🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1269
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1269

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1265←Archive 1267Archive 1268Archive 1269Archive 1270Archive 1271→Archive 1273

How do I make an article a stared or feautred one.

I have done multiple types of things in Wikipedia by know and i am now interested to see how can i make/push an article to a good or featured article status to use my new found experience. I have layed my eyes on a biography article that has multiple repetition of content, unclear seperation of content and non-countinous (regarding text flow) text, and i am intersted to know how can i make the article better. Speciffically, exactly are there any specific guided schemas that are considered good (I know the existense of manual of style!), but my question is what makes something good (refering any pat to follow), and any advice you have to offer on that. Thank you anyone in advance! Mant08 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mant08, I'd recommend starting by reviewing WP:CLASSES to see what can be done to improve the quality of your contributions. Generally, for an article to be featured or listed as GA (Good Article) class, it must contain a broad and diverse variety of information on the subject from a wide range of sources, taking into consideration multiple viewpoints and covering the topic to the extent that it could be used as a high-quality point of reference for a specialist in its field. Let me know if you have any questions! I might ask that another editor point out anything I've missed in this description.
Best,
CSGinger14 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@CSGinger14 Thank you for your answer and being open to help! Mant08 (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Requesting an musicians article for M.G Hkh

Hi, I’m a musician named M.G Hkh from Zimbabwe. I have several media features (e.g. 263Chat, NewsDay). How can I get help to create a neutral Wikipedia article about me?” 77.246.52.180 (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

If you meet the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN, you might be eligible for an article. Note that we require coverage in what we consider reliable sources. See also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and be sure to read WP:SCAM if anyone offers to do this for you for payment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello Andy,
Thank you for your response and for explaining everything clearly. I’ve reviewed the information about WP:NMUSICIAN and I believe I meet the criteria.
However, I’m not very experienced with creating or editing Wikipedia pages. I have several reliable sources — including articles from 263Chat, NewsDay, and Heart Entertainment Magazine — that cover my music career and releases.
I would like to know if there is any volunteer here who could help me create the article using those sources, since I can provide them all.
Thank you again for your time and guidance.
M.G Hkh 77.246.52.53 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Dear Andy ,
I hope this message finds you well.
I am seeking assistance in creating a neutral and well-sourced Wikipedia page for Zimbabwean musician M.G Hkh, born Prince Peter Moyo on October 18, 1997, in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. I have compiled a comprehensive list of references that cover his life, career, music releases, and online presence. Below, I have categorized these sources to facilitate your review:
Instructions for Volunteers
Prioritize the bolded sources for establishing notability and creating the main article content.
Use music/streaming links solely for verifying discography and release information.
Ensure the writing is neutral and factual, avoiding promotional language.
Properly cite sources with author, date, title, publisher, URL, and access date.
If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Prince peter Moyo
(Redacted) 77.246.52.48 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your instructions; I'll bear them in mind. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Andy. I really appreciate your time and response.
I’m not familiar with how to create or publish a Wikipedia article myself, so I would be truly grateful if someone could please help me write or create the page for M.G Hkh (Prince Peter Moyo) using the reliable sources I’ve already shared.
I’m happy to provide any more information if needed.
Best regards,
M.G Hkh (Prince Peter Moyo) 77.246.52.48 (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Do us a favour and get rid of the chatbot, please. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
was using a chatbot just to help with drafting ideas, but I understand that edits and comments need to come from me directly. I’ll make sure of that going forward. Nomusamutandadzi (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
only need a volunteer who can help me create a Wikipedia page about M.G. Hkh. I don’t know how to do it myself. I have resources from newspapers and streaming platforms, and I can provide all the sources as references. 77.246.52.37 (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Which M.G Hkh get a Wikipedia page

I don’t know how to create a Wikipedia for M.G Hkh but he got all the source that requires in to get a Wikipedia só any volunteer here can write for him then l can provide the reference 77.246.50.217 (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Is this his full name? If not then search his full name in the search bar, then it should come up with a red link that you can click on and make a new page. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
KeyolTranslater IP users cannot directly create articles as you say. They need to use the Article Wizard. We also usually advise against new users diving right in to creating articles. The user has also indicated they don't want to write it themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes you’re right, my bad. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
77.246, I'm not sure who "M.G. Hkh" is or what they do, but you're unlikely to find someone willing to write an article for you. If you have evaluated the relevant notability criteria(for notable people or more narrow categories like a notable musician) and truly feel that this individual meets the requirements, and you have gathered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of them that are not interviews, press releases, and announcements, you can use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft for review. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
We already have a thread above: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Requesting an musicians article for M.G Hkh. Lectonar (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
I don’t know how to create it am requesting for a volunteer to create abd publish it for me and l will provide all the bpm newspapers source 77.246.50.217 (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
I suggest that you go on about the work of your career as if Wikipedia did not exist. You're not likely to find anyone to do this for you here. There are also good reasons to not want an article about yourself. If you are truly notable, an independent editor will take note of coverage of you in independent sources and choose on their own to write about you. That's the best indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that makes sense. Could you please point me to the best place to learn more about how notability is determined and what kinds of coverage would qualify? I’d like to understand the process better. 77.246.50.217 (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
You would need to meet at least one aspect of the definition of a notable musician. Coverage must meet the criteria listed at WP:42. It shouldn't be interviews, press releases, or annoucments of your activities(like releasing music or concerts). 331dot (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
M.G Hkh has been covered in several independent and reliable publications. For example, [Name of Magazine or Website] published a detailed article/review on [date], and [Another Source] also discussed their work. These meet the criteria for significant coverage under WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. 77.246.55.238 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Please don't communicate with junk AI responses. Theroadislong (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Any volunteer to create a page for M.G Hkh

I got all the reference l can provide for the volunteer who is willing to to create a page 217.15.117.127 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, you can add this to WP:Requested articles. Find the subpage most relevant to this topic. Thanks! jolielover♥talk 05:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I don’t know how to create Wikipedia page that why am asking a volunteer to do it for myself all the references l have M.G Hkh qualify for a Wikipedia page as a musician 217.15.117.127 (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately M.G Hkh does not meet the requirements in WP:GNG nor those in Wikipedia:Notability (music). Polygnotus (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
You've asked this twice previously. The answer isn't going to change. Please go on about your career as if you had never heard of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Why is en.topwar.ru blocked?

Hi,

I’m making a page for VIA Kaskad and got a notice that the source I was trying to add is blocked. Anyone know why, and if there’s a way to appeal/get around this?

cheers, Afghanka (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I would have a look at WP:RSP - it's likely listed there along with a reason. Danners430 tweaks made 14:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for being so quick to respond! Afghanka (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Might be blind but I don’t see it. Afghanka (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
It is at WP:SSFN, in “State-sponsored fake news sites”. Xzkdeng (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks ! Afghanka (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2020 § State sponsored fake news, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § news-front.info, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites. —Wasell(T) 14:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

How can I watch videos

Where could i git streaming platforms in Wikipedia 41.123.103.16 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Commons:Category:Videos is a good start. Polygnotus (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

STARS.

Is it true that stars are rocks that can glow at night but in the morning they disappear.? Glenton james (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Since they are balls of gas, like they are superdense clouds of fire, balls of fire, if I put it very simply, every glowing object has a luminous intensity what we call its glow due to the heat it produces, that is energy it emeanates, so thing is look at it like this, the Sun is our nearest star, so naturally it would seem brighter since it is at a lesser distance to the Earth and intensity of the body remains same, but the observation depends on the distance, hene the sun glows brighter and its glow makes all other stars disappear Dhritiman Bhattacharyya (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing up my mind..😉 Glenton james (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
If you have questions about encyclopedic topics, rather than about Wikipedia itself, you should ask them over at the Wikipedia:Reference desk fx (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Better still, simply read our article about stars. Shantavira|feed me 08:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi. Stars are not rocks that can glow at night but in the morning they disappear but instead are spears of gasses like hydrogen and helium that perform fusion and produce heat. In the morning they do not disappear but their glow is overpowered by the sun's glow so we don't see them.
you can read more at stars :D. But the Teahouse is not meant for questions that are not related to wikipedia so use google instead :) Lutitium (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
@Lutitium: Spears might be confusing. I think you meant spheres. ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes thanks:D Lutitium (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
but i really want to know that are they rocks or not...? Glenton james (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
They are not. @Glenton james qcne (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Biography of a living person

Hello, friends. I've recently taken an interest in topics related to childfree living, and I am working on a biography for the solo-aging expert Sara Zeff Geber. I've worked on this for at least 5-6 hours. You can find it on my sandbox page; I'm feeling not-so-confident that it's a good article yet. My concerns are as follows:

  • The Personal Life section is long and depends heavily on a single, not-great source. I'm not sure what I should do here - is it way too long? Should I cut it down to a single sentence or two?
  • In the Career section, I'm worried that I'm trying too hard to establish notability and am overdoing mentions of appearances and credentials.
  • The second sentence feels long and awkward to me, but I'm not sure how else to concisely build that information.
  • Am I including the right categories along the bottom?

Note: I'm in the process of reaching out to Geber to arrange for a headshot for the article.

Any guidance to make this better would be very appreciated. LaesaMajestas (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

One bit of guidance is to write the article yourself. It looks like an AI had a heavy hand in it. If you did use an LLM to help you, at least it seems that you're thoroughly checking its output, which is a good thing. The personal life section has a lot in it about her career path, and those elements could be moved up into the career section, or removed completely. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
What makes you think it's AI generated? I wrote the entire thing by hand (look at the revision history for evidence of all the edits I put into it as I went). I did ask ChatGPT to review it when I was done, but only to spot check 2-3 things (like a spelling error, or a spot where I could make the language more neutral). But literally 2-3 small things.
Thanks for the advice about the career section. I did wonder if I should add an Education section and cut all of that out of the personal life section, but it seemed so hard to extricate from the narrative (it seemed like educational milestones guided the choices to move, for example) that I wasn't sure how I'd make that happen.
Either way, thanks for reading it over. I'll sleep on that and see what I can do to tweak it tomorrow. :-) LaesaMajestas (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say it was AI generated, I said that an AI had a hand in it. ChatGPT loves to insert headings in the redundant form "X and Y", like "Awards and Recognition" or "News and Media" (it particularly seems to love the word "recognition", which is often redundant). AI likes to use platitudes like the subject "had been featured in..." rather than saying what the subject actually did. It also doesn't know that Wikipedia doesn't use title case in headings.
That said, you did exactly how people should be using AI on Wikipedia: to check work you've already done. I found it refreshing to see; the AI seemed to be there but only as a collaborating assistant, not as a primary author. And that's how it should be with AI. Congratulations. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah - so this will probably clear it up. When I first started the article, I was a little unsure of how to do the strucutre and approach overall, so I made a sort of amalgamation of pieces of other articles of people similar to Geber in the field - So that's where the title case came from. The line "had been featured in..." was also an artifact from the original copy/paste - I didn't think of a better way to word it.
Thanks for your gudiance. Very appreciated. :-) LaesaMajestas (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @LaesaMajestas, and welcome to the Teahouse.
My general advice would be, Be guided by the independent sources. 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.
The Podcasts are primary sources, and so are acceptable sources for the fact that she made them; but if no independent source has talked about them, should they really be in the article? (this is an editorial decision for you and anybody that reviews the draft). Note that such sources cannot contribute to establishing notability: see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you - I really appreciate the advice, and the time you've taken to provide it.
I've been trying very hard not to build content off of Geber's website, articles written by her, or direct quotes from her. But wouldn't common sense say that a PORTION of the facts about her (such as being adopted, losing her home in the Tubbs Fire, getting her BA in psychology at West Chester University, or working as a flight attendant) come, at best, from a source somewhat close to her? How would an even more detaced source be more credible/useful when reporting matter-of-fact things?
Regarding the podcasts, I was referencing the article on Maddy Dychtwald when I wrote that, where an almost identical approach is taken. Should I just remove all references to the podcasts and say something like "Geber has also been a guest on various podcasts, and has spoken at numerous events, such as" and list the events she spoke at? I did understand that I wasn't establishing notability with those references.
Thank you again. LaesaMajestas (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Please note that interviews are generally primary sources, and sources that are simply asking the subject for a quote on an issue doesn't constitute significant coverage of the subject. The problem here is the quality of the sources. What would you say are your three best sources, all of which are independent of Geber, provide significant discussion about Geber, and are published by sources with a reputation for fact-checking? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, 100%. Geber has many articles where she's quoted and/or referenced for part of the content of an article (such as a recent Kiplinger's article) that I did not use in this draft.
Regarding the sources you're mentioning, I guess I don't really know? Before writing, I looked at the articles for peers such as Maddy Dychtwald, Ken Dychtwald, Teresa Ghilarducci, Vicki Robin, Frederick Vettese, and Carolyn A. Brent, and the sources on those articles don't qualify for the criteria you're mentioning pretty much across the board. Should those articles be deleted, or am I just not seeing something correctly?
I do think it's problematic that I leaned on the 100 Redwood Circle newsletter so heavily for information about her personal life, but none of that is really what makes her notable anyways.
With a few more tweaks, do you think this article would be OK to go live? Is there just not enough to go to publish? I've noticed in the page history that several editors went in and made improvements, which did feel like they felt like it might be OK as a start?
Again, thank you so much. LaesaMajestas (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

How to create articles

How Daddy fassam (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Your first article, but we strongly suggest gaining experience by improving existing articles before you attempt a whole new article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for Feedback on Declined Draft

Hey, I hope you’re doing well.

I recently wrote a Wikipedia draft titled “SMKBUD4 Incident”. Unfortunately, it was declined with the reason that it reads like a news article. I understand that Wikipedia requires a neutral, encyclopedic tone, but I’m having trouble figuring out how to improve it properly. Would you be willing to review my draft and share some advice on how I can make it meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability and neutrality? Here is the link to my draft: Draft:SMKBUD4 Incident

I’d really appreciate any guidance or suggestions you could offer.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

From, StudentEdit1347 StudentEdit1347 (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Bare urls: Your citations are all what is known as bare urls, ie you should go in and add the name of the author, the title of the article, the newspaper, location where it's published (if that's not in the name), date you accessed it etc.
  • Inline citations: Your citations are not lined up with the fact(s) they support. To reuse a citation: in visual editor, either copy and paste it, or choose reuse. If you're using source editor, you need to repeat the name of the citation, eg. <ref name=name></ref>
  • Article title: The title of the article is not user friendly.
However, that said, this article will not likely qualify for an article on Wikipedia. The incident only happened recently so, as the reviewer has pointed out, it's not possible to tell if it's a single passing event. It will probably be years before it's obvious whether the incident has had significant cultural significance. Suggest you consider posting it at Wikinews but first look to see if someone has already posted about it first. In which case, you might edit the article. MmeMaigret (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @StudentEdit1347, 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) 11:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
The technical move request to publish the draft was malformed and removed. I would have submitted to AfC for the creator, but it has not substantially changed since the last decline. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I need use wiki in car

i need to use the wiki in car 172.99.145.234 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Please clarify what you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
i need use Wikipedia in car no internet 172.99.145.234 (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Check out Kiwix. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
And meta:Internet-in-a-Box Polygnotus (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

George McDonald Article

My father recently wrote a 140 page thesis on the first chief of intelligence of the USAF. How do you recommend I adapt that into a new article. His article goes into EVERYTHING about the man, from where he was born, his father's profession, ofc his military career, and into his affairs. This will be my first time writing an article, where do you recommend I start. How do I submit my hundreds of sources? Thecommunityhelper (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

How do you recommend I adapt that into a new article? (Edit: I am pretty tired today) C (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
See WP:Your first article and WP: Referencing for beginners; but it is advisable to get some experience of improving existing articles first.
Maybe your father has the sources listed electronically, in a citation manager like Zotero? That would save you a lot of grunt work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Thecommunityhelper, in "His article goes into EVERYTHING about the man", is "article" a sleepy typo for "thesis"? Either way, your father wrote a thesis. Has it been accepted for a doctorate or similar? If I came across dozens (let alone hundreds) of reliable sources that promised to be usable for an article I was proposing to create or augment (or expecting/hoping that somebody else would), then submitting them anywhere in Wikipedia seems an odd idea, though I could put them in the talk page of the relevant article (or draft). (See a very much shorter example of such a list here.) What one definitely shouldn't do is simply dump a list of putative sources as "Further reading" (or, worse, within "Citations" or similar) near the foot of an article (or draft). -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
@Thecommunityhelper Seems like that could have copyright implications. Is your father's thesis published online? If so, what's the url? (@Billmckern: TCH is proposing an article on George Clement McDonald.) MmeMaigret (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I think it's possible to use the thesis as a source as long as it's not the only source. I made use of Mark Calhoun's thesis on Lesley J. McNair as a reference for the Wikipedia article when I overhauled the article several years ago. There's a template for citing a thesis. Add "|page=" when using it, and use the appropriate templates for your other sources, and I think you'll should be in good shape. Billmckern (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to read it! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WizlolAP3AqDvRtuRKiI8Epb7sAvei29/view?usp=sharing
It will be posted through Air University later on. I wish that there were a way to share downloads through the Teahouse, but whatever. He took a trip to USAFA to gather hundreds of sources, ranging from articles to physical WW2 letters. George McDonald also has his page on The Air Force website, but I think that his hundreds of sources will suffice. Do I need to drop those sources to wikimedia one-by-one? Thecommunityhelper (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
(1) I would recommend that you go to requested articles page and add Macdonald’s name. An article can be drafted now based on what is publicly available (2) When your father’s thesis is published, you can come back. An article can cite the thesis as a secondary source. There is no hurry - GCM has gone this long without a page and he will still be notable in 6 months or a year. (3) A page on Wikipedia does not need to contain everything on Macdonald even if your father’s thesis going into more depth. They’re two different media. MmeMaigret (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Quandale Dingle

Could someone make the article Quandale Dingle, it was a meme from years ago and it doesn’t have an article. 2A04:CEC0:C014:A2E8:D49C:CAE7:7B15:19D1 (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately that meme does not appear to pass WP:GNG so it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is an article about Brain rot. Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Article Request

Hello! I’m new here and would like to request that an article be created about Tova Laiter, a film producer and executive. I’ve disclosed my connection on my user page and added a request under “Requested articles → Film producers.” Here are a few reliable sources that provide independent coverage: – [1] – [2] – [3] Could someone please review or advise on next steps? Thank you! WiciLici4 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @WiciLici4! Article requests can be posted over at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
You also haven't disclosed your connection on your user page? You don't have a user or talk page.
Create your user page and use the {{User COI|Tova Laiter}} template. It'll look like this:
This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Tova Laiter.
If you're acting as a paid editor, make sure you specifically disclose that as per WP:PAID Athanelar (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Citation Quote Question

hi I am working on my draft article, and I added insta post link of KMF ,

Then a thought came in my mind that in future it (post) may be disappear, then how someone can check that it is true or false.

Now I am asking can I put whole statement in Quote with ©️ emoji for WP:V 獅眠洞 (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. The problem you are trying to prevent is known as WP:Link rot, and there are automated measures in place to deal with it. Including a quote in the reference footnote is still helpful, but it should be a small part of the post and not the whole thing, for copyright reasons. Perception312 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, we do not add that copyright symbol to anything written in Wikipedia's voice. A large majority of material on Wikipedia is copyrighted, although much of that content is also freely licensed. A free license does not eliminate the copyright. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

User page when my username is out of the BMP?

My username is an archaic hanzi (Chinese character) for five (𠄡), a character outside the Basic Multilingual Plane. I'm also wondering how others would be able to create a talk page for my user if they're not an admin. The following pop-up appears when trying to create the page:

"Creation of this page (User:𠄡) is currently restricted to administrators, page movers, and template editors because the page title matches an entry .*[^\0-\x{FFFF}].* <casesensitive> # Very few characters outside the [[Basic Multilingual Plane]] are useful in titles on the local or global blacklists.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

  • Any administrator can create this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard or open a new edit request.
  • Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
  • If you wrote any text, save it temporarily to your device until you can create the page.

Thank you."

I know I should follow the instructions, but I don't think this is such an important matter to request in the noticeboard. It's also not an article, so I think maybe the steps would be different? I'm not sure what to do. Will I have to change my username?

The links would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:𠄡 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:𠄡 . 𠄡 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I've created your user page and talk page for you, so you and others should now be able to edit both. If you no longer want a user page, you can request its deletion by putting {{Db-u1}} in the page using source editor. Tenshi! (Talk page) 22:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi 𠄡, welcome to the Teahouse. It's an impractical username for an editor at an English wiki. I suggest you create another account with a name which can be understood and written by English-speaking people, unless you plan to mainly edit the Chinese Wikipedia or other wikis in Chinese. You only have three edits. Then it's easier for both you and us to just abandon the account and create another than to request a rename. With the current name you can get problems again if you want to make talk page archives or user sandboxes (test or draft pages for edits), or use certain tools which create a page in your userspace to keep track of something. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia screenshot with square grey blob instead of user name
Screenshot
The above is how your post looks for me, in desktop view on a fairly standard Android device. Now imagine a talk page conversation between two or more users whose user names display in the same manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Lars Ek

Open Letter from Lars Ek – Cultural Contributor Seeking Transparency

I am Lars Ek, a Swedish accordionist, composer, lyricist, poet, and cultural ambassador. Over the course of my career, I have contributed to the preservation and promotion of Nordic accordion music through performances, publications, and educational outreach.

My work includes:

  • Over 200 musical recordings published on YouTube
  • Original compositions, poetry, aphorisms, and books
  • International tours and TV appearances in Europe, the USA, Hong Kong, and Italy
  • Founding the Frosini Society, dedicated to preserving artistic accordion traditions
  • A strong presence on social media, with thousands of followers engaging with my cultural content

Despite this, my article on Swedish Wikipedia was removed, and my attempts to contribute have met resistance. I understand and respect Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and neutrality. My concern is not about personal promotion, but about preserving a documented cultural legacy that spans decades and continents.

I respectfully ask editors to consider the broader context of cultural relevance. The accordion holds different status in different parts of the world, and its role in Nordic music is significant. I believe Wikipedia should reflect this diversity—not by lowering its standards, but by expanding its understanding.

I remain committed to improving the article with reliable, independent sources and proper formatting. I hope to collaborate constructively with the Wikipedia community to ensure that cultural contributions like mine are documented fairly and transparently.

With respect, Lars Ek LarsEkMusik (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issues on the Swedish Wikipedia. Each language Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies. You will need to address this on the Swedish Wikipedia with the Swedish Wikipedia community, using whatever processes they have to do so. If you have done that, and they were not persuaded, there isn't anything more you can do.
I do not know about them, but we strongly discourage people from editing about themselves per the autobiography policy. We don't want to know what people say about themselves, we want to know what others say about them. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
There is lengthy discussion of this topic at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1268#New article about Swedish accordionist Lars Ek, and a declined draft, in English, at Draft:Lars Ek. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

WorkWave Draft

Hello, I have my draft here: Draft:WorkWave

I'm not sure how to update it so it seems less of an advertisement. Is it the sources or the language used? Any help is appreciated. Mgorman32 (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Welcome @Mgorman32, please read WP:COMPANY. Since WorkWave does not meet the requirements it is not fit for inclusion.
Also note that those awards are basically fake. Best in Biz Awards is a pay-to-enter business awards program founded by someone who worked in corporate communications... So they pay money to get meaningless awards they can brag about. Polygnotus (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I hadn't realized the awards we paid for, good to know. I'll try to see if I can find any notable sources for WorkWave but my guess is I likely won't be able to. Appreciate the help! Mgorman32 (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:FAMOUS🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Decentralized operating system

Writing a section on the use-case for a decentralized operating system

Hello,

I would like to add content to a wiki page about the intended use-case for an open-source, decentralized operating system based on first-hand sources by the OSs creator and developer, whose authority on the subject is documented and verified. The use-case would be strictly based on the intentions that the developer himself, in no uncertain terms, set out when making the OS. Sources would include: 1) the academic paper about the OS, 2) personal interviews, 3) in-person conferences, 4) essays and 5) online documentation about the OS. The developer has made it very clear how and why he designed the OS to be used in this use-case, but this information is not necessarily found in the same place. So my goal is to compile this information together and write out the use-case as a section on the OSs wiki page.

The use-case itself is not speculation and direct quotes from the developer can be sourced and attributed for all axioms and arguments.

Furthermore there are a number of second-hand sources about the OS I may mention in the use-case, such as: 1) recent online discussion from within the OS community 2) expert opinion pieces on the operating system and 3) Testimony from individuals who worked with the original developer directly.

