Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1265

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1260

←

Archive 1263

→

Page not showing up on google results?

Hi! I recently made a page for up&coming writer Sebastian Castillo but it isn't showing up on any google results or getting crawled by Google, not even when i search 'sebastian castillo wikipedia.' I think it is because it's been blocked from indexing. This line of code is in the page (not the editable source code, but when you hit View Page Source):

Does anybody know why it's been blocked from indexing or can fix it for me? Heromagnus1 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Heromagnus1 google may take days to weeks to crawl and rank a new article you just need to wait.Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 19:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

yes that's what I initially assumed, but i actually made the page about 2 months ago, so I think something is blocking it from indexing. I've made pages before that haven't taken this long... any thoughts? Heromagnus1 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Heromagnus1 The article was reviewed on 10 September 2025 at 12:15. Google will usually pick it up within a few days to a few weeks, so it’s just a matter of waiting.Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 19:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see! So it can only get picked up after it gets reviewed?

In the future -- who does reviewing for pages? is there any way I can get an article reviewed more quickly? Heromagnus1 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

a) Volunteers.

b) No. DS (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

For more information on who does the reviewing, see WP:NPP. FYI, there's a big backlog of articles needing review – 12.5 thousand, which is actually down significantly from 19,300 earlier this year. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Creating a non-free audio sample

Hey, fist time asking for help, I've been trying to find out how to create a non-free audio sample file for the Radiohead song Exit Music (For a Film) for a bit now, but I just can't figure out how to do it. The problem I'm having isn't creating the page for the sample, it's getting the sample itself. I'm on an Android phone if that helps. CheeseyHead (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps consult the Wikimedia Commons editors? I had asked a question in their IRC channel yesterday, and got a response within 30 minutes. Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Idk, you're supposed to post non-free stuff here. CheeseyHead (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't know that. Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I use the free app WaveEditor on Android (other apps are available). If you cant get that to work, or prefer not to, ask at Help talk:Media (audio and video) or WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! But I'm still not sure how to get the audio file for the song. How do you do that? CheeseyHead (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

How do I contact New Pages Patrol about allowing Google to access the page Fred Bendheim? Thanks 2600:4041:5BEE:6600:900F:CDD0:CE0C:6930 (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You don't. New Pages Patrol is a volunteer driven process, with people doing what they can, when they can. The article will be indexed after 90 days of it has not been reviewed. Do you have a particular need for it to appear in search results quickly? Wikipedia has no control over how fast Google's algorithms work. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't decide whether to nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD or to move it back to draft space for further incubation (for some reason the creator submitted it for review and then moved it to mainspace the same day). It's a WP:BLP-violating article as it is, with many unsourced statements, and junk sources that don't confer notability on the subject.

I would say it isn't ready for mainspace if the subject is notable, and should not be patrolled. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

A new article

I want to create a new article on Ahmed Makahiil Hussein, but my account is not autoconfirmed yet. How can I submit a draft? Mohamed ahmed qalqale (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

This creation of yours makes me wonder if you understand that all content must be attributed to reliable sources, independent of Ahmed Makahiil Hussein . I suggest that you first get accustomed to improving existing articles, of course providing reliable sources for what you write, before you attempt a new article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

At Draft:Ahmed Makahiil Hussein, after reading WP:Your first article, and following the process described at WP:AFC; but please note what Hoary says, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mohamed ahmed qalqale, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Bashundhara Kings Ultras

During my newcomer copyediting suggestions, I came across this page: Bashundhara Kings Ultras. It has already been declared as WP:PUFFERY by a previous editor, but I am wondering whether this article should be nominated for deletion.

Half of the sources on the page point to Facebook pages. The Members section seems unnecessary.

I am not fully well-versed with the WP:Notability and WP:Relevance policies, hence wanted a more seasoned editor to take a look at the page and, preferably, suggest me a course of action.

Thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsacrificer Welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for bringing this up. I’d suggest raising these issues at Articles for Deletion so the community can review and decide.Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 10:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

criteria for upgrade to class B

I recently requested a review for International Virtual Aviation Organisation's content assessment level, and it was put as C and a copy editing maintenance banner was added. I've cleaned up the copy editing properly and was wondering if it's suitable for class B, or if it still falls short due to the lack of secondary sources? Unfrotuantley not a ton of secondary sources are available for this topic as it's fairly niche — an issue which also affects VATSIM GeorgeHav (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It's still class C due to cleanup problems, the main one being heavily reliance on primary sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I assume the fact that there isn't really that many secondary sources for this topic isn't justification to allow excusing that? GeorgeHav (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@GeorgeHav: Lack of secondary sources suggests that the topic is not notable and is a candidate for deletion, actually. Or, over-reliance on primary sources suggests a violation of our policy on undue weight, which would require cleanup. In any case, a class C article is one that may have cleanup issues, and as long as it has cleanup issues (as indicated by the template) it is class C the way the assessment scale defines it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Whether it is described as "B" or "C" has no real impact on anything. Why does it matter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

US Railcar

I have been expanding the article about US Railcar and noticed that some information about its facilities and future projects may be outdated. Should I move such details to a separate section like "Future plans" or keep them within "Facilities"? I want to make sure the structure follows Wikipedia standards. CoolEditer25 (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for Feedback on Draft - Sunbet

Hello, I’m a new editor on Wikipedia, and I recently created an article titled SunBet. I would greatly appreciate it if experienced editors could review it and provide feedback on the content, sources, structure, and style. I’m especially looking for guidance on:

Whether the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines Suggestions for improving citations and references Advice on improving clarity, neutrality, and overall readability

Any constructive feedback would be very helpful. Thank you in advance for your time and guidance! TuisVV (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @TuisVV, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for disclosing your status as a paid editor.

I have added a header to allow you to submit Draft:Sunbet for review, which is the way to get feedback.

However, I advise you not to submit it at present, because it will certainly be declined.

The problem is that you have done what most beginners do when they try the new and unfamiliar task of creating a Wikipedia article: you have written it backwards, and cited not relevant sources.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have separately chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else.

Writing it begins with finding sources that are reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42). It then continues (assuming that you have found such sources) by setting aside anything that you know about the subject, and writing a summary of what those independent sources say. (Do you see why writing with a conflict of interest is even harder than writing an article in the first place?)

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.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for Feedback: Predis.ai Sources

Hi, I’m working on the Predis.ai article and have reviewed its available sources for reliability, independence, reputation, and depth of coverage. Here’s a brief summary of the strongest sources I identified:

Evaluation of Sources for Predis.ai
Source	Independence	Reliability	Reputation	Depth of Coverage
Hindustan Times – Startup Mantra feature	Independent	Reliable	High	Substantial
Tech in Asia – Mapping India’s Key GenAI Contenders	Independent	Reliable	High	Analytical
Inc42 – Company profile	Independent	Generally reliable	Recognized	Moderate
IndiaAI.gov.in – Impact of AI on Diwali 2023	Independent	Authoritative	High	Limited
TechGraph – AWS Elevate 2023 Startups	Independent	Moderately reliable	Lesser-known	Reports inclusion

Do these sources meet Wikipedia’s standards for company notability? Any suggestions for stronger independent coverage would be appreciated. VerifiableVoice (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you use an AI to make this chart? It’s hard to understand the reasoning. Inc42 has a disclaimer about its own poor reliability, and the Hindustan Times article is mostly all quotes from Ratnaparkhe and so not independent. If these are the strongest sources, the topic is likely not notable enough for an article. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @VerifiableVoice, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have a common misunderstanding about what Wikipedia means by independence. It does not mean "This comes from a publication generally regarded as indpendent".

"Independent" means, roughly, "The subject of the article had no involvement at all in the particular article or piece being cited" - they (and their associates or organisations) did not write, edit, publish, vet, or commission the piece, and it is not based on their words whether in an interview, press-release, profile, or otherwise. ColinFine (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Avoiding edit warring during discussion

Hello Teahouse, I hope you're all well!

A month ago, I noticed an omission in the history of my town and decided to become a wikipedia editor to correct it. Another editor critiqued my edit and gave some advice, so I adjusted accordingly and republished, but we keep going back and forth with me trying to improve the contribution and then reverting my changes. I opened a discussion on the talk page to reach a resolution. In the meantime, which version of the page should stay up? I don't want to engage in an edit war with repeated undo-ing.

Here is the page in question: Elmira, Ontario. Jbaribeau (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The article should remain as it was before you attempted to add the information; the burden is on you to build a case to include it, not for the other editor to justify removing it. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jbaribeau Note that we have various established methods of dispute resolution if you and another editor get stuck and can't agree. When I get involved in discussions about niche topics, my first thought is that I'm happy to have found someone else who cares about it! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Help for Draft:Joe Calhoun

Hi, I'm looking for help on a draft article Draft:Joe Calhoun. Can you check this please? R2025kt (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You don't say what help you are seeking, but if you feel that you have addressed the concerns of prior reviewers, you should resubmit the draft to put it back into the review process to get feedback. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up

Follow-up to New to Wikipedia and 1st article

Thanks to Anachronist for the feedback. ~Anachronist I was able to rewrite the article, and I researched proper third-party sources. I also adjusted the tone of the article. Hopefully, it will meet the criteria. I'm open to any new feedback. Draft:Joe Polish. Luichi luichi (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Luichi luichi. Your first two references were written by former Forbes contributors. Content written by Forbes contributors is not considered reliable on Wikipedia due to the lack of serious editorial control. Please see WP:FORBESCON for the community consensus. Your third reference is to an interview with Polish. Interviews do not establish notability on Wikipedia because, by definition, they are not independent sources. After checking three references that do not establish notability, I gave up. You should emphasize references to sources that establish notability. These sources must be reliable, they must be independent of the topic, and they must devote significant coverage to the topic. Joe Polish is the topic. Two out of three is not good enough. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it, I've taken them out and left the followings:

^ Warrillow, John (February 5, 2015). The Automatic Customer: Creating a Subscription Business in Any Industry. Penguin Books Limited. pp. Chapter 5. ISBN 9780241971871.

^ Kurtz, Brian (2022). Overdeliver: Build a Business for a Lifetime Playing the Long Game in Direct Response Marketing. Hay House. ISBN 9781788177559.

^ "Rich Cleaner Podcast : Insights from Tony Robbins at the 2017 Genius Network Annual Event". richcleaner.libsyn.com. Retrieved 2025-09-08.

^ David, Anna (2017-03-21). "Is Genius Network Just a Genius Scam?". HuffPost. Retrieved 2025-09-08. ^ "| ILLUMINATE Film Festival | Sedona, Arizona". illuminatefilmfestival.com. Retrieved 2025-09-08. Luichi luichi (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

And there's these 2 other sources that might apply, but I wanted to check-in first:

https://filmdaily.co/craft/spotlight/connected-joe-polish/

https://jonathanalevi.medium.com/the-power-of-being-in-the-right-room-even-if-it-costs-you-25k-2c4bd0e84f1b - Not so sure about Medium because it sounds like a blog entry. Luichi luichi (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Connor Tomlinson

I recently developed a wikpedia page for Connor Tomlinson (the other Connor...who is in "Love on the Spectrum") and added several sources but the page still remains in draft like this:

Draft:Connor Tomlinson Edfl22 (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I've added the information needed for you to submit the draft. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Killing of [victim] Vs Murder of [victim] Vs something else

I'm a bit confused about when it's appropriate to use certain titles. The flowchart from WP:DEATHS seems pretty straightforward, but I've been following the discussions on the talk pages of Killing of Iryna Zarutska and Shooting of Charlie Kirk, and things don't quite add up for me. According to WP:MURDEROF, it says: "Where reliable sources establish that a murder occurred, an article may be titled 'Murder of [Victim]' even if no suspect is identified or prosecuted." But doesn't that directly contradict WP:DEATHS, which suggests the title should only include "murder" if someone has actually been convicted? Emac07 (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Both WP:MURDEROF and WP:MURDERS are essays, not policy(though MURDERS says it is an explanation of policy). Murder is a legal conclusion, which is why it's best to wait for a court of law to convict someone(to be consistent with WP:BLP). I'm not aware of a circumstance where a killing was identified as a murder without a suspect being named or convicted. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

There are a few articles titled "Murder of [Victim]" where no suspect has been identified or convicted. For example, see Murder of Elsie Frost, Murder of Jane Thurgood-Dove, and Murder of Lyn Bryant. The article Murder of Arlene Arkinson is also titled as such, even though in the case no body has ever been found and no one has been convicted. I could provide many more examples. Emac07 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

John Roberts, Fox News reporter

Returned to Fox News on Sept 11, 2025 after being out due to illness. He apologized to co-host for not returning sooner. (If someone wants to edit his page, I don’t add to Wikipedia. This can easily be verified. I just saw him about 13:30) Pakabell (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Pakabell, this seems to be about John Roberts (journalist). Thank you for bringing it up here. You are free to edit the article (citing sources), to make suggestions for it on its talk page (preferably citing sources), or to bring the matter up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (again, preferably citing sources). -- Hoary (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ben 10: Omniverse 2/GA1

I just want to see if anybody can fix it since the bot still continúes to identify me (the nominator) as the reviewer, even after restarting the articule. Protoeus (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Protoeus, a template atop Talk:Ben 10: Omniverse 2 tells us that "An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria...." Which editor has indicated this, and where/how did they indicate it? -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

No one, I just made a little comment on the first page and automatically a bot detected me as an reviewer. Protoeus (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The whole processes of nominating and of reviewing are explained within Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. This page also says: "Withdrawing: To withdraw a nomination before the review has begun, remove the {{GA nominee}} template from the article talk page. To withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, let the reviewer know; the reviewer will then fail the nomination." Therefore please withdraw. -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

River titles

Hi, I have a question regarding the title of a river. This is in reference to Kirtankhola River, which was recently renamed from simply "Kirtankhola". My understanding is that since there is no other page with the simple title "Kirtankhola", there is no need to add "River" to the title, as a form of disambiguation. The user who has made this change, however, contends that this fits the naming convention for rivers in Bangladesh. Please advise. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion the relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME; the title should be whatever most reliable sources use to refer to this body of water. If that's not clear, editors should discuss the matter on the talk page to achieve a consensus. The official or legal name is important, but not the deciding factor. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot. Tuhin, I'm tagging you so that you can take this perspective into consideration as we discuss the issue. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Scottish fashion designers

I’m a student studying journalism and I’m interested in the Scottish fashion designers and would like to know the author who wrote or edited the article because I have Wikipedia as my source. 192.124.203.102 (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. All articles have a "view history" tab where the whole development of the current text can be seen, with the names of the individual editors, which of course are usually pseudonyms. For large articles, it is usually better to see an overview of authorship which can be obtained from the history tab by clicking on the "page statistics" link near the top. See WP:REUSE for licensing considerations if you want to re-use Wikipedia material: you don't have to acknowledge individual authors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

IP OP, for an example of what Mike Turnbull means by you don't have to acknowledge individual authors, you can:

go to Special:CiteThisPage/Pam Hogg,
hit the blue "submit" button
scroll down to see the citation style your class requires

An example in Chicago style: Wikipedia contributors, "Pam Hogg," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pam_Hogg&oldid=1303005605 (accessed September 11, 2025).

Hope that helps! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

If your question relates to citing Wikipedia in a student assignment, you need to realise that Wikipedia, being an encyclopaedia, is a tertiary source and might not be allowed as a citation at all. (It was certainly a big no-no in my history studies.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I need help with my article - Draft:Himanshu Pathak. Parkavikumar (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Parkavikumar. What specific help do you need? Did you read the list of links left in the decline notice? qcne (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Zerkaa

I am planning to improve the Zerkaa article. It will be my first major contribution.

I am worried a bit about sources (still struggling to be WP:BOLD)

Zerkaa is a YouTube personality, who frequently appears in videos and podcasts on his own channel as well as on others' channels. In that case, would it be fine to add facts that he stated in certain videos as part of an article (for example, he mentions his parents' divorce which led to his interest in gaming, on a channel owned by his then girlfriend/now wife)? I am unsure how to interpret WP:BLPSELFPUB, in this case.

All (or most) facts that I plan to add will be non-contentious, so I feel it will be fine to add, but I thought it will be best to ask here first. Also, am I required to make major changes to Sandbox and not on the page directly?

Thanks for your assistance. Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsacrificer Per for example WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PROPORTION, what he has to say about himself is mostly not interesting from the WP-pov, that's what his social media is for. The goal of the WP-article about him is to summarize independent WP:RS about him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Noted. I'll keep this in mind. Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Image upload

Why can't I upload an image to a Wikipedia page? ==

So I wanted to edit and article on Izet Nanić, however, I uploaded the image to Upload wizard because I heard if I did that it would work and still could not upload the image to the article. Im going to the editing part of the article and clicking upload a photo and whenever I try, it says their already a image uploaded and its the one I uploaded. Could anyone help me with this I'm trying upload an image and I don't know how to.Thank you. Esa Redžović (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The file that you uploaded is here. You only need to add it to the article as written in the help page. Ruslik_Zero 20:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

"This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license." It will be deleted very soon, unless you, Esa Redžović, can explain how the claim that it's copyrighted results from a misunderstanding. -- Hoary (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I never said that it copyrighted I got it uploaded it to Wikipedia I know its not copyrighted. Esa Redžović (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

It is published elsewhere on the internet, therefore it is not yours. We can't use that image. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

It has been deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Reuploaded; again tagged as a copyvio. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Policies Help

Hey teahouse, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and I'm a little nervous to start contributing. I plan to be an editor after I graduate university; I'm confident in my skills but worried that I'll violate a policy I was unaware of! There's so many shortcuts that I have trouble keeping track. Can someone please summarize major policies I need to be aware of and how to type the shortcuts? Much appreciated! Chuumechuuya (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Chuumechuuya, and welcome! What you're looking for might be something like Wikipedia:Everything you need to know. As for shortcuts, we have a giant shortcut index, but for what it's worth they confused me lots too when I was starting out. Personally I never really "studied" them, you'll pick them up naturally with time :).

You can search the shortcuts just by going to the search bar and typing something like [[WP:AFD]]. WP and WT stands for Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk, respectively, which are pages related to project coordination (rather than actual encyclopedia articles).

Don't be afraid of messing up! Wikipedia:Be bold! It's okay to make mistakes, especially if you're just starting out. Feel free to ask any questions you may have (here at the Teahouse or on my talk page).

Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Chuumechuuya (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

If you add the Teahouse to your watchlist and keep an eye on it from time to time, you'll soon find out what trips up most new editors. Don't hesitate to ask more questions here or of the mentor you are assigned at Special:Homepage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

How long have you been interested in editing? If you've spent a few weeks or so watching from afar you should probably be fine. Don't worry about screwing up, it happens to all of us and there isn't anything that can't be reverted. If you do end up violating some policy you hadn't read yet, treat it as a learning opportunity and take a second to read it over mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

First article - not sure if submitted or not

Hi. I submitted a new page 12 days ago... I think. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates status. Would someone kindly tell me if this page is in the works or not? Many thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CeaselessSearch&oldid=1308600901 CeaselessSearch (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! You have published it in the "User" mainspace - it is on your user page, which every user has, and is not an article as of yet. I'd advise you publish it as a draft and submit it for creation so experienced editors can review it and made amendments accordingly! See WP:DRAFT and WP:AFC for help. It will be under this name: Draft:Natalie Jay Banus. You will need to click "edit" on your userpage, copy everything, and then paste it into this draft. It's easier to create this draft through the automated process here: Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating_and_editing_drafts. Hope this helps! jolielover♥talk 19:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this, really appreciate your help. CeaselessSearch (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

CeaselessSearch, I have moved it to Draft:Natalie Jay Banus. (As you probably realize, it needs quite a bit more work. For a start, please read, digest, and implement WP:REFNAME. -- Hoary (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I will get that done. Thank you for your help. CeaselessSearch (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new, and I'm wondering what i should do to add a article

I have had trouble creating long sentences, so any tips to make a Wikipedia page and and topics that are not explored? Kirbyfeet10 (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! You may wish to read Help:Your first article for a guide to create new articles. In general you should try to improve existing Wikipedia articles first, but that's up to you. You don't necessary need long sentences in Wikipedia articles, but you do need to cite reliable sources. Have a look at Help:Referencing for beginners for a guide of that. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

thanks! ill check it out! Kirbyfeet10 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kirbyfeet10, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

Please do not assume that creating a new article is the only (or the best) way to contribute to Wikipedia. I have been here for 20 years, and made over 27 thousand edits, but I've only ever created a handful of articles.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

okay, i noticed a lot of people make little to none articles, so i don't think i will make one, just small edits like adding a link to a word, subject, or person. Kirbyfeet10 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Kirbyfeet10. When I first became an editor I was sure I'd never attempt to write a Wikipedia article because I grew up with a high regard for encyclopedias, and felt I wasn't experienced enough to write for one. But three years later I was annoyed that no one had written an article on a certain children's book series, and decided to attempt it. I studied articles on other book series, read Help:Your first article so many times I practically memorized it, spent weeks hunting down good references, wrote and rewrote my article, submitted for review, and it was accepted. Even though I'd done some freelance writing creating an article was a difficult, but not impossible, task. My advice is to start out improving existing articles on subjects that interest you and, if you later want to attempt an article, take it slow, study Help:Your first article, gather your references first to make sure there's enough published info to start writing, submit your draft article and patiently wait for a review. Best wishes on future Wikipedia projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you by any chance happen to be French Canadian? If so, you might want to look at French Wikipedia as you might be more comfortable writing if you are a francophone. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm sadly not, i only know English, i am thinking about improving my French skills but until then I'm still English. I am Canadian though! Kirbyfeet10 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I

Kirbyfeet10 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Help me improve my contribution

Hi, Teahouse – Just attempted my first new page but I've made other contributions to Wikipedia over the years. New page was declined. Not sure what's wrong with the page, but I wonder if it's that I used Chat to put my content in proper Wikipedia code? (I kept messing up the code part so I finally fed the content to Chat for coding). I am a writer/editor, and thought the content I produced for this page was straightforward and unbiased. Page here: Draft:Priority_Technology_Holdings,_Inc.. Thanks! Alison Diane Jones (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Firstly please disclose your conflict of interest, per the request on your talk page and please don't use AI to edit here. Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

as user:theroadislong said, editors with a WP:COI are generally discouraged from writing new articles. While using an LLM for formatting is helpful, please note that you need to very carefully go over it to ensure it doesn't break any policies. The way some text is in bold to show emphasis isn't something we do here, but it is something LLMs tend to do for readability. Also, I noticed that the majority of your sources are either from the company itself or from press releases, which aren't considered reliable for anything that isn't WP:ABOUTSELF. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Alison Diane Jones, and welcome to the Teahouse. On a (very quick) look through your draft, I don't see anything which suggests that this company is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. Most of the information in it is routine company information.

Successfully writing an article begins with finding several sources which meet all the criteria in golden rule. That way, if you can't find enough such sources, you'll know not to spend any more time on this. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Im looking to make an Article but im not sure how to.

So I'm trying to make an article centered around one of the operations during the Bosnian War, and I'm looking to know where to start, how to actually make an article, should I put links on anything that I can or only important, and how to upload it. Esa Redžović (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

See WP:YFA for help, but be aware that creating an article is the most difficult job here! Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The best place to start is by finding sources. Find the sources before writing the article, and then use them to write the article with proper citations. You should put links on most things, but some things may not need them (see WP:BLUE) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Esa Redžović, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I echo what the others have said. Note that nearly all of the sources that mgjertson mentions need to meet all the criteria in golden rule

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Expanding a page

A stub page for an Italian bridge was recently added to the Explore section, and suggested that we expand it. Then I found a full description in the Italian Wikipedia. Could it simply be translated and added to the English stub? This seems like something that could be automatically done for any similar situation. Rossburnett (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone can translate it, but any content added here must still meet our requirements, such as those for sourcing and neutrality; see WP:Translate. Automatic translation is not an option. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Rossburnett, and welcome to the Teahouse. To add to what Andy says: few other Wikipedias are as strict about sourcing as English Wikipedia, so often attempting to translate an article from another language Wikipedia is effectively writing it backwards. An Article in English Wikipedia should be based almost entirely on sources which meet the golden rule. If this is true of the Italian article, then by all means translate it (remember to atttribute the origin in an edit summary - see translation) - but otherwise, you would be more likely to be successful if you treated it as a new article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The importance of a catalyst

I wrote and had published a narrative non-fiction book in April, 2022, "The Auschwitz Protocols. Czeslaw (Cselav) Mordowicz and the Race to Save Hungary's Jews." I updated the historical relevance of the escape from Auschwitz and testimony given by Ceslav and his partner Arnost Rosin at a Holocaust Conference in Cluj, Romania. The proceedings of that conference have just been published by the Eli Wiesel Institute and the Institute for Holocaust and genocidal Studies at Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj. I would like to add my short presentation from that volume, which includes reference to the establishment of a memorial at B'nai B'rith Foundation in Jerusalem last year honoring Ceslav and Arnost Rosin, alongside Rudoilf Vrba and his partner Fredo Wetsler as "Jews Who Saved Jews." This recognition was part of the research B'nai B'rith did, 198.255.235.138 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not sure what you mean by "add my short presentation".

If you mean you want to create a Wikipedia article which summarises your book, then the answer is almost certainly No, because that would be original research, which is forbidden in Wikipedia.

If you mean you want to add a summary of it to an existing article, that may be possible; but it is regarded as a conflict of interest to cite your own work, so in that case you should raise an edit request on the article's talk page, so that an uninvolved editor can review your request and decide what to do about it. Be as specific as you can, and if possible cite any sources that you cite in the your book. ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Publishing my first article

What is the right way to publish an article for a novice? Thedaveayo (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Thedaveayo. If you're referring to the draft I rejected earlier:

Only topics that meet our criteria for inclusion can have an article on Wikipedia.
If a topic does meet that criteria, then the contents of that article is only a summary of what reliable mostly secondary sources describe about that topic.

Your draft neither showed evidence of meeting our criteria nor had any secondary sources.

I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Everything you need to know which describes our key policies in an easy to understand way. qcne (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Thedaveayo: The right way to get an article published for a novice. Follow these steps and read every link given:

Read WP:Golden rule carefully.
Gather multiple sources that meet all three criteria in WP:Golden rule before you write a single word. That is, don't write the article WP:BACKWARD.
Go to WP:YFA or WP:AFC or WP:Article wizard to start your article in draft space.
Write only what can be attributed to the sources you found, using your own words. Don't use ChatGPT or other LLM to write it for you, because we don't accept AI-written text and can easily detect when you've done that.
Submit it for review and wait for feedback.

If you follow those steps in that order, then your draft will more likely be accepted by a reviewer. If you don't follow those steps, your draft will likely be declined.. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Thedaveayo, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. I realise that that is probably not what you wanted to hear. ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Disappearance of Darya Bulba

I feel this article should be a biography of Darya Bulba (a page which doesn't exist) and the Disappearance should be a section inside it.

I wonder what others think. Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Three things, Kingsacrificer. (i) She would have to be notable (as defined by and for Wikipedia), and the article would have to demonstrate this. (ii) You'd have to apply for help (at Wikipedia:Requested moves) in order to move the existing article to "Darya Bulba". (iii) Your user page announces: "I am new here. Joined on the September 9, 2025." You'd be wise to get a few weeks' worth of additional experience doing rather more humdrum edits before attempting the kind of thing that you seem to have in mind. -- Hoary (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Hoary. It doesn't seem like there's significant independent coverage on Darya Bulba, apart from the disappearance incident. I am guessing this means her notability is not certain.

