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.
Welcome to the Teahouse, @Nighfidelity! The article should be named per how the subject appears most commonly and in reliable sources. From a quick Google search, this looks to be "Urban F. Diteman", though I may be mistaken. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm really saying the same thing as the previous response, but different words: the article title for a person should be exactly what people will find when they go elsewhere to look them up (in reliable sources). Specifically, we should not "set the record straight" by calling them something else. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
@Nighfidelity Personally, I would go with Urban Diteman because they're aren't any other notable Urban Diteman's (no need for the F. to distinguish). Also you can put his full name, including the suffix, in the first line. But at the end of the day, if someone thinks the name should be changed, they'll suggest a page move or move the page. Just start! MmeMaigret (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello friends. I uploaded this file to Wikimedia commons and it's flagged for deletion by a bot in 7 days. I had reached out to Jay Zigmont, the person in the photo, asking if he'd be willing to share one on Wikimedia commons and he was. He has sent the email template releasing the image to a Wikimedia Commons license, so everything should be OK from a legal/licensing standpoint. How to I take the appropriate steps to remove the flag for deletion while the email is still pending review? Thanks so much for any help you can provide. I've done things like this before without issues, so I'm confused. LaesaMajestas (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Try searching the origin of the photo, and the rest of the data you can find, if you don’t know many of the authorship, then it isn’t the best idea to upload the photo.
PD: Why are you asking here? Here is a place to ask about Wikipedia, and you can easily talk on the talk page, of either the bot, or its creator, to discuss it. Protoeus (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
@LaesaMajestas The metadata on that file shows that the copyright holder is NASHVILLE CORPORATE PHOTOGRAPHY. The subject of a photograph like that cannot license it: only the copyright holder can. You may seek advice at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. The bot is just doing its job and there is no point in discussing it with its creator. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the help - I appreciate it a lot. I think the image and copyright rights were purchased by Jay Zigmont (I would assume he commissioned the images to be taken for him). I will verify, but if that turns out to be true, would I update the metadata and reupload it? Not sure what the correct steps are. LaesaMajestas (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
@LaesaMajestas As can be seen at [1] the mail has been received, so now we wait and see if VRT gets what it needs. If VRT accepts it, I don't think you have to do anything. If it turns out Zigmont isn't the copyright holder, you'll have to do something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Furthermore @LaesaMajestas, there is a bit of a backlog by the VRT team, so even if it gets deleted, you don't have to worry, they will undelete it once the permission is confirmed. Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
If im to translate a published page do i have to do it all myself or can i publish it in parts and go getting feedback and changes along the way? Alexeimian (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
There is also nothing to stop you submitting it to main space as soon as it's long enough to be useful. If you start to get short of time, and it's in reasonable shape, you can submit it anyway, and carry on adding more translated text later. Elemimele (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia moderator emailed me
Wikipedia moderator emailed me re: making a wikipedia page on me?
Is there a moderator called 'Jesse Rafe'? And is it true they wanted to compose a Wikipedia pageregarding my professional career, etc., as a writer? Tonya Liburd (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
No; it sounds like you are being scammed. Wikipedia does not have moderators, it has administrators, and they would never reach out to you to offer a page to be created. Please see this essay for some more information and do not send this person any money. Additionally, you should forward the email conversation to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org CoconutOctopustalk19:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
CoI Editing Question
How do conflict of interests work with education institutions? For example, if I went to the University of Arkansas, how would my conflict of interest as being a student of it work? Would I still be allowed to edit it, as long as I don't do biased edits, or are there more restrictions? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Not directed at OP or anyone else in particular, but educational institutions are one example of how conflicts of interest could also lead to negative bias, for instance a disgruntled student, league tables/rankings, or any kind of rivalry with another institution. So I'd reword Andy's advice to: do not make any edits about your teachers or colleagues or their work, and do not add defamatory or disparaging comments about your institution's academic or sporting rivals. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
That’s a good point. But what if you’re a student of the institution, and a faculty member that used to work there left and was replaced, but it doesn’t have it updated on the article. Would you be considered trustworthy to fix that error? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
You have more leeway when it's an emotionally neutral fact that anybody could have looked up for themselves. Anything that has even a little bit to do with any controversy, or that anybody might want to argue about, you have to be a lot more careful. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Redirection of Coin Locker Baby
Redirection of "Coin Locker Baby" to an album rather the phenomenon
I noticed that entering in "coin locker baby" links to a redirect to the Maretu page rather than Coin-operated-locker babies, which I believe would be what most people would be searching for, not a Vocaloid album, as good as the album is (highly recommend it!). I wanted to be sure this was the right move before I research how to do that, exactly, and have a popup at the top of the aforementioned page to say "not to be confused with the album Coin Locker Baby" etc. ↻ dialupnetworkConnect?19:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
... and my "Wicked Bill handle is NOT meant to suggest I'll defile any Wiki work product. After password # 100, I ran out of common passwords. WickedBill (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Incorrect. And that's if you "edit source". I'm sure that it's just as true if you use the "visual editor", but can't speak from experience. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
@WickedBill Not really. Wikipedia's source code is a highly simplified version of html called wikitext. (that said, regular HTML code mostly works here, too).
Speaking as a Visual editor user, though, @Cremastra … I can say (somewhat painfully, as I find it much easier to think and edit in WYSIWYG) that we still have to be able to do at least a little in Wikitext for some of our work. Augnablik (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Nope! I started editing wikis when I was 11, and simultaneously failing computer science classes in school :) (not this account, obviously) jolielover♥talk17:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, two categories of people are most likely to ask this question: people who lack experience with this kind of thing, or people who always feel helplessly lost when they see something new. Anyone who's not in the second group will quickly pick up on what's necessary to get the basic things done here.
In my experience, learning where to look up solutions when I don't know how to do something (i.e. different places for different kinds of problems), and where to ask for certain kinds of help, have taken me much more effort than learning what to do once I got there. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Possibly helpful: look for existing articles that successfully use a technique you want to know how to do. Click as if to edit that article, which should reveal how they did it. Copy any parts that will help you, then quit editing without saving anything. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
The most goal contributions in world cup history
There is a bit of confusion on some world cup statistics. According to every source I checked and even his Wikipedia page it states Lionel Messi has the most world cup goal contributions with 21(13 goals and 8 assists). However your statistics state Pele as having 10 assists and he also has 12 Goals which adds up to 22. I kindly ask for this to be cleared up and The record removed from Messi’s page and added to Pelé's page but if indeed Messi actually holds the record then the most assists tally should state Lionel Messi with 8 assists not Pele as those information contradicts each other. I just want to provide accurate football information on Wikipedia that's why I changed it to Messi but my review was taken down. I hope it gets rectified in the coming days. TheBronzeFury (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
We cannot trust Messi's website (or his fans, or Pelé's fans). Hopefully this should be straightforward to clear up, using unbiased reliable sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I’ve been researching organizations involved in anti-smoking campaigns, since tobacco use and public health are such major global issues.During this, I came across a nonprofit called Arizonans Concerned About Smoking, Inc., which has been active since the 1980s.
From what I can tell, they’ve done work like promoting smoke-free living and have been mentioned by groups such as the American Lung Association. I did find some coverage, but much of it is tied to the broader subject of anti-smoking efforts in Arizona rather than in-depth profiles of the organization itself.
I was wondering, would an organization like this likely meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for a stub article, or would it be better suited as a mention within a broader article (like on anti-smoking campaigns in the US or Arizona)?
It's hard to say if they'd meet WP:NORG without seeing the sources. If you're unsure, you can always create a Template:Source assess table in your sandbox. My recommendation though would be to start with your latter suggestion – if you start with adding content to existing articles, you'll begin to get a fair idea on whether or not there's enough content and sourcing for a standalone article. Nil🥝20:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @ChronoTexts. I agree with Nil. Note that the notability requirements are exactly the same for a stub as for any other article. (Personally, I don't understand why anybody would create a stub in 2025. If you've found adequate sources to establish notability, you've done the hard part of the work). ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
ColinFine, why would anyone indeed? Good question. Hmm, a desire to present a superficially impressive list of "creations" on one's user page? Or just plain sloth? -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I used to think such until someone on the Wikimedia Discord told me that even a small article has inherent value (well, they sounded a lot more poetic saying it, this recount sounds kind of lame. Also, obviously, must meet GNG). Or maybe since starting an article is a hard feat and people may find it easier to build off a foundation. I'm actually the opposite - I don't really like expanding my article creations with ones that are evidently not going to reach GA or beyond. But at the same time, I want to contribute to the availability and accessibility of information :) jolielover♥talk17:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I've made considerable improvements to a couple of articles, and very minor improvements to hundreds of others, but have never started an article myself. Maybe - and I might even be serious about this - maybe for people like me who have never had an article approved, we should be required to submit only a title and a list of sources, no text permitted. And to then wait for permission to begin writing. If I had to do that for my first several articles, I'd consider it reasonable. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
G4 states that articles that were recreated after being deleted via a discussion are subject to speedy deletion. I was relatively recently granted New Page Reviewer, and I've encountered a few articles that fit those requirements. How can you tell whether they are identical? Not all of them are on the Internet Archive.
Are you supposed to apply the rationale of the deletion and apply it to the new article?
@EatingCarBatteries congrats on the new role.... G4This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. lemme put it this way G4 only applies if the new page is basically the same as one deleted after a discussion. If its a word-for-word or near copy you can tag it. If the new version adds different or sourced content even if its weak it should go back to AfD instead of speedy. When in doubt, I think Articles for deletion is the safer route.
and also you can tell if its identical by checking the AFD log (or whatever deletion discussion closed it). The log entry will link to the deleted page. ThilioR O B O T🤖talk22:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
You can try asking the deleting admin if they're willing to check the deleted version for you. Sometimes, if the recreation is at a different title (or if the deletion is old and the admin inactive, for example), I ask at requests for undeletion as a more centralized and watched venue. A minor clerical note: because the Teahouse is intended to help newer users, you may asking NPR-specific discussion pages to be more effective. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 22:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
You can always apply WP:G4 to new articles that have been previously deleted. Only administrators can delete them anyway, and any administrator would check the current version against the deleted version, as well as check the AfD discussion to be sure the issues have not been addressed if the two versions are different, and make a decision. That's what I do. My decision may be to delete the article, move it to draft space, or leave it in main space, depending on what I find.
I'd say that's misleading, it's not required to be in rcats, but it's not uncommon either. Almost every redirect can find an appropriate rcat (I've made a bunch and can't think of any that I couldn't find a single rcat for). jolielover♥talk17:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Do you mean categorizing through mainspace categories, or categorizing through rcat? Although I suppose the answer doesn't matter since it's 'no' to both. For the latter, WP:Capricorn makes it easier to do it (apparently, I personally did not like it), or User:Eejit43/scripts/redirect-helper. But no automatic categorizers. jolielover♥talk17:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
...but maybe there's a bot or something that can perform mass edits to add a specific rcat. Either way, not easily accessible or just easy to do; you'd have to be very precise to make sure something wrong did not get tagged. jolielover♥talk17:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I didn’t know Capricorn existed. Well… least it answers my second question.
True, is there way to train it: you know keywords and topics?
You can't "train" Capricorn, you click buttons of the rcats you want to add and it does that. Just easier than copy pasting or typing out, but you still need to put in your human input. I've never edited on mobile so I can't answer your other question. Like I said, I only used Capricorn briefly, and in general I'm not well-versed in bots. Sorry! jolielover♥talk17:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Greetings, does Wikipedia offer donations? Where can I donate? How does this donation impact the quality of Wikipedia? Where would the money be spent? Giver058854687 (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Could anyone here reply by unbiasly verifying the amount of likes (millions) shown here for the #5 entry of List of most-liked Instagram posts? This is something of a curiosity/informal WP:3O~ish adjacent request, as some editors are using values from a completely different range than I can find displayed directly or in secondary sources. Respublik (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Based on these numbers, they are in two tight groups, which suggest two different CDNs serving the pages to us. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I am currently working on the Wikipedia article for the Three Principles of the People Youth Corps (Sanmin Zhuyi Qingniantuan), a youth organization established by Chiang Kai-shek in 1938. The article currently covers its founding, key leaders, organizational structure, and historical role, but it remains incomplete and could greatly benefit from expert attention, additional citations, and further context.
I would greatly appreciate help from editors interested in:
Taiwanese political history
Chinese Nationalist Party history
Youth paramilitary organizations
Wartime China and party factions
Any contributions, suggestions, or peer review would be very valuable. Please feel free to edit directly or discuss improvements on this talk page.
I went to look. Would it be possible to translate the titles of the references, so that English speakers can understand where the information is coming from? TooManyFingers (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
On Wikipedia (the English one, anyway), primary sources are considered to have low value, compared to the kind of secondary sources that are known for their reliability. This is because primary sources want to tell the best story about themselves, so primary sources might brag and might not always tell the truth.
You can use primary sources to add factual details, but not to add anything that someone else might disagree with. (For example, people might disagree about how important an organization is, or how much support it has, so those things cannot come from primary sources.) TooManyFingers (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion! For this article, my current construction is primarily based on a 1996 National Chengchi University M.A. thesis I accessed at the National Library of Public Information: 王良卿, 三民主義青年團與中國國民黨關係研究（1938-1949）. I am also expanding the entry further by consulting the various primary sources cited in that thesis (with professional terminology translated into English where appropriate).
Would this be notable?
I used to work for a video production company in the early 90's that produced a series of commercial and retail videos, as well as commercials and local cable shows. The company went out of business long ago, but its products still pop up on Ebay and YouTube from time to time. I'd love to write an article about it to preserve some history of the company and it's products. The issues are that I am clearly tied to the company and there are not many sources to pull from. I would pull together everything I can find to document the authenticity of the information, but if this category of article is not allowed, I don't want to go down a road that can't lead anywhere. To be clear, I have zero financial gain from this, the products are old VHS tapes that I do not own or sell, they are not collectors items, I am not helping anyone out here, it was a small company, I just don't want it erased from history entirely. Shockschneider (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
The company would neet to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG guidelines; that is, you'd need multiple third-party reliable sources with significant coverage about the company (not just mentioned). Why not just create a Youtube channel for the company if you want to preserve/share old videos? OhNoitsJamieTalk12:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I think Youtube is a great idea. I would also suggest looking for some service place (if you haven't already) where they will copy these tapes into newer formats. Not because new formats are better, but because it gets harder to find VHS players. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Sabrina Wang
Hi everyone,
I’ve put a lot of effort into collecting references, writing, editing, and uploading the article, but unfortunately, it was still declined. Could anyone please guide me on how to improve it and get it approved? I truly believe the subject is notable and well-recognized in her field.
The key to showing that someone is notable and well-recognized is to show that reliable sources have said a lot about the person, using the source's words (not interviews, because interviews use the subject's words).
If I want to learn about Babe Ruth's baseball career, I don't need to get information from his family or from things he said, and I don't need to call the offices of the teams he played for. I can read books about him, I can read magazine articles about him that are not interviews, I can look at the sports sections of old newspapers - reliable information is easy to find.
If you try to do the same for me, you'll find nothing. You'd have to ask me, ask my friends, ask my boss.
I don't belong on Wikipedia, and Babe Ruth does belong on Wikipedia. All the reliable independent public information about him is what makes the difference between us, for this purpose. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
You say you "put a lot of effort" into this, and yet it was written by an AI. Bear in mind that LLMs don't know how to write Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
ChatGPT usage
If i use ChatGPT, just to improve my article, is this prohibited or not, like if some person decided to use AI to improve their article, will they be warned? Nail123Real (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Another way to put it: it's not strictly prohibited, but the level of effort in reviewing and ensuring that the chatbot's output is correct and usable is similar to the level of effort of just writing it from scratch, so I don't really see the point. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it's not really a problem in taking inspiration for upgrades or collect references, etc from AI until or unless it Violet any Wikipedia rules but i prefer and tell everyone to find and write and do everything from start by yourself and don't use AI in a large amount. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
But to "not use AI as much as possible" is just to never use it. There's never a case where someone needs to use AI.
Being in a hurry to get an article written and put up, and not even caring what's in it, is really bad - and I'm afraid that's probably the biggest reason it gets used.
If, for example, someone felt they needed AI to cover for their lack of skill in some area, then they would have no way of knowing if the AI result was flawed - they'd be blindly submitting material, having no clue if it was good.
Editors would either check the text or just remove the text
just because you use AI for laziness, doesn't mean it is perfect, it would probably write horribly because it doesn't know that YOU know the subject Nail123Real (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
You misunderstood my questions, which were in response to OwlParty's "side question" just above. —scs (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
well, i don't really check history in pages, so i don't really know if Wikipedia is or isn't removing AI generated data from its articles? Nail123Real (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
OwlParty's question had nothing to do with AI-generated content. The question was whether Wikipedia should try to somehow prevent AI's from reading and learning from Wikipedia's public content. —scs (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh also, just wanted to mention, I tried using ChatGPT and then later one of the other AIs (I forget which)to generate some text for a story I've been working on and... yeah, just No. Took FAR too long to get anything remotely close to what I was trying to write. About the best it did was give me one or two extra ideas of what to write on my own. Mostly it became a conversation about the themes I was exploring, and the writing techniques I was using, but with a robot who was clearly programmed to be tirelessly positive about my writing, and just regurgitate whatever I told it about my writing. Good if I were looking for a digital sycophant to stroke my ego. Basically it seems to be a digital parrot. OwlParty (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand AI can be useful but i see it takes out the pleasure of writing articles by your own hands and by your own knowledge. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
If you use AI, you wont learn how to write better. Its like a self driving car, maybe its useful, but if you use it too much, you wont know how to drive a car. It takes trial and error to learn how to write better. A computer program made up of other peoples writing wont help you write better. And theres nothing wrong with making mistakes and learning! Dont be ashamed. Many of us have decades of experience writing that not everyone has. Metallurgist (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct i also write in my early days extremely bad. You are not understanding i am not prohibiting but telling never to use. Abdullah1099 (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
The way I see it, there could be uses within making articles, like looking for sources, but if somebody wanted an article with the quality of AI they could just use AI. Ben edditing (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I also see it same way like finding reference on any topic but if anyone want full article from AI then simply use AI nothing is needed. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think you see it the same way at all - the people you claim to be agreeing with are saying the opposite of your ideas. I don't think anyone is misunderstanding you either.
Let me put it this way: if anyone wants a full article from AI they should stop wanting that, and they should stop using AI and never touch AI again. Do you agree? TooManyFingers (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
AI definitely has it's uses, it can give you information about things that don't meet notability guidelines or things without significant information online (which will still be somewhat accurate, which is sometimes helpful). Ben edditing (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
How do you guys deal with it?
Advice has been given. The resulting debate is beyond the level of assistance for which The Teahouse is intended. Please continue discussion on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits08:55, 6 October 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.
I've been trying to add some well-sourced information to an article, but another editor keeps insisting my sources are "unreliable" and been reverting, without giving more explanation beyond that. My instinct is that this might just be stonewalling, but I know policy says we should assume good faith WP:AGF. The irony is Wikipedia already supports every single fact I want to add in - That Taiwan constitution claims all of China and not just Taiwan. That Taiwan never declared formal independence and it requires majority of lawmakers to make a change to their formal status. I know info is good but if they use "unreliable sources" claim then I figured if I take it to RSN then it should settle this and can't continue to label as bad sources. Is there a faster or better way to resolve this when only a few editors are involved? I believe with more editors involved, the more likely balanced that discussion and more odds of neutral people weighing in, but I am dealing mostly with very too few same people saying this source is not credible.[2] Thanks for any advice - I really want to handle this properly and understand where the max limits of AGF apply. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
If it's already mentioned in Wikipedia then that's easy-- just use the same reliable source used there. But you should take care to ensure that it explicitly supports your addition, ideally and sometimes as a necessity in the same context, and there's no WP:SYNTH. Given that your additions appear controversial, editors may demand that such facts be explicitly covered in the relevant context-- they'd be right to do so. Joko2468 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok, what happens if I be bold and add in that "Taiwan ROC constitution currently asserts claim over mainland China and not just island of Taiwan + Taiwan has not declared formal independence nor formally renounced one China policy" and "it requires 75% of lawmakers to actually approve of formal independence and change their status" and use sources like [3] and [4] and [5] which supports every single statement above. I doubt UK gov library and multiple reputable outlets all are mistaken about this. The elephant is the info is unpopular to acknowledge but that shouldn't be an excuse to remove them as wiki policy is to be neutral and not remove simply if you don't like it. My facts are all explicitly covered by sources. I want to know how to get more editors involved so it's not just the same ingroup of people constantly at that article resisting and telling me the sources are rubbish and cannot be trusted. I read about RFC - I Think that may be an ideal pathway to escalate to if I need get wider range people to accept the sources as honest. BTW I am not saying I am going to do that now - I am just figuring my options. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
None of the sources you've cited are WP:BESTSOURCES, you can conduct a search on Google Scholar for an academic source. Where are you acknowledging it? Note what I said previously about context and also see WP:RELEVANCE. Specifically on getting more editors involved, you can invoke a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You can then make your case and discuss the issue towards a consensus. You may want to read WP:RFCNEUTRAL and the surrounding text, I made that mistake when I first invoked one. Joko2468 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I think there are several avenues to fix the issues here but I do not (just very superficially looking at the website) think all these sources are actually very reliable. One way you can use the UK gov source in a safer way would be to cite it directly. (Like: “the UK government says x/describes x as y”)
But definitely try to find better sources. Especially for things that are controversial.