The page as a whole is technically involved and therefore quite lacking in active contributions, so I would like to expand it based on the intent for how the author made his OS to be used. Turdbit (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You don't need anyone's permission to edit an article. I would suggest that you use the new user tutorial and review how primary sources may be used. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Turdbit, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with what 331dot says; but it sounds to me as if you may be veering into original research (or at least, synthesis).
A Wikipedia article should summarise what independent sources say. If a source presents an argument or a conclusion, Wikipedia may summarise that argument or conclusion; but it should not advance any argument or conclusion that is not clearly contained within a single source; nor should it present any argument or conclusion which is synthesised from material in more than one source. ColinFine (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Combining science and religion

Combining science and religion using metaphysics plus mathematical and physical tools

Hello I am new and my aim is to unify religion and science together using quantum physical concept like QFT, Uncertainty Principle, De Broglie's equation, Schrondinger's Wave Equation and also The Theory Of Relativity, I notice that whenever the topic of metaphysics or subtle realms or dimensions come up, a religious connotation is attached to it... For instance the multiverse theory and whatnot, I have my thoughts on these, and I AM NOT BIASED in the slightest, I would like to approach everything scientifically, so how do I go about it? Dhritiman Bhattacharyya (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is your question?
If you already developed your theory, write a self-published article or a book about it, or publish it in an academic journal if it's scientific enough. Unfortunately, you can't write a Wikipedia article about your own theory until there's a bunch of other sources talking about it. fx (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Dhritiman Bhattacharyya, the relevant content policy is No original research, which, among other things, forbids editors from writing articles about their own theories cited to their own writings. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Can you suggest a journal where I might be able to publish it? Like just the name or website URL? Dhritiman Bhattacharyya (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
@Dhritiman Bhattacharyya Try WP:Alternative outlets. Shantavira|feed me 09:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks a lot pal! I have joined Wikibooks maybe I can help out over there Dhritiman Bhattacharyya (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
IMO the best first step is to write a shorter article/blog post on the topic and get people's feedback on it. LessWrong could be a good fit for you - if your theory is actually novel and interesting, the audience there may appreciate it and give you some insightful discussion on it. And if it's not, they're more likely to give you constructive criticism instead of just calling you stupid or whatever.
WikiBooks is specifically for books/guides. I'm not familiar with the guidelines over there so I don't know if writing about your theory is allowed, but even if it is, I think it's not the best venue to first introduce your ideas to the world. fx (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Do I have to be an extended confirmed editor to edit this page?

Discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Haydi123. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 26 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.

Haydi123 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Kind of already answered there, but nope. jolielover♥talk 15:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! Haydi123 (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I guess my reply isn't showing up, so I'll rephrase it. I don't know if I should revert my edits now, as I don't want to get into an edit war. If I revert my edits, this person will revert them again, which could lead to an edit war. So, should I start a topic on the talk page before reverting my edits? This person hasn't responded to my posts on the talk page, so I'm not sure if they'll respond to this one. Can the page admins or anyone else help me with this? I don't know what should i do now. Haydi123 (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Typically, you should give the person some time to respond, like a few hours. Yes, you should discuss on the article talk page (and ping them, or leave a message on theirs so they know there's a discussion). If they're still not responding despite consistently editing, I suppose you can go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. jolielover♥talk 16:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Haydi123 (talk) 16:45, 26 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.

Inviting editors?

How do I flag a new starter article to the greater Wikipedia community as something that could use additional editorial eyes and input? Is that done here or at another board? Started this page: 2025 Pentagon press pass forfeiture and would love to get more people interacting and also would like to start a 2025 Wikipedia Culture Wars article to discuss investigations aimed at Wikipedia. Xkeylimepie (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You can post a neutral notice on the relevant WikiProjects and or editors if they are interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
@Xkeylimepie Some guidance at WP:APPNOTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! Xkeylimepie (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

my article was declined, not complaining

I just want to know what I can do to fix it, it'd be amazing if someone could help me out, I'm making a series and tried to make a page about it but it got declined Draft:Bunnyverse, I wrote it in 3rd person EbunnyGAMING (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is nothing to suggest that your topic is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Logo upload; verifying fair-use rationale

Hello, I recently uploaded the school logo at File:Castle Park High School logo.png, and as this is my first time uploading a non-free file, I wanted to confirm that I followed policy correctly. I based my upload on the guidance at WP:WPSCH/AG#IB (specifically the “Do include” section) and on WP:NFCI, particularly point 7. : (Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school). I selected “This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use” and “This is a logo of an organization.” I provided the source — Sweetwater Union High School District – School Logos. Could someone please review the file and confirm that it meets Wikipedia’s non-free content policy and fair-use requirements? I simply want to make sure that I have done everything properly. And have not mistakenly violated Wikipedia's copyright policies. Thank you kindly, Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Issac I Navarro, and welcome to the Teahouse.
It looks to me as if you've done everything right with the logo. (NFCI:7 is not relevant: the meaning of "school" there is sense 5 of wikt:school, which has nothing to do with educational establishments. But NFCI:2 applies.)
I think that the article has a lot of material in it which is not encyclopaedic and should be removed. I haven't looked closely enough at the references to decide whether or not it appears to meet the criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. And yes, I am looking over the page now, I have added Template: Generated from: Under construction, as of now to the page Castle Park High School, I plan on doing as you suggest and trimming not encyclopaedical substance. Also work on it's layout per WP:WPSCH/AG#OS. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Europe map with Azerbaijan map on top right

On the 2026 Women's European Volleyball Championship page, the Europe map doesn't include Baku so I added the city on the top right like the way Kairat is displayed in the Champions League map. However, adding the map unnecessarily adds a bunch of grey space below the map. Is there a way to have the Azerbaijan map without adding unnecessarily grey space.  ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ILoveSport2006, and welcome to the Teahouse.
I have no idea about this, but if you go to WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop you'll probably find somebody who can help you. ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
It was a bit of a strange question. Thanks for replying. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Is gore allowed on Wikipedia?

For example, would it be allowed to upload an image of someone's corpse? 2A04:CEC0:F04B:6A1:71EA:A9C4:DD08:AE67 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Assuming there was an encyclopaedic reason to do so and the images available thru Wikimedia Commons wouldn't suffice, yes. Uploading gore for the sake of gore, though, isn't going to fly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
We already have many images of corpses, for example Category:Corpses of war victims - Wikimedia Commons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Recommend implementing WP:DENY. The mobile editor has been opening up mutliple RMs, in the last few hours. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Sean Combs infobox image change

No valid decision about changing the image can be made here. Discussion should continue on the article's talk page. If the talk page is unprotected, there is a reason for that. Wait for its unprotection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 26 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, since the talk page of Sean Combs is protected, I am proposing that you change his 2012 infobox image to the 2023 one as it is the most recent and best option for his infobox image because the 2012 one is old. Otherwise it would be nice to have a banner that shows there is a request for image change. 2A04:CEC0:F04B:6A1:71EA:A9C4:DD08:AE67 (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Which 2023 image? If you could link, that'd be good. Anyway, recent isn't always better. Sometimes older, higher quality images are favoured over new, poorer quality ones. If you link the image we could assess it better. jolielover♥talk 16:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
File:Sean Combs in 2023.png 2A04:CEC0:F04B:6A1:71EA:A9C4:DD08:AE67 (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
There is also this one from 2000: File:P Diddy 2000.jpg 2A04:CEC0:F04B:6A1:71EA:A9C4:DD08:AE67 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I personally don't like the 2023 image. It's pretty poor quality and the sunglasses obscures his face. The lighting is also bad. I also am more hesitant when it comes to people who haven't changed in looks drastically since their last photo. I get it if it's a photo of a child vs an adult, but he pretty much looks the same. I vote for keeping the 2012 image. jolielover♥talk 16:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
What about the 2000 one? 2A04:CEC0:F04B:6A1:71EA:A9C4:DD08:AE67 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
No, I still think the 2012 is better (although the 2000 one is also good). The 2012 lighting is more neutral and thus more accurate to what he looks like. 2000 one has a warmer undertone. For what it's worth, the 2000 image is in the article body. jolielover♥talk 16:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it possible to put a banner on the top of the article to say that there’s a vote about changing the infobox image? 2A04:CEC0:F04B:6A1:71EA:A9C4:DD08:AE67 (talk) 16:42, 26 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.

Making a table in source editor

How to make a table in source editor, please help me. Godzilla12491 (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Godzilla12491, have you digested Help:Table? And if so, then what help do you need? -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Godzilla12491 This is a good use for a personal sandbox (e.g. at User:Godzilla12491/sandbox) so you can practice and show us your progress if things go wrong. Click on the currently red link to make your sandbox page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
This one:
File:Screenshot 20251026 210439 Chrome.jpg Godzilla12491 (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Oops Godzilla12491 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Tournament points table Godzilla12491 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
This one, check in the points table section, im kinda new Godzilla12491 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Just edit that article and copy out its source code and paste it into your sandbox. Then you can experiment with changes for that or any other article where you need a similar table. Make sure you don't change the existing table by editing it and save/publishing the result in its current location. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your help. Godzilla12491 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense article

Hello, i found an article with no context and references. (link)

Thanks. Versions111 (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Versions111 Thank you! I have changed it to a WP:DRAFT so that the author can still work on it. It appears to be about a Spongebob Squarepants song. Polygnotus (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

A question about canvassing

If I got one of my off-wiki friends (who is a minor) to join Wikipedia, and I end up editing the same articles as them because I'm helping them learn to use Wikipedia, but we avoid involving each other off-wiki in disputes/controversial areas, do I need to disclose knowing them in real life? I'm concerned that then by extension I would need to follow WP:GFYE to preserve their privacy. lp0 on fire () 22:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lp0 on fire No, I don't think that you do. Just be aware of WP:MEATPUPPET and avoid ganging up on other editors from the two accounts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! lp0 on fire () 22:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Signatures?

And how do I make one? Rupert likes music (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rupert likes music See WP:CUSTOMSIG. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Rupert likes music Hello! Just visited your UP: I don't think it's appropriate to "advertise" Spotify links on your userpage! Maresa63 Talk 10:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok, I'll get on it now, I can still recommend them though, yes? I will admit ta full link to them was a bit much. Sorry! Rupert likes music (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

AI / Rollbacker

Hey, I've been using AI on Wikipedia for about 4 something months now. I love using AI on Wikipedia. It makes long edits feel easy. Of course, I always fact check the information, and add links. And, I just let a bot fix the disambiguation links I add sometimes. I want to ask: is anyone fine if I partially use AI in my articles. It is kind of to late because I have already worked it hundreds of times. I want rollback rights to. Do I have the experience in undoing edits to get the rights? If so, how many edits will I need to get rollback, and submit my case for the third time? CostalCal (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you stop using AI, I have reverted two of your recent edits which added AI "summaries". Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello @CostalCal. Artificial intelligence should not be used to edit Wikipedia, as it is known to hallucinate and make up sources as well as information. We have an essay on LLMs if you are curious.
I am sure your edits have been in good faith, and you have not meant any harm, but I strongly advise you to write yourself and not use AI in editing. If you are concerned about your edits needing to be reverted, I took a glance at a few of them and they seem to be largely alright. If you have any major concerns still, you could post somewhere like the AI Cleanup noticeboard to let others know and allow them to help revert, if you so wish. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 21:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I second this, AI should not be used for Wikipedia, considering it has and can make ideas up, or agree with what the user asks even if it is factually incorrect. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
On the question of rollback; please review the instructions given at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Rollback is primarily for editors who participate in counter vandalism. Your edits show no use of Twinkle, Redwarn, or Ultraviolet. I would recommend you first focus on cleaning up your contributions however, to ensure they are free of the various problems using AI/LLMs cause. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The amount of work you put into verifying LLM nonsense could just be put into writing it. We are here to write articles for fun, not use automated pattern simulators do things. A lot of the fun of this SI writing those long grueling articles. Ive spent hours researching and writing new articles and improving others. What would be the point of using a generator to do that? Metallurgist (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree, it loses the charm and human aspect. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
It may lose the charm, I don't know. Yes it loses the human aspect. But you didn't mention the important part: AI can never tell the truth, because it has no idea what that is. I guess I'm in a small minority when I say I think anyone using AI for anything on Wikipedia - even drafts, even discussions - should be permanently banned after their second offence, and anyone twenty times merely suspected of using AI should be banned too, but an encyclopedia full of lies is bad, even if the lies are arguably accidental. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I 100% agree with you, I’ve asked AI simple questions to test it and it got it wrong, it is unreliable and should only be used for calculations and data collection, nothing creative or anything about humans, for AI isn’t a human and therefore does not understand us and our immense history. I think they should be banned as well, it would be horrible if this site was filled with AI photos and text. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I asked Google why Liquid Death was in some weird size like 19.8oz, and the obnoxious forced AI said because it was larger than 24oz cans. Metallurgist (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I fully agree with you. I am extremely anti LLM. Should be immediate block. The problem is people admit to using it now. If it were banned totally, they may hide that, and it can be difficult to prove. There are numerous articles showing how people are falsely challenged in academia for use of AI. But, in many cases, it is obvious. Metallurgist (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello editors! I want to fix the wikilink of {{User ISRO}} from Indian Space Research Organisation to ISRO. How do I do that? Or can you do it in the first place? Please ping me while you reply so I can get notified. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 15:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Akshadev I made the change to the template on your user page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: This is certainly not the solution I want! It is still grammatically incorrect (as it says, "This user supports the ISRO). I'm actually looking for a permanent solution, and that is rename/edit/move the template/userbox. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 15:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
@Akshadev If you edit the original template page at {{user ISRO}}, then you will alter its use for everyone else who has that template on their user page, which they might not like. Hence I only altered it on your page. You can tweak what is now on your own page to achieve any wording you like. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The Indian Space Research Organisation was changed to ISRO by a majority vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves. So whether people like or dislike the template change shouldn't matter much. I am going to rename it to This user supports ISRO. If there is a separate voting process for template renaming then I will surely apply there. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 15:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Additionally, thanks for the help! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 15:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull All I had to do is put 'ISRO' in the wikilink ([ISRO|Indian Space Research Organisation]). This is what I was looking for. Ignore everything I said one paragraph above. Keep helping and happy editing! :) – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 16:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Updating out of date figures

Hi there, I'm new to this so apologies for what may be a duh question... If I notice that some figures are out of date (and there are more up to date figures on the webpages cited), is it ok for me to just update them and publish? Like the number of students at a college dating back to 2020-2021, for example. I'm not yet clear on when I should be making suggestions on the Talk page vs just going ahead and publishing edits. I want to make sure I follow proper etiquette. Similarly, if a cited webpage no longer provides updated figures for numbers that are mentioned in the article, can I just remove that sentence? Stephcard7155 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Stephcard7155! You can be bold and update articles, as long as you include a citation on your addition to a reliable, published source. Make sure to also write in an edit summary explaining what you are updating and why. As for sources that no longer verify the information: yes, either remove the information, find a new source, or check for archived copies of the source that still verify it. qcne (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Procedural closes in RMs #2

When can requested moves be procedurally closed, and is there a template you should use? I don't think you have to wait at all to close them, right? --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality of terms like "liberated"

Recently I was reading the article about the city of Niš in Serbia, and in the introduction I came across the following text:

After about 400 years of Ottoman rule, the city was liberated in 1878 and became part of the Principality of Serbia, though not without great bloodshed—remnants of which can be found throughout the city.

Specifically, the word "liberated" caught my eye. In a historical context, the term "liberated" carries a value judgment, doesn't it? It implies that the previous rulers of the cith were inherently oppressive and unjust and that subsequent control was inherently freeing or positive. While I'm sure that is indeed how some view it in this specific example, I'm unsure whether it’s a neutral description of what happened: it feels kind of subjective rather than objective. Would it not be more appropriate to phrase it like this:

After about 400 years of Ottoman rule, the city became part of the Principality of Serbia in 1878, though not without great bloodshed—remnants of which can be found throughout the city.

Decided to ask here in Teahouse before I consult the talk page, to see if there is even merit in my question. Curious to hear your thoughts as someone who isn't well-versed with Wikipedia's editing guidelines, cheers Havzali (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to say that liberated is never proper--it might be okay in other articles if that's what most reliable sources use, and I can see it being appropriate in a case where a city was originally part of Nation A, was taken over by Nation B, and then was shortly thereafter returned to Nation A--that return from being taken over could be described as "liberating" the city. But in this example, I think your rewording is better. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@SomeoneDreaming I agree 100%, I can definitely see there being appropriate uses of the word, especially in the circumstances you describe. In this case, 400 years is a long time and I'm sure there's more neutral words like reconquest to signify change in ownership. Havzali (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah. I think in this case you can be WP:BOLD and go ahead and make the edit you suggested! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I think your proposed change is better, I concur with the other editor here that you should be bold and change it. Athanelar (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
The source uses "liberated", altho it is a Serbian source. I would suggest looking for sources that have a different wording before doing that. I am taking an educated guess that you are Turkish and can bet that a Serb editor would take issue with that. Balkans issues are on the Contentious topics list and requires more delicate handling. Perhaps propose it on the talk page and do some research to see if other sources dont use that term. This is a good manual of style question tho. Looking at other examples, there is Liberation of France as a whole article. And a number of concentration camps are recorded as being liberated. Metallurgist (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Aloha! I am the information manager for USINDOPACOM's Pacific Multi Domain Training and Experimentation Capability (PMTEC). Given our activities and mission, as codified in the U.S. Pacific Deterrence Initiative, I believe PMTEC warrants a Wikipedia page. After reading Wikipedia guidelines, I believe I should not be the one to create it.

Is that correct? Any advice on how to get a page established, and if it is established would it still be a conflict of interest to edit it? Mahalo for your input and guidance. Tai Indo (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Tai Indo, welcome to the Teahouse!
Thank you for being proactive regarding your conflict of interest. It’s true that COI editors are strongly discouraged from contributing to articles.
For the subject to qualify for a Wikipedia article, it must meet either the general notability guideline or the corporation notability guideline.
The subject warrants an article only if it meets one of these criteria.
You may submit an article request, but other than that there’s not much else to do except wait until the article is created organically.
If you wish to create the article yourself, you can go to WP:AFC and submit it there, where it will be thoroughly reviewed by an experienced editor for common problems with COI editing before it’s published live. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I will check out both of the notability links you provided, and if warranted, submit an article request for now. Appreciate your response! 199.211.150.27 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
As I assume you are an employee of the US military or serving in the military, you would be a paid editor under our rules. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. 199.211.150.27 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
And whatever information you write in a draft or article must be based on previously published sources. So something that you know, that is not published, should not be included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
If you want to write the article yourself:
1. Make sure you disclose your COI on your user page. See WP:COI and WP:PAID for guidance on COIs and how to disclose COIs and paid editing (which yours would be considered as)
2. Create the article as a draft first. (something like Draft:Pacific Multi Domain Training and Experimentation Capability Follow all the guidance in WP:YFA regarding article standards, notability, verifiability etc.
3. Once you feel your draft is fully-formed, submit it at WP:AFC for review. Again, make sure you note your COI. The article will be reviewed for both normal wiki standards as well as any issues arising from your COI, and if the article is suitable for Wikipedia it will be approved and created as a main article.
Alternatively, you might consider instead getting the info about PMTEC added to the already existing USINDOPACOM article as a section there. If you want to do that, then discuss your proposed addition/edits at Talk:United States Indo-Pacific Command first as is expected of COI editors. Athanelar (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for that guidance. Adding to the USINDOPACOM article is a great idea. Tai Indo (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Tai Indo, and welcome to the Teahouse. I echo all that other editors have said in reply - including, particularly, acknowledging you for disclosing your connection with the subject.
But I would add something a little stronger about experience: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Very wise advice, as I am learning through this process. I definitely need to spend time on Wikipedia before attempting this. I appreciate the thoughtful guidance. Mahalo! Tai Indo (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

SPI questions

I suspect that there are two accounts which have extremely close ties to one another, I want to open an SPI, but I am not sure how to do this as I have never done one before. I believe that there is historic evidence of one of the accounts being run by now a new account opened and then not disclosed. I know you are allowed to have more than one account, but you must disclose all ties to which accounts you have, right? Anyway, I was not sure if this is the appropriate venue to ask about this as well. Sorry in advance if it is not. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn Hello! I would recommend asking my brother Asilvering or Izno. Polygnotus (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Asilvering is your brother? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn Spiritually/metaphysically. Like a comrade. Polygnotus (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Gotcha. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Iljhgtn, I would recommend using Twinkle for opening the investigation; in a person's contributions, you can open a sockpuppet investigation in the ARV button. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases might have useful information to consider; but basically, just present evidence in a simple way, using diffs. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Help on Transfeminism article

Hi there! I'm pretty new to wiki, but I noticed that the article on transfeminism has some serious shortcomings. I tried to put in some summaries of some recent developments in the theory, but a lot what I want to include comes from a self-published source, the substack and essay collections of Talia Bhatt (https://taliabhattwrites.substack.com/p/the-third-sex, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Trans_Rad_Fem/ItUi0QEACAAJ?hl=en). However, her works are cited positively in academic sources that would be considered reliable (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00497878.2025.2565492, https://www.proquest.com/openview/df481a7d1f9fb07c2a1c37f561419b9a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y). Does being cited by reliable academic sources, make these essays themselves reliable? Flockofsparrows420 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The short answer is no. If her self-published works are cited by reliable sources, then maybe, but this would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It's better to report what secondary sources say. Her own self-published work hasn't undergone peer review, so it would be considered less than reliable for verifying statements of fact, but could be used to attribute quotations to her. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
If this is the case, then the rules around reliability strike me as overly limiting here, when it comes to topics of political theory. If Bhatt is the one coming up with these theories and putting them out there, and these theories are being accepted into the the reliable discourse on the topic, and cited by reliable sources, shouldn't wiki be able to source directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak? I understand the need to stick to more robust verification on topics that have a less subjective nature, but if Bhatt is influencing the theory, then shouldn't the wiki article on the theory reflect that? Flockofsparrows420 (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I second this. This is a political ideology, after all, and Bhatt is a political theorist. Her works and writings have been praised by authorities within the field, too. Shes quite influential, as sparrows outlined. I don’t think it would be violating Wikipedia’s neutrality rules or anything to take directly from her writings. She is, after all, the one coming up with this stuff. Missmonstergirl (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
No, that isn't how Wikipedia works. Self-published material that has been referenced in secondary sources is fair game to cite. Self-published material that hasn't gone through peer review, however, is just original research on her part, and can be mentioned only with attribution, not as statements of fact that imply the consensus among the community of her peers. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
So I'm a little confused here. what would qualify material for being "referenced in secondary sources"? and how is that different then the situation with the essays I want to cite? Flockofsparrows420 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
If a secondary source reports something that Talia Bhatt wrote, then that could be cited to report something that she wrote, because it's a secondary source. If you are citing Bhatt directly, then you cannot state her assertions as fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice, you must attribute the assertion to her. However, I have difficulty seeing where this would be necessary, because determine what assertions are important enough to include in an article (other than mundane things like age and birth date for the purpose of verification) cannot be made by the personal whims of any Wikipedia editor, they should be based on secondary sources. If the essays you want to cite are noted by other sources, then cite them. Otherwise, why would you cite an essay? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Maybe it would help if you offered an example to evaluate, and the context in which you plan to use it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
@Flockofsparrows420 You're basically questioning how WP works. From the horse's mouth is a "primary" source. You must cite a[n] independent reliable "secondary" source. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
The easy solution is to just cite the secondary sources where possible.
If I say "X is true" and you cite that, that's WP:OR and doesn't meet wikipedia standards.
If a number of reliable secondary sources conclude that "X is true" and part of their evidence is citing my initial work, then it makes much more sense to just cut out the middle-man and cite those secondary sources rather than citing my initial assertion with the asterisk that it was affirmed by secondary sources.
If the information you want to include is described in reliable secondary sources which cite Bhatt's work, just cite those rather than Bhatt directly. Athanelar (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pedant, but wouldn't this be putting the middle-man in?
Anyways, yeah, that's what I've found too, although now there's another whole dispute on the talk page because the article is talking abt both trans studies in feminism (trans feminism) and transfeminism, which have similar titles but are different things, and have overlapping areas of concern but do not share opinions. Missmonstergirl (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
The point of putting in the middle-man (or -woman), by deliberate policy, is that the middle-person in question should have no personal or professional connection to the originator of the information (eliminating any Conflict of interest), and what they say has been published by a Reliable source, i.e. one that exercises fact checking and editorial control, so that the information is not WP:Original research, which Wikipedia does not host. Such sources are Secondary sources, and Wikipedia is, by design, a Tertiary source that is based mainly on summaries of independent secondary sources.
This is, in Wikipedia's collective view and experience, the best way to prevent bias, imbalance and outright false information appearing and persisting in its articles. Sometimes this may exclude valuable information presented by a Primary source until others qualified to assess it have published about it, but that is the price of maintaining the reliability of the material that Wikipedia contains. I hope this clarifies things. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Cypher System 1 million Kickstarter

Hello.

A few months ago (?) I was working on a Wikipedia article about the Cypher System RPG by Monte Cook Games. Consensus was that the game is not encyclopedic enough for the creation of such article.

Not long time ago MCG ran a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign for the new edition of the game. It reached a level of 1 million dollars. Does that make the Cypher System encyclopedic? Or maybe it is meaningless in the big picture?

