cannot justify adding more. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, things will get by us. This is why we judge each article or draft on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles, see other stuff exists. If you want to help us, please identify this other article you saw so action can be taken. We need the help, and we are only as good as those who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @VeneLaude, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unless your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, no article will be accepted about it. The great majority of companies do not meet these criteria.

It is likely that the other article you are referring to is about a company which also does not meet the criteria, and it should be deleted. ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Assuming this is your company, please carefully read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to understand why what you are doing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Becoming a member of WikiProject Science

Hi. I really want to be a part of WikiProject Science but am not sure how to join. I have gotten as far as going to WikiProject Science/ Guest book and hitting "subscribe" on newsletter. Is there anything else I need to do? Thanks. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

To become a member, simply participate. Anyone who is doing WikiProject Science things is automatically a member.

You may, if you want to, go back to the same guest book and edit to add your username at the bottom of the page (with perhaps a little description - you'll see the things other people have written). I don't think anybody really minds whether you add yourself to that list or not. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Agnieszka653 By the way, I saw a box on your user page. Just in case you like having those, Wikiproject Science has boxes too. They're in the Members tab, under "Member userboxes". TooManyFingers (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

A user appears to pretending to be a famous person: possible scam

There is a person contacting Wikipedia editors here claiming to be a famous person. It likes a scam. Who do I contact about this. Starlighsky (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Forward the email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org (and the email headers if possible.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay Starlighsky (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

hCaptcha issues

I am trying to add an external link to a page, so I need to submit an hCaptcha, but the hCaptcha isn't showing for me. Joetheman67 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @KHarlan (WMF), @EMill-WMF. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you say more about what you're seeing? Are you unable to submit an edit when you try? EMill-WMF (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I can't reproduce this on enwiki. Can you provide us with more information about what you see after you press "Publish changes"?

The expected workflow for adding an external URL is:

• press "Publish changes" on an edit that adds an external URL
• the page reloads
• at the bottom of the page, this text appears above the submit buttons: "Your edit includes new external links. To protect the wiki against automated spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following hCaptcha"
• press "Publish changes"
• the challenge appears

Note that next week, when hCaptcha is at 99.9% passive mode, the workflow for adding an external URL will be:

• press "Publish changes"
• hCaptcha doesn't think the session is suspicious for bot activity -> the edit is published
• otherwise, same steps as above

KHarlan (WMF) (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you perhaps using an ad-blocker that is preventing it from showing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Message regarding draft

Hi, I had recently tried to submit a draft and it got rejected. I revised it and resubmitted and I'm curious if there's anything else I could keep in mind.

Draft:Marcus Moziah Guerrier

Here's a log of revisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AMarcus_Moziah_Guerrier&oldid=prev&diff=1325789223 Mmg2262 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The best thing you can do in my opinion is try to find sources that are not an interview, and are not announcing anything either. Announcements don't tell any story except "Come out and hear him" (or maybe "Look what he did now"). Interviews are really just you telling the story, and that's not what Wikipedia really cares about.

The perfect kind of source is where the reporter (with no interview) has written his very own big feature article about your past. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You've indicated that you want to write an article about yourself.

First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.

Warning against COI editing

First and foremost this is because conflict of interest editing often results in issues with the neutral point of view expected on Wikipedia, due to biases whether consciously or unconsciously. While you may not intend to be biased, the types of information you include or exclude from an article are likely to be skewed by your connection to the subject. It's also very common for conflicts of interest to result in promotional writing such as advertisement-like articles for companies or resume-like articles for people. You may innocently intend to 'raise awareness' or 'correct misinformation' about the subject, but this is still promotion, and promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.

People with conflicts of interest tend to be very bad at gauging whether the thing they're writing about meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it needs to be 'notable,' which is a word that has a particular and slightly unintuitive meaning here on Wikipedia. There are a number of different criteria for notability depending on the subject, such as the 'general' notability guidelines, the guidelines for notability of companies or organisations, the notability of creative professionals etc. The vast majority of people and companies are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and do not warrant a Wikipedia article about them. A good rule of thumb is that if a person or company is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, then soon enough somebody else will write it for them, and there's no need to do it yourself. So if you're here to write an article about yourself or someone or something connected to you, it's generally a good indicator that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A special note is necessary here that ChatGPT and other AIs do not understand Wikipedia notability. It's very common for COI-writing newcomers to get themselves confused because they ask ChatGPT whether they should write an article about themselves/their company and it spits out a few trivial sources and claims that these sources constitute 'notability.' You need to thoroughly read the notability guidelines relating to the subject you want to write about and make sure you understand whether the available sources support the notability of the subject. Do not try to take shortcuts by asking an AI, it will likely be wrong.