To deal with the reverting: my advice is to make a talk page section about the things that were reverted, ask what is the issue there (politely, stating your case if necessary, asking for how other editors think you can better add certain things) if applicable and ping all or some of the people who have recently reverted those things.
Apologies, I assumed he'd have done that already-- take Slomo666's advice first if you haven't done that already. If you find yourself at an impass and believe you have a point then you can invoke an RfC but doing this prematurely before optimising your approach would not be enjoyable. Joko2468 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I was confirming a theory. I get what you are saying. But many educated people knows that the Taiwanese constitution claims the mainland and Taiwan has never declared formal independence. The US government has also stated it does not support Taiwan moving to declare independence. So this information is not reasonably doubted. The real question is why The Conversation, with subject experts, would not be trusted. Similarly, why would the UK Parliament Commons Library be wrong about this? Given that both sources report the same facts, it seems highly unlikely that they are incorrect. If a small group of editors claims these sources are unreliable and revert additions, an RFC seems necessary, as I doubt the wider Wikipedia community holds that view. Wikipedia policy on WP:THECONVERSATION regards it as reliable. If a subject expert and the UK Parliament Commons Library both state that the constitution claims all of mainland China, why should this information be doubted? I believe only a small group would claim UK Parliament Commons Library and The conversation are subpar sources for those hard facts. But when given a RFC of wider editors - I believe it's not possible to still believe that collectively the sources are all wrong about something that many educated people know to be true and supported by too many experts saying the same thing. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The real question is why you would insist on opinion sources when there are most likely academic works that are among the best possible sources available to support similar content. Ultimately it is not up to others to prove that these sources are wrong on the facts, it is up to you (see WP:ONUS) to convince others to support your proposed edits. The best way to do that is to find the best possible sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah that's just barriers. Not everyone can easily find peer reviews papers and don't need to when there's UK gov common library and reputable outlets saying all that. I believe that's the point of RFC. My plan of action is to add the edit including "Taiwan’s (ROC) constitution continues to claim sovereignty over all of China, not just the island of Taiwan." Some individuals, including on RSN, may argue that my sources are unreliable and not to be accepted. Except my sources now include the UK Parliament Commons Library and Ben Saul from The Conversation, which I consider high-quality and reliable. If these sources continue to be challenged, I believe an RFC is the most appropriate way to resolve the issue fairly, as a small group of editors should not be able to unilaterally decide that the information or sources are invalid. I think this plan makes the most sense (if I am unable to access membership-only peer reviewed journals for undebated facts). I can't convince people who refuse to admit facts. But I can convince neutral people my sources are correct and trustworthy and believe only an RFC can create that setting with a lot more neutral people weighing in and so to reach a fair resolution. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
When you say "Yeah that's just barriers", it appears to demonstrate that you want your version of events rammed through regardless of what anyone else has to say. That's a bad plan on a site where collaborative editing is the point. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I am considering the opposite actually. To engage a lot more people in RFC (if need be) to decide this. My point is maybe not wise to rely on a small group of people to remove claims like "Taiwan never declared formal independence" etc even when there's decent sources to back them. And have more editors weighing in if it is unable to be agreed on. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Refusing a very reasonable request for better sourcing is setting yourself up for a failed RFC - which is not a quick process anyway. You should be doing the work yourself rather than looking at spending a bunch of community time on an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
You say you're considering the opposite, but then you describe something that (in context at least) sounds an awful lot like searching for a way to get your desired changes rammed through. I can't tell if that's really what you meant, but it is certainly how it's being received. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes you can and yes you do, Jared. I don’t think an RfC will do much. All the people replying here on the tea house are neutral and also all agree that you need to do more to comply with guidelines. You may say “yeah that’s just barriers”, but frankly I don’t think you have taken the time to relativise yourself.
You are trying to change something that is (very) controversial. Consensus isn’t a barrier here, but a necessity. Edits going against consensus have no staying power. Slomo666 (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Opinion pieces, even when published by subject matter experts, are always subpar sources for hard facts. Those also don't appear to be hard facts but matters of opinion on which subject matter experts differ... I think the main objection to your edits is that you want to oversimplify what is a very broad and unsettled issue to fit your own personal beliefs about it. To put it in other terms you appear to be working backwards from a position and looking for sources which support it rather than looking for the best possible sources and summarizing what they say including the various disagreements they may have. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back it's not a matter of opinion. Whether a constitution says that it claims all of mainland China or doesn't. That's a hard fact. It either does or doesn't. There's no opinion. You saying constantly it's an opinion - is just wrong. Just one question - can you find a single source that says Taiwanese constitution doesn't claim all of China? I can find numerous expert sources all saying it does. That fact isn't an opinion where it varies. Unless there's a constitutional amendment, nobody can claim otherwise. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
You're misreading what others are saying. The sources you are citing are opinion outlets. See for example the note in WP:THECONVERSATION, which you cited earlier. And again, it is up to you to find sources that will convince others to support your changes. Trying to reverse that burden by requesting sources that disprove your edit is not how things are done on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
My stance is that you've been asked to find an academic source to use instead of the conversation, and if your goal is to reach a consensus you should just do it rather than keep trying to use the conversation. MrOllie (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@MrOllie What about this source? [6] I noticed one of the controversial statements that Taiwan was never even given to ROC is made by this source. Additionally another source [7] used to argue Taiwan’s legal independence doesn’t even mention Taiwan at all, but instead describes an unrelated ICJ case involving Euro states. Using that case to imply the same principle applies to Taiwan seems like WP:SYNTH. It seems the standards to accept subpar sources and info are far lower for Taiwanese Independence and my sources. Why is that okay? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Self published websites and primary legal documents are not academic sources, no. But sourcing is different when context is different. The context this time is you are trying to gather consensus for an addition, and someone indicated they would be more inclined to support your position with an academic source. So just go look for an academic source already. MrOllie (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@MrOllie Ok. In terms of context. One of the statements in (Legal argument for Taiwanese independence)[8] argue that Taiwan was never given to ROC KMT in the first place and there are precedents. Their argument uses a source that doesn't mention Taiwan at all, but instead refers to a legal dispute involving european countries. They imply if it worked for those European countries, it prob applies for Taiwan too. That seems like Synth or original research to me where their source doesn't explicitly say it applies to Taiwan dispute. Is that okay? I don't think so and think the standards are set dangerously low to allow that in. Do you think that's acceptable? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I'll respond because you directly addressed me, but only to say that I think that is an issue that is unrelated to what I've been saying here. I'm not interested in weighing in on every aspect of this content dispute. MrOllie (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
If I follow your advice that only high quality sources are allowed. Even higher than subject experts from The Conversation then I should have the right to delete almost every weak sourced info in Taiwanese independence chapter. Especially when it doesn't even meet the most basic criteria if verification where it mentions Taiwan dispute even once. I am just learning the integrity here. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
No. See WP:POINT. You are also putting words in my mouth here - your summary of my advice is not what I have actually been saying. As a matter of simple practicality if you are trying to reach consensus and someone asks you to provide something that you should be able to provide - just provide it. WP:WIKILAWYERing instead will get you nowhere. MrOllie (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@MrOllie Relax. I was already considering to address them before. Yesterday I mentioned it on talk that the section about Taiwanese independence was flawed and with one sided weak sourced arguments. However I will address them later in the future. I am not doing it to prove a point but was already considering yesterday doing it as it's SYNTH. Regardless any neutral responsible editor will read that CHAPTER where it says (Sovereignty transfer to the ROC by prescription does not apply to Taiwan's case since:) and it includes non sequitur arguments like it doesn't apply because of what happened in Gaza strip or what happened to a European countries dispute. Most of the statements don't even have sources and the one that do, many don't even talk about Taiwan once. They just imply it probably applies to Taiwan dispute. The entire thing is SYNTH and highly flawed and should be removed regardless. You can read the chapter yourself if you don't believe - [9]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
What a constitution means is open to interpretation and that interpretation changes over time (ask an American about that one) there are no hard facts besides maybe character count, thats what we have constitutional courts for. Does the Taiwanese constitutional court currently interpret that constitution as meaning that Taiwan and China are one country or that Taiwan claims China? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that's debatable. They are not simply saying China. They even state that mainland China is claimed by ROC. They were pretty specific. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
The courts do not hold the claim to be active. Thats a nuance I think you're missing, just because the claim is made in the letter of the law doesn't actually mean the claim is actually being made in reality. I'm sure wherever you live there are obsolete and obscure things still in the books which the courts have ruled irrelevant but your legislature never got rid of. There isn't just one truth here... There are multiple truths because its an unsettled issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
What are you on about? Currently the Roc hasn't denounced one China policy or declared independence. That's not a matter to debate on. In this article - https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202509300007 - United States announced its opposition to move Taiwan toward formal "independence. The article is dated this year. If Taiwan already is formally independent, then this article contradicts it. EITHER Taiwan is formally independant or it isn't. There's no in-between. You can't claim to be formally independent when Taiwan doesn't denounce one China policy and doesn't even declare itself independent. It's only defacto independent as long as there's been no changes to its formal status and constitution that holds back formal independence. Regardless I am not going to argue with this further with you. We clearly cannot agree on facts and sources so moving to DRN or RFC eventually. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonderful world of law and international relations... Where things are almost always in-between, especially so when it comes to Taiwan. The great thing about wikipedia is that we don't actually need to agree on anything besides how to summarize the reliable sources, we have no interest in what is true only in what is verifiable. If you really are this interested in what is true maybe this isn't the place for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
By that logic, every argument in the Wikipedia article for Taiwanese independence should be fairly removed too. As they do not prove that Taiwanese independence is legally achieved. Esp when Taiwan has not unequivocally declared its independence from China. The article should reflect all major viewpoints. As Long as Taiwan identifies as ROC or Republic of CHINA. Then it's not possible to say they are legally independent from China when they are formally arguing that are China. Yet there's only weak arguments for Taiwanese independence but zero counter arguments for why Taiwan is not considered legally independent. I wondered why the article is so unbalanced.[10]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Let me be specific about the double standards - Literally in one of those arguments, it is too one sided and shallow. Where it cites a source that doesn't even explicitly mention the complex case of Taiwan at all. It writes, “Prescription as a rule for acquiring sovereignty itself is not universally accepted. The International Court of Justice ruled that Belgium retained its sovereignty over territories even by non-assertion of its rights and by acquiescence to acts of sovereign control alleged to have been exercised by the Netherlands over a period of 109 years.”[133] The source doesn't even mention Taiwan even once. If you place that sentence inside a paragraph about Taiwan’s sovereignty - implying that "because the ICJ ruled this way, therefore Taiwan’s situation means X" - then it becomes original research. Another uses a source that is far less quality than I use and can't even afford a basic security server to host its info and we don't know much about the author [11] How is that okay? Yet the standards I have to meet is far greater?JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
If you think part of the article is badly sourced or dubious, that does not give you the right to balance it out with more manure nor to delete it per WP:PRESERVE. Your only option here is to find an academic source per WP:BESTSOURCES that supports your assertion-- you appear capable of doing this. In the time you've spent labouring the point in this thread, you could have actually found an academic source that supports your points and is near impossible to argue against, forcing your 'opponents' to engage in academic rigour which would substantially improve the article. Yet you appear to be stubbornly refusing to work in the spirit of consensus and evaluate your own approach. If you continue to push subpar sources per WP:RS then you will be wasting your time. Believe me, there are many barriers to editing on Wikipedia and, despite much torment, in my experience they usually benefit the encyclopedia. Joko2468 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
No I am saying that my sources are far higher quality and there's objectively a double standard. Whereas I see the opposing arguments have terrible sources yet are in Wikipedia. My issue is in this chapter- [12] there are many arguments for why Taiwan is independent and all of them are flawed sources. One of them uses a legal dispute involving european countries and imply it maybe applies to Taiwan despite the source doesn't explicitly say that. By every right, according to you guys, I should delete them all as they fail at source standards. Meanwhile every one of my source is far more reliavle. I use a subject expert who knows international law and from The Conversation and yet I am asked for further lofty standards even more than that. I want to know what is the fairness factor here?
An article is not a forum. An article is not about achieving balance between opinions for and against. There is no double standard: the single standard being applied is this: anyone who wants to introduce a major change in a controversial topic must meet a very high burden of proof. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
If one standard applies, there wouldn't be incredibly flawed info in that article. Read that CHAPTER [13] where it says (Sovereignty transfer to the ROC by prescription does not apply to Taiwan's case since:) and it includes non sequitur arguments like it doesn't apply because of what happened in Gaza strip or what happened to a European countries dispute. Most of the statements don't even have sources and the one that do, many don't even talk about Taiwan once. They just imply it probably applies to Taiwan dispute without the source actually saying that. The entire thing is SYNTH and highly flawed and should be removed regardless. The issue is there's so many rubbish sources for why Taiwan is formally independent. Yet currently exactly ZERO arguments why Taiwan is considered not formally independant. I tried adding in an argument but was removed. Despite my sources are a prestigious legal expert on a reliavle sources. Frankly, I am starting to understand the issues and think it be helpful to bring awareness to a RFC. But only after I exhausted attempt to find sources - so far I found (Christopher J. Carolan's article, The “Republic of Taiwan”: Legal-Historical Justification for a Taiwanese Declaration of Independence, published in the NYU Law Review, argues that Taiwan exists as a de facto independent state but has never formally declared independence.
so now I have one. If that's rejected then I will take to DRN or RFC as you can't continue to forever ask me to find even higher quality sources than even that. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Good work. If it's rejected then you can call an RfC which may not resolve it the way you want (I don't know how well you've considered WP:UNDUE) but it will improve the article. Best of luck. Joko2468 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
By the way, if it doesn't go through make sure to cite guidelines in your argument, they're powerful consensus-building tools. You should have most of what you'd need in this thread. Joko2468 (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I promise you, if you put the effort in (and it's usually a sunk cost affair) it'll be worth it. Theorising about your victimhood is going to get you and the encyclopedia nowhere. Joko2468 (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
In practice, small groups of editors can influence what is accepted on controversial topics; this is where RFCs or broader discussions help. They bring in more neutral eyes and reduce the effect of entrenched biases. I still think that's the best option. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree, I went through this exact same thing on Trumpism#RfC: Non-academic sources in the infobox and lede and relevant guidelines. It failed but it armed me with relevant guidelines that I then cited to help me improve the article and the Background section that I was workshopping at the time. I've provided you with those guidelines. If you think your sources are highly reliable but their reliability is nuanced, then perhaps an RfC is a good idea. However for such an immensely controversial topic, editors will likely demand that the material be peer reviewed. Correcting systemic biases isn't easy but it is rewarding if you go about it the right way. Editors will throw the book at you, this is how consensus building works and if you're not prepared to counter that then maybe take a step back. Joko2468 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Poor sourcing when there is a wealth of academic material on the topic is an NPOV problem and you should avoid being called out for hypocrisy if you want to make a strong argument. Joko2468 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@Joko2468 I hope you don't mind me asking but what about these ones - Taiwan‟s Long (Impossible) Road from a de facto to a de jure. Country. Is a New Constitution the Answer?, Columbia Undergraduate Law Review[14] and Between De Jure and De Facto Statehood: Revisiting the Status of Taiwan" by David Scott Mathias in Islands Study Journal [15] that both says because of China's influence and lack of broad international recognition, Taiwan functions as a de facto state limited to paradiplomatic channels because of China's influence and lack of broad international recognition. And Oxford Public International Law / Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2020, author Björn Ahl) under section D. International Legal Status, 1. Lack of Statehood.[16] that makes claims like: "Taiwan meets the objective criteria for statehood but has not formally claimed de jure statehood due to the risk of PRC military action." Etc JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:06, 6 October 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.
David Jeng
I need help in improving the article "David Jeng". The article "David Jeng" needs to be properly footnoted and backed up by sources. Also, I need the already provided sources to be in-line references. I want this to be sorted so the tag on it can be removed. Isaajibola (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Inline references means this: Every important point you make, you need to immediately put in a reference showing which source you got that information from. This means that people reading your article will see that every important sentence has a footnote attached to it. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I was reacting to the OP's quite clear implication that it was someone else's job rather than their own. Yes it's everyone's job, but it's also especially the job of the person who wants to get a certain article done. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I have gone through it. However, the similarities of both pages are not really the same. That aside, I will work on that aspect of honorary degree. Isaajibola (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
The articles are VERY similar, in the way that currently matters. The fact that they are different people is not important right now. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Are you familiar with WP:BIO? The information on that page is probably the most important for anyone writing an article about a person. I admit that there's a lot to read on there, but it's easier to read that than to constantly have articles declined or rejected because you didn't know what you needed to do.
The main topic of WP:BIO is how to decide if there should even be an article about that person. For most people in the world, there should not be any Wikipedia article about them. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
In the legacy section of the page for Sevalal Maharaj, there is a random list of names after it talks about his siblings. There doesn't seem to be any indication of what the list is for, and it's not the names of his siblings, because it lists those before that. There is also some weird formatting inside the list as well.
Maybe i'm missing something and the formatting is just junked up, or the title for the list was deleted and the list stayed or it was just mis-placed? If anyone has any idea, please tell me.
Apologies if this is not the right venue for making this request, but there's been a bit of a kerfuffle over at List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands. The main contributing editor has reverted the article to how it was 5 or so years ago and shortly after writing an "epitaph" on the article talk page, left the building so to speak. I would undo the edit myself but there's been two subsequent edits since and I'm not sure of the effects of undoing those. Would someone please take a look? Rupples (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
That "main contributing editor" writes on the article's talk page As a symbolic gesture, I have reverted this page to its status on the day I made my first edit; but an encyclopedia isn't built on symbolic gestures and so you needn't hesitate to revert. Yes, you'd thereby also revert subsequent edits, but other people (or of course you) could redo these. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Basically, is using the consensus (with those who already agree with you), to remove (or add) citations, you personally disagree (bias) with, a punishable offense? (Despite said sources being credible) – KaijuEditor (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
We don't generally answer unspecific questions here, because for most questions it will depend on the circumstances - especially if other editors may disagree with your characterising of the issue (which I'm guessing might be the case here). Your refusal to be specific is simply wasting time and effort - yours and others'.
Secondly, saying "due to personal biases" is a violation of the principle of assume good faith.
Thirdly Wikipedia works by consensus. When you have a disagreement with other editors, the first step is always to open a discussion with those other editors and try and reach consensus, not to appeal to some authority for a general ruling (there is no such authority anyway). Please see dispute resolution. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
There is a VERY big difference - at least on this site - between "credible sources" (your words) and "reliable sources" (Wikipedia's words). I think people tend to say "credible sources" to mean "My sources don't meet Wikipedia standards, but trust me on this". To make sure you don't get wrongly labelled like that, it's probably better to use Wikipedia's words to get your point across. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
What are we supposed to do with maps like this?
In the info-box of Bishopsgate railway station there is a little map of London with a dot on it to indicate where the station stood. The map covers only part of London, and it's so teeny-tiny that unless you have a good overview of London and can work out where the location is relative to one loop of the Thames, it's of no use whatsoever. If you click on the map to see a bigger version, the dot disappears, so you can now see roughly where in London the map might be, but now with no indication where the station is. This all seems rather less than ideal. Is there a way to make this more like Google Maps, where a map can be expanded without losing the target location? Elemimele (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I would want to expand this question to cover all cases of "Wikipedia map becomes useless because the location dot disappears". You just happen to have found one that's even more frustrating than the majority. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
The map is a static image, and the dot is superimposed over it by the infobox. Other articles have versions where you can pick "Location within X", "Location within Y", etc. I just don't think there's any standard in regards to this, and it varies between editors and articles. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I think it was already established that it's a static map with a dot superimposed. I think the point was that this way of superimposing a dot is ... I think they call it a "brittle" solution? The kind of feature that breaks as soon as you try to actually use it.
