Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1273

Archive 1270

Archive 1271

Archive 1272

Archive 1273

Draft:Jose Cecotto

Draft:Jose Cecotto

Is my subject can be posted? It is listed in the notability section of the Motorsports drivers. Vlad Blackburn (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If this article got declined then I am concerned for many other drivers and riders who were in the lower rungs of motorsport. Even the people who started one Formula One race are really not notable outside of their one F1 appearance. GarethBaloney (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this (people at the lower rungs of a sport being non-notable and having no article) exactly as things should be? TooManyFingers (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Speaking as a motor racing fan, I have to say that someone who only ever managed to finish one race (in 16th) in three seasons in the lower echelons of the World Championship in the 1970s is difficult to see as Notable, at least on those grounds. (And he cannot 'inherit' any Notability from his much more successful brother). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. But for example if I take another famous rider's brother, Felice Agostini, he was not really more successfull. Unfortunately, Jose Cecotto got his bests results in non championship races or local championships where he get some podiums. Vlad Blackburn (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is probably why Felice Agostini (7 points in the 4th tier of the 1978 Championship) also does not have his own article. If Jose Cecotto does not pass the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) by his own racing achievements, nor the criteria of the more general Wikipedia:Notability (people), then he simply does not qualify for a Wikipedia article, like the vast majority of people on Earth.

(Note that I myself am not a draft reviewer and have not personally checked your draft sources; I have assumed that the actual reviewer Endrabcwizart (talk · contribs) who declined the submission has competently done so.)

Of course, it's always possible that more Reliable source material will be written about him in the future, and/or that such material does exist but that you haven't found it yet. The draft has only been Declined, which means it may be resubmitted after improvement; it has not been Rejected, which means basically "No hope, give up." Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll resubmit it. The problem stemmed from the source, Facebook, which I was almost certain wouldn't be accepted. So I deleted it, and now if it's rejected, it's because of its popularity. Vlad Blackburn (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Also concerning Felice Agostini, his article is on the Spanish Wikipedia. Vlad Blackburn (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Each language's Wikipedia is an independent project, and each one has its own criteria for inclusion, or not. This English-language Wikipedia is generally considered to have the strictest criteria for judging a subject "Notable": i.e. for whether a subject has had enough independent material published about it (in any language) in what are considered Reliable sources, which an article can be summarised from. "Popularity" is irrelevant; "publicly documented in Reliable sources" is the key (and no source with user-generated content is 'Reliable', including any Wikipedia). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Style guidelines for unicode left/right/straight quotation marks

Where can I find guidelines for when it's acceptable to use what kind of quotes/apostrophes (e.g. U+0027 vs. U+2018 vs. U+2019)? Moiré (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:CURLY is probably what you're looking for. --rchard2scout (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The basic answer is to always use the straight ones - even if an original source has curly quotes, we replace them with straight ones. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

(I should have said "even when making a direct quotation that has quotation marks inside it, we go in and change the original author's curly quotes to straight ones".) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Deleting redirects

I found 2 redirects to pages, British undegraduate degree nicknames, and British degree nicknames, both of which redirected to British undergraduate degree classification, which had the relevant information removed from the page years ago. Do I blank the page, nominate it for deletion, etc.? TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Another one: Campusj, which redirected to List of The New York Times controversies but was deleted in 2020 due to WP:N. TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You could take a look at WP:CSD#Redirects and see if it meets any of the criteria there, and if not put them up for discussion at WP:RfD Athanelar (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you so much! TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation text source

If I use any wikipedia text as a source for my tanslation studies in any CAT AI translation system (in this case MateCat), would it be considered as a copyright infringement? NehirÇabuk (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:COPYRIGHT Athanelar (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @NehirÇabuk. See Reusing Wikipedia content. ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Several merges

Hello! I am currently looking to start a discussion for merging multiple of the lists of mayors of Melburnian local councils (e.g. List of mayors of Boroondara, List of mayors of Hawthorn, and List of mayors of Merri-bek, as per WP:Consistent and WP:Overlap. Where would I put this discussion? The Kora Person (come say hi!) 02:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:MERGEPROP for a full guide on how to initiate a discussion! Best, aesurias (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not making myself clear enough, but I wish to merge several lists into the articles that they should be in (eg. the discussion I already made for List of mayors of Boroondara, which what I outlined there I wish to happen to all other Victorian Mayor list pages (barring Melbourne itself). These council articles all have their own talk pages, and I don't want to repeat these merge discussion for each and every one. I have searched the WP:MERGEPROP article many times, but it does not outline how to go about this. The Kora Person (come say hi!) 02:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Is adding a mayor to the notable people list of a city a good addition?

Is adding a mayor to the notable people list of a city a good addition? Scream626282 (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That depends on whether this mayor is a notable person or not. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried adding a mayor who is Florida's youngest elected mayor Scream626282 (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this new mayor already notable? TooManyFingers (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. Very often, a non-notable person is elected as mayor. Becoming the mayor does not make them notable. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

In general, "notable people" lists are reserved for people who already have Wikipedia articles. You have added the mayor to the article's infobox, which is more acceptable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Uhh i need an admin help

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.

---

help! Faithlessruslan (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on your edits I don't know what you're trying to achieve but it doesn't look like you're trying to contribute to building an encyclopedia. What do you think you need an admin for? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I need help for my quest Faithlessruslan (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

im throwing in the towel Faithlessruslan (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey please stop that. You are here to help build articles, right? Please read WP:COOL. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This essay is not very relevant to someone simply posting nonsense. It is for people in editing disputes and arguments. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 18:04, 27 November 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.

Pansexuality Article

The article says that Omnisexuality and Pansexuality are the same thing. The page can not be edited because it is locked. The problem may be offensive or misleading to some ~2025-36951-57 (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The article Pansexuality says Pansexuality and omnisexuality are sometimes considered synonymous, but when a distinction is made between them, the former term emphasizes gender blindness, while the latter emphasizes the role of gender in attraction. And it provides a source for this (though I haven't looked at the source). You are free to post a suggestion for improvement to Talk:Pansexuality. Be sure to back it up with a reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and once you've find the change you want to make with a reliable source, feel free to add {{Edit semi-protected}} to your message, which makes an edit request. Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

One main reason that editing is blocked on pages like that is so that people will have to prove that neutral reporters have already written the things they want to put in. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Musical inspiration

(This might not be the place for this query but I’ll ask anyway).

I was recently researching about a Jamaican musician called Lord Tickler and the first 30 or so seconds of his song “Green Guava” (produced in the 1950s) has a striking resemblance to the start of the Desmond Dekker song “It Mek” is it possible that Desmond Dekker took inspiration and if so then should the page for It Mek says that the start is remarkably similar to an earlier Jamaican song, I did find evidence to say that Lord Tickler’s music was the inspiration for various later Jamaican genres (such as Reggae and Ska), below I have linked both songs and if you listen you can hear that even some of the lyrics (if not all- I cannot really tell are the same) as well as the melody.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP6fKV25oeE Lord Tickler 1950s
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJdGog6K570 Desmond Dekker 1969

Of course I assume more evidence (written) would be needed to truly confirm whether Dekker took inspiration from Tickler but perhaps it’s worth a mention how similar the starts are.

Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @KeyolTranslater. I'm afraid not. Unless you can find a reliable published source which says they are similar, you should not even say that much in the article, as it would be original research. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I thought that would be the case, perhaps it’s just a coincidence or a common melody in Jamaica. That’s the unfortunate reality of small-unknown musicians (referring to Lord Tickler). Thanks for the clarification . Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

It's also part of a tradition that existed long before copyright existed. Using someone else's music in a new way was accepted practice for a long time; see for just one example Johann Sebastian Bach#Antecedents and influences. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah many calypso and mento songs have shared melodies among other musical influences. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Stub article help awareness

Hello, SpiritEdit here. I am currently creating an article: George Zen Stewart, and I need help to expand this further with the help of fellow Wikipedians. I hope you help me expand the stub article. Thanks! SpiritEdit (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@SpiritEdit Hello! I would recommend checking if Stewart meets the requirements of WP:N. See WP:BESTTHREE for more information. Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @SpiritEdit, and welcome to the Teahouse.

While I don't wish to curb your enthusiasm to contribute to Wikipedia, that is really not a useful way to begin an article.

To take a house-building analogy, it is as if you had gone "I want to build a house, but I am unable or unwilling to do the boring preparatory work like surveying the site, checking what building regulations are in force, or digging the foundations: I'll just throw up a frame, and invite other people to come and improve it".

By far the most important (and sometimes challenging) part of writing an article is in finding the sources, especially to determine whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (in my analogy, surveying the site and examining building regulations, to see whether it is even possible to build a house there). If not, then there is no point in writing so much as a single word of a draft.

So you've thrown up your frame (which you have written backwards). What is likely to happen to it? Just possibly, somebody will be interested enough to do the foundational work you haven't done, and find the sources, cite them, and create a useful article.

If somebody does that research and can't find suitable sources, they'll probably propose it for deletion.

Possibly, somebody will have a mild interest and add a bit more text, but without addressing the fundamental problem.

Most likely, the stub will just sit there forever, adding almost nothing to Wikipedia. I really don't understand why antybody would create a stub in 2025.

I see that you have some experience of editing existing articles. Please read your first article. ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Draft:George Zen Stewart, where you can continue to work on it. Please do not submit the draft for review until you have added independent, reliable sources that demonstrate the subject's notability, per WP:GOLDENRULE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Jailbreak draft

Sorry for all the draft related stuff, but is there any things that could be improved for this draft? Does it look like it’s article worthy or no? rave (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

oops i meant this draft rave (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's ready. Are you submitting it for review or publishing it directly? GarethBaloney (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably publishing it. Review if I want to be more careful rave (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The worst someone can do is send it back to draftspace, so I would say be BOLD and publish it. GarethBaloney (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Just did publish. rave (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It got.. nominated for deletion Versions111^{talk to me :)} 06:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

eh it’s ok i did not feel too bad about it, im a newbie so i guess that was a lesson for me maybe rave (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

When that happens, people give you a lot of quite long pages to read. Even though they're long and boring, read all of them carefully. It's not fun, but it's way less bad than getting things rejected all the time. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I can't be the only one who read all of those for fun before doing anything on the encyclopedia, right? mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope! I did too. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

About signatures...

I'm very new to Wikipedia, I discovered how to make a User Page around a month ago. Can someone please tell me how to customize my signature in preferences? 6luewaffle (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Signature tutorial Versions111 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! :D 6luewaffle _{(talk to me!)} 15:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You can also do it in cursive:

<span class="sig" style="font-family:Cursive,Serif;">[[User:6luewaffle|<span style="color: #ff87c7">6luewaffle</span>]]</span> <sub>([[User talk:6luewaffle|<span style="color: #696969"><u>talk to me!</u></span>]])</sub>

makes 6luewaffle _{(talk to me!)} Versions111 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

OOO that looks nice!! Thank you so much I'll keep this in mind! ^.^ 6luewaffle^(talk) 15:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

How do I add my signature in userboxes?

I recently changed my signature, and I want to display it on my talk page, specifically in the userbox. The thing is, I don't know how to input it, so I need some help. Thanks. BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean my user page, sorry! Not talk page. BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The template that you're using on your userpage has a field for signatures, so you can simply include | signature=~~~~ in the userbox template (you'll have to use the source editor rather than the visual editor). — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! That worked! I'm also wondering if there is there a way to get rid of the time and date? BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Use three tildes instead of four. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Articles that rely heavily on 1 source

I am writing an article right now that relies heavily on one source as it is about an accident and most of the information can only be sourced from the official accident report. Is this okay? AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not great, no. If the only source for the article is the official accident report, it is likely not notable. If you give me some more info, I can try find other sources? Best, aesurias (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not the only source for the article, there are several other sources that discuss that the accident occured. All the technical information and breakdown of it is sourced from the accident report. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would need to see the article. It's not ideal but it's also not unexpected -- newspapers don't typically publish things like that. Perhaps submit it as a draft so you can get proper feedback on whether or not it is sufficient? aesurias (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I will make it a draft. I was drafting it in google docs because I didn't have time to learn wikipedia editing when I was writing it. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Most of the time, this means the article isn't going to work. The reason is that accident reports are only good for showing a few supporting details, not for writing an article. If the other available sources are just confirming that the accident happened - if they're not fully telling the story - then Wikipedia is unlikely to take it. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@AllegedlyAPhotographer: See Jetline (roller coaster) § Accident, where this is already mentioned. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of this. I want to make a more in-depth article that also discusses the impact that this accident has had on the industry. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That depth can't come from the accident report. It can only come from reliable secondary sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems likely to me that you should be aiming to get this into an industry publication, instead of Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not the only source for the article, there are several other sources that discuss that the accident occured. Suggests this is notable and an article will be fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I took "other sources that discuss that the accident occurred" as a pretty strong implication that those other sources are little more than mentions. If they are full articles, then I agree with you. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @AllegedlyAPhotographer, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else.

A small amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from primary sources, such as accident reports; but if there is little or no information in secondary sources, then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

While the accident might be notable, the current article is not long and has little other content. I think it would be best to add your new material to it. They can always be split later, if need be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Help

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ahmed Osman Shatila

Can i have some help for my article to be published.

Ahmed Osman Shatila Saria116 (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

What this needs is proof that all by themselves, without interviewing him, reliable publications have done long stories about him. Is that something you can do? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you . Feel free to edit anything you find suitable I really appreciate it Saria116 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you know where reliable publications have written long stories about him? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

No :( searching Saria116 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

hey i want to write an article about Grace Reiter but i dont know if i can

Hey, I'm new to this side of Wikipedia. There’s an influencer/actress I like Grace Reiter and I wanted to write an article about her. But when I saw the requirements, I wasn’t sure whether I’m allowed to or not. Can someone help me? Sealourebery (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You are certainly allowed to create and submit a draft via the Article Wizard. Writing a new article is challenging, it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge of Wikipedia by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, and using the new user tutorial. Just as you wouldn't start building a house or a car without learning how to do so, it's not recommended to dive right in to article creation. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sealourebery, and welcome to the Teahouse. I strongly echo 331dot's comments.