It's very common that articles written by those connected to the subject end up being written backwards. This means that you first write the article with everything you know about the subject due to your connection to it, and then try to find sources to confirm the information you've written. This is the wrong way to write a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise the existing information available about a subject in reliable, independent secondary sources. The goal is not to present new information or to synthesise multiple existing sources to provide new conclusions. When writing an article you must first search for sources relating to the subject (appropriate sources, those meeting the golden rule) and only include information in the article which is written in the sources. You may well know information about the subject which is not available in any of the existing sources, but you must not include this kind of 'original research' in your article. It is understandably frustrating to want to provide certain information and not be able to, but that is the limitation of writing for an encyclopedia, and precisely why we strongly discourage people from writing about subjects they are connected to. If the existing sources don't say it, you can't put it in an article.

You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc is not always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it.

If after reading all of that, you still think you can go ahead and beat the odds and create this article, then follow the steps below.

Writing a COI article

First, and most important, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to do this at WP:COI If your conflict of interest involves being paid to create this article, you should follow the instructions at WP:PAID to disclose that also.

Next, heed what I said above about not writing an article backwards. You need to forget everything you know about yourself, which is obviously the most difficult part. Search Google and elsewhere for sources first. Remember that those sources need to be reliable, independent and secondary. Avoid trivial coverage such as listicles, especially when writing about companies as this type of day-to-day corporate coverage is very common. The sources you use need to actually prove the subject's notability (according to the most relevant guidelines) as I discussed above, which passing/trivial coverage does not. If you use ChatGPT or another AI to find sources for you (which you shouldn't), you must double-check the sources yourself and verify that they actually say what the AI claims they do, because source-to-text inconsistencies are extremely common when using LLMs to search for sources.

Once that's done, you can extract information from the sources and write your article. For guidance on that, follow Help:Your first article and feel free to ask any more specific questions here at the Teahouse.

Athanelar (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Providing archive URL of a facsimile of an old book

I am citing an old (1901) book that is has a facsimile copy in archive.org and I think this would be a valuable information for those that are interested in digging further into the topic.

When using the archive URL field to the archived facsimile, I get the "archive-url=requires|url=" error. I figure from the error description that the field assumes the archived information is a website. But since in this case it is a book, and not a website, it has no URL.

Thanks in advance for any assistance. Jp1008 (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The Template:Cite book can include a field for archive; maybe that could work? TooManyFingers (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

What? No, just use "url=" with the "archive.org" domain (NOT to be confused with the "web.archive.org" domain). Fabrickator (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The huge majority of books somewhere in the Internet Archive are in archive.org but not in web.archive.org (not archived by the Wayback Machine). For this huge majority, you don't need the "archive-url" field. Simply provide the current URL, and add |via=Internet Archive. Of course, various other websites offer PDFs of books, and the Wayback Machine archives some of these in web.archive.org. If you cite one of these books, then you skip |via=Internet Archive but if you either are citing an older, archived version or are citing the current one but fear that it might disappear, then add archive-url=, archive-date=, and, if appropriate, |url-status=. There's plenty more to read at Template:Citation/doc. -- Hoary (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

finding references

hi! trying to give a woman author visibility through an article here (she authored some 40 books). But i but cant find substantial coverage in published sources. any tips or resources? thanks! Draft:Patricia "Patsy" M. Scarry. Mooack (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mooack A Google books search gives some hits which might be usable. I think that your best bet will be to look in newspapers (e.g. at newspapers.com) for dates around when the books were produced and might have been reviewed. I don't know which country she lived in but presumably there will be most hits locally. Presumably you know about this list Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

There seem to be 144 matches for "Patsy Scarry" on newspapers.com but most are adverts for her books or brief mentions. I'm not seeing any significant coverage, unfortunately. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Mooack, there's Czar's index to Book Review Digest at the Internet Archive. -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mooack, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please note that "trying to give ... visibility" is a textbook definition of promotion, which is forbidden on Wikipedia.