The dot disappearing is rather silly, but unfixable. I don't think that map is particularly bad, though. I have never been to London, but can still get an idea of where the station is located. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 20:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing:, thanks for the idea of infobox mapframe, I'll experiment with it a bit. Seems like I've just bumped into one of those untidy corners of the world, where things aren't as good as we'd like... Elemimele (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Article review for Augie Fabela?
Hi all, I really hope I'm not being rude by requesting assistance here. My last draft was submitted on August 15, after finding and inserting additional citations following previous editor suggestions. I would truly appreciate it if someone could please review Draft:Augie K Fabela II - an objective review would be highly appreciated. While I am affiliated with the subject, the article is strictly factual and Mr. Fabela is a noteworthy individual even if you just Google his name. Thanks in advance to anyone who might help. Much appreciated. VEON.MNS (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
VEON.MNS Hello. You have submitted the draft for review and it is pending. As noted on the draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,030 pending submissions waiting for review." Asking for a review does not speed this entirely volunteer driven process; everyone wants their draft reviewed quickly and you've given no reason you should be treated differently than others. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
@VEON.MNS Fix refs ref 23 PR Newswire link is a press release which is considered a primary and promotional source under WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY..., It does not provide independent verification of the claim and ref 10 Vimeo link is NOT a reliable published source under WP:V and WP:RS since it lacks editorial oversight and appears to be user-uploaded or promotional. So Replace them with independent secondary and verifiable sources. ThilioR O B O T🤖talk11:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I have created an article and have included references but the citing of references is not complete. Can someone assist me? thank you Terry Flanagan Terrence G Flanagan (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I see that you've created an Article about your son; father; grandfather; or someone that you have a close relationship with! Which is called a Conflict of Interest on Wikipedia. I can help you find some sources and help you make the article non promotional; but I recommend looking that the hyperlink I made to the page for further information! Valorrr(lets chat)14:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Second, I strongly suggest you please consider if you're willing to create a space where anyone can publicize criticism of your father if supported by reliable sources.
To be fair, it is allowed to create an article about a relative (though super-strongly recommended to use the AfC process, as you have) and while you have very little control over where that article later goes, you can still make edit suggestions on the talk-page. The main problem your article has is that it needs properly-formatted sources that are independent of your father. Wikipedia has quite strict expectations about "notability", defining people as notable not because they've done a lot of useful stuff, but because someone else has written about them doing a lot of useful stuff. You need to demonstrate this. One thing in your father's favour is his writing: we have special guidelines on authors WP:NAUTHOR that might be useful. If you're okay with this, make your COI clear as described in the instructions in the link Valorrr sent, and sort out those references! Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the input; I have no concerns about someone editing and saying something about my father. My BIL is Dan K McNeill and I see examples of what you speak of on his page. Terry Terrence G Flanagan (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I copied and pasted the article from Word to the template in the sandbox. Sorry to be a rookie at this - it is a bit overwhelming -- thank you so much for your help. Terry Terrence G Flanagan (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
If you get stuck with formatting issues, it can help to have a look at an article on someone similar. There's a caveat: you can get misled by a bad article, so ideally find an article on someone with a high enough profile that many editors will have noticed the article and worked on it. Elemimele (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I chose John Jarvis Tolson to look at and used many of the same references he has on his page. West Point, similar medals, etc. On the page for my dad, that is saved as a draft, I would like to have a picture of him, otherwise I am really ok with how it is drafted at this point. How do I get the picture installed and then ask for another review? Thank you for your help - Terry Terrence G Flanagan (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
@Terrence G Flanagan Your draft has been added to by another editor, who helpfully provided some further sources. Putting in an image won't help at this point, as it does nothing to establish his notability, which only reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage can do. Images can wait until the draft is accepted: then see Help:Pictures. (There's a large blue button on the draft to submit it for another review when you are ready). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi,
I am trying to add books to the 'In popular culture' section of the Yves Saint Laurent page but whenever I use the template it just turns into a subscript number when i want it to look like this: Rawsthorn, Alice (1996). Yves Saint Laurent: A Biography. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-385-47645-0.
I honestly cant figure it out so any help would be appreciated. Cocodrilo018 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Here's the edit summary: I imagine this had been discussed before, but I don’t know how to search the history. So: should we really be showing the signatures of living persons? They’re a personal Sicilian, and in some cases, e.g. politicians, it seems irrelevant. It feels like a form of doxing to me. They may in many cases be available to autograph hunters. But, presumably their ready availability will facilitate forgeries on merchandise. Had this been discussed? -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey, please look at my sandbox here, I don’t understand why the references keep showing up in the middle of the article, even though there’s a reflist at the end. This is also happening on the main article once I publish it. Can someone help me fix it? I’m unable to figure out the reason behind it. 456legendtalk08:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Outdated page for our architecture firm (since 2015)
Hello, I am new to this but want to learn how to request updates to the wikipedia page for 1100 Architect.
It looks to be outdated as of 2015. I understand as an employee, I am not participating in the edit. But I can provide a list of resources to support many updates. We are a well-established firm, with federal contracts, awards, publications, etc. Please advise. Much appreciated!
Thank you,
Betty Gonzalez Maxinik (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Maxinik. Firstly, please disclose your conflict of interest on your User Page at User:Maxinik by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Then, you'll want to propose an Edit Request to the article. Use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard which will properly format it and allow interested uninvolved editors to evaluate the request. I would recommend starting with some small edit requests first before doing anything big. qcne(talk)23:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, I was unaware that my username could not be the name of my company, so it has been changed. However, I submitted an article for review under the previous username ChessUp. Now I cannot figure out how to get back to my unaccepted article to make the edits and resubmit it.
Thank you ChessMasterKS (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @ChessMasterKS. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. And that is even without the issue of conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
My account “myteethhurtman”.
hello, this is my first time ever chatting on wiki so bear with me lol. i made a wiki account last weekend after using wiki for so long in my life, i didnt even know you could make an account! however it seems like i got hacked almost immediately within the next few days, and ive been extremely confused ever since. i genuinely have no idea what is going on with my account. i put in a request for help or something like that a few days ago, because i suddenly have so many languages and posts and it’s just so wierd. i tried to make a talk page but it got immediately taken down. i tried to connect to libera but it disconnected me, and then when i tried to connect to it again it just banned me for “harassment” i literally do not know what is going on, can someone at least TELL me what is going on at least because there’s soooo many articles and words and processes and i’m extremely confused. thanks! Myteethhurtman (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
ohhh i just saw jamies message on EFFPR. no no no ive never been blocked before. Im fairly certain I was hacked and i was put in a user group, and then I contacted wiki and they helped. i mean it cant be anything else. otherwise you are telling me that ive spent hours and hours on wiki thinking my account was in trouble for no reason, in which case i should probably go to the psych ward.... Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
@Myteethhurtman The account you're logged into (and posting from) was created this week (30 September). When you say I made a wiki account last weekend, what name was that account under? Nil🥝02:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
it was the exact same name with the same email. i am extremely confused. I was never told my account was banned. In fact its the same one with the same password. unless I am somehow tripping all of this man i am so confused. in fact i will go look in my search history and see what was going on to retrace the steps tbh. Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
oh. I just checked my screenshots. looks like I made my account in the early hours of sept 30, was sleep deprived, and went on to a public library when that hacking stuff showed up, like 12 hours later... Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
the earliest screenshot I have with the user logged in to wikipedia is 4:11am at sep 30. and sept 30 I had a login fail at 1:28pm, and the issues started from there. im ngl....i hope I havent wasted 10+ hours of my life thinking my wiki account is hacked....thats embarrassing. Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
oh my oh my it looks like i did a hotcat for something, and I didnt even know what it was. i thought the plus and minus buttons were for me, kind of like how you tell social media you want more recommended like this. I think that is definitely one of the reasons my account got in trouble, but hold on let me see everything else Myteethhurtman (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay that makes some sense now. It's possible that the IP address of the public library was blocked due to people using it disruptively, and not your account itself – that's why you've been able to access your account now as you're not at the library / on a different IP address, I assume.
In terms of the times, Wikipedia uses UTC for all of its logs – unless you're in the UK or Portugal, that means times shown will be different to the time of your local time zone. Nil🥝03:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
ok so i just want to/oh my god make sure, ive spent hours and hours in the past few days thinking my account is hacked by people with chinese characters, and uploading a variety of wierd things, and in reality it was the IP address of the library, which I still have a screenshot of (it starts with 2A09, not sure if its safe to post here) and in reality my account is actually fine (The IP I use the most starts with 45, again not going to post the rest lol)? I know sleep deprivations cause hallucinations but dang i hope this dosent mean i am in the early stages of a schizophrenia diagnosis.... Myteethhurtman (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
hi @Myteethhurtman and welcome to the teahouse! among the stuff I can answer:
due to single user login, user accounts for other Wikimedia wikis, including other language wikis, are automatically created when you access these wikis at least once while logged in with your current account. it could be that someone is accessing your account in another wiki, but it is more likely that you just viewed one article in say, the Arabic wiki after being linked to it or even by accident and such an Arabic-language account for you was automatically generated.
it seems you have tripped an edit filter recently which disallowed an edit of yours here and an admin has posted your post here for you. unfortunately as I am not also an admin and this is a private filter, I am unable to determine why this has occured but as this was posted here it could be to be a false positive. these filters are here to prevent constant vandalism from new users, which unfortunately does cause issues with false positives from genuine new users
the HotCat edit you did in Commons removed a category from the category list. I have reversed this edit, but as long as you are now aware what it does, such accidents can always be easily undone and forgiven.
wait so does this mean that anyone who signs into wikipedia in that library has access to my account? that is extremely scary. there were accounts from many years ago and it didn't look good lol. Myteethhurtman (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Go to Special:Preferences and in the user profile "Basic information" section there's a setting called "two-factor authentication" (this is what "2fa" means). You will need to download the Google Authenticator app to your phone (Android or iOS), and follow the steps to set it up.
After that, you log in as usual with your username and password, and input the 6-digit number shown in the app on your phone. If you have the checkbox ticked to save your login, it'll save for a year before you have to worry about 2FA again.
Just be sure also to verify your email address further down the user profile tab. That way if you forget your password, you can get email instructions to reset it. You may need this if you don't have to log in for a year. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
@Anachronist, this only works for members of specific user groups (like administrators). @Myteethhurtman, you'll need to follow the instructions at WP:2FA instead. But you don't need to do this - you're totally fine, you're not banned or blocked, I'm 99% confident you just saw an IP block at the library and got spooked. Don't post that IP address unless you want us all to know which local public library you go to. -- asilvering (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the 2FA setting in user preferences isn't available to all accounts. I wonder why?
It was only enabled to a small group at first for testing purposes, I imagine. I suspect they want to maintain a slightly higher barrier to entry than just "press this button on your preferences" either for testing scale reasons or because they don't want to deal with a deluge of "locked out, what do??" -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
If you are concerned that your account is compromised, you may abandon it (it only has 12 edits, and none are to articles), and create a new one under a different name; then set up 2FA immediately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
This is the message we received for a page I submitted that was not approved. Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
Essay-like writing
Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
Close paraphrasing
Please address these issues. The best approach is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, rather of using a large laLguage model. SePlease reviewur help page on large language models. Are there editors that have success with helping out? Raisedconsciousness (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
The main help is these two things: Please read the sources with your own eyes. Please write everything by hand without ever allowing AI to touch it. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Speaking as a TOL member: generally, it depends. If the subgenus is particularly noteworthy, then sure. If an article on the subgenus is purely going to be a list of species, then don't bother and redirect it to the genus. See WP:PAGEDECIDE for a bit of guidance here. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 14:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Archive box
Hi! I have a question about the archive box. I saw that some editors have an archive box on their page. I put the template on my page too, but I do not know how to make it work. Is it possible to make it automatically archive every week? I made some more edits and it has become confusing looking for new messages on my talk page because of all the old posts. I have to scroll all the way down. Thank you in advance for suggestions. Maybe you can recommend an archive template that works. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I've set that up for you. It will archive threads that have not been replied to for 7 days. It will always leave at least 4 threads, so you will always have a table of contents. Both settings are configurable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Incorrect Minor and uncited edit
This edit on the Blues page was incorrectly marked as a 'minor edit'. I have warned the user through Twinkle.
My concern is - the edit itself seems to be WP:OR without any citations. Should I also be reverting the edit? Or will that be overstepping? Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Other issues not withstanding, the inclusion of "As David Evans explains in “Blues” (Burnim & Maultsby, eds.)" means it was not uncited. Of course, a more complete citation, better formatted, would be preferred. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Theres this myth about a talking baby named Quarcoo Bah-Boni and in the myth he beats up some animals and cause them to run to different parts of the world to explain why they live there. Its a very cool story that I think belongs on wikipedia but im not sure if it should be its own article or be part of a bigger article. Its a story from somewhere in west Africa. ShiningVictory (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Are there any articles on Wikipedia that already say something about this story? Wikipedia search (and any other web search) will help you to find out. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I have made all corrections based on the previous reviewer’s suggestions for Draft:Neel Hurerzahan.
It has been waiting for quite some time without further review.
Could someone please take a look and let me know if it’s ready for publishing? Thank you! Saafayat (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
2,931 pending submissions, or an approximate ~8 week wait. Reviewers are all volunteers, so it may take some time before your submission can be reviewed.
You're more than welcome to keep working and improving upon it while it's awaiting it's review. Thanks, Nil🥝14:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Saafayat. You have not resubmitted it for review, so it was not even on the list of drafts for reviewers.
You had removed the decline notices, and along with them, the "resubmit" button.
I have restored these, and you can now resubmit it, if you believe you have addressed the issues in the notices.
Once you resubmit, it will go on the pile of drafts waiting for review, and there is no way of telling whether it will be reviewed quickly or not. Requests to review sooner achieve nothing except possibly irritating other editors. ColinFine (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
To help other editors understand what you've done: Several titles of your references are not in English, and I suggest that you also give a translation (of just the title, not the whole article). That makes it much faster to understand what each reference is about.
It seems to me that there might still be a problem, not with the number of references, but with what kind they are. We want to see independent writers who are not doing an interview, who go on and on writing a lot of analysis of her past work or why she is so important. If she has had many jobs and been mentioned many times, that's good for her but it doesn't help the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @ColinFine, @Nil and other reviewers — thanks very much for your guidance.
I have implemented the suggested corrections:
Replaced given-name usage with the subject's surname throughout the article (kept full name in the lead).
Removed IMDb as a reference (it was an incorrect link) — I will add a verified IMDb profile in External links if/when an official entry exists.
Provided English translations for Bengali reference titles to help non-Bengali reviewers understand sources more quickly.
Retained and cited independent, third-party coverage (for example, The Daily Star profile).
I have now resubmitted the draft for review. Please let me know if any further changes are required. Thank you again for your time and feedback. — @Saafayat (talk) Saafayat (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
The items in the Daily Star only mention the subject. Seeing her mentioned is not a bad thing, but it doesn't count as any coverage at all. We need to see things where she is the main topic of the report (and it's not an interview), not just saying she was in a band's video or hosting an awards ceremony. And we usually know that an awards host is not going to be getting any awards themselves, which somehow makes that reference seem even less encouraging. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
To put it a different way: As the article stands now, a cynical reader could complain "Anyone with a pretty face could have replaced her, she's not important" - and you have no reliable sources to prove them wrong. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Request for draft review
Hello! I submitted my draft article more than a month ago and it is still waiting for review.
The draft has independent coverage in reliable sources (BBC Radio, SoulTracks, Paris Jazz Club, Remix Japan, etc.), and I believe it now meets the notability and sourcing requirements.
@AriaKeys Your original decline notice pointed out that there is little evidence that he is notable as Wikipedia defines that for musicians. Many of your sources are just links to his work and evidence they have been played somewhere by someone e.g. on BBC Radio Solent, which you mention twice in different citations, where using a named reference would be better but still hardly evidence of a significant coverage of the artist. Focus if you can on finding sources meeting our golden rules and mention the three best ones as a comment at the top of the draft to help a future reviewer. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback, Mike. I understand that many of my current sources may not fully demonstrate significant coverage of the artist as required by Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for musicians. I will rework the draft by focusing on independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage rather than just mentions or playlists. I will also add a short comment at the top of the draft highlighting the three strongest sources to make the review process clearer for future reviewers. AriaKeys (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the previous feedback, Mike. I have revised the draft to focus on independent editorial coverage as requested. The three strongest sources are now highlighted at the top of the draft (SoulTracks 2014, Soul & Jazz & Funk 2015, Soul & Jazz & Funk 2020). Additional reliable sources such as Trax, Remix Japan, Marseille l’Hebdo, Paris Jazz Club and Radio Africa Paris have also been included to demonstrate broader coverage. The draft should now meet the notability and sourcing requirements for musicians. AriaKeys (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Apple Music isn't a reliable secondary source and I would delete all of those sources. I think you're going to struggle with this to be frank. Most of the sources that you mention above aren't really reliable, except BBC Radio. Think Le Parisien, Figaro, Arte, FranceInfo, or Telerama. For sig cov, you're looking for discussion of about 250 words or more. I think you may need to leave this in draft until he gets more coverage. MmeMaigret (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I completely agree that Apple Music (and similar databases) are not acceptable as secondary sources, so I will remove those.
However, the draft is not based only on those listings. There is significant independent coverage in professional print magazines such as Coda (France, Issue 12, 2001, p. 50 – feature article by Y2M: “Neo – la touche (Néo)classique”), Trax (France, 2002), Remix (Japan, 2003), and Jazz Hot, which include 1–2 full-page feature articles and reviews. These are published by recognized editorial teams, archived in the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the National Diet Library of Japan, and meet the criteria of reliable, independent sources.
One important point is the time period: Neo’s main coverage took place in the early 2000s, when most professional music magazines were still published in print only. That is why these sources are not easily found online today, but they are preserved in national libraries and remain fully valid under Wikipedia guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV).
The guidelines do not require only Le Parisien or Télérama; specialized international magazines are explicitly valid when they provide substantial analysis. In this case, the coverage is more than passing mentions—it includes critical discussion of Neo’s albums and career across several pages.
BBC Radio coverage is indeed strong, but it is complemented by these multiple print sources, which I will now highlight more clearly with author names and page numbers.
I hope this clarifies that the subject has received significant coverage from reliable, independent publications, well beyond simple database entries. AriaKeys (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello Andy Mabbett, Thank you for your advice. I understand, and I will work on improving my draft based on the feedback received, then resubmit it for review. Best regard. AriaKeys AriaKeys (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello David 10244,Thank you for your comment. I understand that print sources are accepted on Wikipedia, and I provide full citations for each reference (title, issue number, date, pages, and author when available).
Most of the magazines I cite date back to the early 2000s and were never published online. I have the physical copies and am currently contacting the publishers to provide verifiable evidence for my claims. Best regard AriaKeys AriaKeys (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
If you have the physical copies then that should be all you need to cite them, which I note you have done on your draft. I can't think of any reason to contact the publishers. Madam Fatal (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello Madam Fatal,
Indeed, I have the physical copies.
However, since these are old magazines, it’s quite difficult to trace their provenance. I can nonetheless provide high-resolution scans or photos of the relevant pages for verification purposes if needed.
I understand that publishing them publicly isn’t possible due to copyright restrictions, but I can share them privately with an editor or administrator if that would help confirm the verifiability of the sources.
Hello Mike Turnbull, Thanks for your feedback. I will focus on the strongest sources and list the top three in a comment at the top of my draft. I’ll also make sure to use named references to keep the citations clear.Best regard, AriaKeys AriaKeys (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
My page's length
Guys can my user page be long like 50,000 bytes? I read that articles size can't be too long or short but can MY user page be pretty long? I believe not much people will see my user page tho. My planet is Homlos (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not a matter of length. WP:UPNO says clearly that one of the things you may not have on your user page(s) is Content, discussions, or activities that are not directly related to Wikipedia's goals.
Ok I will limit myself and won't have like 10 things unrelated to Wikipedia. My star system,My YouTube channel Omniplanets and "I think". That's it I won't have anymore than that My planet is Homlos (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
My planet is Homlos, consider reducing that number by ten. (After you've made a couple of thousand constructive edits to articles, perhaps bring the number back up to a concise one or two.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
@My planet is Homlos, all of the stuff about your fictional star system is of no value to Wikipedia and does not belong on your user page or anywhere else on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTWEBHOST. You should remove everything below the table of contents. If you don't, your whole user page may be deleted. CodeTalker (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
If it's possible,I will try to make a web outside of Wikipedia and put all the things there, and put the link of the web inside of my user page so if the viewers of my page are interested. They can click into the link and get the whole information of my star system. So I didn't really put all the information of my star system in Wikipedia. I technically stored it outside of Wikipedia. Then will I get banned? Can I do that? All put a"further reading" under and put the link there. Is that possible? Will my whole user page be deleted? At least now I removed 13,000 bytes. More than half than before, having the peak of 21,400 bytes. It's now only 6000 bytes My planet is Homlos (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
When people have been so definite and specific with you, why are you saying things like "technically..."?