Even though I don't recommend trying to create an article yet, I suggest you have a look at your first article, and especially the parts about notability: unless you can find the necessary sources to establsh that Reiter meets Wikipedia's criterai for notability, then any attempt to create an article about her will be effort wasted. ColinFine (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sealourebery Judging by this search on the Programmable Search Engine, there are simply no reliable sources for Reiter, as these are not independent. You need several which meet these ideals. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about LLM use

In a discussion on an article, another editor had mentioned utilizing LLM’s when editing. The discussion prompted some deeper observations. I currently have very limited experience with ChatGTP. I have used it in my personal life on rare occasion, primarily as a search engine substitute (not for WP, but for tasks like finding the best pizza in Detroit). I have read the relevant WP LLM guidelines and policies and noticed they are focused on the limitations and restrictions of LLM use. I’ve also noticed multiple contemporary WP discussions regarding the applicability of LLMs. It never occurred to me until very recently (actually until the above editor mentioned it) that it could be a useful tool for editing. My biggest concerns would be misinformation and errors. Personally, I am a voracious reader and prefer to perform my own research.

My question is this, does WP plan to offer some kind of LLM training modules? I could see the limited utility of such a tool, especially in areas like grammar-checking, spell-checking or for ESL users. I also could see LLM’s utility in perhaps parsing or summarizing a technical paper for a layman. I’ve come to the conclusion that the proverbial genie is out of the bottle regarding AI. The bottom line is I find the technology to be fascinating, but I am too intimidated to utilize it effectively. It occurred to me that WP could be an ideal platform for users like me who are unfamiliar with the technology but interested in its potential applications on an academic project Just curious if anyone else had thought about positive applications of AI on WP. Slyfamlystone (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Slyfamlystone. Please read Wikipedia:Large language models. Frankly, a large majority of LLM usage on Wikipedia in 2025 is highly problematic, and that is especially true of newer and less experienced editors. LLM usage cannot turn an incompetent editor into a competent one. Instead, it usually causes more widespread damage. I am aware of one highly experienced editor who holds a PhD in a very specialized area who uses an LLM extensively, checking its output carefully. This is a rare exception to the general rule. Cullen328 (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I just thought of a very positive use: an AI-driven bot that trawls Wikipedia and summarily deletes every AI-infected edit that it finds. Nothing of value would be lost; the risk of false positives is a red herring. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Slyfamlystone See WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-11-10/Community_view for a detailed commentary comparing Wikipedia with a recent attempt by a well-known billionaire to create an encyclopedia entirely using LLM. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

Using sources which are not mentioned in the WP:RS/PS thread or contain purchase/affiliate links

Hello beloved editors,

I come today with a small query that I hope you will be able to help me with. I was going through some of Wiki pages recently and noticed that a minor detail in UK journalist Reeta Chakrabarti's wiki page needs updating; her book, Finding Belle, was launched in May 2025, but it still shows as to be launched. The publications covering the updated information (The Herald Scotland, Eastern Eye, etc.) are not mentioned in the perennial sources list, and primary sources with purchase links (HarperCollins, Amazon, Google Books, etc.) should probably be avoided according to the WP:RS thread.

My questions, therefore, revolve around a few things:

• Can these publications be used as references, despite there being no mention of them on the WP:RS/PS thread, if the edit is to simply establish a minor fact (in this case, the confirmation of the printing of the book)?
• When and how do we decide if we can use the e-commerce link if no notable journalistic references are available? Are there established SOPs for this, or does it boil down to a judgement call?
• Can review aggregators such as Goodreads be used to avoid the conflict in point 2 above, despite it being owned by Amazon, to establish that a book is published? I know that it isn't supposed to be taken as a reference for opinions about a published work, but establishing that it is published boils down to facts, not opinions.

Thanking you in advance for your response. Srambled089 (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Srambled089. My answer to your questions (which others might disagree with) is that we never use an e-commerce site as a source, and if you cannot find an independent source for some imformation (eg that a particular book has been published), why does it belong in the article at all? ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @ColinFine, and thank you for your response.

Responding in the reverse order, because the question is fair - and one I am curious about myself, now that you point it out. The information is already there in the article, but the information it references is outdated (the book about to be published as opposed to already having been published). To my understanding, it is advisable to update Wiki information to reflect the most up-to-date information available in the public sphere. Is this assumption inaccurate?

As to finding independent sources, I did find mention of the updated information in independent sources, which I have linked in the original comment. My issue is the validity of using them as reference. The Herald, for instance, appears to be a legit news publisher for all intents and purposes, but I am not from Scotland, nor familiar with its news publishing ecosystem. It is also not mentioned in the WP:RS/PS list. The same holds true for the Eastern Eye.

Also, while the WP:RS page mentions to avoid e-commerce links, there is this section in it:

"...inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times."

I am averse to directly linking to e-commerce pages, but this does establish the fact of the book actually being published instead of, say, being delayed or cancelled before print.

To be honest, it is a relatively minor edit (changing from "about to be published" to "was published") and likely did not merit a lengthy discussion. But I am trying to expand my own understanding of such referencing for better judgement in future edits. Srambled089 (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Srambled089 The Herald (Glasgow) is, apparently, the longest running national newspaper in the world, so I would consider it an excellent source. Not all sources are on the list at WP:RSPS and some are only in its archive discussions (see search box on that page). Others are not present because their use has never been controversial. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Got it. That resolves that question. Thank you, @Michael D. Turnbull! Srambled089 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

To clarify some confusion, WP:RSPS is for what it says on the tin; perennial sources, i.e., sources whose reliability is often questioned. A source which is generally considered to be reliable is therefore not likely to be there as there's no reason for its reliability to be discussed often; so don't take something not being listed as green on the PS list as evidence that you can't use it. Athanelar (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. I must have missed it in jumping to the actual sources. Thanks, @Athanelar! Srambled089 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The Perennial Sources page is an excellent one, but in my opinion the fact that it's so easy to miss the thing you missed is a flaw of the page, not you. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the way a lot of people (myself included) usually end up at PS is because someone links it with a shortcut like WP:NEWYORKTIMES which jumps straight to the analysis of a single source. It's easy to make the mistake that it's a general source analysis page, especially if you're not someone who uses the word 'perennial' regularly. Athanelar (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

If you do use that word regularly, you know that it doesn't mean what Wikipedia is using it for. A perennial source is a source that doesn't have a fixed end to its life cycle, implying that other sources will die off and become unusable at particular times. What Wikipedia means is "perennially-discussed sources". TooManyFingers (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This, yes, lol. Both of these things. I usually click on a saved bookmark which redirects to TOI, and the wording 'perennial sources' did seem to imply that these are the sources which are perennially used, not perennially discussed. I'll be more mindful browsing through WP resource pages from now on.

That said, I still am curious about questions 2 and 3. While I'm fairly certain that e-commerce and Goodreads links will not likely be acceptable for most thinks, in case of the lack of reputable publications, can they be used to establish basic facts such as, say, date/status of publication/launch? Srambled089 (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Most things*

Good grief. Srambled089 (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF has guidance on what kinds of sources can be used for basic facts like that. Athanelar (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thanks again! Srambled089 (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sites that are open for anyone to sign up and edit, like Goodreads, are likely to contain false information even about basic things - not because they're malicious, but because nobody is fact-checking anything on there. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME

Are the links to articles about suspects required to adhere to WP:BLPCRIME to be used?

While looking at 2025_Washington,_D.C.,_National_Guard_shooting, I noticed that the surname of the suspect had been added and then missed by a few subsequent editors, so I removed it.
I then noticed that one of the sources added in the edit that added the surname also includes the suspect's full name, and I must admit that I'm unsure if I should also remove it per WP:BLPCRIME or if it is fine to remain. Kaotac (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean "is it necessary to reject a reliable published secondary source because it gives away the identity of a suspect"?

I don't know the answer, but felt it might help to clarify the question. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean that the title of the source article is "What we know about (first and last name of suspect)" so that mousing over the link to the source will pop the name up. It just seems that circumvents the policy of not including the names of suspect (which I'm not suggesting was the intention of the editor who added it)

If I'm thinking too deeply into it: All good, no worries. I just wanted to make sure of the correct way it should be dealt with, if at all. Kaotac (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Your question is a good one. I don't know the proper answer to it; I hope you get one. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review of Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass

I have just submitted a draft Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass for the first ever article draft I have made for a Chinese film co-produced by Warner Bros called Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass. It was a difficult one to find sources for but I tried my very best. I added the cast list and producers based on IMDB and The Movie Database since I could not find them anywhere else. I tried my best to find it but could not find it anywhere else.

Please may you let me know if it meets requirements and what I should add or do to improve it? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass.

Kala7992 (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like your sources are mostly not good ones. Sometimes it's because they are from sites that allow public editing, like IMDB; other times it's because they're only announcements and not real stories covering what the reporter really thinks about the film. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Other people started editing on the article, I never added IMDB it was other editors and i'm under an 1RR restriction so I don't know what to do Kala7992 (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems like you're the only editor in that draft. What do you mean "other editors"? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If you check the version history you can see that other people have edited it Kala7992 (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I am. I only see you and no one else. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:50, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

All those edits were removed and IMDB is no longer on the article Kala7992 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I'm terribly sorry. I was looking at Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass (2025) and not at Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass. My bad. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see it again, people edited on my draft article. I am very confused by all this, and didn't know other editors could just edit on my draft Kala7992 (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

now i see the other editors in my version history again this is very bizarre Kala7992 (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not bizarre at all - drafts are intentionally open for all to edit. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I did not know this somehow, I thought only admins could approve or deny the draft Kala7992 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Now I understand what went wrong, I mistook a draft on the same movie as my own. Here is my actual draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_and_Jerry:_Forbidden_Compass_(2025) Kala7992 (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kala7992: Remember that IMDb is not a reliable source. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't put that in, other editors started editing on it and im under a 1RR restriction. Kala7992 (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kala7992, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You are the only editor who has ever edited Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass (2025). (It is not customary to edit drafts that other people are working on, but it is permitted.)

You have submitted it for review, and at some point a reviewer (who will probably not be an admin - they are different groups) will pick it up and review it. ColinFine (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Please note that the draft you just referred to was not the one that this question is about. "The one without a date in the title" is the one under discussion. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

... And now the editor with the question has realized that the one you commented on IS theirs, and that the no-date one is someone else. Sorry. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Added Page to Category - in wrong place alphabetically

I obviously did something wrong. I added the category "Composer for piano" to the page Louis Anthony deLise - Wikipedia and it ended up alphabetized on Category:Composers for piano - Wikipedia by first name instead of last. What do I need to fix? CaffeinatedBrew (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@CaffeinatedBrew  Done Here to fix such problem in future just add {{DEFAULTSORT}} followed by the article's last name, first name and middle name above the categories section. This will automatically sort the page correctly in category lists. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! CaffeinatedBrew (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Getting a second pair of eyes on my draft article

Article Draft Link: User:BluePixelLOLLL/sandbox2

Hey there, I'm making an article and would like some constructive feedback and suggestions on how to improve it. I've gotten lots of feedback so far, and would like to hear from you guys at the teahouse. Thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@BluePixelLOLLL The main issue, IMO, is that most of your sources are not independent of the park, nor are they secondary. Your draft would be much improved if it had some sourcing from newspapers, for example. Note also MOS:BOLD, which is a minor style point. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I will improve it according to your feedback. BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I always go for picky little things ... "Public use and events" should have only one capital letter, like I just did it. ("Kitsap Live Steamers" is OK because that's the name of an organization.) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the hint! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Review my Draft:Ramayana (2026)

Draft:Ramayana (2026)

@Hello, I am writing film articles like Ramayana (2026) I want to know about correct title usage and references. Can someone guide me? Republic of Hindustan (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The title (and several disambiguation) have been deleted numerous times. It does not meet WP:NFF as determined in a deletion discussion. Why did you create it under a different name than what had already been used? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Thanks for the clarification. I created the draft under a different title because recent reliable sources such as India Today, NDTV, and Pinkvilla have consistently referred to the project with the 2026 release year, and I believed this fell under WP:NFF as the production is already underway with confirmed cast, director, and studio. If the previous deletions apply to this version as well, I am happy to follow the correct process. Please guide me on whether the article should remain in draft space until stronger production-confirmation sources appear. Republic of Hindustan (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Why would it not apply to the same film but different title? Notability does not come from the title. You were aware of the previous deletion discussions and drafts correct? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41When I tried to move the draft to mainspace, the system did not allow the title “Ramayana: Part 1” due to prior deletions and protection. I changed it to “Ramayana (2026)” only to bypass the technical block. The title change was not intended to bypass previous discussions; I am happy to keep the draft in draft space and improve sources as needed. Republic of Hindustan (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That should answer your questions then. If the title is protected from creation, it doesn't mean you should create it under a different title. It means it cannot be created. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Understood. I will keep the article in draft space and work on improving references and content without attempting to bypass the protected title. Thanks for clarifying.. have a nice day dear (: Republic of Hindustan (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User now blocked as SOCK.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Getting my media properties onto Wikipedia

Hi,

So in the ongoing struggle as a small publisher, it's been recommended to us that having Wikipedia pages for each of our properties is a good way to increase our Google traffic and hence revenue/survival/ongoing employment for my 40 odd staff members. As I've thus far found Wikipedia article creation to be extremely time consuming and more than a little bewildering, I turned to an LLM to help. However my pages have been subsequently rejected.

I'd really love to have them made, but am really struggling with the motivation to persevere.