Appreciate your suggestion for humdrum edits. If there's any areas that you'd suggest I begin with (I feel I have outgrown my Newcomer homepage suggestions), I would be glad to take it up.

Thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You might find something to your taste here Lectonar (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

This is really good. The task center collates all possible areas I could start working in. I think this is perfectly suitable to a newcomer like me. Thanks for sharing! Kingsacrificer (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Kingsacrificer, recently it feels as if I've spent a lot of time attempting to reinforce a particular article against demotion from FA status. This has been rather a chore -- yet also challenging and enjoyable. Thanks to well-intended but underinformed (or plain lazy) accretions, FAs and GAs do tend to be weakened over time; and our standards for referencing and so forth have risen over the decades; so all in all articles such as "mine" do need periodic attention and improvement. Now look at WP:Featured article review and particularly its section FA removal candidates. Note how many of these are candidates for removal because nobody responded to the criticisms made earlier. And now look at FA reviews and WP:GA reassessment#Articles listed for reassessment. Do you see any article whose subject interests you but doesn't (yet) seem to interest other editors? If so, consider working on this or that aspect of the article. Don't aim to rescue the article single-handedly (unless of course you have a lot of time and energy): even relatively minor help is likely to be worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Wow, this is a lot! I went through the 4 links you shared. Although overwhelming, it is certainly an important issue that needs systematic redressal, but I feel ill-equipped at the time to make modifications to potential FA and GA, simply because I'm not fully well-versed with the rules of the game. But you're right, perhaps I can start with minor changes for certain articles.

Thanks again! Kingsacrificer (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, Kingsacrificer, but a little correction: these aren't potential "Featured"/"Good" articles; they're instead actual "Featured"/"Good" articles that risk losing their "Featured"/"Good" status. (The one I've been working on "appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 6, 2007" -- of course before many of today's editors were born -- and its FA status went unquestioned for 18 years.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I gathered that. I phrased myself wrong. Kingsacrificer (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Self-insertion of good article

I looked at the edit history of a film article and saw that a major contributor of it insert the good article template to it. There is nothing on the talk page. The editor has made more than 100 or 150 edits to it. Just asking if this is allowed. The only right of the editor is extended confirmed. Babin Mew (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

What article this is on? Without further context, I would assume that this person just isn't aware that the good article process is a formal one and treats it as another informal rating that anyone can put on. If so, kindly let them know so they can avoid that in the future. I will reply if further information arises. South of the Tongass (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Babin Mew. What you are describing is not appropriate. The Good article process as described at WP:GA requires that the review be completed by an uninvolved editor, not someone who has made 100 plus edits. If you are describing the situation accurately, the GA designation should be removed from the article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I know about the good article nomination process. There is nothing on the talk page of that article, neither in the talk page history. The user seems to have made majority of the edits on the article. They joined in 2006 and made more than 5,000 edits. I was concerned about it and hence made this post. Babin Mew (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Unlikely, since the user joined 19 years ago and has made more than 5,000 edits. They have inserted the good article template on this movie themselves. This makes me think that they are clearly aware of this. The template should be removed. Babin Mew (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the GA icon. Robzz, if you think you have created or co-created a good article, you may nominate it for "Good Article" status. The procedure you need to follow is explained here. Don't apply a GA icon to other articles. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

A major chunk of the body text read as if written by a different person. A search engine soon found it elsewhere (advertising a Blu-Ray disc). This chunk had been added to the article many edits in the past -- so many edits that I was disinclined to delete every version following the addition. Instead, I simply deleted the article. Any admin who thinks that this was unduly harsh/destructive is welcome to mitigate the deletion in one way or another. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Now undeleted -- although the great majority of its revisions remain deleted. (See WP:RFU if interested.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Same person?

How do I verify if two living people with the same career, nationality, age(-ish) are the same person?

The Anti-psychiatry#Tool of social control section cites a British GP Mike Fitzpatrick. This Michael Fitzpatrick (physician) article seems like it's them but it doesn't contain anything related to anti-psychiatry or the cited writings. Are there any methods to verify this? NinuKinuski (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The cited reference in the first article has links to the original journal article: there, the name of the article's author is a link to (quite a few) other pieces by the same writer. I suggest you inspect those to see if any are also mentioned in the physicians's article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a link to other pieces by a writer of the same name; can we be sure that they're by the same writer? -- Hoary (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The publications listed in [1] are all most certainly not by the same M Fitzpatrick, as it contains articles published from the 1940s to present day. As to whether the OP's paper was written by the Michael Fitzpatrick we have... I've looked around and I can't find a clean way to verify it. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 03:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Trouble Adding Additional Text to Page

Hello I am trying to edit the 2024 Manchester Airport brawl page. I edited this page earlier today and it was fine but now when I try to add additional text or letters to the page while typing I am not able to--although I can still delete text and correct spelling mistake by right clicking on the word. I got worried that it was my keyboard so I opened up a Google search bar just to make sure--and could type fine. I was just wondering why I wasn't able to add text to this page?

Thank you! Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Agnieszka653 this sounds like a browser issue. Try restarting your browser, going into incognito or private mode, or hard reloading the page. Does it work now? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Agnieszka653: You use VisualEditor which cannot add text in certain places because the existing content is template-generated. Before typing you should left-click on the location and see a blinking vertical bar indicating that typed text will go there. Does that explain your issue? PrimeHunter (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Article image preview discrepancy

I have a question around the selection of images for preview when hovered over or shown in search results. My understanding is the following describes the logic for which image is selected: mw:Page Previews- image choice.

However, I can see a discrepancy for the following article: Homeland Party (United Kingdom). If you hover over it here, the lead logo is displayed in the preview. If you search for the article using the Wikipedia search bar though, it comes up with the Wikimedia Commons 'Eagle_with_fasces.svg' file. Just trying to figure out why. Rocky2459 (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

For a matter such as this, the best place to ask is WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

User Pages

Is there anywhere I could find a guide and/or a directory of templates on how to format my user page? I've done some googling but so far have struggled to find anything particularly helpful. For example I'm unsure of how to add images to userboxes, or how to create a separate sidebar to contain said userboxes. ZebraGourd (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The answer to "how do I replicate [feature I saw on another userpage] on my own userpage" is "click 'EDIT' on that other userpage and copy the wikicode, then change the content". DS (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Userboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Issue with Hyperlinks Not Displaying as Blue in References Section

I have a problem in my Word document where only the first hyperlink in the references section turns blue, but the last two do not, despite being properly inserted. I've verified the links via right-click > Edit Hyperlink, and no unusual styles are applied.

A quick fix I found online is to close and reopen the document, which resets the hyperlink styles to default blue for unvisited links. If that doesn't work, I can try right-clicking each non-blue link, selecting "Edit Hyperlink," and clicking OK to reapply the style. Alternatively, modifying the "FollowedHyperlink" style color to match "Hyperlink" (blue) could prevent this permanently.

Could you confirm if these steps resolve it or suggest further troubleshooting?

Thank you! CoolEditer25 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

CoolEditer25, this page is for questions about using Wikipedia, not for questions about using Microsoft products. You'll have to ask elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Apologies for the confusion!

To clarify, in my Wikipedia article's references section, the first external link renders as blue (unvisited), but the last two appear as black text despite being properly formatted as [... ...] {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help). I've checked the wikitext for errors, and preview shows the same issue. This seems unrelated to link rot or red links, but perhaps a rendering quirk in the Vector skin. CoolEditer25 (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

CoolEditer25, if this is about a specific article, you'll be more likely to get a useful answer if you reveal which one. Maproom (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@CoolEditer25: And say which program you are using. "Word document" in your first post implied that you were using the word processor Microsoft Word to edit a file on your own computer. Your second post sounds like you are using a browser (which one?) to edit a Wikipedia page on our servers. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I was editing directly online on Wikipedia using my browser (Google Chrome) CoolEditer25 (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@CoolEditer25: We still need the page name to examine whether there is something unusual on the page. Is it an Android device or a desktop computer? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Since I didn’t get a reply quickly, I skipped that article. I am now trying to find it again. I am using an Android device. CoolEditer25 (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Toolforge dashboard for beginner editors

Hello Wikimedia community! I’m planning to build a small Toolforge dashboard for new editors. The goal is to help newcomers contribute more confidently by providing: Edit statistics (total edits, recent edits) Suggested beginner-friendly edits (stub articles, small tasks) Links to tutorials and guides Before I start developing, I’d love your input: Would this tool be useful for beginners? Are there specific features or improvements you think would help new editors? Any potential concerns I should be aware of? Your feedback will help me focus on the most impactful features and ensure the tool meets the community’s needs. Thank you! LoraVega (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @LoraVega, interesting idea. What would be the difference between this and the WP:Newcomer homepage (Special:Homepage)? GoldRomean (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Great point — the Growth team’s Newcomer Homepage already provides onboarding, suggested edits, and mentorship. The difference is that my idea is for a community-built Toolforge dashboard, rather than a WMF-integrated feature.

The dashboard would be:

Independent and customizable (communities could propose new modules or workflows).

Cross-wiki (not just English Wikipedia, but also Commons/Wikidata if useful).

Lightweight — more of a “companion tool” that newcomers (or even casual editors) could use outside the wiki interface.

So instead of replacing the Newcomer Homepage, this would complement it — focusing on flexibility, experimentation, and cross-project stats/tasks. If it proves useful, it could even inform future Growth feature development. 84.22.38.36 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Placing a date on a talk page message

After lodging my first talk page message, i noticed something that intrigued me. Many messages above me had dates in a gray and small shape. I tried fixing it, but to no avail, with a bot correcting my mistake. Since i yet have to learn Wikipedia's code, I would like to know to add dates on a post.

Thanks in advance! ✸Vidarstand✸ 17:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Vidarstand: It's automatic. Look at your post above, and the end of this one. Bazza 7 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Vidarstand: I forgot to say: if you are using wiki source code to post a message, then you need to sign it manually with ~~~~. See WP:Signatures. Bazza 7 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Licensing of Google gemini images

I have a concern regarding the licensing of images generated by the google Gemini. As there are many peoples from 1990s or more early who didn’t have single image on their page and i am thinking to create their image and put them there. Does they fall under copyright or public domain. TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Please consult Wikipedia:AI#What is Wikipedia's AI policy?, with its several links to further material about (mostly not) using AI-generated images in Wikipedia.

Three of the major problems with using AI images are:

The generating programs are trained on large amounts of copyrighted images, so their output arguably infringes copyrights legally and/or morally;
The image cannot be attributed to an acceptable published source as is required; and
the result falls foul of Wikipedia policies against including original research {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda We don't want AI slop for text on Wikipedia and if you look at that article, you'll see the sort of nonsense image that AI can produce. How would readers be able to verify that your proposed images were in any way accurate? Verification is one of the core policies that makes Wikipedia successful. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Yes i agree that verification is the main thing. But there are many notable persons on Wikipedia which doesn’t have a single image there. Btw Thanks TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That's true, TheSlumPanda, and unfortunate. But that doesn't mean that we can necessarily do anything about it, copyright law being what it is. What English Wikipedia does allow (and some other language versions don't) specifically for this reason, is for non-free images to be used in certain restricted circumstances (see WP:NFCC). But one of those circumstances is that no free image could possibly be found, and that condition is almost never met for a living person. --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Possible autobiography for deletion or review

Hey folks, it's been a long time since I've edited Wikipedia. I encountered an article that seems pretty clearly to have been written by its subject. What's the best way to call attention to it? Thanks!

Here's the article: Gino J.H. McKoy. Marstead (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:AfD in 3 steps shows you exactly what to do, Marstead. Make sure that you provide a valid reason for deletion: however surprisingly, "written by subject" isn't among these; and #14, "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" sounds rather weak. (A common riposte goes along the lines of "The content can be rewritten; the subject remains notable and encyclopedic.") -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Which of the article's many editors do you contend is the article subject (if you can say so without WP:OUTING), and why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The article looks like it has been nominated for deletion several times for several reasons: most severely, the article was recreated using the subject's full name rather than first and last name in order to dodge a successful deletion of the previous form of the article (which was just his full name). After that there have been triggered deletion discussions for notability, apparent autobiography, and so-called "advertorialized" edits. I do see a lot of editors in the page history but suspect several of them may have been the subject's employees or associates.

As far as evidence of autobiography the big tell to me are the two uncited lines in the article about how the subject's ideas were plagiarized by House of Cards and how the subject was the "first screenwriter to write about Bitcoin and the Deep Web". Really random factoids to throw in there uncited and not the sort of thing a person other than the subject would invent out of whole cloth. After seeing the subject's attempts to mass-create Rotten Tomatoes and Letterboxd accounts to inflate the rating for his 2024 film it would seem extremely consistent with his behavior for him to also try to keep editing his Wikipedia page in bad faith. Marstead (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gino Justin Hudson McKoy was closed as "soft delete". There's no need to "dodge" that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Editing help

I'm having trouble finding spots to edit. I can't be bothered to type the rest because I use mobile and it'll hurt my wrist, so that's all for now. Kalapito (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kalapito Welcome to the Teahouse. You could try the task center or take a look at your homepage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Try using voice recognition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Possible notability issue

Hello,

I've stumbled upon the article Asma Hilali and believe it doesn't reach WP:GNG. However, the author seems to be an old user who creates many articles in that same vein to increase the visibility of religious studies scholars. Meanwhile I'm a Wikipedia newcomer - so could someone double-check if my opinion is correct (or not)?

Thanks :) Barbalalaika (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Barbalalaika, welcome to the teahouse!

We have a little page on notability specifically for academics. There's a little section there labeled criteria. If you look over the list and see that she doesn't meet any one of the criteria, then she's not notable.

Hope this helps! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 20:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a great start, thank you! <3 Barbalalaika (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Russia

Привет ! Не могу разобраться, помогите! 79.139.159.95 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Google translation: "Hi! I can't figure it out, help!" Unless you can be more specific regarding your problem, I doubt that anyone here can help you (Если вы не сможете более конкретно описать свою проблему, сомневаюсь, что кто-то здесь сможет вам помочь.). Deor (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Try ru.wikipedia.org Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Article Approval

I have had a article waiting for a approval after edits since June 29. How do I get someone to look at it? Bobkel1414 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Nobody will look at it if you don't submit it for review. I see someone removed the prior AFC notices from Draft:Robert Thomas Kellam, which included a "resubmit" button. I have restored those notices, so now you may submit it for review. However, there has been only one edit since a reviewer declined it, so please check that the current version is something you really want to submit.

I can tell you, it would never be accepted with sentences about a person that don't cite any sources. It is not ready to be reviewed again. Fix the problems first. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I made a mistake 5 years ago

I made a mistake 5 years ago and nuked a page by mistake, but they were able to recover it. It's been bothering me for a while now that I never gave a proper apology. Wiki pages are difficult to edit, and it's still difficult to understand how I'm supposed to do that. I think someone once linked me to a page to the bbcode process or something? I still don't understand what I'm supposed to click on for suggesting edits by looking at the pages. Still seems to be a very live edit process instead of a submission system. AKB769 (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't sweat it; we have all made mistakes like that, if we have been here a while.

I have just left some helpful links, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't been here at all despite my account being here, so I feel real guilty about it.

I'm just popping in to try and see if I can understand how to make it work right this time. AKB769 (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I nuked a page just yesterday, AKB769. I got polite complaints about this; these persuaded me, so I unnuked it. So far, nobody has called for me to be blocked. ¶ Every article has a talk page: if you have an improvement in mind for an article but don't want to implement it yourself, you can suggest it on the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I seem to have suggested things on talk pages in the past.

Currently playing with the sandbox, but I'm not really getting that far.

Not quite sure what parts I'm getting wrong. AKB769 (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Until you've saved, nobody can view and comment on what you're doing (or getting wrong). Remember that "Publish changes" means 'save', and that you won't save anything till you've clicked "Publish changes". -- Hoary (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Tried WP:TUTORIAL? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@AKB769: It takes seconds to revert an edit so don't worry about it. Thousands of edits are reverted daily. See Help:Reverting for how to do it yourself but you can also ask for help here. You can use the "Show preview" button before saving to check what your edit will look like. If you want to avoid the error you probably made five years ago then check that the content right below your change is still displayed in the preview. I'm one of very few people who has actually managed to accidentally nuke something which could not be recovered but it both required an administrator account and a bug in a feature we no longer use. See also Wikipedia:Village stocks for some screwups made by administrators with tools not available to you. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

My mistake was made as an anon before I made this account, so someone else was able to fix it by reverting the page.

But, I'm having trouble understanding why the templates aren't working for me in the Sandbox when I use the preview button. AKB769 (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome back! Hope you are here to stay :) --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still having trouble understanding how to format things.

The best I can do is play on my sandbox page before finding the talk option on the wiki page to post a wall of things to suggest adding. It covers quite a bit of information, so I'm not sure how to section it off, either.

It also appears that the page itself isn't actually paid much attention to as well, so I dunno how much use I will be if get everything formatted wrong in the first place. AKB769 (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

AKB769, I haven't read the content of your sandbox, but a glance at it suggests that it's a draft about a video game, or collection of video games. It comes with 14 references. Every one of these is to the publisher of the game(s). However, articles must be based on reliable sources that are independent of the articles' subjects. -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Reactions relating to Charlie Kirk

I reverted this edit to Robin Vos. It included a quote about Charlie Kirk, and I removed the quote under the guise of WP:VNOT, WP:NOTE, and WP:REL (and it was just a quote without any relation to the article subject other than the fact that he said it...). Also Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, because honestly nearly every subject of a political BLP is going to have some sort of reaction/talk about about Charlie Kirk, about 911, etc. Obviously there can be more relevant cases, but isn't WP:RECENT valid here too? Every congressional BLP has said something about Epstein, but that definitely doesn't merit inclusion. Am I on the right path? Looking for guidance because I know there will be a flood of quotes/sections about reactions (obviously WP:NOT also). --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's humdrum stuff, probably not worth mentioning, let alone worth quoting verbatim. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

You love the word humdrum Kingsacrificer (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary: @Kingsacrificer: ok, but if you saw a quote randomly inserted like that, would it be because of the guidelines that I mentioned? Or others? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Kingsacrificer, thank you for the tip-off. It appears that my mind follows onomasiological ruts. From now, I'll try to avoid overusing humdrum by alternating it with quotidian. PerpetuityGrat, normally I don't know why people add what they add. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

haha, I was in no way suggesting you to reduce its usage though. I love the word, too. Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

How to submit edit suggestions

Do I just add them onto the Mabinogi (Video Game) talk page? Or if I hit submit on the draft page of my sandbox, will someone else add it into the page? AKB769 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

If you're confident that they'll be non-controversial, yes, you can just edit the text of that page directly. If you're unsure, you should post on talk:Mabinogi (video game) to the effect of "I want to make change XYZ - does anyone object?" DS (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

AKB769, see my comment above on the sourcing for what I infer are your proposed additions. -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Pedioplanis husabensis

Good morning!

I am kindly asking for support with this page. I am obviously too old to get to grips with the procedure of contributing "properly"

Here is my request:

In the early 1980's I worked as a curator for reptiles and amphibians at the then State Museum Windhoek in South West Africa/Namibia.

In the course of an ecological survey of the Rössing Uranium Mine I discovered a still undescribed Lizard which I described - together with my friend Werner Mayer (deceased 2015) - as the new species "Pedioplanis husabensis.

The publication was called "On the parapatric existence of two species of the Pedioplanis undata group (Reptilia: Sauria: Lacertidae) in the central Namib desert (Southwest Africa) with description of the new species Pedioplanis husabensis" It is available online: https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/HER_1_3_4_0083-0095.pdf

This reference is currently placed under "further reading". I'd like to move the link & text from "further reading" to "reference N° 1 since I feel that the original publication should be the primary reference to the species.

Apart from this request, I can deliver valuable information about distribution and diagnostic features. Here is a link to a rather precise *.kmz file which shows the distribution map on Google Earth: https://e.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZ4DrEZbrwIsgQw9hQzgESz63PcSHo4LrGV

kind regards, Dr. Hartwig Dell'mour retired field herpetologist and museum curator. Hartwig dellmour (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the work should be cited as a reference; for technical reasons it can't be listed first (the order is that in which they are used in the article, and has no deeper significance); and have done so. Thank you for the suggestion, and the distribution data. You may also be interested to know that our sibling project, Wikispecies, has an entry: species:Pedioplanis husabensis, and there is another on Wikidata, at d:Q5077620. Both projects have entries for you and your co-author, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

How to place a new listing

What is meant by a "license." I want to talk/write about my restaurant in NYC to correct incorrect information that somebody has posted about it. I want to put a padlock on my writing so it can't be ambushed. I want to be able to type without having all the geek symbols I don't understand at age 86. I will pay for assistance if someone would individually help me step by step. Is that possible? YodelandEcho (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest with FOOD (New York City restaurant) and you need to declare that on your user page.

There is absolutely no way we would protect an article so that only a person with a conflict of interest can edit it, and this is technically impossible anyway. The protection levels are tied to the editor type, such as preventing new editors from editing, or preventing anyone but experienced editors or administrators from editing.

Because you have a conflict of interest, you should not be making any substantive changes to the article. Use the WP:Edit Request Wizard to propose changes on the talk page instead. You can make minor fixes to typos, names, numbers, and dates. You can revert obvious vandalism. You can add citations to sources independent of you. Anything more substantive, however, you should propose on the talk page.

Assistance is free. Just use WP:Edit Request Wizard to propose changes you want to make. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

YodelandEcho Now that you have publicly stated you would be willing to pay someone, you may get solicitations from scammers who monitor this page. Do not give anyone your hard earned money. See WP:SCAM. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! thanks for your interest in the project! Around here, we don't necessarily want the truth, we want what's verifiable. So, if some bit of information is inaccurate, the only way to change it is by finding a reliable third party source that contains that information. We also don't care about what the subject of the article has said about themselves, as that is unreliable (for example, say there's a person very obviously guilty of a crime. If they insist they aren't guilty, we wouldn't automatically take their word as fact unless there's good evidence they were wrongly convicted). If you'd still like to contribute, there is a visual editor that is similar to programs like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Do note that if you have any connection to the restaurant you shouldn't edit the article as you'd have a conflict of interest and that makes it very difficult to write neutrally about the subject even if you think you can. I hope you understand that all these rules are here for a reason and ensure Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, even if they may seem a bit silly at times mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @YodelandEcho. Please see WP:ASFAQ. ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Margin of error formatting

To comply with the Manual of Style, how should I write margins of error? Is it spelled out or written as ±[margin]? EmperorChesser (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@EmperorChesser: See MOS:UNCERTAINTY. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

replacing photo

Comments to me included the fact that the photo of the subject in the biography was no good. I want to replace it now with a good one but I can't figure out how to delete the bad one.Draft:Morris Miller. Equusreserve (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Equusreserve. Is the new photo still in a PDF file? An image format like PNG or JPG would be better. It affects what should be done with the PDF version. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

the new photo is PDF and I'll change it to PNG ort JPG if necessary, but my problem is how to delete the old bad photo which is a word thumbnail and was one of the reasons my article wasn't accepted. How to delete it? thanks. Equusreserve (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Where did you find that image? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

the image I want to use is a photo I've taken of the original photo. High quality. but again, that's not the problem. How to delete the old bad one? Equusreserve (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

can I click 'talk to andy" and have a direct exchange with you on email or whatever? Equusreserve (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a link to my talk page (see WP:Talk pages).

You can email me via the link on my user page; but only do so, please, if it's a matter that for some good reason can't be discussed on my talk page.

But my question was: where did you find the original photo? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

it was from an old photo that had several other in it. I cropped it down to just his head, saved it on word and uploaded it. Equusreserve (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Equusreserve Andy's question was where you obtained the original photo. If it came, for example, from some website then you do not own the copyright and your derivative work may not be used on Wikipedia except under our fair use provisions, which we do allow for images of deceased individuals. Even then, the image may only be added to live articles, not drafts. Also, you seem to have uploaded your citations to a proquest account but for a judge like Miller I would expect most of the underlying material to be from contemporary newspapers. It would be much better to use the {{cite news}} template giving details of the authors and the newspaper title, publication date etc. You do not have to provide working links to copies of the actual newspapers. For example.^[1] Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. This ain't easy for an old guy but I think I now have the sources right. Please check.

Still not clear how to delete the one picture and then add the new one. The one I want to delete was my cropped version of an old photo. The original of that had several other people in it so I cropped it to just the head. And then it turned out to be a very small image. Even if I could fix that, I'd much rather use a new much better one that I've found.

Is there some way for this system to alert me when I get a message from you two or any other editor? Right now, I go to this page to see if there's any feedback, but if I didn't return to it on my own, I'd never know. Equusreserve (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Equusreserve -- and (if I remember to sign this message) I have thereby alerted you that there's a message from me, mentioning you (and possibly addressed to you) -- Yann "deleted page File:Morris Miller.pdf (Copyright violation: Miller died in 1970. This is not a 2025 image and likely not own work.)" The replacement that you hope to add in place of Morris Miller.pdf: Who owns its copyright? -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

As a family member (as you know), the photo is in my possession so I own the copyright. I've uploaded the photo for you but not here obviously. Rather, it's somehow available to you elsewhere... Equusreserve (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

"the photo is in my possession so I own the copyright"—That is a non sequitur; ownership of a copy (or even a negative) does not in itself confer copyright.

"somehow available to you elsewhere"—Please don't post riddles. Act in good faith, or not at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

References

^ Horner, Garnett D. (5 August 1962). "Miller, Mrs. Lawson chosen as Judges for Juvenile Court". The Sunday Star. p. 1.

Varda's moon

Um Can I add some facts in ilmarë (Varda's moon)? I added"It's also possibly the Second biggest known irregular moon in the solar system after Proteus which has a diameter of 420 km" That's because Ilmarë has a diameter of 403 km but ProEditor changed it because he thought it's unconstructive. I added it because I don't want ilmarë to be a forgotten moon, It's rarely talked about despite having a diameter much larger than the famous moon Hyperion. My planet is Homlos (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems this was already discussed and resolved on your talk page.

Don't forget, when you add facts, to cite the source(s). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@My planet is Homlos Looking at [2] (@TheProEditor11, you could have been arsed to use Help:Edit summary, especially with that username), as written, it's just your own musing. Can you find an astronomer who said that and cite them? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång... Thank you for mentioning me to this discussion... Firstly, I used Twinkle's [vandalism] revert option to revert the edit and it doesn't have an option to give a summary.

The reason I undone his edits are:-

1. [1] Does his edit summary make any sense? There is a clear article on Proteus (moon), yet he linked it with Neptune. He said - he is getting some type of god while trying to link Proteus. LOL!!

2. He doesn't provide any reference to his edits.

3. [2] Now, you people tell me - again, does his edit summary as well as his edit make any sense?

4. [3] He has been warned earlier for doing possible unconstructive editing, though he has resolved the issue with the editor. This again implies that he has a sheer history of adding uncited and unreferenced content to Wiki articles, as well as probably linking it with wrong pages. This creates a confusion among the editors in distinguishing if he has done constructive and helpful edits or has just vandalised the articles he has put his hands on.

I hope I was able to explain the issue... @My planet is Homlos... I understand that MPIH is a new editor and I believe that he will be a great contributor in the future, but he has to learn about "at least" basic Wikipedia policies. He has to provide appropriate edit summary and reliable sources for edits he make.

.