There was never going to be a ban. It's just please delete every trace of your star system from every page that has 'wikipedia' anywhere in its address. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I mean every single word that doesn't count as Wikipedia material. No YouTube link, no omniplanets, nothing except what belongs on Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
How can I even avoid mentioning something in my Star system. Even If I deleted my user page. My user name is still"My planet is Homlos" Which is a planet in my system. My planet is Homlos (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I really want to put my things back. Don't be concerned because I just want to do that,I won't revert all my edit and bring back all the things. My planet is Homlos (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
In this case, what is the proper protocol? Is a reversion considered edit warring even though I've attempted to reach out? Obviously a non-response can't put on hold an edit indefinitely, but is there an amount of time people typically give for responses? WinstonDewey (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
You could go to that editor's own talk page and leave a notification about the article talk page discussion you started. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
If I had to hazard a guess, the second amendment you made:
(i) added a middle initial for Stern
(ii) put in two brackets }} that weren't out of place.
(iii) made a minor description change about the book
(iv) moved a date in a sentence
(v) change a source, deleting the access date and archive page
(vi) added one category (Musicals by Stephen Schwartz).
If I had to guess @SanAnMan's reasoning, the changes you made to (ii) and (v) made the article worse and he didn't think the additions to (i) and (vi) justified it and (iii) and (iv) are neither here nor there.
He should have explained this to you but a lot of people revert instead of discussing (and they don't think about how the notification of a reversion feels). Also if you look, he created the page and amends it a lot.
Suggest you just make changes (i) and (vi) again. You could made (iii) and (iv) again if you feel strongly about them. Just make sure not to do (ii) and (v) again.
Regarding (v), the source linked was the main page for the theater company and didn't mention the Geppetto musical at all. I changed the link to the specific page that did. (iii) was changed because it is incorrect. Stern didn't write a book, he wrote the screenplay for the movie and then adapted it into the musical book, but what's written is that Stern wrote a book which the film was based on. I corrected that info on the film page and have had no issues with that.
I'll just note in general that I feel like I am running into this a fair bit, beyond this particular edit. Very experienced editors who revert changes with no explanation and will not engage or do so passive aggressively, expecting me to read their minds. It's particularly frustrating when there's an edit like this one where there is at least some obvious improvement being made, but it seems to be judged along the lines of if it is more bad than good or if it has anything they disagree with at all. It's very odd to me. WinstonDewey (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, a lot of editors revert and it's rude. There is an essay on reversion that says you should fix a good faith edit rather than revert if any part of the edit is useful but some editors will argue it's not policy. At the end of the day, people are people. I've already told you what I suggest: make changes (i) and (vi) again, make change (iii) and (iv) if you want to. You don't need anyone's permission. If he reverts it again, he reverts it. You'll have to decide at that point if you want to escalate it or if you're going to walk away. About (v), the archived page isn't about Pinnochio and neither is the page you linked so there's no reason to keep it.MmeMaigret (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Using wikipedia's editor and templates as a text editor for personal use
Is there a way to use the wikieditor and the templates to write, say, an essay or a thesis? I find it very convenient, especially when citing is easy as a click and a link, and the ref list is automatically updated. However, I am very sure making a personal work in draftspace will end up with it getting deleted, so, it there any way i can run it locally? Thanks in advance.
You could also copy the "Raw" edit into notepad and keep it safe somewhere. That way you can always copy text back and resume editing Harold Foppele (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
@Mint Keyphase You could use the source editor in your personal sandbox but never "publish changes": just use "preview". As Harold says, you can copy/paste the source code into a local PC editor and save it locally. When you are finished, you can "preview" the result in Wikipedia and copy/paste out the rendered text (or even save it as a .pdf). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
You could use User:Mint Keyphase/sandbox in your own user space, but that really shouldn't be used for maintaining things for personal use off-wiki. You could do as Mike Turnbull suggested, using your sandbox for preview and saving the markup in a text editor so you can continue working on it later in your sandbox. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, it's best just to work in your sandbox, previewing your edits, and save the page source in a local text editor when you need to pause and continue later.
Or, just use a word processor. The power of wiki-markup is really the ability to link to other pages easily and manage references, and if you want something for print publishing, the link benefit disappears. And word processors can also easily manage footnotes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Move category?
Hi, I just created a category under the wrong demonym ... It's "Somalian" and not "Somali"... But I couldn't find where to move the category page as articles have... May anyone move that please? (Category:Somali football referees to Somalian...). Thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
I’m looking for guidance in creating a Wikipedia page for Johnson Rays (Akinniyi Oluwaseun Johnson), a Nigerian musical artist and songwriter. I have a draft ready and would like to ensure it meets Wikipedia standards for notability, verifiability, and neutral tone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicContributor78 (talk • contribs)
Draft of blatantly promotional article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
About Johnson Rays
Blends Gospel Afrobeats, Afro-sound, and Gospel Reggae
Key releases: Belief (2023, album), Motivate (2024, single), God Did (2024, EP)
Born 18 August 1978, Nigeria
Draft Summary
Akinniyi Oluwaseun Johnson (born 18 August 1978), known professionally as Johnson Rays, is a Nigerian musical artist and songwriter. He blends Gospel Afrobeats, Afro-sound, and Reggae Gospel to create uplifting music with messages of faith, perseverance, and motivation.
Career and Releases:
Belief (2023, Album): Combines Gospel Reggae and Gospel Afrobeats to deliver motivational messages rooted in faith.
Music Smart link: ditto.fm/belief_johnson_rays
Motivate (2024, Single): Encourages listeners to persevere and stay motivated.
Music Smart link: ditto.fm/motivate-johnson-rays
God Did (2024, EP): Celebrates triumphs over challenges and fuses Reggae Gospel with Afrobeats.
Music Smart link: ditto.fm/god-did-johnson-rays
3. Shoplife Africa Magazine – shoplife.com.ng/2024/09/shoplife-africa-magazine-exclusive-interview-with-johnson-rays/
4. Lagos Jump Radio – lagosjumpradio.com/featured/johnson-rays-a-musical-journey-fueled-by-hope-and-inspiration/
Vision
Johnson Rays’ music aims to inspire, motivate, and uplift listeners while blending African rhythms with gospel messages. His work emphasizes faith, perseverance, and creative expression.
Hey there, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and welcome to the Teahouse! As another user mentioned, please don't post draft articles here, your sandbox page is a good place for doing that! For help with writing articles, check out this page, it's got heaps of info on how to write articles. You can also go here to start an article that will be reviewed by other editors before it's published live on the site (this is good for starting out!) Let us know if you have any further questions. SnowyRiver28(talk)
Hello, MusicContributor78, and welcome to the Teahouse. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello @ColinFine, thank you for the warm welcome and for your advice. I appreciate your guidance and understand the importance of learning more about Wikipedia’s policies before creating an article. I’ll take time to study and improve existing pages so I can better understand how everything works. Thanks again for your patience and support. MusicContributor78 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Bazza 7, thank you for the reminder. I didn’t mean to remove anyone’s comments — that was a mistake while I was trying to tidy the page. I appreciate your feedback and will make sure not to delete others’ comments again. MusicContributor78 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Page references a medical article, but the text doesn't match the contents of said article.
Hello, I was reading the page Life expectancy, and I noticed in the Japan section it said
Japan's high life expectancy can largely be explained by their healthy diets, which are low on salt, fat, and red meat. For these reasons, Japan has a low obesity rate, and ultimately low mortality from heart disease and cancers.
I thought this was odd, since Japan has a fairly high level of salt consumption per capita. I decided to look at the cited article (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8189904), and it didn't match up with that text, it said
The decreasing mortality rates from cerebrovascular disease are thought to reflect the increases in animal foods, milk, and dairy products and consequently in saturated fatty acids and calcium, together with a decrease in salt intake which may have led to a decrease in blood pressure. This decrease in salt and highly salted foods also seems to account for the decrease in stomach cancer. The typical Japanese diet as characterized by plant food and fish as well as modest Westernized diet such as meat, milk and dairy products might be associated with longevity in Japan.
What can be done about this? I don't have enough confidence to re-write the section myself. Is there perhaps some template I could add to call this out?
Sorry for the long question, I felt this was important to address considering it's a medical reference. 51.37.88.62 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
In addition, if you want to add a template to call this out in the text, the appropriate template for when an article doesn't match the source it's cited to would be Template:Failed verification. But I agree with Andy that it would be great to raise this on the talk page so it's easier for another editor to fix. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and rewritten the section you noted, though, so at this point I don't think you'll need to add that template (unless you disagree with my summary, which is of course fair). SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I know, when tried to download files on my android device, it's empty; while downloading the same thing on Mainland Chinese Phone it have content. 獅眠洞 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Looks like that site uses an obfuscated (and apparently misconfigured, based on the above comments) bot protection (based on the presence of an obvious honeypot link in the page source) which IP bans you (temporarily?) if it is failed. I visited it just now from hardened Firefox and it reloaded to a blank page, returning status code 400 bad request. Clearing cookies and trying another browser on the same IP also led to a 400 error. Unfortunately I do not know of any good solutions for this. Related discussion on VPT, although I do not recommend the proposed solutions in that discussion (as it would likely be a copyright violation). OutsideNormality (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I'm interested in making an article for one of the other works of Stephen Graham Jones, specifically his book Mongrels. I think it generally passes the notability guideline, with several sources covering it and even an interview. I listed some examples below.
example 1example 2example 3
So, what I mean to actually ask is how do I go about creating the article. I know the guidelines and rules about the writing part, as well as the whole "creating your first article" page. Basically what I mean is do I have to run it by anybody before I create it? Or is there any sort of review process by others before the actual article is made? ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello. If you use the Article Wizard to create your draft, you can then submit it for a review by other editors who will either accept it into the encyclopedia or give feedback on improvements. This is highly recommended unless you have experience having articles accepted. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Of those example sources you list, only one of them meets the required WP:Golden Rule criteria. The first one is just a description of the book, and the last one is an interview. Neither of those count toward notability. Only the middle one is a review, which does count. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Whoops! I'm sure I'll be able to find other reviews, but that is good to know, thank you!
The site bills itself as "Whistleblower Network News", but the content, the bylines, and the About page lead me to believe that it's a group blog produced by a law firm that specializes in whistleblower-related cases. (Note the preponderance of the firm's partners and employees on the About page.)
The cited article mentions a partnership between the WJC and NWC, which the about blog is "tied" to according to their about page. In this case, regardless of whether they are a blog, the article should be treated as primary source (WP:PRIMARY) as it is from an organization involved in the investigations being reported. For this kind of question, you'll often get a more informed answer at WP:RSN. Rjjiii (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Nowhere. See WP:No original research. Wikipedia does not publish original works. Wikipedia reports only what has already been published in independent reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Get independent third party coverage of your theory and then Wikipedia might be able to have an article on it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
The length and repetitiveness of the questioner's block log suggests some serious problem, one that would not be solved by providing an answer. -- Hoary (talk) 04:23, 8 October 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.
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.
Hello, there's just this person who keeps making disruptive edits to Bini-related pages. It's not just one, but about a dozen separate articles related to the group's music. But they don't have an account, just this IP address: 203.177.220.206
I usually try to give these people a warning first, especially on their talk pages. But yeah, it's a random IP address, so there's no talk page.
They keep applying an edit to multiple pages even after other editors and I have discussed their arguments and decided against applying them. Also, they changed the order of "Tagalog" and "English" in the infobox of "First Luv" for no reason, and provided this barely coherent explanation(???): "english came out first on the lyrics which counts as english is first before tagalog."
I'm just so drained. Even after the other editors and I settled on a consensus, this IP vandal is still going at it with unhelpful/disruptive edits. How do I handle a situation like this? Bloomagiliw (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
The current article is very out of date. I have drafted a new version in my sandbox here: User:Detox22/sandbox. It is neutrally written, fully referenced, and includes ISBNs for my books.
I posted a request on the article’s Talk page on 19 September, but I haven’t had any response yet.
Could an experienced editor please take a look at the sandbox draft and consider replacing the outdated version? I would be very grateful for any advice or assistance.
Please don't use Chat GPT or other LLMs to write here.
I have tagged that talk page with {{Edit coi}} to indicate that review by a neutral editor is requested; as that template indicates, there is a long backlog; review can take several weeks. Please be patient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits11:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
When people are talking about "tone issues" and "reads like a resume", those things overlap but are different. "Reads like a resume" seems to me mainly an issue of content; it means we're reading what the person wants to have said about themselves, instead of reading what publicly-available independent reporting has already said.
It will really help a lot when you delete all material that the public wouldn't have known until you told them, and stick to only sources that are independent from you - avoid "filling in the blanks" with what you know to be true. If the public record has been incomplete or flawed, we need to intentionally keep the flawed incomplete version, without setting the record straight. (Serious legal issues excepted.) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
And the reason for having a standard naming protocol: Categories exist to help readers make sense of what's here, and to help them find the thing they're looking for. If all possible categories were included, even ones that are duplicates or near-duplicates of other ones, everything would make less sense and be harder to find. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
I accidentally sent my article for review before I had finished
I was lazy and decided, oh I won't finish this I'll do it while I wait and within ten minutes it was declined. Please Help! Bobobebops (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
You have already resubmitted it; you may continue to edit it even after it is submitted, or you may reverse your submission. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
You created Draft:Hypertouch (ISP) submitted it, it was declined, and then you submitted it again after putting content in but nothing like what a Wikipedia article requires, and also removing the decline notice. Another user restored the decline notice. It is now waiting for review.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, demonstrating that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. Since the draft has no proper citations, it will, I am sure, be declined very soon. (You have included a couple of sources as "External links", but since they are not cited inline, it is not clear what information in the draft they are intended to verify. See WP:REFB).
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) 22:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
I hadn't intentionally removed the decline notice. I had published what it should look like after it was declined, but had started before. Thanks for assuming, very welcoming. Bobobebops (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Bobobebops, please note that ColinFine did not say that you intentionally removed the decline notice. Only that you had done so, which was accurate. If you made an unintentional error, I would think that you would want a more experienced editor pointing out your mistake, so that you can learn from it and not repeat it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The problem is that neither of you considered that the deletion notice was added while i was editing. Once again I note that this was not a mistake but was not an intentionally done thing. Very welcoming. (I'm going to get another 'smart' comment, aren't I?) Bobobebops (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello again, @Bobobebops. I'm sorry you found my reply unwelcoming: it was not intended to be. I did not make an assumption: I noticed that you had removed the decline notice, and pointed this out and that I had restored it. It is not uncommon for inexperienced editors to do this, and I have no idea whether they do so intentionally or not. There was no way I could tell that you were in process of editing, even if I had gone to look (which I didn't think to do, I admit): I see that you submitted your edit eleven minutes after Wikishovel declined the draft. I'm surprised that you didn't get a message about an editing confict in that case, and the invitation to resolve it.
I don't know if you found the rest of my message unwelcoming: again, it was not intended to be. I wish there was a I way I could get a message to new editors saying "STOP! If you try to create an article without first getting some experience, you are likely to have a frustrating time". ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Dave Thomason
Request for neutral help creating a page about a police safeguarding specialist
I’d like to ask for neutral assistance with creating a Wikipedia article about Detective Sergeant Dave Thomason, who is known for his work in stalking prevention and safeguarding with Cheshire Constabulary.
There is significant independent coverage about his work in national and regional media, academic contexts, and government reports. For transparency, I’m connected to the subject, so I won’t be editing the article directly due to conflict-of-interest rules.
If any experienced editor is willing to review reliable sources and, if appropriate, draft or submit an article independently, I would be very grateful.
I want to add a disambiguation link to a protected article about Artificial Intelligence
The article about Artificial Intelligence Artificial Intelligence mentions Commonsense knowledge , but does not provide a wiki-link to the corresponding article:
Common sense knowledge
Terry Flanagan came to the Teahouse a couple of days ago asking for help with a page about his father. I agreed to help him and started converting his sources into inline citations as well as adding other citations to the draft.
However, today, I realised another article exists about Edward M. Flanagan Jr.. At first, I couldn't understand how that was overlooked but, on further digging, it turns out the page was only created by @Billmckern today.
In fact, it turns out that after I created the backlinks, @Billmckern deleted each one and then created a new page on Flanagan.
I feel like this is an issue for the noticeboard without quite knowing what the exact complaint would be. Any advice? Or is this just a "let it be" situation? MmeMaigret (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I can say with utmost certainty that I have no idea what to do in such a situation. Either it's politics, for which I obviously lack skill, or it's policy, which in this case I don't know anything about. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
As always, MmeMaigret, one should first try to discuss matters. Billmckern is an experienced editor and should know what he's doing. I suggest that in Talk:Edward M. Flanagan Jr. (which currently has no messages) you ping him as you raise the subject. How? or, with what in mind? That's up to you, but in your place I'd start by asking whether he was aware of the existence of Draft:Edward M. Flanagan when he launched his article, and what he suggests should be done about the content of the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Mmemaigret This looks like an accidental duplication rather than misconduct to me.... so since the article now exists in mainspace the simplest next step is to merge any unique, well sourced material from the draft into the live article and then redirect the draft to avoid confusion.
If both versions had different contributors (Terry Flanagan and Billmckern ), note that in the edit summary when you merge. There’s no need for a noticeboard report unless there’s edit-warring or disruptive behavior so in such this case it’s probably best to just “let it be” after merging and redirecting. ThilioR O B O T🤖talk04:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
How is deleting 5 backlinks accidental:
07:27, 8 October 2025 diff hist −19 m Diokno Highway No edit summary
07:26, 8 October 2025 diff hist −19 m John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School No edit summary
07:25, 8 October 2025 diff hist −19 m Comptroller of the United States Army No edit summary
07:25, 8 October 2025 diff hist −19 m Sixth Army (United States) No edit summary
01:04, 8 October 2025 diff hist −20 m List of commanders of 1st Infantry Division (United States) No edit summary
followed by the creation of the page?
07:38, 8 October 2025 diff hist +14,803 N Edward M. Flanagan Jr. ←Created page
Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes, but it was inadvertent. I did not know there was an existing draft. I deleted or changed red links to match the title of the article when I created it. Among other things, I think Wikipedia's convention has been no comma after last name, before Jr., which was how I titled the article, so I made sure Wikilinks aligned. I just happened to be looking at the 1st ID commander's list, noticed one that wasn't done, and started working on it. No intention to cause discontent.Billmckern (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
What in the world are you people talking about? There's nothing sinister going on here. Just a coincidence that I unknowingly worked on an article that someone else had prepared a draft for. Now that I'm aware, I've been working this morning on pulling relevant details from the draft article and including them in the one I created. If it makes you feel better, copy the article I created, paste it into your draft, and claim authorship yourself. I really don't appreciate the insinuations.Billmckern (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Billmckern because of the nature of this, I expected to see you were a new editor but you've got an impressive count of contributions to your name. I'll spare you the {{uw-unattribcc}} but say you should be aware of the attribution requirement from Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia--you should have at least attributed in your edit summary, that would have at least cleared up the later part of the mess that this has brought about. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Billmckern I thought it was a coincidence (accidental) (This looks like an accidental duplication rather than misconduct to me... But honest speaking the way you replies, I unknowingly worked on an article that someone else had prepared a draft for. The logic doesn't make sense, How ??? or time works different on the other sides ??...The draft was created on 13:35, 6 October 2025, and you created the same subject live on article namespace on 20:38, 7 October 2025 the same this Draft:Edward M. Flanagan#Books and the same that Edward M. Flanagan Jr.#Books with some salt and colors (Not bad tho). I did not know there was an existing draft. aren’t we supposed to check if a draft (or deleted article) already exists before creating an article in the main namespace? ThilioR O B O T🤖talk17:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I went on Wikipedia and did a search and found my Dad. I cannot tell you how great it is that he has a page. Thank you and all who helped -- Terry Flanagan Terrence G Flanagan (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Thilio1 -- Exactly as I said. I created my article on 7 October. The draft was done on 6 October. And I didn't know the draft was in existence. Why didn't I check for a draft first? Because this is the first time that issue has ever come up with one of my articles. 2 -- "Salt and colors"? What the hell does that mean?Billmckern (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Billmckern: if you look at the history of the pages:
United Nations Command
Diokno Highway
John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School
Comptroller of the United States Army
Sixth Army (United States)
List of commanders of 1st Infantry Division
you'll see that, you made edits immediately after me. If you had clicked any of the backlinks, I had inserted, you would have seen there was an article in draftspace.