Best wishes! Kaworu1992 (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Does that make the Cypher System encyclopedic? I don't see how it would do so directly, Kaworu1992. But it could well make the game newsworthy. If it did, then I suppose much of the "news" would be little more than recycled PR junk and interviews with the people behind Monte Cook Games. Very little of this would be usable in any way. But reaching a million might also lead to publication of intelligent material from reliable sources; and if so, then this might might be informatively and helpfully summarizable and might propel the game to encyclopediaworthiness. -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Kaworu1992, what makes something notable isn't what primary sources like Kickstarter say, it's entirely based on significant coverage in independent, reliable sources say about a subject. If multiple publications (like those at WP:RSVG) critically report on it, then it has a good chance at meeting our inclusion criteria. Nil🥝 05:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Tabs on Top Menu

Hello, helpful Teahouse hosts,

I have run into a problem and I don't know where to go to get an explanation or solution. I use a laptop and at the top of the screen there is a pulldown menu with tabs like "Page", "User", "More", "Edit" and "TW". For some reason today, the tabs moved around from the order they are normally in (left to right). When you edit as much as I do, you can get used to all of these tools being in the same places all of the time. So, is there any device or page that has information on how to reorder the tabs to where they usually are? I've tried dragging them around (no good) and looking into Preferences. If anyone has a clue, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Hm, that is difficult to diagnose without a screenshot. Is it possible you zoomed in too much, which thanks to responsive design can turn a horizontal list into a vertical one.
Try pressing Ctrl-0, this should reset the zoom level to the default. Holding down Ctrl and pressing the plus sign zooms in, and minus zooms out. Hope that helps. If not, maybe you can upload a screenshot somewhere? Polygnotus (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I suspect Liz used incorrect terminology and isn't actually seeing a vertical pulldown menu with tabs but is just seeing normal horizontal tabs, some of which activate a vertical drop-down menu when clicked. The reported problem is only the horizontal order of the tabs. Some of the mentioned tabs are made by gadgets which run JavaScript in your own browser after the page has loaded. It varies in which order scripts are run and this can affect in which order the tabs are displayed. It varies for me between reloads of the same page. I don't know a way to fix the tabs in a specific order. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for using inaccurate terminology in my initial post. What PrimeHunter described is what is happening to me. Over 12 years though, I have dozens and dozens of scripts installed so figuring out which one might be causing this would be a very big challenge.
I have noted two things today that might be pertinent in solving this problem and that is, I've noticed in some screens, the tabs have a different order so it's not a static change. Also, on some of these screens, the order of the tab has gone back to what I'm used to. The main glitch which prompted this note here is that I'm used to the TW/Twinkle tab at the far right. I use Twinkle for so many activities throughout the day, it's just a hassle to go looking for it rather than moving the cursor directly to the same place. I also have had the same order of tabs now for years and years so I was wondering what would suddenly cause them to move around.
But given your advice, I'll see if there is a script that has been recently installed. Thanks for giving me your best guess of what the problem might be. Much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
You might want to experiment with the order in which the scripts are listed, on your .js page(s). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

World camel day

 Courtesy link: Draft:World Camel Day

Hello Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing),

Thank you for your message and for bringing the paid editing disclosure policy to my attention. I want to state unequivocally that I have no financial stake of any kind in promoting World Camel Day or any related topics. I am not being paid, nor have I ever been paid, for my edits on Wikipedia.

My motivation is purely academic and advocacy-driven. I am a researcher and advocate focused on sustainable agriculture. My work centers on promoting the camel's role as a key animal for food security and adaptation to climate change in arid regions. I saw Wikipedia as a platform to share this important, factual information with a global audience to raise awareness, not for any personal or financial gain.

I apologize if my edits appeared promotional; I am still learning Wikipedia's complex policies on neutrality and notability. I understand now that I must demonstrate the topic's importance through independent, reliable sources rather than personal advocacy.

I would be grateful for your guidance on how to properly develop the Draft:World Camel Day article to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am committed to learning the correct process and contributing constructively.

Thank you for your understanding. Raziq2007 (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Pigsonthewing:. jolielover♥talk 06:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Raziq2007 Hello! "Advocacy-driven" is also a potential problem from the WP-pov, and the results can be very similar to WP:COI related editing. Please take the time to digest WP:ADVOCACY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1263#article_about_myself_has_been_dropped, draft at Draft:World Camel Day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Raziq2007 Your draft has no citations whatever. You appear to have written your draft WP:BACKWARDS. Please read that essay. All article content must be based on reliable sources, not on what you know. Shantavira|feed me 07:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
There's no need to address your comments to me - anyone can respond here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The draft was AI-generated, with hallucinated references (all but one). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Need help at Commons

Hello editors! I'm trying to move two categories at Wikimedia Commons (this one and this one) but I have no idea how to proceed. I am seeking your guidance (of course in a simple and understandable way). And yeah, don't forget to ping me so I can read your reply. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 16:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Akshadev: Commons has a help desk at c:Commons:Help desk. Please ask there, and specify what names you want to move each category to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I have asked for help but no one has responded yet. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 11:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Please be more patient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Need help with POV pushers

Two longstanding editors just changing the lead to whatever they feel like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women%27s_Declaration_International&action=history 2A00:FBC:EE98:E96F:E994:EA7D:92A0:7DEF (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

If users are persistently edit-warring, first issue a warning on the user[s'] talk page[s], then escalate to WP:ANI if the disruptive editing continues. Athanelar (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Athanelar It is four against one, and the IP is on the losing side. @2A00 etc. Sorry bud the WP:CONSENSUS is against you. Polygnotus (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Read upon consensus, as meant on Wikipedia; and follow our dispute resolution process if you still think you have a case once you have done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Assistance in Article creation

I need to to create my Article Richard Agi (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Agi What are the 2 WP:GNG-best sources about you you know about? If there are no such sources, there is no chance an article about you will "stick." You should also consider Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If such an article is accepted, you'll have no control over it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
If you refer to the page you drafted at User:Richard Agi/Sample page, please see our page on writing about yourself.
As written , the page is wholly unsuited for publication on Wikipedia, not least because it lacks the required inline citations, but also because it is written like a hagiography. There is no evidence that the subject meets our basic requirements for inclusion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
There's no need to create an article on Wikipedia. Please see WP:FAMOUS. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 11:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Optic Nerve Hyperplasia

Advice for adding image of my own Optic Nerve Hyperplasia for either the article on ONH or the other on Strabismus

I have ONH, and was born with a turned-in left eye (Which was quickly corrected). I've managed to take a photo of my eyes, showing the difference between the 'healthy' right eye and the affected left eye, which is slightly off-center. As the title suggests, I don't know which Article to add. I'm still kind of new to editing and stuff, so I don't know if i can add the image. I'd like to have some advice on what to do, as I don't want to add/edit anything without permission Raine Foll (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like optic nerve hypoplasia doesn't have an image, so yours could be great! To add it, I would recommend starting by uploading the image to Commons. Once you've done that, you'll add the image to the infobox by putting the file name under "image" and adding alt text under "alt" and caption under "caption." Or if you'd like, tag me and post the Commons link, and I can add it to the article for you.
Thanks for your help! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
It's really great that you did that; thank you.
Could you also please upload a version without the text captions? That way, it can be used in articles about ONH in Wikipedias in other languages than English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for help with article

Hi! Earlier, I asked here about where I could get help or suggestions on an essay I wrote WP:OAFA. Someone suggested I try WP:VILLAGEPUMP, but I’m not sure which section would be best. I also noticed a link to WP:PEERREVIEW, but most of the requests I checked there seem to be unanswered. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks! Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend sticking it in your userspace. It doesn't appear developed enough for the Wikipedia namespace. The best essays develop very very slowly over time. They are an idea you have in the back of your head for years, and you can't get rid of it. Polygnotus (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Heh, I don't even think I've been on here for years... Do you think the article has potential though? Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The essay? No, because it is 2 distinct ideas, neither fully fleshed out:
  • Solve problems once and for all, which is too hopeful, people will keep arguing even if they agreed to having a 3rd party or consensus make a 'binding' decision. There are few truly binding decisions in the longterm on Wikipedia, because the world is fluid.
  • Occam's razor for solutions for problem, which can be a good idea, but that isn't an iron law. In some cases picking the most minor solution will ensure the conflict keeps festering, and you need bigger guns.
So I would recommend sticking it in your userspace and keep it in the back of your head for a few years. Then rewrite it. Polygnotus (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
people will keep arguing even if they agreed to having a 3rd party or consensus make a 'binding' decision. There are few truly binding decisions in the longterm on Wikipedia, because the world is fluid. But the point is that it will decrease the amount of debate that will happen after something such as a closed RfC, not eliminate all debate entirely. But yeah, I'll move WP:OAFA to my user page and delete the mainspace one. Thanks! Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
You will need to contact Seawolf35 as they were the person who rejected your draft. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 02:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jothefiredragon Was this comment in the right section? Polygnotus (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
It's meant for the section below (Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft:Dargah_Ustad_E_Zaman_Trust) I apologize. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 02:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The title "once and for all" conflicts with WP:CCC; RfCs can be overturned, and moratoriums are never indefinite. The rest of the essay is redundant with WP:DR. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably should've clarified it better in the article. As I explained to someone else in this page, But the point is that it will decrease the amount of debate that will happen after something such as a closed RfC, not eliminate all debate entirely. Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

What makes you need to move an article to a draft?

I tried checking articles such as Wikipedia:Moving a page, but I'm still not sure about when an article should be moved to draft because it's incomplete. For example, the article Death and state funeral of Fatima Jinnah does not cite any sources, and has other problems. Should that be moved to a WP:DRAFT because of that? What explicit error means you should move it there? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662: as you can see from its history, the article has been created and then edited several times within just ten minutes, and by one user only - its creator. I guess nobody simply noticed it, neither at the time of creation or later, and so it slipped in and stayed here. But now, when you brought it into public attention, it will likely get deleted. --CiaPan (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Why deleted though? And should I request deletion? And are you sure I shouldn't move it to a draft incase the author plans on adding citations? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @CiaPan. I think there's a better way of going about this without being needlessly critical, and which allows @Wikieditor662 to help the user correct their mistakes. I can imagine that an event like this would be covered by a number of publications, the majority of which would be in Pakistan but a number of which I suspect could be found abroad. They need to provide sourcing to support the information you've written here, that's the principal issue. There's otherwise nothing to support the notion that this event is extraneously relevant and deserving of a separate article; as to the draft space requirement, it's not yet credibly sourced and thus doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in the public space. To Cia, I think it would be best to explain this to the user (@BritPak4709) in question, but if it nonetheless fails to meet the criteria for a separate article, that it be merged to the Fatima Jinnah page. Additionally, though the tag was added by another user, this doesn't look AI generated to me, it's just not perfect standard English. I think a number of editors are too quickly conflating vague wording or sentences that lack an argument with AI, which is frankly a bit rude to those who have put in the time to contribute, even if they didn't do so entirely properly. I'll add my piece to the deletion discussion, but wish you all the best otherwise.
Best,
CSGinger14 (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I removed the message about the AI thing.
What do you personally suggest? That it be deleted? Moved? Or remain but with just a citation needed template? Or something else maybe? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Wikieditor662. My thinking is that it be noted as having no sources with Template:Unreferenced until they have a chance to defend their claims. If another editor has even a half-decent argument for moving it to draft space I'd be inclined to agree with them.
Best,
CSGinger14 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Actually, I've just had a conversation with an administrator about it, it went like this:

The article is brand new; give the author some time to work on it. If the article is clearly not ready for the mainspace but likely notable, then if it remains unsourced and is no longer actively being edited it can be draftified. If the article isn't notable after a thourough search for sources then AfD is the venue to go to. CoconutOctopus talk 16:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't the author first have it sourced before putting it into the mainspace? Should I draftify it now or only after it's been a few days where the author hasn't edited anything? Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
They should have, but there you go. Any time after an hour of no edits is acceptable per WP:DRAFTIFY. CoconutOctopus talk 16:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
From what they said, draftifying it sounds like a better idea. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Vanishing

How long does it take so I vanish? Afghanka (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

*Looks around in astonishment*
Who said that?!? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Referring to boats/ships as 'she'

Hi Wikipedians, I've noticed on a few pages about ships, the ships are referred to as 'she' (eg. one of today's 'Did you know' entries). It struck me as quite odd and I've been trying to find the documentation about why we do this. I expected ships to be referred to as 'it', since they are vehicles. Could anyone point me in the direction of the policy around this (if it exists). I'm asking purely out of curiosity - this is a quirk I'd not seen before.

Thankyou, KorvalYubilson (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, KorvalYubilson. The relevant style guidance is at MOS:SHIP which says Ships (military or private-sector) may be referred to by either neuter pronouns (it, its) or feminine pronouns (she, her). Both usages are acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason. Try to avoid close, successive uses of the same referent for a ship, by using different referents in rotation; for example, it or she, the ship, and the ship's name. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Also relevant is She (pronoun)#Non-human she. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Thankyou for your replies and for the info! I didn't realise the relevant guidance was already right there in the general style guide - good to know!
Thankyou, KorvalYubilson (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Question about ANI

How much time it takes on average for an administrator to process and come to an conclusion, regarding WP:ANI Report? Is there a specific timeline? I am asking this since i am invloved in an currenlty active report.

Thank you everyone in advance. Mant08 (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone keeps track of that, but I believe the average is about a couple days. Trivial stuff (e.g. TPA abuse, unambigious legal threats and generally other stuff that clearly violates policy) can be resolved in minutes or hours, while the more complex stuff (in particular, site bans of well-established users with a complex mix of constructive and not so constructive contributions) can easly take a week or two. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt Thank you for your response/insight and the infomation you provided! Mant08 (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Javier Pérez González

Hello, friens. This is the first time I have approached you, convinced that you can help me.

On 4 October, I sent a draft about the Spanish visual artist Javier Pérez for possible publication as Javier Pérez (artist), but it was rejected for not meeting the established requirements.Over the past few weeks, I have been working on the draft, using neutral language, incorporating more references and avoiding any hint of glorifying the author, based on the reviewer's comments, which have been extremely helpful.

Even so, I still have many doubts about the length of the article, as I have compiled a lot of information about the author. For example, in the ‘Career’ section, I find it very difficult to select his relevant exhibition activity, as I have counted more than three hundred exhibitions! I also have doubts about the ‘Style and themes’ and ‘Critical reception’ sections.

Finally, this is my proposed .Draft:Javier Pérez González for the article Javier Pérez (artist), and I request your opinion as expert editors so that I can make any corrections you deem appropriate.

I will not resubmit the draft until I am certain that it meets all the requirements. I would be very embarrassed if it were rejected again. I look forward to hearing your opinions. Thank you very much Jabsa54 (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Your draft was declined not rejected, if you would like it to be reviewed you need to click the submit button. Theroadislong (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I would be happy to accept your draft Draft:Javier Pérez (artist) once you submit. Theroadislong (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi Theroadislong (talk), thank you very much for your prompt reply, although I am still unclear about the situation. Am I to understand, then, that you consider the draft to meet the requirements for publication and that I can therefore resubmit it for approval? Cordially Jabsa54 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jabsa54 Yes, Theroadislong is a new page reviewer and has expressed his approval. You could remind him again here or on his talk page once you have formally re-submitted the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi Mike Turnbull (talk), thanks for your help. I will do so. Jabsa54 (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay... I was visiting my grandchildren, now accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Capitalization of sub-headings

Per MOS:HEAD, headings should follow sentence case like titles. But what about sub-headings; should those also follow this case, be Title Case, something else entirely, or is it a stylistic choice altogether? See for instance Mor Hananyo Monastery; headings follow MOS:HEAD, sub-headings follow title case, e.g., "Medieval History" & "Printing Press". The latest edit on that article prompted this question. Appreciate any help, thanks! Hogshine (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hogshine, sub-heading "Church of the Patriarchal Throne" should remain so capitalized, not because it should be in title case (it shouldn't), but because its content would be so capitalized if it appeared in a regular sentence ("Last Tuesday we visited the Church of the Patriarchal Throne"). "Printing Press" has no such complication, and thus should instead be "Printing press". -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
So sub-headings (not just headings) also follow sentence case like titles? For instance, the subheading "Medieval History" should also become "Medieval history", and the ones in Harran like "Harran under the caliphates" and "Later history (1271–present)" are correct. Is this true? Hogshine (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Hogshine: if you're asking whether headings of all levels (main, sub, subsub, etc.) should be in sentence case, then the answer is yes. That includes the =X= level, ie. the page title. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes that's what I was asking and that's the answer I was looking for. I've got a few of my articles to adjust now. Thanks for the help! Hogshine (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

How to be promoted to edit pages that have protection level

how do i John George III (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

John George III, WP:User_groups is necessarily a long page, but much of it is unlikely to be of immediate interest to you. The section WP:User_groups#User_groups_that_are_usually_conferred_automatically perhaps tells you what you want to know. -- Hoary (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
After 15 edits you will become autoconfirmed. After this you can edit articles with a grey lock. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
thanks John George III (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete my account

Please and thank you (not) TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore. It is not possible to delete your account, though it can be vanished. See Help:Delete account for more info. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Is there a particular issue that has caused your negative opinion? 331dot (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I tried making an article and then it got banned, then I tried editing an article and it said I couldn't because I wasn't "extended confirmed". This is like online newspaper paywalls but for editing online encyclopaedia articles.. TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore, the extended confirmed restriction is because certain articles tend to be prone to more disruption than others (things like United States, Canada). There are also policies such as WP:ARBECR that mandate extended confirmed restriction for articles in certain topic areas, such as articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As such, we unfortunately can't just let anyone edit them. However, there are some 7 million articles you are able to edit. You are also able to post edit requests to articles that are protected that you can't edit. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
How do I leave an edit request? TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard qcne (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
im just frustrated and it feels like everything's against me TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Hold on, let me see if I can figure out how to get you extended confirmed...--DollarStoreBa'alConverseMy life choices 13:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Alright, I've found out how. You can reach out to an admin and ask to be manually upgraded, but all users automatically receive the rank with 500 edits and a tenure of more than 30 days. --DollarStoreBa'alConverseMy life choices 13:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
five HUNDRED? Good God I better get working TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
500 edits seems like a huge number, but as your tenure continues your conception of what a "huge number" of edits grows until you don't really pay attention anymore. I remember when I made by hundredth edit and thought that was a lot. And my two-thousandth. And my ten-thousandth. After that I kinda stopped paying attention. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh..k. 10k is a LOT TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
by the way I changed my mind; I no longer want to delete my account so please don't lmal TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Hia @TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore - you might want to have a read of Wikipedia:Everything you need to know which is an easy-to-understand breakdown of our most common policies and guidelines. qcne (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I will, thanks! TheBestHumanInSiberianFolklore (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

How to update citations

page Manchester Airport Announces New PIA route from Manchester to Islamabad from the 25th of October 2025. Ive updates references to official announcements on the new flight route by PIA. I just want to update the page as cleanly as possible. Rashadali100 (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Rashadali100, this seems to be about List of Pakistan International Airlines destinations and more specifically this set of edits. A hurried glance makes it look pretty good, though use of Template:Cite web really should specify "website=" (with the title of the website, which usually isn't its domain name). (Incidentally, where your user page says "I love debunked mis conceptions", don't you want to say debunking them?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Welcome @Rashadali100! I would recommend Help:Referencing for beginners. Polygnotus (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Naga Sudharsanarao Chinchili

Why this Naga Sudharsanarao Chinchili draft rejected? Chnsrao (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Chnsrao, Draft:Naga Sudharsanarao Chinchili was not rejected; it was declined. Qcne pointed out that This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). A number of the words in that may be unfamiliar to you. As posted on the draft, they are linked. If you click on a link, you'll find an explanation. If something that you read is hard to understand, you may ask here. Incidentally, your username Chnsrao resembles the subject's name, Naga Sudharsanarao Chinchili; are you perhaps related? -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
In particular, Chnsrao, a reference that reads [citation to reliable source, print or e, goes here] -- and I've quoted that verbatim -- is of no help to the reader and does nothing either to verify what's said or to demonstrate notability. -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Chnsrao The "Works" listed at that draft are:
  • Famous work here singer, srirama album
  • Another famous work here Telangana separate state work
  • Another famous work here advocate, he fighting for cancel accused bail for POSCO cases And rape cases
These bullet points don't make sense; apparently you were not done working on this draft. David10244 (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

My User Page

Hello everyone.

I was googling myself just now (Yeah, I'm that guy) and the A.I. assistant was saying that Wikipedia informed it that I don't have an active user page. I appear in categories - African Wikipedians, Nigerian Wikipedians and the like - but it seems as though my user page itself is blacked out... Why is this the case?

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@O.ominirabluejack Welcome! The AI tool was unable to fetch the page. Not sure which AI assistant you were using, but in the case of Claude, Wikipedia is marked as a "cache-only" domain in the web_fetch tool. With OpenAI's ChatGPT it does work. Polygnotus (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@Polygnotus, thank you... I was using the A.I. functionality of the Google Chrome browser... I'm glad to hear that it isn't a bug with my page in particular, though.
O.ominirabluejack (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Never trust the AI functionality of a browser. DS (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Never trust the AI functionality of a browser. Polygnotus (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Qualifier for a speedy deletion

Hello,

I have had a draft about a Brandon Flowers song pending in the AfC submissions category for over two weeks now. I am able to create my own articles, and I would create this article if I could, as it is a single and meets WP:NSONG, but due to the fact that a redirect to the album already exists. My question is, who is allowed to nominate articles for speedy deletion, specifically WP:G6. Would I be able to add the tag and then have an admin delete the page so I can move the article?

Thanks, SassafrassAlabass (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to tag pages for speedy deletion, and in general I would encourage you to add {{db-move}}. However, since this redirect used to be an article and you are the only contributor to the draft (ignoring the bots), I think the simplest approach would be for you to copy it over: copy everything from the draft below <!-- Important, do not remove anything above this line before article has been created. -->, edit the redirect, and paste it there (replacing the redirect). This is one of the few situations where a copy-and-paste move is appropriate, since there's no other editors that need to be attributed. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @SassafrassAlabass. You can request the move over the redirect at WP:RM. ColinFine (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

essay

how i write an essay. 146.196.39.167 (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! See Wikipedia:Essays for some information. But my advice is that familiarize yourself about contributing to Wikipedia before you create any articles (or essays). Also consider creating an account. Xzkdeng (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Archiving my talk page

Hi, I've recently added archives to my user talk page. I've noticed that the bot archives discussions if they are 90 days or older. I'm not very good with templates, so could I ask how to lower the archiving time from 90 days to, say, 30 days? Thanks. Seanwk :) (Talk - Contribs) 01:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit your talk page. Near the top there's a template starting out like this
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
Just change "old(90d)" to "old(30d)". ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
You helped this guy. Thanks for his help. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion help

Say that you was looking at a Wikipedia user page, and you saw someone with full information about themselves (like First, Middle, and Last name, State and town they were born), and they were under the age of 18. Would that be a speedy deletion? I don't see it listed. Possible self-promotion found via filter log. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Please contact the Wikipedia:Oversight team immediately - do not mark as speedy deletion as that will make it appear in the public-facing CSD categories. The Oversight team will be able to silently delete and redact the userpage. qcne (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Someone already marked it as speedy deletion, I don't know how to do it. I can link you the page In your user talk. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
to redirect it to the Oversight team 169.244.113.129 (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Just email the Oversight team at oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org qcne (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Update: page has been deleted. User:Jeff 0505. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
From context, I'm guessing I've just deleted it, but please do contact oversight as well, as qcne describes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I do know now, thanks to Writ Keeper and qcne. I will do my best next time. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
In future, if you're worried about personally identifiable information of a minor don't share the URL with anyone, post to any boards like this one, or mark for deletion as that will just draw attention to it. Just email Oversight at the above address. :) qcne (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I only shared the link after because it was deleted. 169.244.113.129 (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

New submission - I sound like an LLM!

Hi, I recently submitted a draft article on the Reticulum Network Stack but it got flagged as likely LLM slop.

I definitely didn't use an LLM, but I also definitely kinda just Sound Like That and after looking at the criteria that flagged it, I get why the article may have come off that way. I'm doing a pass for words to watch now and trying to look for any areas I may have editorialized - would anyone here be willing to help point me in the right direction on what else I should fix here? Mayamar Edits (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mayamar Edits: Welcome to Wikipedia! You can read our list of AI tells for some other things to watch out for in terms of sounding like an AI. If you have any further questions after reading that page, feel free to ask. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The reviewer might have noticed that your external link Documentation wasn't working, which is normally a sign of AI, but since removing the trailing slash produces a working link, I think it was likely just human error. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not seeing any typical LLM signs and think this was a misjudge on part of the reviewer. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 22:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

How to request rollback of resized image?

This is both a general question (to gain knowledge for future use) and a request to rollback a specific image to its original upload size.

The specific image is DESQview_2.8_screenshot.png, which has a) been rendered rather illegible by the ""helpful"" automated downsizing "courtesy" of DatBot, and b) probably does not need to be downsized anyways, as it consists of DOS box-drawing characters (not copyrightable), and text, most of which doesn't look copyrightable, except for ~maybe~ the "Sample Document". I.e. the original image might actually very well be in the Public Domain. But PD or not, the current (re)size is absolutely god-awful and makes wikipedia look ridiculous and unprofessional, and the image is not as helpful as it would otherwise be to readers of the DESQview article.

I'm also curious where I should bring up objections/concerns like this in the future, since although I could've left a comment on the image's talk page, such comments (any comments, really) seem unlikely to gather any attention there (and indeed someone raised the same concern/objection that I did on that talk page 4½ years ago to no effect!)

continually and perpetually frustrated by copyright-"concerned" image-resizing bots that resize badly and with reckless abandon,
yet yours truly, ~99.146.242.37 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@99.146 etc The maker of that bot probably knows, I'll WP:PING them: @DatGuy: See above. Polygnotus (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
You can add the {{Non-free no reduce}} template to the image file page (after the full resolution image is restored), as described on DatBot's user talk page, to prevent it being resized again. Xzkdeng (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
You can ask at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content for the original image to be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
In the future, if one of the factors in the resizing process was made by an administrator, contact them. Obviously this is not the case with Ron, sadly. If not and the revision has already been deleted, ask on WP:AN. DatGuyTalkContribs 02:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

airprot destinations

 Courtesy link: Indira Gandhi International Airport

Hello someone has just deleted half of airline destinations of multiple airlines in the delhi airprot page,is there any way to report Shrey avation (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

As the edit summary says:

Danners430 Reverted 1 edit by DOTCOMsun: Aeroroutes isn’t a reliable source per WP:AEROROUTES

If you disagree, please follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
For transparency, the edit in question is here where I stripped out the unsourced routes (of which there were a lot) and removed three sources (aside from Aeroroutes) which didn’t verify the content. Danners430 tweaks made 08:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
is there no way to revert the changes?As a lot of stuff has been deleted by this person. Shrey avation (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
There is, if you can find a reliable source for it you can add it back yourself. If you think what was removed is a reliable source, follow the process described at dispute resolution. Ultraodan (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

day one

how do i start submitting a biography of living people? deceased? thanks 2600:2B00:7D65:C200:B18B:3DD3:99C8:A495 (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Please see Your First Article. You may submit a draft via the Article Wizard; but it is highly recommended that you first get some experience by editing existing articles.
You should first gather independent reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage; you will then summarize those in the draft. Make sure that the person is a notable person broadly or one of the more narrow criteria like a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Asking for advice

Hello!