Is there no easy path? DaveHov (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Whomever you spoke to has given you bad advice. Wikipedia has exactly zero interest in increasing your Google traffic. Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about topics that meet out special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable company. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia even without a conflict of interest, it's even harder with one(and you are also a paid editor under our rules and must make a formal disclosure per the Terms of Use). It's not easy to write an article and it isn't intended to be. LLMs do an especially bad job at it(see WP:LLM as to why). Also please see why you are unlikely to succeed at your efforts and the reasons an article is not something to desire. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

LLM use isn't the only problem, DaveHov. Draft:The Misfits Media Company tells the reader that The Misfits Media Company Pty Ltd (The Misfits) [...] owns and operates the industry publications B&T and Travel Weekly... The draft has six references. One is to the Misfits. Four are to B&T. The sixth is presented as if it's a link to "The Misfits founders on transforming Australia's trade media". Mumbrella. However, it isn't. Instead, it's a link to the top page of Mumbrella, which currently has no mention of "Misfits". -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Your reason for being here is immediately contrary to two very important principles on Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not for promotion and editors are expected to be here because they want to build an encyclopedia.

If you're exclusively here to try to create pages to increase traffic to your properties in order to boost your company's performance, you are not here to build an encyclopedia and you are engaging in promotion. The result, as you've already experienced, will only be frustration and wasted time for you. Athanelar (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sunset Song

The map in Sunset Song is obviously user generated content, and possibly original research. Should it be removed? Lexiconaut (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete it. Not suitable for MOS. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

What does the MOS have to do with it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is that obvious. Have you read the book? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Because the description at Wikipedia Commons says: "Source Own work" --Lexiconaut (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not unusual for that to be wrong.

And if someone read a textual description, or looked at a diagram then redrew it in their own hand, from memory, it is not unreasonable to say it is "own work". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

We should perhaps check that it isn't based on a map in the original (or another) edition of the book (it's not in my 1983 paperback): and if nothing else it should be made smaller. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello.

I am looking, just for a list of things that make a good article and how to write a good article this may seem oddly specific, but, I would like to help expand the scope of Wikipedia. :) 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 11:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@RFKTNG You should read WP:GA and WP:FA, which describe the process and criteria for good and featured articles. See also WP:Assess. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If you mean what makes an a article good in general, it is relevant and up-to-date content, well cited, demonstrating notability, written in clear prose; and with a reasonable number of relevant illustrations. We also have an assessment for what are classed as "Good articles"; see the GA link, above.

I have left links to some other guidance, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Writing higher biological taxonomic ranks in italics

There is an article:

"Thines, M., Aoki, T., Crous, P. W., Hyde, K. D., Lücking, R., Malosso, E., May, T. W., Miller, A. N., Redhead, S. A., Yurkov, A. M., & Hawksworth, D. L. (2020). Setting scientific names at all taxonomic ranks in italics facilitates their quick recognition in scientific papers. IMA Fungus, 11(1), 25–5. doi:10.1186/s43008-020-00048-6"

That states that all higher taxonomic ranks should be italicized. Should someone add this? I would love to go through some pages and add italics to higher rankings, and add the reason to this. But I would love to hear more opinions on this before I go and italicize all taxonomic ranks… MagnusVandbakk (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LIFE says capitalize and italicize the genus: Berberis, Erithacus. (Supergenus and subgenus, when applicable, are treated the same way.) Italicize but do not capitalize taxonomic ranks at the level of species and below [...] Higher taxa (order, family, etc.) are capitalized in Latin (Carnivora, Felidae) but not in their English equivalents (carnivorans, felids); they are not italicized in either form, except for viruses, where all names accepted by the ICTV are italicized (Retroviridae). Athanelar (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I know well how you write taxonomic names. Historically all higher ranks have been written normally and capitalized, and genera and epithets written italicized.

this article however proposes writing all names italicized for easier recognition in texts. I think it really makes sense. There is no reason not to write names in italics. I just want more opinions on this from the Wikipedia community. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to raise it at the Manual of Style talk page then, since you'd have to get MOS:LIFE changed before you go about changing it in articles. Athanelar (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will, thanks!! MagnusVandbakk (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The key part of your comment is "this article however proposes...". It is a proposal. We follow what is most common in the sources we cite; and they have not, in general, adopted this proposal.

When you can give examples of the proposal being adopted by the majority of, say, the top ten most cited journals in taxonomy, then you may have a case to make. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I get that, thank you. Then I will wait. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes on articles

Is it possible for articles to have userboxes? WinningGame480 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes are for user pages, not articles. Why do you want to use a userbox on an article? 331dot (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No, but there are similar-looking templates for some purposes, such as {{Commons category}} and {{GeoGroup}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Need new mentor

Hello, I would like to request a new mentor. My assigned mentor has been inactive for a long time, so I need guidance from an active editor. How can I get a new mentor assigned? Kurangi v nagraj (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mentorship#How can I get a different mentor?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

CLAT

Guys,This is not related to any edits.I just want to know if there are any Wikipedians like me ,who are preparing for the CLAT exams. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Very likely, but this isn't a social forum, and neither does Wikipedia host one.

You might try WP:Social if you want to find other Wikimedians who share your circumstances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Does the result of this close make sense?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian genocide in Nigeria

Close says: "The result was redirect to Religious violence in Nigeria. While a fraught topic, there is not consensus that sourcing establishes this as a distinct issue. History is preserved should that change."

I went through the comments and tallied up the comments. I know it's not a vote but the resulting close doesn't make sense.

Delete - 8

Oppose/Keep - 5

Redirect - 4 Guz13 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

First of all, the last commenter who "oppose[d] deletion" did not have a position on whether to keep the article vs redirect. 12 !voters opposed a standalone article while only 4 supported a standalone article. On the basis of headcount alone, even without getting into the actual arguments, this strongly suggests a consensus to not keep the article. On the other hand, the delete commenters did not argue strongly against a redirect, so it makes perfect sense for the discussion to be closed as redirect even though more commenters !voted "delete" (choosing to redirect vs delete is very common in closing AfD discussions per WP:PRESERVE). In general, questions about a closure should be asked directly to the closer, in this case @Star Mississippi. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:ATD

Remember, the point of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, and that means we want good, well-sourced information here; it's just that that information might not always warrant an article of its own. If the content from an article can be redirected or merged into another article resulting in an improvement to the encyclopedia, that's always better than outright deletion. Athanelar (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Athanelar and @Helpful Raccoon for the ping and stepping in while I was offline. @Guz13 please let me know if you need further information. Star Mississippi 15:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Better citation template

Hi. Can someone modify my edit so that it uses a better citation format? Thank you very much Comte0 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have made a start, using {{Cite journal}}. Somebody else will have to advise how "publié sous la direction de Ivan du Jonchay et de Sandor Rado" should be included, if at all.

It may be that the title should just be "Un nouvel Atlas internationale", as per the actual paper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Under the "Référence bibliographique" tab on the left, Persée.fr disagree with your proposed title, and they provide a bibtex file that should help. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not unusual for publishers to screw up digital metadata.

What title would you use, if you had the original, on paper, in front of you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't ;)

I do not work with scientific articles, this is why I'm asking here. Feel free to use whatever you think is best. Again, thanks for the help. Comte0 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Awkward sentences in my page

Hi! I’m working on improving an article i have created. Some sentences feel awkward or unencyclopedic. Can someone help me on how to improve grammar, flow, or tone according to Wikipedia’s style guidelines? Selim beg (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Selim beg, try the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, there's a ton of helpful information there. If you still need help after checking that out, let us know? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Assistance with Wiki Article Creation

Hello Team

Can anyone help me with Wikipedia page creation, and submission for review - Draft:Grahaa Space.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk • contribs) 11:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Malaya Kumar Biswal M The draft has been submitted for review and in due course an experienced editor will get to it. You don't need a pre-review review from Teahouse hosts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a notice on the page, saying:

Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,837 pending submissions waiting for review.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You've indicated that you want to write an article about a company or organisation you appear to have a connection to.

First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to, especially in the case of corporations and organisations where this usually takes the form of paid editing. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.

Warning against COI editing

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

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

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

You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc is not always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it. If you're writing about this company because you're an employee and your boss or colleagues have asked you to do it, then please thoroughly read WP:BOSS and report the information therein back to them.

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

Writing a COI article

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

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

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

Athanelar (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar: Are you familiar with the "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" metaphor?

The draft is written, and submitted for review, with the CoI declared. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's still good to get the spiel out there so there's no "well, nobody told me it was a bad idea" when the draft (as corporate COI drafts often do) gets declined five times for being promotional and poorly sourced. Athanelar (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Malaya Kumar Biswal M#November 2025. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Malaya Kumar Biswal M I've had a quick look:

• The tone is promotional
• I can't work out what the relevance of the "Early foundations" section is besides to give the backgrounds of the two "important" people mentioned. How are those early activities actually related to the company (eg did they decide they needed to incorporate to further their business)?
• Sources: you've got bare references like msn and srmsat. Sources 3 and 4 are the same article "provided by PNN" - delete the ANI version. You've got things in the "first name" and "last name" fields that are[n't] people's names and names that aren't capitalised. There's a source error in 10 that needs fixing.
• The misspelling of "its" jumped out at me so I wonder what else needs spell checking.
• tl;dr If you don't have two well-regarded sources that discuss the company in depth and aren't WP:CORPTRIV, the article will get declined.

MmeMaigret (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret Sir, Mr. Loganathan, a former ISRO scientist, played a key role in guiding SRMSAT to success. During this period, he met Mr. Ramesh Kumar, and both agreed to collaborate on Mr. Ramesh Kumar’s proposal. Mr. Loganathan later applied the same principles and expertise to Grahaa Space as well.

With regard to the sources and names, I will make the necessary changes in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Thank you for your review and feedback. As I am new to this platform, your support and guidance are sincerely appreciated. Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I am aiming to add an article about a living person

David E. Walter

Born; Perth, Western Australia

September 1st 1949

EDUCATION; Bellview Primary School, Perth.

Governor Stirling Senior High School.

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING; Indentured as an Apprentice Clock and watch repairer for six years.

Issued a Certificate by the western Australian Industrial Commission

After examination on June 24th 1971. Further professional training

followed as a horologist in London, England and in Vienna, Austria. NGS Arts (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy links Draft:David E. Walter and David E Walter. both unsourced and failing to meet WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a question, or something else with which you need help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, it doesn't look like David Walter meets the criteria for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I'd suggest you read the links you were given on your Talk page when you first asked about this, because they explain what the problems are. So will the links in the draft decline notice and from Theroadislong.

The information is there, you just need to read it.

I'd honestly recommend that you leave trying to create this article and work on any other topic of your choosing. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

Like the rest of us, you're here because you want to contribute to an encyclopedia. Luckily, there are a lot of ways to contribute other than creating articles. You can copyedit (see gnoming), patrol the Recent Changes page to revert vandalism, get involved with a WikiProject you're interested in (like WP:AICLEANUP for me), read through discussions on boards like WP:ANI to see how disputes are handled here, etc. Athanelar (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Query regarding reporting a user

There is an account on social media which spews vile and racist content against a specific region/ethnicity. The person who runs that account also happens to edit on Wikipedia which I can prove with near certainty, with a good amount of evidence. He makes unconstructive and possibly bad faith edits on that region's articles, and openly admits doing it on his social media account.

I was wondering if there is a Wikipedia policy that deals with this situation, and which I can invoke to get this person barred from editing anything regarding that region. If not please let me know how I should proceed further with this knowledge. This is also my first time on Wikipedia and I don't know if Teahouse is the correct place to ask this question so I apologize for any inconveniences. Bhattigang (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If "He makes unconstructive and possibly bad faith edits on that region's articles" can be evidenced, than that alone is actionable, regardless of anything said elsewhere, which is out of out purview. Before taking any further steps, it is vital you read WP:OUTING. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the place for behavioural reports but as Andy said, please refrain from WP:OUTING the user by speculating on or disclosing the identity of their other social media account(s), and stick to reporting them based only on their (mis)conduct here on Wikipedia. Be sure to include links to specific problematic edits, see WP:DIFF for how to get those. Athanelar (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Micrometer (microscopic tool) merge

Merge the stub article Ocular micrometer and non-existent article Stage micrometer and redirect them as a common article Micrometer (microscopic tool)

Originally discussed here: Talk:Ocular micrometer

Stage micrometer and Ocular micrometer are often used together as a pair, where the stage micrometer is first used to calibrate the ocular micrometer (under a very specific set of Objective lens and Eye piece lens of a specific microscope), and the ocular micrometer is then used at the exact same setup (But the stage micrometer is then replaced by the specimen mounted on a microscopic slide and cover-slip using mounting medium, and the microscopic image is drawn using a camera lucida).

The article is still in a Stub status, and there is no article yet for stage micrometer. Therefore, merge of the two topics may improve both amount of article content, as well as a bigger and meaningful picture of the topic.

Regards, RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If the stage micrometer article doesn't even exist, then what content is it that you're suggesting to 'merge' from it?

Surely you could just include the information about stage micrometers as a new section on Ocular micrometer and then if it's still necessary you could move the whole article to Micrometer (microscopy) or something similar. Athanelar (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's already discussed elsewhere, what are you asking here?

This is a general help desk; we give advice, we do not decide such matters here. Our advice would be to discuss the matter on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

AI and Wikipedia

I recently read a discussion on Icelandic Wikipedia about the use of LLM and AI when editing Wikipedia and if there should be a policy about the use of these things when editing it. So I would like to ask, does the English Wikipedia have policy on these issues? I study at University and there are strict rules about using ChatGPT and other AI when solving a schoolproject (especially BA and Masters essays). The AI is the future for our technology and in near future people will use it far more than today, and that's why we need to have serious discussion about how to use it properly when editing Wikipedia just like the Universities have the discussion about how to use it properly in their work. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Large language models and Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing Jothefiredragon🐲talk🔥contributions🧨log✨mail🐉global 16:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Bjornkarateboy (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

As of right now there is the guideline NEWLLM in place, though right now that is being workshopped. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking if someone can help the Administrators of the Icelandic Wikipedia to create their policy on how users should use AI and LLM properly when editing Wikipedia. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ideally it should be avoided - we're having so many problems that there's an entire noticeboard dedicated to fixing the errors it's causing - Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup. If you take a look over there, you'll see how bad things are getting. Half the incidents at Wikipedia:ANI are caused by people using AI.