Honestly, I thought it was suss but @Hoary and @Thilio suggested giving you the benefit of the doubt, which I did.
I simply want(ed) the drafts merge, which you started to do.
If you'd said you were doing that and @Rob9980 hadn't weighed in to suggest merging wasn't necessary, I don't think @Bobby Cohn would have gotten annoyed.
But can we draw a line in the sand under this? Bobby has requested the histories be merged and Terry is delighted that a page has been created.
Hello! I recently submitted Draft:Suwałki Airport for review, but I see that the queue is quite long.
If anyone has time to take a look and provide feedback or review it, I’d really appreciate it. Thank you! Cubingx (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
There's no queue, it's just a group of drafts waiting in no particular order. You have already submitted it, so it will get reviewed eventually. There are no deadlines here.
Just glancing through, it looks like a good start. Note that Wikipedia doesn't use title case in headings; please fix this. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I have very simple and brief question: is there a template one could use that displays in editing mode to warn editors to use a certain time style? There’s a template for “use DMY” dates for instance. What I’m looking for is basically a “use 24 hour clock” template. Thanks in advance.
That’s what I was considering. Now that you confirmed me not finding the desired template is not merely my own bad searching, I’ll probably do that soon. Thanks. Slomo666 (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Hierarchy of information
In the Ukrainophilism article, should the 19th century nationalist movement take precedence in the lede or should the modern understanding of the word? I'd argue the former is more significant but most people searching for the article would likely be looking for the latter. I was planning on rewriting that section at some point. Joko2468 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
If I can't confirm that a source on the wiki says what it supposedly says, can I reuse it on another page on the wiki?
This question is brought to you by the Citation Hunt tool. Which send me to: Slave Rebellions - Europe - Servile Wars. Since those have their own pages, I figured they might be the best starting points. Turns out there are the sources I need, but they are books. So I can't confirm they say what they supposedly say. Which begs the question, can I copy the source from one article to the other if it confirms the assertion made in either, even if I can't check what it says myself? MMichkov (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Ideally you should check the sources before citing them—sometimes what they're being cited for is vague, and sometimes sourcing is sloppy or the sources get separated from what they were originally cited for. If you could see the secondary sources, I would say you might get away with citing the Greek and Roman writers as cited in them. But in this case, it looks like those are the sources you should be able to check: chiefly Diodorus Siculus and Livy, but also the other writers cited in the bibliography under Third Servile War. I would feel safe citing these once you check them, since you should be able to find all of the Greek and Roman sources online, and possibly also Mommsen.
Among secondary sources, you should be able to check some good sources through the Wikipedia Library, possibly including the Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford Classical Dictionary, and possibly some version of Pauly-Wissowa (in German). The Cambridge Ancient History is sometimes accessible.
Some older sources that likely have relevant information are available through Internet Archive and Google Books, including the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (under biographical articles for the participants), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (under places, usually including historical information), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, and Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities. These works have copious citations to Greek and Roman writers, though you should check them for what they say and to make sure the citations are correct; proofreading citations was hard in the 19th century, and many sources have different editions with different numbering. Obviously attitudes toward social issues (such as slavery, race, and class) have changed since these sources were written, but in terms of supplying the basic facts and providing the authorities for them, they are unsurpassed in detail among English-language classical scholarship. P Aculeius (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Although it's not quite what you're asking, it's worth being aware of WP's rules around copying from one article to another. Attribution isn't required if you're only copying the citation, but if you also copy any of the article text (along with the source), make sure you have a read of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Nil🥝00:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Any advice for helping to speed up a review
Hello, I submitted a revised draft of an article almost 2 months ago and have not received any feedback. Previous submissions were declined within several days. I have been advised that the fact that I have disclosed that I am a paid editor and the article is about the company I work for, that this could be causing the delay, as these types of articles could take more time to review. My concern is that it may never be reviewed for this reason. I am curious to know if the article has a 'black mark' against it and if there is a possibility it will never be reviewed. I was also advised by an editor "it looks pretty good - that is, you haven't done anything that would make it harder for reviewers to review."
Is it just a case of waiting it out? Or is there anything I could do to improve the submission? I would greatly appreciate any feedback you have. Many thanks in advance. Sinead RAU (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Your draft (Draft:Reddy Architecture + Urbanism) is submitted and pending. As noted on the draft, "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,840 pending submissions waiting for review." That you are a paid company representative is not relevant to this(we want you submitting drafts). This is an entirely volunteer driven process, with people doing what they can, when they can. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me and confirming that being a company representative is not relevant. I will be patient. Kind regards. Sinead RAU (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
The article has been declined many times, always for the same reason. It makes me wonder why you have continued submitting it for review without really dealing with the problem.
I wonder if the word "advertising" is being misunderstood. Advertising is ANY material that is intended to make people want to do business with you. It does not help if you word the advertising in a neutral-sounding tone; it's necessary to delete every sentence that might have been put there to attract business. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis
How do I suggest some kind of POV evaluation on the article 2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis?
Currently most of the 2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis article is a collection of info derived from both Cambodian and Thai media. Which most media in both countries depicts their own country as the morally correct one.
Hello, and thanks in advance for your help.
I’ve been working on a draft article about myself, Aaron Kenneally, an Irish Shotokan karate instructor. I understand there are conflict of interest concerns, which is why I am building the draft in my sandbox rather than resubmitting straight away.
The draft is here: User:Aaronkenneally/sandbox
I believe I meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines because there is significant independent coverage of me in reliable sources, including:
Multiple articles in the Evening Echo (2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2022, 2023)
A feature in Irish Fighters magazine (2011)
A profile in the Cork Independent (2011)
Mention on the SKIF Yudansha-Kai executive committee website
These are all independent publications with full articles and features, not just passing mentions.
I’ve tried to keep the draft strictly neutral and source-based, avoiding promotional wording. Some self-published sources (my club website and personal photography website) are only used for non-controversial details like official sites and occupation.
Before I submit this draft for review at AfC, could an experienced editor please look over it to confirm whether the tone and sourcing are appropriate, and suggest any changes needed to give it the best chance of being accepted?
Thank you for your time and guidance.
–– Aaronkenneally Aaronkenneally (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
The photograph in the draft seems like it was taken by someone else other than you, however you claim that this is your own work. Is this the case? Also, it might be best to stick to using #th Dan rather than using Sho/San/Yondan given that's generally the common verbiage I believe when referring to Dan as opposed to Kata. The main issue I see is that a large amount of the newspapers you link to on your website are only you talking about the club or the paper talking about the club, not talking about you. The references that you have that would contribute to the general notability guideline (all articles must be notable in some way, by this guideline or another) is the Evening News paper from 04 Nov 2013 and the Irish Fighters paper from 01 Jun 2011. Is there any other sources which talk about you in detail and not as a passing mention? Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, reading the draft, I'm struggling to see how you're notable. I don't think your dojo or level are particularly special. Suggest your best angles are: representing your country, being on an exec board for the sport, being an international judge. The draft say you received judge, referee, kansa credentials but have you actually refereed? Note (1) You can't link to your own website for the different sources - you need to link to publications themselves or to an independent source of them. (2) The Evening Echo counts as one source no matter how many articles there are. (3) No one is interested in the personal interests of a living person. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
HI Teahouse, I've got a question about renaming a page. I'm a native-English speaker learning French, and I've come across this page on French Wikipedia: fr:Chāt masālā which I believe should have the title "Chaat masala" instead of "Chāt masālā" as macrons are not a thing that exists in French (as far as I am aware). I could do an edit to the page to change the text within the article, but this change would also need to be in the title of the page (which if I understand correctly would also change the URL).
I am a relatively new and inexperienced Wikipedia editor. I assume this isn't a change I can make by myself. How would I go about requesting / kicking off the converstation about this change?
Generally, the proccess of changing a page's URL (which also changes the main page header) is called moving a page, though, given the fact that the page in question is on frwiki, you will need to ask over there (perhaps at fr:Project:Forum_des_nouveaux, which appears to be frwiki's equivalent of the Teahouse) regarding the exact procedure. Victor Schmidt (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't know the French Wikipedia rules for foreign-language page titles. Maybe they have it this way intentionally. But you are right to be asking them a question to find out. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
💡 Macrons are actually quite common in NZ English for loan words from Maori. (Also, if chat were a Maori loan word, both spellings (chaat and chāt) would be acceptable.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
In what context is a self published citation appropriate?
Hey y'all, I'm pretty new here and I am aware that self published sources are almost always NOT something we want to use when citing information in an article. I was looking at the web page for Yung Leans Mixtape Frost God, and saw a citation needed for a directors credit. The only place I could find that information was the description of the youtube video published by Yung Lean. Is this an appropriate exception to the rule? Since it is information from the creator with a detail about the thing that was created? I would love some more explanation as to why this is or isn't appropriate, so I can provide higher quality edits in the future. Thanks so much.
@InsertMode I'm not an expert on this, but I have a couple of things that may help a little. My first question assumes that you're knowledgeable about the artists being discussed.
How likely is it that this director credit might be controversial? (Meaning, is there anyone out there who might want to argue that somebody wasn't telling the truth when they put that credit on YouTube?) If you think someone might argue, then you should try to get some better evidence.
Second thing: In my experience, credits on YouTube have REALLY often contained very stupid mistakes. It happens so very often that I wonder if YouTube itself might be partly to blame, but regardless, there are tons of wrong credits on there. Maybe I see this so much because I listen to a lot of very old stuff, but honestly I think the mistakes are pretty widespread. I'm NOT saying yours is a mistake, but I'm asking: Does it look right to you? Do you, knowing about these artists pretty well, think this makes sense?
If you can answer that nobody's likely to argue, and the credit seems right to you, then I think it's safe to leave it the way you did it. But if some other editor isn't satisfied and changes it back, I think you should easily let them do that because the evidence isn't 100% solid. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
That's very helpful context. I am very familiar with the artist, and this particular credit is a long time collaborator. That can be shown with other sources (unfortunately I can't find a source that directly confirms this credit) so I think in this case this change made sense. I'd be very surprised if it were disputed, but I will defer to a disputer if that time comes for the reasons you described. Thanks so much for taking the time to share your thoughts. I will seek to learn more as I continue editing!
If you have a conflict of interest with a topic or with a source, the best practice is to write a proposal on the article talk page to include it, and let the community decide. The community generally frowns on editors adding citations to their own works. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Right, I do not have a connection with the subject. I am just a fan of their work and wanted to include a citation for a director credit in their article and wanted to know if my citation was appropriate given the context. InsertMode (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Accident report
How much of an accident report do I add to the article?
I am currently trying to improve this draft about USAir Flight 499. I was wondering how much of the report should I add to the article. Should I summarize the main points or try to add everything into the article but word it differently?
Because that's a primary source, I would defer to what actual journalists chose to cover from that report, and cite the secondary sources instead. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
This appears to be kind of a pointless question, because the reviewer already told you that the source you're asking about doesn't count for much. You need to be finding the other different sources that the reviewer said are needed, not trying to optimize this one. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not saying take this source away, I'm only saying that fixing up the way you use this source has no chance of saving the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Zaptain United, the question that you need to answer for yourself and for other editors is why an airline incident that resulted in only one minor injury meets the standard of notability? In all honesty, I doubt that this mishap is notable and I see no evidence that it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If it has, then why are those sources not yet referenced in the draft? Routine, run-of-the-mill coverage does not establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure this is good advice, but it's probably advice to be taken on an article that has a chance of being accepted. This article will continue to be a waste of time, until it shows significant coverage of the event in independent sources. Anyone planning to summarize this accident report should find those other sources first, and if they don't find good enough coverage, find a different article to work on. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
<The reason it is a worthy post is that the companies have split and formed separate entities.>
The company TP-Link Systems (US-owned) and TP-Link Technologies (Chinese-owned) formally separated into two wholly distinct entities in 2024. So, I disagree with the assertion that "Despite it looking like articles for other consumer goods companies" is not relevant. For TP-Link Technologies, which has a wiki page, to be the only landing page for the companies creates confusion not only amongst consumers, but policymakers. That creates risk because there is a strong anti-China sentiment in the US and companies are being targeted. TP-Link Systems needs to make certain that policymakers and consumers are aware that it is not affiliated in any way with the Chinese-owned TP-Link, which only sells its products in China, and has for decades.
So, I can correct the internal reference to Wikipedia and find an alternate source for the market share information as that was pulled from an independent source. That would seem to address the errors. But the relevance of the page to distinguish it from the Chinese-owned entity is clear.
I appreciate your help and look forward to engaging on this matter. I apologize for not being more responsive on the last thread. It was over the weekend. I will actively monitor it this time. Gguice (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
@Gguice What you describe is a promotional purpose, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. We do not care about spreading awareness or defending companies from "being targeted"; we only care about reflecting what has been written about the companies in independent reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
The key point is that there are now two entities instead of one and that is not "promotional" that is fact. Letting the TP-Link Technologies wiki remain as the only one, presents an inaccurate page that I am not able to revise. My explanation was to provide some context on why it matters, not to be promotional. In fact, on the draft page, I have added third party information about the new entity and issues in this space. I find it a little hard to understand why preservation of dated and inaccurate information matters more than updating the record to reflect current circumstances. Gguice (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
We do support adding updated information as long as it complies with core content policies such as neutral point of view. Broadly, your draft Draft:TP-Link Systems is written to defend the company from various accusations rather than summarizing what independent sources have written about the accusations.
Nobody wants to preserve dated information. However, replacing it with information from a biased source is worse than doing nothing. We do trust a company to give information about itself when that information is plain neutral facts with no potential for controversy and no business advantage to be gained, but as soon as there's the slightest hint of a company trying to influence a reader's opinion about anything, it's not acceptable. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I have previously tried to make a change to the main page and it was also not taken because of my disclosed COI. This is quite the loop. I will try again for a neutral, facts-only tone on a new page and then make a redirect from the old page. Gguice (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not so much the tone as the content. We reject content that seems to be for promotional purposes, even if it has a neutral tone. And clearing your company's name is a promotional purpose.
People don't decline to make a change just because of your COI. The real reason was that you requested something that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Help about a user interaction.
Hello everyone, it just came to my attention that 6 days ago, a user contacted me, though my talk page, which they asked my help about a draft. I was ready to see what was it about, but then i noticed that the us3r mentions that they are sending the message through a second account, since their primary was blocked. That made me a bit worried, so i looked at the user page, of the sender, and the account was banned for sockpuppetry. The main account of that user (found it based of the ban notice), as the user mentioned, was also banned, and their talk page had unblock reuests from administators, which were denied. What i am supposed to do now, should i ignore it, inform an administator? This is the first time this has happened to me, so i don't know what to do. Any assistance will be valuable. Please help, and thank you to everyone responding in advance, as this seems a bit serious?! Mant08 (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I was looking through Wikipedia, and saw there's no page for Quantum Archeology. Seriously!! It's like an idea that says one day we might be able to rebuild people from the past using insanely advanced tech. The basic thought is that if the universe keeps a perfect record of everything that’s ever happened, you know, every atom, every interaction then in theory, we could dig through that data and re-create entire lives, memories, and minds. It mixes quantum physics, computing, and a bit of sci-fi optimism, imagining a future where even the long-dead could be brought back digitally or physically. I don't believe it personally, but it would be ridiculously fun to read about. Why doesn't a page for it exist? I never edit wikipedia, so I guess it's something to do with sources? Let me know :) 31.208.88.59 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
IP editor. With sources (according to Google) only on Substack, Reddit and Quora etc, any attempt to place an article in Wikipedia will fail as fringe-of-the-fringe. Wikipedia doesn't really do "ridiculously fun to read about". Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Quantum archeology is the kind of topic that I might hear about from that one crazy friend of mine. (I don't really have such a friend at the moment, but I hope you know what I mean.)
Wikipedia handles those topics (whether the stories or the friend himself) basically by "covering the coverage" while pointing out that the stories he tells have no basis in fact. At least that's the idea, as far as I can tell. And so we wouldn't write about it at all, unless a ton of coverage kind of forced us to. I hope. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft wass declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. The reasons for the decline were left by the reviewer. It is sourced only to primary sources- your organization itself. Wikipedia is mainly interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell about itself.
Thank you for saying "In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, I disclose that I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article." But your username suggests that you are an employee of AGSF. Is this so? (i) The draft hasn't been rejected but declined. (ii) You present a set of "References". And then you present a set of "References". Why not expand the first set with what are now in the second set, thereby informatively linking specific assertions with specific sources? (iii) For almost all purposes, the sources must be independent of AGSF. Is there so little about AGSF in the websites of the more serious newspapers and magazines? -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Aurora Controversy Section deleted
Take a look at this edit. Apparently, this user has fully removed the 'Controversey' section form the Aurora page. I feel this section should remain in the article.
Subsequent good-faith edits have made it difficult for me to undo the changes without losing good content. Please guide me on how to best deal with this? I use Twinkle, but not sure if it could have helped. Kingsacrificer (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@Kingsacrificer Welcome to Teahouse. I think the IP editor's removal might actually follow WP:BLP and WP:DUE rules.. The controversy was mostly about Aurora’s drummer, not Aurora herself so giving it a full section could give too much focus to something not really about her. Oh almost forget Twinkle wouldnt really help here it's more about using good judgment with content and policy than reverting edits. ThilioR O B O T🤖talk21:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Kingsacrificer, just to add to Thilio's comment above, it's recommended that Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies" (see WP:CSECTION). If there is consensus to include the information, it should be included into an appropriate part of the article's body (with consideration to WP:BLP & WP:DUE), rather than as a standalone section. My personal read of the situation is that, as the article is about her (and not her band), a whole paragraph or section feels undue. Nil🥝21:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I will note that you have just told of the routine activities of the company and mentioned a non notable award, not significant coverage of the company that shows what makes it a notable company in a Wikipedia sense.
I love Wikipedia and had the idea to come up with a wiki for cars/trucks/autos/motos/etc were all their engineering parts, drawings, and assembly are stored and organized in order to facilitate mechanic work and the such. This means cars would be disassembled and reassmbled part by part down to the fasteners/electronic wiring diagram/etc with information/pics/instructions.
The idea of recycling/upcycling, overall preservation, and maintenance of transportation seems like an untapped region of the internet. I hated going to junkyards in the US and seeing materials, time, and energy wasted as well as gatekeeping of mechanic information (all beit for job preservation).
Aren't you basically describing the Chilton Company auto service manuals, or Haynes Manuals? They're pretty detailed about tearing down a subsystem of a car to its individual components, and they have many manuals about old cars no longer in production. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Should unsourced or dead linked material be removed? I have found several of them around, I just don’t want to remove that if it is against the rules. DawnB3 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
The best practice is to look for sources, including copies of the formerly-linked material if it's available. It often will be, if the source is a published book or journal; search Google Books or Scholar, or Internet Archive for older works. The latter also has a tool called the "Wayback Machine", which archives web pages from time to time, and may include the original text saved when the link was live. It's possible to link to those archived versions for citation purposes, indicating that the original site is no longer available. However, if that site was citing a source that's available elsewhere, it may be preferable to link directly to that source.
If you can't find the original source in any form, you still should be able to search for the claim being made. You might have to formulate the search in different ways, but there's a good chance that you can find a source for most valid claims—Google Books and Internet Archive are still your most useful tools for anything likely to be found in books or magazines.
If you can't locate any sources after a reasonable search in likely sources, then technically the material can be deleted. However, I usually take guidance from two of the guidelines for sourcing: first, the guidelines say that material likely to be challenged may be removed if it can't be verified by reliable sources; I note that verifiability requires only that sources exist, not that they're available to you or over the internet. This means that if the best possible sources are inaccessible, but seem to exist or likely to exist in some format that isn't available, the material may still be verifiable, even if you're not able to verify it yourself.