Thanks!! :) - TheProEditor11 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

It makes sense to me but If it doesn't make sense to you, It's OK,I won't cause anymore trouble. I do not want to have somebody doing a YouTube video called"My planet is Homlos is destroying Wikipedia,We must arrest him" I know nothing about Wikipedia,I joined like 6 days ago and I'm not even an adult,I wanted to edit some moons' mass in the list"Planetary-mass moons" because The data in the list was not matched with their individual pages but I didn't provide edit summary so It got reverted by Skywatcher68"unexplained number change" He told me that I needed to provide an edit summary so every edit I do,I will provide edit summary. Then In ilmarë's individual page. I think ilmarë is the second largest known non-spherical moon because its diameter is literally like 403 km, it's also likely to be non-spherical so it's possible that it's the second largest known non-spherical moon ,Its diameter is bigger than Mimas. The only one bigger than it is Proteus with a diameter of 420 km. Both of them are larger than Mimas but the reason why I put"possible" is because Ilmarë's diameter could range from 363 km all the way to 443 km. Why can't I find any sources saying that? It's because Ilmarë is too forgotten and nobody talks about it but by logic it's possible that I'm right. And it's also possible that another moon called "Actaea" (Salacia's moon) could be the third largest known non-spherical moon because its diameter is 393 km, surpassing Nereid, Hyperion, Hi'iaka... and many large Non-spherical moons,so It's possibly the third. But again,I can't say that because there's no source talking about this moon,Too forgotten so Even if it's logically right that Ilmarë and Actaea is the second and third largest known non-spherical moon in the solar system,I cannot add that fact:( . Also,I had no idea why ilmarë and Actaea's so forgotten,Despite their large sizes. I just wanted to add a cool fact but I can't:( But thanks for reading! My planet is Homlos (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Also,When I add Proteus,It came out as a god at first,well because it's named after a God,So I changed it to"Neptune | Proteus" because I saw other examples and it's like that but when I clicked into that link, Neptune came out lol My planet is Homlos (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

You can always add facts, so long as they're properly sourced, relevant, and you don't edit war anything in. Problem in your case is you didn't make any cite for the fact, you just added it in. It's crucial on Wikipedia to cite supporting material for facts added to an article, not merely assert them.

Also, the series of edits was a bit sloppy: you capitalized "second" and "possibly" and made two links to Proteus, the first to the wrong Proteus, and then to an article that didn't exist. That's less of an issue than the uncited addition (it's Proteus (moon)) but do try and be careful. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

There's no source talking about that because Ilmarë is too forgotten and no one talks about it, But by logic ,Proteus is a non-spherical moon that has a diameter of 420 km,no other non-spherical moons are larger than it, Ilmarë is the 2nd with a diameter of 403 km, Which is smaller than Proteus but there's no known moons with a diameter between 420 km and 403 km,so Ilmarë is in fact possibly the 2nd largest non-spherical known moon in the solar system. And The 3rd is likely to be Actaea (Salacia's moon) with a diameter of about 393 km,and there's no known moons with a diameter between 403 km and 393 km,so Actaea is in fact possibly the 3rd largest non-spherical known moon in the solar system. But still, there's no source talking about it because Moons of dwarf planet candidates are too forgotten, sometimes even Proteus is forgotten and some sources just claim that Hyperion is the largest known non-spherical moon in the solar system. By logic, Ilmarë is in fact the 2nd largest known non-spherical moon in the solar system. However I can't add that fact? My planet is Homlos (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@My planet is Homlos No you can't. Your question is clearly answered above. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I Still hope that Ilmarë finally gets attention,And eventually some sources says Ilmarë is possibly the Second largest non-spherical moon in the solar system,I really do. But too bad I can't say that now. My planet is Homlos (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@My planet is Homlos: Hi, I am going to say that Ilmarë is not the second biggest moon. What's more important, it's even not a moon but rather ...an Indonesian flower.
Now, other editors need (and Wikipedia readers even more so) to get convinced who of us two is right. As long as you don't reference to any reliable source to support your claim, it's not a bit more valid than mine. That's the essence of why WP:VER is a must. --CiaPan (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Ilmarë is a moon of Varda(A Trans Neptunian object and a possible dwarf planet),I didn't say that it's the second biggest moon it's the second biggest NON-SPHERICAL moon. My planet is Homlos (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

You can search up "ilmarë,moon of Varda" eventually you will see ilmarë's individual page My planet is Homlos (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@My planet is Homlos: You are right, of course, that I can search it. But it's your job as a co-author of Wikipedia to reference a reliable source to support the claim you add, not mine as a reader. That is clearly stated several times in WP:VER policy and WP:RS guideline I linked above. Please read them and stop wasting everybody's time (including your own) in this talk. --CiaPan (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok My planet is Homlos (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The AI overview in Google said this"No, Ilmarë is not larger than Hyperion; Ilmarë has a diameter of approximately 403 km, while Hyperion's dimensions are 370 × 280 × 225 km, making Hyperion's longest dimension larger than Ilmarë's entire diameter. " Which doesn't really makes sense but whatever what,I still do want Ilmarë to get attention.

This is not a good reply. You don't need to answer, You don't need to care about me My planet is Homlos (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

We don't care what Google AI says. LLMs are not a reliable source. Either something is sourced reliably or it doesn't appear on Wikipedia, period. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I will Def lose lol, Other Editors definitely will say that you are right, even if ilmarë is a real moon, I literally joined like 5 days ago,and you joined 20 yrs ago, I was not even born. So you win,But I just want to say that ilmarë is the 2nd largest non-spherical moon, It's OK if you don't agree with me, You don't have to argue with me,I don't want a lot of attention :) My planet is Homlos (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I love hearing strange and fringe ideas on here and obscure stuff too, so i have no problem with you. Jp33442 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thx bro My planet is Homlos (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@My planet is Homlos: First you said it's "possibly the Second largest non-spherical moon in the solar system", then you said it "is in fact the 2nd largest known non-spherical moon in the solar system". So which of these is true, and how do you know that? Did you read it somewhere? Bazza 7 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

By logic it's in fact that,But There are uncertainties because Ilmarë's diameter is 403±40 so it could be 363km-443 km so that's why I added"possibly" My planet is Homlos (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I knew this from Proteus and Ilmarë's individual page here in Wikipedia My planet is Homlos (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@My planet is Homlos: First, there's no win. Wikipedia is not a battleground (→WP:BATTLE), it's an encyclopedia (→WP:5P1).
Second, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia collects and provides well-established knowledge. That means we publish no original research (→WP:NOR), everything needs to be based on published (→WP:PUBLISHED), reliable (→WP:RS), secondary (→WP:SECONDARY) sources.
Third, there are exceptions from the second, like routine calculations (→WP:CALC). This seems what you did above – you took known sizes, you compared them, and you want to publish the conclusion.
Alas – this is the fourth important note – your input data (sizes of moons) are not exact. What's more, you took them from Wikipedia itself, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia (→WP:NOTSOURCE). That seems surprising, as it was to me, too. However it is deeply based on Wikipedia nature: its articles are written by volunteers, like you and me, who come and go (or sometimes loose interest in some areas). This leads to multiple articles being abandoned and not kept up to date. Additionally, they sometimes are destroyed (→WP:VANDAL) and then not repaired due to lack of commited watchers (→WP:W). So your calculation, even though done with good intention, qualifies as non-reliable and needs to be discarded as such. I understand it is quite discouraging for new commers, but that's a way of our community to keep the project valuable and reliable for readers – Verifiability, not truth (→WP:TRUTH).
Fifth, and last, I apologize for being a bit ironic or harsh in my comments above. I just didn't notice you are a new editor and have not realized you may not be fluent in our rules yet. Please, don't get discouraged by me! I hope the links I included above will help you to avoid many mistakes in your further contribution here.

Oh, and one more thing: making what you think is good is not a crime at Wikipedia. Just be bold and do (→WP:BOLD). If you happen to break some rule, someone will revert your changes and hopefully leave some information what went wrong. Then go to the talk page of the article (→WP:TALK) and discuss the problem (please also remember to add a notification to invoved parties (→WP:PING) so they don't miss your comments). This is a common Bold–Revert–Discuss cycle which (→WP:BRD) which helps editors to convert misunderstandings into agreement and cooperation. --CiaPan (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not even fluent in English,Let alone the rules in Wikipedia... Thx for the reply,but I think in ilmarë's individual page,The diameter of it has a reliable source. It's Ok Polish guy:) I'm not discouraged. I joined Wikipedia because I'm really interested in space and I'm a planetballs guy, I'm interested in their characteristics but some of them's mass looked kinda wrong so I changed some of them,and most of their diameters has a source in their individual pages.

Also,A decent amount of people think that editing Wikipedia is now my full time job, But It's not,I still have to go to school. My planet is Homlos (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Essay about "comments for closers"

Is there a good way to search for WP:Essays? I once saw one about comments for closers in RfCs/AfDs/RMs and how such things should not be done. I would appreciate it if someone would help me find this essay. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:SUPERVOTE? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

If you preface a search with "WP:", then the software will only offer results within that namespace. Hence you can place a couple of keywords after the colon to get likely hits. The first two hits for "WP:comments closers" are the essays WP:Closing discussions and WP:Advice on closing discussions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Notability about a place

I wanted to create an article about a neighborhood in Warsaw. Do named places like this have presumed notability? I seem to think they did at some time. Looking at notability guidelines, now I'm not so sure. Thank you! Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Osa Akwamarynowa You are probably thinking of the guidance at WP:GEOLAND. However, I think that for a neighborhood of a city, you would be better to look for three or more sources meeting the golden rule for sources and proceed from there. There is a good essay on writing articles by avoiding writing them backwards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Redirects only

I was trying to use this tool to check on all the redirects that I have ever created. It failed when I tried to load. I know that I've created probably at least 20,000 redirects, so it likely was going to take a while, but I cannot get the link to work. Anyone able to help or provide me with a link that would work for checking on all my redirects ever created? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn Since you have create hardly any new articles, only redirects, you can just use Special:Contributions to find them. I limited User contributions for Iljhgtn by looking only for new pages in mainspace for a recent few months but from that you should see how to find them all. Or you could start with Iljhgtn - Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) - Edit Counter - XTools which includes a link to the 29,610 pages created but I assume that link is the one you can't get to work. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: you can use your contributions page with tag filter. Edit creating a redirect is automatically marked with tag "New redirect": [3]. MKFI (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Latest sport games in infoboxes

Pages like India national cricket team and Pakistan national cricket team, and I am assuming the rest, too, have the last games played in every format mentioned in the infobox. Given the frequency with which these teams play, is there really a point in us keeping a track of every single match and making an edit every few days to this? I don't feel it is very encyclopaedic.

I want to propose exclusion of the latest games played by an active sports team from the infobox.

Where should I propose this? And is there even a hope in my appeal being accepted? Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kingsacrificer, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'd suggest WT:WikiProject Sports. I agree that information which changes often should not be in an article, but I have no interest in articles about sport teams. ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @ColinFine. I have created the discussion in WP:Cricket and have also linked the discussion in the WikiProject you suggested. Cheers! Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

How to navigate here?

I submitted a question here a couple of days ago and was notified of a response, but the notification does not link to my original question and I haven't found a way back to that post. Rossburnett (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I want to save a link to this post but that also eludes me. :-( Rossburnett (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

#Expanding a page? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but how did you navigate to my original question and create that link? Rossburnett (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Find edits by user linked on [the desktop version of] every page history. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, no wonder, I have only been using the IOS app Rossburnett (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rossburnett At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets there's an opt-in called "find-archive-section" which (usually) allows you to do this when you click on your Special:Contributions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

You can also try and hit the Subscribe button in the right Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hiii

I read adoption in Wikipedia, can anyone adopt me to teach wikipedia. I appreciate, my English is very weak a swell. SharikMalik (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@SharikMalik Welcome to the Teahouse. You will find that you are already assigned a mentor at your Special:Homepage. It is possible to change mentors if you would prefer someone who can communicate in your native language, assuming we have someone suitable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

How can I change my mentor? Bcz he is not replying SharikMalik (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You sent me a question 5 minutes before posting this. I am a volunteer in college and am not at my computer 24/7. GGOTCC 15:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

sorr I am very sorry, plz accept my apology SharikMalik (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Confused about an edit

Hi! I am trying to edit an article called 'Rudolph Valentino Case' which is in the too technical wiki backlog and I am stuck. I managed to go through half of it and make it somewhat easy to read and understand, but I can't find citations or make it easier to read. So what do you recommend me to do. If you can, please try to edit it yourself :D Bye Lutitium (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You can only do what you can do- if you have done all you can, you don't need to do any more. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you :) Lutitium (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi

I want to add categories in articles is there any easy way to add categories? Please let me know. SharikMalik (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, with Hot Cat. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Mmemaigret SharikMalik (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

"2nd nomination" for an AfD not appearing in the nomination

Hello TH. I recently started an AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun cultures where someone pointed out that I need to include "2nd nomination" in the title of the nom. I replied that I use Twinkle for any AfD I nominate, and so much of what happens with that is automatic (except for the actual nomination blurb). Can someone help correct that? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think I've added it correctly. I think Twinkle didn't add the normal previous AfD box since it was nominated for deletion under a previous name. Skynxnex (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh is that why? Thank you for adding that. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not seeing it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

There's now an additional box on the right (titled AfDs for this article:) with two links.

(The page history indicates what change has been made.) MmeMaigret (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought it would show up in the title of the AfD as well? As (2nd nomination) in parentheses like that? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

So, "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun cultures (2nd nomination)", something like that. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The "2nd" is added when needing to disambiguate the second AfD discussion. The first AfD was when the article had a different title so there is nothing to disambiguate. I don't think I've ever seen the 2nd added to AfD in this situation. Skynxnex (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for explaining that. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Question about link rot

I've been looking and reading up on link rot and dead links on Wikipedia and I was curious about what would happen if a previously deprecated site URL were to be repurchased and put in use for something different than what it were originally? How would that be communicated through the wiki? AceWizKid (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Link rot/Usurpations. The citation templates have options to mark a link as usurped, in which case an archive link will be used instead. For external links outside references, we would probably just link to an archive directly. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! AceWizKid (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there, I'm still fairly new tae editing on Wikipedia, but I've been thinkin' aboot startin’ some articles on lesser-known places in Scotland – wee villages, historic spots, maybe even a few local landmarks that dinnae get much attention.

I've done some light editing here and there, but I’m no entirely sure how tae go about creatin’ a new article properly. Is there a standard way these kinds of location pages should be laid out? And how dae I tell if a place is considered notable enough for its own page? Appreciate any advice or guidance ye can offer. Just tryin’ tae help shine a light on a few corners o’ the map that folks might’ve missed!

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saints Row Dubber (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Best location to create a new article is in draft space, as in Draft:My new article.

See WP:YFA for guidance. You can use WP:Article wizard to walk you through the steps.

See also Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of the kind of sources required to establish notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

“Cheers for the tips, pal, that was fair braw o’ ye.” Saints Row Dubber (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Unrelated but I love the way you write (though, it's better to write in a more professional tone in articles) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Ta pal Saints Row Dubber (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I may be making an unwarranted assumption based on your writing, and your contributions will always be welcome here, but would the Scots Wikipedia be of interest to you? -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 21:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

redirects to replace red links

Creating redirects to replace red links on talk pages and replacing speedy deletion tags

A veteran editor red linked something on a talk page (relevant rev here). He then subsequently created a redirect to have that red link redirect to a related article (redirect creation here). I let the user know that I thought a piped link was more appropriate since I didn't think the redirect made much sense, especially because it was created solely for a talk page mention. It makes it more difficult to find an article with a very similar name (The Transgender Issue) which seems to me to be reason #1 for WP:RDEL. The user agreed, replaced the link with a piped link and then effectively blanked the redirect page (here), requesting speedy deletion. I wasn't sure what to do at that point because the user seemingly forgot to add a speedy deletion template. Another user added a speedy deletion template (here). This template was subsequently removed by another user to turn the old redirect page into a disambiguation page.

My questions are:

Is it common practice to create borderline arbitrary redirect pages in order to remove red links on talk pages? (as the creator claimed they had been doing for 1/4 century)
~~Are you allowed to remove a speedy deletion tag if you weren't the one who placed it?~~

EDIT: I read up on the second one. Per the deletion policy: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. 23:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

quidama _talk 22:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Quidama: Redirects that you are talking about are in article space, and so should serve an encyclopedic service. But each one should be considered on its merit. Speedy delete criterion template:R3 may apply, or WP:RFD if it needs a discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Editing User Page

How can I edit my user page? PBGen Andre Perez Dizon 1994 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@PBGen Andre Perez Dizon 1994: You have already been editing your user page. However I would ask you, are you making an article draft? If so you should use your sandbox User:PBGen Andre Perez Dizon 1994/sandbox. And the tone is not encyclopedic. If this is about you, please read WP:Autobiography. And if it is not an article, but supposed to be your WP:Userpage, then the content is far too excessive, and you should concentrate on improving Wikipedia by editing other pages first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Image upload one time use permission

hi everyone

Actually I am want to use this image on List of mosques in Mongolia.

I have permission on my personal email to use it on Wikipedia only, please tell me procedure to upload it on English Wikipedia. 獅眠洞 (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

獅眠洞, (i) You should be asking at Wikimedia Commons rather than here. (ii) The limit you describe is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons. (iii) Citing email from the copyright holder isn't an acceptable way of explaining copyright status. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @獅眠洞, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that it doesn't work that way. One of the principal goals of Wikimedia projects is to provide a resource that anybody can reuse for any purpose, and so most of its content, including most images, must be available for anybody to reuse - either in the public domain, or licensed by the copyright holder in a way that permits free use.

Because it is often difficult to find images that meet these requirements, English Wikipedia (though not all language Wikipedias) permits non-free content in certain circumstances. But I'm afraid that adding an image to a list article will never allow that.

Please see Image use policy for more information. ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

ok thanks, i will try to convince the author to give us permission to use these images under CC lisence. 獅眠洞 (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

獅眠洞, it's not clear that you understand. The copyright holder has to apply one or other particular CC license, giving anyone (including its commercial competitors) permission to use these images, even for commercial purposes. -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

i know wikimedia except only images those are modifiable and commercially usable. 獅眠洞 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Accounts on sibling project

I have accounts for projects I never wanted, how can I remove them?

Hello everybody,

Hopefully someone here can help me or at least direct me to someone who can. I apparently have accounts for Wikipedia in other languages (Spanish, Italian) that I didn’t intentionally create, as well as other Wikimedia projects I never intentionally signed up for (commons.wikimedia, species.wikimedia, meta.wikimedia, media.wiki, wikidata). How, why, and how do I remove them? Thanks in advance!

IamSposta (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@IamSposta: This happens automatically whenever you visit those projects while logged into a Wikimedia account. See m:SUL. They cannot be removed, but seem harmless to me; are they causing you problems? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IamSposta. You do not have more than one account. The several hundred Wikimedia Foundation websites have single user login. Your single account IamSposta and single password can be used on multiple WMF websites. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

How to improve

I would appreciate if you could help in improving as per the note by the reviwer:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robello_Samuel OlleborLeumas (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The tone in which it's written, OlleborLeumas, is of minor concern compared with notability. (That is, "notability" as defined by and for Wikipedia.) How does this draft demonstrate that its subject is notable according to either Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary. I have made some changes with encyclopedic tone. Please review. OlleborLeumas (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

OlleborLeumas, you are free to submit the revised version for a review. -- Hoary (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Patrolling Joseph Nwobike

Hello everyone,

I recently created the article Joseph Nwobike. It has been live for a while but is still marked as “unreviewed.”

Could you please take a look and let me know if it meets the requirements for notability and reliable sourcing? I would also like to understand if there is anything I should improve before it can be patrolled.

Thank you so much for your guidance! Nnamdi93 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

At first glance everything looks good! The lead could use a few more citations, but otherwise everything else is great! New articles can take a while to be reviewed, WP:NPP will get to it eventually. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. That’s inspiring. Thank you for your concern. Nnamdi93 (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nnamdi93 You don't always need citations in the WP:LEAD (see WP:LEADCITE) but it should be a summary of the main body of the article. At present, you have material in the lead that isn't anywhere else. I suggest you restrict the lead to the current first sentence, which summarises why he is notable, and place the rest of the paragraph into a section with a title like "Career". Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you.Nnamdi93 (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Publishing English page

Hi,

I have written a Norwegian Wikipedia article about the artist Peter Lodwick: no:Peter Lodwick. This was published on my first attempt without any issues.

As he is a British artist, I would now like to create an English version of the article. In the past, before the Norwegian page was approved, I had trouble getting the English draft accepted — reasons included questions about notability, incorrect citations, etc.

My question is: since the Norwegian version was approved immediately, can I simply translate the article (including sources, references, pictures, and layout) to English, or should it be written differently? Are there any particular considerations or best practices I should keep in mind?

Also, I cannot find my earlier English draft in the sandbox. Is it fine to simply create a new draft in my sandbox and later decide which Wikipedia language edition (English, Norwegian, etc.) I want to publish it to? Or how do I proceed?

Thanks in advance for your advice!

BR,

May MaySundAnd (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. The Norwegian Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Its up to the translator to make sure that the article they are translating meets the requirements of the Wikipedia for which they are translating. If you do not have much experience having English drafts accepted, it is highly recommended that you use the Articles for Creation process.

Before today, you had not edited the English Wikipedia since 2023. If you thought you did, your edits were not saved, or were made while logged out. Note that "publish changes" should be understood to mean "save", so if you did not click Publish Changes, your edits were not saved. Your sandbox has a Norwegian draft in it. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

MaySundAnd's talk page shows that draft(s) of an article about Lodwick were up for speedy deletion in November 2021 and September 2022. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I assumed they were speaking of a more recent attempt. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You should review our notable artist definition to see if the person you are writing about meets it. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@MaySundAnd Some guidance at Help:Translation, and you should look at the WP:BLP policy, which is important. At a glance I see some issues (from the en-WP pov): The biography section is mostly uncited, that won't fly on en-WP, and one of your refs is en.everybodywiki.com, not good enough, especially not in an article about a living person. And if you don't have an acceptable ref for the DOB, remove it. The picture looks suspiciously good, but I see on Commons it's ok (we can use it). Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

An admin can undelete the earlier drafts from your Sandbox, if you wish to see or reuse them; ask at WP:REFUND. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. It would be very helpful to have access to the previous English version of the Peter Lodwick page so that I don’t need to start entirely from scratch. However, since I had some difficulties when I tried publishing it several times and things got a bit messy, I’m worried this might affect the chances of getting it approved now. Would it be better to start fresh in a new sandbox? Andy Mabbett

331dot I also see that I have a draft on Marit Krogeide there. But that page is already published on the Norwegian Wikipedia (or at least I thought so). How can I create a new sandbox without deleting the Marit Krogeide article?

Thanks in advance! BR,MaySundAnd

I don't know what to do

help me 105.117.5.16 (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Assuming this question is about editing Wikipedia, try WP:TUTORIAL. Or this video. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Judge Morris Miller article

I am trying to get a new article accepted, a biography. The first couple of reviewers said i should fix the reference citations. I did that. Then I was struggling to delete the photo I had uploaded and replace it with another. Then all of a sudden a new reviewer said the person was not notable and seemed to reject it. I had cited two articles about the subject from Washington DC newspapers. There are many more news articles from those years in the 1960s which would make it clear that he was notable and would show significant coverage, not just passing mentions. Now what do I do? You'll find it with my user name Equusreserve for Morris Miller. Equusreserve (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Equusreserve. Your draft has not been rejected and the words rejected appears nowhere in the notice you received. It has instead been declined and you are invited to resubmit it after you have improved it, addressing the specific issues identified by the reviewer. Adding more references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this person is the best way to do that. If your draft was rejected, that would be the end of the line. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is coverage of Morris Miller in the New York Times. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

To anyone not familiar with the esoteric use of those terms by Wikipedia's AFC volunteers, "declined" and "rejected" are synonymous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC

Equusreserve, the point is that you were not told "no", you were told "not yet". Does that help? DS (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Equusreserve You now have plenty of sources if they cover various aspects of Miller's life. At present, you used all but one of them to verify the fact that he was appointed as a judge. We only need one reliable source to do that. However, we need sources to confirm that he was frequently consulted on housing policy and others to confirm his marriage and the names of his children. Usually, for privacy reasons, Wikipedia articles only mention by name notable children (i.e. those two that already have articles in Wikipedia) but, again, we need inline citations which confirm these details. I don't doubt that Miller is notable but your draft needs to be written in such a way that this is more clear. Reading the policy on biographies of living people may help, even though Miller is deceased. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

David de Haro Malo de Molina

Hello,

I am the subject of the draft Draft:David de Haro Malo de Molina, so I have a declared conflict of interest. I would appreciate if neutral editors could review the draft and provide feedback on its neutrality, sources, and notability. I have already included some reliable references.

Thank you very much for your time and support. Dharo76 (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dharo76 You will have to be patient – there is currently a backlog (not a queue) of over 2,300 drafts waiting for review. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dharo76 Your draft is likely to be declined as not demonstrating the notability either of you or your company. There is very little in the draft meeting our golden rule for sources and, for example, current reference #6 mentions neither you nor Mundo Marino. We strongly discourage autobiography for the reasons given at that link and those who attempt it normally fail. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Megadeath

Can somebody please edit the article on Megadeath saying that they are retiring in the year 2026 as Dave Mustaine has said? 66.186.109.202 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I would bring this up on the article's talkpage. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

New editor view on desktop

is there a way to use the new visual editor on user talk pages or can you only use the plain text one? Xboxfan38 (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Xboxfan38: there are a few hacky ways to enable the visual editor on anything that uses the wikitext Content model. As an example, here it is on your talkpage . You can change the title URL parameter on that link to get a different page. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you can use Visual Editor on user talk pages when in desktop mode. Simply change the &action=edit to &veaction=edit, like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xboxfan38&veaction=edit Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

File got locked all of a sudden

Can someone unlock the wiki page I'm editing, all of a sudden it randomly locked me out.