Even if it might be useful in the future, right now it's just not reliable enough to be used by anyone other than very experienced editors who understand how to detect and fix the errors it introduces.

The paradox is that very experienced editors don't need to use AI.

Currently AI is just an extra step, an additional thing that needs checking before you can edit and an additional risk to accuracy. I've not seen it make Wikipedia better for anyone so far, only cause problems.

That may change in the future but we're not there yet, it's too early.

There's a Wikipedia Discord, the admins could speak to each other there? There's also the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Alternatively, let them know about the policy page links you've been given and the AI cleanup noticeboard. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the administrators of the Icelandic Wikipedia are not seeking help regarding this subject. The OP is indefinitely blocked from editing the Icelandic Wiki and is trying to insert himself into its processes in roundabout, unasked for ways. TKSnaevarr (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for something relating LLM use by any chance? Athanelar (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No, for unrelated breaches of conduct. TKSnaevarr (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

How is my article now?

My article: Draft:South Kitsap Regional Park

I've capitalized and uncapitalized stuff, I've unbolded stuff, someone even added a whole interactive map, and now I just need some feedback and suggestions before I can move from draftspace to mainspace. Thanks! (IRC doesn't work) BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added a template to the top of your article which you can use to submit it for review. It will be checked by a reviewer in time, and if they approve it they'll move it to mainspace for you, otherwise they'll explain the issues that you need to improve.

I wouldn't suggest moving a draft to mainspace yourself unless you're 100% confident in your article. Athanelar (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review of Draft:Giacomo Billi

Hello!

I’ve been working on improving the draft Draft:Giacomo Billi over the past days. I’ve rewritten several sections, adjusted the style to keep it neutral, and added more independent sources to strengthen the article.

Could someone please take a careful look at it and let me know if it now meets the requirements for notability and reliable sourcing? Any feedback or guidance would be very helpful.

Thank you for your time! Mihai Catalin 11 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mihai Catalin 11. According to WP:SURNAME, this person should not be referred to by their first name after the initial mention of their full name. Their claim to notability seems to be as a senior executive of a company that is not itself the subject of a Wikipedia article. That seems strange to me. This sentence is also strange: Giacomo is mentioned in Romanian economic media in connection with the development of renewable energy projects, the listing of Alive Capital’s corporate bonds on the Bucharest Stock Exchange, and the company’s integration into Premier Energy Group. Being "mentioned in media" is not something worth writing in an encyclopedia. We want significant, in depth coverage which we summarize rather than stating that coverage exists. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mihai Catalin 11:

• "Early career" is a repeat of "Early life and education", please delete.
• Career is mainly about the company rather than Billi. The draft is about Billi.
• You mention that he's been mentioned in Ziarul Financiar, FoodBiz, Energy Industry Review, Financial Intelligence, Forbes, and InvesTenergy but it's the information about him in those articles that need to be in the draft with inline citations, rather than information about the company. (Not all the information, just pertinent information.)
• Most of your sources are in foreign languages. This will delay review because only people who know those languages can read the sources but, because you have bare references, you've made it even more difficult for someone to verify.
• Most of your sources are bare references in some manner (ie they're missing descriptions). Please fill in the name of the author (if known), the title of the article, the name of the publication, the location of the publication (if not in publication name), a date of publication, the translated title, the language (use the two letter language code). It would also be helpful to fill in the type of source (eg, interview, profile page)
• But at the end of the day, there are criteria for a Wikipedia article. You thinking he's important is not enough. He needs to have been covered in depth (eg, a feature article) in multiple, reliable sources for inclusion. Suggest read WP:42 and WP:BOSS.

MmeMaigret (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Understanding draft feedback

Hello, I recently had my first draft declined (Draft:Short-Baseline Near Detector) and I struggling a bit to understand how to move forward. The notability comments I am working on, and I am reaching out to other people in the physics wikiproject to see if they have advice. The comments that I am struggling with more are the claims of that my article is "obvious AI output", which is a bit disheartening because there was no AI involvement at all in the writing of this article. I have been reading the various links shown in the LLM template, but I am struggling to understand what I can do to not sound like AI. This experiment is in the same program as MicroBooNE and ICARUS experiment, so I took inspiration but also tried to improve to make it more readable. This is my first draft, so any advice would be appreciated! Thanks - Ajheindel (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@WeirdNAnnoyed Do you mind explaining why you said that the article is obvious AI output? I myself don't understand that either. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I suppose "obvious" isn't the correct word. The draft looks like LLM output to me because a) it has a tendency to treat central concepts and peripheral details with equal weight (for example, describing the pitch of wires in the detector before ever describing the physical principle on which it works, in "Design"); and b) formatting quirks, such as the use of title case and the tendency to provide an abbreviation for every term, some of which are only used once (I appreciate that some terms are best known as acronyms, but there is no reason to say "tetraphenyl-butadiene (TPB)" when the term is only used this once and is excessive detail to begin with. None of these is definitive, and if the author says they didn't use AI, I believe them (most editors caught using AI at AfC slink away silently). @Ajheindel:: Please don't be discouraged by my review, and thank you for commenting here. The draft can be improved but I think you're well on your way. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I included more specific details about this experiment because there are links to the specific kind of detector this experiment uses, but I can definitely expand on that so it is more inclusive. As for the acronyms, that was a deliberate choice because these are really common acronyms in this field and I find it helpful to have those defined in beginner friendly articles, but I understand I went a little overboard with that. I will try to take this feedback and make some improvements before resubmitting. Ajheindel (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope reviewers are not starting to assume that any competently written draft must be AI generated. I used to be a professional non-fiction book and periodicals desk editor, and although I have not so far (in 20 years of editing on Wikipedia) wanted to create a new article, if I did I would be able to ensure it was structured, written and presented (as well as properly referenced) in accordance with Wikipedia's standards and house style. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

20 years? Why haven't you made an account, if you don't mind me asking? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I made a deliberate decision not to: partly because I try to 'join' or subscribe to as few things as possible, particularly online; partly because (from past self-experience), if I opened an account I would feel (irrational) mental pressure to spend more time 'working' here that I ought (this is just my personal quirk); partly because I feel that any edit should stand or fall by its own merits, not on the perceived reputation of its contributor. Since my last fixed home IP became dynamic (due to a company takeover) I have used it as a 'pseudosignature' merely to preserve continuity in dialogues. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

But wouldn't it get frustrating after 20 years to not be able to edit semi protected or extended protected articles among other things? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I rarely if ever want to do so. On articles I usually perform minor copyediting and typo corrections when I see the need; my additions or corrections to factual content are made on topics that interest me (often book-related) that are almost never protected. I avoid embroiling myself in anything contentious – I'm here for relaxation (and, of course, factual research), not angst. Mostly I answer queries or advise on procedures (which I have had 20 years to observe) on the Reference, Help and Teahouse Desks.

If I ever see the need for a change I cannot myself make, I request it on the article's Talk page or bring it up at an appropriate Desk. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ajheindel My view is that the article relies far too much on primary sources: those written by people associated with the Project and hence not independent. You need to summarise what secondary sources have said, e.g. in newspapers or technical review articles. If there are no such sources, then your draft fails to establish the notability of the topic. A limited amount of primary material is OK once you have got clear notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes I am looking for some more sources, it is difficult for these experiments which are relatively new and don't have much media coverage. The suggestion of the physics wikiproject was to look at funding agency reviews, so I will try to find some clear notability from there. Ajheindel (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Ajheindel, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, that may simply mean that it is too soon for an article on this subject. ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary Accounts replacing IP editing

Why would temporary accounts replace IPs for privacy reasons? ~2025-37176-86 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

IP addresess can be used to identify someone's location. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

IP addresses reveal your location.

See also:

• Say Hi to Temporary Accounts
• Access to Temp Acct Policy

MmeMaigret (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

There's more at WP:Temporary accounts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

IP is now considered to be personal information according to EEA regulation. Icelandic, Danish and Swedish Wikipedia all have temporary accounts now instead of showing IP numbers due to this regulation and I presume that most language version inside the EEA have done so as well. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Articles with multiple languages

How exactly do we indicate in the reference template that an article contains multiple languages? I run into this a lot with articles in the Philippines, as many of them contain, for instance, prose in English but a lot of untranslated statements in Tagalog and/or Cebuano. English, Tagalog, and Cebuano all have language codes in Wikipedia, but how exactly do we mark stuff like that? Thanks. Bloomagiliw (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bloomagiliw, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use the cleanup tag {{Not English}} ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks so much! But I'd like to clarify that I'm pertaining to *reference* articles. A lot of news and magazine articles, especially in the Philippines, switch between languages.

Thanks again. Bloomagiliw (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If you aren't quoting directly what they wrote in that source, then I think you don't really have to do anything special. References are allowed to be in any language, as long as they're good and reliable. If there are easy ways to "be nice" to an English-only reader, like keeping the original title but also translating the title into English so I know what's supposed to be in the referenced article, that's appreciated. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Best Practices for Editing Articles

Greetings Fellow Friends of Wikipedia! Some time ago I edited a few Wiki articles and my edits were removed with no comment. I would like to support the community by improving articles so I’ll start again by seeing what I can contribute to the articles linked above.

In the meantime, can you tell how the editing process works? Perhaps there is a page that might guide me. Cheers! Petuniabaa (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Petuniabaa, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There are no such edits in your history, so I guess you made those edits under a different account, or not logged in. There's nothing wrong with that, but it means we can't look at them and advise you what happened then.

But in general, I suggest looking at WP:BRD.

I see that you began your recent edits by creating a draft for a new article. 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) 16:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Colin-Fine, yes, the previous edits were a few years ago and under a different account.

Thanks for the WP:BRD suggestion. I’ll have a look. I hope my understanding of the core policies is close to correct with this new article. My ‘template’ was the other published social psychology Wiki Articles—not to deep but complete. Time will tell...

In the meantime, I have joined some Wiki Projects as a means of experiencing how disagreements with other editors are handled. (I think that’s what happens in Projects?) If not, please feel free to ‘redirect’ me. :-)

Thanks again for your response. Petuniabaa (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello again @Petuniabaa. Beware of copying "other published social psychology articles". Unless you make sure you are only looking at good articles or featured articles you may be trying to build on something that does not meet current standards: see other stuff exists.

Actually your draft Draft:Clark Unitive Effect theory is not properly formatted, as it does not use standard markup for headers. But that is a superficial matter. Far more seriously, it has two sources which are from the originator of the theory, and two that predate the theory, and so cannot be talking about it at all. (There is absolutely no point in citing a source about Maslow: just wikilink to the relevant article Maslow's heirarchy of needs.)

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.

Consequently, unless you can find several sources wholly independent of Clark, there can be no article. If you can find some, then you need to set aside pretty well anything that Clark said, and base the article on those independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Petuniabaa, I largely agree with Colin above. The essay Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward covers this well. One way to think about Wikipedia, is that we are not asking a reader to trust any Wikipedia editors. The editors could be anybody; many people edit under a pseudonym or an anonymous temporary account. We're asking readers instead to trust the cited sources, but so if there is no cited source to point towards, editors will say the topic is not "notable", which is almost a misnomer as it kind of implicitly means the subject is not notable enough for anonymous editors to summarize external sources as a cohesive and neutral encyclopedia article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Asking for help

I've been editing Wikipedia for one and a half year now but unfortunately I have faced number of challenges. Sure I am good at writing but the thing is that it is often hard for me to decide if subject is notable for Wikipedia. I want to help to make Wikipedia a better website but it is often difficult for me to do it properly so I want to ask for help to be a better user. Unfortunately I have been accused of deliberately disrupting Wikipedia but the truth is that it is hard for me to understand many things on Wikipedia. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

So I was thinking if someone can talk to me and teach me to edit Wikipedia more properly so I can return to Icelandic Wikipedia like a honorable man as well as helping you all make English Wikipedia a better website like honorable men do. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

For what you're describing, I think what really might help the most is just some studying. What you wrote here is good English; how is your confidence level for reading a lot of rules and explanations in English? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course I want to read the rules but I guess I will need some help.

I am smart and talented man who wants to help making Wikipedia a better website but I have autism that maked some things harder for me to understand.

Unfortunately I am banned on Icelandic Wikipedia and I am not proud of it. The truth is that it often takes me very long time to learn certain things but some people doesn't seem to understand that. I repeatedly asked for help in the Icelandic Wikipedia but I didn't get the proper help that I deserve so I need you to help me.

My dream is to be better user and return to the Icelandic Wikipedia.

I see that you have mentors so I was wondering if they can help me. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an official mentor, but I'm willing to do that unofficially for one person right now, if you like. (I could also sign up to be an official mentor, but I'm not sure I want to continue doing it in the later future.)

If you want to try that, knowing that if you find out I'm not that helpful or you don't like me then you can just stop and get someone else instead, I'd be happy to try it. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bjornkarateboy If you want to try that, please put a message on my user talk page. If you would rather use the official mentor system and maybe get someone else instead of me, I can show you how to make that request. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I have a feeling that there are very many autistic people doing a lot of good on Wikipedia. I know (at the same time) that social expectations are difficult online just as they are when meeting in person, and that Wikipedia has some weird and complex rules which are often stated in ways that are inconsistent.

And I know enough to know that a lot of social interaction with people you don't know, plus trying hard to follow a lot of weird inconsistently-stated rules that keep being mentioned, might sometimes make Wikipedia extremely difficult for you - even though Wikipedia may also be where some of your greatest strengths will be very useful to you, and to everyone.