Do you think that it will be neccessary if the article Prusa get merged with the Bursa article? I think that the Prusa's content can be contained within the Bursa history section. Also, I don't think Prusa was a subject independent enough to have its own article, unlike Cius, considering that Bursa History section already covered a large part of the city's history from the reign of King Prusias I to the Ottoman Conquest, which is when the city is considered to have been named "Prusa" or "Prusias".

Another point, the article is expanded from a former name redirect. So maybe we can consider changing it to a redirect to Bursa.

What do you think? I might send this to Prusa talk page if you guys agree that what I am proposed here is not a nonsense.

Sincerely, - MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti The Bursa article has over 130 page watchers, most of whom won't be watching the Teahouse. Hence I think that your best approach would be to proceed as described at WP:MERGE, with the discussion directed to the Bursa talk page. The merge banner at Prusa will notify anyone who is interested in that topic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Making an article

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to make a page on a middle school I live by because it isn’t already on Wikipedia but idk how much info to put and what to make it about Mookscade (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! Please read Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. If this middle school has received significant coverage that is not routine, feel free to create the page! Please note that primary sources, such as from the school's website or someone associated with it, do not establish notability. What you should put in it depends on the subject, but you can check out some other school articles to get an idea of the general information and structure schools have. A good place to start is this category of good school articles. Thanks for contributing! jolielover♥talk 17:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Where should I get the sources then if you said that sources with the school website doesn’t establish notablility? Mookscade (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Mookscade Books, news websites, magazines - anything which has editorial independence, is reliable (not social media), and is not from the school itself. I will note that schools rarely meet our criteria for inclusion unless they have been written about in independent sources. qcne (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
And that doesn't usually happen unless the school is a historic structure, or architecturally significant, or maybe extensive independent coverage of its academics(like a high ranking by a government agency or high test scores). 331dot (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The middle school is called Marcus Whitman middle school and is located in port orchard and it’s been built since like the 80s or something Mookscade (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I meant it was built in the ‘80s and has been there since Mookscade (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Mookscade A quick search led me only to this overview of the school. I'm afraid that's unlikely to be enough: see this guidance for previous discussions about middle schools in general. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Mike Turnbell then how come the south kitsap high school has an article…? Mookscade (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Mookscade Wikipedia has, unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of bad articles. The South Kitsap High School has some very average sources, and I probably wouldn't have accepted it if it was submitted for review. The article was also first created in 2006 when our standards were much more lax. qcne (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Page update or edit

Hi, usually when you go to a celebrity's page it has a drop-down menu to their filmography, or a link that takes you to another page altogether with a whole list of all their movies/tv shows. However I noticed that Cameron Diaz's page doesn't offer that. I'm trying to get in to see all her different movies and their years, but it isn't on her Wikipedia page. Is there someone that can add that to her page? 2600:1015:B00A:F85B:0:3D:3879:F301 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

That is because it has its own article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Cameron Diaz filmography is linked in a section of the main article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Got my Draft flagged as ChatGpt

Hello, My article was flagged as chatgpt although I didn't use it. I wrote the article based on other articles. But before coming here I asked Copilot to format it to Wikipedia... is that why? It didn't change it that much. I don't know why the reviewer says it is vague as it has a lot of facts and info. Maybe the subject is not relevant to wikipedia... need some more precise advice. Kind regards William Wathelstane (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Please see guidance on LLM/AI use. We much prefer drafts be written with mostly human involvement. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Wathelstane. To add on to @331dot's reply, I'd suggest that you take a look at these pages to get some context on how best to go about writing for this website in the future: (WP:MOS, Manual of Style; WP:CITE, Citation Guidelines; WP:AI, Artificial Intelligence General Infoguide; WP:NOT, What Wikipedia is Not; WP:NOTE, Wikipedia Notability Policy, WP:TWA, a program designed to help you learn how to write for Wikipedia). I suspect these will answer most of your questions, but please let us know at any point if you run into any further difficulties. Please avoid using artificial intelligence to write anything for this website moving forward unless you have thoroughly vetted and amended the material yourself to check for errors and compliance with the above stated guidelines. There are a number of tools you can use to familiarize yourself with website protocols and editor style preferences. There are also a number of people who (like it or not :D) will correct and seek to advise you along the way. Many of them will be happy to assist you; some, not so much. In the event of the latter, I suggest you reach out to other editors here at the Teahouse for assistance, where I'm certain someone will help you along your way.
All the best,
CSGinger14 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
This is about Draft:Vacminel. This has quite a lot of text, followed by quite a lot of references. Wathelstane, why not use what we, here, commonly call references, in order to indicate which part of the text derives from which source? -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Wathelstane You currently have several pieces of uncited text like Vacminel is considered a rare gem among antique toy collectors. That sounds like original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Who made that judgement and has it been published in a reliable source? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your note.
Vacminel was mentioned as highly technological quality for sometnhing built at that time and by a sole trader, this recognition is in one of the articles and came from a german Marklin representative. It is regarded as such "a rare gem among antique toy collectors" and this comes from two of the article but specifically the spanish article that says:
"Today, VACMINEL trains are considered rare relics and highly prized by both national and international collectors." This paraphrasing but I am happy to correct the gem prhase and replace it by this one with a refence to the article. Thank you so much for everyones time and patience spent with this. Wathelstane (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Wathelstane. I think it's an excellent choice of topic. Our main concern is the quality of the article itself, rather than its importance, if, as the references you listed at the bottom of Draft:Vacminel suggest, it does in fact fill within WP:NOTE standards. I'm going to leave an example text below that will provide some context on going about creating citations, the function for which can easily located in the visual editing interface as a quotation symbol. I forget how to do so but if another editor could fix the reference so that it appears within a box rather than at the bottom of the page, it would be appreciated.

Vacminel

Here I am introducing the topic. In most articles, this section does not require extensive referencing as it is supported by information and citations included later in the article. If the claim being made is exceptional or not supported anywhere else in the text, this would be the time to cite it.[1]
===Example Section 1===
This is the beginning of the body of your text. Here I am listing general information on the topic, generally related to its history, design, or function.[2]. General information not pertaining to the topic doesn't tend to require a citation, such as a note that, at the time your subject was created, Portugal was under the rule of the First Portuguese Republic, so long as its dating is supported by referencing elsewhere in the text. Expanding on this to make obvious conclusions would not generally require a citation either, unless the claim is opinionated or acts as a synthesis of the material to make a non-generalized claim.
===Example Section 2===
Here I am expounding on information found earlier in the text, going into further detail than I did previously.[3] Here, the claims you're making are going to be more esoteric, and thus fall under a far greater burden of proof than they might otherwise.[4]
I noticed in your draft that you failed to provide a citation for the 'station' produced by the company (no citation needed for my claim about having found this, as its easily reproducible if I provided proper linkage). This claim would generally require referencing.[5] Most of the time, primary sourcing is discouraged, though this is not a hard and fast rule, and there exists a fair degree of discourse on the matter between editors in different fields (See WP:USEPRIMARY).[6]
===References===
Here I am listing my sourcing. Sources can be used more than once, as I've shown above and below, but it's generally discouraged to rely upon one source for more than a few claims, as this may violate copyright law in certain cases. If you have any additional questions, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page; I'd love to help!
  1. ^ reference
  2. ^ reference 2
  3. ^ reference 3
  4. ^ reference 4
  5. ^ reference 5
  6. ^ reference 2. This would normally appear under the same reference in the reference bar. You can find previously used references under the "re-use" box in the referencing interface
Best,
CSGinger14 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

What is happening with the page rendering?

After editing the page Panorama Tools, i noticed in the end there was a manually inserted citation in the external links section, which for some reason it magically renders in the last section See Also. What is happpening? I have tried moving the citation manualy to the references section (since i didn't knew if it was used) but it srill didn't work, and in the preview again it still appeared/rendered at the last section magically. I don't know what to do the source code is seemingly correct. And it didn't happened because of my edit, as in the edit history it still appeared the same (revision changes). This is bizzare. Thank you everyone in advance for your responses/help.

P.S.: Is this sometype of Wikipedia Black Magic? Mant08 (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mant08, and welcome to the Teahouse.
For some strange reason, there is a citation in the "External Links" section, which comes after the "References" section, and so it doesn't get displayed there. I cannot think of any good reason for a citation there (the purpose of a citation is to provide a source which verifies some information in the text, and nothing else).
I haven't bothered to remove it, because I doubt that the subject is notable, and I have tagged the article accordingly. ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@ColinFine Thank you for your reply, but why a citation in External Links, renders in See Also? Mant08 (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I've trimmed the external links down to one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@ColinFine @Pigsonthewing Thank you both for assisting with this issue, and for resolving it (I was led to ask the original question due to its wierd nature). Mant08 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

How can I get someone to review my page in sandbox?

How can I get someone to review my page and submit for final posting? I'm finding this incredibly hard to understand and navigate. Thank you. User:PlanetChatty/sandbox PlanetChatty (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @PlanetChatty, and welcome to the Teahouse.
I have added a header to your sandbox that allows you to submit it for review.
I haven't looked at it closely, but a couple of minor things I noticed:
  • You have attempted to add extra arguments to the infobox, but that doesn't work: if a parameter isn't defined in Template:Infobox animal, you can't use it.
  • If something is already wikilinked in the body of the text, don't put it in "See also".
Those shouldn't affect the a review, though. ColinFine (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! PlanetChatty (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Access to Newspapers.com through Wikipedia Library

Hello! I've been really getting into updating and expanding pages and I'm going to start work on creating my first article very soon! One thing that really helps me through my research is access to Newspapers.com, but my free trial only lasts so long and I can't afford the cost to renew. I read at some point that you can get access to the website through the Wikipedia Library after a certain amount of time/edits; does anyone know what that requirement may be? Any help would be greatly appreciated, and thank you guys for running such a cool section of the website! ----The Robot Parade 14:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see See WP:LIBRARY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
According to WP:LIBRARY, "six months old and has 500 global edits", you have been here for over 6 months, but I do not believe over 500 global edits. Valorrr (lets chat) 15:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh, so there's no greater restriction on Newspapers.com compared to other services? That's great to hear. The grind continues, thanks for the help! ----The Robot Parade 15:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
No problemo! Valorrr (lets chat) 15:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Finding free images of living persons

Hi howdy! I originally put this question on my mentor's talk page but I realized belatedly it might be better to put here. I've been updating Post Animal (a currently active indie rock band)'s page and I'm having trouble finding a free image that'll show all or most of the members (six in total, though one member is more famous and has his own page so it's okay if he can't be in it). I've found press-released images (such as this one) and ones taken by the band that would be great, but I understand that since they're a living and active band that we shouldn't use non-free images, so I'm a little stuck figuring out how to get good images for their page. Is there a way to know if an image is free other than a "this image is free/cc" statement on the page it's used? I have read through a good few of Wikipedia's instructional pages for it, but it's still very possible that I just don't know where to look. Any insight would be very appreciated, thank you!! Devonias (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  1. Take one yourself
  2. find a fan or someone else who has taken one and ask them to release it under a compatible license as described at c:COM:THIRD
  3. Ask the band or their management to arrange for one to be released as described at WP:A picture of you.
-- Good luck! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Those links are incredibly helpful, thank you so much!! Devonias (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Devonias Sometimes, you can get lucky searching Youtube with the "Creative Commons" filter, uploaders can add a WP/Commons usable license if they want. It will likely not be a great pic, File:Young Sheldon cast at KCAs 2024.jpg is a bit typical, but it can be usable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Devonias A fourth option is to use a search engine like Google image search and then its "Tools" option to limit the output to creative commons licenses. Unfortunately, in this case I couldn't find a usable image. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
yeah i couldn't find one that way either, thank you anyway tho! Devonias (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
oooo good idea, thank you! Devonias (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Help approving translation

I would like to have the Dutch Wikipedia page for Nick Hemmers translated in English. I'm not able top publish it so I was hoping somebody would be able to do that for me.

Draft:Nick Hemmers

Please let me know what you need from me to publish it. Mandyvt (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Mandyvt, will Draft:Nick Hemmers satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (sports)? -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. The translation is based of his Dutch wikipedia page. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Hemmers
I just wanted the Dutch wiki page in English as well.
I'll try and fix the citations you flagged on the draft. Thanks again Mandyvt (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Mandyvt. Before the Draft can be approved, you'll need to provide citations for the information I flagged on your draft. I or another editor would be happy to publish it for you if you can find the appropriate sourcing to back up your claims, and to prove that the article falls within WP:NOTE guidelines.
Best,
CSGinger14 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Mandyvt Hemmers main claim to fame seems to be that he trained others who have articles. However, notability is not inherited. You need independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of Hemmers himself: interviews won't do as they are not independent. They can sometimes be used for aboutself information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I provided the translation based of his Dutch wiki page. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Hemmers Do you suggest changing the text even if it's not a clean translation from his original Dutch wiki? Mandyvt (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
There is no need and no expectation for articles about the same subject in two different-language Wikipedias to be translations (in either direction). Translating from one to another is one way of initiating an article in the second, but (a) it is not the only way and (b) thereafter the two will almost certainly diverge as each is separately further edited.
Furthermore, each language's Wikipedia is a separate project, independent from any other, and probably no two Wikipedias have the same rules. The English-language Wikipedia is generally considered to have stricter rules than most or all of the others.
In this case, the article will need to conform to both Wikipedia:Notability (people) (or . . Wikipedia:Notability (sports)) and the even stricter Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I don't think the Dutch article or a straight translation of it would meet English Wikipedia's minimum standards of demonstrating Hemmers' Notability (as others have already said), or of providing sufficient citations to provide verifiability for many of its statements.
By all means continue working on the draft, but it needs more and better references to independent Reliable sources to confirm Notability, and more cited references to verify much of its text. Hope this clarifies. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Bold or Italics?

Hello everyone! I recently edited African & Eastern Trade Corporation and I was wondering if anyone could check my usage of the italics, cause I was not sure if i had to use them, or bold markup, or nothing at all... Thank you so much! 😇 ChairsAreFlying! (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @ChairsAreFlying!. The names of companies don't need italics. Unrelatedly, the see also section doesn't need links that are in the article. Thanks, Perception312 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Filter by size of edit?

I'm wondering whether on Special:RecentChanges I can filter by the size of an edit. Every edit shows its change in size, so I was wondering if, for example, I could set it to show only edits that change the size of the encyclopædia by at least a kilobyte. My reasoning is that the current "likely have problems" and "likely bad faith" filters aren't great at picking up on LLM-generated contributions. Thanks! lp0 on fire () 10:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a way to do so, but bear in mind that a small figure does not necessarily mean a small change. If you replace 1,000 characters of good text with 1,001 letter 'x's it will show up as a change of one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but is it incorrect that LLM-misusing edits are often characterised by adding large amounts of new material? Of course that won't catch all of them, but I thought it could be a way to find some obvious cases and thereby lighten the load on others. lp0 on fire () 11:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Table formatting issues

I am creating a very large table in a small wiki. However, I am unable to get the table in a small enough area, and I don't understand what to do in order to regulate the size of tables. How do I fix this? Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'alConverseMy life choices 20:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Where is it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@DollarStoreBaal44 General guidance at Help:Table and if that doesn't solve it then as Andy said, you need to save your work somewhere we can look at it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
here, on my sandbox. I copy-pasted this from the wiki this table is on, so please ignore all the red links.
If you need to see all the normal text, please see this page --DollarStoreBa'alConverseMy life choices 13:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
This edit gave it a width of 40%. You can use your own integer value, between, say 20 and 100 (less that 20 would be ridiculous; and even that is pushing things).
For more see Help:Table#Table style.
If you prefer to use Visual Editor, see Help:Tables and VisualEditor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

approval

 Courtesy link: draft:Globex Call Center Solution

My draft ‘Globex Call Center Solution’ was declined for notability. Could someone review it and tell me which additional sources would make it acceptable?” 

Experienced volunteers often reply within a day. GlobalWriter2025 (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi @GlobalWriter2025, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a confusing question because you added that decline notice yourself. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the instructions there to be actually reviewed. The important thing is quality of sources - you must have several that show the topic is already well-known as shown by published sources that are reliable, in-depth, and independent of the company. Medium is not an appropriate source. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@GlobalWriter2025, this is one of the things that happens when you use AI/LLMs to create drafts - they automatically put the decline notice on all by themselves! This strongly suggests to me that you will need to do some serious review of your draft to ensure that the AI hasn't failed you in even more ways. It's usually best to just get rid of the AI's draft and rewrite it in your own words. Meadowlark (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @GlobalWriter2025, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Royan Institute

Hi, I’m preparing a draft article about the Royan Institute, a public non-profit biomedical research institute in Tehran. I’d appreciate it if an experienced editor could review my draft before submission to ensure it meets notability and neutrality standards. Here’s the link: Draft:Royan Institute. M.asadimotlagh (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @M.asadimotlagh. The way to get feedback is to re-submit the draft for review. Please carefully read our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (organizations and companies) and make sure the institute meets this before you do. qcne (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Draft has been declined as "advert-like". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @M.asadimotlagh, and welcome to the Teahouse
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Submission is still rejected

Hello,

I'd like to better understand the issue with my page submission and why the references I site are not sufficient for it to be accepted. I appreciate any insight I can receive.

Draft:Avner Shiloah. Revurt (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not myself a reviewer, but glancing at the draft, it appears to me that most of your sources are not Reliable sources and/or are not independent of the subject.
IMDb is not a reliable source, because its contents are used generated and not editorially checked.
Interviews with the subject, even if in a Reliable source, are not independent of the subject, so cannot support the subject's Notability.
Very few videos on YouTube are considered (by Wikipedia) reliable, other than those by recognised News agencies and academic experts.
You might want to read Wikipedia:Golden rule thoroughly, making sure to click on all the further items linked there and reading them also. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very helpful. Revurt (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Revurt, what is required are references to reliable sources completely independent of Avner Shiloah and his films that devote significant, in-depth overage to Shiloah. Sources that are not deemed reliable (such as IMDb) or that are not fully independent or that consist of brief passing mentions are of no value in establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all,

I'm interested in bringing Love dart back to GA status and noticed at least two instances of external links leading to images which are under copyright (e.g., here (I can only assume) and here). I imagine that's not an accepted practice? Barbalalaika (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

This is definitely not used that often, but under my interpretation (disclaimer: I could be wrong) of WP:ELYES, external links can be made to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". Since the copyrighted work cannot be viewed on Wikipedia, it can then be linked externally per that guideline. However, it cannot be linked if it violates another individual/website's copyright.
In terms of GA, it might be addressed, but I personally have not been involved with the process so I cannot speak on that. Other editors with more a better understanding may be able to clarify, but I figured that I could respond in the mean time since it's been 6 hours. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
According to WP:GANOT, there is no requirements to comply with external links section when nominating for GA (except for those under Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking). However, if its removed, you add it and it gets removed again, then it may cause the GA to fail under criteria 5, as it requires the article to be in a stable position (not currently subject to edit wards and content disputes). I am speaking as someone with 4 GA nominations and 8 GA reviews. JuniperChill (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Articles beginning with 'How to..."?

What about having articles beginning with 'How to...'?. Of course, this is not what we would see in a traditional Encyclopedia like Britannica Encyclopedia but goes well with the idea of Encyclopedia as 'a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge, either general or special, in a particular field or discipline'.

The article must be based on curated knowledge and not opinions. But if we can have entries such as 'How to study?' that is going to help lot of students to have a better understanding on this all important skill. There does exist articles such as 'Learning skills' but they mostly focus the history evolution and other aspects of the process.

How to articles will provide knowledge on the praxis of things rather than the things themselves. This will open a highly useful and sought after segment within the corpus of Wikipedia.

My humble thoughts. Postbox 2 (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTHOWTO states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. ... 1. Instruction manuals and cookbooks: while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise), or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not. ... Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead."" So "how-to" pages are generally not allowed. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much.
Yes, it is generally not allowed. The question is, What about allowing it? Postbox 2 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, I suppose you could bring it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind guidance. Warm regards Postbox 2 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Such material belongs on our sibling projects, either at Wikibooks or Wikiversity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Postbox 2 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

False or Misleading Statements

I am concerned about false or misleading statements during Article for Deletion (AfD). I am writing in this in an effort to know where to address this and as well protect new editor/writers from false accusations here. I was incorrectly referred to as the following, all with the best intentions by editors:

  • Must be AI. It was later explained why that mistake was made.
  • Single Purpose Account (SPA). I had at that time 8,500 edits. However, I may edit one article a bit when I have technical problems. That can be seen in the # of edits for this post.
  • 8,500 edits but didn't know how to put together reliable references. I have written a lot of articles that have passed review.

Thank you hearing me out. I was told to "have thicker skin". However, this type of behavior could intimidate editors/writers who are brand new to Wikipedia. It would improve Wikipedia if the above list could be addressed as a way to prevent false or misleading information about other Wikipedians. Again, the editors had the best intention, but statements like "must be AI" or SPA Account can clearly be harmful if the statement is false. I found this statement here on Wikipedia that describes exactly what I am trying to say.

Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed...

Starlighsky (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Starlighsky. You are complaining here and asking for advice without providing proper context. This appears to be about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australasian Animal Studies Association which concluded a month ago. When you have a complaint about the conduct of an editor, the first step is to discuss the matter with that specific editor. In the case of the SPA template, it was placed by User:LibStar who has strong feelings about editors with conflicts of interest as shown on their user page. Several other editors agreed that use of the SPA template was wrong, so I am curious about why you are still upset about it a month later. As for concerns about the use of AI, most experienced editors believe that AI is a scourge on Wikipedia and an existential threat to the project. So it is really commonplace and healthy these days for content to be scrutinized for AI usage. Just because you have written some articles that have passed review does not mean that every single one of your new articles will pass review. Two of your articles have recently been deleted on notability grounds. In my view, instead of holding grudges about month old slights, you should instead commit to writing new articles only about truly notable topics and avoid any appearance of conflict of interest editing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I was advised from the event there to post it here. If you want, I can delete it. I brought it up with the editors already.
Again, my concern is how I can prevent this issue of false claims from taking place as a way to help the Wikipedia Project. Starlighsky (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Starlighsky, as you should know, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including people who sometimes make mistakes. You simply cannot prevent "false claims" as you call them. You can discuss any such claims with the specific editors who made them, but it would be seen as petty to complain about a single instance after a month has passed. Anyone can make a mistake and I know that I have. If a specific editor repeatedly makes false claims, then perhaps you could report them to the Adminstrator's noticeboard/Incidents but be prepared with solid evidence and do not make frivolous reports about month old, one time incidents. Cullen328 (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Starlighsky (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

how do i edit pages

cfghjkhgfvcdxs 72.222.158.77 (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Effortfully. Please see Help:Introduction. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Need help with my article

Need help to fix the errors in this article - Draft:Himanshu Pathak - Wikipedia Parkavikumar (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 05:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Cite document

When using {{cite document}} I find that it doesn't go into a superscript number like other citations. What is this and how do I fix it? There's an example on my sandbox. Thanks! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You haven't wrapped the Giordani reference in <ref>...</ref>. -- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh... Thanks very much! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

How do I fix an inaccurate translation in a E-protected article?

This article Oreshnik (missile) starts with an inaccurate translation:

Oreshnik (Russian: Орешник, lit. 'Hazel tree'), >> It is called "hazel bush" not "tree" in English, and it means "bush" in the original. ApoieRacional (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

ApoieRacional, you crossed 500 edits a few hours ago, so you should be able to simply edit the page directly. signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
thanks for your reply. I see, what you mean, but I do not have Extended... rights yet. ApoieRacional (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
That's odd, when I look at your user permissions it says that you have them. signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I am not making it up. Take a look at the screenshot and timestamp:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1EyZNkGpkeefzaeuxVwns7XaoVkwYDm2W?rtpof=true&usp=drive_fs ApoieRacional (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
...that screenshot shows that you have access to edit the page. Try clicking any of the buttons that say "edit source". The lock that renders on the page is always going to be there, it just denotes what level of protection is on the page, but it doesn't mean that your account doesn't have access. In contrast, if you try to pull up the page in an incognito browser window without logging in (which I just tested myself) those "edit" buttons will be missing. signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
thank you for your help. there is so much for me to learn. ApoieRacional (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

My draft.

Can someone please review my draft which I made, which is currently inside the sandbox? Does it follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view, or is it ready to be submitted for review or publication? User:Dreamer765/sandbox2 Dreamer765 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi User talk:Dreamer765. I've turned your reference into a simple link. The best way to get a review is to formally submit it. If you add the template {{user sandbox}} to the top of your draft, you'll get a blue button to allow it to be submitted. Before doing that, check out your Times of India sources, as that paper can have problems: see WP:TIMESOFINDIA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
ohh. Thanks for telling me that, and about this Times of India:) Dreamer765 (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair use, not free content image upload.