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

So an article is possible only if you can find several sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42; and the article should be almost entirely based on what those sources say, not on what you know or what Scarry says or wants to say. Even if they are nasty about her. (I'm not saying that's the case - just that Wikipedia summarises what the sources say, without reference to what the subject would like). ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

ColinFine's explanation and advice is already very good. I'd like to add a little bit on to it: not only is it important to summarise what the sources say rather than contradicting them, it's also important to avoid adding things that the sources didn't mention. It is all right to add what I might call "boring facts" such as a missing date, but not all right to tell more of the story than what is found in the sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mooack! I notice that your draft contains a number of personal details about the subject that are not only inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article (in my opinion), but are also likely to be unpublished and only known by someone closely associated with the subject: this potentially brings Wikipedia:Conflict of interest into play.

It isn't forbidden for someone to draft an article about a subject they have a direct connection to (though it does make it more difficult for them to maintain a neutral point of view): however, if you do have such a connection, you must disclose it, as instructed in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. I hope this helps, and if indeed you have no such connection, I apologise for raising the matter.

As a book collector, and former bookseller and book editor, I applaud your efforts and hope you are able to find Reliable sources that demonstrate Patricia Scarry's notability. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 897.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

"List of [web series] episodes" articles

Recently, the article List of Battle for Dream Island episodes was up for deletion, and it was kept because it passed GNG and NLIST due to it being a series of episodes. So my question is, can the same be said about the List of Scott the Woz episodes and List of Marble Hornets episodes drafts?

Thanks! 1timeuse75 (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

For those to better satisfy WP:NLIST I would reccommend finding more sources, preferably those covering the entire list or large sections of it. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Chorchapu but that's not the case for the BFDI article. 1timeuse75 (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

There are ten sources in the BFDI article. I would recommend finding more sources. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

How to stay as an active editor

Hi I have joined Wikipedia a few months ago and I have made over 150 edits but lately I have got bored is their any good way to help me stay an active editor and not get bored. Thank you for your time. Very high frequency (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

If you're looking for things to do, you can try helping with anti-vandalism or writing new articles. You can find ideas at Wikipedia:Requested_articles. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Very high frequency. I am only motivated to work on articles that interest me. If I recall something that was important from my childhood, or come upon a fascinating bit of history, I decide to see if Wikipedia has an article about that. Oftentimes I find a stub article, or one with a "need more references" tag, so I start to look through reference books, or do an Internet search for reliable websites, and gather information to improve the little Wiki article that needs some TLC. The next thing I know I've spent a couple hours improving an article I hadn't known existed earlier in the day. Others may not find this a logical game plan, but its been working for me for nearly 20 years. Best wishes on your future Wikipedia adventures. Karenthewriter (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

What interests you outside Wikipedia? Your home town? Sports? Wildlife? Art? Work on articles about that.

Also, it's OK to take a break, whether it's a day, a week or longer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

People don't get kicked off of Wikipedia for not doing anything. The only people who aren't allowed back on Wikipedia are the ones who have shown a pattern of serious bad actions. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Another way that you can find things that might interest you is to subscribe to suggestions from SuggestBot. You can run it to get a one-time list of suggestions, or there are different ways that you can subscribe and have it periodically drop a new list of suggestions on your talk page. For instructions, see User:SuggestBot. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I scroll the Wikipedia:Dashboard now and then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Multiple copyedits

You just made an edit. You notice your own bad grammar. You correct the grammar, and in the edit summary you write "copyedit". But there are still copyedits to be made. Do you write more of these edit summaries as wikt:ditto#English, wikt:ibid.#English, or wikt:id.#English to name a few? Lumbering in thought (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lumbering in thought: Personally I like to keep things clear and simple. So "copy edit" each time, in your example. That would also guard against a series of "dittos", etc, being interspersed with other editors' edit summaries. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Copyedit can be abbreviated ce per Help:Edit summary#Edits should be explained. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, this fulfills my use case, but to be honest I'm still curious in other cases where there might be a longer edit summary. Lumbering in thought (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

If I actually remember to do it, sometimes I copy my own edit summary before saving, so I can reuse it. Anything that explains what you did is always better than anything that doesn't explain.