I know that you're already honorable. I expect that with some help to get a better start and to get used to the interactions and expectations on Wikipedia, everyone here will have a much easier time understanding that you are. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bjornkarateboy, welcome to English Wikipedia. You wrote, "Sure I am good at writing but the thing is that it is often hard for me to decide if subject is notable for Wikipedia." I have two ideas:

1. Rather than starting a new article, you could work on an existing article.
2. Or, before starting a new article, gather your sources for the topic. I recommend reading the essay Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. It talks about the importance of finding the sources first. If you're not sure if the sources establish notability for the subject of the article, you can always post them here and ask for input.

Hope that helps, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of ways to help at Wikipedia other than creating new articles. See Help:Contributing to Wikipedia. If you aren't very good at understanding notability, that's totally fine. You can certainly try to learn and improve on that, but in the meantime there's no need to worry about trying to create articles. I just passed 1,000 edits and I've still never even tried creating an article. Athanelar (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bjornkarateboy I took a short look, and it's clear that you haven't really been telling the truth. You are never ever going back to the Icelandic Wikipedia, because you have been permanently banned from there. (It must take some effort to get a permanent ban!) Banned from some other Wikipedias too, for vandalism and sockpuppets. You did a lot of dishonest and really wrong stuff, after people tried to help you.

You are not some misunderstood autistic person trying to do the right thing, but an intentional and long-term vandal. Sorry, but I am not willing to help a vandal who doesn't listen when people help. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Re-using a citation in a template

Hello all,

I managed to update a footnote inside a template on the article I was working on by going to source mode and copying the new citation I put in the lead into the box where the previous citation was. Problem is, now the citation in the lead and the one in the template are showing up as two different ones, and when I try yo edit the page I can't figure out how to make one of them a "re-use" of the other, because the citations on the template simply don't show up on edit mode. A little help?

Thank you and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the article btw, and the citations I'm speaking of are currently numbered 3 & 5. غوّاص العلم (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Basically, you need to follow two steps:

1. Give the first reference a name, e.g. name="dohanews".
2. Replace the second reference with <ref name="dohanews" />.

I've gone ahead and made the edit so you can see what it looks like for the future. Happy editing! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! So quick and helpful. غوّاص العلم (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am new here.

What can I do to help here?

I want to be able to voice my opinion on Wikipedia policy too. Samuel Thomas Gu (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome!

Helping here essentially means interacting in a civil and helpful way with all the rest of us, to improve this encyclopedia to the best of our ability. Maybe the best thing to do first is to read some articles on topics that you're interested in. Editing articles to improve them is an important part of the work, and Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia can tell you a lot about that.

Wikipedia:Community portal is a page that shows a lot of ways to connect with Wikipedia.

I suggest that you not voice opinions on policy until you've already spent a lot of time working on Wikipedia, so that your opinions will come from experience instead of from assumptions. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I have left some introductory links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Names of fictional characters

Hello! I was recently editing the page for Jabba the Hutt and I may have made a mistake. In the Star Wars lore, his full name is Jabba Desilijic Tiure, but obviously the vast majority of people know him simply as Jabba the Hutt. Should his full name be mentioned in the lead, or just in the infobox? I took it out of the lead but I could put it back in. Thanks. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to guess "put it back the way it was, because it's Star Wars, and many fans probably argued about that exact detail for many weeks already". :) TooManyFingers (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This is something that (if there is not already a discussion there, or in its archives) should be discussed on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You're clearly right, and your answer is better because it shows what to do in future situations.

(I went straight to the "balance of probabilities" on whether there would already have been such a discussion, on a famous character in one of the most famous movies ever, which has also had a large number of enthusiastic wiki-editing fans for a long time.) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to both for your insights. I changed the segment back to how it was :) OrdinaryOtter (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Userpage

Why couldn’t Temporary Accounts create their own userpage? ~2025-37397-24 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Because if you clear your cookies or don't use the account for a while then next time you log in you'll get a new temporary account. If you want a permanent presence on the wiki with a userpage etc there's no reason not to just create an account. Athanelar (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Another reason? ~2025-37397-24 (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-37397-24 @Athanelar What makes you think that temporary accounts can't create user pages? Help:Temporary accounts - MediaWiki specifically says that they can. There is also an associated talk page. The point is that, even if an editor keeps editing from a given device and is hence assigned to same ID, after 90 days the account will be automatically closed and the device re-assigned another ID if use continues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-37397-24: Page creation is restricted for anonymous users to prevent spam and other problems. I've created a blank userpage for you; you can choose to edit it if you wish. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen Thank you for creating a userpage for me to publish something. ~2025-37397-24 (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit statistics abnormality

Hi all. Though this isn't exceptionally important, I thought it should be noted that there appears to be an issue where edits over 10,240 bytes don't appear in the edit statistics breakdown under 'Number of edits in that size change interval, in bytes*'. I'm not certain if a specific threshold needs to be reached before they appear (given how small it would presumably be relative to smaller-sized edits). If someone could give me some direction on where to note this bug, it would be appreciated. My best to all regardless, and well wishes as we approach the new year. Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 Please report this at How to report a bug - MediaWiki. There are instructions at the top of that page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14: I have reported it in phab:T411310. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull and @PrimeHunter, many thanks for the assistance!

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 Apparently now fixed, which you might like to check. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333: My example [1] in phab:T411310 with 4 large page blankings is fixed but CSGinger14 has a recent +11,143 [2] and currently says 0 at >10,240.[3] Does the feature use cached data? By the way, is it intentional that the whole histogram is omitted in narrow windows? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: not cached, no (well, five minutes after a query, but that's negligible). I think I made another error in the little calculations to determine the right index. Mea culpa.

Re being omitted in narrow windows, yes, it is intentional. Due to the library we use for charts (and probably due to our using a years-outdated version of it), it jumbled up on low widths. — Alien  3
3 3 15:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, after checking, it doesn't say 0: it says 4. It's just that 4 measly edits get dwarfed by the hundreds on the lower-size side (and, of course, that we're using a canvas-based library which means you can't zoom). And, after checking, our maths are in fact correct. — Alien  3
3 3 16:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333: Thanks. At normal browser zoom I only see the grey grid line and always get 0 both when approaching very slowly from below and above with the mouse numerous times in Firefox on Windows 11. I doubt there is any cursor position which would show 4 for me but I notice there is a red square at the 0 so it apparently only means 0 removals. The 4 additions are completely invisible for me unless I make a browser zoom to 240% or more. Then I can both see green and point at it to see 4. If I then return to normal zoom then it remains green. If I reload the page then it just becomes the grey grid again. I would call it a bug (maybe in the used library and not XTools) when you always get the red 0 instead of the green 4 but it doesn't seem important. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, there probably is no mouse position where you'd see the 4; given both the green, red and blue are zero pixel high.

However, I think I know why the one you can get is red: we effectively use three stacked bar charts (well, one chart with three datasets, but globally the same thing). When stuff overlaps, on hover the library shows the one drawn first (which is a pretty reasonable choice). The second dataset to be drawn is stacked on top of the first. Therefore the dataset you see on hover when all three overlap can't be green. We could make it blue without changing anything, but blue only exists in the leftmost bar anyhow. We could make it green by putting the blue below the zero line, pushing the red further down, but I'd rather not: for most people the longest bar for blue and green will be noticeably taller than the longest bar red. Currently, the two "tall" datasets are side-by-side, but putting blue below the zero line would make the lower half of the graph noticeably taller, which, knowing the chart has a fixed height, makes the bars smaller: before, after. (And yes, a lot of thinking goes into these little charts :).) — Alien  3
3 3 17:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Gharanas of Indian Music

I’ve created a draft for Gharanas of Indian Music(Draft:Gharanas of Indian Music), as this book has recently been used as a source in articles such as Inayat Hussain Khan, Raghunath Singha Dev II, and Nasir Moinuddin Dagar by various contributors.

I felt that creating an article for the book would help provide clearer context, support verifiability, and benefit both contributors and readers who may want to understand the source more fully.

I am still a beginner on Wikipedia, so I would be grateful for any guidance you can offer on how to improve the draft, especially regarding structure, neutrality, and meeting notability expectations. I have already submitted the draft for review and I understand there is a long queue for AfC submissions.

If the draft is considered ready, is there any way to publish it directly to mainspace, or should I wait for the reviewer? Any advice on the correct process would be very helpful. Thank you again for your time and support. Serviceeternity (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you've already submitted your draft for review, there's no need to request additional review here at the Teahouse. Someone will get to it in time and either approve & publish it, or decline it and give you feedback.

Since you're a newer editor, I would advise against unilaterally moving your article to mainspace even if someone tells you it's ready. Let a reviewer look at it first. Athanelar (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank You for the clarification :-) Serviceeternity (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Serviceeternity.

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

You appear to have only one independent source - the review from Vocal Media - which looks like a good source.

None of the other sources you cite is of much relevance to a Wikipedia article.

I suggest that, while you are waiting for review, you find some more sources that meet WP:42, and remove all the ones that don't, along with any information sourced only to those unsatisfactory sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank You for your detailed feedback @[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]. I appreciate your help. Serviceeternity (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Updating articles as a non-expert

How much should I read on an article before expanding/updating it? I worry that if I don't know much about a topic, I will use a misleading source without being able to tell the difference. Lucevium (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I would refrain from trying to add new material to an article if you aren't confident in your ability to select appropriate information from appropriate sources, especially if it's an article which is quite technically intense like a chemistry article or something.

Obviously use your discretion; if there's obvious factual errors you can fix, obviously relevant information to add, or other edits to make like copyediting, be bold and do it. If you make a mistake, someone else will revert it sooner or later. Athanelar (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If you know that Wikipedia considers a certain source reliable for the purpose you're using it for, then it's quite likely to be OK. (Often, new editors have sources they personally consider reliable but that really aren't - IMDB is an example of an unreliable source that people frequently try to use in movie-related topics.)

In topics that I don't know a lot about, there's always a chance that I'll misread the source and add the wrong thing. I just avoid doing anything important in those topics, and stick to fixing spelling or writing style. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Lucevium, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Any time you want to make a change to an article, but for any reason you're unsure or hesitant, the best thing to do is to open a discussion about the chanve on the article's talk page. Editors interested in the article are likely to see this, and come and join the discussion. They may say "Yes, of course" or "No, because ... ", or "That's part of a good idea, but ... "

(Of course, different editors might disagree about this!)

The thing to bear in mind is that as long as you're editing in good faith, the worst that is likely to happen even if you do go ahead and edi tthe article is that somebody reverts your change (and, if you're lucky, puts a comprehensible reason in their edit summary).

You might find it helpful to read WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

PROD, XFD, or neither?

Should I be nominating this article (Razawin Linka) for deletion. If yes, should I do it with Proposed Deletion or nominate for deletion after a discussion? I don't understand how the source can be reliable and establish notability. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The person who started that article, @Hybernator: last edited yesterday. They also mentioned it over at Anawrahta. I'd say the information is probably correct, and if you ask them nicely they might be able to add a source or two. Polygnotus (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I should have checked that, my bad. Apologies. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsacrificer No need to apologize. Maybe you'll like User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js. It is pretty useful. It shows you some info about a user when looking at their userpage/talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks useful. Will add. Thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Foreign legal terms

What is a wiki-policy in regard to using foreign legal terms in English-language articles?

I wrote a section in this article Constitution of Austria:

Legislation may be vetoed only on procedural (but not substantive) grounds.

which basically says, that the President of Austria can veto a law, only if the Parliament violated the process of passing the law. This is different from the US practice, where the president can veto an Act of Congress, just because he disagrees with the substance of the Act. User:Errantios reverted my edit to the original form, which was a LITERAL translation of German terms, that are mysterious to someone with training in the Common Law (i.e. people in most English-speaking countries). Since this is a English-language Wikipedia, I feel that we should use well-established English terms even when writing about other countries. Is there a wiki-policy about it? And how do I proceed with our dispute? ApoieRacional (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone at WikiProject Law might be able to give you some better advice on this. Athanelar (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@ApoieRacional: I don't know if this played any part in what happened, but you should probably link 'procedural' to Procedural law and 'substantive' to Substantive law; not only would those be the correct link targets (I think), that would also make the statement easier to understand by most readers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I added those links

Constitution of Austria (search the webpage for "substantive")

before I posted this question here, but AFTER the aforementioned user reverted my edits. ApoieRacional (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your link to User:Errantios was malformed; I have fixed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I want to add (in your favour I suppose) that all Wikipedia articles, including the ones on law, are for a general audience.

German experts on German law have an understandably strong tendency to make their writings in English conform in a very literal way to German law - as if they needed to prove to a German judge that they hadn't done anything to modify the law. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I did NOT make that revert, as I have explained to ApoieRacional on my Talk page. Errantios (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Coming back to Wikimedia Commons and trying to figure out what I wasn't doing right and how I could improve.

Hi, I edited images and uploaded images of flags, heraldic shields, flag maps, or anything in relation back in 2023, however, i noticed that although rarely with given context, my images were deemed not needed for use, and the only images that I uploaded that (majorily) had ever gotten used were flags of lithuanian district-municipalities.

Although I do understand the reason for some not being used, like my flag map of belarusian districts being somewhat a copy of this flag map of belarusian districts, I almost or completely fail to understand why most of my images were not used, I would like to be given suggestions on how I could get my images used more, and what images I could upload?, I would like to note, I am not only limited to flags but anything like buildings such as high schools, sporting arenas, etc, which I notice were used, like this image of a game at the Capital One Arena. TresForBe (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TresForBe, most articles have little to no editing activity. Nobody is inspecting your images and rejecting them as "unneeded", unless someone actively removes them from articles. The best way to ensure that your images are used is to add them yourself to relevant articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! If you'd like to add your images to articles you can actually do it yourself. If you find an article with either no image or a low-quality one, feel free to add it yourself! Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll also direct you to the Commons Help Desk, where you can ask questions and get better responses from editors at Commons itself. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll add (though it was already implied) - if I upload an image when there's no article about that topic, that image is less likely to be used. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

W. Chambers

My uncle Francis Xavier Plant FBI agent mentioned many times in the book called the Witness I feel that you should look into it and note him investigating of W. Chambers.