Hello everyone, i would like to ask in the author field of an in game screenshot, is the game publisher's name suppossed to be used, or the person's/user's who took that screenshot. Thank you in advance for your help! Mant08 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Relevant Eula: https://www.spaceengineersgame.com/eula/
From what i can see it only states that the publisher has the right of using your User Generated Content, without notice. Not anything referring about the publishers having the copyright of all produced content. Mant08 (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
All content is under the copyright of its owner, even if the copyright owner never said so. If an owner wants their content to NOT be under their copyright, they must directly say so in writing.
The issue here is, who is the copyright owner for the picture. The issue is NOT if there is any copyright - there obviously is - just a question of who.
(My comments only apply to items where the copyright has not expired, but in this case we know it hasn't expired.) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers So i claim that the copyright owner isthe game publisher, and also mentioning the person who took the picture (myself)?
e.x. "Keen Software House; In-game screenshot captured by User:Mant08." Mant08 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I honestly don't know. I was only sticking up for the fact that you are asking the right question and it needs to be answered. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
That would be the author of the software. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers @Pigsonthewing Thank you for your quick repsonse(s). Anyways, i have already uploaded the images on my own, based of other simillar in-game screenshots, by other editors.
(I have mentioned the game publisher as the copyright owner and i as the "photographer"/maker of the screenshot, as i was thinking of doing before.)
Files:
File:Space Engineers - player mining at an asteroid.png
File:Space Engineers - Player controlling a small miner ship inside an industrial cockpit.png
Article:
Space Engineers Mant08 (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Prose Size Template

So, there's a template where it shows the prose size. Which template is it? I completely forgot and can't remember any articles having it... HwyNerd Mike (tokk) 18:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

That's not a template but a gadget, as far as I know. Or do you mean Section length? LightlySeared (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
{{Section sizes}}; it goes on the talk page of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis

Mentioning Jurassic World Evolution in Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis article

On the article Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis, I was considering adding a small section about the game Jurassic World Evolution. My thought is both are part of the same overall franchise, and JPOG never got a sequel while JWE is extremely similar in its concept and gameplay (seems like it's often considred a spiritual successor of kinds). Would this be a good addition to the article? Would it warrant a full section/paragraph or would a brief mention be enough? I see how it could come across as an uneccessary addition so I just want to see what people think. Thanks! Ackyducc (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Currently JWE is mentioned in the "See also" section, and since it's a separate game I would add it to the article about JPOG. However if you'd like to add a mention of it as a spiritual successor, feel free, as long as it's back up by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Heritage

What is the top 3 article ideas I can write about to improve heritage links between ancestors? I will do my best to obtain a sufficient sufficiency of accurate detailed information just need my vision pointed in the right direction. I have some recent vision issues so im a little slow on responding and screen time. I am excited to be useful if im on the right path. "God blessed us all equally and we all will be judged equally" Word of wisdom through my eyes once I let the light in! Sincerely, Brandon Bouldin Alwaysbeyou (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Alwaysbeyou, whose ancestors, and what you mean by "heritage links"? -- Hoary (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi Alwaysbeyou! By "heritage links" do you mean genealogy?
  • As per the WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy, Wikipedia is not a directory containing genealogical entries. If that is what you are looking for, I would recommend a site like WikiTree.
  • If a person is notable, there may be instances where a genealogy is warranted if it has verification from reliable sources. Royalty & nobility is one. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility for more on that.
  • Wikidata has different notability standard. See d:Wikidata:Notability. For instance, see the section that states 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references.
If you are not talking about genealogy, then perhaps you are talking about the interplay between WP:WikiProject History & WP:WikiProject Biography. I would direct you to ask at those WikiProjects for more guidance. Peaceray (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Help with AIV

Hello, I've identified an obvious block-evading troll and went to report them at AIV. I found they had already been bot-reported, so I replied to the bot report by saying it was block evasion. It said my edit had been published but when I reloaded the page my comment was gone, and gone from the revision history as well. Could someone explain? Am I required to start a new comment under "user-reported" instead? Thanks. lp0 on fire () 09:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lp0 on fire Your comment already been cleared out (auto reverted by ClueBot NG ), the User:Clearly not here to build a niggggggga already been blocked indef. No need to add another comment or report. ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 09:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Ohh I see, it's because I used {{vandal}} to refer to the blocked user that the IP was block evading. Thanks for clearing that up; I was very confused and I'll use {{user}} next time (: lp0 on fire () 09:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Lp0 on fire Not because you used {{vandal}} (it’s actually correct) and not because you didn’t use User. When you report another editor, you only need to report once. Once they are blocked, a bot will clear the table (comment). ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 09:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Article I'm trying to edit

Deep Run Marching Wildcats

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and I was wondering why I couldn't unredirect this old article. Because I originally tried to do that but it got edited back to it's original state of redirecting the user back to the main article. The person who changed the article back said it's still not notable so should I not edit this page anymore? because I really wanted to update the information on the article. Rtbart1 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Rtbart, I imagine that you are asking about what, before it was turned into a redirect, was "Deep Run Marching Wildcats". Wikipedia requires that articles demonstrate the notability (as described in WP:GNG, etc) of their subjects. This article utterly failed to do this. Do you have access to reliable sources, independent of DRMW, that go into depth about DRMW? -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Your best approach would be to add cited information about the Wild Cats to the article about the school.
Do that by making smaller incremental edits rather than all in one go., and if anyone objects, or reverts (undoes) any of your edits, discuss the matter on the article's talk page.
If and when there is sufficient material there, of good quality, to demonstrate notability, it can be split off into its own article. And in the meantime, it will still be available to anyone seeking it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Akusada end date

Akusada

Is it ok that the source of the end date will be a source that says last 5 days left till the series ends without a release date mentioned? Series should end on October 31, 2025 based on this video. There are no news articles announcing what date the series will actually end.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H338q1W83Xo 203.177.220.207 (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

NO. that’s not okay. We requires reliable, independent sources with explicit dates a YouTube video saying "5 days left" without statin the actual end date is insufficient. You should wait for a source that clearly reports the series’ end date. ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 09:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello. Youtube is not a reliable source (WP:RSPYT). Please try to find more reliable sources to cite this. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Problems using IABot

Hi, I have extensive, and previously successful experience with using IABot to archive citations in articles. However, over the past many weeks (months?), the interface reports a High load warning, cautioning that there is a long time lag. This notice appears when I select the option "Run Bot>>Fix a single page". If I try to proceed when the warning is in place it almost invariably times out. I have only had success when either the warning is not showing, or the reported lag times are short (say 2 minutes or so). The tool is virtually unusable for me at present, and causing frustration and a loss of robustness in my work (I always try to archive citations to prevent the dead link problem that affects a great many articles). I have posted a notice at the user talk page for the bot, but it appears that such notices often don't get a response. See: User_talk:InternetArchiveBot#High_load/_lag_times_are_making_this_great_tool_unusable_for_me. So my questions are:

  1. does anyone know what is happening with the IABot and when normal service might resume ? I am not aware of any status notification or bulletin board that might allow me to find this out.
  2. can I use the option "Queue bot to run on multiple pages" to get archiving jobs done (I have tried this several times, and while it appears to run, it seems to analyse the pages but NOT actually add archives that are needed). So no progress. I can't see any setting that might be required to get the bot to actually add archives in a queued batch job.

Help would be greatly appreciated, thanks._Marshelec (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678 and Harej: are the editors who operate IABot. Maybe they can advise? There are links to contact them, or report problems, on User:InternetArchiveBot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I used IABot myself a few days ago and after a few minutes of waiting it did eventually work. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Unusual airport codes?

Since we have a Wikipedia:Unusual place names page, which contains an airport code itself (Sioux Gateway Airport, SUX), should we have an Unusual airport codes article? FlagNerd1010101 (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

There's only going to be so many airports with unusual codes. IMO I think it should stay in WP:Unusual place names. But, on that note, I've added another - so now at least 2 airports with rather strange codes! jolielover♥talk 15:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia:Unusual place names is not an encyclopedia article, but a page in the "Wikipedia:" namespace.
I've made Wikipedia:Unusual airport codes redirect to that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Since all IATA airport codes have to be a unique combination of exactly three letters, I'm not sure how any of them can be "unusual". Shantavira|feed me 16:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
They can be unusual if the 3 letters are a three letter word, like Perm International Airport, Russia being PEE. FlagNerd1010101 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I gotta be honest, I'm not sure its unusual, just kinda silly. I don't think there's a need for a page "airport codes that form three letter words that makes first graders giggle." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
If you look up "funny airport codes", there's really a lot of them that I feel wouldn't satisfy the Unusual place names page. FlagNerd1010101 (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting they should be listed as part of unusual place names, I'm suggesting they shouldn't be here at all. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@FlagNerd1010101 Three letter words are not unusual. Shantavira|feed me 07:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
@FlagNerd1010101: I guess humour is subjective. Try not to get bogged down with the pedanticism and disparaging disdain found in this discussion, unfortunately it is prevalent within Wikipedia. Even the Teahouse.
You could add a section Airport codes to Wikipedia:Unusual place names. The newly created Wikipedia:Unusual airport codes link can redirect directly there.
Generally speaking, these page serve an encyclopedia building purpose. An editor may come across PEE in the list, check the health of the disambiguation page PEE, follow the link to the airport and make an improvement to the article. Also they exist as an environment where new editors can test skills like section creation, linking, notes, redirects etc.
Anyhoo, gotta run. I have an ODD flight to catch. Commander Keane (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
"You could add a section Airport codes to Wikipedia:Unusual place names."
Good idea! FlagNerd1010101 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Section for WP:Unusual place names

In an above discussion, I decided that we should have an Airport Codes section for Wikipedia:Unusual place names. Please not I am not making a page, just a new section. The above discussion would note that it is better for the codes to be there, and besides, there is also a redirect link to there titled Wikipedia:Unusual airport codes. Can we get started on that? FlagNerd1010101 (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree with the other editors, there are a limited number of airports in the world and only so many 3 letter combinations that can be considered unusual. jolielover♥talk 16:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
That's a question you should raise at Wikipedia talk:Unusual place names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I would like to nominate a wiki-news

for Nov. 2, 2025: International Space Station marks 25 years of nonstop human presence in orbit [4].

But I cannot figure out, how to do it. Can someone more experienced nominate it as a news of the day here: Portal:Current events. ApoieRacional (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ApoieRacional, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can do this at WP:ITN/C ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@ApoieRacional A similar entry is already listed on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 2. Note that nominations at WP:ITN/C are only used for Template:In the news, anybody may add items to the more expansive Portal:Current events. I'm not a regular there but I'm guessing your addition was reverted because it is not really a current event. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. My nomination was not reverted, I was unable to nominate. But since, as you pointed out, this news has been selected for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 2,
my question is moot now. Thank you for your help. ApoieRacional (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

What is going on

Hi, at my user page, my {{User:rafaelthegreat/navbox}} template that shows quick links at the very top of my user page is constantly being duplicated, and I am trying to remove it, but it is not working. Can someone remove the duplicated template? ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done not sure what went wrong when you tried Ultraodan (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@Ultraodan thank you so much! That was so weird LOL ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I need help with placing cited references

I wrote a new section for a biology article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcriptome&section=11&veaction=editsource with references. But the references come up at the end of my Section, instead of the end of the Article , as they normally do. Can someone more experienced fix this? ApoieRacional (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by removing <references> wherever it appeared in the section. Some cite errors remain. Perception312 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Help pls

How do I add a picture on the article and also how do I change the article name idk how Sufficit (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Generally, see Help:Pictures and WP:Requested moves.
If you are referring to the draft article in your sandbox, it is unfortunately not suitable for Wikipedia, as the subject does not meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Sufficit: Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse.
  • Detailed instructions for uploading and including images can be found here.
  • Changing an article name is done by moving it to the new title.
That said, presuming you are referring to the draft article at User:Sufficit/sandbox which you have been working on, I believe you are asking the wrong questions. This draft appears to me to be nowhere close to being acceptable as a Wikipedia article at this time, as there are not yet any independent references to reliable sources which would indicate that the subject meets our notability standards for inclusion. The presence or absence of images in the article is not relevant to whether the article will be accepted--they can always be added later.
Many new editors want to jump right in and create a new article, but this is actually one of the most difficult tasks one can undertake. If you were new to carpentry and just bought some new tools, would you choose to build a house as your very first project? I hope not. I recommend putting aside the draft and building experience by devoting your efforts to smaller tasks around the encyclopedia and reading up on Wikipedia's policies and procedures such as notability, neutral point of view, verifiability and reliable sources. This will give you a better idea of what we want to see here, then going back to read about how to create your first article.
Hope this helps. Thanks, and happy editing! --Finngall talk 20:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

help logging on to Wikipedia

My user name on Wikipedia is Rick Norwood. My professional name is Dr. Frederick Norwood. I have been editing Wikipedia for many years. I have made over a thousand edits and contributed a lot of time and money. I know my password.

Now I am not allowed to log on to Wikipedia. When I try, I am told I must reply to an email sent to the email address I had many years ago. I've retired and no longer have access to that email.

I can gladly provide any information anyone wants, including user name and password. Can anyone suggest how I can get back on Wikipedia? 67.147.69.185 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Norwood, welcome back to Wikipedia. I don't believe this is something we can help you with here at the Teahouse, but you may choose to reach out to the Volunteer Response Team (see here for more details) - however, I'm unsure if your account will be recoverable if you are no longer able to access the email assigned to it. In this case, you could just go ahead and create a new account, too. Someone else may have a more satisfactory answer for you, but definitely don't post your password here. All the best, MediaKyle (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
VRT is not the answer.
Rick: please explain the situation to ca@wikimedia.org (again, do not include your password). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

How can I determine what specifically a reviewer has issue with

I have an article that was rejected based on what they say are fake references (or unreliable sources). How can I tell what sources they have issue with? Monkey the Fantasy Sports Guy (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Monkey the Fantasy Sports Guy. You can try asking the reviewer for help. Communication is the key to a lot of things! Tarlby (t) (c) 22:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Film poster adds for movie/film articles missing film poster's

Is there a category of movie or film articles which are missing an image in their infobox of a film poster? I upload book cover images, but I am running out (have added thousands!) and now might work on movies next. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Similar to this Category:Books with missing cover. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't have an answer to your question, but thanks for the work you do!! jolielover♥talk 15:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you @Jolielover. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn I couldn't find such a category but I went to category:2024 films and hovered over each title. As I have navigation popups in my preferences, I was able to quickly find an example like Adult Swim Yule Log 2: Branchin' Out which has no image in its infobox. That article has no "missing image"-type category set. Maybe someone will be able to think of a faster way to do what you want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
So just go by year? Would it be possible to create such a category? I've never created categories before. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I used the year because it was convenient and I assumed that recent films might be the ones without images. Note that Category:Books with missing cover is a tracking category that gets automatically populated by {{infobox book}}. You would need an expert in infobox templates to do the same sort of thing for films as you would not want to populate that category "by hand" which is, effectively, what your question is asking for. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I definitely would not want to populate that by hand. How can we get this made? Where do I find such an expert? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Usually you would try via the talk page of the template or someone active from its edit history. I note that User:Izno has made changes to the books template and may be able to advise. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Izno can you help with making a auto-populating category titled something like, "Films with missing poster" or something. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
As Mike says, usually it's best to ask on the template talk page. I can but I am generally busy. That said, Category:Film articles needing an image also exists and may suit you; it is populated by the talk page. (And you can do the double bonus of removing the parameter if a page has an image now.) Izno (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
If editors have determined that a film article needs a poster in its infobox, and could not do so themselves, there's Category:Film articles needing an image which can prompt other editors to help. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I will work with that then. I did not know of its existence. I find it difficult to search properly for the best category sometimes. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Request to remove G11 tag

Hello, I am the original creator of this draft. I’ve completely rewritten the page to remove all promotional language and kept only verifiable, neutral facts backed by independent sources (Outsource Accelerator, Clutch, BizMideast).

The subject now meets Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability requirements. Please reconsider the G11 speedy-deletion tag.

Thank you for your time and guidance. — GlobalWriter2025 GlobalWriter2025 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

GlobalWriter2025, the draft Draft:Globex Call Center Solution failed to show the "notability" (as defined for our purposes) of Globex Call Center Solution. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Yet it was still deleted as G11, not A7 (which isn't an applicable speedy deletion criterion for drafts). While the most recent version didn't have a promotional tone, it clearly existed for no other reason than publicity purposes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
All very true, Anachronist. -- Hoary (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Making an article

I know you guys have seen my other question and you guys have answered that so I was wondering what I should make an article about because I’ve edited about 10 times in a month… Sincerely, @Mookscade Mookscade (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

We really suggest you gain experience by making smaller edits to improve existing articles, before you attempt your first full article, You will have a much more satisfying time if you do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Mookscade, and welcome to the Teahouse.
I wonder, why are you so keen to create an article? That's not the only way to make a contribution to Wikipedia. I have made almost 28000 edits over twenty years, but I've only ever created a handful of articles.
If you had a subject in mind that you knew you wanted to write an article about, that would be different; but since you've indicated you haven't, why worry about creating an article? Find some articles that interest you that you think you can improve - especially articles that are tagged as needing {{more references}}.
If you're determined that creating an article is the way you want to contribute, you could look at requested articles and see if there is a request that speaks to you. But with only 22 edits in your history, I echo Andy in saying, don't try it yet. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
So your saying I should make more edits and to existing articles rather then making an article? Mookscade (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm saying that we very strongly recommend that you don't try creating an article until you've done a good deal more editing, and learnt about thos policies and procedures. I'm also asking why you are so keen on creating an article, and suggesting that that is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia.
In fact, if more people worked on improving articles rather than creating new ones, we might have a lot fewer rubbish articles (see other stuff exists. I'm talking to myself here as well: I don't create many articles, but I also don't go back and fix existing ones very often). ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Mookscade I think the question is "why?!" We don't need any new articles and, if you don't know what you want to write about, then why would you create one? The other day, someone on the Teahouse wanted an article about Major-General George Clement Macdonald - you could write about him. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

IMDb page for Daniel Naroditsky

 Courtesy link: Daniel Naroditsky

Hi, everytime I tried to add the IMDb page (*{{IMDb name|16276851}} for the deceased above but it keeps getting removed. Bare in mind, im not here to give out but just im just wondering if it can be added to the page at all as it is his exact page? Vlove1 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vlove1: IMDb is user-generated and so not reliable. Read WP:IMDB. Bazza 7 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
You can add it as an external link, but not as a citation.
If you have done the former and another editor has removed it, follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
There's no reason you can't add it to the page under "external links". But I would recommend you move on from this article. MmeMaigret (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Making a map

G'day guys, I'm here to ask, how does one make a map in wikipedia, as in to draw a boundary of a providence/state on a map in Wikipedia? Thanks, @Welches2012 Welches2012 (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Welches2012. I know what I don't know and I have very little experience with maps on Wikipedia although I am fascinated with maps off-Wikipedia. But you can find a lot of resources and possibly collaborators at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Cullen328 (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
If you want to upload a map image, you can capture a OpenStreetMap depicting the location, and highlight them by a drawing software. Upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and license it by {{Cc-by-2.0}}. Versions111 (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Maintenance Template

I am the principal author of the recently accepted Robert E. Bourke Jr. entry. It has a Maintenance Template at the beginning which I believe should be removed as the entry is well footnoted by independent, verifiable sources. I have tried to find the area on the "Edit" page which reflects this template but cannot locate it. Can someone tell me more specifically where to find this area? Thank you. Legendt9455 (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Legendt9455, the template atop Robert E. Bourke Jr. reads A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.... Learn how and when to remove this message. Click on the closing sentence and you arrive at Help:Maintenance template removal, which says When not to remove.... (5) You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest (some exceptions apply: see individual template documentation). The documentation of the individual template says This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found. If you're the principal author, don't remove the template. Theroadislong applied it (slightly over a year ago) and may wish to consider removing it. -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The documentation of {{COI}} also says: "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning." Note: "any editor".
No such discussion was started on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you never did address what your connection is with the subject. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Correctness on Drafting an AfC Article

Hi people,

As a scholar and international professional soccer player, I am now working on a draft of an Articles for Creation (AfC) submission about myself, Josie Valeri. I am conscious of my conflict of interest as the subject, but I need and want to make sure the page satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for notability, neutrality, and sourcing.

I currently have a sandbox draft that summarizes my background, expertise, and professional career. Although some of my references are from social media or team websites (which I acknowledge cannot demonstrate notability), the majority of my sources are independent news coverage, league announcements, and scholarly publications.

I would like advice regarding:

  • Whether the draft satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for notability at this time.
  • Ideas for content rewording or reorganization that adheres to an encyclopedic tone.
  • Advice on how to safely submit with my COI.

Any suggestions on how to improve independent verification and which sources are appropriate is appreciated and exciting! Josie.Valeri (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You linked to your sandbox, but there's nothing there. If you thought you created a draft, you didn't. You need to click "publish changes"(which should be understood to mean "save"). It's actually best to use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft.
Please see the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, writing about yourself is ill advised. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much, 331dot! Josie.Valeri (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Josie.Valeri, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Remember that, once you have found adequate independent sources you will need to effectively forget absolutely everything you know about yourself, and write based only on what those sources say. They don't mention something important? Tough. They get it wrong? Tough - depending on how important the matter is in an article about you (which is an editorial decision, which should ideally be made by somebody other than you), it should either say what the sources say, or leave it out altogether. This might seem unreasonable to you; but an article should ideally contain nothing at all that cannot be verified from reliable published sources; and with a few exceptions (see WP:PRIMARY) from sources wholly independent from you. See WP:Verifiability. ColinFine (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks ColinFine. :) Josie.Valeri (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Josie.Valeri Notability: I don't see significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources. Refer WP:42.
Rewording It's not encyclopedic and contains a lot of info that a third party's not interested it. I would suggest you read a couple of articles about soccer players that are classified as good articles. Choose a person you're interested in or someone of a similar level of achievement and compare the wording and layout of the article to yours.
"COI" read WP:COI, particularly the section on "How to disclose a COI". MmeMaigret (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, @Mmemaigret! Josie.Valeri (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

My draft

I there, I worked 2 and 1/2 day on my draft and it has been deleted. Can I get it back in my sandbox please. I already replay to the person who delited it but no answer. Thanks for your help. Guy Bonnier (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Guy Bonnier, you replied to the editor who deleted Draft:Helight, but you did so on your user talk page rather than theirs, and you didn't ping them. So you can't expect that they'll have noticed your request. Better ask on their user talk page. Or perhaps somebody reading this will undelete it. (I could, but I prefer not to.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
This draft was mostly AI slop, deleted for being unambiguously promotional. You would likely have avoided deletion by using the AI only to help you find sources, after which you would write the article yourself, in your own words. There is no benefit to Wikipedia in restoring promotional content, especially AI generated content. There is no benefit to you either if that's what you're starting with, because it's unacceptable in the first place. Therefore, it's best if you start over, using the AI as a collaborator or assistant, not the primary author.
Nobody ever said writing an article for Wikipedia would be easy. It is the most difficult task on Wikipedia. It takes a lot of work. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Anachronist that there is no point in restoring the content, as it would need to be completely rewritten from scratch anyway. —Ingenuity (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@User:Ingenuity 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 04:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Guy Bonnier, 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) 11:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Crisis Liquidity Ratio

Sourcing check for Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio (independent Bulgarian sources)

Hello! I’ve resubmitted Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio. It cites independent Bulgarian-language sources that discuss the ratio’s formula and crisis use-case: – Ivanova (2021), peer-reviewed journal; – Kostova (2019), textbook (pp.197, 203–204; Appendix №2, with reviewer named); – Kostova (2023), proceedings; – Kulchev (2023), proceedings; – Deltastock AD (2021), regulated issuer’s annual report listing the ratio.

I avoid unpublished data and keep a neutral tone. Would this meet WP’s requirements for a short concept entry? If not, what minimal adjustments would you recommend (e.g., formatting, archive links)? Thank you! Петър П. Петров (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend looking at Wikipedia's golden rule. While you do have a lot of sources, which I congratulate for your first article, you need more reliable sources to show that this topic is notable. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
You have asked for input on this draft here, on the Articles for Creation help desk, and at Village pump (policy). Please only open one discussion thread so that responses are not repeated and discussion is kept in one place. @Chorchapu, there are a lot of footnotes, but there are only a few references that have been repeated several times. Also, one of the articles being relied upon is a publication in Knowledge - International Journal, which is proudly indexed in Google Scholar and has very few articles that have been cited more than once. -- Reconrabbit 14:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

How to insert template?

I need to insert a template into my article, but I don't know how. Can somebody help? Ws584790 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

What template do you want to add? When you go to the template - for example, Template:Infobox person, you can find all its parameters in the documentation - the stuff in the green box. In this particular case, see the "Blank template with basic parameters" subheading for exactly that. Then, you just need to copy this and paste it into your draft article in source editor, and fill the parameters out. Not all need to be filled, so it's fine to remove parameters or leave them blank. Sometimes, some parameters are compulsory, and the documentation will tell you that. Let us know the template so we can see the exact issue you may be facing. jolielover♥talk 14:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
After reviewing, I believe I am looking to insert an infobox, specifically [Infobox sports rivalry] as such used in the Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry article. Ws584790 (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
It's located here: Template:Infobox sports rivalry. No parameters are compulsory, so feel free to use any relevant ones. As said before, just copypaste it into the draft using source editor. jolielover♥talk 14:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Chillerton new draft

Hello, I am rewriting an article about Chillerton Group Limited as the first one was deleted due to use of LLM. I have now rewritten this myself User:AngeliAssomull/Chillerton new draft. Can you please check if this draft is neutral and if all the references mentioned are suitable? This is the first time I am writing something so any kind of guidance will be appreciated. Many thanks AngeliAssomull (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend finding more reliable sources and establishing notability per WP:42. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi there.
When trying to write any article, please remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise verifiable information about notable subjects which is available in reliable, independent sources
It's entirely possible (and very common) to want to write an article about a particular topic even if that topic might not be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, and then try to find sources to prove notability later. This is called writing an article backwards and is very common with new contributors and especially with COI contributors trying to write articles about something they're connected to.
Please make sure you're familiar with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and the specific notability guidelines for corporations/organisations and then try to decide objectively whether your company is notable enough to warrant its own article. As the corporate notability page states, most corporations do not need a Wiki article.
If you still think your company is notable enough to warrant an article, look for sources first and then write the article based on the information in those sources rather than trying to find sources to verify the information you want to write in the article.
Good luck with your article! Athanelar (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Notability issues?