I believe this is a wider problem on Wikipedia, not just with edit summaries; inside the articles, editors often do tricks to save typing. It's a bad idea. Save the reader's effort by typing everything out in full, except for abbreviations that are universally recognized and accepted, or those that are explicitly defined in the same article. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

(I do admit I've put "same thing" as an edit summary when I was reasonably sure no other editing was going on. But if that one is viewed on its own, it's no help.) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! ... What happened to the Wikiproject for Rave??

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rave

I was just doing some research on DJ S3RL (one of my favorite artists of all time), and I (naturally) look at the Talk Section. And find out that it's defunct!! Is there a reason why i'm not finding??? Please help. Thank you in advance. SixBlunders (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Revival points is finding some topics of interest. Provide clear suggestions on what participants can do, using to-do lists, tasks and cleanup listings, and perhaps linking to relevant pages elsewhere. You can use the WikiProject help template, either directly or as inspiration. You seem invigorated about the subject. Has the rave scene undergone big changes? I personally have found some what can be called tangentially related topic.[46] Lumbering in thought (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi SixBlunders. Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors who choose what to work on. A WikiProject is a collaboration set up by such volunteers who get a common place to discuss their work in an area. Wikipedia:WikiProject Rave had no discussions or other activity in 2024 and was marked as defunct in 2025. That often happens with WikiProjects. Everybody is still free to create and edit articles about rave. Most editors probably never join WikiProjects about the topics they write about. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Ohhhh, that makes sense. Thanks for answering. SixBlunders (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Same as the other answers but very short:

People didn't stop caring about rave, they just stopped caring about joining the group. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Very nice "TL;DR". Appreciate it!! SixBlunders (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft Articles

Hi, I'm just looking for a bit of clarity on draft articles really. I did not create the original draft, but I've been working on Draft:Chapter One: The Crawl for about a week and feel I've got it to a pretty decent standard. I've submitted it for review twice and it's been declined both times, with the reason given being that there's not sufficient content to warrant it's own article". The draft has twenty referenced sources and, in my opinion, at lot more information that some other articles on similar topics. I'm just wondering why it is still being declined - is it the reviewer's subjective opinion, or is there criteria that the draft is somehow still not meeting? Also, I'm curious as to why I need to submit an article to someone else for approval in the first place, I've created several articles before without having to do this. Is there anything stopping me from simply moving it to the main article space? Not suggesting I would do that, but it would be helpful to understand the process more clearly to see what I'm doing wrong. Any advice would be appreciated. OrangeOctopus1996 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Screw that, I've promoted it. It was rejected twice for having insufficient content, but two of the four aired episodes from this season already have full separate articles, and this draft already has more content than both of them. Merging it into the season summary would create an article large enough to need to be split anyway. If the AFC nominators don't like it they can take it to AFD. See Chapter One: The Crawl. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support! I was so confused about what I was doing wrong because, as you say, it had a lot more content/references that other articles I've seen. OrangeOctopus1996 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

They're not saying you didn't do enough work, they're saying this is not a big enough topic to get its own article. They already said which article your good work should be part of, so go ahead with copy-pasting from the draft into that other article. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

DO NOT COPY PASTE CONTENT FROM ONE ARTICLE INTO ANOTHER. See WP:CWW. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I knew that, but did not know it applied to material from an unpublished draft. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

why did you delete my articale

i spent loads of time on it MyNathaniel69 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

They always give a reason, unless it was obvious anyway. Please read whatever notes were left for you. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

They said something like it lacks depth, but i included external links, things about the game, and more detialed stuff. MyNathaniel69 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MyNathaniel69. Have you read our deletion policy? qcne (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I will check soon. MyNathaniel69 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@MyNathaniel69 I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Everything you need to know which outlines our main policies and guidelines in an easy to understand way. It looks like you have jumped straight into editing Wikipedia without fully understanding how everything works, which is probably a bad idea!

I'd also recommend reading Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. qcne (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Any updates yet?? SixBlunders (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Any updates to what, @SixBlunders? qcne (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

On @MyNathaniel69 reading the deletion policy. SixBlunders (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Im going to read it now. MyNathaniel69 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TooManyFingers: this is a discussion forum for editors new to Wikipedia. If the best advice you can give here is RTFM, please stop replying to every question, you're not being helpful.