Michael F Plant ~2025-37416-59 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't have an article called "W. Chambers"; it's not clear which person you are talking about.

Please clarify—or, better still, make your comment on the talk page of the relevant article.

It would also be helpful if you could give the ISBN, or author and publisher, of the book. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to guess Witness by Whittaker Chambers.

OP, if you mean we should create an article about your uncle (and his investigations), mentions of him in Chambers' book would not be sufficient: we would have to have at least three independent sources (or two really good sources), that complied with all of the requirements at WP:42. The fact that Chambers has been judged Notable by Wikipedia's standards does not mean anyone connected to him is also notable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome messages

How to avoid getting a welcome message on every single language version of Wikipedia?

Whenever I switch to any other language, on purpose to check what's written there or by accident, wikipedia seems to make an account for you in that language. This leads to you being welcomed by bots to e.g. the Romanian, Italian or Indonesian wikipedia projects even though you do not speak the language. I'd rather avoid getting useless notifications about being welcomed to every single wikipedia project out there. Is there a way to avoid this (other than not accessing other languages) or is it a flaw in Wikipedia/the bots that I'll just have to deal with? Parcynthia (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is not possible to avoid such messages (other than by logging out before visiting, which is probably overkill). But not every Wikipedia does that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a proposal (not sure if it will go through) that Wikipedias should not be allowed to send those messages unless the person has already made an edit or otherwise participated. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Parcynthia: The proposal is discussed at meta:Requests for comment/Welcoming policy. Many wikis don't post welcome messages but it's common. Special:CentralAuth/Parcynthia shows your current accounts. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, those two links are very helpful. Parcynthia (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

كيف يمكنني الحصول على هاتف a56سامسونج بالمجان

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.

---

كيف يمكنني الحصول على هاتف a56سامسونج بالمجان انا مهجر من سوريا واعيش في جنوب لبنان وشكرا ~2025-37484-99 (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-37484-99. This is a help desk for questions about editing Wikipedia - nothing else. We cannot help you get free phones.

(Google translated version:) هذا مكتب مساعدة للاستفسارات حول تحرير ويكيبيديا - لا شيء غير ذلك. لا يمكننا مساعدتك في الحصول على هواتف مجانية. ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 30 November 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.

sourcing an article

Hello!

Yesterday i edited the article of the British Rail Class 52, as i intended to add the missing information on the last 23 members of the class, plus correct some erroneous information on others, but my edit was removed do to not citing the source.

I recognize i failed to cite the source (mostly due to me being very tired when doing so), but since i now intend to correct it, i got curious: does BRDatabse.info count as a reliable source? Mr. Dr. Eggman (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Do you have an opinion? Polygnotus (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The correct URL is brdatabase.info. From a quick look it appears to be a self-published source. I'd recommend asking at WT:UKRAIL regarding sources as I live in the United States. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I went overboard and very much so in the wrong direction in unmasking a user. Will I be punished? Should I?

I'm responsible for this; diff=1325035869

I basically doxxed the guy. I definitely did it in the wrong place, not out of malice but because of how new I am and unfamiliar I was with the right place to send such a complaint.

I basically did it in the user's talk page.

I now know it should've gone through the appropriate channels for disruptive users, or that I should've just straight up emailed the oversight. Not done what I did.

I'm now kind of wondering whether to keep making (or planning) to make contributions to wikipedia or whether I should expect my contributions to get reverted. I don't know what kind of punishment I'll get nor what should be warranted. All I know is that I made a pretty sizeable mistake conducting my complaint the way (and where) I did.

If I'm also understanding things well enough, I believe only those with elevated enough privileges can see the diff, so I don't believe 'general editors', much less unregistered editors can actually see what this is about beyond what's described here. Lafi90 (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lafi90! Blocks are meant to prevent misbehaviour, not punish people, so as long as you understand what you did wrong and won't do it again, I don't think you have much to worry about on that front. Don't get me wrong, if you post private or non-public information again, that would be a problem - but as long as there's no evidence that you acted maliciously, you aren't going to be blocked for one mistake. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 02:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello and thanks!. Thank you very much! Lafi90 (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Creating redirects

How would I be able to create a redirect to another article? Would that be something I do at AFC or is there a specific place I go to ask someone to do it for me? ~2025-37425-74 (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-37425-74, you can request new redirects at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects after reading the instructions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

OK thank you @Skynxnex! That was easier than I expected it would be. ~2025-37425-74 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

what is this & why

what is this KS (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@KingC8218 This is a place where you can ask questions about Wikipedia :) Toadspike [Talk] 07:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

oh Thanks ^^ KS (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You can ask it at the Reference desk, Versions111 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The Voice

Why is there no playoffs after the knockouts Season 28 of The Voice Brycelegend (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia article are you asking about? TooManyFingers (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The Voice season 28 Wikipedia. They don’t have the Playoffs Brycelegend (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

after the knockouts Brycelegend (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Brycelegend. The Voice (American TV series) season 28#Ratings says playoffs air on December 1 and December 8. I guess information will be added when they have aired. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So they will add it tomorrow? Brycelegend (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Brycelegend: It's a popular American show so somebody will probably update the article shortly after the airing, or start while they are still watching it. Editors are volunteers and choose when and where to work. Nobody is assigned to specific work so we cannot say when something will be done. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You can fix that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay Brycelegend (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Archive

How can I bypass Cloudflare to archive a site? I can’t archive it because of Cloudflare’s verification issue. Rafael Ronen 00:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately this board is for beginner questions about things relating to Wikipedia. We can't help you with this. Athanelar (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You might get some useful advice by asking at WP:VPT, or User talk:InternetArchiveBot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

They already asked at VPT, and were told to post here at Teahouse. -- GreenC 15:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

That was not helpful. People should not be referred here from more specific help forums. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Archive url

 – Nardog (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Replacing image within 'template'; how to NOT mutilate the template code...?

Hi, I was attempting to update our band photyo on its wiki page, and I made a real mess when i tried to copy and paste the 'link' or 'file name' or 'code' into the 'template; I ended up giving up and was 'blocked (for good reason) cuz I was obviously NOT helping the page at all.

I was successful at uploading the new image (it reside on the 'commons' now) but inserting any of the 'links' or 'code' is the big obstacle I face.

Any help would be greatly apprercvited. Thanks in advance. Tommy Niemeyer The Accused Addiron (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Addiron Hello Tommy! Welcome to the Teahouse, the most trash metal environment on the planet! So the article we are talking about is The Accüsed. I see you have uploaded File:Accused The-2025.png and File:The Accused.png. The photo currently in the article is File:The Accüsed live 2023 Seattle, WA.jpg. I have replaced it with the new one which actually shows the people in the band (and the delightful Martha Splatterhead of course). Have a nice day! Polygnotus (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it too soon ion the relationship to say I LOVE U..? Thanks, my friend! YOU ROCK! Addiron (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you available on Tuesday for our wedding? Dress in white please, I will too. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I gotta work all day Tues. but will check my schedule in the following weeks...ha ha thank you x a million! Addiron (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Addiron You added a © 2025 The Accused to the photo, but you then released it in the public domain. I think that was a mistake (people just use copyright declarations because they look cool). Should I just crop the copyright declaration out? You do understand that the photo is released in the public domain so that no one has copyright over it and anyone can use it for any purpose right? Polygnotus (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

SHIT..! No I thought I HAD to release all rights to use it here...!

Yikes! Is it too late to try and pad it w some protection..?

T Addiron (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Addiron.

You have to license the image in order to upload it to Commons, but you don't have to release it into the public domain as you have. It is more usual to release it under a license such as CC-BY-SA, whereby you retain the copyright, but permit anybody to reuse or alter it for any purpose as long as they comply with a couple of conditions- the chief of which is that they have to attribute the source. The way that you have released it gives up your copyright, so there are no conditions on how anybody may reuse or alter it.

There is probably not much practical difference, so I wouldn't worry about overly. But in future, I suggest you use CC-BY-SA.

On a different point, please note that as a member of the band, you have a conflict of interest, so you should not be editing that article directly, but instead should make edit requests. ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes feel free to crop away

Whatever is easiest. Thank you very much for the help it's been a drag til now Addiron (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Addiron You don't want or need protection. Fuck capitalism! Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Eeek! There are lefties on WP! Someone inform the press and Larry Sanger! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång No no, I hate capitalism because our Glorious Leader knows best, including how to spend the money. Polygnotus (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Views since last edit on the User’s homepage

I was wondering whether there is a way to see the views on all my edits (not just the five or six that Wikipedia puts on the User’s homepage), I’ve always been curious to see what all the other pages get (because it’s usually the same pages displayed, but that only equates to about 600,000 to 700,000 pageviews, and I’ve always wondered where the other 200,000 comes from, as it says I have around 980,000 views on edits, but the ones displayed only add up to the numbers provided a couple of words ago).

Would be really grateful if there is like a webpage or userbox to see all the views of your edits.

thanks in advance everyone and have a great day. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

And btw. I know that Wikipedia isn’t about views, I’m just asking in a more curious way as opposed to an egotistical way. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Other than Special:Impact we got https://pageviews.wmcloud.org But I don't have a full answer to your question, sorry, and the stats are quite limited in my opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Should Template:Population WD be used?

I just edited the Meppen article to automatically pull the population data from Wikidata using {{Population WD}}.

However, having read Wikipedia:Wikidata I must say I was left very confused as to the actual, up-to-date consensus as to whether using Wikidata templates such as Population WD is permissible outside of infoboxes.

Could anyone shine some light on this? Amberkitten (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: You probably know. Polygnotus (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I really don't. I do know that there are those who think that use of wikidata is great and there are those who think that use of wikidata is awful (and, of course, those who haven't made a determination either way). For this particular article, the infobox already has population data (taken from wikidata) with a reference. Therefore, Editor Amberkitten's unreferenced addition seems to me to be unnecessarily redundant so should probably be removed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

is it considered "bad form" to make multiple small edits instead of one big edit?

i want to make minor typographical edits as i spot errors, but this means making several separate edits to a page, each with only 2-3 changes...i was wondering if this is somehow considered poor etiquette on wikipedia, like, i'm clogging up the edit history instead of just making one thorough edit to fix all the errors on the page.

i'm totally new to wikipedia, i have more lofty page editing dreams for one day but for now i'm starting small cause this is kinda scary lol 999timez (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No; in fact it's preferred in some ways, because if one of your edits is problematic but the rest are fine then it's easier to isolate the problematic edit and keep the rest. Obviously don't make a separate edit for each word you change, but if you edit one section at a time that's totally fine. Athanelar (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I often make series of little edits, probably just because that's convenient for my short attention span, and no one has ever said anything about it.

I would also say that it's probably better to avoid making numerous unrelated edits all at once, so that it's easy for someone (including yourself) to revert only the part that was a problem. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources

hello , on his enstoolment day the news agence we invited couldn't come to capture the program , so plz what should we do now . Kyidomhene (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kyidomhene I have no idea what you're trying to ask. Is this question related to Draft:Okogyeaman Ahunako kwakye okotobregya II - Apaamanhene, which was tagged as an autobiography? mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kyidomhene (e/c) You don't need to do anything. Your draft will be deleted in due course as it lacks sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kyidomhene, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

It follows that if nobody unconnected with a subject has written about it in reliable sources, there cannot be a Wikipedia article on that subject, as the subject cannot meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Reporters not arriving is a clear sign that reporters are not interested. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes

I made a userbox, but how do I put an image into the userbox? also, does the image have to be in commons? Starry~~(Starlet147) 18:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Starlet147. The image has to have a free license. Commons images, I believe, automatically have this, though some images are uploaded locally on the English Wikipedia with free licenses. This page has more info on that specifically. Another subsection on that same page gives info about adding images. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 18:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Starlet147 I added a quick example here: User:Starlet147/Userboxes/Secretlyagoat. Polygnotus (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but how do I put an image on? Starry~~(Starlet147) 18:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Never mind actually Starry~~(Starlet147) 18:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"Please sign with four tildes"

I remember receiving this advice long ago, and I still see it being given. Am I doing something unusual or wrong, that it seems to me that my signature shows up automatically in (almost) every case?

The existence of automatic signatures makes me unsure where typing four tildes is really required. Maybe it's that way on a lot of pages where I don't usually go.

If I do use the tildes on an automatic-signatures page, am I signing twice? Or does that system avoid duplicates? (Trying it now, haha) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I may be wrong since I joined pretty recently in Wikipedia time, but I think you didn't automatically sign once upon a time. Now, the reply button on most places meant for sending messages signs it for you. However, if you choose to make a reply in source editor, you still have to remember the tildes. jolielover♥talk 16:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: Yes, if "Enable quick replying" is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and you use a [reply] link then a signature is automatically added. A lot of our documentation is old and doesn't mention newer features like the reply tool. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A-ha! Thanks, that makes sense. I am "older than" the reply tool, but not by much, so when it was introduced I was ... even more lost and confused than I am now. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: The reply tool and VisualEditor are still new-fangled ideas to me. I prefer the source editor. And how the hell do people get any editing done on a smartphone? I don't even like laptops and have a stationary PC. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

To answer your question: inefficiently.

On my PC, I have (a copy of) a 1980s IBM keyboard, and I'd much rather be using that. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The visual editor on mobile also likes to freak out if you type too much or too long. One minute everything's fine, then the Preview is showing complete gibberish. It's persisted across two phones so it's not my tech, I've genuinely got no idea why it does that. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I thought something was strange there. I've used the visual editor for about 20 minutes of my life. It mostly works, but to me it feels like driving a car while sitting in the back seat. Or something. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Last night, jokingly in honour of this little exchange, I got myself properly logged on so that I can edit Wikipedia from within Emacs. On my phone, using just the phone's on-screen keyboard. It's ... a bit like trying to create an exact duplicate of instant macaroni & cheese using only what would have been available in 1850. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I’ve been a Visual editor fan since coming on board Wikipedia several years ago, definitely feeling in the driver’s seat with it. That is, except for major initial confusion about where the “required 4 tildes” were supposed to go. I’d type them at the bottom of my messages, then wonder why they showed up along with my User name and time stamp that were magically inserted by pressing the Publish button.