I could use some help with this... I originally created this article in 2009, and didn't notice it was marked for deletion earlier this year, so it was deleted. I got it reninstated as a draft, and I've extensively rewritten it, and added a lot references, and submitted it again, but it still got declined. Without further specifics... any pointers on how to fix it? From what I can tell from similar articles, I have better sources than many of them... would it help if I add a Source Assess Table, using the template, on the talk page of the draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Real_Story_Group Therealpowerflower (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Therealpowerflower! My best advice is to deal with the feedback left by the reviewers and edit the article accordingly. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
There was no feedback :/ Just the generic template. Therealpowerflower (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, these are the two recommendations left by reviewers at the draft.
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 way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary, strictly independent of the subject. Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
I would recommend looking over these are fixing these issues. Do not use LLMs unsupervised and take extra care that everything is supported by actual, reliable sources. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
As mentioned in the notes, the LLM was only used to format the references (I should have used the visual editor instead, lesson learned), not to find them or to summarize them. Therealpowerflower (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@Therealpowerflower The sourcing requirements are summarized by our golden rules for good sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I think I have sources that qualify -- hence my question whether using the Source Assess Table template on the talk page would make it easier to discuss those. Right now I'm only getting very generic feedback, which makes it quite hard to get it right. Therealpowerflower (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Most of the time (not always), when an editor finds the feedback they've received to be much too generic, it's because the article has very major defects that can't be solved just by making targeted changes to specific points. An article that is fundamentally flawed, rather than one that needs a few tweaks. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Therealpowerflower. I've only looked at the first two references: they are both based on interviews, and don't contribute to notability.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
I suggest you eliminate all sources that don't meet all the criteria in WP:42 (don't throw them away, because you may be able to use some of them to support the kind of information that primary sources can be used for, once you've established notabily) and see if you have enough left to get over that hurdle. ColinFine (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. Therealpowerflower (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

why isnt my page eccepted

Draft:The Science of Burgers Hell yeahhhh man (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Read the note @Wikishovel left for you, the article already exists at Hamburger, so another article about it isn't needed, also your article is just instructions on how to create a burger, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 16:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

How to fix possible LLM content?

So I've been going on wikipedia and I've noticed some articles have the tag mentioning that certain articles or certain sections of articles have tags concerned about text coming from LLMs so I was wondering how an editor would try to fix that? also is their any good way to check for possible LLM derived text besides just vibes? as someone who generally doesn't like generative AI I would love to help improve articles with said tags. Afishient (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hiya @Afishient, and welcome to the Teahouse! WikiProject AI Cleanup has a helpful guide for how to spot and clean up possibly AI-generateed content at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Guide. If this is something that you're interested in working on, you can find a category with every article tagged as possibly having AI use as well. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks this is pretty much exactly what I was looking for. Afishient (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
As well as what GoldRomean has said, you can flag articles/users for attention at WP:AINB if you want to get a second opinion. Athanelar (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Commons files as sources

Can I use files on the commons as a source for articles that need citations?

This question is brought to you by Karl Ernst von Baer's statue. There is a citation needed for his statue at the Leningrad Museum. Looking around I spotted an image of the statue on the Commons. Now I'm wondering if I can use that as source, or if that would be too self referential.

MMichkov (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that @Pigsonthewing would be able to answer this question, though I'm not entirely sure. Apologies to Andy if I bothered him for nothing!
CSGinger14 (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
You can't simply cite the image on Commons.
What you could do is add the image to the article with a caption stating its location; then remove the 'citation needed' tag.
Only if you are reverted (or not) will you know what other editors think. I certainly would not revert such an edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@MMichkov That image has been in the article Zoological Museum (Saint Petersburg) since before 2010, so I think you'll be justified in using it again now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@MMichkov Are you asking if you can use the picture of the statue as a citation to prove the existence of the statue? If so, no. You're going to need a secondary source that says there's a statue in the museum. You can use the image as an image. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes that is what I'm asking. I wasn't sure if Commons works are considered secondary sources or not. If I get the time later I'll go with Andy's suggestion and just add the image to the article and see what the editing public does. MMichkov (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Grounds for reviving a WikiProject?

WikiProject Spectroscopy is currently listed as defunct, but all the tracked articles definitely need some TLC, as the scopes of Chemistry and Physics don't really seem to cater to this field. I of course could individually contribute to the respective articles in this category, but I am wondering what specifically gives grounds to reviving a WikiProject? Thank you, Leo51db (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Leo51db, and welcome to the Teahouse.
There are no "grounds": a WikiProject is defunct when there is nobody willing to put in any time and effort into it.
All it takes is for you to be willing to put in the work, and to recruit other members to make it work.
It says in the notice If you feel this group may be worth reviving, please discuss with related groups first. ColinFine (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Community labeled a cult

I have submited a COI request. It is pending since a long time. My problem and pain is me, my community, my Guru we are called cult because some journalist decided to write so. There are reputed media organizations like CBC who also characterized us as such but when we submitted counter proof, CBC apologized. Gujarat high court (in the same matter - not some other matter) called us a 'spiritual path' ... but these aspects are omitted and cult term is highlighted in the page. I have requested COI and one kind editor had a look but said she wanted alternate opinion. Requesting some remedy that we are not called cult. It is dehumanizing and cruel to us. I don't know what logic justifies it. It saddens me. Sorry for the lamenting. My request and prayer is for somebody to stop this cruelty against us. And guide what can be done : Please see this talk page : Talk:Nithyananda#Remove Cult attribution from journalist Poonam Joshi who has conflict of interest. 129.222.149.203 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Which article is this in? If it's Nithyananda, it is only mentioned once and in a very neutral way, in my opinion, saying that mainstream outlets have described it as such. Sorry, but we are unbiased towards all affiliations and can't remove information that is appropriately supported by reliable sources. Several sources do describe it as a cult, including many considered reliable on WP:RSP. jolielover♥talk 16:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
This is a help desk. We can advise you what to do; but we can't make a decision like that here.
The best thing to do would be to raise the matter at WP:NPOVN.
But you must accept that Wikipedia is a summary of what other, reliable sources say about topics. The outcome may not be what you want. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you @Pigsonthewing @Jolielover for your guidance. I cannot help the situation, as much as there exists certain rules,policies,facts,circumstances, contrary to what I could have wished for, day in and day out I am haunted by this and unable to be in peace a single day. If I could brush this aside, I would have. And that is what we have done for a decade, but that did not help the situation and made it worse, every year the misinformation and dehumanizing characterization of community had only increased. It impacts my life beyond my control which I cannot help and I can neither stop living. So until I have option available and open to request I can merely request editors/people neutral to the topic to look into our page and consider some mitigation. Thank you for taking time to respond to my request and for the valuable response that you all have provide. I have raised a request for similar consideration in NPOVN board as well. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I feel I'm going to have to point this out since nobody else has yet: This entire discussion falls under a a 500/30 restriction as it deals with a South Asian social group. (Religious groups count.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry @Jéské Couriano could you please help me understand. The category, the page it directs to, it all seems quiet cryptic for me to understand. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
What they are saying is that you are not permitted to edit any page on Wikipedia in the topic area of South Asian social groups unless you have an account that is 30 days old with 500 edits. This includes your community. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@331dot I don't understand. I am not editing any page. The page is already extended-confirmed-protection. I submitted a COI request which remains unaddressed. One editor considered my COI and then finally replied that she wanted someone else to provide alternate opinion, which brough me to Teahouse. @Jéské Couriano ? 129.222.149.131 (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
By "page" I mean any type of page on Wikipedia, including this one- articles, talk pages, discussion forums, any type of page. You cannot make COI edit requests in this topic area. You must have an account that is 30 days old with 500 edits. I have posted a message about this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Are you telling me that without having 30 days old account with 500 edits i cannot even submit a request for COI? I cannot do 500 edits because I have no interest in wikipedia and will not meet the requirement of neutrality. I would be making edits just to submit a COI. How is this right or fair? What is the mitigation compliant as per rules? Do I have no rights to even ask? 129.222.149.131 (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
That's correct. The only edit requests that you can make are the most simple requests that do not require discussion to form a consensus, such as spelling or grammar fixes, or something which no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. Your request- directly at odds with what sourced information supports- would require you to discuss the matter, so you are not allowed to make it.
Please review the information on your user talk page, and the links within that message, but in short, the history of edits in the topic area of South Asian social groups attracts much disruption and argument- possibly due to the strong personal investment editors may have in editing about groups that they either know of or are associated with- which has necessated the Arbitration Committee to institute the restrictions to prevent disruption. If you are not interested in editing Wikipedia more broadly, then you will be unable to contribute about your community. I realize this seems unfair, but the rules are what they are. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
That is a bit too much for me to accept, I really need time for this to sink in. As a final request I sincerely request @331dot @Jéské Couriano @Jolielover to review the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nithyananda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nithyananda ; thank you. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@331dot I want to inform the addition of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailaasa and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kailaasa#Please_remove_cult_attribution to this category.
I thought about what you stated, and it seems it is impossible for our community to redress any misinformation about our community in wikipedia. The rules are impossible to meet. Kindly guide if there is a way to appeal for an exemption for these 2 pages ( Nithyananda and Kailasa) regarding this rule, because it will impact our community in ways which hurts a lot in real life. We are not asking for rights to edit the page, but merely submit COIs. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
There are more than 75,000 Wikipedia editors with extended-confirmed rights, so the requirements are clearly not "impossible to meet."
In any case, you have provided little evidence that there is any "misinformation," only that mainstream news outlets have characterized your group in a manner that you disagree with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@CoffeeCrumbs The requirements are indeed impossible not because of physical impossibility but because I am expected to have interest in wider wikipedia (which I do not have and I cannot pretend to have, it would be not-honest) and anybody can use the fact that I am not interested in wider wikipedia to challenge any of my edits in any article. In contrast journalist like Poonam Joshi who have conflict of interest against our community and devotees in UK can write anything and it is considered neutral and endorsed in the wikipedia article and cited in the first paragraph. Yard sticks are disproportionate, unfair, and impossible.
Regarding evidence of misinformation. The talk page of the article mentioned documents it. For instance there are over thousands of articles/video carrying misinformation of which around hundreds have been taken down because of legal complaints, legal notices to various media; this includes some media houses who have issues apologies - like CBC which has been documented. A list of this is in the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nithyananda#Removals_by_Washington_Post,_CBC_Canada_and_major_Indian,_South_American_and_Malaysian_outlets with links and was noted by @MrOllie ; The most egregious misinformation was media falsely stating there are interpol notices on Swami Nithyananda, whereas the truth has always been from day 1 that interpol rejected issuances of any notice by Indian state authorities and even deleted the data. Another extremely egregious misinformation that media has weaponized is that in 2012 our Guru, Swami Nithyananda was illegally arrested. This arrest was warned by legal experts upfront as unlawful, still state authorities executed it with 1/2 million USD spent on it and paraded our Guru in the whole city to shame Him and us. A year later the high court of Karnataka in CRL.P. 3253/2012 (Order link - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/85011170) termed the entire state action as illegal, “without any authority,” “contrary to law,” “without jurisdiction,” alongside the court quashing the entire unlawful proceedings around this illegal arrest. And the list goes on. However as of now I can neither provide nor participate in this due to being barred as per wikipedia rules. Perhaps I cannot even request another wikipedia editor like you or anybody. I have ideologically given up ... but the pain this misinformation inflicts to be day to day bring me back here to request rectification. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Very few of the links go to anything, and the few that actually work don't match with what you've claimed. I don't see anything to substantiate your claims, so I don't see anything that can be done, and I wish you the best in your future endeavors. I will not be participating in this topic further. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
As you are not interested in more broadly contributing to Wikipedia, there isn't anything else you can do. If you disagree with how independent reliable sources describe your community, you should take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
We have tried that. Very few like CBC apologized. Most silently unpublished. And many never respond. I understand what you are saying, and the fact that you have been extremely patient with my persistent requests. And I am not even contesting that the narration need to contradict that media describes. I am merely telling to consider court verdicts also, consider other media narratives also - like CBC. Why Poonam Joshi (Telegraph) who has an obvious conflict of interest with our community, an article authored by her is considered non-neutral reliable. Anybody can call anybody cult ... how does it simply become reliable. Right now we are in a position that we cannot even update the flag of our KAILASA nation on wikipeida, not even submit a request regarding this. Years ago an investigative journalist named Frank report extensively wrote about our Guru, all those articles and citations have been surgically removed with not even 1 word of explanation just because he independently concluded after 5-6 articles that the allegations made against Swami Nithyananda are false. This cherry picking of sources. All wikipedia rules and editors have logically convinced me that I cannot do anything but my heart my being remains disturbed, perturbed due to the injuries the misinformation inflicts on my life psychologically and my day to day living. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
i have made an account for this 129.222.149.131 ip address Kktr2025 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that you seem to have a misunderstanding of what a COI means on Wikipedia. You said you have 'submitted a COI' regarding the journalist who has made the statements you're concerned about, but that's not really how that works.
Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies apply to users editing or creating articles relating to topics they have some personal connection to. It doesn't have anything to do with third-party sources' connections to the subject of an article. In this case you are actually the person with a COI because of your connection to the article subject.
I think this is where the confusion is coming from; because this journalist's 'COI' has no bearing on whether their statement should be included in the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia summarises information provided in secondary sources. In this case, a high-profile publication calling your community a cult is notable enough to be included, whether you like it or not. Athanelar (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
i still feel perplexed ... how is a journalist's opinion higher than that of a judge. i have mentioned the judge after 5+ years of court proceedings called us a 'spiritual path' that is omitted, this statement is in the written judgements, and also was said orally and reported by the media. why is this not proportionately considered for neutrality. Also CBC's apology is not considered uniformly, it is included in Nithyananda page and omitted in Kailasa page, even upon pointing this out ... it is ignored ... giving me a feeling as if rules are an excuse to maintain status qua. Kktr2025 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not about whose opinion is 'higher.' If you think the judge's statement should also be included, then discuss that on the relevant article's talk page. The point is that the journalist's statement about the community being a 'cult' has no reason to be removed. Athanelar (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Kailaasa was in a sorry state when I pulled it up earlier today. I've reworked the lead and added more biographical context relating to Nithyananda. I don't know that my edits necessarily satisfy the concerns of those connected to Nithyananda, but I at least think it's much better now, and while the micronation's non-existence and Nithyananda's controversies are still central to the article, I did rein in some of the more lurid descriptions and UNDUE speculation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Athanelar Please note that this user is not extended-confirmed and as such cannot edit about this topic or participate in discussions about it. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
True. That being the case they arguably shouldn't even be here right now talking about it considering they're essentially circumventing that restriction by just discussing the article's content on a forum not directly connnected to the article. Athanelar (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Resolution & Detail level of articles

hi, i have some very very detailed information about some missiles and aircraft, however i don't see some of the easier found information implimented. is there a limit to how detailed a page should be before it scares the average viewer and information like radar alphabet band is irellevant? HamezBoi (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @HamezBoi, and welcome to the Teahouse.
It is almost impossible to answer that sort of question in the abstract: the answer is almost always going to be "it depends".
The best place to ask is on the talk page of the relevant article(s); or if it really concerns multiple articles, on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject Aircraft or WT:WikiProject Military history. I recommend you be much more specific in what you are asking.
Remember that any information you add to an article must be verifiable from a reliable published source: you can't use anything from unpublished papers, from informal sources like social media, or from your own research. ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
thanks, and what wiki project is for missiles? HamezBoi (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history, linked above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

LLM use with verification.

is it appropriate to use LLMS on wikipedia if i fact check and citate it before publishing? Edart6 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Edart6. Sometimes. Please see WP:LLM. ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Images

How do I add images featuring my favorite characters in Wikipedia articles? Everytime I do it, it gets removed. Seussfanlover (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Seussfanlover, and welcome to the Teahouse.
I've tried looking through your contributions, and I can't find an example of that, so I don't know exactly what you tried and what happened. As always, it is much more helpful if you point to the specific article you tried to edit.
But I'll do my best to answer.
Most images of characters (whether from films, animations, comics, games, or illustrations) are copyright, and may not be used in Wikipedia, except in very limited circumstances, as explained at WP:NFCC.
Not what you are asking about, but looking through your edit summaries in your contributions, I get a distinct impression that you may be edit warring - apologies if I'm wrong about that. Please have a look at WP:BRD.
Note that you should never insert anything into an article just because you saw it somewhere: everything in an article should be verifiable from a published source. (In certain circumstances you can cite a film etc as the source for something in it, but if there is any controversy over this, it would need a stronger, secondary source). ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, also, how do I add sources? Seussfanlover (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@Seussfanlover See WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Little-covered topic

Hi all, I am a beginner at editing and writing for Wikipedia. I've had a couple of articles published and numerous edits and additions accepted. I just wrote a new article draft about a film star the other day. She doesn't have much coverage in the internet media, and my draft was been rejected. Reasons given were (a) it doesn't have sufficient coverage in "reliable, secondary" publications, and (b) it purportedly reads more like an advertisement. Can someone PLEASE advise me how to go about improving the acceptability of an article about someone who doesn't have much internet coverage? She might not appear to be a "notable" actress, but she has had both major and minor roles in films and TV series, but I don't have a clue where to find "reliable" written sources that can prove this. Quite a lot of her work has been as a voice for video games, and this is far from well represented in any media. Any advice would be much appreciated. Tassh1 (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

If she is far from well represented in any media, then she shouldn't have an article. "Notability" is the criteria for an article, and if your subject doesn't meet this, she shouldn't have an article. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Tassh1, I imagine that you're asking about Draft:Katie McGuinness. The lead to this says (after markup-stripping, but otherwise complete): Katie McGuinness (born 29 December 1984) is a British actress. She was born in England, and is 5’ 6” (1.68m) tall. This hardly sounds like an introduction to an article about a person I'd call a "film star"; but that matter aside, it's most unlikely that anyone so young who "doesn't have much coverage in the internet media" would nevertheless have significant coverage in the print media. If indeed she lacks significant coverage in either kind of media, she can't have an article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Forty is "so young"? She's been appearing on TV for at least 21 years (since she played the minor character Jenny in He Knew He Was Right in 2004 [see IMDb, though not a Reliable source]). I suspect suitable sources may exist (not necessarily online) but Tassh1 hasn't yet found them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article about a person is nothing but a summary of how they have already been represented in reliable media. Providing other interesting information about the person is (by design) not an option at all.
It IS possible that good media sources are out there and you haven't found them yet. But in any case, what might be called "slavish adherence to what reliable sources have already said" needs to be your main aim in writing. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I want to return to my wiki

I've been waiting one month to my answer in , and until now, I haven't gotten the answer I'm waiting for, I don't know if I have the message saved here yet, but I say that I will be able to do everything to return to my home wiki. PixelWhite (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, PixelWhite. Teahouse hosts only have knowledge of the English Wikipedia, and other language versions are separate projects with separate policies and administrators. Please read your block notice on your Portuguese user talk page carefully, and all the links. Have you formulated your unblock request precisely? Perhaps you can alert the blocking administrator and ask that person a question. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Since your Brazilian, use the Portuguese Wikipedia. Versions111 (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Versions111, "Since your Brazilian ..." You refer to his (or her) Brazilian ... His or her Brazilian what? I'm very interested in hearing you're answer. Uporządnicki (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
@AzseicsoK Your funny! David10244 (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
his funny indeed mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm tottaly blocked, and no one has responded to me for a month. I'm not able to actively edit here and I want to edit on the Portuguese Wikipedia, I just need a contact. PixelWhite (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
You can contact ptwiki administrators. I think this is the link for contacting administrators. I’m not 100% certain, because I can’t speak Portuguese. Versions111 (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@Versions111: This cited article is for approval requests! PixelWhite (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Maybe this is the link for contacting admins. Versions111 (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to see what links to a page that would exclude templates? I find that a big issue when evaluating AFDs. Thanks. ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Go to the What links here page for an article, choose Template as the namespace, then check the box that says checked boxInvert Selection, and that should work for you. dot.py 06:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
TIL. I might make use of this myself! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Limerick Cricket Club Wikipedia page

Clue Bot NG recently reverted changes I made to my club's wikipedia page: Limerick Cricket Club. I have made the changes again today and want to ensure Clue Bot NG does not revert them again! How can I ensure this please? The changes made to the page were edits where outdated/old information was edited into new information to reflect the club's current' situation' Shackettlcc (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Shackettlcc (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

For clubs like this, it's fine to list the president or highest office holder, but not every member of the committee. Additionally, you'll need to provide a reliable source that supports any additions.OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding Different Citation Style

Hello Everyone, I am working on the wikipedia page for biathlon and while articles defining the technical aspects are few and incomplete, videos are not. Where would I go to pitch the idea of a youtube/video platform citation style that allows for adequate citing of time-stamps? Jboy Hanny (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jboy Hanny: you are probably looking for {{Cite AV media}}; see Template:Cite_AV_media#In-source_locations. MKFI (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Jboy Hanny, and welcome to the Teahouse.
To add to what MKFI says: make sure that the videos you want to cite are reliably published: most videos on YouTube and social media are not, and we shouldn't cite them. See WP:RSPYT. ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Not live

Wiki not allowing to make this page live, where all policies has been followed properly

Given below is the content __

Mahesh Bhagchandka (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Userpages are intentionally NOINDEXed specifically to prevent poorly-sourced and promotional userspace pages such as this one from being seen by search engines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Mahesh Bhagchandka, and welcome ot the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
Please note that:
  1. Promotion of any sort is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.
  2. Autobiography is so difficult in Wikipedia, and so rarely successful, that it is very strongly discouraged.
  3. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.
ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Out of passing interest, has anyone successfully written an autobiography in recent memory? mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Only the autobiographies that no one realized was an autobiography! GGOTCC 16:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Building code

I.e. I have an idea for an ai agent that might be utilised for doing grunt work that a human might do currently. For example maintaining numerical correctness and up to date information. Or if we don't trust agents or wish to verify their work then a la the new member link suggestion bot an edit suggestion bot. This could also be made for making the first draft expansion of short articles or the first draft of long articles (ran on demand). Or a simple scraper for finding relevant sources (i.e. You might want to start from these: ######)

  1. How might I find someone interested in collaborating with me on this
  2. How might I find someone if not to collaborate to explain how to contribute with best practices and integrations
  3. An agent like that might cost some small amount of money to run if widely adopted but could be very worth it if it is widely adopted. Is there some source of funding for community goods like that to be maintained? Or would I just have to pay out of pocket/make people plug in their own free api keys?

Julius Chandler (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Julius Chandler, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Sounds like something you might bring up at WP:Village pump/Idea lab. But a lot of people around Wikipedia have a pretty negative view of LLMs at present, so don't be surprised if you hit strong resistance. ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Sign quote capitalization

i am writing a section on a controversial signage change and I was wondering if I should capatilize the text on the sign correctly or if I should keep it exactly as shown in all caps? Edart6 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I forget where this is in the manual of style, but what it says is to remove the all-caps, even when doing a direct quotation. (This is certainly true when an entire quotation is capitalized; I forget what to do with a single word.) TooManyFingers (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
If the capitalisation is relevant to the controversy, then keep it; making that relevance clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Full Name vs Shortened

There is a Formula One Driver, Carlos Sainz, who's full name is 18 words long. The article uses a shortened version. Is there a place I can put the full name, in the sidebar or otherwise? Sainz.55 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source giving the full 18 names, and he was given them at birth, you can edit the first line of the "Early life" section, and include them there, with the citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Or, look at Pablo Picasso and its infobox. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
His full name is already given in note a: Carlos_Sainz_Jr.#cite_note-fullname-1. MKFI (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding notability

My draft rejected citing reason as non notable. However I have submitted all the reliable sources links in my draft. Most of links are in hindi language as the officers domain area is Bihar state. Sources at sl no. 4,6,7 & ,18 are from secondary reliable source. How to proceed further O S Prasanth (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! The sources you've cited seem to consist of mostly passing mentions and unreliable sources. Please note that the Times of India is considered unreliable. I would recommend leaving the draft alone until you've made more contributions as writing an article is a complicated task. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Apart from times of india, other reference were there. Reference were hindi. That was not considered O S Prasanth (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I did a spot check of them and many appear to be trivial or passing mentions. Like I said, I recommend taking a break on this. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi, the language doesn't matter. The amount of content about the subject does. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I feel that my references in hindi languages were not considered while rejecting my draft O S Prasanth (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy ping @Timtrent who rejected the draft, however I concur with the rejection as an uninvolved reviewer. @O S Prasanth there is simply no evidence this person meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Qcne.
@O S Prasanth I use Google Translate. I did not simply see Hindi references and automatically discount the draft. I also look at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I cannot see any reason to lift the rejection. We could have had a discussion about that had you contacted me directly. No amount of editing nor discussion can conjure notability where none exists. The subject may be a diligent worker and a fine person, but none of that makes for WP:N, and your references are not useful for WP:V 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
We do see the Hindi references. But without sufficient coverage this article cannot be published. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
A major part of the problem is sources that only mention the person or announce something they will do soon. For a source to count, it needs to be a long significant discussion of the person's past work. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Political Correctness

 Courtesy link: Political correctness

I am an who had an account years ago (pre-2010). So long ago, that I don’t remember my username. I am going to filter through some articles I believe I edited, and see if I can find my contributions and then resurrect my account.