Draft:Cyber Jihad Movement MrPotatoes01 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You have no blocks, and the page is not protected. Were you trying to add a link or citation to another website (which might be stop-listed)? What message did you see? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It just got unblocked minutes ago, no worries. MrPotatoes01 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikiwand

WHAT TF WERE YOU SNIFFING WHEN YOU SPAMMED US THIS ABHORANT INTERFACE CHANGE CALLED WIKIWAND? 96.54.92.56 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Not at all sure what you are referring to. Wikipedia does not "spam" anything; are you certain the content was from Wikipedia? And please turn off your caps lock. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikiwand is not Wikipedia, it is run by a separate company and presents content from Wikipedia with ads, and extra tracking. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Not showing up in Search Engine

Hello, I just wanna address an issue that has been going on with my articles recently. So, most of my articles have been reviewed in the past 20 days. But none of them shows up on google when you or I search for them. What is this issue? My articles are reviewed by good reviewers like Onel5969 but none of the reviewed pages show up on google search. If there is some problem, then I can also add that some of my articles which were reviewed were moved to the draft space completely at once because other reviewers suspected them of AI usage. But I corrected them and moved back to the mainspace with some of them being reviewed later on. Still, atleast one of them do not show up on search engine. Please help me with this, I will appreciate it. Thanks. Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Victor Ningthemcha After an article is created and reviewed on Wikipedia it can take a few days to or weeks before it appears in Google search results as Google’s indexing process takes time. Thank you for creating several articles but many of your articles are still pending review (need to be marked as reviewed) including Rajkumar Madhubir, Tiddim Road, Nungou Yumthangba, Senba Mimaba, Chingkhong Thonggraiba, Thongleirom, Menshomba etc. Please be patient once they are reviewed, Google will eventually pick them up.Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 10:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Victor Ningthemcha The process by which search engine indexing is controlled is actually a bit more complicated than you may think. Although an article like Rajkumar Madhubir was accepted through articles for creation, unless the accepting editor is themself autopatrolled, the article is not marked as allowing indexing until the new pages patrol also review it. They are often heavily backlogged and the main public logs for that page show this hasn't yet happened. Once it does, indexing can take time but in my experience a new edit to the article after it has been approved by the NPP will prompt search engines to take notice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks for telling me. But, I mean articles like Sentreng, Loitongba, Lungba, Iwanthaba, Atom Yoiremba which were reviewed more than 10 days ago are still not showing up in the search engine. Is it like an update? Because before that AI usage incident happened, my articles got put up in search engine so quickly after it was reviewed. Or does it have to do with the reviewers' rights? Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The reviewed articles also include Heingang which was reviewed 54 days ago but still not showing up in search engine. It was reviewed for the second time. When it was first reviewed, it quickly appeared in search engine under 1 hour after it was reviewed. I am not being impatient but I just want to find out why. Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Because we told google not to index it, and google will then take a LOT longer to discover that it has become visible to Google again. Think in the order of 10 to 180 days (and we have no telling of what it is exactly, that fully depends on Google). This especially affects articles that have a low visit rate and that are not linked from a lot of other webistes yet. This is Wikipedia being INTENTIONALLY slow with new articles to avoid that people make articles just to increase their scoring in Google. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks for telling me. Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Victor Ningthemcha I can see from the logs that Heingang was reviewed by the NPP on 13 September and hence became available to search engines that day. However, it has not been edited since 24 July. As I said above, if you make a minor edit to it now, I predict that Google will pick it up very quickly thereafter. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

(removed the message) Victor Ningthemcha (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of unpublished books

I'm aware that deleting comments on talk pages is generally disallowed, but what about nonsense such as the two edits made on 14 April 2025 to Talk:List of unpublished books? Lexiconaut (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lexiconaut Seems fine to delete per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, removing obvious nonsense is fine, so I have done just that. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, both --Lexiconaut (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Article talk page error

The talk page for Blaster (flamethrower) has been unable to show any new messages for a long time. I've traced the reason: on 29 October 2009, a comment (the exclamation mark kind) was incompletely deleted; its opening tag was left in place, turning everything that follows into hidden text. I tried just deleting the open-comment tag, but that makes all messages since October 2009 appear as if they're from me, today. I don't know how to fix this properly. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft feedback, newbie

Hi, I am a new Wikipedia contributor (this is only my second page creation). I’ve been working on a draft here: User:SueRostvold/De Lewellen.

I’ve gathered a ton of references, and I’d appreciate feedback on whether my draft looks neutral in tone, and if my citations and formatting are on the right track before I submit it.

Any and all feedback appreciated. (I can take it.) ;)

Thanks so much for your help!

SueRostvold (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@SueRostvold Take a look at WP:Named references for how to re-use some citations that you currently have repeated multiple times (e.g. to "Punk in Austin"). I suggest you move your draft to Draft:De Lewellen and then submit it for a formal review as described at WP:Articles for creation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I will do that before I submit. Thanks. SueRostvold (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the multiple references Mike, yes I knew it looked bad. But while working on the page it was helping me keep everything straight. But my plan was to fix before submitting. Thanks again for your input. SueRostvold (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@SueRostvold Welcome to the Teahouse. I made a small tweak to your draft. If you like, you can move it to the Draft namespace yourself, or I can do it for you. After that, you can submit for AFC review.Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 17:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, SueRostvold. Your draft had those irritating ** double asterisks scattered through it. They have since been removed and replaced by inappropriate use of italics. Those are indicative of content cranked out by Artificial Intelligence robots that are prone to hallucinations and falsification. We want content on Wikipedia that is written and verified by living, breathing human beings. Please read Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence for guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Understood. Noted. I have found chatgpt useful in hunting sources for me. (That is allowed right?) I have done my best to verify all links before using. I will read the article you suggested for guidance. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. So much to learn. SueRostvold (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SueRostvold, this is a bit late but just in case no one's mentioned it - getting ChatGPT (or any other AI/LLM) to find sources for you is a very bad idea. AI is extremely prone to hallucinations, which means it just makes things up. It knows you want sources, and it's going to provide sources to make you happy even if they don't actually exist! Doing your own search via Google, newspaper archives, etc is usually the best way to go. If you feel you must use ChatGPT, make absolutely sure that the links it gives you actually exist and say what it tells you they say. Do not trust the robot - it wants to answer your question in a way you will like, which isn't necessarily giving you accurate information. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree 100%. Chatgpt isn't not always right, often wrong. I use it sparingly. I have found it's best to search newspaper archives myself (also fun). But yes, I always check the sources. Thank you for the reminder though. :) SueRostvold (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not quite ready for AFC review. But thanks. Let me get back to you on this. I need to learn how to do some stuff myself. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. SueRostvold (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Thilio, thank you for the tweak. I appreciate you time. It I accidentally undo what you do, I apologize. I was going to work on cleaning up my links. I often work outside of wikipedia and then transfer to my draft. So if you changed, added or removed something and I don't know what, I might undo it accidentally. Hope I'm making sense. Thoughts on this? I went to history to try to see what you did but couldn't figure it out. - I know just enough to be dangerous on Wikipedia I guess. My goal is to not piss anyone off and follow the rules. Try not to get blocked again because I forgot a colon in my draft categories. Wish me luck. :) SueRostvold (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

What do I do in this situation?

I noticed that this Revision by Smuckola had a rude edit summary, and I want to template them (couldn't find their pronouns sorry smuckola) with Template:Uw-bes1, but I'm worried that since I rarely edit, (not even autoconfirmed yet, but I will be someday) I might not have the authority/knowledge to do so. (even though I've read WP:CIVIL and am fairly certain that their edit summary was uncivil in ways covered in two different parts (specifically in the part on edit summaries, and the general section on identifying incivility)) What do I do? Zonedbaser (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

In general, the first thing you do is discuss it with the other editor. But I think calling this incivility is a massive stretch, in my opinion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but if you don't mind me asking, how do you see it as a stretch, because when I look at it, I see insults towards the photo as the main meat of the summary. ("wrongheaded photo that should've never been shot", "noisiest and ugliest background humanly possible") Am I taking policy too literally? (though, the second example of covering in policy was a bit of a stretch i admit) Zonedbaser (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

No, you're not wrong. I've seen some snarky edit summaries but "utterly wrongheaded" "should have never been shot", "noisiest and ugliest background humanly possible" is beyond the pale. I don't think you're going to get far reporting it though. Suggest you let it go and accept it's more about them than you. @Smuckola should have told ChatGPT this is what I really want to say, suggest a polite but firm alternative. MmeMaigret (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

ChatGPT usage is heavily discouraged on Wikipedia. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Whether it's ChatGPT, a thesaurus, or asking a friend for advice, the point was about toning down a comment. But sure, let's debate AI policy. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO "The whole point was to illustrate color, so they shot it in the noisiest and ugliest background humanly possible, making blue look green." is hyperbolic, and too close to calling the photographer (who hasn't edited since 2022) an idiot, and a little disappointing coming from an editor who's been here 16 years. It's a pic of a glass of soda on an ordinary table, and it certainly looks blue to me. Fwiw, it's used on several WP:s. However, if this was at WP:ANI (where problems of behavior are discussed), it wouldn't go anywhere unless it was part of a long history of uncivility. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The civility rule is to comment on content, not contributors. That edit summary was a comment on content. I don't see the rude language crossing the line into incivility. It's just uncivilized, not incivil. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Per "utterly wrongheaded photo" etc it's a little borderline on contributors, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Question about using the # sign

Hi everyone,

I’m a new editor and cannot find a clear answer to this:

Can the # sign be used in an actor’s filmography?

The actor's official credit in the film is ‘Soldier #1’, but I have been told that it goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style and that the credit should be listed as ‘Soldier No. 1’. Shouldn't credits be listed accurately on an actor’s filmography, or is there no exception to this rule?

Many thanks! NicR77 (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

What is the actor's name? MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Craig Parker NicR77 (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

the Wikipedia article on "A Soldier's Sweetheart", which is the movie where Parker acted as Soldier #/no. 1, lists in the "Cast" section as "Soldier no. 2 (Tony Billy)", so maybe it's better to keep the "no." format for consistency.

I still do not know what part of the Manual of Style that sets the standard for this.

- MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. If you look at the revision history on A Soldier's Sweetheart, that was just recently changed by the user that I have been having a disagreement with. Since Craig Parker’s Wikipedia article was created his credit has been listed as “Soldier #1” (until only recently). His credit is listed as Solider #1 on both IMDb https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0129414/ and on TV Guide https://www.tvguide.com/movies/a-soldiers-sweetheart/cast/2030012091/. Thanks again for your time! NicR77 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

If you find out how he is actually credited in the film itself, not on a website like IMDB, then that would be the appropriate way to describe the role in our article. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The "#" policy is MOS:NUMBERSIGN, Avoid using the # symbol when referring to numbers.

In your case, I think the more specific policies are MOS:FILMCAST and MOS:TVCAST, which say Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. [...] For uncredited roles, a citation should be provided in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Do not use IMDb as a reference, as it is considered unreliable.

Since MOS:FILMCAST and MOS:TVCAST have a more specific focus, they would take precedence. Blepbob (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Previously, I had provided a WP:RS via TV Guide to support this but another user kept reverting my edit saying it went against WP:MOS. How should I respond if this happens again? NicR77 (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The recommended strategy is "BOLD, revert, discuss":

Bold - Start off by making the edits you want.
Revert - You can revert other people's edits, so long as you aren't edit warring. Other people can also revert yours. Provide explanations in your edit summaries.
Discuss - If there's a lot of reverting, all disagreeing editors should stop reverting and take it to that article's WP:talk page. Let uninvolved editors weigh in. Try to reach an agreement.

If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted.

Blepbob (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

If that doesn't help, WP:DISCFAIL is one of the few essays providing good advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all the help everyone! NicR77 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Change my name

Hye can anyone tell me how to change my name SharikMalik (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@SharikMalik Hello! Follow the instructions and advice at Wikipedia:Changing username. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 12:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username; that should give you enough information for starters. Lectonar (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

🙏thanks SharikMalik (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi teahouse

I was pointed here to my talk page.. so you answer questions I have about Wikipedia?

what's the biggest article on Wikipedia? Hej, Tachanka from Nitra! (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:RECORDS for all sorts of records, including the largest article. Note, however, that some articles like Donald Trump are overviews with many large subordinate articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

oh interesting. thanks Hej, Tachanka from Nitra! (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Archive Bot

Hello,

Trying to set up an archive bot on my talk page. Can I have some feedback on my progress? I just want to make sure it's working. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't tell if it's not working or if you just don't have enough topics for it to start archiving. I use ClueBot III which you can set up with default options and just get archives up and running on your page, by placing this at the top of the talk page you want archived: {{subst:User:ClueBot III/JustArchiveThis}}. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I may just not have enough topics. Thanks so much for the suggestion I'll check out ClueBot III. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Ion

I want to modify slightly pages ION, CONDUCTIVITY, IONS ASSOCIATION etc by adding recent studies on ionization in non-polar liquids. There are many studies that follow Onsager, Fuoss work showing that addition of amphiphilic substances to non polar liquids creates ions. They are solvated by neutral molecules of solute, not solvent as in water. This is field of non-aqueous electrochemistry that is completely ommited from the said papers. You can reach me (Redacted)AndreiDukhin (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @AndreiDukhin. Please don't share your personal email address: this is a public forum. You are free to edit those articles. You have nearly 1,000 edits already, so I am unsure what specific help you need? qcne (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @AndreiDukhin. As qcne says, you are welcome to edit the articles, but please take note of the following first:

You should read Verifiability and original research. ~~If you are adding information from reliable sources~~, please cite those sources - see WP:REFB. (Added: you should only add information from reliable sources)
If any of the work or the sources that you want to cite is your own work, then that is regarded as a conflict of interest, and you should not edit the articles directly, but should instead raise edit requests on the articles' talk pages, so somebody uninvolved can consider your request.
I have no idea whether or not the material you want to add might be controversial; but it does often happen that editors disagree about what should be in an article. I suggest you also get familiar with WP:BRD, which explains how we (try to) reach consensus.

ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Best practice for size of edits

When an article needs heavy editing, is it better to do several small edits or one big edit? Also if you plan on editing very different parts of a page, such as tables, lists, and text, is it better to focus on only one per edit? I was wondering if small edits make reverting easier, because the good edits don’t have to be reverted along with the bad one. BrightPinkBirb (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

If you are uncertain as to whether your edit needs to be reverted, perhaps you should use the preview function. For an article that is very active, then smaller edits are better to avoid an edit conflict. Also for a controversial article, small edits are better in case of explanation required or disagreement. Also consider if your browser saves your editing. If you do a long big edit and the power goes off, or Wikipedia goes into maintenance mode or something crashes, you don't want to lose your work. Perhaps adding one section or paragraph at a time for inactive articles is a good compromise against losing your work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, if your making huge edits, you may wish to do it in your sandbox, or to put it off-wiki altogether (such as Google Docs or notepad) before implementing it to the article. Google Docs should automatically save your work, provided you have an internet connection. This doesn't really work for articles that currently receive more than several edits per day, such as the Charlie Kirk situation. If there's any disagreement with your changes to the article, the talk page is the way to go, as per the dispute resolution. JuniperChill (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

This is nothing but my opinion: I think it's not the character count but how the material fits together, and if you're in a position to be wondering about this, I think the answer is probably "so that it all belongs together, and anyone reverting it would want to revert all of it together".

I don't think this answer applies to things like going through a badly spelled article and just fixing uncontroversial spelling mistakes. Nobody should want to revert that anyway. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Need review or advise

I'm working on a draft about a hacker group called Cyber Jihad Movement. Could someone please review it or advise if it's ready for mainspace? Draft:Cyber Jihad Movement. MrPotatoes01 (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I've replaced your URL with a standard wikilink. You have submitted the draft for review, which is the best way to get feedback. My only comment is that you have included in the WP:LEAD some information and sources not mentioned in the main body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarise the body, not mention information only there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see the kind of sourcing that I like to see in the articles I'm familiar with, but rather than declining it I'll leave it for the next person, who may be a better judge of the sources you cite. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

assistance with writing a wikipedia page

I would like to confirm that a group working though a user group User:HRShami is a legitimate group assisting with the preparation on Wikipedia pages Barry Hart (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, it's not clear what you are suggesting or asking here? Could you be more specific. Theroadislong (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@HRShami Do you want to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying you have hired WP:PAID editors to write about you? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Barry Hart: Your link is broken but I guess you mean User:HRShami with a colon. I don't know HRShami or LustrePR but they have no affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia. Users who try to create articles are often contacted by scammers who make false promises and false claims about who they are. See Wikipedia:Scam warning. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Link fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Barry Hart. On their user page, @HRShami says they "work with", LustrePR, they have certainly successfully created a number of articles (they claim 900, but I haven't checked), and for the one such article I have looked at they have complied with the Terms of Use by declaring (on the article's talk page) who they were paid by to create it.

So, while they are in no way official or endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation, it appears that they comply with the terms of use, and have a track record of successfully creating articles. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The tool says HRShami created 902 pages, nearly all of them biographies, presumably from paid clients. The deleted user contributions also show many page moves from mainspace to draftspace, for articles they created (possibly accidentally) in mainspace, with a comment about paid editing. Clearly a paid editor although there is no disclosure on the user page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You say HRShami is "a user group". Does that mean the username is being used by more than one person? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Barry Hart. I am legitimate in so far as complying with all the Wikipedia policies on paid editing. However, I am not affiliated with Wikimedia or Wikipedia; no paid editor is. HRShami (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

How to add a link

I want to add a link from Eglise Saint-Croix, Brussels to Place_Eugène_Flagey#Early_history, but I am not allowed. A tutorial opens, asking me to do something in my sandbox, which ends here. What am I doing wrong? Does adding a link need a special permission? MelekArı (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @MelekArı, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's not clear what you are trying to do. We don't have an article Eglise Saint-Croix, Brussels.

Are you perhaps trying to create a redirect from that title to the article section you mention?

A redirect is a page, and new accounts cannot create pages in mainspace (this depends on number of edits as well as time). This edit here is your ninth edit: once you have made ten, you will be autoconfirmed, and should be able to create a redirect. Make sure you understand the syntax of a redirect page (the link about will tell you). ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I want just a redirection. That's all. MelekArı (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@MelekArı Now the redirect is in place, you might like to add Eglise Saint-Croix, Brussels to the disambiguation page, Holy Cross Church. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

My edits keep getting reverted

Courtesy link: Wildlife Justice Commission

I am trying to make edits to the NGO I work at but my edits keep getting reverted and I don't know why. Valentinfenk (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Valentinfenk There are many messages on your talk page explaining the situation. As you say, you are a paid editor and under Wikimedia terms and conditions you must disclose that on your user page and subsequently only edit the article via its talk page so that neutral editors without a conflict of interest can assess them. All edit suggestions must include reliable sources so that readers can verify what is stated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Valentinfenk. To add to what Mike said: please note that 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.

Also, please read about edit warring, because that is what you have been doing. ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

page numbers in footnotes

In Samuel Butler (novelist), n.5 appears seven times, as "a" through "g". The quotation in the text attached to "a" is on page 16 of the cited book. The quotation in the text attached to "g" is on pages 6-7 of the cited book. (I will look for "b" through "f" when I have a chance.) How do I enter separate page numbers in the different appearances of n.5? Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Maurice Magnus, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Help:References and page numbers gives various ways to handle this. ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I remembered that I once did this for another article. I looked at that article, thinking that I'd use the technique I'd used in it. It worked for "g". I inserted {{ rp | 6-7 }}.(Ignore the spaces; I added them so that it would not come out as ^[1]^: 6–7) But I couldn't use that technique for "a," because "a", being the first appearance of n.5, has a different format, spelling out the whole footnote. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

References

^ Cite error: The named reference Stillman2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Maurice Magnus, it seems a little strange to worry about page numbers for something described as vaguely as "Clara G. Stillman, Samuel Butler: A Mid-Victorian Modern". Edition (if not the first), "location" (place), publisher, year, ISBN? Add such detail to whichever one of a–g contains any detail beyond "name". Then add Template:Rp in exactly the same way (aside from altering the page number(s), of course) to each of a–g. So you'll have something like <ref name="stillman">[bibliographic detail]</ref>{{Rp|26}} for one and <ref name="stillman" />{{Rp|93–95}} for each of the others. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The details about Stillman's book are listed under "Further reading." Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus It is best to put the full details into the reference section using named references, as discussed above, then remove that book from "Further reading" as it is now part of the main body of the article and doesn't need to be duplicated there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Article tags below or above redirects?

Sasaki Kojirō has both redirects and article issue tags. In this case, the article tags are above the redirects. Is there any documentation about where article tags should go in this case? NicheSports (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@NicheSports The hatnote/redirect templates go first then article issue tags. See WP:ORDER Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 16:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:All the President's Elephants (Film)

Revisions by Louiskk23 to Draft:All the President's Elephants (Film)

Hi everyone, I am not a regular Wikipedia creator/editor. I drafted this page after being so impressed by this documentary. I'm now concerned about the amount of editing (-10,000, then + 2,000) just done to my draft All the President's Elephants (Film) submission. This below is what I've now written on the Talk Page of this article, and am repeating it here (Not sure which is the right thing to do.) ------ Are there experienced people who can review this please?

14 Sept revisions by Louiskk23 to Draft:All the President's Elephants (Film) [edit source] Thank you for your input Louiskk23. Having read 3 of her elephant memoirs and also watched this documentary several times, I feel like changing the wording here to say that Sharon Pincott simply had a "close" relationship with the elephants doesn't capture just how close a relationship she actually had with them. In the documentary she actually kisses (more than once) a huge wild adult elephant – not hand-raised, not one in fenced areas. Family groups also come to her when she calls to them. I feel that this is much more than simply having a “close” relationship with these elephants. As this article indicated previously, it has been said by numerous world-wide reviewers that she had one of the most remarkable relationships with elephants anywhere in the world. Hence, I do think it’s fair to say her relationship with the elephants was at least “extremely close”. Re the taking out the comparisons to Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall etc I wonder how necessary this is, since it does help to show why the documentary has been so successful, and what an interesting subject she is – although I’ve made no changes to these edits. Does anyone have any comments/suggestions re these last edits? WikiAdd01 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC) WikiAdd01 (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Something extra - I feel that there is other relevant/interesting information that has also now been removed, shortening the article, and the references, substantially. WikiAdd01 (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are well. Before stating my point, I would like to say that I have nothing against your article or you personally. On the contrary, I found the subject of the documentary very interesting. Although I agree that my editing was drastic, I modified text that I felt was excessive and contained unnecessary praise. as well as being redundant. What I did was try to make the article more neutral so that the format would better comply with Wikipedia guidelines and thus support its approval. If you look, two experienced editors edited your article after this, one of them removed a large part of the article that, in my opinion, was unnecessary and not very neutral. Furthermore, another editor commented that there is no mention of the documentary in two references you added. Similarly, I promise not to edit that draft anymore, but instead to let the more experienced editors do what they think is best.

I would also like to say that I have been suffering what I consider to be “harassment” from the editor Celjski Grad. At first, I made a mistake and the problem was solved on the librarians' board by clarifying the confusion, but since then I can't make any edits without Celjski Grad harassing me. Even when I corrected simple spelling mistakes, he harassed me and wrote to me. When I make edits in my sandbox, he harasses me. When I improve syntax, he writes to me too. Although I agree that the edit to the documentary was drastic, the other edits were simpler. In fact, I had to write the text and modify it in a Word file instead of in my sandbox because I was afraid that the user Celjski Grad would also complain about me editing in my sandbox, so I thought, “If I do it in a separate notepad and then paste my edit without using my sandbox, the user will probably be calmer.” But even that didn't save me from harassment by this user. I had already made my last edits in a Word file, which is why it seemed like I did them “quickly.” Louiskk23 (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Cannot Edit Protected Page

Hello,

I am trying to edit this page but I cannot for some reason even though I am an extended confirmed editor, so why can I not edit this page? Thank you! Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Agnieszka653, can you tell us a bit more about what you're experiencing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Similar to a problem I asked about the other day, I find on some articles I clicking edit but I am simply not able to make any additions or deletions. However I can edit other pages just fine. Could this have anything to do with pending changes? Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Please describe more precisely what you do and what happens. It looks normal when I edit Houthis with VisualEditor. I click before "The Houthis" in the lead, see a vertical blinking bar where I clicked, press "Delete" to remove "T" and type "T" to add it again. What happens for you? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pin for Agnieszka653. Pretty sure PrimeHunter intended to direct his response to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft :Shaheed Shashi Prasad Singh

draft:Shashi Prasad Singh My first article have been declined thrice. The grounds have been changing and i have been consistently improving my work as this is a story about unsung heroes of indian independence covered exponentially but not accessible for general public.

Can anyone help me know what else could be the reason for this decline . Presently it is under review Praj9289 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Praj9289. Often, a draft will have multiple problems and various reviewers will emphasize different reasons in their decline notices. This is normal and should not be a concern. You should substantively address the comments of each of the reviewers by improving the draft accordingly. The phrase "unsung heroes" that you use raises concerns, as "unsung" can be interpreted as a synonym for "not notable and therefore not eligible for a Wikipedia article". Your references do not make it easy to verify the content. For example, the URL in your reference to the multi-volume Dictionary of Martyrs: India's Freedom Struggle leads to the cover page for volume 4 rather to the pages actually about the subject of your draft. You need to structure your draft in such a way that a reviewer can verify that this person has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of him. His son discussing him in the preface of a book is clearly not an independent source. Another problem are the assertions that he is notable because of his leadership role in various organizations such as the Panchayati Raksha Gram Seva Dal. And yet there is no Wikipedia article about the Panchayati Raksha Gram Seva Dal, and no reference to a reliable source assessing this group. How is the reviewer or any reader able to assess the significance of this group on their own? Was it an influential mass organization active for years, or a small, temporary committee? Or something else. So, I believe that your draft still needs a lot of work. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a whole government website over gran raksha dal https://dalpatigramrakshadalmahasangh.com/member-new.php

Secondly, the page no for Dictionary of Martyr is mentioned in the reference i cannot create a link to the exact page number althought i have mentioned it in the reference.

His son was the hugher education minister, He held office of public importance hence making his statements more than just a son's statement .

But unsung heroes is said because they are unsung because of their untimely death. Not because the did not get enough coverage or notability Praj9289 (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

also if would be kind of you if you can guide me over the fact that if i am mentioning names of certain people who are of national importance like the first oresident of our country how do i get a link on his name.. or if i am mentioning quit india movement how do i get a link so that people could click on it and directly visit the wikipedia page for that event for ex quit india movement Praj9289 (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

In the source editor, you link to an article (or other Wikipedia page) by putting the exact title in double square brackets; so [[Quit India Movement]] displays as Quit India Movement. I don't know how you do it in the visual editor. See Help:Wikilinks. ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a note, this is not really a government website. It looks to be a private website for a political party Assassin (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

coordinating edits across multiple articles

I only recently go into editing and am still somewhat inexperienced with online encyclopedia, but more importantly online fora in general. I had been reading and editing on a small scale for a while, but perhaps got out of my depth when I fixed an issue on a historical topic. I'm sure that any student of history knows that seemingly small and innocous discussions about words can turn out to be longstanding political disputes when looked at more closely.

Please bear with me for the wall of text that follows.

I noticed recently that lots of pages related to Albanian history had the same bizarre mistake. I soon found out why: the page Italian protectorate over Albania was supposed to cover a part of World War I, but after a user changed this earlier this year, it was now a redirect page to Treaties of Tirana, a not unrelated but different topic covering a part of the interwar period. I found out using the "What Links here" feature that ca. 500 pages used the former page to provide further information on WW1, instead providing information on the interwar period for no apparent reason.

(It is at this point that I have to ask whether it breaks etiquette to talk about a user without formally Mentioning them. I don't want to annoy them, as this is about me asking advice and not wanting to criticise them. Their username is Barjimoa.)

After I noticed this, I was unsure what to do. Rolling back the change would have fixed the confusion, but I wanted to see whether there was perhaps a reason for this change, in spite of any unintended harm it did. On the Talk page Talk:Kingdom of Albania in personal union with Italy#Title_2 (on an article covering a part of World War II) I found the user discussing the reason they made this change and justifying their doing so.

Specifically, the issue is the following: Italian relations with Albania during 1914-1945 can be divided into three phases. First, an Italian military expedition during WW1 including an Italian proclamation of Albanian "independence under Italian aegis and protection", Second, an unequal partnership during the Interwar Period, in which Italy gained both formal and informal influence over Albanian institutions, and Third, the Italian invasion and annexation of Albania during WW2. All of these events are sometimes referred to as "protectorates" or "de-facto protectorates" of Italy over Albania, though there is no unanimous consensus on the validity of the term for all three events. This was the topic of discussion on the Talk Page Topic that I found - though initial discussion was about validity of the term for WW2, the user was of the opinion that "protectorate" was not valid for the WW1 period, but that it was valid for the interwar period. This is why they decided unilaterally to redirect Italian protectorate over Albania to Treaties of Tirana (interwar period), when it was previously understood to refer to the WW1 period, creating the confusion I described and seemingly went unnoticed until now.