As to what "likely to be challenged" means, I refer to "you don't have to cite that the sky is blue". Meaning that if something seems obvious, or uncontroversial, it should probably remain even if no source has been located for it. Perhaps you'll think of a source, or some other editor will find one, but if it seems likely to be correct, I would leave it alone, and remove only things that seem dubious or probably wrong. Experts in the subject matter of an article may recognize errors that can never be verified because they are simply wrong, and delete them. But if you're not sure, and you can't find anything on point, it may be best to leave it for another editor. P Aculeius (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
You can see if the source has been backed up at archive.org. Failing that, one time I succeeded in convincing the publisher to restore the source so that it could be cited. If that doesn't work, see if alternate sources can be found. You may have to dig deeper than a Google search, maybe using Lexis/Nexis, the newspapers.com archive, and so on. And if the source ever existed in print, there are always libraries. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
As the third leg of the tripod - No its not against the rules and is expected of a good editor, but it does take a level of skill to maintain the article flow correctly and not knacker it. If it has a "cn" - citation needed tag on it and that tag is dated more 3 months old, then remove the content in every case. If its completely unsourced and there has been no attempt to cite from the get go, remove all of it. Be bold. You won't be able to cite everything unfortunately, even if its extremely important. You'll get good at judging what needs to go and what doesn't. Wikipedia works by the group effect, so if the content is important it will go back in at a later date, properly referenced by some other more knowledgeable editor. So don't worry. If the article is under active development, don't remove anything at any time, unless an editor is adding uncited content at scale. They can be tagged and potentially reported to admin, if needed. scope_creepTalk03:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I dunno, I have run across some "citation needed" tags attached to interesting and relevant statements that I know to be true because I've observed the stated fact myself, but I can't find anything to cite, and I'm loathe to remove it due to its encyclopedic relevance and factual nature. These tags can stay around for years. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I've done the same thing numerous times - not removing things that are unsourced but it's clear to me that they're factual. Yet, by doing that, I am clearly engaging in original research (by any non-weaselly statement of what Wikipedia means by OR). I don't like the conflict inherent in that - but I still do it. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Too true, been there myself just recently (about 8 months ago maybe), banging my head against a wall trying to reference properly on a battle article that was virtually empty of references, potential sources in a foreign language. It wears you down something terrible as though your failing. It is both contingent on yourself, rewarding and a "good thing, the proper thing to do" to try and reference but its not always possible. Ultimately I think it is the mark of a good editor how well you do it. Too much and you destroy the article, too little and its all conjecture thats left and not reliable. I take the point about it being effectively OR. I've still got that article on my todo list. In fact, I've got two of them. I'll need to have another go this weekend. scope_creepTalk11:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Does Wiki deliberately want to be out of date?
I have twice changed an entry for Caroline Corby because it was out of date and therfore wrong, incorrect and misleading. This is annoying for the subject and makes Wiki an unreliable source. The first time it did change at first, and then some genius must have switched it back to the old version, despite me linking the new information to government websites and other authorative sources. Now, when I go into edit mode and publish, it won't even seem to change at all. Should we just give up and accept Wiki is a poor source or can anyone help? Olde Danny Boy (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
You are required to assume good faith in the actions of other editors, so remarks like "someone, who is clearly badly informed", "some genius" and "deliberately want to be out of date" are not acceptable.
The reason given for the reversion of the previous edit (presumably made by you, though you were not signed in) was "Unsourced, external links"; That's because you didn't cite sources (or not adequately), and because you linked text in the article body to external websites, which is not how we do things. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits19:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is deliberately out of date in one particular way: we don't take a subject's word for anything that's of real importance, and instead we deliberately wait until reliable secondary sources have published the material. This causes consternation for the subjects of articles (as well as for unpublished experts in various fields, whose word we similarly don't take). If we DID take subjects' word for things, we would see a few articles greatly improved, but at the expense of having thousands upon thousands of grossly unreliable articles filled with puffery and outright lies. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers Your comment we don't take a subject's word for anything that's of real importance is not quite what the policy says: see WP:ABOUTSELF. We accept primary and self-published sources for many things that are important to the subject, such as their birthplace. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Draft:Shawn Hale
Looking for help getting my draft reviewed
Hello! I’ve been refining my Draft:Shawn Hale article. It’s been revised a few times to fix all the citation and formatting errors from the original upload, and I noticed someone else even made a small edit recently, which was great to see.
I’d really appreciate if a reviewer or experienced editor could take another look and help move it toward publication. Thanks so much just for reading this! WhippySmash (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
@WhippySmash At a glace the big issue I'm noticing is you have sections without sources. There's no citations for early life or the second half of personal life. There's possibly other issues but that's something simple to work on. I didn't check notability for example but finding more sources will help with that. Ultraodan (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Great, thank you for this. For his early life, I've found his own personal site gives the most information. I do remember his interview on a popular skateboarding podcast called The Nine Club where he talked about growing up in Missouri. I believe I can cite the YouTube transcript. WhippySmash (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @WhippySmash, the most important issue is the one Ultraodan highlighted above about a lack of sources. There are also signs that an AI/LLM (such as ChatGPT) was used to create your draft; please have a read of our help page on large language models and the issues they can introduce. Nil🥝03:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
GPTzero shows an 87% probability of being AI-generated. That isn't acceptable. Use an AI to help you find sources. Use it to suggest improvements after writing the article in your own words. Don't take the lazy road and let the AI write for you. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Noted! Yes I am obviously new to Wikipedia editing and I am very happy to learn these things. I am going to work on a new version that completely avoids any LLM's for help. WhippySmash (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
@WhippySmash Your draft has been declined. If you re-work it, pay attention to the use of bolding, which is not in line with the manual of style. If you can replace the bolded terms with wikilinks to relevant articles, that's fine. The fact that someone has a granted patent does not contribute to their notability. Patents are in any case a primary source: we need secondary sources showing that the invention is significant. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Just to say that this hasn't been declined. It was created from the outset with a false 'decline' template in it. Some AI tool out there seems to think that's how things are done. We see more and more of these at AfC; it's one of the hallmarks of an AI-generated draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Hmm. If that becomes commonplace, perhaps we should expand WP:G15 to include deleting such drafts. Actually it already would include it because one can speedy-delete unreviewed AI submissions, and anyone submitting a copy-and-paste with a fake decline template clearly hasn't reviewed it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd say it's more a glaring hallmark that AI was used in the process, but I AGF that it doesn't always mean the content itself wasn't reviewed as required for G15. New editors are (quite understandably) unlikely to understand or change template coding – especially when the decline parameter in this case is a simple "d" between the pipelinks, e.g. {{AFC submission|d|ts=20251005}}.
I take it as a sign to be extra skeptical of the content, but imho it's not a 100% guarantee the body content itself wasn't reviewed or rewritten by a human (but it's fairly obvious when it hasn't been). Nil🥝00:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Gotcha! This is like a secret little world here, so yes, the LLM definitely helped me figure it all out - granted not well enough. Now I know what not to do, thank you. Do you think it would be best to start from scratch? Would I be able to delete [draft:Shawn Hale] and resubmit a new one where I make sure to follow the instruction parameter more thoroughly? Also, apologies, I am going to look for answers about this as I explore this side of the site. Just want to say thank you for reviewing it certainly helps! WhippySmash (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
You don't have to start from scratch, but it doesn't hurt. As I said, you can have the AI help you find sources that are reliable and independent of the subject (see WP:Golden Rule for a brief friendly overview of the kind of sources we need). You can write the article and give it to the AI to suggest improvements. But if you let the AI write it, it'll be full of superfluous boldface, phrasing that makes liberal use of em-dashes, and bullet lists, and it isn't going to come across as neutrally written even though the AI insists it's neutral. And it's likely to include hallucinated sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes that makes sense, I will certainly learn more about the use of bolding. I actually have a pair of the shoes he created and they really helped my foot pain, which is what made me dive deeper into how it all came about. As a skateboarder myself, I've seen so many skateboarding outlets cover Shawn over the years. When I looked for a Wikipedia article on him, I was surprised to not see one. I only saw one for his sponsor Birdhouse Skateboards which I have loved since I started skateboarding in the 00's. I see they also need some help with information there, and not just Birdhouse, but all my favorite iconic brands lack information and history. Skateboarding in general seems to not care about Wikipedia, but us skateboarders are obsessed, especially when skateboarding concepts transition to other parts of culture (constantly). This is what I saw when learning about the patent and why I thought this would be a great place to start Wikipedia editing. Thank you for the advice! WhippySmash (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Is there an accepted general procedure for "this user has entered their full CV on their user page"? I have been too likely to jump down people's throats for wrong reasons, so I'm asking.
It doesn't look like a CV to me - it looks like an attempt at a draft page. The username gives the impression it's a CV but the username could be an undeclared COI or a username issue. I would move the content to their sandbox and ask them to clarify their relationship to the subject. MmeMaigret (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello everyone, i am interested in creating my first Wikipedia article from scratch. I decided to create a wanted article from the WikiProject Medicine Requested Articles Page, so i choose to create a artivle about "List of shoulder injuries". My questions are a) are the requested articles in any official wikipedia requested article page, automatically notable b) if not is the page "List of shoulder injuries" notable? And c) which criteria make a list page notable, as i am not very familliar with list pages. Finally. I would like to ask if you have any other additional suggestions, as i am already accustomed to the concept of Draft Pages and aware of the strict WikiMed source guidelines. Thank you eveyone in advance! Mant08 (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
For this specific page I assume it is about different kinds of shoulder injuries. From my uninvolved standpoint this sounds like a helpful article to have, but make sure that it fulfills the notability criteria. For lists specifically, I would recommend reading through this page as it will be very helpful with your article. I wish you luck with your first article! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Mant08! As Chorchapu said, seems like it could be promising (though perhaps the folks at WT:MED could give you a better assessment). WP:Requested articles is not "official" - anyone can add a request - and it has many very old or non-notable requests, so proceed with caution (though it's likely that topics (like medicine) might be in better shape than others (say, biographies or companies)). Regarding list notability, WP:NLIST might be what you're looking for. See also the category of articles Category:Injuries of shoulder and upper arm. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm coming up against an issue I'm not sure how to handle. BLP's of playwrights tend to contain reference to numerous plays that have been or are in production. Not each play has its own standalone wikipedia page, however many of the plays do have their own reviews from theater critics. Is it correct to add a "reception" section to the BLP of the playwright as a container for the reviews or should each the reviews be connected to small pages about each play. For example playwright Jamie Lloyd has directed a revival of Waiting for Godot starring Keanu Reeves. It's a known story, so maybe not a standalone page for the play, but the play did get a review. How should it be handled? Xkeylimepie (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I think what you're asking is dealt with by using Wikipedia's definition of "notability". A playwright's notability is separate from the notability of each individual play. Thus (in a too-obvious example) both Hamlet and Shakespeare are notable, so each gets an article – but Sonnet XI is not notable enough by itself to have its own individual article. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Xkeylimepie, I'd tend to call Waiting for Godot a known non-story. Play reviews typically describe as well as evaluate (although there rarely is, and perhaps there can't be, a clear division between the two functions). I've not heard of Lloyd and am a theatre ignoramus, but I presume that a description of this production would be appropriate (or even required). Why not derive this description, at least in part, from the one or more reviews published about it? -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 9 October 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 community,
I’ve noticed that the English article Surfshark VPN is translated into several other languages, but some of the translations appear inaccurate, and a few facts do not match the English version.
I would like to ensure that translations in other languages remain consistent with the English article and reflect accurate factual information.
Since I am affiliated with the subject of the article, I cannot edit the articles myself due to conflict of interest. I would greatly appreciate advice on how to: request corrections in other languages, ensure that volunteer editors can safely implement these updates, keep everything fully compliant with Wikipedia’s COI and neutral point of view guidelines.
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.
The Edgcumbe Arms (Cornwall heritage pub)
Hi everyone — I’ve just resubmitted Draft:The_Edgcumbe_Arms., a Grade II listed riverside pub at Cremyll, Cornwall.
It now includes multiple independent, published and academic sources (Historic England, Pevsner & Beacham Buildings of England: Cornwall, Langley & Small Estuary & River Ferries, Kittridge Steamers & Ferries of the Tamar, Good Pub Guide 2004, Cowdery 2014, Cornish Times 2025, Herald 2023, etc.).
The earlier AfC declines cited “no significant coverage,” but that’s now addressed. The page currently shows “Review waiting” — could someone please confirm it’s properly submitted and perhaps flag it to a reviewer familiar with heritage or Cornwall topics?
@Ddpc341114 It's been submitted correctly. Whoever ends up reviewing it depends on who sees it and decides to review it first. Whether they are familiar with Cornwall or not their review should be fair. Ultraodan (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Should the "date" for a film be its premiere date or its release date? I ask because the article for the film Room at the Top has recently been moved from (1959 film) to (1958 film), on the basis that it was released in January 1959 but was premiered in December 1958. MOS:FILM and WP:Naming conventions (films) do not help. MOS:FILMYEAR implies release date. Thanks. Masato.harada (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I think FILMYEAR is pretty clear: "earliest release date, whether it be at a film festival, a world premiere, a public release, or the release in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings". That would mean the premier date would be more appropriate, as it's the earliest date the film is available for viewing by the general public. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Good Articles
Is it allowed to ask for reviewing for good article status on an articles talk page? For example: "Hello everyone, I nominated this article for Good Article status. Any feedback or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated" WhatADrag07 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Reference Draft:Caribbean timeline for the seventeenth century. Someone, who apparently knew nothing about the Caribbean, moved this into draftspace because it looks odd, which it does. The problem is that each island has its own history and the only way I could find to organize the facts is with a timeline. Draftspace is supposedly to make improvements, but I see no way to improve it. Could someone, ideally someone who knows about the Caribbean, look at this again decide what should be done? I think the article is valid and should be published. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
One of the hallmarks of an article not yet ready for mainspace is the complete lack of inline citations. There's a short bibliography at the bottom, but no way a reader can verify all the claims in that article.
You can ask the editor who moved it what was perceived as wrong, but I'll bet that's it, and not the overall organization of the article. Adding citations is how you would improve it before moving it back.
You may personally know a lot about the Caribbean, but on Wikipedia we cannot write what we know, we must write only what is reported by reliable sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello--thank you for your question. Here are some starting improvements I would recommend for the article:
in-line citations
remove unnecessary boldface
remove or rewrite and retitle the "lists" section
The last sentence: "Since this is mainly an index article, sources, details and footnotes are best found in the linked articles"-- is not appropriate. See MOS:SELFREF.
Hopefully these suggestions will help you improve the article; you may also want to look at WP:Timeline.
Resubmitting improved AfC bio draft after declines; confusion on versions for Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir
Hi Teahouse hosts,
I'm User:Abujahangir (65 edits since July 2025), improving a bio draft on Bangladeshi-Canadian entrepreneur and Community Leader Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir, who is noted for his role in leading the initiative that resulted in the city of Port Alberni, British Columbia, being recognized by FIFA as a potential training site for the 2026 World Cup.
The original Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (by blocked User:Farzana.1970, January 2025) links in the Jan 2025 Teahouse thread (Archive 1247) to a July 18, 2025, declined version—not matching the early stub. It was declined for sourcing/formatting; I've left it abandoned.
My expanded Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2) (submitted Sep 2, 2025) has 2 declines (July 21 by Utopes: WP:REFB/MINREF; Oct 1 by Theroadislong: similar). I've fixed refs (31 independent sources now: CHEK, Alberni Valley News, CBC, Daily Janakantha and more), structure, and neutrality—meets WP:GNG/WP:BIO.
Resubmitted today. Could a reviewer check for approval/feedback? Tips on merging versions or avoiding future declines?
Abujahangir, you say "Resubmitted today". No, Draft:Abu Hasan Muhamed Jahangir (2) has not been resubmitted. For that purpose, you have to click on the blue "Resubmit" quasi-button. It reads much less like an encyclopedia article, a lot more like a PR piece (and close to Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir). Its promotional nature and your seemingly exclusive interest in writing up Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir combine to make me wonder: How are you related to Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (the man, not the draft)? -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@Abujahangir I don't think your subject is Wikipedia notable. He's a businessman who helped get a small city identified as a training site (not even a venue). This isn't enough reason to be in Wikipedia. Are there any pages on Wikipedia that will link to it or will this page be an orphan? Second, your name suggests that you might be related to the subject. If so, you'll need to declare your COI, see WP:COI. I'd suggest you park the draft for 3 months and, in the mean time, get more familiar with Wikipedia first. You seem to be good at referencing. Maybe start by helping to reference articles. (If the subject is notable now, he'll still be notable in 3 months.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary and MmeMaigret—your advice has guided my next steps perfectly.
COI: Disclosure now on User:Abujahangir (plain text for now; confirms family relation to Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir, covers both drafts). No paid editing—proposing via talk pages per WP:COI. (Suggest adding {{COI|Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2)}} template if markup issue.)
Resubmission/Tone (per Hoary): Right—"resubmitted" was inaccurate; no tag added yet. Proposed on [[Talk:Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2)]]: Insert {{AfC submission}} at top, plus neutral lead ("Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (born c. 1970/1971) is a Bangladeshi-Canadian entrepreneur with over three decades in textiles. He co-leads Port Alberni's FIFA World Cup 2026 bid committee, which achieved candidate status in September 2025.") to address WP:REFB/MINREF and PR elements. 31 refs validated.
Notability/Practice (per MmeMaigret): Wise call—local coverage solid, but global needed; parking 3 months while referencing unreferenced articles (WikiProject Canada starting today). Links possible to Port Alberni/2026 FIFA World Cup.
Merging: Propose moving (2) content to original stub, then CSD (2) as dupe—okay?
Using the "cite AV media" template, I want to add a timestamp to a video source that is used multiple times. Using |time=12:00 would produce "Event occurs at 12:00." within the citation in the reference section, but this would only account for one usage and not appear in the article's body. I instead want to preface each citation in the body with the timestamp, which would appear something like "...some words sourced by a video.[3][12:00] More words...". However, I don't know the proper way to do this and cannot find the articles again that I previously saw this used on. How do I do this? CMYKBird (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@CMYKBird I think you're looking for Template:Reference page, which is placed after the ref tags. For a time stamp of 12 minute, you'd put <ref>{{Cite AV media|name = etc}}</ref>{{rp|at=12:00}} which will appear as [3]: 12:00 . Nil🥝04:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
GA Nom review I'm a part of
I reviewed The Grub-Stake for GA status at Talk:The Grub-Stake/GA1. long story short it's very close to passing but the only matter left is the copyright of some files. I was told some files were public domain due to publication pre 1930. However the file pages at the source assert copyright and the nominator says it's too tedious to find the images in the original trade publications. Given that they're supposedly promotional photos for the film I am inclined to believe they are PD. Should I pass the review given 6a of the GA criteria? Thanks. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Therapyisgood. The archive's website says those 3 photos are film stills, which would have been taken in order to promote the film in the early 20s. Have you tried asking at WT:GAN or Commons:Village pump/Copyright? Since it is kind of an edge case (public domain if distributed, but you don't have proof they were distributed yet), you can solicit some opinions from those two forums and lean on the consensus. Rjjiii (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Notability of news orgs and finding sources
I want to un-redirect Gamers Nexus and turn it into an actual article if I may. What notability guideline would I need to follow, and do you folks have any tips on finding sources about the news org without just finding more stuff from the news org itself? guninvalid (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi there! WP:RSP is a great place to start to find sources that are considered generally reliable or unreliable, and ones that are often closely linked to the subject themselves. Keep in mind this is not a strict guidebook, and sources that may not be in the green can still be used - however, it's up to your best judgement to determine whether the source is factual or not. I believe you can filter out certain domains when searching online, so that may be useful. A source from the company, or from another one that owns it, is considered a primary source that doesn't count towards establishing notability. See WP:GNG for the sitewide guideline, and WP:CORP for a more specific one. Hope this helps! jolielover♥talk09:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Guninvalid, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with most of what @Jolielover says, but I would suggest that your judgment is not about whether the source is factual but whether it is reliable - i.e. has a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking.
An unreliable source can get things right sometimes but that doesn't make it reliable. Conversely, a reliable source can sometimes get things wrong: this can be more troublesome, because in that case, unless there are other reliable sources which disagree, Wikipedia should follow what that source says. (See Verifiability) ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I’m looking for guidance on how to properly create a neutral, well-sourced article about a creative studio called Beach Haus Creative. I understand the conflict of interest policies, so I’m not planning to post it directly myself — I’d like advice or help from an experienced editor who could review or submit it through Articles for Creation (AfC) once the draft is ready. Could someone please advise on the best way to proceed, or if any editors here would be open to reviewing a draft?
Hi @Beachhausbysea: There is a help article about writing an article at Help:Your first article. If you think the studio meets Wikipedia's requirements (for example, the notability criteria) then you can use the Article wizard. This should take you through the necessary steps to declare a conflict of interest. When you are finished you can submit it to the WP:Articles for creation process and a reviewer will take a look and either accept it or tell you why they think it is not yet ready as an article. Mgp28 (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
In my experience, one of the most common preventable problems is that people misunderstand Wikipedia's requirement for independent reliable sources, and usually misunderstand in the same way.