In the meantime, I had a question about the article “political correctness”. I noticed there are 28 pages of talk archives, which leads me to believe it is a rather fraught topic. My idea was to expand the article according to the lede which states “politically correctness is generally used as a pejorative”. The body of the article seems to discuss *only* pejorative uses, but doesn’t touch on *non* pejorative uses. I suggested improving the article in TALK, but I am already getting the idea that consensus is against doing so.

Is this a bad article to start with? I don’t want to become involved with a maelstrom. Perhaps i should focus my efforts elsewhere.? Slyfamlystone (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Slyfamlystone - yes, this is probably not a good place to start! You can imagine that the idea of political correctness is something that leads to people having a lot of strong opinions. I would also strongly suggest avoiding all our contentious topics - there's quite a few of those. But luckily, most of Wikipedia isn't a contentious topic and there's lots of articles you can safely improve!
The best plan to ease yourself back in would probably be to read articles you're interested in and make small edits here and there. You might also enjoy finding citations for articles needing them, or looking through articles needing clarification or orphaned articles to see if you can help out there. Welcome back! Meadowlark (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there is outright rejection there, more scepticism that you can adequately source such an addition.
If you can, I would suggest you write up a couple of paragraphs or so, with sources, in you sandbox, and then post them (or a link to the sandbox) on the article talk page.
Your point that "the lede currently states PC being “generally” used as a pejorative. If that’s the case, then the body should corroborate the lede" is well made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I would however add @Slyfamlystone that the discrepancy between the body and lede could equally mean the lede needs to change, not the body. I.e., if the sources don't seem to support the use of 'political correctness' as a non-pejorative term we should drop the 'generally' from the lede rather than trying to force the body to conform with it. If we want to avoid making too concrete of a statement maybe we could replace the 'generally' with 'almost exclusively' or something similar. Athanelar (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I believe you are correct, the term itself *should* be described as pejorative. However a section on the underlying philosophy probably needs to be added. I actually have some academic sources I am currently reading. The issue at hand is the tension between the term (which is pejorative) and the underlying philosophy or phenomena: “we ought to avoid offence”.
There is a terrific academic source, one that was written relatively recently (2010): Geoffrey Hughes – Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture'’ It explores in detail the distinction between the term’s pejorative use and the genuine ethical-linguistic movement it describes. Slyfamlystone (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
So I’ve followed the advice here and am currently exploring some additional academic sources on the topic. Next I will begin work in my sandbox on the tension between the pejorative term and the underlying philosophy. The final step is to rework the lede so it accurately describes the ‘'term’’ as (almost exclusively) pejorative, while clarifying the normative application (avoiding offence) of the phenomenon. My primary concern is to establish reliable and due sourcing for the new section. Slyfamlystone (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to belabor the point, but I want to make sure I understand our policies and guidelines. The lede of the article states that the term PC is “generally used as a pejorative”, however the article makes no mention of non pejorative use. My understanding is that leaves us with two choices: 1.) Expand the article to include non-pejorative use or 2.) Narrow the lede to define use of the term as “almost exclusively” (or even “exclusively”) a pejorative. But what is not acceptable is having a lede unsupported by the article itself. Am I correct in the understanding that an unsupported assertion in the lede is something to be avoided? I get the impression the rules have changed quite a bit since I was last here. Slyfamlystone (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
You're correct, to my understanding. As per WP:LEDE,

Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

And also emphasis given to material [in the lead] should reflect its relative importance to the subject
I think the 'generally used' here was probably initially introduced as WP:WEASELWORDing to avoid making an unprovable absolute statement.
I think it would be sensible to amend the lead to something like "While the term was originally coined to [...] it has taken on pejorative connotations" with of course appropriate citations for the original meaning. Athanelar (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much. A lot of editors have spent quite a bit of time getting the article to where ti sits now. My intention is to work in a collaborative manner respectful of their contributions, while still maintaining best WP practices. Your input helps with this. Slyfamlystone (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

COI Question

I am currently editing Draft:Nebraska Repertory Theatre, and I have a question relating to Conflict of interest. The article is referring to a theatre whose plays my father somewhat regularly acts/directs. Should I include a conflict of interest disclaimer under these circumstances? For now, I have marked it as a COI. Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'alConverseMy life choices 17:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm... in my opinion, I'd say yes. Your father's workplace is, in my opinion, a COI. jolielover♥talk 17:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
If you declared it and it wasn't strictly necessary to do so, that wouldn't cause you any problems. But if it WAS necessary and you didn't do it, that would likely become a problem at some point.
I think it would be quite rare, for someone to wonder if they had a COI and then find out they didn't. Mild COI is still COI, as far as I know. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Roger that. Thread over, disclaimer will be kept. Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'alConverseMy life choices 19:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

How is a contested move request resolved?

I recently submitted an uncontested move request for Ford I4 DOHC engine, which was closed with one unanswered question that had not been dealt with. I then submitted a contested move request on the article's talk page, and have responded to one response so far. How does this move request come to its conclusion? Thanks.16:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Kumboloi (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, when there has been enough discussion to get a clear enough consensus, a decision gets made.
From the beginnings of the newer discussion, it sounds like the name you proposed might not be accepted because it doesn't tell an ordinary reader (no experience with cars) which engine the article is really about. A title that's only understood by Ford experts seems like a problem to me as well. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
(What I mean is, your title would be great if Ford only ever offered one engine that included a double overhead cam, but that seems pretty unlikely.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback TooManyFingers (talk). I agree that my suggested name is not as helpful (i.e.: specific) as I'd like, but the existing name isn't much better, and I feel that the suggested one is more correct. It sounds like I can answer questions if I have additional information, but the final decision is not depending on action from me.20:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure that good suggestions you make will be taken into account. I agree the old title is not MUCH better, but I do think the old one is a little bit better. Being accurate to the catalogue is not as important as making sure newbies find the right article. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Is "Night Owl" the aircraft name for Western Airlines Flight 2605?

I have done some googling and I think it is the aircraft name. A Times Article called the aircraft and a few other articles say it is the nickname. I am only asking because when it was added to the article in the past, it got removed because it apparently isn't visible on the aircraft fuselage before it crashed. I am asking to hopefully resolve this?


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Airlines_Flight_2605&diff=prev&oldid=1270727289 Zaptain United (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The issue is, who says it's the name? When you do some googling, some of what you find is going to be garbage. Wikipedia only accepts reliable sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Ask in Wikipedia:Reference desk. Teahouse is for discussing stuff about Wikipedia. Versions111 (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Advanced use of Template?

I have noticed an image which is laterally reversed. I was hoping to use a style template {{mirrorH}} to correct this, but I need to apply that style to the img tag itself – not the whole float. Is this possible using [[file:image.jpeg|thumb|style="css"]] or similar ? Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I have several chess-playing

I have several chess-playing friends; one of them wants his picture added to Wikipedia, but I'm new here and don't know how to do it, and the other doesn't have a page. Both are Grandmasters. SergioMiguelPS (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

SergioMiguelPS, if the first of these has an article in one or several Wikipedias -- English, Bengali, Swahili, whatever -- and if you have a photograph of him that you took, then do please upload the photograph to Wikimedia Commons. Once the photograph is there, you can add it to the Wikipedia article. For English-language Wikipedia, you might start at Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor/1. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Karthik Venkataraman is not the current Indian chess champion (2025), nor was he in 2023.

Karthik Venkataraman is not the current Indian chess champion (2025), nor was he in 2023.Karthik Venkataraman no es actual campeón indio de ajedrez (2025) tampoco lo fue en 2023 SergioMiguelPS (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Then, SergioMiguelPS, it would be helpful if you pointed out the mistake on the talk page of every article that makes the mistake. Say who actually was/is the Indian champion, and be sure to supply a reference to a reliable source for this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @SergioMiguelPS, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have raised this on Talk:Karthik Venkataraman, which is the best place for the discussion.
A couple of hints:
  • Post in English on English Wikipedia (I know you have posted in English, but the Spanish is distracting for an English reader)
  • "Look it up on Chessresults" is really unhelpful. If you are recommending a change to an article, provide a proper, specific, citation to a reliable published source. (I don't know whether Chessresults is a reliable source or not: it doesn't seem to have been discussed at WP:RSN. But the citation should be to where the specific information is, not telling the reader to go and look for it).
  • The claim that Venkataraman won in 2023 is cited to Chess News in the current article. If you are correct, then we have different sources contradicting each other. What grounds have we for believing one over the other? Are there other, clearly reliable sources, that clarify the position? Maybe the article should say that there is disagreement?
ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Order for "Electoral record" sections

What is the proper order for "Electoral record" sections in a page for a public office holder? Should we start with the most recent, or oldest at the top? I've seen both and would like to know if there is a Wikipedia style for this. Thanks! Kdorse (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kdorse I think it should be chronological. MallardTV Talk to me! 13:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Kdorse (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I also think chronological (i.e. oldest first, not reversed). My reasoning is that reverse chronological is for when spotting the latest item is important, but we don't need that, we're writing history. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thank you! Kdorse (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

مرحبا أنا اسمي شوقي عمري 32 انا من اليمن

أطلب منكم مساعدتي لكي اذهب من اليمن انا حقا مهدد بالقتل وانا فقير لايمكنني المدافعه عن نفسب فا اتمني الذهاب الى بلد آخر اعيش فيه باامان شوقي عبدالله محمد (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@شوقي عبدالله محمد للأسف، ويكيبيديا مجرد موسوعة ولا تملك القدرة على المساعدة في طلبات الانتقال أو السلامة الشخصية. يرجى التواصل مع السلطات المحلية أو المنظمات الدولية للحصول على المساعدة في وضعك. أتمنى لك الأفضل، ابق بأمان. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 20:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@LuniZunie and @ColinFine I remember an similar Arabic-written teahouse topic started by an IP talking about they were being targeted and abused by his family, and that they could be k***ed by his family. This should be the same user... ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 04:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
That is seriously so truly awful. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 12:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@LuniZunie yeah. It is 2025 and this violence is still happening. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
This is...tragic. I hope for your safety. It's sickening how people can be so cruel like this. --DollarStoreBa'alConverseMy life choices 14:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm in a neighbouring country so it really got to me :( I was in a very bad spot few years ago with no hope in sight. Police did not help me. I believed that life was not worth living. But I stuck through and there seems to be an end to all this in sight. I'm probably much more privileged than OP, but I want them to continue, and let them know there is light at the end of the tunnel... jolielover♥talk 15:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Google translation: "I am asking for your help to leave Yemen. I am truly threatened with death, and I am poor and unable to defend myself. I wish to go to another country where I can live in safety."
Replying: عذرًا، هذا قسم المساعدة لويكيبيديا الإنجليزية. لا يمكننا مساعدتك إلا في تحرير ويكيبيديا.
(translated by Google from: "I'm sorry, this is the Help Desk for English Wikipedia. We cannot help with anything except editing Wikipedia.") ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I am very sorry. I hope you can get through this. jolielover♥talk 04:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
+1 Take care. — DVRTed (Talk) 05:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

motm parameter in football box not showing up

I was editing the UEFA Futsal Euro 2026 page and I wanted to add the motm (man of the match) parameter in the football box for the tournament. However, nothing shows up when you put a name in the parameter. Is there any way of fixing this? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

See above. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

how to unsubscribe from Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

I joined this group https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIn_the_news%2FCandidates#November_2 by accident, and I realized this is not my thing. But I keep getting a dozen wiki-mails from them every day. Can I unsubscribe from this activity? ApoieRacional (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You can go into your account preferences under "Notifications" and uncheck the "email" box next to Talk page subscription; you can also remove individual pages with the link "edit subscriptions" if you still want emails from less frequently changed pages. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
thank you ! ApoieRacional (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

?

What going on world...!? ~2025-31122-61 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

See our Main Page, "In the news"...that's at least a start. Lectonar (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, how can I delete my previous post? 175.110.11.226 (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That depends where it is. It doesn't look like you've even made any posts, unless something odd has happened. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
IP editor: See the glossary at WP:Glossary#Self-revert and the related links. Your edit/revert will still be in visible and accessible via the page history. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Possible NPOV issue in MrBeast

A neutrality tag could be added to MrBeast, as someone has raised a possible WP:NPOV violation on the talk page: Talk:MrBeast#c-Originalcola-20251029192200-Controveries. 2001:861:5C86:3120:3C71:6520:C55E:3316 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Question

Do you think this editor Plasticwonder is assuming bad faith here to a good faith IP contributor? The IP contributor removed content with an explanation. I didn't really wanted to take this to ANI yet because I'm not 100% sure if this is serious enough to take this to ANI. If I'm correct, this editor seems to be biting newcomers as well, for example, this.yes, this newcomer has done something wrong but it wasn't intentional (I don't think) PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 11:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with PW's conduct. They rv'd an unneeded blanking, and they were very polite in your second diff. AN/I is for chronic, intractable issues, as the large, bolded banner says. Definitely a huge step to take for this. Cheers, Fractal-Dreamz ✯ 14:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I didn't really think their behaviour was super wrong, just wanted to double check. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 21:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

When viewing galleries formed using the multipleimage tag on mobile, perrow attributes are ignored, leading to footers describing images in a clockwise manner being functionally useless. The multipleimade template specifically says to avoid using left and right as descriptors in the footer for this exact reason, so I'm confused why this descriptor passes muster.

For an example, the photos of the elementary schools on Glen Rock Public Schools have an accurate caption for desktop users, but the format changes to make it unhelpful on mobile.

This is definitely an issue I want to fix, I'm just not sure where to start. Thanks in advance! Magicalus (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Magicalus, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Generally, the people who hang out here are editors who work on the content of Wikipedia, not the software. WP:VPT is the best place to ask technical questions.
If it is about one of the mobile apps (as opposed to a browser on mobile), then mw:Talk:Wikimedia Apps seems to be the best place. ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Understood, I'll ask there. Thanks for redirecting me! Magicalus (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Where's the bug?

A few months ago I visited someone's user page and was amused to find an image of a fly randomly crawling around the page. I could have sworn I copied the code to my own user page or talk page for the amusement of others, but now there is no sign that it was ever there, and I can't remember whose page I visited. I'd rather like to find it again. Shantavira|feed me 12:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I believe this is what you're thinking of? If not you can look under [5]. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Chorchapu. That looks like it, but that one remains static. The one I saw crawled randomly about the page, so there's some extra code I need to insert. I remember it included the word "random". Shantavira|feed me 15:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Hm, in that case I'm not sure. Sorry, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Are any of the usernames on this list ones you've clicked on previously – Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Fly.gif? Nil🥝 01:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I tried that but oddly, no. Very strange. Shantavira|feed me 17:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@Shantavira: It's not a fly or random but User:Frostly has moving snowflakes with code using User:Frostly/snowflakes.css. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Flagicon size

Does anyone know a way of making the flagicon template smaller? It looks weird when the surrounding text is smaller:

Poland Robert Lewandowski Looks OK
Germany Thomas Müller
England Jamie Hopcutt
Poland Robert Lewandowski Looks bad
Germany Thomas Müller
England Jamie Hopcutt

Rockfighterz M (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Rockfighterz M. Template:Flag icon#Usage shows a |size= parameter, e.g. |size=20px:
Poland Robert Lewandowski Looks ok?
Germany Thomas Müller
England Jamie Hopcutt
PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Yep, that'll work. TYM8! Rockfighterz M (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

How to proceed regarding a questionable article

I stumbled upon an article (Vranyo) claiming a certain concepts exists in Russian language. Now, I know for a fact that such a concept does not exist, but I obviously cannot cite myself as a source. The claim in question is supported mostly by a handful of niche newspaper articles, which all claim that such a concept exists in Russian culture. The problem is there are absolutely no sources that would say the opposite, since the concept is only present within the bubble of the aforementioned articles, and I can hardly prove a negative. I have a couple of questions:

  1. There is already a discussion on the page about deleting or revising an article. Do I just add my opinion to this discussion?
  2. In this discussion, there were contributions from 4 editors in the span of two weeks, and then nothing in the past month. What is the usual timeframe on such discussions?
  3. How do I walk the line between calling simply into question the reliability of the cited sources and doing original research. Or do I simply state my arguments to the best of my ability and let other editors decide whether they are warranted? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello. Unless a discussion is part of a formal process(like a Request for Comment or an Articles for Deletion discussion) there usually isn't a formal timeframe or deadline for a discussion, though very old discussions(months or years) should often be considered archived. You are welcome to add to any discussion that is on the talk page and still seems relevant.
It would be original research to take sources and draw your own conclusions; it isn't original research to challenge the reliability of a source by calling into question its provenance or authorship. Just make your case. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply!
So, currently there is an infromal month-old discussion with two editors on the side of deletion/revision of the article, and the main contributor against deletion/revision. Should I join the informal discussion to try and persuade the dissenting editor? Or would my best course of action be to start a formal AfD discussion? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@Deliberate Baobab There was a piece in The Times by Michael Binyon quoted in the article. It was behind a paywall but I've successfully saved it in the Internet Archive at this link. Having read that, I don't think you'll be successful at AfD since this is a reliable source which says very much what the Wikipedia article does. We go on what can be verified, not what is necessarily true. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull The last sentence makes sense. But surely a short opinion piece written by a journalist (even if he does speak russian and has lived there for some time) is not really an authoriative source on Russian culture? If such a concept existed, wouldn't you expect there to be at least one good academic source on the topic? As it stands now, the articles is mainly supported by highly similar to each other journalistic pieces. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, ideally there ought to be "good academic sources" . Unfortunately, they may be difficult to find if, as I suppose, they would be in Russian. This reminds me of the All Cretans are liars paradox! Your only real recourse if you think that the article should not exist is to proceed by the formal WP:AfD process, which may of course bring such sources to light. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
That's the funny (and maybe the difficult) part. The concept is completely unheard of in Russian circles, so there are literally zero mentions of it in Russian sources. Although I'll try searching harder.
That said, thank you for your advice! I'll proceed and try to reach a consensus with the editors there. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Difficulty Writing An Article

 Courtesy link: Oyin Olugbile My draft article keeps being rejected from being published as an article because a large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT, has been flagged in my edits. However, I have edited the draft multiple times without using any large language model. Please, what do I do, and how can I write this article properly? Please, what am I missing or doing wrong? Mamman Oyinnoiza (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The best way of fixing this is to delete everything and start again, doing everything by yourself with no help. You have probably become quite familiar with the subject after trying to fix the LLM's mistakes. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Even if (working as a real person with no help) you are not very satisfied with your work, that way is still the best. I am not a good article writer, but I am good at fixing the mistakes that real humans make. If you have good references to reliable sources, but your style is clumsy, people like me can improve the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Why did you move your draft to mainspace without resubmitting it for review? Athanelar (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Ugh. That sounds like a quick way to get the article permanently rejected. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I didn't know it was different. I thought the article would be reviewed once published. Mamman Oyinnoiza (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
If it was declined in the first review, you have to resubmit it to be reviewed again. It can be moved to mainspace only when it has passed review. I would advise you redraftify the article and go through the proper procedure, especially now that the article is being discussed at AfD. Athanelar (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Review is to decide IF it should be published, or not. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Page numbers

Help with references: different page numbers for same book for different points ==

I am trying to get the references correct on my first article, which was accepted 9 Oct. Reinhard Höhn (in English) Amongst the referenced books there are two where I quote more than once and need to add pages to the separate bits. I tried to follow Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once But I seem to be getting it wrong as the actual article now has bits like this: He became professor of constitutional and administrative law at the Humboldt University of Berlin and chair of public law at the University of Jena from 1935–1945. During this time he was also director of the Institute for State Research. He was one of the architects of National Socialist theory (Nazism) in the Völkisch movement.[4]: 38–9  This seems to comeout OK on the preview here (why?!)...but if you look at Reinhard Höhn Rather than the ref in suprascript and pages after the bracket...the editing text persists

Evidently I am not being savvy ...but can someone please explain what I am doing wrong Thank you Scarp-bolt (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see if the information at WP:IBID helps. The thing about page numbers is a bit tricky, so if you try advice from that section and you don't like the results, then try the other advice given in the same section. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Scarp-bolt, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Your calls are syntactically very odd, and surrounded by the sort of thing you would see in a page explaining how to use them.
So the first one (which I have corrected) read
<code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Rp|rp]]<nowiki>|38-9}}</nowiki></code>
which I have now corrected to
{{Rp|38-39}}
However, it is missing the actual citation.
I haven't touched the second one - I've left it for you.
I don't know how you managed that: I think sometimes the visual editor (which I never use) can make that sort of problem. ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Too many fingers
You are right I was using the visual editor,it seemed more intuitive as I am not experienced in computing (school was pre-computers), I'll try and do the other one...and give it a go tomorrow
Thank you for helping Scarp-bolt (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Colin
Your suggestion is working on the Source Editing (which does look so complicated to the uninitiated)
I do have to re-access the Ingrao book to tidy that up too.
I really appreciate your help
I must find a way of learning to do this so it becomes more easily do-able and understandable to me! Scarp-bolt (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft: wolfTPM

Hi Teahouse,

I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate some help improving my draft Draft:WolfTPM

It was declined once for not having enough independent sources. I've added more citations (including an article from Embedded Computing Design, a partner listing from STMicroelectronics, and a technical reference from Sanctuary.dev), but I'm unsure if those sources are sufficient, or I need more independent sources to support the article.

Could someone take a look and suggest specidic improvements to help it meet AfC standards?

For transparency, I have a COI since i work for wolfSSL, the company that develops wolfTPM, and I;ve disclosed that on the Talk page. Shy63 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I do know that anything from a partner is not independent, and also that being listed somewhere doesn't count as coverage.
I think it helps to look at it this way: look closely at what the independent sources say (and even then, only the ones that Wikipedia classifies as reliable). That is basically going to have to be the entire article. There's very little "filling in the blanks" allowed, even when you know what ought to be said. Sources that are partners, or that aren't considered reliable, have very limited use.
If you go to the References section of the draft, and you ignore every item with the letters TPM or the word Partner, you can see there's not much left. And when you start sorting out the ones that remain, some of them are not reliable sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
As I read more, I see that the bulk of the article is your own description of what the company does. Unfortunately, most of that is considered promotional material and needs to be cut out. The vast majority of the article needs to come from reliable independent sources, not from the company.
The "fantasy perfect" independent reliable source would be (let's say) a five-page story in Time magazine called "The Incredible Saga of WolfTPM". Very few companies can boast that level of coverage, but at least that's the type of thing to look for. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
TooManyFingers, you surprise me. I'd lump "The Incredible Saga of XYZ" together with "XYZ the Game-Changer", "Why Is EVERYONE Using XYZ?", "XYZ Is Insane", "XYZ Blows Up the Internet" and suchlike -- as mere clickbait for the dimwitted. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I was thinking of where the article was, not the title. Doesn't everyone use clickbait titles now? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
You have a point, TooManyFingers. Yes, Insane Clickbait Titles Teach a BRUTAL Lesson. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Please read WP:BOSS and tell whoever told you to write an article about your product that it's a bad idea. Athanelar (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Similar pages

(sorry, couldn't think of a better title)

I just edited the page for Joe DeSa, expanding it from a stub. While editing the page, I entered in the name Greg Walker. Nothing came up for similar links, I thought I was good. Then when I previewed the page, I saw there were multiple links to that name, so I removed the brackets. Is there a reason this wasn't caught right away, or am I missing something?