Eventually I realized that guidance wasn’t for those of us using the Visual editor, only for those using the Source editor. But that hadn’t been clear in the directions I’d read.

I wonder how much head-banging among new editors it would save if all the directions about signing messages made note of this for Wikipedians of both editor persuasions. (Or perhaps this has already been figured out and something’s been done about it …) Augnablik (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Acclaro Inc Draft

@Pythoncoder, thank you for the invite. I tried to update the draft and am hoping I followed your feedback appropriately. Draft:Acclaro, Inc. Any guidance is appreciated. I also posted in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#November_30 for help to make sure I am getting up to standard and making useful contributions! Thank again for reviewing my first draft and I am open to any critique/feedback that can help me in this process. Mark Teget (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood Pythoncoder's list of requirements - in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. Wikipedia does not need a selection from that list. Wikipedia needs several different sources that all meet all four requirements at once. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse.

First, if you are involved professionally or personally with this company, you must disclose this per the policy linked there before making any further edits to your draft.

Secondly, your article currently shows no indication that this company is what we call notable (i.e., qualifies for a Wikipedia article) according to either the general notability guideline or specific corporate notability guideline. The sources and information you've included about the company's mergers, expansions, product releases and market performance are what we call trivial coverage of this corporation. I.e., pretty much every company on the planet can link to sources that report this kind of information, and it doesn't tell us that this company is specifically notable compared to any other company. The golden rule tells you what kind of information we need to see in order to determine that your company is notable enough to be included here on Wikipedia.

Lastly, I can see some indications that AI generation was involved in the creation of this draft. Did you use any AI software to help you create this draft? You should be aware that we have a new guideline that prohibits the creation of articles 'from scratch' through the use of AI. Athanelar (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that's a guideline not a policy, so editors can decide to ignore it, even though it is wise advice. More to the point, newcomers are going to continue to try to create articles using LLM because they don't know any better. The issue is unlikely to disappear. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Guidelines are a little more binding than that; you need to at least have a good reason if you want to ignore them, and "because I wanted to make an article without putting in the effort to write it" would not be a good reason. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not being facetious when I suggest that a bot make frequent sweeps of the entire project summarily wiping all AI edits that have occurred. Such a bot could have some safety features built in, but even if it didn't - even if it was embarrassingly primitive and ham-fisted - it would be better in the long run. Real humans learning to clean up after an AI-removal bot, and having to apologize to a tiny number of false-positive victims, is a much better prospect than what's already happening. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

i don't really think that would work, for similar reasons for which using ai to detect ai is not really all that efficient. no, wait, the reasons can't be similar if they're the same thing...

still, i do think an edit filter and either warning or forcing a captcha for non-extended confirmed users whose edits have more common tells could be workshopped, as that could also catch false alarms (like when someone's writing style just happens to look like ai, or when they're discussing ai) without just reverting their edits consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Your point about AI not being efficient or effective at detecting AI seems absolutely right to me, and I'm sorry I hadn't considered that.

You already saw which "camp" I'm in, and I'd support anything that would really help. I think if a warning can be clicked through without paying attention to it, then that's what people will do. In this case, the people who are scrupulous enough to read warnings are the ones who didn't need one anyway. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft: SD Worx

Hi there,

I have written (or re-written, from a previous editor) a page about the company SD Worx in the English language after the previous one has been rejected. It has been flagged several times as promotional language - something I've tried to avoid (I have a COI). Would anybody be able to give me some guidance on this?

Many thanks! Sjm0308 (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It might be time to simply accept that your company simply isn't notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. When we talk about corporate notability, the question we're asking is essentially 'if you replaced this company with any other company, would the article say essentially the same things?' If so, the company isn't notable.

Pretty much every company in the world can point to trivial coverage of things like their market performance, acquisitions and mergers, promotional campaigns etc etc, but because you could just change the numbers and names and have essentially the same article about any other company, these things do not indicate notability just because they've been reported on. Athanelar (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think people who attempt to write an article about a company are listing the kind of items you named because they believe that's how to market themselves. I don't think they intended it as support for notability, because notability simply doesn't interest them.

I wonder if specific guidance for writing company articles saying "Do not include [description or list of those items] anywhere in the article; they will be removed" might be appropriate.

Wikipedia already does tell them what kind of article to write, and they don't; I assume from the relative uniformity of their results that they are literally following a completely different and equally rigid set of instructions. I suspect the most efficient way around that might be for Wikipedia to reverse-engineer their playbook and prohibit each aspect of it item by item. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a mix of things. Firstly, as you say, their goal is not to build an encyclopedia but to get their article published for promotion/SEO purposes. So, they take a glance at the notability requirements (because if they don't meet them their article will be removed) and see that they need to have 'significant coverage in independent secondary sources' and they say 'a-ha! well, we're in this list on Business Reporter dot com which says we're in the top 10 foo producers in southwestern Italy. We're notable enough to be reported on!' and call it a day. I.e., their understanding of the word 'notability' is the more common and colloquial sense since they don't have any interest in actually learning about Wikipedia policy.

Secondly, it's LLMs. Even if they don't AI generate the whole article as they often do, I have no doubt many of these people just open their LLM of choice and type "give me a list of sources that demonstrate the notability of Example Inc for Wikipedia" and go from there. Athanelar (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Article rejected, even though it includes secondary sources

I’m working on a new article draft (Draft:Nagish) and it’s been declined twice for “insufficient significant coverage.” I’d appreciate guidance on what additional type of sourcing is expected. The draft already cites multiple independent, secondary, non-trivial news sources, including:

• The Daily Moth – one of the largest Deaf news outlets – with an in-depth report on Nagish’s FCC IP Relay certification: https://www.dailymoth.com/blog/nagish-gets-fcc-certification-as-ip-relay-provider
• The Jerusalem Post – reported coverage of Nagish’s acquisition of sign.mt: https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-871685
• The Hearing Review – industry journalism covering Nagish’s funding and an award naming it “Speech to Text Solution of the Year”: https://hearingreview.com/hearing-products/amplification/amplified-caption-phones/nagish-wins-ai-breakthrough-award-for-speech-to-text-solution
• AlleyWatch – editorial coverage of the company’s funding and technology: https://www.alleywatch.com/2024/07/nagish-deaf-hearing-loss-accessibility-companion-phone-call-speech-to-text-real-time-platform-captioning-tomer-aharoni

These are all independent editorial reports, not press releases. The draft also includes the relevant FCC rulings, but I recognize those are primary sources and do not count toward notability.

Given the above, what further type of source or coverage is typically required for an organization to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines? I want to understand what gap still remains so I can address it appropriately. AmitMY (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet: See above. @AmitMY: WP:NORGANISATION. Polygnotus (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@AmitMY a lot of those links are reproductions of press releases - even the interview has a lot of (imo) softball stuff about how it's a big moment and how great it is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@AmitMY Also, it sounds like you are the Amit mentioned in the draft, so please see WP:COI and all that. Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:CORPTRIV A lot of 'secondary sources' that report info about companies are reporting on trivial matters like acquisitions, mergers, market statistics etc which do not demonstrate that the company is encyclopedically notable. Athanelar (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah and interviews are usually not considered independent, because the journalists task in an interview is to write down what someone says. Polygnotus (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps more important about interviews is that everything the journalist says is calculated for the effect it might have on the interview: for the interview to turn out a certain way, to avoid displeasing the person they're interviewing, and so on. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all, that clears up a bit.

So, if there was an independent review of the service by The Verge for example, or a legal controversy, those would be valid sources making it encyclopedically notable?

(I looked at a few other small company articles, and a minimal example would be "Dbrand" that only has controversies) AmitMY (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@AmitMY I am not so sure Dbrand is actually notable. A few minor incidents (in the sense that there is no widespread coverage) that got some attention is not really good enough, usually. Annoyingly the rules are vague and precedent is difficult on a website where precedent often means that no one has fixed a problem (yet). Polygnotus (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't use other corporate articles as reference. There's a lot of unnotable corporate articles lying around on Wikipedia.

But yes, you've got essentially the right idea. There needs to be some kind of significant, in-depth coverage of the company itself in order to make it notable. Our corporate notability guideline is the best reference here, specifically the subsection WP:SUBSTANTIAL which gives some examples of good coverage that might make a company notable. Athanelar (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Declined Draft Questions

Hello! My draft article about the company I work for, Print.Save.Repeat. (User:TaylorBerry/sandbox/Print.Save.Repeat.), was recently declined for lack of significant independent sources. I’ve since moved it to my userspace (sandbox), and I’m trying to understand what the correct next steps are. I’ve searched extensively and found some coverage, but most articles are either press releases, routine announcements, or brief mentions that don’t appear to meet the depth required for notability. At this point, it seems there may not be enough substantial secondary sources yet. My questions are: Is it appropriate to continue improving the sandbox page even if the company may not currently meet notability guidelines? If additional independent coverage is published in the future, can I later resubmit the draft? Is there anything specific I should not include in my sandbox version to avoid issues while the page is not being actively submitted? For transparency, I have a conflict of interest, and I’m following COI and AfC guidelines by working only in my userspace. Thank you for any guidance! Taylor Berry (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, it needs to have more than 3 reliable sources. While using cite highlighter, it shows the light green highlighter is seen on one source, so you may need more than 1 reliable source. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Taylor Berry.

The answer to your question is probably, No, you will be wasting your time.

If, like the vast majority of companies on the planet, nobody independent has so far seen a reason to write extensively about iyour company, then that's probably going to continue to be the state of affairs, and the company will never meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

If you think there is some reason why this is going to change, then you could retain the draft, hoping that suitable sources will appear. But remember that your company has absolutely no control over this (Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything commissioned or stage-managed by the company); also consider that if something happens that causes people to write about your company, it might be something that you would prefer didn't go all over the internet - but you will not have control of this either, inside or outside Wikipedia. See WP:PROUD ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Taylor,

Thanks for being sensible with this and understanding that your company isn't currently notable. Echoing ColinFine, I really advise you don't waste your time preparing an article on the presumption your company will eventually be notable. First of all, that would be writing an article backwards; the right way to write a Wikipedia article is to find sources and then write the article based on what's in those sources, not to write down what you want to include and then find sources to confirm it. So, if no good sources currently exist, then you don't have any information you could include in your article without breaking policies like WP:No original research anyway. Secondly, there's no guarantee your company will ever be notable. The vast majority of companies in the world, even very successful ones, simply never get involved with anything extraordinary enough to justify giving them any more attention than all the other companies doing the same thing they do. There's nothing wrong with that; having a Wikipedia article isn't some kind of goal to aspire to. Athanelar (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Quantum Beams

Could someone please comment on this User:Harold Foppele/Quantum Beams ? Would be much appriciated so that I can devellop it further. Thanks ! Harold Foppele (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Harold Foppele. While I understand it's a draft, each point should be cited by reliable sources. I'm not well-versed in science or math on Wikipedia, but I think it would be extremely important in those fields to cite sources. Also, the template placed at the top should instead be placed at the bottom, after the references.

Thanks, PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 17:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks !!!! Since the article for now has few points for citing, it is not very complicated. But I try to have more cites.

Thanks again, More comments welcome! Harold Foppele (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Having a citation to an independent source for each "salient fact" (if I may put it that way) is important. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I did addd sources to the ones i started with to create the article. Would you be so kind as to look at it again? Thanks ! Harold Foppele (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I see that you are already quite an experienced editor, and yet what you've done in your draft doesn't look or function like a Wikipedia article.

Unfortunately, you're not free to use your own style of organizing an article, especially not in an article about such an obscure topic. I hesitate to say "you need to make every article conform with Wikipedia's expected structure and Wikipedia's expected content" - but that actually seems like a pretty good description of what I mean.

And ... with all your experience, why would you not already be doing that? I would only expect this kind of mistake from someone who generates article after article with no attention to whether those articles turn out well or not. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

How to Handle Original Research, User-Generated and AI Sources in an Article

Yesterday, I noticed some problematic content and sources in the article Flourished Peony. The issues included original research without citations, sources cited from social media that were written by AI or users, and forum discussions being used as references. Even for those reliable sources, the cited content does not appear in the news. So I did an improvement, removed these sources and reminded the editor who added these in their talk page.

However, when I checked the article today, I found that they had re-added all the problematic sources I had removed. In the past, the situation ends after my talk page reminder. I am not sure what I can do for the next step, so I am asking for advice. Thank you. EleniXDD※Talk 01:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd probably revert their changes again, drop another warning on their talk page, and then if they don't engage with the conversation and instead continue their edit war by reverting you again, take it to WP:ANI with diffs of the original problematic content and the edit warring. Athanelar (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. For the new warning, shall I start a new section in the talk page, or just reply in the earlier one I added (I am inexperience in this). Thanks. EleniXDD※Talk 01:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If it's still the same month, just put it under the same heading (as the convention is to post warnings in sections titled after the month the warning was given) Athanelar (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out. EleniXDD※Talk 01:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Main article link criteria

In the past, I've seen some articles have a heading, then a little thing under that that says something like, "Main article: [link to main article]." What are the criteria to add that, and how do you add that? Specifically, I'm talking about the article MicroPython § Syntax and semantics, and I'm thinking of linking that to Python syntax and semantics. Mxwllhe (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You're talking about Template:Main and as per the documentation on that template page, it's designed to be used on very large articles where the sections consist of summaries of topics which are covered in more depth in a dedicated article. For example, you can see United Kingdom#History uses the template to link to Formation of the United Kingdom and History of Great Britain and also uses the {{further}} template to link to a couple more articles. It does this because, of course, trying to comprehensively include all the information in those articles would excessively bloat the article.