People tend to assume that there must be a big exception to independent reliable sources: "Yes, but this other material is true, so obviously I should be allowed to add it." But there is no exception like that; things that are true, but haven't appeared in independent third-party coverage, are intentionally excluded from articles, and people are often incredulous when they find out that a great deal of what they've written is not going to be accepted because they can't show that reliable third parties have published it. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I just did a quick search of google and newspapers.com and I don't see any newspaper articles or book references about the studio. Suggest have a read of WP:BOSS. MmeMaigret (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Political opponents using Wikipedia to battle eachother
Dear Wiki people. I read wiki mostly for history and law and hobbies.
I heard stories about the CIA affecting wiki information to insert Propaganda.
My attention has now come to certain political focus now that there are immediate tensions in our country. I am sad to find that when I went to read about a random political party and another page about its leader...
Paul Golding of Britain First Party
It is clear that someone has gone and put a heavily defamatory and bias view on this person and Party.
I thought it was very harsh and decided to edit some of the offensive words. But one of the pages has a protective feature so it cannot be edited.
I find that the links and material in the urls and citations all suggested that it was one of Mr Goldings opponents who has put the page together and framed his party and personal page.
The links and citation urls suggest that an opppsing group called "Hope not Hate" are likely to be responsible because they benefit from search engine optimization by having their own organisation heavily embedded into the page.
I find it absolutely unacceptable that a group called hope not hate would go around making pages and content designed to attack and discredit their opponents while increasing their own optimization.
At someone's personal defamation
Actually the Internet says that fascism is the suppressing of opposition. So actually they themselves hope not hate are unfairly suppressing their opponents. I think now Wikipedia has become a war ground and that CIA yarn I heard about Propaganda is actually true.
We don't know who is behind the hope not hate campaign but the police have recently unlawfully taken their vehicle twice. When special law is meant to be in effect that protects ALL political parties fairly themselves.
Wikipedia should not be hijacked by either side. And used to gain electoral advantages.
I think that the Labour Party or bigger groups or Mi5 UK government might be behind the information because someone seems very keen that nobody edits it.
I am asking if any impartial Wikipedia members who don't take sides might be able to find a resolution
I think it creates fear that people will become objectified on here if they step up and stand up. Because of pages like this.
It's why I am independent buy I think its very concerning what is happening. Maybe there shouldn't be pages on political parties as it has to be accounted for by election agents. Maybe Wikipedia should ban politicians and parties except independent petition campaigns that are connected to an election
Hello. The content of articles is built using sources considered reliable (defined in WP:RS) as assessed by the community. The people who edited those articles probably, and should have, followed our policy on using a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). The way those articles are constructed are based on how the sources assess the subject.Also, articles are protected to prevent general disruptive editing like vandalism, not to prevent good-faith changes. Banana is semi-protected, and I assume that was not to promote propaganda. Tarlby(t) (c)21:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
And I forgot to say, as the fellow below me said, Hope not Hate is only used in 4 and 3 times respectively in both articles. Doesn't seem too severe to me. Tarlby(t) (c)21:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
From the article it seems as though the organisation Hope not Hate is only mentioned 4 times, all in the references section. The page in question that is semi-protected, Britain First, was protected from editing by new or unregistered accounts due to persistent disruptive editing. As for the claims that the party is far-right and neo-fascist, they are supported and rigourously research to prove that they are supported by multiple reliable sources. If you'd like to request any other changes, you can do so on the articles' talk pages. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
IP editor: on a minor technical note, Wikipedia links are marked as "no-follow" as far as search engines are concerned, so no organisation gets any benefit from including links in articles, See WP:SEO for more details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The decision to keep a Wikipedia article protected from editing by certain types of accounts is made by the Wikipedia community, not "the Labour Party or bigger groups or Mi5 UK government", whatever the latter might mean.
"I find it absolutely unacceptable that a group called hope not hate would go around making pages and content designed to attack and discredit their opponents while increasing their own optimization." I and most other Wikipedia editors would find that absolutely unacceptable, but you have provided zero evidence that it has occurred. Such baseless accusations are also absolutely unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Is there a way to automatically subscribe to new talk page posts that I create?
I've noticed that I don't receive notifications when I get a response in an article's talk page. I know that you can subscribe to get them, but this is another thing to remember whenever I drop a comment. Is there an automatic way to do this?
Will I get suspected of sockpuppetry if I ask what disruptive edits someone made?
I found someone that got blocked indefinitely in 2024 for sockpuppetry and I'm curious about what happened, but I don't want to be suspected of being another sockpuppet of them... please confirm this won't happen! I swear on all that is holy, everything in the universe, that I am not a sockpuppet. I don't want to get unfairly blocked/banned just for asking a question. I'm just into internet drama is all. RetinaSW (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
See WP:DRAMA, and WP:OPAQUE. As for being blocked, it depends. I got blocked for PRODding an article and reporting someone at ANI within my first 20 edits, which, now that I'm actively editing here, seems justified due to the sheer amount of sockpuppets we see every day. If you contribute to the encyclopedia before asking such questions, you probably won't be blocked. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Kingsacrificer, I don't know for certain, but I suspect it's got to do with the licence. The majority of images on Wikipedia are released under a Creative Commons licence, which allows them to be used anywhere without issue. Some articles, however, use a copyrighted image under a Fair Use licence, which is restricted for use to just that one article, and can't be used anywhere else on the site (including, I'm guessing, the search drop down). Nil🥝12:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it's because File:Among Us cover art.jpg is non-free. The feature looks for a free image in the lede section but there isn't one. The next section has a screenshot but it's also non-free so it wouldn't help to move it to the lede. File:Among Us.png is free but not used in the article, and it wouldn't add much to an entry which already says Among Us. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey! What is the protocol on citing foreign sources (accurate, but written in a language different to that of the article its supporting)? I wish to expand English articles about Moldova, however there are seldom reliable sources in English, with the vast majority being in Romanian (which I speak). Is it okay to use them outright, and if not - is there another way to make the claims supported by said sources? Sorry in advance if this is information is readily available, I'm new to editing and was unable to find it in WP:CITE or WP:GUIDELINES. Thank you for your time! AntyLegit (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Note that most templates like {{cite news}} have parameters so you can add an English translation of the title and other aspects of the work you are citing, using |trans-title= etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I am an employee of a company called PDWare, we are a software company that handles resource management for businesses that are struggling to manage the capacity and demand of their labor force. They brought me in to aid in growing their online presence to create more awareness of their existence. We do not have a wiki page and would love to have one up but I also understand the pain point in a conflict of interest since I am an employee. There doesn't need to be and there can't be any bias in the page itself. Am I able to request that another editor here on Wikipedia write the page? If so, how can I go about doing that? All advice or responses are appreciated! Matthew Blaes (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not interested in contributing in any way to anybody's "online presence", or in "creating awareness": those are both part of promotion, which is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia.
If there is ever an article about your company, it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, and it will not be based on what you or your associates or your company want to say, but almost exclusively on what people wholly unconnected with your company have chosen to publish about the company - good and bad.
I suggest you read WP:BOSS carefully, and show it to your colleagues.
Note that, now you have put this request out, it is quite likely that somebody will approach you offering to create an article for payment. Please be aware that such offers are almost always scams: see WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding but I do in fact recognize everything in which you said. I, neither my company, desire to control or influence what is said. Good, bad, or ugly that is entirely up to the author. My question was more to ask is there any place to request a page to be written. Who writes it, how they write it, and what they say completely being up to them. Matthew Blaes (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello again, @Matthew Blaes. Two further things I would add to what Mike has said:
Before writing so much as a word, or creating a draft, make sure you can find several sources each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42: nothing written or published by the company or its associates; nothing based on what the company or its people say (whether in an interview, from a press release, or any other way). Then check that the sources you have found can together establish that the company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - most companies don't. Be especially cautious about WP:CORPDEPTH.
If you have found any sources, you will need to put aside everything that you know about the company, and write a summary of what those sources say. Did they leave out something you think is important? Tough. Did they say something you think is factually wrong? Then you may be able to argue that including it would be WP:UNDUE, but if other editors disagree with you, tough. Do you see why editing with a COI is difficult?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.
This is great thank you very much for the details, yesterday I decided to do just exactly that and put it away for a few weeks while I dive into how Wikipedia works. I have also found that the company I hope to write the article on has very few sources available, not enough to pass Wikipedia standards. Seems I'll have to help the company increase their notability before we ever see an article first. Thanks for the help! Matthew Blaes (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
This is a page for questions about using Wikipedia. Your question seems instead to be about security studies. If you can't find the answer in some article here, you might try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Changing username
I have since changed my username, but previous edits are still under the old username and appear when it is searched. Is there any way to either delete these or move them to the new username? Thanks Longhorncowfish (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Longhorncowfish. Signatures posted before a username change stay as they are, and should stay as they are, so that people can come back to them in the future and see what they're supposed to look like at the time you sent a message. Tarlby(t) (c)20:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Trying to familiarize myself with the site and I have some most likely pretty newbie questions.
1. For noticeboards that have "Administrator" in the name, does that mean only administrators can comment or interact?
2. What is the difference between administrator notice board and administrator notice board / incidents? Xkeylimepie (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@Breck0530 I'm pretty sure you can't, as there is no "magic word" like {{NUMBEROFARTICLES} for that. You can, however, list your latest n edits on your userpage: see mine for an example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I am trying to add a new article about a play. After inserting references as best I knew how, when I go to pubish, I get an error message that says "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. Disruptive behavior may result in being blocked from editing.
When I click on "report this error," I'm not sure what's happening. I don't know what the "automated filter" has identifed. I don't knw what it means by a "constructive" edit. Can someone help me fugure out how to get this article published? This process is very complicated and confusing. Cbohanan (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Great -- so what do I do now? Delete the refernces as I typed them and use the automatically generated ones? And then how do I get it actually published? I don't see a "Publish" button. Cbohanan (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Cbohanan, I've added the draft template to the article. You can submit it for review, and a AFC reviewer will look it over and determine if it is good to publish to mainspace. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)20:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your help -- what do I do about Reference 1, has three links that go to the box where I entered the details about the published script? What is it asking me to add? Cbohanan (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@Cbohanan They're advisory message but you've got both |year=1991 and |date=1991, you only need one or the other. You've also got too much information in |location= just the town and state is enough. Nthep (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
That's what Closure requests is for. However, if were I not so inexperienced (and given my opinion here, I count myself as involved) in that area, I'd close it myself as merge, I think, given the similarities between the articles and the quite short size of the non-duplicated parts. LightlySeared (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Like I said, not exactly my area of expertise. And yeah, that assessment was based on a pretty short reading of the discussion, given that I have zero intention of closing it, sorry if that gave the wrong impression. But, based on the arguments as presented, I do think it's in the murky area where one can reasonably see it either way. LightlySeared (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
2024 Pittsburgh Pirates season clean up
Hello. Go to above article, scroll down past the roster, where Paul Skenes photo is, the Playerstats header is off, needs to be fixed. Thank you.
P.S. No symbols appear at the bottom so I cant do a redirect. Theairportman33531 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
You've written a rough draft. Sample: Sid is referenced in Diary of a Rock n Roll Star by Ian Hunter and Keep it together! by Rich Deakin. "Be referenced" can mean no more than "be mentioned"; if this is what it means here, don't mention this stuff. If on the other hand Hunter and Deakin each say something substantial, then for each, paraphrase it and add a reference pointing to the page(s) within the specific edition of the book (providing the place, publisher, year, ISBN). Oh, and Wikipedia isn't on chummy, first-name terms with its biographees. He's not "Sid", but "Bishop".
Likewise for the other ingredients of your draft. Be sure that every assertion is backed up by a reliable source. Most kinds of assertion have to be backed up by a source independent of Bishop (and thus not an interview with him).
Once that's done, your draft can be moved to Draft:Sid Bishop (musician) and you can submit it for consideration as an article.
If all of this sounds like hard work for a newbie, yes, it is. You'd be wise to put it aside for some weeks while you get experience augmenting and otherwise improving articles that already exist. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Hoary-Thank you very much for your welcome advice. I’ll follow up on it tomorrow.
You'll need to format it like a Wikipedia article and you need to find sources (read WP:42). I think you can create an article on draftspace now. He's referred to in 3 existing articles and the following books look promising: Keep it Together and Give the Anarchist a Cigarette. Days in the life might also be useful for a few inline citations but doesn't look like significant coverage. I couldn't find Diary of a Rock n Roll Star but it has its own Wikipedia article and, for some related practice, you might try finding references for that page. MmeMaigret (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
How long is it considered reasonable to wait after someone has violated 1RR, and you have properly asked them to self-revert on their talk page, before reporting them for the 1RR violation? Also, is that in the same place you'd report for edit warring? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn, you can report edit warring immediately, but it's kindest to wait 24 hours/until they start editing again (whichever comes first) to make sure they've seen your request. In practice, other editors will likely see you as having done all you could if you ask for a revert, wait 24 hours, go ahead and undo the edit yourself with a good, calm explanation in the edit summary, and if they then re-revert, report. You report at WP:EW. Valereee (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm newish. Hello everyone! I added userboxes to my user page but the formatting is all over the place. Could someone please assist? Thank you! PlainJane91 (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have some major misunderstandings of what Wikipedia is.
First some absolutely essential housekeeping:
As the founder of POH, Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor, and it is mandatory to make a formal declaration of that status, usually on your user page (see that link for how to do it).
Your user page must not resemble an article, and should not contain an autobiography. You are welcome to share some information there about you as a Wikipedia editor, and a limited amount of information about yourself outside that context is permitted, but not what you have. See WP:UPNO. I will move your user page to Draft:Kami Gray - but note that (separately from the issue of user pages) autobiography is very strongly discouraged; and if you try it, the same strictures will apply as I explain below about your draft.
Your draft is based on primary sources, and tells what you want people to know about the School. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in any of that. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah. It appears that, as I am not an admin, I cannot move another editor's user page, so I have not moved your user page. But you should remove most of the content from it immediately. ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to nominate an article for speedy deletion when there is an open AfD discussion (albeit stalled) about the same article? Sometimes SD feels more appropriate than AfD (for example if there is debatable notability but an article qualifies for G15). NicheSports (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
No, now that the AfD is started, you need to let the AfD run its course. Also if there's even one vote for keep, then speedy deletion isn't appropriate. Is there a particular hurry? If speedy deletion would have been appropriate, the article will be deleted anyway. MmeMaigret (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Contrary to the others, NicheSports, I think it can sometimes be appropriate, for example if the article has been nominated due to notability concerns and then you realise it's an unambiguous copyright violation. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I also think it's appropriate in some cases, such as articles created by UPE socks getting WP:G5'd. Our most precious resource is volunteer time, and !voting in an AFD should take time when you do the bare minimum. The CSD criteria are strict for a reason (and an admin can decline a CSD if it's not appropriate), so if we can save the community's time by speedy deleting articles where appropriate, then I see it as a positive. Nil🥝22:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I am a webmaster for a site that was bought out by a larger site. The smaller site’s structure has now changed. I want to update the ~200 URLs that point to the old site: some of them 404 because they’re quite old and the structure has changed over the years, and others redirect properly to the new site (but that redirection can be skipped).
I don’t want to just make a new Wikipedia account and immediately edit 200 URLs in case that seems suspicious to automatic tools. Can anyone give me any pointers on the best way to accomplish this? 67.85.157.46 (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I hope you are all well. We are trying to make a wikipage for a company called Life After Me, but I'm finding it hard to find my way around Wikipedia and it's rules and regulations. My hope is to get some pointers and perhaps help on what we need to do to get this page approved: Draft:Life After Me
The main goal for this page is to show and tell people who Life After Me is and what they do, we don't want to use wikipedia as place for promoting Life After Me, but we want to use it as place where people can independently find out more info on Life After Me, like it's security certifications and who they have worked with as in trusted partners and such.
As mentioned earlier, I'm finding it hard to navigate myself around here, so feel free to explain everything as simple as possible.
Kind regards, Tijmen Blue Marloc (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey there, welcome to the teahouse! First off, I noticed your use of 'we', and I'd just like to let you know that Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared as per WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Please ensure each individual has their own account going forward.
I see you've submitted a draft of your article recently which was declined as it may not meet the standards for needing an article. The notability guidelines for organisations has in-depth information on what should and shouldn't get articles. I'd suggest reading this in full and then deciding whether the company needs an article.
Hi, Thank you for the quick and clear response! 1. My apologies, my English isn't that good, with "we" I ment me and my colleagues helping me, I am the only one using this account :)
2. Thank you for this! Having read through it I am still struggling with which sources I should remove or add, I have made an attempt in the last revised edit and i think i am waiting for approval or decline. The sources mentioned on the draft are under media coverage, with main purpose to let people know where they can have heard of Life After Me before, but i have a suspicion this is also where its going wrong? Perhaps i cant mention any media coverage to let people know who talk about Life After Me?
3. "We" prioritize transparency and honesty, this is core in the business of legacy planning! When Life After Me is big enough as company perhaps others will write this for and about Life After Me instead. Tijmen Blue Marloc (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Tijmen Blue Marloc, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and what it is for.
To show and tell people who Life After Me is and what they do is precisely what we mean by promotion, and is forbidden in Wikipedia.
Basically, Wikipedia has no interest at all in what your company wants people to know about itself. If several people wholly unconnected with your company have independently chosen to write in some depth about your company in reliable publications, then an article about your company is possible - and it would be based almost entirely on what those independent people had said, not on what you want to say.
Hi ColinFine, Thanks for your input, I have already read this before making the initial draft.
I opted into the conflict of interest disclosure and taking into consideration not to "Self-promote" with specifically "This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view" and "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations" where "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." has been tried to my best capability and "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources" has been tried to my best capability. I hope to not have a "fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is" by following the rules set as best as I can and most importantly never self promoting.
Since the first time the initial draft was not denied because of any of these reasons I assumed to have passed on the neutrality side of the article. When the draft gets denied because of these reasons I will surely comeback here to get help on staying neutral on these pages. For now the first hurdle is the articles and sources I think.
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you want to write about the website or the university itself?
Your question is similar to asking "how do I build a house and what are the requirements?" without knowing anything about permitting, land acquisition, construction techniques, architecture, etc. There are many things to learn if you want to have a good chance of success at writing a new article. It is highly recommended that new users not dive right in to article creation; doing so often leads to frustration and anger as things happen to work you spend hours on that you don't understand. You should first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to build experience and knowledge of Wikipedia. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea, too.
However, if you still wish to proceed, please first read Your First Article; you may then use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. You should first gather independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic(that are not interviews, press releases, the reporting of routine activities, or brief mentions) so that you have them in hand before you begin to summarize them. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
If I create a draft for a filipino song. If the song is not english. Will I put Tagalog or Filipino? I know they are used interchangably and Filipino is now the natinal language of that country before it was Tagalog. So would Filipino be the more useful one? 203.177.220.206 (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
IP editor: does the song you have in mind already have articles in either languages in other-language versions of Wikipedia? If not, these might be better places to start drafting and if they do, you could check out WP:TRANSLATE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I’m the subject of an article draft about myself, Laurel House (dating and relationship coach, writer, and media personality). My previous edits were reverted because of a conflict of interest, which I completely understand.
I’ve prepared a fully sourced and neutral version of the article in my sandbox here: User:DateNightLaurel/sandbox. Could someone please take a look and advise how I can request an independent editor to review or move it into article space?
I am not had experience on Wikipedia and I may have done it wrong. But I definitely don't want to unknowingly do more wrong.
Btw: you've got the same content on your user page and in the sandbox but your user page is only supposed to contain information relevant to work on Wikipedia. You'll need to delete most of the text on that page. MmeMaigret (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
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.
Your draft makes many of the same mistakes that new editors often make when they try to create an article: in particular, including a lot of 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) 14:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Requesting Donations
Can't you all set a cookie so contributors that have been sending Wiki money, forgo having the ad blast/cover the initial Wikipedia screen? It's rater irritating, and I know you all must have developers on staff that can set that option on the main web page. I'm all for and fully support Wikipepedia asking for donations.... Pbounds (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Any logged in user can turn off these messages: there is an option in your preferences.