Here's where I decided to finally step in.

I brought up to the user on the mentioned Talk Page that their change had unintentionally been harmful. After they reaffirmed that they felt the change was justified in spite of the harm it did, instead of pushing further, I decided to evaluate my options. I wanted to fix a mistake, which I had done before, just not on this scale. I wanted the 500 pages to link to a sensible page again (Italian expeditionary corps in Albania (World War I) clearly being the most appropriate), but was anxious about overruling the user. I looked into my options. My idea of the situation was the following: before the harmful change, pages that linked to Italian protectorate over Albania would obviously want to refer to the WW1 period, and now didn't. I figured there must be some pages edited after the change too, wanting to refer to the interwar period after all. I also knew for a fact that there were be pages who wanted to refer not only to the WW1 period, but also speficially to the concept of a "protectorate" during WW1, sometimes described as "Albanian Republic under Italy". Thus, I could not possibly simply revert the harmful edit, because the underlying question of validity of the term would not be solved. I decided that I needed to not just fix a mistake but also lay the groundwork for future changes and clarifications. I needed a page that could, for the moment, act as a redirect page to Italian expeditionary corps in Albania (World War I), but in the future become either: a disambiguation page for Italian action in Albania during WW1, or: be turned into a redirect page to a specific section of an article.

Having decided this, I discovered the existence of Italian Protectorate on southern Albania, an old, nearly unused redirect page to Italian expeditionary corps in Albania (World War I), which I decided would be my workaround page. Using the "What links here" feature, I went through all (ca. 500) pages that linked to Italian protectorate over Albania, and for every page that clearly intended to refer to the WW1 period instead of the interwar period, I replaced the link with Italian Protectorate on southern Albania. This turned out to be every single one and took over an hour. I'm a bit embarassed to say that I did this instead of simply pushing back on the user, or consider if there was perhaps a better alternative before committing to edit so many links. In the end though, things obviously went to plan and I clearly improved things.

The reason I'm posting this here in such great detail is twofold: I want to know on whether I broke any rules or etiquette during all this, and I want advice for the future on how to coordinate (or confirm approval for) things of this nature (edits across multiple pages), or rather where to document the decisions I made for others to easily view, understand, and judge. For example, I first brought up my ideas on that random Talk Page Topic instead of making my own Topic, choosing another Page, or another option I simply don't know about. Tonuka (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Tonuka, Bajimoa, Srnec and you were already discussing this in Talk:Kingdom of Albania in personal union with Italy. Nikkimaria had been too, but seemed to have dropped out -- perhaps simply because they weren't aware that the discussion continued. I don't think that attempting to restart the discussion elsewhere in order to describe your proposed edits would have been helpful. What could have helped would have been to post a revised and abridged version of your proposal there, and invitations elsewhere -- perhaps WT:WikiProject Albania, WT:WikiProject Italy, WT:WikiProject International relations -- to join the discussion. I suggest that you revise any "wall of text" ruthlessly, keeping the revision on your hard drive, revisit one or two days later, revise again, and only then post. Wherever you might post an invitation to join a discussion, be very careful to be concise and to avoid the appearance of canvassing either for your position or against some other position. An invitation should be understandable even to editors who are distracted or half asleep, and must be worded to avoid any risk of starting a parallel discussion. (And don't rush to follow my advice: others here may point out problems with it, or have better advice.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixing wrong citation in youtuber infobox

This is a fairly minor issue, but at Jeremy Hambly, I have a list of subscriber and view counts for each channel. However, all are simply referenced to TheQuartering's about page by the infobox. I think that it should be fine to not have a citation, given that there are external links in the same box to satisfy verifiability concerns, so is there a way to remove this citation? Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, welcome to the Teahouse! You can remove citations from an infobox by clicking on it if you're using the Visual Editor, and selecting Edit. This will bring up a menu where you can find the field you're looking to remove the reference from, and then you can go ahead and remove the reference from after the text.

Note that references usually aren't needed in infoboxes if the information is repeated and cited in the article per MOS:INFOBOXREF. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The infobox automatically inserts the citation (see, for example, Trisha Paytas; the source code does not have a citation in the infobox), so the visual editor can't be used to remove it. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

In your article, if you look at the source markup for the infobox in the subscribers field, you'll see the following:

|subscribers          = 
*TheQuartering: 1.9M<ref name="TheQuarteringChannel">{{cite web |title=TheQuartering |url=https://www.youtube.com/@TheQuartering |website=YouTube}}</ref>
*UnsleevedMedia: 143K<ref name="UnsleevedMediaChannel">{{cite web |title=UnsleevedMedia |url=https://www.youtube.com/@mtgheadquarters |website=YouTube}}</ref>
*ClawStruck: 108K<ref name="ClawStruckChannel">{{cite web |title=ClawStruck |url=https://www.youtube.com/@ClawStruck |website=YouTube}}</ref>

Notice how each of the list items have a <ref> reference after them? If you remove this, it will remove the citation.

Note: These are the first instances of the citations, meaning if you delete them here (if using the source editor)other places on the page using the same citations will break. I'd recommend first moving the full citation (whatever is inside the ref tags) to wherever else in the article they're used to avoid losing them.

I hope this all makes sense, let me know if it doesn't! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you're misunderstanding the question. Right now the infobox sub list looks something like:

TheQuartering: 1.9M[1] UnsleevedMedia: 143K[2] ClawStruck: 108K[3][4]

Notice how the last item has two citations? I did not insert ref [4] there, the infobox did that. I am asking how to remove ref [4]. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Ahh I see, my apologies for misinterpreting your question.

This is a quirk imposed by the {{Infobox YouTube personality}}. Once you add the channel handle in the infobox field, it automatically generates that citation to a YouTube stats website. I've had a look at the page of that template and unfortunately I can't see any way of getting around this. You could ask on the infobox's talk page here, or wait for another editor to respond to you here at the Teahouse. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Based5290, if you look at the template example with the YouTuber Ludwig, it seems that you can avoid the automatically-generated citation by omitting the channel_handle and providing manually-formatted channels.

So instead of

{{Infobox YouTube personality
|channel_handle=example
|channel_name=example
|channel_handle2=example
|...

try

{{Infobox YouTube personality
|channels = {{flatlist|
* [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrPseYLGpNygVi34QpGNqpA Ludwig]
* [https://www.youtube.com/@YoutubeHandle Example]
* [https://www.youtube.com/@ThirdChannel Other Example]
}}
|...

to render the inline list

As @SnowyRiver28 mentioned, you can also head to the template's talk page or to WikiProject YouTube. There you could request for someone who's worked on the template to add a more official way to stop the automatic citation, such as a new parameter called |nocite=y.

Blepbob (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Advice on improving draft after cleanup

Hi all,

I’ve been working on cleaning up a draft article about Empower Work, a U.S.-based nonprofit. There had been concerns about promotional tone, so I trimmed it back significantly and tried to bring it closer to a neutral stub with citations.

Here’s the draft: Empower Work

Could you take a look and let me know:

Are there still parts that feel promotional?
Does it look closer to meeting Wikipedia’s notability and neutrality standards?
Any other suggestions to reduce the risk of deletion?

Thanks in advance! Sfoakbay (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I'm no expert. Do you have any personal connections to the organization? (I.e., you work for Empower Work, you were helped by them, or you were paid by them to write the article.) Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

My article is always getting declined

Draft:Akash Premkumar - Wikipedia Balaharimurthy (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Balaharimurthy the reviewers who declined the draft left comments for how to improve the draft. Are there any specific questions you have about those? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I've already answered this at the AFCHD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Formatting issue

I am attempting to fix a formatting issue over on the talk page for Talk:Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk. Could anyone see how to fix this. Just check the history for my edits there. I bungled it up by mistake, but I am leaving the attempt because it should just be an easy formatting fix for anyone more familiar with the edit source mode. I just use visual editor 99% of the time except when I absolutely am not able to (such as talk pages, which is super annoying). Iljhgtn (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not clear at all what you mean. Please be much more specific. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you look at it? Iljhgtn (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Whatever you did, that page is so active that the problem appears gone. Incidentally, you can use VE on talk pages with a minor change to their URL, which I forget for now but I'm sure someone else will mention. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It is all better now from looking at it. This thread can now be disregarded. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Abbreviation or full name?

I was editing the article 2025 Pacific typhoon season when I noticed it has inconsistent abbreviations or full names usage. For example, at the start it wrote "... the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)...", so I expected only "the JMA" to be written throughout the remainder of the article, but the full name is continued to be used instead. What is the correct way to write? EmperorChesser (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

If you judge that it's not confusing, you may replace some or all of the later full spellings with "the JMA". Any place where people would be confused, leave it in.

The first mention, spelled in full and followed by the abbreviation, is the proper way to do that part. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! EmperorChesser (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

How do I find a reliable source for the cover art of a book?

Hi there, I've been editing the book series The Nevermoor series here and there for a while now, and on that page's 'Development' section there's a source that cites Beatriz Castro as the sole illustrator for the book series. This is partially incorrect - she's the United Kingdom illustrator, but Jim Madsen illustrates the Australian and United States versions. Unfortunately the only place I can find that this is mentioned outside of the back cover of the books is on the author's instagram page (here: https://www.instagram.com/p/C86P4v2SfsC/?hl=en&img_index=1), which I don't want to use because I don't believe it would count as a reputable source. Is it possible to use the books themselves as a source? Or something else? Any advice would be much appreciated, thank you! Cornonthehunt (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cornonthehunt: You could use the books to source this, as it is non-controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh great, thank you! Cornonthehunt (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Citation needed on statement with in-text attribution to predatory publisher

I tried to add a citation here. It was reverted by User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, and I later discovered User:JzG/Predatory/S. Note that scihub is not sci-hub.

When googling "Mwangi and Ouma", I get 516 results. One source that cites Mwangi and Ouma is itself cited by 24, and another is cited by 30. What should I do to the paragraph that has in-text attribution to Mwangi and Ouma (2012)? Should we remove that paragraph even though that source appears reputable because it's cited by others? 173.206.37.177 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but it appears to me like deleting the paragraph might be right. I think it's not worth accepting a sketchy source just so we can fill in a blank spot. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Removed as suggested. 173.206.37.177 (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Cultural impact

Hi! I don't know if this the right place to ask but I am confused on how to write a Cultural impact of a person or group? I want to draft an article of Cultural impact of Bini, a Filipino girl group. Can someone answer me and where should I start? ROY is WAR Talk! 03:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with that section in the Bini article? Are you suggesting a separate article on just their cultural impact? I don't think there are separate "cultural impact articles" even for the most famous performers in the world, though I haven't checked. But consider if Bini is really so much bigger than Elvis, the Beatles, the Grateful Dead, the Rolling Stones, and so on, that they would need a separate cultural impact article. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

If it is too long that they need to create an separated article. But, I am just asking for now. ROY is WAR Talk! 04:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers, that statement is not very WP:CIVIL. I'd recommend striking that. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 06:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Citing Error

Hello Wikipedians,

I am currently editing this article, but there's a error that says:

Cite error: The named reference ":2" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

I read the help page, but it doesn't help. Can somebody fix it?

Also there's a dupe reference, [2], [3], and [27].

Thanks in advance. Versions111 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I think assigning a new name to one of the two different references did the trick. randomdude121 14:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Referring to the same thing twice is fine. If you mean it's clumsy because the entire thing is typed out twice exactly the same, you can give the first one a unique name, and then just use the name instead of having it retyped. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

A suggestion: there's at least some material in the article that is oddly obvious and should be deleted. For example, nobody is ever going to care about a lake's time zone unless it's an unexpected one. Saying it's the same time zone as the surrounding area is the same as saying "I should never have written this subsection". TooManyFingers (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Versions111 Something important is missing from this article - where did its unusual name come from? 219.89.24.171 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Unknown; there isn’t any reliable websites for etymology, also none of the newspaper and books mention about Big Ass Lake, considering Big ass lake is a small, random lake in Nova Scotia,

If i make my own statement, it’ll count as WP:OR Versions111 (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

dont mention Versions111 (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be good, in that case, to say that reliable information on the origin of the name has not been found (or words to that effect). People ARE going to wonder ...

My speculation is that the person who named it wants to avoid taking credit, because they don't want to be discovered by the person who walked in front of them that day. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Side note: There’s still dupe references: [2], [3], and [27].

Please fix, Thanks. Versions111 (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure they're all pointing to exactly the same thing?

If yes, this is pretty easy for you to fix yourself. It's explained at WP:REPEATCITE TooManyFingers (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. 😀 Versions111 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

my article

hi..so i made an article about a family that is a side branch of the de sousa / souca family which is already on https://en.wikipedia-on-ipfs.org/wiki/Sousa_(surname) i came acros sthem during my genealogy studies of colonial families but i cant upload papers from church records etc as a source :(

also, yes i fed ai with my data as i m not a native speaker of englich and needed help...so i wrote it as a draft and asked ai to shape it up and make the grammar and mistakes better or rather undo them

id reallu would like to publish this artikel here ...isnt it enough that the main family already is on wikipedia?

thank you for your help

tina Historyheroine1 (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Historyheroine1 I'm not sure I understand your questions. Wikipedia has had an article on Sousa (surname) since 2010. I suggest you improve that one. You should not use AI to write Wikipedia articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

but it would be too confusing if i put all the info about the de sousa de santiago family into the de sousa article..its the same family but a different branch..and i used ai to help me straighten out my article because i m not a native speaker of the english language Historyheroine1 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

wikipedia-on-ipfswikipedia-on-ipfs is a 2021 copy of Wikipedia, as it was then.

You may be interested in WikiTree ((a wiki, but not part of Wikipedia), which is a free genealogy website. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

thank you for the advice but id rathe rhave the article here where its easily found and where it is connected to the main article about the de sousa family Historyheroine1 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

They're kindly telling you no, Wikipedia is not the right place for this. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

kindly is debatable..kind would be if someone would offer help to someone new here and to someone struggeling with the language...i also dont understand how the article about this family isnt right here yet the article about the main family is ...maybe someone can..kindly..explain that to me Historyheroine1 (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Historyheroine1 I suggest that you carefully read the comments left by the reviewers who declined your Draft:De Sousa de Santiago. The main current issue, even if a chatbot had not been used, is that you have no usable sources from which readers can verify what you have written. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and when you do find relaible sources you need to cite them correctly: see Help:Referencing for beginners. If you are not a native speaker of English, you may find it easier to work in your own-language version of Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

thank you but in my native language there is no main article to that my article would be connected also the de sousa de santiago family is mainly of interest for english speakers. and this is of interets because its about the poc branch of a european noble family Historyheroine1 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Historyheroine1, if the family ("B") you want an article about can be shown to be Notable, it can have an article in (this English) Wikipedia – this is not achieved by it being connected to or dependent upon an existing article about a different (though related) family ("A") – we have a saying here, "Notability is not inherited."

If the family (B) is not notable in itself, it cannot have its own article here regardless of its connection to the one that already does, (A). However, it might qualify for mentions, perhaps as a Section, in the article about (A).

To determine if this family (B) qualifies for an article, carefully read the requirements at WP:42 (WP:Everything you need to know is a similar more detailed essay) and decide if you have at least three WP:Reliable sources that satisfy all of the requirements.

If you think you do, you can give the bibliographical details (with links if available, but offline printed sources are valid) of the three best here (in this discussion thread) and we responders will try to give our opinion of them.

If the sources seem adequate, you can create a Draft of an article via WP:AFC, basing it only upon the content of the sources.

Please note that, regardless of whether you have used AI in your research, no part of the actual draft here on Wikipedia should contain AI-written prose, or AI-supplied sources that you have not personally checked – AI applications frequently invent plausible-looking references to sources that do not exist, and also add real sources that do not support the facts in question. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

thank you for taking the time to reply in this extend to me, i will try to do that. about the ai...i fed everything i knew to the ai and the ai shaped what i told it too...it didnt add anything that i didnt listed up myself before...like i wrote down the whole thing partly in english partly in another language and it just translated what i told it and shaped the grammar etc Historyheroine1 (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Citation without Author Name

I tried to cite this Google Books page But when I tried to insert it in the Balayan page at line 4 (see the last line of the Introduction paragraph, about Bagoong), it added the links and other details but did not add the Author's name. As can be seen on the Google Books page, the author's name is available.

Is this an issue with the Automatic Citation creator? If yes, I think this should be instantly reported and taken care of. Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Kingsacrificer, the Google Books page names the author as "J. Dagoon". But where does Dagoon's name appear in the book? ¶ Assuming for a moment that Dagoon verifiably is the (sole) author, then "manually" correct the tool's guesswork, for:

{{Cite book |url=https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Agriculture_Fishery_Technology_Iii_2000/7-JV7snXSzkC?hl=en | first=J. | last=Dagoon | title=Agriculture & Fishery Technology III | year=2000 |location=Manila |publisher=Rex Bookstore |isbn=978-971-23-2822-0 | via=Google Books}}

Resulting in: Dagoon, J. (2000). Agriculture & Fishery Technology III. Manila: Rex Bookstore. ISBN 978-971-23-2822-0 – via Google Books. Plus the page number(s), of course. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The author's name, Jesse D. Dagoon, Sr., appears both on the front cover and the title page. Deor (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thinks: "Huh?" And checks. And you're absolutely right about the front cover, Deor. So embarrassingly right that I didn't bother to look at the title page: I'm sure that you're right about that too. Very strange. I self-diagnose a brainfart. -- Hoary (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Do I have to resort to Source Editing? Does Visual Editing not provide any recourse?

Moreover, I think the tool that automatically generates the citations must be fixed. This will ensure that manual alteration won't be needed at all. Kingsacrificer (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Kingsacrificer, my idiotic comment above about the identity of the author outweighs the other changes I made to your

{{Cite book |url=https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Agriculture_Fishery_Technology_Iii_2000/7-JV7snXSzkC?hl=en |title=Agriculture & Fishery Technology Iii'2000 Ed. |publisher=Rex Bookstore, Inc. |isbn=978-971-23-2822-0 |language=en}}

but you'll notice that I did make some (if minor). I'm not familiar with this "citation generator", but it seems obvious that its output, though a helpful approximation, requires human attention. Perhaps the citation generator can be improved; perhaps it can't. If it is improved, the improvement will be thanks to the work of unpaid volunteers. If you hope to persuade unpaid volunteers to work on it, then Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might be a more suitable place for your attempt. I cannot comment on the visual editor. -- Hoary (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Hoary. I will take the discussion there! Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

DYK gets temporarily obsessed with topics

(Tongue in cheek) I think it's time to combine various obsessions of the DYK crew. Such as "Did you know there is an abortion law that applies only to people who are standing on statistically-unlikely prefectural borders in Japan?" TooManyFingers (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

DYK works with what people write and nominate. Many of those people only write on one topic and are very regular nominators. There is the option to do a multi article nomination, but your hook has to be true, verifiable, verified and in the article(s). Joke DYKs are more likely to show up on 1 April. So find your strange fact, even if in someone else's new/expanded articles and you too can nominate for WP:DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it should obviously be about statistically-unlikely prefectural borders in Papua New Guinea. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Can we go back to the golden days of "Did you know that Taylor Swift wrote a song about how radio station QPZP and the neighboring train station were both designed by Alexander McQueen?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Images on Wikipedia?

Hey is anybody able to help me find the option on mobile chrome browser where i can add images to articles without using coding or pc? The app keeps crashing on my phone recently

I found this free to use image online and i uploaded to commons here - File:B Major in Studio.jpg

Which i would like to add to the Wikipedia article of the subject i created, but i seem to be struggling with it. If you can do it for me that would be great but aldo an explaination as it would go a long way for future contributions. I tried doing desktop mode on my celluar device but it is still in mobile mode?? I give up i need someone with experience to explain to me what is the simplest way?

my PC died and i'm waiting till month end to fix it

I like contributing im just a bit slow with this technology and things so any help would be grateful.. My mentor doesn't seem to reply to talk page messengers.. LordOfTheReverts (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Image added to B Major (producer); and to d:Q110281105—though we already had a higher-resolution version, at File:BMajor.jpg.

You can change your mentor if you wish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, i'm still trying to access the desktop mode on mobile but will eventually get it im hopeful.

And yes thank you i would like to change mentors if that is ok?

Or if i have a question i could just post it here maybe? The reply rate here is much faster, as there are many user active here i see. LordOfTheReverts (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is fine to post here. That's what the Teahouse is for and using your mentor is entirely optional. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If the desktop view isn't showing for you after you have asked the browser on your mobile device to show the desktop version, check you don't have m.wikipedia at the start of the page's URL, and if you do delete m. and fetch the page again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

That totally worked!! Thank you so much, when i switch to desktop mode it still had the m.wikipedia but when i removed the m. And reload page it shows desktop mode. Great stuff! Thank you @Pigsonthewing LordOfTheReverts (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@LordOfTheReverts Your upload has been marked on Commons for speedy deletion, as it is a duplicate of the earlier file. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw yes i uploaded both images, i screenshoted the image and then realized i can download images by holding on them with my finger. Some websites dont us allow to download images like that. Great shortcut for anybody trying to download free to use images for free instead of online downloaders which i been using a lot lately LordOfTheReverts (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

First Article

My first article may be deleted I was wondering if some people can edit and support it to prove its notable, article name The Spawn

Its Lido (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not canvass by asking other editors to take a position in an ongoing consensus-building discussion. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

We can't prove it's notable for you, you need to do that yourself. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Turkish promo image

How would I go about using this image, which is hosted on Turkish Wikipedia, and is a promotional image (and thus not entirely free-use), on an English Wikipedia page? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot As the person depicted is deceased, en:Wikipedia also allows the image to be used under our WP:NONFREE criteria, provided you follow all the necessary steps as you upload the file here. That includes acknowledging its original source URL, which is linked on the file's page in Turkish. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Requesting a new article

Hi - There are some reference to the BBC's Caribbean Service on wikipedia but no page describing it (for instance on Sir Trevor MacDonald's page). I was the launch Editor of the new Caribbean Service in 1988 and have many independent links and sources about it but, since I was closely connected to the Service, I feel I should not write the article. What is the best way of encouraging such an article to be written? Could you advise about this? JerryTimmins (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, JerryTimmins, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being open about your connection.

While there is in principle a place to request articles - Requested articles - in practice the chances of any particular request being taken up are low, and you'd do better writing it yourself.

Having said that, writing an article is a challenging task for new editors even (or perhaps especially) for those with experience of other kinds of writing. 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.

Your potential conflict of interest does not preclude you from writing a draft and submitting it for review, using the articles for creation process.

Be aware that, once you have found the multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the service, you will need to effectively forget everything you know about it, and write a summary of what those sources say - even if you think they are missing something important, possibly even if you think they are wrong: Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth.

Another approach might be to ask for collaborators on the talk page of WP:WikiProject BBC. --ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - that's most helpful JerryTimmins (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Removing a maintenance template

Should I remove the maintenance template in Pandukabhaya article ? TeenX808 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think i would just yet, as there are still a few unreferenced paragraphs, but it loos like you're doing some great work on the article! Keep it up! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot: can you point them out, all most all of them go by the refs.Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, ofc! The first and second paragraphs in the "Early Life" section are unreferenced, as is the first paragraph in "Battles with his uncles," and points 1,2,4,and 6 in the "services section. Speaking of point six, I would recommend you specify what the hospital was called, or something along those lines. After that, it seems good, but don't be afraid to look for more possible places you can put one. Great work, @TeenX808!

Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot: all of them go by the final refs, the reason I only included on the final lines of a section refs due to over referencing. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@TeenX808 Ah, okay. However, the correct way to do this is to put each reference tag directly following the main fact that the reference is backing up. Do it like:

Blah blah blah.^[1] Yada yada yada.^[2]

Instead of doing it like

Blah Blah Blah. Yada Yada Yada.^[1]^[2]

Hope this helps!

Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC) Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot: thanks TeenX808 (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Reference that backs up "Blah Blah Blah"
^ ^a ^b Reference that backs up "Yada yada yada"

help me

CLOSED

Responded via email. Cabayi (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

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

my article goes to speedy deletion even i didnt write any promotional text Drpcontactemail (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

In the first instance, you need to take that up with the admin who deleted the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Deleting wikidata account (keeping en-wiki)

Hi, is it possible to delete my profile from WikiData while keeping it on English Wikipedia? I have never really used WD and frankly I'm not sure what it is.

d:User:Hogshine

Cheers, Hogshine (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not possible. Ruslik_Zero 15:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hogshine See WP:Unified login and its linked pages for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ruslik0 @Michael D. Turnbull Thanks for the answer. Hogshine (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

What do u think of this?

Hi, I need to get this page published. I was paid to make it and I told the guy I would. But Idk what the hell I am doing. He has been on the news several times, has articles about him, etc. I used chatgpt to write the code bc I am lazy, but I've been over it a handful of times and I think its good. I might need someone to publish it on my behalf legally. Help me. This is the code: (Redacted) BonkoSupreme (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@BonkoSupreme: DISCLOSE. Until you do so, you are at risk of being blocked. (Also, why would you accept payment for a service you have no idea what to do?) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

i did disclose in the code at the bottom. is there a disclosure format? and tbh im just good with the computer i guess I got complacent thinking if anyone could do it i could. I needed rent paid and this client of mine has me do odd computer jobs. usually video editing. he deserves a wiki though. BonkoSupreme (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@BonkoSupreme: There is a disclosure format, and I see that there is a disclosure on your userpage (which is where it should be). Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

https://www.cbc.ca/2017/whatsyourstory/in-canada-you-will-get-support-from-other-people-who-have-followed-their-dreams-as-well-1.4221988 doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview.
We can't use https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/east-coast-bakery/Location?oid=5391344 (too sparse). Perfunctory restaurant profile.
https://www.bakersjournal.com/the-bagel-6998/ is borderline, leaning towards acceptable.
We can't use https://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=415850 (too sparse). Basically a list of names with no details.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/quinpool-road-business-association-urged-110000746.html?guccounter=1 is usable, but the information is provides is fairly minimal.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7391350/halifax-regional-municipality-2020-election/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Just a list of names.

I'm sceptical that this article would go live with the sources provided. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I have aggregated all the relevent sources to my subject. there are 21 of them. I expect some are not academic sources but I certainly think this amount of information should deserve a wiki page. can u help me figure which are acceptable so that I can build a new script around them?

References Section Links

http://www.jewishindependent.ca/halifax-owns-bagel/

http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/east-coast-bakerys-the-toast-of-the-town/

https://www.localxpress.ca/local-news/baker-puts-east-coast-twist-on-montreal-bagels-298639

https://www.bakersjournal.com/the-bagel-6998/

https://discoverhalifaxns.com/listings/eastcoast-bakery/

https://canada.chamberofcommerce.com/business-directory/nova-scotia/halifax/wholesale-bakery/40573-east-coast-bakery

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1015823/journee-nationale-du-bagel-un-boulanger-dhalifax-espere-percer-dans-les-maritimes

http://fusionhalifax.ca/events/business-over-beers-with-east-coast-bakerys-gerry-lonergan/

https://professionelle.ca/5843760431913458679/

https://ca.linkedin.com/company/eastcoastbakery

https://globalnews.ca/video/3488161/eastcoast-bakery/

https://www.cbc.ca/2017/whatsyourstory/in-canada-you-will-get-support-from-other-people-who-have-followed-their-dreams-as-well-1.4221988

UCW Pro Wrestling Infobox

https://www.ucwprowrestling.ca

Filmography

https://vimeo.com/1041177242

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPM2w2jx5RE&feature=youtu.be

Additional Media Appearances

https://vimeo.com/1041177242?share=copy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DyzUibwld0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=shared&v=c8wx3HlI5u4

https://www.cbc.ca/2017/whatsyourstory/in-canada-you-will-get-support-from-other-people-who-have-followed-their-dreams-as-well-1.4221988 (duplicate of #12)

External Links Section

https://eastcoastbakery.ca

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYVd-BSBTDg&feature=youtu.be

https://theajc.ns.ca/history/the-jewish-community-of-halifax

I really appreciate your help, and the fact that you do this all for free. BonkoSupreme (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

"Courtesy link" (the "this" of which we may think): Here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @BonkoSupreme, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I don't wish to appear hostile, but we keep seeing this: people who take money to do a job they do not (yet) have the skills to do, and expect us unpaid volunteers to help them earn their money.