@MyNathaniel69: your page Territorial.io has been deleted three times, and each time the deleting administrator noted that the article doesn't indicate any reason why this is a topic important to have an encyclopedia article about. You can see what this means at credible claim of significance, but in a nutshell: Wikipedia can't cover every topic and has a general guideline on what indicates that a topic is notable, and when you're adding a new article about a topic it isn't good enough to say that it exists, you have to indicate why any reader should believe that it is significant. Your article didn't, so it was deleted.

Every time a page is deleted it leaves behind a deletion log with the administrator's comments on why they deleted it, which you can see by clicking on the red "Territorial.io" link above (it may not work on mobile, I'm not sure, I'm old enough that I still edit Wikipedia with a hamster wheel). The topic you're writing about also already has a draft article at Draft:Territorial.io, which you might be interested in helping to work on instead of trying to write an entirely separate article.

If you need more help or advice on writing your first article, please see Help:Your first article. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the useless answers. Thanks for pointing out that I was doing it. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Making a new article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. It requires a robust understanding of policies and guidelines like notability and neutral point of view, as well as technical skills like finding and citing sources and formatting your article in accordance with the manual of style. It's not something we recommend new editors try to do right away.

I would strongly advise that you first spend a while (at least a couple of weeks) participating in discussions here at the Teahouse and at noticeboards, asking questions, and editing already-existing articles to build the knowledge and skills I've mentioned above, and then come back to the article creation process later.

Like the rest of us, you're here because you want to contribute to an encyclopedia. Luckily, there are a lot of ways to contribute other than creating articles. You can copyedit (see gnoming), patrol the Recent Changes page to revert vandalism, get involved with a WikiProject you're interested in (like WP:AICLEANUP for me), read through discussions on boards like WP:ANI to see how disputes are handled here, etc. Athanelar (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawn COI draft needs neutral eyes (2026 FIFA World Cup angle)

Moved from WT:TH

 – Sdkb ^talk 19:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I have just withdrawn Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir from AfC after an admin note. I am the subject and have fully disclosed my COI on the talk page since October (no paid editing).

I will no longer edit the draft myself. Could one or more experienced neutral editors please take a look, make any needed improvements, and resubmit/move to mainspace if it meets guidelines?

The strongest notability hook is the subject’s leadership role in securing Port Alberni (British Columbia) as the **only non-host-city Team Base Camp** for the 2026 FIFA World Cup — covered in Times Colonist, CHEK News, Alberni Valley News, etc.

Draft link: Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir Thank you very much! — Abujahangir (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The really big issue is the lack of reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the article subject. Not quotes from him, not interviews, not a speech he gave, not a bio blurb in a connected group, not a passing mention or name drop - but significant coverage ABOUT Jahangir (ie, you). Even if the tone is fixed and the autobiography issue is addressed, the lack of even a single really good source really hurts the chances of this being accepted. Even with one found, generally you need three such good sources to get a draft accepted. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The word 'notability' can be confusing on Wikipedia, as it doesn't necessarily mean you have done something remarkable, but rather it means that other secondary sources have already taken note of you. In order for you to be 'notable' here there needs to be reliable, independent, secondary sources completely unrelated to and uninvolved with you who've written about you in some level of depth. Athanelar (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for the earlier feedback. Since then, several new independent sources have appeared that cover my role as co-lead of the Port Alberni 2026 FIFA World Cup team-base-camp bid (the only non-host-city candidate on Vancouver Island).

Key coverage from Jan to today: • Alberni Valley News, 9 Jan 2025 (committee formation) – https://albernivalleynews.com/2025/01/09/port-alberni-group-gauges-interest-in-fifa-26-celebrations/ • Times Colonist, 14 May 2025 (bid support) – https://www.timescolonist.com/sports/langford-alberni-groups-bidding-to-host-2026-world-cup-training-camps-10657679 • CHEK News, 6 Jul 2025 (FIFA site visit) – https://cheknews.ca/really-exciting-for-us-fifa-official-visits-port-alberni-1265084/ • CHEK News, 5 Dec 2025 (today’s group-draw story) – https://cheknews.ca/super-exciting-vancouver-island-watches-fifa-draw-as-world-cup-moves-one-step-closer-1293277/ + related video clip: https://cdn.jwplayer.com/previews/dJDr4Myc

These join the earlier sources already in the draft, showing 11 months of reliable, independent secondary coverage. I believe this now meets GNG.