Thanks for any light that can be shed on this. Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There are other people named Greg Walker, so the baseball player's article had to be called "Greg Walker (baseball)". Please see if I did the right thing to the article - I wasn't completely sure if I understood your question.
And if I did do the right thing, then click on the edit button in the article, to see the way I fixed it. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I went back to the article again and realized that you had inserted a very large amount of material without telling what sources you got it from. Sorry, but you can't do that. I took it all down. You can put it back if you correctly cite reliable sources for everything. (You can't put any facts that aren't shown in your sources, even if you know they're true.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Oops - a ping @Sportsfan1976 TooManyFingers (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Creating an account

This website won't let me create an account. I entered my information SIX DIFFERENT times and it still will not allow me to create an account. I am getting frustrated because I want to be able to research without losing my history but I can't keep anything anywhere because I can't create an account. You guys need to look into this (if you are able to) and fix whatever bug is messing with a user being unable to create an account here. Thank you in advance. 197.233.67.84 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Please give us more information; what is the exact message that you see when you attempt it? 331dot (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Donations

Hi, a recent article by McSweeney’s promoted me to restart my monthly donation to Wikipedia. However, when I navigated to the site and logged in, I noticed that there’s no donation button on the home page. Does anyone know why this is? CianDikker (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi CianDikker, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sometimes surprised how many things are omitted from the mobile site to save screen space. The bottom of mobile pages have a "Desktop" link to view the desktop site which has a "Donate" link in the menu to the left. You may have to tap a hamburger button ☰ at the top left to see the menu. You can switch back to the mobile site on "Mobile view" at the bottom of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi Primehunter,
Thanks for your answer. There is no donate button in the hamburger menu either.
I doubt I'm the first to mention this but it is best practice for organisations that seek to raise money to have a donate button visible at the top of the page on desktop and mobile. Do you know if there is an existing discussion about this or has it been discussed and decided historically?
Thanks,
Cian 78.16.169.0 (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Cian. When I look at an article, or at the main page (but not on pages in the Wikipedia: space, such as this Teahouse) in the desktop version, I see a "Main menu" down the left hand side, which includes items such as "Main page", "Contribute", "Random article", and "Donate". If I hide it, it is replaced by a hamburger at the top, to the left of the Wikipedia globe.
Is that not what you see? ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
If you haven't first scrolled down to the very bottom of the page and clicked the word "Desktop", then you're not yet looking at the correct menu. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
CianDigger, when logged out on mobile there is a "Donate Now" link in the hamburger (☰) - directly next to the animated gif. As far as I am aware there is no connection between an account and a donation so you could open Wikipedia in a private tab (incognito) to see the link as a logged out user. You will remain logged in for regular tabs in your browser. Commander Keane (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:All the President’s Elephants (Film)

My submission Draft:All the President's Elephants (Film) has been declined by Jcgaylor because it is “not supported by reliable sources” (eg Streaming Services not considered appropriate.) I made 4 alterations/additions as a result, and my sincere thanks to those who have already helped so much with an additional 8 fixes/improvements. It was been resubmitted for a second review. If there are any experienced editors who have time and interest to help to try to ensure a positive outcome following this second submission, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. WikiAdd01 (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing this is a job for its reviewer, so I only gave it a glance. Why "the prestigious International Elephant Film Festival" and "[Blue Ant Media]" and not plain "the International Elephant Film Festival" and "Blue Ant Media"? What does "now" mean? And in my idiolect of English, "renown" is a noun (the adjective being "renowned"); other Englishes may differ. -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for responding. Apologies I'm new to Wikipedia.... Is its "reviewer" the person who declined it initially?? (If so, he/she just wrote when declining it, that it was not supported by reliable sources (eg the streaming services I referenced) and advised me to seek feedback from various places, including the Tearoom.) Or is there a different "reviewer"?? - which will only happen when it's officially reviewed a second time? .... I was just wondering if it looks like still more needs to be done, over and above the subsequent 8 changes made since that first rejection, in order to get an approval ... In the animal world, representatives from the the UN and CITES are a big deal as reviewers in an International Elephant Film Festival, hence it is considered a particularly prestigious film festival.... Blue Ant Media isn't a Film Festival, but has the distribution rights for the documentary.... Re the "now", I did previously have in there where it had been screening originally - but they were streaming services (that I also referenced), which the declining reviewer advised aren't reliable sources, and so I deleted those names and references (who happened to have the first viewing rights). So, I can now take "now" out. Free viewing of an award-winning documentary on the Stirr website is quite unusual (most are subscription services) so I thought it important to keep that information in, so that readers can easily access the documentary for free, especially important in Third Word Countries like Africa... I'll google to see if it should be renown or renowned.... Thank you. WikiAdd01 (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, representatives from the UN and CITES are ignored until reliable news sources report how important it was that they showed up. Winning awards doesn't count on Wikipedia unless there's already a Wikipedia article about that award. (Think of the millions of unimportant awards that are given around the world each year. Nearly everyone has an "award-winning" product, because of made-up awards.)
Number of changes you've had to make to the article is only meaningful if they were the right kind of changes - that is, that you found several reliable sources and added them.
Linking to a legitimate free source for a documentary sounds fine to me - if the article is able to go ahead. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. There was previously an online article on this International Elephant Film Festival, which I remember reading. Unfortunately it's a 2012 documentary (getting increased attention again now given ongoing Zimbabwe elephant problems and the public reading/re-reading the featured person's elephant memoirs. I will remove 'prestigious' if I'm still unable to find a suitable reference. (I mentioned that there have been 12 changes made since the decline of the 1st submission, only to make it easier if anyone was looking at 'history'.) Thanks again. WikiAdd01 (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I would say definitely remove "prestigious" anyway, because it's only a show-off word without substance. The real problem might be needing to delete that entire paragraph, if it's talking about an award that doesn't already have its own Wikipedia article. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I've removed the word "prestigious", and also have now found a reference confirming the documentary was a finalist in this film festival. WikiAdd01 (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@WikiAdd01 When I look at the References section, I see quite a large number of sources, but very VERY few of those are the kind you need. Any source that quotes an interview or a press release is not good enough to help the article. Any source that has business connections or personal connections with people involved in the film (on screen or off, including distribution etc) is not good enough to help the article. Any source where they don't have a paid fact-checking editor on their staff is not good enough either. You can probably see that the list of sources that might actually be good enough to help get this onto Wikipedia is becoming very very short. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a little bit confused re this. There's only one press release that I included, which records who that 'prestigious' film festival's finalists were, and who the high-level international judges were. It's a Zimbabwe documentary and so most news articles are Zimbabwe and South African newspapers. They are not (corrupt) government-run newspapers though, (and the documentary speaks of the many problems with corruption etc there), and so I do imagine these newspapers have the staff needed to be considered reputable - which they are, in Africa at least. There's none there written by anybody with business or personal connections to the documentary, that I know of. There is one that is an interview with Pincott, but it's not referencing anything Pincott herself was quoted as saying. Surely the nominations and wins at the various film festivals counts for a fair bit? ...I'm not sure what I could do, other than just have a very short article?? Or I suppose I could see if one more well-known journalist or magazine/newspaper could review it, now that it's available online for free viewing, but I don't know how much luck I would have with that... (I have come across an article pdf from 'Forbes Woman Africa' which speaks highly of Pincott, released after the documentary release (magazine is by subscription) - although it mentions the last elephant memoir of hers (which does include the documentary filming and content), but doesn't actually mention the documentary.)... Any suggestions from anyone? WikiAdd01 (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
An example: a number of the different sources appear to be multiple versions (or even just copies) of the same blog post, which is a blurb announcing the film's availability online. They don't have a reporter's name attached to them as the author, and I'm not certain of the status of the different blogs they're on. It certainly makes me think that there was a press release used as the basis for all of them. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
As the various film festival's released finalists and winners over time, they would have found those if looking for them (as I have here). It's doesn't appear to be unusual, for other journalists to then repeat similar content, all around the world. (It seems it isn't all that unusual either in (corrupt) Africa for some journalists to choose to use 'Staff Reporter' rather than their own names when writing for non-government publications, so that they don't put themselves in danger of the murderous government. Sad but true. WikiAdd01 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't doubt the truth of what you're saying. At the same time, being sourced from a press release cuts their significance down to very little, and being all quite similar makes them likely to be redundant. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Also ... I'm trying hard here to follow advice and get into this article what I can to ensure it has credible references... I've now added the connection to the 'Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival' (for the International Elephant Film Festival that I included) - which is now called 'Jackson Wild', which does have a Wikipedia page of its own. WikiAdd01 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I hope that the good sources add up to enough for notability. The film is honestly something I want to see now that I've read about it, but unfortunately that's not what gets things onto Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Despite that, remember that I've included that it's available for free viewing on Stirr.com, if you ever find the time. (I found it so informative, not just about elephant bonds but what people like Pincott go though attempting to keep them safe, and seeing it, especially after having read about it all over many years, made it even more powerful for me.) WikiAdd01 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Username glamour

does anyone know how to make your username different colors and/or fonts? would appreciate a tutorial on how to do such, thank you (-: Oath2.joyfulness (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oath2.joyfulness, your current signature has a good signal-to-noise ratio. But if you must perpetrate something bulkier, then first digest Wikipedia:Signatures. -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Hoary is pointing you in the right place to start, but feel free to ask me if you have any specific questions. A bit of general HTML/CSS knowledge helps. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 08:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Title confusion

Hello! I started a draft Draft:Nishir Daak (TV series) today. But I have seen articles with TV series disambiguation like this one - Silicon Valley (TV series) - having the main title in italics and the (TV series) part written in straight letters. But in my draft, the name as well as the (TV series) part are in straight letters. The title is not showing italic. Please help me to fix it. Probably not a huge issue but it is not looking really good.

Thanks! BhikhariInformer (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @BhikhariInformer, and welcome to the Teahouse.
It is {{infobox television}} that italicises the title (unless overridden). I don't know what makes the "TV series" part not italic: my guess is that the infobox code has been written cleverly enough to recognise that qualifier and leave it unitalic. ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Now I get it. BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Trying to figure out infoboxes

I was trying to create an article just for the fun of it in my sandbox and i cannot seem to figure out the infoboxes despite reading all the wiki articles on them. Any help would be appreciated! KamJam007 (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest the following:
- Go to a page that already has the kind of infobox you're going to make.
- Click "Edit".
- Copy the code that makes the infobox, then quit editing without saving anything.
- Paste into your sandbox, and start finding out how it all works. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The template pages (in this case presumably Template:Infobox school district) also have detailed documentation which helps a lot with the specifics of individual parameters etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I tried that but all that was shown was the name section. I probably should've tried it without the visual editor. KamJam007 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! That worked surprisingly well. KamJam007 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft Superbet page

Hi everyone, I’d really appreciate some community guidance on my updated draft about Superbet.

Over the past few months, I’ve gone through several rounds of review and feedback (including from @DoubleGrazing and others), and I’ve completely rewritten the article to meet all WP:42 and WP:ORG criteria. I’ve also clarified my COI situation transparently on my user page.

The current version is fully neutral, written in an hopefully encyclopedic tone, and supported exclusively by independent, reliable, and hopefully verifiable sources, including Bloomberg, The Guardian, Forbes, Business Review, Profit.ro, EGBA, and SBC News.

I’ve integrated all reviewer suggestions, expanded the “Technology and Innovation” and “Recognition” sections with balanced context, and ensured the article now offers both regional and international coverage. The goal is simply to provide factual, verifiable information about one of the most prominent betting and iGaming companies in Central and Eastern Europe. Here’s the current draft: Draft:Superbet

I understand that for editors outside this region, the topic may not seem particularly notable, but locally it’s a well-established company with international expansion and consistent coverage in reliable media. In Romania, Wikipedia is often the first place people go to check information, so having a neutral, well-sourced article helps prevent misinformation and gives proper context for readers.

I think once published, the page would of course remain open for community editing, allowing other contributors to refine, expand, or balance it further as new independent coverage appears.

Any advice on whether this version now meets notability and sourcing standards would be truly appreciated. Thank you for your time and for helping keep Wikipedia accurate and fair. Contributor Marius (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Since you pinged me, you get my remarks, whether you wanted them or not. ;)
Notability per WP:NCORP depends on sources: either sources exist which establish notability, or they don't; if they do, they establish it globally. If a subject is 'regionally prominent', by which I assume you mean notable, then it is also globally notable; regional-only notability does not exist.
If readers in Romania wish to look up Superbet, they presumably read Romanian, in which case they can already peruse the existing Romanian Wikipedia article at ro:Superbet. While I do understand why, for marketing reasons, it would be desirable to have a subject covered in the largest version of Wikipedia (namely this one), there is otherwise nothing special about the English-language Wikipedia, it isn't the 'premier' one in any sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Contributor Marius. Basically, you are asking for a pre-review. To get a review, resubmit.
But I will say that at a quick glance, it looks to me as if most of your sources are WP:CORPTRIV, and furthermore are not independent, since most of them are clearly based on a press release and/or interview.
Which of your sources are somebody wholly unconnected with Superbet and not fed information from Superbet, writing about Superbet in depth? Unless you have several such sources, you have not established notability and you are wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the insights, @DoubleGrazing and @ColinFine, I really appreciate both of your detailed replies.
I completely understand the point about global notability versus regional prominence, and I also see how WP:CORPTRIV or WP:NCORP might apply when most of the coverage is business reporting or interviews.
My goal here isn’t to promote the subject, I’ve removed any editorial language and kept only verified, factual statements. It’s just that for readers in Central and Eastern Europe (especially Romania and I think in Poland also), Superbet’s operations and acquisitions have become a reference point for the entire betting & tech sector, and local media coverage is both consistent and independent over time.
I’d be open to alternative suggestions, maybe merging the content as a section under Gambling in Romania, or keeping the draft as a base for future expansion once more international coverage accumulates.
Would that approach make sense, or would you suggest waiting until further third-party sources (beyond the current set) appear?
Thanks again for taking the time to review and guide me, I genuinely appreciate the clarity you both brought to this discussion. Contributor Marius (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @Contributor Marius "Superbet's operations and acquisitions" may be of interest to people in Eastern Europe, but unless they have caught the interest of several independent commentators who have written in depth about the company, they are not of interest to English Wikipedia.
Superbet was founded, the draft says, in 2008. If it hasn't accreted sufficient interest yet, it probably isn't going to, unless it does (or experiences) something remarkable. You're welcome to keep the draft in the hope something happens (it will get deleted after six months of inaction, but you can request undeletion if something new happens).
As for adding something to another article: possibly. If, as you imply, you have an independent source which says that Superbet has had some significant impact on gambling in Romania, then maybe a sentence or two in that article would be justified. But not if it's just Superbet or its associates that think that. ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks so much, @ColinFine, that’s very clear and genuinely helpful. I completely understand that notability must be established through multiple independent commentators, and I’ll hold off on further submissions until that coverage exists.
In the meantime, I’ll look into contributing a short, well-sourced paragraph about Superbet’s impact within the Gambling in Romania article, as you suggested. Thanks again for your time and clarity, I really appreciate the constructive guidance! Contributor Marius (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
In Romania, Wikipedia is often the first place people go to check information, so having a neutral, well-sourced article helps prevent misinformation and gives proper context for readers. Wikipedia is not for promoting your business, and yes, wanting to 'prevent misinformation and give proper context' is promotion.
As others have said, the references given in the article are routine coverage of business activities (expansion, revenue, success etc) which do not establish notability as per the corporate notability guidelines.
I also get the suspicion you're writing your responses here wholly or partly with AI
Your draft has been declined seven times already. It might be time to just acknowledge that your company is lacking notability and move on. Athanelar (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I've quickly reviewed the draft and it sounds promotional. But more importantly, you don't seem to have any significant coverage. The source "Superbet ranks 11th globally in gaming" in the Business Review looked promising but it only talks about the company for about 50 words (ie a passing mention). It doesn't matter if this is an important company in Romania, has the company ever been featured (ie discussed at length) in any independent reliable sources? MmeMaigret (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you both sincerely, @Athanelar and @Mmemaigret, I genuinely appreciate the time and clarity you’ve shared.
I completely understand your points about notability and the need for in-depth coverage, and I see how the current sources may feel routine from a global perspective. That’s fair.
My goal, as I said previously, was never to promote the company, only to document something that’s become quite visible in Romania and Central Europe, where Wikipedia is often the first place people check for factual information. I honestly believe that by publishing even a basic, well-sourced version, other contributors could later refine, balance, or challenge it, making it a truly collective and evolving entry. That’s the beauty of this platform, and the whole community, knowledge shaped by many minds, not one.
Ironically, the more times the draft has been declined, the more determined I’ve become to get it right. 😊 At this point, it’s less about the company itself and more about the process, understanding how to turn solid facts into something that meets Wikipedia’s high standards.
For now, I’ll follow your advice and work instead on a broader “Gambling in Romania” article, which could provide neutral industry context and serve as a home for this information later on.
And just to clear the air, no AI here, just a stubborn human who enjoys learning the hard way 😅
Thanks again for your patience and thoughtful guidance, it’s been genuinely motivating to go through this with such dedicated editors. Contributor Marius (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

How to deal with constant removal Template:Globalize

There are some articles that I believe are biased. The reason is that editors from a pool of 20 million people are pitted against editors from a pool of 2 million. This inherently creates the illusion of consensus, which silences the minority. For that reason, I believe that the Globalize template (Template:Globalize/doc) is appropriate. The issue is that the majority side constantly removes it without addressing the problem. What kind of steps should I take? MacedonLinguist (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You have already discussed this in the proper venue. As you were told, that's not how things work here. Editors from any country are permitted to contribute to most any article they wish. We don't give editors' views more weight because they claim to be from a country with a small population. You have been notified about the special rules surrounding editing about the Balkans, please review them, as they are enforced more strictly. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The documentation says that editors are allowed to remove the Template:Globalize only if the issue is addressed. This template is the only mechanism that safeguards minority people from majority. The removal goes against the rules. MacedonLinguist (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I do not think that your interpretation of the rules is correct. As I said, Wikipedia does not give what you term "minority populations" greater weight than any other group(and you have a faulty assumption in that the entire population of Greece ia not editing that article). I advise you to drop this matter. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I never made this assumption. I argue that statistically speaking there will be 10x more editors from the majority group. All edits are made from 2 countries that silence one small one. I would appreciate if anyone else also comments. MacedonLinguist (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Probably the best way to combat any bias you are concerned about is to find reliable sources to include in the article that will fill it out better from a global perspective. Wikipedia can be biased - or appear to be so - if the sources for an article all have a similar opinion. And of course, this being the English-language Wikipedia, we are more likely to have editors finding English-language sources from English-language countries. If you happen to speak other languages and are able to find reliable sources and present them, then you have a great opportunity to put forth information from other viewpoints. WP:42 may be very helpful here: seek sources that meet all three criteria. It's usually best to provide these sources on the article talk page, along with suggested wording, so discussion and consensus can develop. Most Wikipedia editors are more than happy to discuss new sources and help update articles - it just takes someone who can and will go hunting for those sources. Meadowlark (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
There's more to editing than just pure numbers. The assumption is still faulty, and we don't give North Macedonians more weight because there are fewer of them. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I never mentioned where I'm from. I would like to challenge you a little. Statistically speaking, approximately the same percentage of people from population A will be interested in a matter that concerns them as from population B, if the matter of interest is the same. If population A is 10 times bigger than population B, it means that 10 times more people from population A will be interested in the same subject than from population B. This gives a huge advantage to population A to silence population B and create bias in articles. The reason for having Template:Globalize is to bring people from other areas to contribute. There is no reason to remove it. It doesn't mean that necessarily the article is biased. There is no reason not to have the template.The policy states that it should only be removed if the issue is addressed, and doesn't mention establishing consensus to have it. MacedonLinguist (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
If you think that there is no bias, you can search other encyclopedias to see what they are saying about the matter. The differences are huge. MacedonLinguist (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
If people from [any place] are allowed to be the only ones who explain the history of where they live, then the people from [the next place] must be the only ones allowed to explain theirs too. That kind of system leads to false history; nobody will tell the truth in a system like that, they'll only say what they want to say.
Sometimes when neighbors have a difficult conflict, one neighbor really is right and the other neighbor really is wrong. But if they take their dispute to court, a good judge will not trust either of them. A good judge will ask hard questions, and find ways to discover the real truth.
Other encyclopedias may contain wrong information, and may even contain lies. We shouldn't trust them just because they exist. The English Wikipedia may also be wrong, and if it is, all of us should improve it. We DO have quite good methods for allowing us to get closer to the truth, and fighting against those methods is not going to succeed. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@MacedonLinguist Editors here are not "pitted against" each other. WP:CONSENSUS says Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. That whole policy page is well worth reading. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
MacedonLinguist, as someone who has been here nearly two decades, with a particular love for articles on language, I have seen this situation many, many times before and it often does not end well. My honest advice for someone in your position, is to write about any topic in the world except Macedonian language. Users rarely follow this advice, and I don't expect you to, but it would be the best for the encyclopedia, and also for your own satisfaction and longevity here, assuming there are other topics that interest you. If this piqued your curiosity in any way, feel free to contact me on my Talk page for a more extended discussion. Good luck, whatever you decide to do! Mathglot (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Naughty Dog: remove section?

This section of the Naughty Dog page seems to be that it can be removed, especially the first part. I have already removed a sentence on account of unreliable claim from a primary source, but I have a feeling that the rest of the paragraph is also not relevant to the article, barring perhaps the first line. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit promotional/corptriv I think. Athanelar (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Trying to create a page but it was declined

I am trying to create a page for the company i work for but received this reply:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.


This is what I submitted:

Any help or suggestions are appreciated. Cretdental2025 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Cretdental2025:. You used ChatGPT to create this draft, and ChatGPT can often write promotional, vague, inappropriate prose which is not compatible with Wikipedia's manual of style. Your draft content reads like a brochure because of this. Please re-write, without the use of ChatGPT. Remember: an article on Wikipedia is only a descriptive and neutral summary of what reliable, published sources state. Nothing more. Please also read WP:LLM for more guidance on using AI chatbots. qcne (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@Cretdental2025 It is an extremely bad idea to write an article about your own company. My first advice is don't do it. If you still insist on doing it, read WP:PAID and WP:COI more broadly first. Then read WP:YFA for how to write an article that meets Wikipedia's standards.
The reality is that your business most likely does not meet the corporate notability guidelines and your article will inevitably be declined on those grounds, resulting in a frustrating experience for you and a waste of time for the rest of us. Athanelar (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Peer or GA Review?

Hello all! A little bit back I expanded the Cain's Ballroom page and I think it's come along very nicely. I was hoping to possibly get it to GA status. Would it be best to submit this for peer review so someone can check my work, or do you think it's better to just submit it as a GA candidate already? Not looking for a review in of itself from the people of the Teahouse, just hoping to get instruction on the proper steps. Any help is appreciated! ----The Robot Parade 06:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you should reread it, aloud. Just considering the lead: (i) referred to simply as Cain's; but the article refers to it as "the Cain's". (i) However it's referred to, it's a historic music venue in Tulsa, Oklahoma that was built in 1924. The building is over 100 years old and serves as a historical landmark in downtown Tulsa; do you need to point out that 2025−1924>100, that it's historic, and that this historic centenarian is historical? Good luck with the article! -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@The Robot Parade I assume you have read the instructions at WP:PEER and WP:GAR. A third possibility is to ask someone from the WP:GOCE to take a look. They will do a less comprehensive review but will improve the article by, for example, removing two of the three "surprises" in the notable performances final paragraph. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! I really appreciate it, and I've made changes based on the sections referenced here. Thank you especially to Mike Turnbull for the suggestion to go to WP:GOCE, I will likely pursue that for not only this page but others in the future. Are there any other pieces of advice for someone trying to get into writing GA articles that you all have? Genuinely its all very appreciated. ----The Robot Parade 21:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

How to add a source you do not have access to

On the page for the Cumberland Law Review I know the second source (currently a dead url) should be the Cumberland Law Review volume 47 if that volume is about Harper Lee (otherwise the claim should be removed). When I replaced the source with an archived version the edit was reverted by a bot because blurblawg.typepad.com is not a reliable looking domain name. I do not have access to the Cumberland Law Review to check if it is indeed about Harper Lee. What should I do? Flapjack06 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Flapjack06 Someone at the Reference Desk may have access and be able to check for you. 219.89.24.171 (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@Flapjack06 an even better "desk" to ask would be WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

US airport codes

please incorporate U.S. airport ICAO codes like: KORD               to denote Chicago O'Hare Int'l air, etc...

KLAX, KIAD, KMCO KEWR...... Schaalmeister (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Schaalmeister sorry, this is a place where we ask questions relating to Wikipedia. But you can ask it here! Thanks, ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@Schaalmeister: What do you mean by incorporate? If you want pages to be changed then link an example. The infobox in O'Hare International Airport already says "ICAO: KORD", and List of airports by ICAO code: K#KO already says "KORD – O'Hare International Airport – Chicago, Illinois". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do project namespace articles get special treatment?

Articles in the project namespace have shortcuts that link to the article and nutshell templates that summarize the article. I don't see why other namespaces can't have them either. It would vastly improve naviagtability and understandability, with almost zero cons attached. Can any experienced editors explain why not, because this has been bothering me ever since I discovered what project namespace articles were.Magnificent451 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The nutshell template is redundant with the lede section, which should summarise the rest of the article. As for shortcuts, this is more dependent on what a realistic search term for the subject would be, and not every article is going to have those. Doubly so if the subject has to be disambiguated. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, articles are pages in the article namespace, other pages are just pages (which includes polices, essays, Wikiprojects, article talkpages, user talkpages etc etc etc). Some none-project pages (as in pages that don't have a title starting with Wikipedia:) do have shortcuts, like WP:JIMBOTALK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Templates have shortcuts, Modules have shortcuts, Help pages have shortcuts, even some user pages (bots usually) do. And that's probably not all. Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
@Magnificent451: We have seven million encyclopedia articles (just called articles) and shortcuts would be hard to guess for readers. If the subject is known by an abbrevation or short name then it will usually redirect there or lead to a page with a link. Article content is based on reliable sources. We don't want to display our own made up name for the subject. The project namespace is for editors. An editor who knows the page name can usually guess a shortcut since we have a systematic practice with WP: followed by an acronym, e.g. WP:AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Unable to create Draft

page not saving despite being logged in

Hi, I’ve been trying to create my draft “Draft:Paolo Iannattone” using the AfC process. I’m logged in, but Wikipedia doesn’t save the page — it just reloads saying it doesn’t exist. Could an admin check if an Anti-Abuse Filter or Autoconfirmed restriction is blocking my account from creating drafts? Paoloiannattone (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Paoloiannattone, and welcome to the Teahouse.
This is not an answer to your question (I don't know about the technical aspects, but I would suspect it is either something to do with your connection, or a temporary glitch in the software, rather than anything to do with your account. But I may be wrong).
But, have you read about why we very strongly discourage writing about yourself on Wikipedia? If you try, it is likely that you will put a lot of effort into something which will never succeed, and be disappointed and frustrated in trying to.
Please read autobiography carefully. ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you ColnFine, good to know. I'll read what you suggested :) Paoloiannattone (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Paoloiannattone, I can't see anything in the fiter log indicating a filter trigger; only thing I could think of is if you tried to create it in article space rather than draft space. Have you tried putting the draft in your sandbox? You can find your sandbox with vector 2010 by clicking the red sandbox button in the top right, and in vector 2022 by clicking the account icon and clicking on sandbox. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@45dogs This is probably T408975! (TLDR, if a new user adds a reference and uses the source editor to create a article, their edit does not go through) This is bug and should fixed (hopefully soon!) :( Sohom (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Please be aware that we strongly discourage people from writing articles about themselves Athanelar (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Paoloiannattone, you have a career total of three edits, which iirc is not enough to create a new page. Ask for assistance to create it, then you can ad to it. Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1269&oldid=1320607042"