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.

I would say that this is more important for paid editors than for others. ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Duration Required to Review a New Article

How much is the duration required to review a new article on Wikipedia? 188.123.181.31 (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It varies a lot. Some editors are autopatrolled, so it happens as soon as they create an article. In other cases, the New pages patrol need to be involved and as you can see from that link they are often heavily backlogged. Articles not reviewed after 90 days automatically get marked as being OK for search engines to index. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If you use the AfC process (Articles for Creation), after you submit the article, it should get reviewed by someone (this is different to new pages patrol). But again the process is backlogged and run by volunteers who will do the articles that they feel most qualified to process. There is no fixed time or fixed queue system. If an article that you've written lingers too long unreviewed in AfC you are permitted to bypass the system altogether and move the article to main space yourself. It will then potentially get reviewed by new pages patrol. Alternatively if another editor thinks it's not ready for main space they may nominate it for deletion. This isn't necessarily a disaster, it just means it gets discussed at Articles for Deletion (AfD), a process that usually takes a week or two. Elemimele (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Elemimele My understanding is that if the AfC reviewer is not themselves autopatrolled then articles they accept still have to get a review by the NPP before they may be indexed by search engines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you, I forgot that bit. Elemimele (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Rejected citations

Any advice on rejected citations and tone that isn't objective enough?

Courtesy link: Draft:Insurance Insider

hi there, I've had multiple submissions for my business page rejected on ground of the citations lacking depth and it sounding like an advertisement. I feel that I can't do much more on the latter - it simply is written in the most factual, objective way possible as far as I can see. For the former, we operate in a niche market and the value we offer is giving information companies can use in a highly competitive market - so people don't exactly want to mention us at length elsewhere. I don't want the wiki to promote - I just want it to validate we exist and what we do so that as we're expanding into new markets that info is available for people to check that we're a genuine company/service. After three failed draft attempts - where can I turn next? CorrenaCunningham (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

First, thank you for disclosing your paid status, many do not do this(either deliberately or otherwise).

You have a fundamental, if common, misunderstanding as to what it is we do here. You have told us what you want the world to know about your company. That is the wrong approach. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about itself, its offerings and activities, and what it views as its own history. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with siignificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, only in what others wholly unconnected with the company choose to say about it in a significant way- not just its activities or offerings, but coverage that goes in depth as to what makes the subject important/significant/influential as the source sees it, not as the company itself might see it(as most companies see what they do as important).

In order for you to succeed at what you are doing(which does not happen often for those in your position) you need to set aside everything you know about your company and all materials it puts out, all brief mentions and reporting of routine business activities, and limit yourself to summarizing what independent sources say. People in your position have great difficulty with that; are you the rare person who can do it? Possibly, but the odds are against it. Please see WP:BOSS and have others at your company read it, too.

If you still want to attempt it, you need to essentially blank the draft and start fresh- if you have at least three independent sources with significant coverage. If you have three such sources, you can tell what they are and we can tell you if this is worth attempting. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CorrenaCunningham. Related to 331dot's response, rather than writing, as you have, that "Insurance Insider's industry awards, such as the Insurance Insider US Honors, receive coverage in trade publications", a better approach would be to use those trade publications as sources, summarise what they say about Insurance Insider, and cite them. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I've revised the page. It did read like a company press release. You might want to check the products and services are correctly described. I'll have a go at finding some more sources, then you might try resubmitting. Also, can you add your COI on the article talk page. MmeMaigret (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Review my advice on my talk page re: primary sources

Hello TH volunteers, would someone mind giving a second opinion regarding the {{primary sources}} tag I've placed at the top of Norman Frederick Astbury. I'm discussing with the author of the AFC draft who does have a COI with the subject. They're looking for guidance on my talk page, you can find the current thread here: Courtesy link: User talk:Bobby Cohn § Norman Frederick Astbury.

I'll also note previous advice I've given to the editor in my talk page archives at User talk:Bobby Cohn/Archive 9 § Norman Frederick Astbury (NFA): This Article relies excessively on Primary Sources. I appreciate the extra set of eyes! Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it relies too heavily on primary sources (6 out of 22) but I'm not sure I've identified all.

Also suggest look at the May Kidson page to see one way to deal with them. MmeMaigret (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If you need a third opinion in a discussion, we have a resource for that: Wikipedia:Third opinion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Locating my sandbox

Hello, I'm logged in as Jim Wilson Crosby. But I can't locate the sandbox or drafts I worked on earlier. Could someone please help me find any pages or dits connected to my account.

Jim Wilson Crosby (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jim Wilson Crosby As the messages on your talk page say, it appears that your only past contributions were deleted under what is called speedy deletion. Under these circumstances, there will be no trace of these edits in your contributions. You may be able to have the pages restored to your userspace by asking the admin who deleted them, depending on the content (which I can't see). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Howdy, Jim! If you're on a computer, there should be a little silhouette of a person in the top right corner of the screen; Click the arrow next to it, and "Sandbox" should be an option. Click on it, and you should end up in your Sandbox. As for the drafts, I'm not entirely sure. Hope this helps! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that his userpage was deleted for being an attempt at an autobiography. DS (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If you would like to have your previous work undeleted and moved to your sandbox page, so you can work on it further, ask at WP:REFUND. Note that if it is an autobiography, it can only be published through the process outlined at WP:AFC, and then only after meeting the stringent requirements summarised at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

How to find sources?

Where do yall look for sources? Newspapers.com is paid.

Are google and other search engines the only options? 114.79.185.4 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Mostly, yes, those are the places. If you have access to a library, you may be able to consult offline sources, eg books, and newspapers archives on microfilm.

If you create an account, and make least 500 edits in Wikipedia over a period of six months, you will then have access to The Wikipedia Library, which includes various paid resources. --ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I find Google Books to be a nice location for newspapers and periodicals from the 1920s. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

https://archive.org/ can be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, Chronicling America. DS (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

On Copyright

So if I upload an image(s) using the Wikipedia:File upload wizard using the button "Upload a non-free file" option on Wikipedia. It would be acceptable and wouldn't violate Wikipedia's rules on copyright. Is this correct? Rager7 (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It depends. If you go to the upload wizard, you'll see that there's a lot of hoops that one must jump through in order to get the file approved, so you can't upload just any old file you want to. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The hoops are most likely there to prevent abuse and misuse of copyright. Rager7 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Rager7 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, provided you can justify using a non-free image. In order to load an image as non-free you will be required to provide a justification, which shows that your use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. Somebody will probably see your upload, and if you have not in fact provided a proper justification, it will get deleted. --ColinFine (talk)

@Rager7: Please fix your signature, to make the colours accessible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, is it more readable now? Rager7 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Much; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Ponzo illusion red links

I was editing Ponzo illusion; there are two red links in the article (perspective hypothesis and framing-effects hypothesis) and I don't know how to resolve them. Could you please suggest a workaround? Thanks.-- Carnby (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The links mean there's no existing page. The options are (i) delete the links, (ii) ignore the links, (iii) create the respective pages. Personally, I would lean towards deleting the links. (Also there's no need for the apostrophes in addition to links - so if you keep the links, suggest delete the apostrophes; if you delete the links, keep the apostrophes.) Hope that helps. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I tend to keep redlinks to indicate possible ways of expanding Wikipedia and to preëmptively deorphan an article—that is, make sure other articles link to it upon its creation. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I have found other two red links for related concepts in Context effect (attractiveness effect and similarity effect). Perhaps some Wikidata items for the moment?-- Carnby (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The question is whether the subject ("attractiveness effect" etc.) is likely ever to be an article. If, in your opinion, there are sources and there's a reasonable likelihood an article will one day be written, leave the red wiki-link. If it's a small sideline, with little sourcing, and the chance of anyone writing a stand-alone article is small, I'd de-link it. Elemimele (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Having red links is not a bad thing, and it not an error or mistake. If you don't like it, you can remove it. GGOTCC 18:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Biography

I would like to know the detailed steps for editing each section of a biography page on Wikipedia P Vijaya Lakshmi1 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@P Vijaya Lakshmi1 Welcome to Teahouse! I've sent you some helpful tutorials on your Talkpage check it out, hope that gonna help. Happy editing! Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 12:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't mind me, just gonna 'borrow' that template for others! GGOTCC 18:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Getting Page Approved

I'm working on an article and I am having trouble getting it approved. I read the articles they provide and I believe I am following the guidelines, but I am being told they are not convinced by my article.

I am writing factually, I have lots of sources, and the company is getting more coverage.

Draft:Sparkrock - Wikipedia OpenKey2195 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@OpenKey2195 In my opinion, the main problem is that the sources you have used are not independent of the company. Please read our advice about the type of sources that are required and see if you can identify three that meet these criteria. If you can, base your draft solely on these. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@OpenKey2195 As an AfC approver, another issue is that many of the sentences are uncited. While everything in a paragraph can be supported by one citation at the end, the article consists of many uncited stand-alone sentences. Adding wikilinks would also be helpful. GGOTCC 18:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@OpenKey2195 I would go as far as to recommend that you combine many of your standalone sentences into larger paragraphs. In addition, some of your subsections could probably be combined. As is, I'll admit that it does look like an advertisement. But most of the content within looks pretty good and appears to be in a Neutral point of view. And, as @Michael D. Turnbull and @GGOTCC, be sure to work on your sources. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

How to deal with personal attacks?

I'd like some advice on how acceptable personal attacks are on Wikipedia. I was led to understand that they're not okay but when I edited what seemed to me to be an incorrect diagram on French battleship Liberté I was reverted by Parsecboy with the comment "go to the talk page, dingdong - you're looking at it wrong". Full disclosure, I barely consider it a personal attack, it's just schoolyard bullying tier taunts but I was my irritated by the spirit of the thing when I was hoping if am indeed wrong someone would provide any counter-argument or evidence without resorting to that sort of immaturity. It's not at all productive for what is apparently a collaborative environment.

Either way, I went to the talkpage (Talk:French_battleship_Liberté#Another_error?) and put further my argument alongside a kind request of 'hey can you not use personal attacks?'. In response Parsecboy gave several points of Parsecboy:

A actually good argument, I still disagree with it on other metrics but hey, it's something
Random accusations that the youtuber who made me check the wikipedia page because of the arguments he made was a plagiarist. Honestly, while I like listening to the youtuber, I have nothing in the race if he turns out to be or not (bar disappointment because he's otherwise good), but Parsecboy has provided no evidence of the accusation and regardless I don't see how it is at all relevant (even if someone's a plagiarist or done something wrong, they can still be right on basic logic)
An argument about my maths. Like the first point, I almost want to engage with this because I don't think it adds up but if I'm not going to be treated in good faith I've not interested
Justifying the personal attacks by accusing me of "disrupting the article for months" which confused me because this is the first time I've edited it. Looking at the history I found that there have been several IPs previously arguing the same thing, one is also from Canberra so yes, I could kind of see why Parsecboy would lump me with them (but on the other hand there are half a million people in this city and I have a dynamic IP) but the other is from Kansas City in the USA so this comes off as just "you're an IP and therefore a vandal responsible for all other IPs". Also apparently childish personal attacks are okay to use because "I should just get out more".

In summary, while I'm not convinced I'm wrong I'm honestly not interested in trying to help Wikipedia here if I'm just going to be treated to childish insults and accusations of disrupting articles which seem to be purely on the basis of being an IP. I decided I'd ask here after googling what to do when an editor seems to be breaking Wikipedia's guidelines and you are a new user, given from this experience my understanding is "Wikipedia guidelines only apply to interactions with registered users, if it's an IP address then feel free to blame them for what other IPs have done and childishly insult them", especially since Parsecboy is an admin apparently.

Out of courtesy, pinging @Parsecboy: so he doesn't accuse me of going behind is back or anything (yes, maybe I shouldn't assume this, but my sole interaction so far with a wikipedia user has been "use a childish insult and when I actually engage in discussion accuse me of having vandalised the article for months" so at this point I'm half expecting someone will find an excuse for something else) --2001:8003:1C4D:BA00:32DD:7BEB:BE7B:F68 (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, if I was you, I would just do my best to brush it off and move on to a different article, Matthew 10:14-style. But, if you choose to continue editing the same article, I would continue to be as civil as possible, and if Parsec keeps it up, report it to another admin or something; if he leaves you alone, problem solves. Granted, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but I hope this helps. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Since I was pinged - all I'll say is that the odds that two people from the same mid-sized city came to the same, obscure article to argue the same, obscure point are approximately 0. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw the youtube video, went to the article going "I wonder if wikipedia has solved this", saw it hadn't, then checked the history thinking "hey, maybe someone proved Drach wrong", in hindsight I probably should have just kept my head down. Though I am still wondering why you're ignoring the point I made that the first guy to edit the article and remove the picture is in the USA, as far as I know that's not part of the "same mid-sized city". --2001:8003:1C4D:BA00:32DD:7BEB:BE7B:F68 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

That dingdong comment was uncivil and unnecessary. If @Parsecboy keeps it up, you can create an incident on the noticeboard. My advice is the same as @Commandant Quacks-a-lot's, however. MmeMaigret (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the Teahouse is the venue for allegations of personal attacks, but regardless, I'm going to ask – where is the alleged attack? Coz if it's the "dingdong" bit, then I really don't think there's a case to answer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, if that's how Wikipedia works then I understand. I apologise for assuming that the "no personal attacks" rule covers childish insults that really don't help civil discussion on the article. --2001:8003:1C4D:BA00:32DD:7BEB:BE7B:F68 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It's an understandable response, and you are valid to take it as a personal attack. GGOTCC 18:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Wrong Name on a Reference

I've created a new wiki entry, and the 1st reference cited at the bottom of the page is from the US Congress Bio Directory. It should show "John Sloss Hobart" with respect to his congressional bio link, but it shows instead "Oak Leaf" next to the link. I can't seem to fix this. Here is the page:

Draft:Oak Leaf

This is the first reference [1] at the bottom of the page under the heading "References". Any help would be appreciated. Hixguy1 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The reference is using {{Congbio}} which uses article name as default name unless a |name= is provided. Currently it is {{CongBio|H000661|inline=yes}}, which produces:
United States Congress. "Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1265 (id: H000661)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress..
(see Teahouse, because here it's the pagename) If you use {{CongBio|H000661|inline=yes|name=John Sloss Hobart}}, it will produce:
United States Congress. "John Sloss Hobart (id: H000661)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 19:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the explanation. Hixguy1 (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

MOS:Overlink

Does linking "Atlantic Ocean" or "United States" violate MOS:Overlink in the lead section for South Carolina? WhatADrag07 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Asking this because in MOS:OVERLINK it states that countries and geographic features should generally not be linked. WhatADrag07 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, WhatADrag07. Yes, that is overlinking. Almost every literate English language speaker will have general familiarity with the Atlantic Ocean and the United States. Additionally, it is unlikely that a reader interested in South Carolina will suddenly want to take a look at those articles. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

But taking a look this page [4] you can see for instance, the Atlantic Ocean is being linked in 22,335 articles. So am I missing something? In what circumstances can it be linked? WhatADrag07 (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

WhatADrag07, it is appropriate to link to Atlantic Ocean in contexts where it is clearly useful for readers. That would be articles about oceanography and specific features of the Atlantic itself. There are many hundreds or perhaps thousands of articles in Category:Atlantic Ocean and its various subcategories. And then there are links in portals, content lists and other navigation aids, and for disambiguation pages. So there are many valid reasons to link such a gigantic topic. Cullen328 (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand now, thank you! WhatADrag07 (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Links are usually used for things that many readers are likely to look for more information about. They don't normally look for more information about things they consider obvious.

It's always important that they can read the article properly without following any of your links, too; for anything where the average person is unlikely to even know what it is, you have to give a basic explanation right there in your article, even though you linked it - not force them to click just to understand what you're talking about. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

File upload difficulty

Can someone help me proceed with a file upload (Eli Jaxon-Bear)? I can't get it published after the upload. Sapotilex (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

You would need to tell us more about which file you are trying to upload, and what happens when you try to upload it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

You have successfully uploaded File:Eli Jaxon-Bear.pdf, Sapotilex. Do you expect that volunteers will transform this into a draft (adding markup where appropriate), and thence into an article? That's most unlikely to happen. Instead, somebody believing that a given subject merits an article checks that the subject is notable as defined by and for Wikipedia and if so then performs these chores themself, posts the result as a draft, and submits the draft as a candidate for promotion to full article status. -- Hoary (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I have contested the nomination for "speedy deletion" and request some time granted so a volunteer can complete the necessary chores. The article contains ample references. Sapotilex (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Sapotilex, PDF files are normally created from other files. If this is created from a UTF8 text file, then you can copy this text file into your "sandbox" and work on it there. If it's instead created from a file in some other format (e.g. ODT), then you can export that to a UTF8 text file and again copy this into your "sandbox" and work on it there. The volunteer you speak of will almost certainly be you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks--the .pdf is from a Word file. I'm working with a Mac. Will TIFF be acceptable? Sapotilex (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

No. How do you expect any editor to work with the text in an image? Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. I'm sure that MS Word can export from DOCX (or DOC, or ODT) to plain text. So get it to do that. Copy the result and paste it into either your sandbox or Draft:Eli Jaxon-Bear. And then start the conversion to Mediawiki markup. But I advise you to read and digest H:YFA before you start. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I've submitted a new draft as plain text and it's in my sandbox, but now it says no such file exists. Sapotilex (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sapotilex Your work is at Draft:Eli Jaxon-Bear and is not yet submitted for review. You can look at the WP:AFCREVIEW to see how to do that but first you will need to convert the whole draft to use wikimarkup, with the references done correctly: see Help:Referencing for beginners. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull writes that "you will need to convert the whole draft", Sapotilex. I disagree. Much of the draft doesn't merit such conversion. As one example among many, here are what I imagine are intended as a pair: In 1978, Kalu Rinpoche appointed Jaxon-Bear president of Kagyu Minjur Choling, a Kagyu Tibetan Buddhist dharma center in Marin County, California.[12] and [12] Jaxon-Bear, Eli. An Outlaw Makes It Home: The Awakening of a Spiritual Revolutionary. New Morning Books, 2018, pp. 222-225. So this boils down to "EJB was so appointed, and we know this for a fact because he says so". (Moreover, he appears to be not only the writer but also the publisher of the book.) Articles can't be based on the say-so of their subjects. Which reliable source, independent of EJB, says that EJB was so appointed? Cite that. If you can't find such a source, don't mention the appointment. -- Hoary (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope the draft can at least stay in place without deletion while I rework it. Is that doable? I need more time. Sapotilex (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sapotilex, drafts may be deleted if they haven't been touched in six months. In the meantime, please read Referencing for beginners. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Drafts can be summarily deleted for any of a number of reasons (e.g. copyright violation). But inadequate referencing isn't one of these. So you are free to work on the draft. However, before you invest more time in it, I suggest that you read WP:PERSON and consider whether the resulting draft will demonstrate that EJB is "notable" (as the word is defined here). If it won't, then promotion to article status will be impossible. -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you...will do. Sapotilex (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Problems with title of New Wiki Entry

I just uploaded a new page, and it's been years since I edited/ created. Never used the sandbox before, and it seems the title at the top of the page is listing my "username/ sandbox." Can anyone help me to fix this issue? Thanks, Hixguy1

User:Hixguy1/sandbox. Hixguy1 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hixguy1 done (Draft:Oak Leaf). Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 07:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Help on Article

Hello all, I have written an article about a singer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Deepak_Bajracharya) from Nepal. But my submission was declined thrice with the comment "the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article". I need help to locate the actual issue in the article. Nirjal stha (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

When formal tone is the issue, then the problem is the entire article. Formal tone means use a completely different style of language. To write like a textbook, not like a magazine.

Is that helpful, or did I only make it worse? TooManyFingers (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I have tried my best to write in a formal tone and maintain a neutral point of view, but the reviewer’s comments seem unchanged from the second review. Therefore, I need external help with specific comments in the article, because the comment ‘the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article’ on the fourth review seems too vague to guide the necessary improvements. Nirjal stha (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that some of your references are poor. For example, under "Social work", you give a reference to the singer's own website advertising himself. That is no good - probably the entire "Social work" section needs to be deleted unless you find reliable references.

I don't want to presume too much, but from that bad reference I get the impression that you might be trying to get an article pushed through without really understanding what's required. Or you understand what's required but believe it shouldn't apply in your case.

It does apply, 100%. You need to understand all the details in all the requirements that people have already shown you. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the detail review and pointed out the issue, which the reviewers want to highlight. This really helpful because after reading the article more than couple of times, content seems family in every aspect and it is very hard to identify the area where we need to improve. Nirjal stha (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

In such cases, often someone becomes irritated because they want to say "I told you before, why didn't you listen?" - but they might feel like it's rude to say that. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Please note that I stopped reading after I found one problem. There might be other problems that I ignored after finding one obvious one. It's your job to see if there are more. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out. Sure, i will check the whole article again from a fresh perspective. Nirjal stha (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Need help. Nirjal stha (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Nirjal stha, "The Rhythm Band" section is unreferenced and therefore fails Verifiability, which is a core content policy. The sentence In 2011, he was associated with the Cancer Relief Society in the United States of America to promote Nepal Tourism is also unreferenced and has the same problem. I raised money for years for the American Cancer Society and have never heard of the "Cancer Relief Society" in the United States. I am not saying that such an organization does not exist but I doubt that it is important enough to mention in an encyclopedia's biography of a living person, especially without a reference to a reliable, independent source. Without a reference, it comes off as promotional and the word "promote" is in the sentence. I could go on, but it is your obligation to ensure that your draft meets all the requirements for a biography of a living person. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the issue. I will add verifiable reference for that part. Nirjal stha (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

what is geoengineering

pls help 2604:3D08:4277:5800:E54E:3111:C8D0:8093 (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Read our article on geoengineering. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

thx 2604:3D08:4277:5800:E54E:3111:C8D0:8093 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Visual editor - citations - ref name

As you know, visual editor inserts sources with the names ":0", ":1", ":2", ":3" etc.
My question is what's the page for asking for a change to how visual editor processes citations.
Note: I'm not asking for suggestions about what to do instead (eg jumping into source editor to fix).
I only want to know where to suggest a change (in this case, that ref name be added to the available fields if poss)
Thanks MmeMaigret (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret The main portal for the visual editor is at WP:VE. There's a link in the first section to where you can give feedback, which I assume includes asking for changes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret, try https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist/Wishes/Improve_VE_references%27_automatic_names_and_reuse and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T52568 Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Mike Turnbull, @Andy Mabbett, @RJJ. MmeMaigret (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

List of State Protected Monuments in Karnataka

This page was created based on the list available in 2013 which listed a District wise a total of 747 Monuments. Subsequently, some Districts have been redefined, and new Districts created.

The current District wise updated list has 844 Monuments, an additional 97 Monuments have been brought under State Protection. A Unique number was assigned to each monument and images have been uploaded identified by that number. So these additional monuments would have to be added at the end with continuing numbers and not in between with monuments of the same district.

So Monuments of a District would not be in one sequence. Any opinion on this matter would be appreciated. Satish Madhiwalla (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Satish Madhiwalla - Welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia! Is there a reason the numbers couldn't be shifted along with the numbers assigned to the image? It would take some careful work, but it might be worth the effort to maintain the page properly and keep everything in order. Feel free to reach out to me with any follow-up questions. Mariamnei (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

With the old list of 747 Monuments and some of them with Many Images on Commons it would be a Herculean task; which is beyond me.

Is it OK to break the table at the end of the list of monuments of a district, and add a note with a link to the new additional monument's location, without changing the assigned numbers? Satish Madhiwalla (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @ Andy Mabbett I will do it so for now. Satish Madhiwalla (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Moving a disambiguation page

To me, it seems undeniable that Clix (gamer) is the primary topic for Clix. I would like to make the following moves:

Clix → Clix (disambiguation)

Clix (gamer) → Clix

Please let me know if this is adequate. If yes, I'd like to know if there's anything to watch out for when making these moves. Rockfighterz M (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rockfighterz M the first step would be to ask this question on the talk pages for those two articles, where they are more likely to be seen by interested editors. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some users will never have heard of the the gamer, and be familiar with the Unix version, or whatever. You need to discuss this before making a move. I suggest you start a discussion at Talk:Clix, and post invitations to participate on the talk pages of the other "Clix" articles. Maproom (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSPM lays out the process. DMacks (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I see what you're saying @ClaudineChionh, but it seems like Google searches for "Clix" virtually exclusively give results for the gamer. Rockfighterz M (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rockfighterz M that's a case you can make on the appropriate talk page, then. (At the Teahouse we aim to give general advice about editing Wikipedia, but article talk pages are where you will find others with interest in specific topics.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thank you guys for the input! Rockfighterz M (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Standardize image size in infobox

Hi, I'm a new editor and I had a question on how I could standard the size of the blade images for the draft I'm working on. I have two blade SVG's I made that are in the infobox, and the men's blade SVG is noticeably smaller than the woman's blade even though I used the same Wikipedia commons SVG as a base for both.

Is there a way to standardize the size for the two images or at least make one match the other? Here is the draft that I'm talking about. Thanks, Pixzzl. Pixzzl (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Would it work to merge the two SVGs into one, so that they're both there but as top and bottom of one picture? TooManyFingers (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I could try to do that, but creating them with Inkscape was hard enough on it's own and I honestly don't know how to merge them. Is there no way to just set the size for them? Pixzzl (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pixzzl According to the documentation at {{Infobox rowing club}}, the image parameter is supposed to be used for a picture of the clubhouse/boathouse, not as a way to force in a second blade image. I suspect that's why your two images are coming out at different default sizes. Maybe the solution would be to place one blade image only in the infobox and put the second one as a thumb image within the main text. If you want to add both as a single blade image, as suggested above, then that should be easy using Inkscape and I'll help if you ask via my talk page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I can do this. Later today if I send a message on your talk page would you be able to help me? Thanks, Pixzzl. Pixzzl (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pixzzl I've done the merged file, which would probably be best if uploaded to Commons by you, as it is based on your originals. You don't seem to have set an email address for your account. If you do that, I'll email the .svg to you. I won't see what your address is unless you reply to my own message. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thank you so much! You can email me [redacted] Pixzzl (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Please set up email in your user preferences; don't post your address here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll do that. Pixzzl (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pixzzl I hope you don't mind; I added a couple of missing apostrophes to the text of that draft. David10244 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Any help is very much appreciated. Pixzzl (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

spanish template

I made a spanish version of a Commons template at c:Template:PD-US-alien property/es and it doesn't come up, what do i do?

can someone help me? ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 20:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

A better place to ask on Commons, would be c:Commons:Village pump/Technical.