Would any neutral editor be willing to take a fresh look at Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir, incorporate/verify these sources, trim any remaining promotional tone, and move it to mainspace (or resubmit to AfC) if acceptable? Happy to answer questions.

Thank you! — Abujahangir (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

"Coverage" means they write a long article about your past. Is that what they have done?

Announcements and listings don't count. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

No, those aren't the complete requirements. WP:NPERSON has GNG as an option, but also has some other special requirements that if met would warrant an article. I'm not sure why Jameslwoodward said on commons that WP:EN rules prohibit people writing articles about themselves; WP:AUTOBIO says that it is strongly discouraged, but not prohibited.Abujahangir, Please just go through the AFC process. Word count is a rough approximate to significant coverage, but it isn't an exact comparison. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 04:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, TooManyFingers—yes, these are in-depth profiles (400–600 words each) about my background and leadership in the World Cup bid, including my past work in Bangladesh's textile industry and how it informed the committee's strategy. They're from independent Bangladeshi outlets, adding an international angle to the Canadian coverage.

• Daily Janakantha, 3 Sep 2025: https://www.dailyjanakantha.com/sports/news/849398 (profile on FIFA recognition and immigrant success) • ATN News TV, 16 Sep 2025: https://www.atnnewstv.com/details/20504 (on visionary role in securing the base camp)

Happy for neutrals to review/translate if needed—these build on the Jan–Dec timeline I shared. Would love your thoughts or help incorporating!

— Abujahangir (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes

I made some userboxes, but how do I put them like

This user supports the SVT

.

without typing out the full code behind it? Starry~~(Starlet147) 20:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Starlet147, you just need to create a page in your userspace (User:Starlet147/userbox1, for example), and then put the userbox code on that page. You can then transclude that userbox by typing {{User:Starlet147/userbox1}} onto your page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Notability

Hi, I was wondering if there was on the reliable sources guideline that if an excessive amount of primary sources can be allow for an article to be deleted. I saw that the Tar pit (DC Comics) article has only two sources that (I believe) are not published by anyone relevant in Warner Bros, all the other sources are mostly books from DC Comics. I believe that this article might not meet notability guidelines, but I want to make sure if it does. rave (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Excessive primary sources might be messy or unnecessary, but by themselves they're not a reason to do anything drastic.

If there's a real problem in what you're describing, it might be that there are too few reliable secondary sources for notability, or ones that aren't top quality. I don't know because I haven't looked. But concentrate on those; finding one or two more might be all that's needed. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@RaveCrowny Definitely don't get rid of the article just like that; if one more decent source would be enough for its notability, people should get a fair chance at finding that. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I saw the article, most of the other sources that could possibly used are mostly just talking about his appearance in "The Arrow". Other than that, the MovieWeb source does not mention Tar Pit at all (I tried to use his fictional nickname and his (fictional) real name and nothing came up. Not mentioning that the source is covering the movie about the comic.), the IGN source is a list and Tar Pit is only a mention, The Birth, Movies Death source is a facts article about the character, and the Nerdist source covers an episode that has Tar Pit as a major character in the episode. This article might not be notable for the sources currently used, and the excessive use of primary sources to justify the notability made me raise an eyebrow. rave (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Notability isn't determined by the sources used in the article right now, but rather the sources in existence. Before nominating it for deletion, you should search for sources. You should also consider an alternative to deletion, for instance a merge with a different article, such as List of DC Comics characters: T. WP:BEFORE explains the steps to do before nominating an article for deletion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I briefly found some sources that aren’t used on the article that might help the article have more sources that could be reliable. The sources I found that have a section or predominantly focused on Tar Pit are CBR (has a section on Tar Pit) and Bustle (goes slightly in-depth about Tar Pit as a character and his own actor). I wont leave out the possibility that there might be more sources. rave (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Edits question