But there is absolutely no connection between donation and any account, so nothing in Wikipedia is able to tell whether or not you are a contributor. ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi, i saw recently slow processing about reviewing/patrolling new pages in Wikipedia, is this becouse editors are busy on new projects or... 81.26.202.141 (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The speed at which activities are done is purely a function of the number of people to do them and the amount of time they have available. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Virtually all contributors are volunteers. Reviewing drafts is, it seems, one of the less popular ways for them to spend their time. No doubt this is at least in part due to the quantity of spam, vanity content, and LLM slop involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits16:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I mean mainspace articles, and out of curiosity are pages about officeholders in gov posittions more "priority' than other normal articles about notable peoples? 81.26.202.141 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Most editors focus on the things that interest them, and politics is a topic that many people are interested. Generally if there is an article about something recent or in the news it will receive more attention than a random biography. There's a giant backlog for new pages being reviewed and reviewing a page can take anywhere between 6 hours and 6 months. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, IP user. Wikipedia has not got any kind of "editorial board", or any "strategy" for most things. What gets done, what gets picked up, is purely a function of who is editing, and what they are interested in and willing to do. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 9 October 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.
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.
The rules are different for people who have died. Francis Fenwick Pearson died in 1991, so it's impossible to take a new photo of him; Muhammed Abdul Ali is still around, so it is - in principle - possible to take a new photo of him and license it appropriately. DS (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
For what reason are editors calling military command units Police?
For what reason are editors calling military command units Police? There are no Police in any military organization in the world. Police are civilians and typically considered illegal militia by military organizations. Police were not created until after World War II and it is not appropriate to associate any military group with their illegal insurrectionist movements. 24.199.148.218 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
IP editor. As our article police describes, many police forces were set by 1900. As to your question, I assume this is because that's what the sources have called them. You can discuss this with other editors on the talk page of any articles where you feel the terminology is being wrongly used. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
What are you talking about? (1) Most armed forces have "military police". (2) The police force in my country alone was formed in 1840. MmeMaigret (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
With AI generated drop downs - how does one protest the title of such
Okay, I'm a yank that follows Newcastle United. when searching for news there will be AI generated drop downs. It makes me very, very angry that the top drop down is : Who is the girl at Newcastle United? Are you kidding me? Amanda Stavely is not a "girl" , she is an amazing woman who has amazing character and it is so insulting to see that on the drop down list that I get very pissed (American pissed, not British pissed). Since this is AI generated how does one correct it? 2600:1008:A117:BAB0:E48A:4DFA:1A62:5AA4 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
This is the encyclopedia Wikipedia. I don't know what you refer to but it doesn't sound like us. Please say exactly where you make exactly which search to get that result. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi, in the future, you can submit drafts for review by adding the {{Draft submission}} template at the top of the article, saving, then pressing the blue "Submit" button that appears.
Unfortunately, your draft contains non-existent references which indicate that the draft has been generated with AI and thus have been tagged for speedy deletion. Please refer to WP:LLM as to why you should throughly check all AI outputs. Catalk to me!06:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Email preferences
I do not want people to email me, but every time I turn it off in settings (I do click the save button and turn it off in global settings), it just resets whenever I leave the page and come back. How do I fix this or do I just have to keep it on. Longhorncowfish (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I believe it meets WP:NALBUMS because it received substantial coverage in [TV, radio, web with most of web coverage and all radio coverage being about just the albium].
The AfC reviewer hasn’t replied and the Help Desk request for an independent reviewer received no response.
Also worth pointing out, Guyshomenet, is that Rejection as you wrote in your header is different from Declined which is what happened to your draft. Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further. Declined means that you are welcome to add more references, specifically to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the album, and then resubmit the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Generally, an album doesn't merit an article unless the artist(s) already have an article. See the speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#A9, which applies to "any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." If your draft had been moved to mainspace, it would have been speedy-deleted because it makes no assertion of notability and none of the artists (as far as I can tell) have their own Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Release history question
Hello all,
I'm currently making an article on the song Peace of Mind by the Killers. The song was originally released on a 10th anniversary reissue of Sam's Town on October 7, 2016, and had not been available prior to this, but was also released as a single from the reissue on that same day. My question is, do I include the vinyl release information in the release history section of Peace of Mind or just the single release?
I can think of no reason for not mentioning the vinyl release. However your current wording of the lede needs some work:
'"Peace of Mind" is a song by American rock band the Killers, released a single [sic] on the remastered double vinyl . . .'
is confusing and contradictory. (I take it the single release was online only, not in any physical format?)
I suggest you simplify this lede sentence to something like:
'"Peace of Mind" is a song by American rock band the Killers, released in 2016.',
and transfer the further details to the Background and release section below.
Incidentally, I think the usual format for song titles is to use single quote marks rather than double, as you have done, and to italicise album titles. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Reference desk question
Hello, can somebody please answer my question at the reference desk? Diff: [18]
Hi, I wanted to try my hand at making my own page: Draft:Air_Parabat, but some of the dates do not line up with sources. The page List of defunct airlines of Bangladesh state that Air Parabat started in 1993 and ceased operations in 2001, while some other places say that it started in 1994 as Air Parabat Flying Academy and its operations as a private sector airline started in early 1998. There is also the fact that the airline ceased operations in 2001 but a crash was reported in 2002. However, i do think that that is about the flying academy which i can't find anything more on. Also the issue of it being a flying academy confuses me as I'm not sure if I should seperate the accidents into two categories. What dates should i be using? VTECAndVAR (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, how do I declare a conflict of interest for a future wikipedia page that I have been instructed to create? For context, the person I am creating a wikipedia page for is a notable solicitor in the UK and I work in the marketing department. Would it be easier for him to set up the account and do it himself or can I help him with it? 82.32.67.118 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I have a view that I haven't seen expressed or refuted anywhere on Wikipedia and I'd like to know if it's widely held and maybe if there's already an essay on it that I couldn't find.
Simply put, I think that inline tags like [citation needed], as well as banners at the top of a page, are helpful for readers as well as editors, in that they inform the reader that the information they find in that article/section might not be entirely accurate or balanced. As such, I think that flagging issues in article space is important even if there's already an appropriate message on the talk page. Thank you (: lp0 on fire (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it.
I want to add several peer-reviewed publications as references to this article: Artificial intelligence.
However, I get the message:
This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse.
How do I get to edit this semi-protected page? ApoieRacional (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
To edit this page, your account needs to be at least 4 days old and have 10 edits. It’s to stop vandalism from throwaway new accounts/ips. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
That's strange, you are autoconfirmed. Are you sure you were logged in when you tried to edit it? Try to add the sources again and let me know what happens. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I am logged in. Please see my wiki-screenshot here:
That notice is simply letting you know about the protection. It is not stopping you from editing, and you should still be able to publish your changes. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
but it does not come out right. This is the first time, I am making at table, and I cannot figure what I am doing wrong. Can someone more experienced fix this table? ApoieRacional (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Part of footnote 6 of Jaynie Anderson, when you go to "Edit source," reads: [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/diogenes/article/abs/challenge-of-the-object-the-ciha-congress-2012-in-nuremberg/D9D1C38375CDA08FAECF250F98BF2F6E] The Challenge of the Object. Die Herausforderund des Objekts
The closed bracket is after the url instead of after the last word of the phrase to appear in the text ("Objekts"). This is because, when I put it after "Objekts," it does not hide the url. This is not important, but it is strange, in my experience. Maurice Magnus (talk) 09:28, 14 October 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.
We have set up a company and it has been 5 years. Yet there are no sufficient amount of information expect our site in the internet due to the nature of our sector. And my publishing approval is denied every time. How can I fix it?
I want to publish my company here. As for profitable and successful side we are trusting Wikipedia for reliable source of backlinking and trust. This is why we want to proceed further and show our company in Wikipedia. RavenCorporation (talk) 12:39, 14 October 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.
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.
We have set up a company and it has been 5 years. Yet there are no sufficient amount of information expect our site in the internet due to the nature of our sector. And my publishing approval is denied every time. How can I fix it? I want to publish my company here. RavenCorporation (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I've never heard of any instance where a company has become more profitable and successful because of a Wikipedia article. Indeed, the only effect I have seen on companies is a negative one, such as this. You really don't want to do this, as Wikipedia will report the good and the bad about your company and not take sides. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:28, 14 October 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.
Dates not lining up?
Hi, I wanted to try my hand at making my own page: Draft:Air_Parabat, but some of the dates do not line up with sources. The page List of defunct airlines of Bangladesh state that Air Parabat started in 1993 and ceased operations in 2001, while some other places say that it started in 1994 as Air Parabat Flying Academy and its operations as a private sector airline started in early 1998. There is also the fact that the airline ceased operations in 2001 but a crash was reported in 2002. However, i do think that that is about the flying academy which i can't find anything more on. Also the issue of it being a flying academy confuses me as I'm not sure if I should seperate the accidents into two categories. What dates should i be using? VTECAndVAR (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
My previous post was misunderstood so I'd like to try again. I want to write a draft article about Gamers Nexus, a news and opinion website and publication. What guideline would I follow? Would it be WP:NORG? guninvalid (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, guninvalid. Since there is no notability guideline specifically for news organizations, the broader WP:NORG would be the appropriate guideline to follow. Multiple references to significant coverage of Gamers Nexus in truly independent sources will be your key to success. Independent sources are like gold nuggets. Non-independent sources are like gravel in the gears. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Editing Semi-Protected Articles
I saw a mistake in an article (Korea), but because it was semi-protected, I did not know how to give an edit request formally, as I am a new editor. Can any of you guys please help me? Thank you. AerospaceloverVC-25A (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
as First Journalist from Africa Accredited in The United Nations Office at Geneva, Switzerland
Hi,
On July 12, 2000 I got my first permanent accréditation in The UN Office at Geneva, Switzerland and was congratulated by the Press Officer at the time, Ms, Cathy FEGLI, French, as the first journalist from Africa. How can you assist in creating a page for me.
HolyMichaelGeez, the simple answer is "We can't". I suspect that you are confusing Wikipedia with LinkedIn or similar. Don't be surprised if you are contacted by persons offering to create an article about you for payment. Most of these people will deceive you or are plain incompetent (or both), so be sure not to pay anything. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I have to ask, why do you want a Wikipedia article about you? Publicity? Ego? Neither of those are good reasons. The best reason is if someone else unconnected to you thinks you merit an article, and writes one. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I submitted the draft Draft:Arman Darian for review a little over two months ago, but it’s still waiting in the review queue. I understand there are many pending submissions, but I just wanted to kindly ask if someone could please take a look at it when possible, or let me know if there’s anything I can improve to help the process move forward.
@Armand2017 The delay is probably because several references are in languages few can check properly. You could improve the draft by making it conform to MOS:BOLD and by using WP:Named references where you have duplication. I've added the usual sectioning for the references themselves. Adding some Projects to the talkpage may help: see the "Improving your odds of a speedy review" link in the box at the top of the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Armand2017 There is a field in the citations template for a "translated title". In your article, suggest click on the citations that are in Hebrew and add a "translated title" in English for each. MmeMaigret (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
It looks to me like you didn't actually write that article, but you let an AI write it for you. We generally don't like that, AIs tend to make messes that reviewers aren't willing to clean up. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Armand2017 (1) Have a look at WP:COI and see if you need to declare a conflict of interest. (2) Has Darian been feature in any publications? ie, not just a mention but a feature article? MmeMaigret (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to try my hand at making my own page: Draft:Air_Parabat, but some of the dates do not line up with sources. The page List of defunct airlines of Bangladesh state that Air Parabat started in 1993 and ceased operations in 2001, while some other places say that it started in 1994 as Air Parabat Flying Academy and its operations as a private sector airline started in early 1998. There is also the fact that the airline ceased operations in 2001 but a crash was reported in 2002. However, i do think that that is about the flying academy which i can't find anything more on. Also the issue of it being a flying academy confuses me as I'm not sure if I should seperate the accidents into two categories. What dates should i be using? VTECAndVAR (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm working on Draft:SerpApi and would like to make it better.
If I understood correctly, the article missing an in-depth info about technology and the history behind the company? I'm a novice in contributing to Wikipedia and would love to understand what to improve.
@Ilyazub You main issue is notability and sourcing and also the draft it reads a bit promotional. You can ADD independent reliable coverage LIKE news,, tech sites or journals about SerpApi itself also keep History and Technology brief and neutral. I suggest you can use these guides will a. WP:CORP b. WP:RS and bb. WP:NPOV. ThilioR O B O T🤖talk15:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article should be a a neutral summary of what several people entirely unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else. If you can't find several sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42, (or even if you can but the coverage is routine commercial information such as acquisitions and share issues - see WP:CORPTRIV) then you will not be able to create an acceptable article.
Having found such sources, you then need to put aside almost everything you know about the subject from other sources, and write a summary of what those independent reliable sources say.
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) 11:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
hi @Starlet147 and welcome to the Teahouse! images have to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons before they can be used. in this case, please check out Introuction to images. do note that images have to have the appropriate license before you can add them, and as such as a rule of thumb you cannot upload most of the images that you simply found online onto Wikipedia (unless they are already licensed under Creative Commons or are in the Public Domain). happy editing! 💜 melecietalk - 02:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
You have to use Wikimedia Commons for images. If you want to use an existing image, use:
Neither of the above comments are fully correct. Here at the english Wikipedia, we can use both images that have been uploaded locally to the english Wikipedia as well as images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. From a policy standpoint, Commons accepts images that are either freely licensed or public domain. In addition to what Commons accepts, the english Wikipedia accepts, uploaded locally, files which meet all of the non-free content criteria. However, since the subject of the image appears to be a living person, the latter option is probbably not available as a non-free image would fail the "no free quivalent available or could be created" criterion. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi everyone, this is my first wikipedia article and thanks to advice I have already received here I have been working on improving this article by adding reliable sources, page numbers, and expanding sections on its history, decline, and cultural memory. I would really appreciate if an experienced editor could take a look and let me know if the article seems anywhere at all close to meeting B class standards, or if there are areas that still need alot more work. Thanks you, I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Editor mq (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you again for your assistance, it is very much appreciated as I am new to all of this. I have followed the instructions on the link you provided and requested a peer review. Wiki Editor mq (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, dear editors:) I've been assigned an edit on a page of my choice, and I'm wildly intimidated! I do know which page I'd like to edit (soil carbon), and I thought I could come back to my sandbox to work on my ideas, but I guess it's called "sandbox" bc my progress will disintegrate there until officially saved on the actual page? Humph:/ this means I need to learn to work productively with the tech of this day and age!!! ahhh. Soil carbonAofria (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! My guess is that you didn't save the page by pressing Publish changes. Even though it's labeled "Publish", it doesn't publish your changes to the article; it only saves your progress in the sandbox. I also recommend turning on Edit Recovery to help recover edits that you forgot to save. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I hope you are all doing well. I’m currently working on a Wikipedia draft about Claudiney Prieto, a prominent Brazilian and internationally recognized figure in the fields of Neopaganism and Wicca. The draft can be found here: User:Art2712/sandbox.
Claudiney Prieto is known for his significant role in the dissemination of Wicca in Brazil, as an author, teacher, and public priest who has contributed to the development of Pagan communities and education throughout Latin America. My goal with this page is to create a neutral and well-sourced biography that helps readers independently learn more about his work, publications, and impact on the modern Pagan movement, both nationally and internationally.
I would appreciate any feedback, guidance, or suggestions regarding the structure, tone, and references to ensure that the article aligns with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards.
Hello, @Art2712, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.
Which of your sources are or contain in-depth discussion of Prieto, not written, edited, published or commissioned by him or by anybody or any organisation associated with him, and not based on an interview or press release, and published by a reputable publisher? Unless you have several separate sources which each meet all those conditions (see WP:42), then you haven't got an article. Most of your sources clearly do not meet those criteria, but I have not looked at them all
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) 15:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
thank you for all the tips! I'm going to take the time to revise everything and to contribute in existing articles Art2712 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
See WP:Golden Rule. Which three sources do you feel meet all three golden-rule criteria? If there are none, then the subject doesn't merit an article on Wikipedia. It's really that simple. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
The edit summary of the edit that redirected the Roman Bellic article to GTA 4 explained the reasoning. Your article was "completely unsourced, entirely plot summary, and copied directly from Fandom." If you can demonstrate notability using reliable sources, then you might be able to get it published. But as of now, you have yet to do that. Fandom is not considered a reliable source.
Whether or not you agree with what the Fandom says is none of the matter - has this information been published independently in reliable sources? You could use news articles, press releases, books, mainstream magazines, etc. All of these would count as sources that would warrant the topic having its own article.
Find the three best sources for the subject - which would mean the information is verifiable and the publisher is trusted, and then build on those with additional sources and information.
I do not wish to come off as harsh or difficult, but this is the reality of writing Wikipedia articles. Information must be from trusted sources and be able to be verified. If we can handle these now, it's less to worry about later on down the road. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I do not want people to email me, but every time I turn it off in settings (I do click the save button and turn it off in global settings), it just resets whenever I leave the page and come back. How do I fix this or do I just have to keep it on. Longhorncowfish (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I believe it meets WP:NALBUMS because it received substantial coverage in [TV, radio, web with most of web coverage and all radio coverage being about just the albium].
The AfC reviewer hasn’t replied and the Help Desk request for an independent reviewer received no response.
Also worth pointing out, Guyshomenet, is that Rejection as you wrote in your header is different from Declined which is what happened to your draft. Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further. Declined means that you are welcome to add more references, specifically to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the album, and then resubmit the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Generally, an album doesn't merit an article unless the artist(s) already have an article. See the speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#A9, which applies to "any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." If your draft had been moved to mainspace, it would have been speedy-deleted because it makes no assertion of notability and none of the artists (as far as I can tell) have their own Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Release history question
Hello all,
I'm currently making an article on the song Peace of Mind by the Killers. The song was originally released on a 10th anniversary reissue of Sam's Town on October 7, 2016, and had not been available prior to this, but was also released as a single from the reissue on that same day. My question is, do I include the vinyl release information in the release history section of Peace of Mind or just the single release?
I can think of no reason for not mentioning the vinyl release. However your current wording of the lede needs some work:
'"Peace of Mind" is a song by American rock band the Killers, released a single [sic] on the remastered double vinyl . . .'
is confusing and contradictory. (I take it the single release was online only, not in any physical format?)
I suggest you simplify this lede sentence to something like:
'"Peace of Mind" is a song by American rock band the Killers, released in 2016.',
and transfer the further details to the Background and release section below.
Incidentally, I think the usual format for song titles is to use single quote marks rather than double, as you have done, and to italicise album titles. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Reference desk question
Hello, can somebody please answer my question at the reference desk? Diff: [20]
Hello, how do I declare a conflict of interest for a future wikipedia page that I have been instructed to create? For context, the person I am creating a wikipedia page for is a notable solicitor in the UK and I work in the marketing department. Would it be easier for him to set up the account and do it himself or can I help him with it? 82.32.67.118 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I have a view that I haven't seen expressed or refuted anywhere on Wikipedia and I'd like to know if it's widely held and maybe if there's already an essay on it that I couldn't find.
Simply put, I think that inline tags like [citation needed], as well as banners at the top of a page, are helpful for readers as well as editors, in that they inform the reader that the information they find in that article/section might not be entirely accurate or balanced. As such, I think that flagging issues in article space is important even if there's already an appropriate message on the talk page. Thank you (: lp0 on fire (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I wanted to have some comments from the experienced editors on here about the Infobox in Sidemen. Do you folks think this is ideal? Is there a way to improve this? Should we create a new infobox for Creator Groups? Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
When it says that the number of "Subscribers" is "155.6 million (combined)", explaining that the number "Includes the Sidemen's five group channels and twenty-four of their individual channels which host Sidemen content", is it describing subscribers or subscriptions? (If I subscribe to exactly two of their channels, how many "subscribers" do I constitute?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
You would count as two subscribers. In a way, it does represent subscriptions. You're right.Also, do let me know your thoughts about mentioning the Birth Year of each member in there. Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
NPA violations on AfD discussions / mental health
Back again and hopefully not to disrupt no one's time or anything, but I have been accused by Timtrent of constant violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I have no issue with this user. I said something about a user "who needed to be reviewed for making a poorly sourced article on Wikipedia" and that's what caused the response. Is it true that I am violating these policies.
@DBrown SPS Thank you for your statement that you have withdrawn that comment. To be clear in this diff which includes your reply to me, I have not said a thing about 'constant violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF'. What I did was warned you carefully, civilly, and accurately, that, in my opinion, you were Sailing very close to the wind with this one comment.
I am sorry that you are having (self declared) mental health issues right now. Every one of us has had or will have those at some point in our lives. Please do not allow this misstep to affect you. If I am able to do anything to help you please ask. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 10:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Imgoated926, 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) 11:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:Marla Stone (author)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Courtesy link: Rebecca Alpert
CiaPan (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)