But first, please fix your sig, which is currently unreadable pale green on white. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

wdym? i made it yoshi green on purpose ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 20:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ilikeyoshi: What do you mean by "doesn't come up"? Be specific and give an example. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That in that template it doesn't say español or spanish in the section that says that it's autotranslated with {{Autotranslate}} ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 00:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ilikeyoshi: Provide a link to the page you're asking about. c:Template:PD-US-alien property/es says nothing at all about autotranslation. Are you referring to c:Template:PD-US-alien property#Localization? I see "español" there. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

i recently added those translations manually don't worry about it ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 00:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You still haven't fixed your sig. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Is 2018 android green good now? ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 22:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Better, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: BTW i archived (UNDER the GFDL) the How to speak lolcat tutorial from the original wiki-based version of the LOLCat Bible Translation Project, just here. --ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 18:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

That might be better on Wikisource. See WP:NOTWEBHOST. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: i don't think that texts on wikisource can be license by the gfdl, neither lolcat. srsly. kthbai ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 03:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Ilikeyoshi, by "unreadable pale green on white", Andy Mabbett is saying that your pale green lettering is unreadable on a white background. The fact that it was you who determined the color combination does not affect its readability. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

i read it and its fine, btw i put it in the (Commons) Technical Village Pump ilikeyossy Yoshi! (msg me) 00:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Whether it's fine for you is immaterial; as is whether its current appearance is deliberate. The issue is whether it's readable for other people. See MOS:COLOUR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Naming draft to not violate BLP

Good day, I am interested in writing an article related to a scandal in Florida involving a sheriff [5]. I am not sure exactly what to name it. I was thinking of Osceola County gambling ring scandal but am unsure of the accuracy of that statement and if it would violate policy and/or convention. If anyone could help, that would be great. Thanks, ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Quxyz, you could ask at WP:BLPN. Be sure to point out that the sheriff hasn't yet been tried, let alone convicted. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be extremely hard to write a halfway decent article about a legal scandal that hasn't even gone to trial yet. I'm sure everyone in Osceola County knows about it already and doesn't need to get their news here, and I'm also sure that the rest of the world would consider it basically a garbage article until there are verdicts or sentences or whatever needs to happen. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Some of my Florida friends suggested it to me. I'll probably stave off for a bit as hurricane season wraps up. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

A bunch of angry Floridians attacking each other over unsettled political business is not most people's idea of a good time. Except for the Floridians. ;) TooManyFingers (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk page for an article

Hello, folks at the Teahouse. I recently created an article, Saji Varghese, but am unable to wrap my head around how its talk page should look/be created. While I have created talk pages for articles in the past, this one seems a bit tricky, especially vis-a-vis the categories, article classification, WikiProjects and everything. Could someone help me out with this? Any help would be appreciated :) Dissoxciate (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! Welcome to the Teahouse.

Looks like someone else has set the talk page up with a script that's added everything necessary, but for your knowledge, most talk pages use the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template with a few parameters and other templates. Have a look at the source markup for your talk page to see what's been added there.

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions! Great work starting an article on Wikipedia:) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SnowyRiver28, thank you so much for your response! Yes, @Thilio was kind enough to set up the talk page for the article. Regardless, your insights were clear and very helpful. Thanks for the help :) Dissoxciate (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No worries! Most of the talk page stuff is added by users at New Page Patrol or other editors using scripts anyway, so it's not a big concern:) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it! Dissoxciate (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate When I start an article, I like to make a talkpage too. Besides the Template:Talk header, I look at a couple of articles on a similar topic, and copy the wikiprojects they use, checking the wikitext and pretty much copypasting the "code". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

This is to-the-point and extremely helpful. Thank you so much! Dissoxciate (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Image Copyright?

File:Tyler Robinson Mugshot.jpg

[6]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I'm not sure if this image is WP:PD. It is from NDTV, but it also credited the FBI, and FBI images are public domain. So, is this image public domain? HwyNerd Mike (tokk | contribs) 06:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@HwyNerd Mike Possibly, if it's their work. See for example Template:PD-USGov-FBI. It would be easier to say if the pic had an FBI source-link. But since this pic is on Commons, it's probably better to ask at Commons:Help desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

For the interested, that is Tyler James Robinson. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Help with creating a Request for Comment

I made a request at Talk:The Bengal Files#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2025 but an admin says that we have to initiate a dispute resolution process for it. Can you help draft that please (asking about the same thing I asked)? Please also include that some editors object to the term, "propaganda" also in the lead of that article.-Baangla (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

When you say "... we have to initiate ...", who is the "we" you're talking about? TooManyFingers (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: the editors editing the article about, "The Bengal Files"-Baangla (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

What's stopping you from writing your own request for dispute resolution? You're the one who understands what needs to be said. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: There seem to be too many rules for it.-Baangla (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Those rules are exactly what you follow. They're there because they need to be - they're not something that can be swept away for you. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Can I just use the RfC template and use these words:-

Sentences have to be neutral as per WP:NPOV, so please comment if we should change the last sentence of the lead of this article from, "The film received significant criticism over its distortion of history,^[1]^[2]^[3] and was commercially unsuccessful." to "Some critics claimed that it was based on historical facts^[4]^[5]^[6]^[2] while others claimed that it distorted history,^[1]^[7] and was commercially unsuccessful." Please also comment if the link that leads the reader to Hindutva pseudohistory when he clicks on "distorted history" should be removed. Please also comment if the movie should be described as propaganda.-Baangla (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, can you let me know if the above is acceptable?-Baangla (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Baangla, I really am sorry to say this, but no. You are not permitted to start or participate in any RfCs or DRN cases about South Asian social groups or Indian military history until you are extended confirmed. You are also not allowed to solicit the intervention of others to do so. Please direct your editing attention to other topics. I'll leave a notice about this at your user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Gupta, Anant (5 September 2025). "'The Bengal Files' review: A twisted, motivated interpretation of history". Scroll.in. Retrieved 5 September 2025.
^ Srivastava, Abhishek (2025-09-05). "The Bengal Files Movie Review: A provocative portrait of Bengal's turmoil". The Times of India. Retrieved 2025-09-14.
^ "Brutal and Raw; story lacks in emotional connection". Bhaskar English. 2025-09-05. Retrieved 2025-09-14.
^ Sharma, Radhika (2025-09-05). "The Bengal Files Review: This Vivek Agnihotri Film Is Disturbingly Graphic, Gory And Gruesome". NDTV. Retrieved 2025-09-14.
^ Gupta, Anant (5 September 2025). "'The Bengal Files' review: A twisted, motivated interpretation of history". Scroll.in. Retrieved 5 September 2025.

Articles for deletions

I want to participate in articles for deletions program; what do I need to study for it. Delete4ever (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Delete4ever WP:BEFORE and WP:GOODARG might be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Moving draft

Hi everyone!

I've submitted a draft biography for AfC review at User:Bahuman/AnilBahuman following Wikipedia's COI guidelines (I've disclosed my conflict of interest on the talk page and am seeking independent editorial review).

The draft has a warning saying it should be moved to Draft:AnilBahuman, but when I try to move it, automated filters prevent me from doing so due to autobiography detection.

Could an experienced editor help with moving it to the proper Draft: namespace? I've followed the AfC submission process correctly and just need help with this technical step.

Thanks for any assistance! Bahuman (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The message already given to you says in big bold letters:

Review waiting, please be patient.

This may take 7 weeks or more, ...

Now is the time when you are waiting 7 weeks, not the time when you ask for action. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

But note that while you are waiting, you are free to continue to improve your autobiography by editing it where it is now. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Page moved.

There is a warning that "There's another draft about the same person, by another editor at Draft:Anil Bahuman." Did you make that, or do you know the person who did? Some of the wording is identical.

Your user page says you are the article subject, Please mention that in future, when discussing the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The earlier version has been deleted and yours has been moved to the correct spelling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Redirect removal

Hey!

What is the procedure for removing a redirect in order to publish an article of the same name? The issue concerns the 2025-26 Svenska Cupen. Rockfighterz M (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article is at Draft:2025-26 Svenska Cupen. If you submit it for review, using the process at WP:AFC, whoever accepts it will do what is necessary.

If you do not wish to go through that process, submit it at WP:Requested moves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

How do I delete a reference?

I need to delete some references from the reference list but don't know how to do so. Also, I inserted some references without attaching them to a text first. Is there any way I can connect the reference to the relevant text? תמי ניניו (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you wish to do this on Draft:Shane Appell, or elsewhere? If the latter, where? You may find Help:Referencing for beginners helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I wish to do this on Draft:Shane Appell only. תמי ניניו (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I can see you are using the Visual Editor. I mostly use the Source editor, so someone else will have to advise. Good luck! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

On the Visual Editor, you click on the number where the reference is, then the delete key, to delete references.

If you'd like to move references around, you can click on the number and then drag it.

SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Dates and spellings

I was editing Typhoon Ragasa, with the influence of good articles of the same content such as Typhoon Fitow or Tropical Storm Podul (2013). The only one thing that until now has still been bothering me is the date formats and spellings. It is an international event and thus those two configurations should be set to the first editor's preferences, which, in this case, DMY and Engvarb. However, those GAs use MDY without a specific spelling format, which contradicts the settings above.

I wanted to change them to keep similarity between articles, but according to MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:RETAIN, I cannot. I know I should not be irritated in this situation but I can't control it. What should I do? Any advices are welcome. EmperorChesser (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

If in ANY doubt at all with the issues of date formats and engvar, leave EVERYTHING alone. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

So just keep it as-is? EmperorChesser (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The only time to change someone's date format or engvar is when it's absolutely certain that leaving it as-is would be wrong. It's hard to let it not matter, but it doesn't. Not very much. :)

When an article has an explicit engvar statement or date format statement, and has had that same statement for a long time (not just recently applied), then feel free to conform everything to it. But otherwise, assume that it might cause arguments, and forget about it. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Avoiding situations that will make the other person argue is certainly a part of this place. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Great advice! Thank you for that. I will try not to cause too many arguments. EmperorChesser (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

How to delete draft in user space

I want to delete a draft in my user space because I don't have time to work on it now and don't want it to get flagged for automatic deletion after 6 months. How do I do this? NicheSports (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

You should be able to flag it for speedy deletion via the templates here. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

perfect, thanks NicheSports (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

No prob! PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 13:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Wiki-style references with EndNote

Like many other wiki-editors, I use EndNote to generate a list of references. Wikipedia has it own hypertext (html) formatting style called wiki-text markup: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting

Currently EndNote does not provide such output style. It would be useful for many wiki-editors (especially, those in academia, who have EndNote license via their institutions) to have an option to easily produce wiki-styled references.

I contacted EndNote techsupport, and they told me- someone from Wikipedia have to place a formal request with endnote.com, and they can release this new wiki-format for free. Do you know, who can place such as official request? In case of scientific journals, EndNote accepts requests from editorial or publishing offices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApoieRacional (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do so. Where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

What to hyperlink

Should I hyperlink the same thing twice? e.g. if an article mentions France like 3 times, do I hyperlink it all 3 times or just the first time it appears? SomePersonInAHouse (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@SomePersonInAHouse The first time it appears in a section. See MOS:OL. In fact, you don't even need to link "France" because it's a well-knwon country. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Help Me See Edit Revert As Good Faith

A one-sentence edit I made last week was reverted. This is the first time a revert has happened to me. Reading WP:RV and WP:ROWN, it did not seem to me that a revert was warranted. I started a discussion on the talk page: Talk:TESCREAL#Considering RfC regarding sentence about the origin Three other editors (not the one who did the revert) have replied, very briefly, to my lengthy explanation of my edit. I am having trouble seeing the revert as having been done in good faith, and these replies have not helped. Can someone please help me see it that way? Perhaps if someone who understands their POV restates it a bit less tersely, I will get it. Aurodea108 (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Aurodea108. As I can't see why you think the edit was in bad faith, I'm not sure that I can help you to not see it that way, but I'll stick my twopennyworth in.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what the sources say about the subject, not what you (or I, or other editors) know, think, or believe about the subject.

If a source does not directly say anything about the subject (specifically) then it is hard to see why that source should be cited, or what can relevantly go into the article on the basis of that source. If the source does not specifically say that it is about the origin of TESCREAL, then it cannot be used to support a statement about the origin of TESCREAL.

I also suggest that if several editors disagree with you then it's time to drop the stick. ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @ColinFine for taking the time to reply to me extensively. I take it you have already read completely the posts I made in that discussion thread, for which I also thank you.

The source grouped the TESCREAL paper among several earlier papers, which it described as seeing AI in a certain way. If I understand you correctly, in order for the source to be relevant, it would have had to say explicitly something like, "First Kalluri wrote that AI may 'build systems that sanctify the status quo and advance the interests of the powerful', then Birhane and Guest wrote...then...and most recently, Gebru and Torres came up with the acronym TESCREAL to describe the ideologies they see as underpinning AI. These are some of the authors that see ‘AI’ as a way to advance capitalist, kyriarchal, authoritarian and/or white supremacist goals." The source said this succinctly, expecting the reader to be able to follow the references and unpack their clause into something like what I just wrote, rather than explicitly. Hence the source did not explicitly use the word "TESCREAL" and is being seen by you and others as not relevant.

If indeed I am understanding you correctly, then I would respond that the hypothetical passage I just wrote is more like what a good professor might write for their lower-division undergraduate students, and is not to be expected in a research-level academic paper. The unpacking that I just did is almost a mechanical exercise, and should not change the answer to whether the source is relevant or not.

Part of the reason I am wondering about bad faith is what I am seeing as nitpicking about a stylistic choice on the part of the source.

Part of my reason for wondering about bad faith is admittedly due to the history of that page, some of which can be seen at the Talk page (some has been archived). It seems to me that my sentence, which is about a "meta" question (where did the idea of TESCREAL come from?) may have been reverted because other, less "meta", questions (does TESCREAL describe a real phenomenon? should TESCREAL be described on WP?) are contentious.

As for whether to "drop the stick", I will keep your suggestion in mind and give it some time. Aurodea108 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

No, @Aurodea108, I haven't closely read the posts. I (and I think the other editors) are arguing on the basis of Wikipedia policy. If it is not discussed in one of the sources, it should not be discussed in the article. Period. ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion, and broadly agree with the other editors. I see zero evidence of bad faith in the replies, and I would echo ColinFine's note and argue that it would be a good idea for you to drop the stick. You introduced a source, several others have disagreed about its relevance, and part of functioning in Wikipedia is for one to recognize that consensus will frequently be against their own opinion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Disagreeing with an edit is not a reason to revert it. The OP's edit wasn't in bad faith so it shouldn't have been reverted. Period. If @Avatar317 disagreed with the edit, they could have revised it or just deleted it or started a discussion on the talk page. Reverting isn't just rude - it's confrontational because we know the editor will receive a notification saying their change has been reverted. @Aurodea108 My advice - take on board the feedback that you've since received on the sentence and sources. If you still want to add your amendment, add a revised sentence assuming that instead of reverting, you'd had the discussion first. (ps. I think the 7 sources after "several earlier ones" is a bit much.) MmeMaigret (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't understand how Wikipedia functions. If I remove recently added content (whether I do that operation by simply removing it OR by reverting an edit or series of edits) it APPEARS with the automated summary tag in italics "Reverted." Sure, the other editor doesn't get a notice unless I do the "revert" function, but that editor's addition/contribution is removed, so exactly the same result.

And per WP:BRD that is the way we edit; and when an editor gets Reverted, they get pinged on what others felt was wrong with their edit so they can modify it and re-add; otherwise they might not notice that someone removed their addition, so it can be seen as confrontational (your view) or as a more efficient way of collaboration. (Additionally, a removal can be seen as a bad-faith "stealth revert", so that to me seems worse, I'd rather someone see and understand my issue with their edit(s).)

As noted in my edit summary, I felt that that source does not adequately support the added statement. I can understand how someone could read that source and say to themselves "oh, I see, this author is lumping together multiple papers about AI and one of them is the Gebru/TESCEAL paper." But our policy on WP:SYNTH says: "Do not ... state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." And here the author (van Rooij) never mentions TESCREAL even once in the entire paper. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 05:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Press edit, delete the sentence, press save, leave a summary. Not a reversion. What part of that was hard for you to understand? You might also have a re-read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting#When%20to%20revert MmeMaigret (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You linked to an ESSAY, not policy. What part of "a removal can be seen as a bad-faith "stealth revert", so that to me seems worse, I'd rather someone see and understand my issue with their edit(s)" is hard for you to understand? Providing no feedback to someone and fixing their mistakes without their knowledge doesn't help them become a better editor. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, because you clearly missed it "they could have revised it or just deleted it or started a discussion on the talk page".MmeMaigret (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Citation help

How you can add a citation needed template to sentences that do not have a citation? ReaderAlvarez (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Does Help:VisualEditor § Editing templates help? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@ReaderAlvarez In wikitext, you type {{cn}} where you want it. In VE, you can start typing {{, and a new window will open. There you can type cn and pick it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Genre for this singer?

Hey, I just wanna ask what else I can put in this singer's genre infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colet_(singer)
The source I have (an article recently published by Latest Chika) mentions that Colet, the singer, sings ballads in her solo work. However, I've been told multiple times that ballad isn't considered a genre on Wikipedia. But it does tell you a lot about what kind of music she sings (in her solo work, not as a member of the girl group that she's in): slow, emotional, with a lot of belting. AKA ballads. Hoping for some advice. Bloomagiliw (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bloomagiliw: A genre is a type of music. A ballad is a musical form. There are rock ballads, country ballads, folk ballads, etc. and the genres would be rock, country, and folk, respectively. There are some musicians like Yoko Kanno whose work spans all sorts of genres, and if you look at her infobox you'll see many genres listed. Based on Colet's article, it looks like her genres may be rap and pop. I'm not familiar with her music, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

There are two main things about genres. First, people pretty much 100% agree what you mean when you say them. If I said I was starting a new genre, nobody would pay any attention to me, and they'd be right to ignore my little fantasy. Second, genres group stuff that is the same. We have to start by admitting nobody is so unique. So figure out who she's basically the same as in her music, and use those genres. Trying to pretend everyone's music is super unique and different and supposedly doesn't fit the genres is just a silly game. (She really could be combining some genres, but make sure they're genres that are already recognized.) TooManyFingers (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

She's a member of Bini; their genres are P-pop bubblegum pop, EDM, funk, pop rock, teen pop. It also says she's a rapper.

MmeMaigret (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It's her solo page, so it's mentioned in the infobox hidden text that we should list the genres for her solo work. This article (which again is published by Latest Chika, which is under the major newspaper The Philippine Star and is thus considered reliable) mentions that Colet's solo work sounds different from Bini's upbeat and fast songs: https://latestchika.com/just-in/2025/09/18/117807/bini-colet24th-birthday/

The article mentions that she writes songs with her acoustic guitar. It also calls her a balladeer at heart. I don't think the group's genres should be listed on her solo page, as an article from a major media outlet has written that her solo work sounds very different. Bloomagiliw (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The most important thing to keep in mind about mentioning musical genres in a Wikipedia article is that adding a reference to a reliable source verifying the genre is mandatory. Countless editors have been blocked or sanctioned for persistently adding unsourced genres. Please read WP:GENREWARRIOR for the gory details. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. So should I just leave it blank for now? As solo pages should reflect solo work. Again, the article does mention acoustic and ballad. Can I mention acoustic music in the infobox? Bloomagiliw (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Infoboxes cause this problem: because they have blanks, people naturally feel a sort of pressure to put something in them. Anything in this infobox is optional, other than what's absolutely basic - which for a performer is their name, their main job, and a picture if there is one.

Yesterday I was editing a short article (one that's unlikely to get much longer). I saw that everything in the infobox was within the first couple of paragraphs anyway, so I deleted the entire box.

If you're writing an article about an exotic mineral, you'll probably want the infobox to be done up nicely, filling in all the blanks you can get the information for. But for a musician it's far less important. Minerals tend to need a lot of information that's just information, like a database. Singers don't. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Support with COI edit suggestion

Hello Teahouse - I've drafted some straightforward factual edits for a COI page which I'd appreciate some guidance/support with. I've tagged into the COI edit review queue, and I am also sharing here to get experienced editor views.

Talk:Blythe Masters#Updates to current Board positions

If an impartial editor could review and approve/action that would be much appreciated!

Thanks,

Alasdair Alasdairmunro (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

You've correctly tagged your suggestion with the {{edit COI}} template; there is a backlog of such requests and it can take several weeks for a volunteer to get around to them. Please be patient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Goibniu, dwarf planet candidate

My planet is Homlos Can I add Goibniu's density? I found a source that calculated its density by its rotation period. The source:https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2008/41/aa09615-08.pdf

And the source said that Goibniu's density is around 1.16±0.03 g/cm³. If I added it Will it be vandalism or just fine. I'm honestly too scared to touch Wikipedia without asking here in Teahouse (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Goibniu was called 2004 GV before My planet is Homlos (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you're asking about 90568 Goibniu. If so, then the place where you'd ask about adding material to it is Talk:90568 Goibniu. If you do add material, then the reference you provide for it should not be a "bare URL". -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @My planet is Homlos, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Vandalism is editing which is intended to damage Wikipedia. If you genuinely think an edit you want to make is an improvement to the article in question, it is never vandalism.

Howevert, editors can disagree about what will be best for an article, and that is normal and healthy. So it might be that you make an edit in good faith and somebody disagrees, and reverts your edit: you can then open a discussion with them. Or if you sense that your edit might be controversial, you may choose to start the discussion before trying to make the edit. See WP:BRD for how this works in practice.

Astronomy & Astrophysics appears to be a respected journal, so the paper is almost certainly a reliable source and you can cite information from it - but, as Hoary says, give the full bibliographic information in your citation so that a reader can easily see the journal, authors, date etc. (see WP:REFB for how to cite). ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I now feel like every edit I do is controversial even if I provided a reliable source. But now I'll try to give the full bibliographic information in my citation. Not like https://... My planet is Homlos (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Controversy means people argue about it. In topics like this one, the only way you would cause arguments is if you gave information from a source that doesn't deserve to be trusted, or if you put your own opinions without a source.

I think it's good you're being cautious and not wanting to cause controversy, but in this kind of articles, trustworthy sources and no personal opinions is pretty much a guarantee of no controversy.

If equally reliable sources disagree on something, write in the article saying that they disagree about it, and state their positions so everyone can see for themselves. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

... and when you're not sure if some source is reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia, the best thing to do is go on the article's Talk page and ask what people there think of it. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't be scared! If you are adding information in good faith, information that you've found somewhere sensible, and you cite your source, then no one is going to be annoyed. The worst case scenario is that someone will disagree and remove it again. If you feel confident, you can use the article's talk-page to ask them why, and to initiate a discussion with other editors. If your addition was genuinely inappropriate, other editors may be able to advise. But you shouldn't feel afraid to make edits, because that is what Wikipedia is: a collaborative effort where each article represents the combination of what multiple people have found, sifted and summarised together. Your input is as valued and important as anyone else's. Elemimele (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo

Hello, I have created a draft article for Sam Bayat Makoo (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) about a Quebec-licensed attorney and author specializing in immigration law and citizenship by investment programs. The draft uses independent, reliable sources such as Gulf News, Caribbean News Global, The Corporate Immigration Review, and Le Barreau du Québec to establish notability per WP:NBIO. No self-published sources (e.g., LinkedIn or Bayat Group website) are used. I am seeking feedback on the draft’s content, sourcing, and neutrality to improve it before submitting to Articles for Creation. Please advise if additional sources, clarifications, or changes are needed to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo InsightAdventurer (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Do all the sources show that they believe the person is notable? Do any of the sources involve an interview with the subject? TooManyFingers (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @TooManyFingers, for your questions. I’ve reviewed the sources to ensure they support notability per WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. The current sources in the draft (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) are:

The Corporate Immigration Review* (Law Business Research), which independently covers Mr. Bayat’s contributions to immigration law.
Le Barreau du Québec*’s directory, verifying his licensing as a Quebec attorney.
Mona Shah & Partners Podcast* (Episode 203), an independent interview discussing CBI controversies, which provides analytical coverage of his expertise.

The podcast is an interview with Mr. Bayat, but it’s hosted by an independent attorney (Mona Shah) and focuses on broader industry issues, not just self-reported claims. I decided to remove these sources that appeared non-independent (e.g., Gulf News, Caribbean News Global, IMI Daily) after feedback from other editors. I’m still searching for additional independent sources to strengthen notability. Do you think these sources are sufficient, or should I seek more with deeper coverage? Thanks for your help! InsightAdventurer (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Any interview with Bayat, or any source that quotes such an interview, or any source written by a friend, family member, or business acquaintance of Bayat, can only be used to confirm minor details and neutral facts. They can't be used to justify the idea of writing an article about him. The main sources have to be independently written (no interview) by independent writers (no friends/family/business acquaintances). In other words, showing that reliable sources who don't know Bayat have heard about him and consider him worth writing their own articles about - with no chance that a skeptical person could claim "that writer is working for Bayat or doing him a favour". TooManyFingers (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @InsightAdventurer, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It is very obvious that few if any of your sources meet the requirement in the Golden rule. Most of them are very obviously not independent of Makoo, as they are published by his associates or institutions and almost certainly derive from him.

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.

I must also ask whether you have some connection with Makoo or with Bayat Group? If you have, that does not preclude working on an article, but there are restrictions: see conflict of interest. In my experience if the first thing an editor tries doing is to write an article about a business, or a person in a business, they very often have a connection with that business or person, and are very often unaware of Wikipedia's bar on promotion of any kind.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @ColinFine, for your warm welcome and detailed feedback. I really appreciate your guidance and advice for new editors.

Regarding sources: I understand the importance of the Golden Rule (WP:GNG) and have revised the draft (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) to remove non-independent sources (e.g., Gulf News, Caribbean News Global, IMI Daily) that appeared promotional or linked to Mr. Bayat’s firm. The current sources are:

- *The Corporate Immigration Review* (Law Business Research), a reputable legal publication covering his contributions.

- *Le Barreau du Québec*’s directory, an independent verification of his attorney status.

- *Mona Shah & Partners Podcast*, an independent interview with analytical coverage of his work.

I’m actively searching for more independent sources to establish notability and will ensure only uncontroversial facts from non-independent sources are used sparingly, if at all. Regarding conflict of interest (WP:COI), I confirm I have no personal, professional, or financial connection with Mr. Bayat or Bayat Group. My interest stems from researching notable figures in immigration law and historical contexts (e.g., his background related to the Bayat tribe), but I’m only using independent sources for the draft.

I take your advice about learning Wikipedia’s policies seriously and have been studying WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NBIO, as well as consulting tools (including AI for policy clarification, not content creation) to avoid missteps due to English being my second language. I used Grammarly for grammar corrections and AI for translating some ideas from Persian to English for clarity. I’ll continue improving existing articles to gain experience, as you suggested, while refining this draft.

Could you please let me know if the revised sources seem sufficient or if specific improvements are still needed? Thank you again for your help! InsightAdventurer (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

In the future please only use one forum at a time to seek assistance, please. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Obviously biased

Why is Wikipedia so biased? It use to state facts now it acts like a propaganda tool? Why is that? It use to be a non biased tool. Why does wiki not portray things as the are but as view points from some one sided opinionated writer. Why dont you use editors? Things taken out of context and misquoted. How gross Wikipedia. You are a based on the lies and opinions of a persuaded controlled people. 174.25.4.160 (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't inherently biased; or more specifically, it isn't supposed to be biased. It's just an encyclopedia like any other, such as Britannica. Editors on Wikipedia cannot write about a topic as if it's a personal essay or blog article. They have to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines, and one of its core pillars is neutrality. Additionally, anything and everything on Wikipedia has to be sourced. Independently-madd claims, original research or unsourced content is not entertained on the site.