I made a change on a school's page to update the OFSTED inspection (UK Government regulator) and used the OFSTED report as a reference but it was declined. Any ideas why? Lululennon (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, that was me. On Dowdales School, you added information about an inspection but didn't include a source. On Walney School, you took the existing reference named Ofsted_2016 and changed the URL to the main Ofsted search page, using this to reference the most recent inspection and the new MAT for the school. You need to cite a source which includes the information you want to add. I linked to some resources on your Talk page when I reverted these, but referencing for beginners is also helpful. Tacyarg (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Lululennon, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reversion was here, so a courtesy ping to Tacyarg in case they have anything to add. Your addition doesn't have an inline citation to support it. There are instructions at WP:CITE and WP:INLINE if you are confused on how to cite sources. In source editor, you would just add <ref>(URL here)</ref> to the end of the content you added, and in visual you would press the 'cite button' and add in the URL. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I've added the inspection to the Dowdales article, with a reference, so you can look at the text of the article and see what sort of formatting you need to use in future. Tacyarg (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you that is nice of you to do and I think I see what you mean now! Lululennon (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

how to move a draft article to my sandbox?

I started translating a wiki-article, and I pasted machine-translated text into the new article space here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZOV_56 . However, this draft needs a lot of human editing before it can be posted as an article. How do I move this draft to my sandbox? ApoieRacional (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

ApoieRacional, I've moved it to User:ApoieRacional/sandbox2 (as plain User:ApoieRacional/sandbox already existed). -- Hoary (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

thank you ! ApoieRacional (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Alwyn Moss Article Sources

Hello, I am creating a Wikipedia page for one of Wikipedia's Women in Red links Alwyn Moss as part of a school project and I am having trouble finding any credible sources for her page. I would really appreciate any help. User:Roseswikiedit/Alwyn Moss Roseswikiedit (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

For interest, would this be the author of Never Love a Feral Cat? If so, it appears to me that she has only authored that book and is otherwise unknown. It's unlikely that there are enough (or any) published Reliable sources on which to base an article about this author: it is more likely that an article about the book itself would be viable (if it has had a number of reviews) – this is not uncommon for authors. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Asking Google for "Never Love a Feral Cat" review brings up -- or anyway does for me, in my own search bubble -- a list of web pages that would, for any of various reasons, be of no value for an article. Such a choice of subject is going to get you nowhere, Roseswikiedit. Please find a different subject to replace this one. Be sure that you can find what we here call "reliable sources", independent of the subject, before making up your mind. (Independent of the subject means not by her, not by people promoting her, not by companies that might somehow make money via her, not interviews with her.) This probably feels like a giant pain; but if you get your choice of subject right before you start, you'll soon realize that the careful choice was very much worth the time and effort. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

hCaptcha

I am trying to add to improve references but after pressing "Publish changes" I see in large red letters "Your edit includes new external links. To protect the wiki against automated spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following hCaptcha:" Fair enough, but unfortunately there is no visible Captcha to deal with. I have to press "Publish changes" a second time before the Captcha appears but I am not told to do so. This looks like bad UX. ~2025-31381-67 (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31381-67: I think hCaptcha is new and maybe you have found a teething issue. On the task board I found T409713 - could that be your issue? If not, can you give all the details you can - browser, VisualEditor or regular wikitext editor, desktop or mobile etc - and hopefully someone will try to reproduce and submit a bug report to get it fixed. Commander Keane (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed there are not exceptions in some safety measures for .gov websites

It looks like .gov websites are grouped together in at least one wikipedia system that detects it being potentially dangerous to link to an external site. I don't know if any .gov websites could be dangerous, maybe there are some obscure city websites run in certain states that do not have full protection, but maybe there should be a range of definitive website prefixes and domains that should be taken off certain cautionary lists. Abc7221a (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Could you please tell specifically in detail how to make it do the thing you're describing? TooManyFingers (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't mean I tried to do a technical analysis, and I don't even really know how to do anything beyond a few extremly basic level things with programming. I'm just thinking maybe there is a new system, especially now that I have read a few of the above comments here, or maybe some older system also that deals with URLs that is not optimized. Abc7221a (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I mean exactly how did you find out that something was happening? TooManyFingers (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it is probably called the HCaptcha, like the various comments above also. I added a usda.gov pdf link. Abc7221a (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)