That said, editors are, at the end of the day, humans, and humans are intrinsically biased: we are all political animals. I, too, share the belief that Wikipedia tends to be biased orin places, despite being such an incredible repository of knowledge and information. Academia does have political tendencies, and its impact on Wikipedia is no different. For more on this, you may want to read Ideological bias on Wikipedia. That article will, hopefully, answer some of your questions. Dissoxciate (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Sectioning

I had posted about this on the Teahouse yesterday, but just again for good measure: an article that I had recently created, Rajballabh Sen, lacked any sections, due to the way it was structured. It was written like an essay (it didn't read like one, it was structured along those lines).

Thus, I decided to split it into sections, to whatever extent I possibly could. Could someone just take a look and let me know if the current sectioning works? That'd be really helpful :) Thanks, Dissoxciate (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Dissoxciate, your current sectioning works! You did:

== Backround and Political career ==

== Social initatives ==

== Conflict with Siraj-ud-Daulah and death ==

and == Notes == and == References ==.

Overall, your sectioning is fine! Use === for sub-sections. Versions111 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Perfect then, that's what I was looking for. Thank you so much! Dissoxciate (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Help with sectioning

Hello everyone. I recently created Rajballabh Sen, an article about an 18th-century Bengali revenue administrator and diwan. The article currently has no sections. The reason for this is that I initially thought the article would possibly be, at best, a Stub-class (or maybe just a little longer) article, and therefore wouldn't be long enough to warrant any sections. However, now that it's been created and published, it's easy to conclude that I had misjudged the article. It does need to be split into sections. But the way the article is structured, I believe the typical "Early life; Career; etc" format wouldn't be possible. Can anyone help me split up the article into sections? Any help would be really appreciated! Thanks, Dissoxciate (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

If it doesn't easily split into categories, do you see some other logical way? Maybe split chronologically, according to times when his life went through changes? TooManyFingers (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers, thanks for the suggestion! Chronological splitting didn't quite work, so I tried something else. Gave it a shot. Would you mind checking if the sections look alright? Just for good measure, the article is Rajballabh Sen. Thank you! Dissoxciate (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

New editor, question about WP:NPOV

Hi All,

I was reviewing this article and I came across this passage:

"Students of Nalanda College have consistently participated in national-level examinations, with some achieving high grades in Ordinary Level and Advanced Level exams, as well as in various sports competitions." This passage feels extremely out of place to me, however it has tons of citations on it. There is also an "Awards" section immediately below this that seems address this idea with objective facts.

So do we think this is an appropriate passage? As a new editor, how do I know when a passage is in violation of WP:NPOV if it has citations as well?

TIA,

LuredFreezer LuredFreezer (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

As long as the sources are well-referenced, and the references actually back up the information, it seems good to me. It's written in a somewhat braggadocious-seeming way, but it's pretty much just statistics. If you think it could be written in a more encyclopedic way, I invite you to Be Bold and correct it in a manner that you feel is appropriate.

Happy editing!

Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think maybe NPOV (in its Wikipedia sense) is not exactly the problem, even though neutrality is certainly involved. The issue (if there is one) seems more like WP:COI or WP:Puff, if you think the article is misusing Wikipedia as a promotional tool. (I too would tend to classify this kind of thing as inappropriate promotional material.) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to both, this is helpful. I'll noodle on it for a bit and see if I can reword it in a way that feels more fitting for Wikipedia. LuredFreezer (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It's also possible to delete material if it's not appropriate; rewording is not the only way. Many times, something is true but (for reasons other than truth) doesn't belong in an article. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I've had a look at the 12 references which follow this statement. I think the sentence is synthesis. The references each list one or several students from the school who have achieved high grades. The coverage is mostly passing mentions. I would consider taking out the sentence and related refs. If one of the sources said something along the lines of "Nalanda College students consistently perform well in examinations", that would be different.

On a separate point, I would also consider removing the reference to https://studentlanka.com, as I'm not sure that is a reliable source.

For the three references after this sentence which relate to two former students who are notable for their sporting achievements, I would remove the references from the school article, which does not mention these people, and add the refs at List of Nalanda College Colombo alumni.

You could also ask at WP:WikiProject Schools. Tacyarg (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Please move my draft to mainspace

Can someone please move my sandbox draft ‘User:Sadii Dars/sandbox’ to mainspace as ‘Bushra Bilal? Sadii Dars (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I have submitted your draft for review. I recommend checking out WP:RS and WP:N in the meantime. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Sfn & harv

Hi, friends. I need help because, as always with very "technical or glitchy issues" of references or citations, I do not grasp it fully. I am working on a DYK nomination which I submitted today, and I am a very aesthetic editor, LOL. I think it is great to have books under a different subhead than general references. But I got an error which I don't understand in one of those book citations. Can anybody help me? I've tried myself but I can't decode the error. It's on the article about Lifeboat No. 6 of the Titanic.

Thanks. A lot. Love. CoryGlee (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The source Gracie, Archibald; Thayer, John B. (2014). Titanic A Survivor's Story & the Sinking of the S.S. Titanic. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 9780897336758. is defined twice, once in the History section and once in the Repeated cited sources section. This means that {{sfn}}, when it's looking for the correct citation, sees two "different" books which could match. You should combine the twin citations by replacing the History citation with {{sfn}} instead.

Minor note, but I think Repeated cited sources is typically called Bibliography. Blepbob (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@CoryGlee, I think this has mostly already been covered, but if you copy the link from a shortened footnote you'll see "#CITEREFGracieThayer2014" or something similar at the end. This is just a basic HTML anchor and a standard part of the web. Each anchor name should be used on a single full citation. If the same name is duplicated across multiple full citations on a page, it's not clear which target the shortened footnote links are meant to point towards.

That's the full explanation for the cryptic error, "Harv error: duplicate target for CITEREFGracieThayer2014." "Harv error" means it is related to sfn/harv citations, "duplicate target" means there are multiple identical anchor names, and "CITEREFGracieThayer2014" is the anchor name that was duplicated. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Moving redirects

I plan on moving the redirect Scarlet red from Sudan IV to Scarlet (color). Is that okay. It's fine if it's not. Cheeky91021 (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cheeky91021 I think that the current redirect is owing to "scarlet red" being a synonym of the chemical, as listed in its entry in ChemSpider. Anyone typing "scarlet" in the search bar is going to be offered the DAB page and Scarlet (color) as some of the options. Only by continuing to type the whole "scarlet red" will they get the dye, so I think the present situation is fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you could create a disambiguation page for it? I would discuss your rationale for creating it in the new disambig page's talk page for other editors to see. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Scarlet is a DAB page but currently doesn't include Scarlet red. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Is this a reliable source for the article about Noakhali riots?-Baangla (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Per INSIGHT UK, I don't think they're an obviously good source for facts, it's an advocacy org. Something like "According to INSIGHT UK..." might be better, but that is a question of WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

How do i fix this?

{{highlight round|'''[[User:Plauzaric|{{Color|#ffffff|Plauzaric!}}]]'''|bc=#651ed6}}[[User talk: Plauzaric|{{Color|#000000|Talk]]}}

comes out as

Plauzaric!

Talk

But i can not put it in my signature for some reason. Can someone fix it please? Plauzaric (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

NEVERMIND! FIXED IT! Plauzaric!Talk 19:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Question

Are you allowed to import the source code of Twinkle to bypass the auto/confirmed requirement? I might be reading the situation wrong, is so tell me. [7] --pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 22:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

And while I'm here, can someone fix LegoBot Archive indexing on my page --pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 22:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air: If it is open source you can import and change the code. However using Wikipedia should follow the policies here, and also I hope the user understands what they are doing. Normally you should get more experience with doing things manually before using an automated tool. Otherwise you won't understand what the tool is doing. Auto/confirmed is not a big hurdle. In fact you are an extended confirmed user, so I expect you already have the experience to understand what it does. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett I mean User:AntoEh/twinkle.js, but they are probably autoconfirmed by now. --pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 17:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It got deleted, I guess that answers my question. --pro-anti-air _{ping me for template replies} 06:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Non-English words query

While editing a page, I came across non-English word that was hyperlinked, so should it be italicized as well? Can I get some guidance around this? ReaderAlvarez (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It might depend on the word; some non-English words have become sufficiently well used in English that they are no longer considered to need italicisation.

That aside, I agree it would be consistent, so I suggest you be Bold and go ahead,: the worst that can happen is that someone disagrees and Reverts your edit, wheupon you can both Discuss the matter on the Talk page – this is the Wikipedia:BRD cycle that is normal procedure in Wikipedia.

As with my bolding of that link, the italics markers go outside the double brackets (which you may already have known). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Lets be bold then! will edit it accordingly and thank you for your guidance. ReaderAlvarez (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@ReaderAlvarez Some guidance at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Non–English_language_terms. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@ReaderAlvarez: Assuming that the hyperlink is a wikilink, one rule of thumb is to click on the wikilink and see if the term is or is not italicized in the article about the topic. Deor (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

thank you for sharing this material, will review it further as well! ReaderAlvarez (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Help me,I don't understand.

I don't understand why when I type {{Vandalism} Wikipedia says "This user may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as pure vandalism" I was just editing my own page,not the pages that viewers see oftenly and I said in my own page "A bunch of my edits appeared vandalism to other editors even when I provided the sources, so If anyone can teach me how to not appear vandalism even when I provided the source, I appreciate him" I just want to be a better editor and to not appear vandalism,But when I tried to link Vandalism, Wikipedia says I'm pure vandalism, I'm just editing my own page! I don't want to appear vandalism. Now I might think banning me is the right option isn't it? I just want to not appear vandalism. My planet is Homlos (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@My planet is Homlos welcome to Teashouse! you're trying to do the right thing and I want to reassure you: you are not going to get banned just for making good-faith mistakes everyone here started as a new editor and learning the rules can be confusing at first. I'm not sure why you try to put {{Vandalism}} temp on you userpage the template is not meant for user pages that's why Wikipedia gave you the scary message it doesn’t mean you are vandalizing it’s just the template's purpose. If you want to link to vandalism use double square brackets like this: [[Vandalism]]... And also Sometimes other editors may remove or question edits if they aren't clearly sourced don't match the style guidelines or look like opinion or speculation... That doesn't mean you're being accused of bad intent. Wikipedia has a strict policy about verifiability (see WP:V) so even good edits can get reverted if the sourcing isn’t crystal clear...

About your user page: You're absolutely allowed to have a personal page (within user page guidelines) but templates like {{Vandalism}} have special meanings and should not be used there... If you just want to mention the word vandalism typing [[Vandalism]] will make a safe link to the article

Here's the best advice I can give don't be afraid. You're clearly editing in good faith and that's what matters most. If something gets reverted treat it as a chance to learn and feel free to ask the reverting editor politely on their talk page why.

You're very welcome here and with time you'll get more comfortable. Please don't think about banning yourself we need good-faith editors like you. I sent you full Tutorial Introduction to contributing, please go through them Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 04:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Finding sources for book series

Hi there, I've been editing for the Nevermoor book series for a while now, with the fourth book in the series being released in April this year. Unfortunately, no page has been created for this fourth book because except for this ABC article, I haven't been able to find anything that qualifies the book as even mildly notable. A few reviews, sure, but they're not from reliable/notable sources and mostly talk about the author's 4 year hiatus and not the contents of the book itself. So - any advice? Is it still too soon? And if it is, should I make a draft of the book's topic and themes etc or hold off until notability can be proven? Thanks! :) Cornonthehunt (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be a bit too soon for a standalone article tho since there isn’t much independent coverage yet (see WP:NBOOK) but for now you could add sourced info about the fourth book to the main The Nevermoor series article and also I think a draft in your userspace would be better until stronger coverage appears. :) Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 05:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I have no comment on the merits of this particular book or series, so this is a general comment about finding reviews. I have spent some time looking for them myself, and have had solid luck using EBSCOhost and Gale to search for reviews that aren't available through search engines. If you make 500 edits and have an account that is at least 6 months old, you can access these databases, and others, for free through the Wikipedia Library. Depending on your situation, a nearby school/university or public library may also subscribe to database services that could help you find sources.

In my experience, there is no guarantee these reviews will be available on the service even if they're indexed there, and you might still have to do some hunting to find them. But, if you can get an idea of if this particular book probably meets WP:NBOOK or that it probably does not, that could inform your choice about creating a draft of some kind. NovaHyperion^talk 06:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cornonthehunt (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Request

Withdrawn by creator. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Hello, would anyone kindly spare the time to review my first article here? Thank you. Criticize (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Tecno Mobile won the French Design Awards for developing an inspiring product, with technology creation such as AI one-tap FlashSnap, that made Tecno Mobile stand out among other smartphone competitors during that time. is too promotional, and the sourcing isn't the best. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You've submitted it for review, you don't jump to the head of the line by requesting a review here, you just wait. If I were to review it now, I'd decline it due to promotional tone and looking strongly like an AI wrote it, and not you. Use this opportunity to clean it up while waiting for a review. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm rather surprised you wrote this (especially Tecno's new AI camera technology brings a new level of experience when it comes to recording videos or taking photos with any device from the Camon 40 series.), seeing you've been around for a while and probably know what promotional editing is, etc. If I suddenly start creating promotional drafts, I give full permission for admins to block my account as compromised. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Is this article paraphrased enough

Bhatikabhaya- I have brought info from several books and paraphrased much as I could, I hope someone can check it for me.Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, TeenX808. In order for a Teahouse host to check your paraphrasing, it would be necessary for them to have access to the three books that you cited. That seems unlikely. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: yes I can and the first book isn’t that important since it’s just the date

2nd book-https://www.noolaham.net/project/46/4516/4516.pdf

3rd book- http://noolaham.net/project/999/99863/99863.pdfTeenX808 (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

TeenX808, there is way more content about your topic in the second book that can be paraphrased and added. Personally, I would use a different word than "plastered" since it is imprecise and has multiple meanings in English. I am unfamiliar with the historicity of accounts of events in Sri Lanka 2000 years ago, but I would be cautious about describing things that may have legendary components as being true in Wikipedia's voice. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I’m little too cautious due to the copy right violations and should I use the word applied TeenX808 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

TeenX808, I think that "applied" is a good alternative. Others might be "coated" or "overlaid". Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: went with coated and what do you think of the last part, thank you so much for the help.TeenX808 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

TeenX808, the following sentence is confusing and so it needs to be rewritten. Also "Roman" is capitalized. A roman soldier had grounded on to the territory of Anuradhapura kingdom and with him he had taken a Anuradhapura citizen, it is said that he had become a diplomat for the Roman Empire. Cullen328 (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: how do you think the sentence should be rewritten without causing issues. ThanksTeenX808 (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

TeenX808, I cannot help you much with that because I am unfamiliar with the material. Did the Roman Empire actually have diplomats posted that far away? What does grounded on to the territory mean? I do not understand the phrase. Also, with him he had taken a Anuradhapura citizen is also unclear to me. Does "taken" indicate that it was forceful? What is the significance? Did anything become of this diplomatic connection? Was citizenship even a "thing" back then? Weren't most people usually considered subjects of a ruler? Cullen328 (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: “At the beginning of the Christian era, during the reign of Bhatikãbhaya, a Roman sailor named Annius Plocamus inadvertently landed on the island and spent some time in Sri Lanka. It is not clear how this man reached the island. He must have arrived via India. When he returned to Rome he took a representative back with him to the court of the Emperor Augustus.This representative was, apparently, given ambassadorial status”.

this is the original text, I had to paraphrase not to commit copy right. TeenX808 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, TeenX808, I think that you can do a much better job of paraphrasing that content. Perhaps reading the article Annius Plocamus, which contains seven references, would be helpful. You can move content from that article to your draft as long as you attribute it. Cullen328 (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that the source you quoted does not mention citizenship. How did you come up with that? Also, it was not Annius Plocamus himself who ended up in Sri Lanka, but a "freedman" working for him. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: source says it him and what you said is smart let me read the sources from that article. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

TeenX808, even a generally reliable source can be wrong about one thing. Now that you have several sources available to compare, you should be better able to summarize this incident, and especially its significance. Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328: yes I have updated and thanks for the helpTeenX808 (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Parcel Perform

Hi Editors,

I've created a new article for Parcel Perform (Draft:Parcel Perform) because there is limited information available online covering who the organisation is and what they do. Can anyone take a look at the refined draft that I submitted recently and see if it's normal and neutral enough for the submission to get approved?

Alternatively, if I could get some feedback on how to refine this, then I'll gladly take it as well. Thank you! Mikethepageeditor (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mikethepageeditor. When you write because there is limited information available online covering who the organisation is and what they do, that is an argument against a Wikipedia article about this company. Lots of information from reliable sources entirely independent of the company is required to write the article and your job would then be to neutrally summarize what those sources say about the company. Routine coverage of funding rounds does not help. Interviews with company executives do not help. Nothing generated by press releases or public relatikns efforts helps. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to better understand the strict standards. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Cullen328!

Appreciate the time taken to look through this and I'll look into refining this. Appreciate the feedback on what's not useful or valuable and I'll work towards getting this done right.

Mikethepageeditor (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

My Guide to Article Writing

This attempt at humour is only slightly serious.

To write a great Wikipedia article about yourself or your company, it's important to understand your audience: the general public. Think how little they know about you, and how difficult it has been (until now) for them to find out more. To understand them better, try the following exercise:

Imagine your own (or your company's own) biggest fan, who doesn't know you (or know anyone who works for your company). Imagine what they know about you already, just from being your biggest fan, finding out everything they can without getting to know anyone. Write down what a person like that has been able to find out about you so far.

... And you're done! You've now composed your entire Wikipedia article! Footnote the references and submit it. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Heh, sounds about right! Just gotta mention the biggest fan here doesn't want to use press releases because, uh, they want to show the company's impact in the media!

—Sophocrat (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

persistent non-constructive editing in a Draft article

Can Draft articles get 'protected' the way that I see normal articles can be restricted to users with accounts? There's an article in Draft space - Draft:2026–27 AFC Champions League Two - that an editor persists in adding qualified teams to which are wrong (they are listing the teams that are currently leading their domestic competitions, not those that have won and qualified), even one for a competition that doesn't even start until December, and continues to remove hidden and non-hidden notes. I suspect that they are updating their own sandbox version and then replacing the whole article, so other things might get out of sync too. Their edits summaries are also not helpful : Es lilin mah ceuceu, whatever that is. How do i go about requesting protection? Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You can request the protection of any page at WP:RFPP, whether in mainspace or draftspace (or elsewhere). jlwoodwa (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and semiprotected it, so only established accounts can edit. IP addresses can always put an edit request on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:G15 and general speedy deletion

I stumbled across an article in mainspace that probably qualifies for SD under G15. It is in rough shape and is not remotely ready for mainspace. However, the topic is clearly notable and I don't want the article deleted. I think "speedy draftification" would be appropriate intervention here but that doesn't exist (I think)... what are my options? NicheSports (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You are free to draftify it under WP:DRAFTREASON#2. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Is WP:DRAFTREASON policy? The page it is on says it is an essay NicheSports (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have a policy on draftification, but people generally follow WP:DRAFTIFY. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! NicheSports (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Best process for renaming a page

I think a page (Wisconsin Walleye War) should be renamed, but I want to go through the right process. Is there a way to initiate a discussion among more senior editors? Does it need to be flagged? Wait for a period on the talk page? Gegenpresser (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gegenpresser: See WP:Requested moves. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano thank you, this is what I was looking for. Based on the description for undiscussed moves (There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move), I'm guessing I can move ahead, but I think moving it to "requested moves" to see if there's a consensus is the best route. Gegenpresser (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Please be aware that if "Wisconsin Walleye War" is really what it is most commonly called in the reliable sources, then there will likely be strong (and justified) resistance to changing it. We don't just decide out of the blue to rename well known events using names we like. But if there was never a real consensus on what to call it and the reliable sources are all over the place with different names, there's probably more room to argue. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Right-- I don't want to just change it out of the blue. Much of the reliable sources I've seen avoid using the colloquial term (walleye wars), or almost always refer to it in quotations ("sometimes called the 'walleye wars'"; "dubbed the 'walleye war'"). Some don't use the term at all- see the Milwaukee Public Museum's page here. "Protest" is most common. In addition, "Spearfishing" is more accurate term for their subject than "walleye." As a colloquial term used by some, "walleye wars" should still be a bolded term in the first sentence or two. Gegenpresser (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Should this be reverted

Should this edit be considered vandalism and reverted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keyboard_layout&curid=26301474&diff=1312805570&oldid=1312800564

The talk page has no discussion about removing such a large chunk of the page. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Not vandalism, no. See WP:NOTVANDALISM.

You can revert it, following WP:BRD, or you can follow the process described at WP:Dispute resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I reverted. Thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

It's quite possible that this edit was a very good one. Especially if the same information really is in those other articles. If there are parts of what got deleted that were NOT duplication, and therefore likely to get lost, maybe they should be copied into those other articles instead of back into this one. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft Submisson: Quick Question

Hello, I'm a first-time Wikipedia editor and recently created a draft page for "Agata Smetaniuk," which I submitted for review four days ago. I’m eager to understand the status of my submission and whether there’s anything I can do to help move it toward approval. Could someone guide me on the next steps or provide feedback on how to improve my draft? Thank you!

link: Draft:Agata Smetaniuk. Interameryka (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Articles for Creation can take a while. There's no specific order in which submissions are reviewed. However, I did take a quick look at your article, and I think you should add more references. Because you are writing about a living person, it is really important that all the details you include have references to reliable sources. For example, in the Early life section, I would want to see:

A source for her birthplace
A source that talks about her early years (or cut that section)
A source for her participation at Toruński Klub Karate Shotokan
A source for her university degree

The sources that you've cited at the bottom of the article might include those details. I don't read Polish, so I'm not sure. But it's important that you cite a source for the fact right after the sentence, not just later in the article (so the source is still there if other parts of the article are edited).

If you got the facts from somewhere else--like an unreliable source, AI, or from knowing the subject personally--then they don't belong in the article, and should be removed.

I hope is helpful feedback! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Error

When I put the template helpme in this page, it shows this error:

Why? 2800:A4:1A7D:DD00:6177:A8ED:6685:DA36 (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

You have to use this template on your talk page. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Your current talk page is User talk:2800:A4:1A7D:DD00:6177:A8ED:6685:DA36. If your IP address changes then you will not be notified of a reply but it will still be visible on that page. The template attracts attention to the help request by adding the page to Category:Wikipedians looking for help. This isn't needed here at the Teahouse where you can just say what you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

You have your answer. I have deactivated the template on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Faster page indexing

Hi, I am a tech history contributor and (to disclose) a member of RISC-V International. I had opened a page about a RISC-V related company named DeepComputing a while ago and its still not indexed on Google. Can you review it and let me know any needs of improvement if there are? VectorVoyager (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@VectorVoyager The new pages patrol team is made up of volunteers and there is a large backlog of unreviewed pages. Please be patient; someone will get around to reviewing your page eventually. Toadspike [Talk] 12:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

non-digital clipping as a reference

How can I use a newspaper clipping as a source when the newspaper (club magazine, neighborhood bulletin) doesn't have a digital archive? Ultimately, my clipping is the only source availlable until any papertigers come up with additions later (or never). Yet, the clippings contain useful information. Robbert Ritmeester (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Robbert Ritmeester You can use the template TM:Cite news normally, even without a URL. Just input any information you have, like the article title, newspaper, page number, author, and date. WP:OFFLINE explains why this is okay. Toadspike [Talk] 12:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This is true, while keeping in mind that the requirements for reliability of sources still apply. If the paper that the clippings come from is reliable enough for what it's being used for, then it doesn't matter what format it was originally published in. But if it was a newsletter published in the subject's friend's basement, it's still not going to count. TooManyFingers (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

How would that work out for these examples:

Newspaper: De Noord Amsterdammer

Date: Wednsesday 28 november1990

and

Title: De Zonnewijzer

Subtitle: wijkkrant voor Tuindorp Oostzaan (translate = local newspaper for this village T.O.)

Date: December 17 1990

Year: 15

Number: no.7 Robbert Ritmeester (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

That's probably okay. As a local newspaper, this probably isn't the most reliable of sources, but should be fine for non-exceptional details. Seems it was affiliated with a football clu, [8] so it may not qualify as independent of that club. Toadspike [Talk] 14:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

sources such as TV or podcast interviews

I'm writing an entry about a singer. His current band has a Wikipedia entry. Some of the information, such as the fact he has ADHD, is taken from radio, podcast and national TV interviews. Seeing that this is a singer, can I cite those interviews,and if so,how? תמי ניניו (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

You can cite interviews, but note that if he is the one saying it, rather than an interviewer, it's a primary source and a non-independent one. Just don't base the whole article off things he says. Interviews mostly don't contribute to notability, but they are fine as sources. As for how to cite them -- I like to use the dedicated citation templates, like {{Cite podcast}}, etc. Mrfoogles (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Things that interviewers say in interviews are often things they would not say if the subject wasn't there. There isn't a strong division like "subject=unreliable and interviewer=reliable"; interviews are overall less reliable no matter who is speaking. (It depends on the situation though.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @תמי ניניו, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first and most importnt thing you need to do in writing a new article is to show that you have enough sources, each of which meets all the criteria in the golden rule, to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If you cannot find such sources, then you will not be able to write an acceptable article, and should spend no further time trying.

Note that notability is not inherited: just because there is enough published about his band to base an article on, does not guarantee that there is enough published about him to do so. ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Too formal

Hey everyone. I have a question. Why are pages here written in very formal language? I know that it is an encyclopedia, but even encyclopedias are not so formal! Sorry for my bad English. Kaltenbrunner18 (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

For one thing, Kaltenbrunner18, somewhat formal language may vary less among the English of the Southern US, the eastern US seaboard, the Scots lowlands, southeast England, Ireland, India, the Philippines, etc etc than does the less formal language of the English of those areas. However, it's unfortunate if Wikipedia's prose sounds stilted, and in my (perhaps minority) opinion sometimes it does sound stilted. -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much Kaltenbrunner18 (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

[1] Horner, Garnett D. (5 August 1962). "Miller, Mrs. Lawson chosen as Judges for Juvenile Court". The Sunday Star. p. 1.

[Stillman2-2] Cite error: The named reference Stillman2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[one-3] Reference that backs up "Blah Blah Blah"

[two-4] Reference that backs up "Yada yada yada"

[:1-5] Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[:3-6] Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[7] Gupta, Anant (5 September 2025). "'The Bengal Files' review: A twisted, motivated interpretation of history". Scroll.in. Retrieved 5 September 2025.

[8] Srivastava, Abhishek (2025-09-05). "The Bengal Files Movie Review: A provocative portrait of Bengal's turmoil". The Times of India. Retrieved 2025-09-14.

[9] "Brutal and Raw; story lacks in emotional connection". Bhaskar English. 2025-09-05. Retrieved 2025-09-14.

[10] Sharma, Radhika (2025-09-05). "The Bengal Files Review: This Vivek Agnihotri Film Is Disturbingly Graphic, Gory And Gruesome". NDTV. Retrieved 2025-09-14.

[11] Gupta, Anant (5 September 2025). "'The Bengal Files' review: A twisted, motivated interpretation of history". Scroll.in. Retrieved 5 September 2025.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]