So, in your case, if the 'syntax and semantics' section of MicroPython is essentially redundant to Python syntax and semantics, you could trim the section down to a briefer summary and use {{main}} to link to that article. Otherwise, you could use {{further}} to direct people there for further reading. Athanelar (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Message regarding draft

Hi, I had recently tried to sumbit a draft of a an old Pakistani football club which played in the 1940s, the draft contains around 22 references in total, I'd like to know why it was rejected, I believe that the draft article is good enough to be published, but I'm open to any feedback, Thank you. Sandwichesandpancakes (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Jinnah Gymkhana FC was declined, Sandwichesandpancakes, not rejected. You're asked for multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) [and] reliable [and] secondary [and] independent of the subject, and each italicized term is linked to an explanation. If you believe that you have done this, then here, in this thread, please nominate three good examples. -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

There are about 5 good sources but they were hard to find.

MmeMaigret (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary I wonder why editors who are asked to list their three best sources rarely seem to answer that request. Odd... David10244 (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sandwichesandpancakes You certainly haven't made it easy to verify sources with the bare references, ie. links to newspaper pages with a dozen-odd articles but no indication which article on the page is the source. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

As well as what others have said, more references isn't necessarily a good thing, nor does it establish a stronger case for the notability of a subject. We'd rather have three good sources than 50 passing mentions of the subject. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

How to upload a sample of a song

Hi.

I'm wondering how to upload a sample of a non-free song akin to what was done with regards to Timbaland's 'Give it to me' which is used in the article for the song of the same name.

I would like to, if possible, make use of this on the Icelandic wikipedia (is.wikipedia) with regards to albums of one of my country's more known artist who already does have wikipedia articles, however said articles don't have any samples of the artists' songs.

I intend to add only the most well known song to each album's article.

Again. This is all assuming it's possible.

The Icelandic musician in question doesn't own the copyright to their songs anymore. They recently sold their catalogue to Alda Music which is a subsidiary of Universal Music Group.

As such said artist's catalogue should now fall under the fair use doctrine, allowing samples for the same logic 'Give it to me' is technically legal under. Lafi90 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

My initial reaction: Shouldn't you be asking this question on the Icelandic Wikipedia, in case they have different rules on this topic?

Also, how does an ownership transfer change the fair-use status? TooManyFingers (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

(My own quick skim of our article on Fair Use makes me think that the rights having been sold to a corporation makes no difference at all - and my cynical side says a large media corporation has expensive lawyers on permanent staff and a litigation budget, while an individual singer doesn't.) TooManyFingers (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm no expert in copyright law, but from what I know through Icelandic copyright law, there is no creative commons, and fair use is an unknown, unaccepted doctrine.

Since the content in question no longer falls under typical Icelandic copyright law due to purchase of all rights by a US-based company, I would pretty confidently assert that said music now belongs to the same legal frameworks that sees and recognizes 'fair use' as a valid doctrine within the scope of copyright law.

I don't think how this would matter or change anything on the Icelandic Wikipedia since it's still Wikipedia at the end of the day. Lafi90 (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The broad outline of what you're saying seems to be (a) you're thinking of doing this because these songs' status in Iceland has recently changed, AND (b) it doesn't matter anyway because Wikipedia is in the US, PLUS (c) Iceland does not have a "fair use" provision and does not recognize such a thing.

I disagree with part (a). I think Iceland is a party to the same main treaties as the EU, and that the big corporation is the rightful and complete owner in Iceland, just as the singer previously was. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If (b) is true, then (c) doesn't matter - BUT if (b) is false and (c) is true, then that could be a problem for you.

Most importantly, since (d) I'm guessing and (e) your explanation doesn't sound very convincing, why not just ask on Icelandic Wikipedia and settle this properly? What's stopping you from doing that? TooManyFingers (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Well. I want to at least give it a shot.

I need to learn what the uploader did when they uploaded that sample to the wikimedia foundation because from what I've seen, there either isn't any kind of mainstream way to do it (which makes sense), or that how they did it has been removed from c:Special:Upload, or potentially, that they uploaded the works and someone different at wikimedia realized that this was an example of fair use. Lafi90 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Guidance for improving physics topics for school students

Hi everyone! 👋😊 I’m looking to contribute to physics-related articles, especially for school students in Grades 7–9. I can help simplify concepts like light, sound, electricity, force, motion, and basic astronomy with clear examples. Could you suggest active physics pages or sections that currently need improvements, reliable sources, or better explanations? I’d love to learn and contribute with accuracy and clarity. Thanks a lot for your guidance! 🚀📘 Night-Vector (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Night-Vector There is a handy bot which looks at tags on articles and allows editors to focus on areas that interest them. See external link to WikiProject Cleanup Listings. It has a physics section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I dont think so 🤔 Night-Vector (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Sections are sorted alphabetically; "Physics" is present. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Night-Vector There is also simple.wikipedia.org Polygnotus (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

what do you mean dude Night-Vector (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Night-Vector I mean that some school students in grades 7-9 may prefer simple.wikipedia.org, dude. Polygnotus (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia is a simplified version of Wikipedia Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Not exactly ... It's a different Wikipedia that doesn't have the same articles. But they do use simpler writing. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the contrast between this and the professional sounding parent comment is hilarious. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hence why I believe the original is AI, no one uses multiple emojis for posts, especially a smiling face and a wave, either an old person made the original, or AI. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Ageism is over there ==> Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

😂 I don’t mean it in a bad way don’t worry, just my observations I’m life tend to point to Olde people using multiple emojis more (or AI). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

My first article Draft:Tanvi Jagadish

Hi everyone, I’m working on a draft article about Tanvi Jagadish, an Indian stand-up paddleboarder, and I would appreciate some guidance.

The draft currently has multiple reliable sources, including interviews and profiles from Red Bull India, The News Minute, and the International Surfing Association. I want to make sure the topic meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements (especially WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPEOPLE) and that the tone and sourcing are appropriate for an encyclopedic article.

Could an experienced editor please take a look at the draft and let me know if there are any issues with notability, neutrality, or formatting that I should address before resubmitting?

Here is the draft: Draft:Tanvi Jagadish

Thank you for your time and help. Media Solutions Netwrok (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Media Solutions Netwrok Well it was just declined by Wikishovel for being written by an LLM. I don't think the subject currently meets WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Polygnotus (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus @Wikishovel no problem... thank you for response..

(: Media Solutions Netwrok (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Feedback on Draft:LenzVU

notability & neutrality for Canadian software company

Hi everyone,

I’m a newish editor and I’d really appreciate some guidance on a draft article about a Canadian software company called LenzVU.

Full disclosure: I am closely connected to the company (founder/CEO), so I understand this is a conflict of interest. Because of that, I don’t plan to move the draft into mainspace myself — I’d just like to make sure the draft is neutral and to understand whether the topic appears to meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements for companies.

Here is the draft: Draft:LenzVU

Here are some of the independent sources I was planning to rely on:

• A ventureLAB portfolio profile for LenzVU on venturelab.ca (describing the product and positioning in the health and wellness industry).
• A ventureLAB news article announcing a cohort of the “Accelerate AI” program, which includes LenzVU as one of the participating AI startups.
• One or more Government of Canada / National Research Council (NRC IRAP) “Grants and Contributions” records that list LenzVU Inc. as the recipient, with a project description for an AI-based email template generator and related R&D work.

My questions:

1. Based on this type of coverage, does LenzVU seem likely to meet notability for companies (WP:CORP / WP:GNG), or is it probably not ready for a standalone article yet?
2. Is the current draft written in a reasonably neutral, encyclopedic tone, or are there sections that still read as promotional and should be trimmed or reworded?
3. Is the overall structure (lead, history, software and services, customers and market, etc.) appropriate for a company article, or would you suggest starting with a shorter, simpler stub?

Any feedback or pointers (including “this should probably remain a draft for now”) would be very helpful. Thank you for your time! Aaflatooni (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like the sources you currently have for this fall mostly under WP:CORPTRIV and aren't suitable to demonstrate the company's notability. There's no point worrying about the tone and structure, because good writing can't make up for a lack of notability.

You've also made the classic mistake of writing your article backwards, which is extremely common for new editors trying to make articles, COI editors, and doubly so for people who are both. You're supposed to write an article based on the information available in the sources, not to write an article based on what you know and then find sources to confirm it. If the sources don't say it, you can't include it. Athanelar (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

i checked your draft. Sadly, it looked more like a promotion than an article. Secondly , There are no references. So, This draft cannot be an article. Thirdly, the references you gave on teahouse are not suitable. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

And it is underlinked. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: I am a relatively new editor, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

I see what you are trying to do with the article, but it does not really have much resemblance to an encyclopedia. It sounds more like something you would put in your company website. This is almost certainly because you are edited with conflict of interest, which is heavily discouraged in Wikipedia.

Now ofc you shouldn’t delete that article, but you should get some more experience editing some other stuff so that you have a better idea of what the expected tone and wording is like on the website.

Dont worry too much about it honestly, I recently got my first article rejected so it is natural. It’s just like a job, if you get rejected by one, perhaps you should just focus on the smaller things first.

gl! :)

(Again my comments may not be fully correct, but they are just my opinion, feel free to disagree instead of starting a war in the reply section.) Gileselig (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Upit za pomoć

Pozdrav .Molim vas moze li mi netko pomoci napraviti i objaviti stranicu.Glazbeni sam producent i auror sa velikim radnim opusom i brojnim suradnjama na hrvatskoj i stranoj gl.sceni imam puno clanaka i objava na portalima i kao autor glazbe i kao producent remixer aranžer itd.Pokusao sam sam ali sam se zapetljao.Moja stranica je u nacrtima pod imenom Sven Gleđa Hvala lp. Sgprodukcija (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sgprodukcija:

This is the English Wikipedia. you will have to publish your page on the Croatian Wikipedia.

Ovo je engleska Wikipedija. morat ćete objaviti svoju stranicu na hrvatskoj Wikipediji. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Žao nam je, ovo je engleska Wikipedija i možemo vam pomoći samo s pitanjima i člancima na engleskom. Možda biste trebali posjetiti hrvatsku Wikipediju na hr.wikipedia.org Athanelar (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Where should this source article go?

Hello,

Original discussion text which OP removed

Hello,
Where can/should this source article go? https://andasian.com/why-binis-colet-vergara-is-one-of-2025s-standout-entertainers/
It's calling Colet one of the standout entertainers of 2025. But it's also tagged as "opinion" so maybe it's not an award. (Or maybe it still falls under "awards and recognitions"? I don't know.)
It's not technically a listicle either. But I've asked the other editors here before about &Asian and the consensus is that it's very much a reliable source for pop culture. The site mentions that they follow the Editors' Code of Practice enforced by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
How would I include this recognition in the singer's article? Just in the body of text, like under the "Career" or "Media image" sections perhaps? Thanks.

Final edit: I've decided to remove the article link here because some editors are feeling far too comfortable denigrating these journalists' work with unusually emotional language like "useless garbage," "not worth the paper it's printed on," and "an embarrassment."
The article I linked is from a publication that the other Teahouse editors assessed before and found to be reliable. Its founding was covered in the South China Morning Post and the Teahouse editors noted that the pub follows the Independent Press Standards Organisation Editors' Code of Practice.
The article is also not written anonymously, as someone claims below. The journalists credited for the piece have written for multiple other reliable sources like The Line of Best Fit. Their output is not solely positive or idolatry; the piece was simply positive in this particular instance.
The article also makes it clear that the fans shared their statements to the publication. They're not "assorted social media posts."
Seeing some of the editors below tear into the piece using atypically harsh and emotional language is disappointing. It all reads like a knee-jerk reaction instead of a fair, balanced assessment of a piece of journalism. I'm not used to this from the Teahouse. You guys can do and have done better before. Just because you don't like how positive something is or don't find it notable enough, doesn't mean you can say those things.
We've been able to discuss these topics before without denigrating the work of journalists using language that is simply uncalled for. You guys should be aware that journalists like Jade Diones of similarly smaller but reliable publications like Envi Media know that their work gets used on Wikipedia. Be respectful, jeez. Bloomagiliw (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Basically, when an award is not a big world-famous one, it's not allowed in the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wait, not allowed at all? But there's a bunch of non world-famous ones that I've seen in a lot of celebrities' articles, even ones with GA- or FA-status...

Respectfully, I don't think that's right because Colet also received a Plaque of Recognition from the government of Bohol (a province in the Philippines), for example. It's not world-famous but certainly notable, and was reported upon by a reliable news source. I don't think this properly addresses my question. Bloomagiliw (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

A good way of checking: if the actual award doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, it's probably not a big enough award. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, that really doesn't sound correct. The Jupiter Awards for music (not the sci-fi or film ones) don't have their own page and they're still a major recognition. And even if I don't put it under the "Awards" section, I should probably include this elsewhere as it's still a recognition from a reliable source (per the consensus here). That's what my question is about. Thank you for your input, but I'd like to hear it from other editors as well. Bloomagiliw (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm certain it will be fine if you show that the award itself is a notable one. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I think TooManyFingers provided a good answer about it. Just keep in mind that WP is dynamic and things can be in flux. Maybe the particular award now is not a big deal but maybe in a decade the only award that matters. WP will adapt accordingly. A.Cython (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright, but what I was really asking is if I put it elsewhere, where could I do so? If it's not a big enough deal for "Awards," could I still mention it in "Media image" or "Career"? The article isn't even technically an award, as I mentioned, it's tagged as "opinion." And consensus here was that &Asian is highly reliable for pop culture news and opinions. Bloomagiliw (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Non-notable awards are literally not allowed to appear. One of the reasons is there are so many articles currently stuffed with useless garbage - so it's not possible to say "but this other article shows them". That just proves that the other article needs cleaning up. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Again... this is not an award. I will repeat myself: this is not an award. The article is tagged as an op-ed on the site itself, which has been agreed to be reliable for pop culture op-eds by multiple editors. In my first post about this, I explicitly said I don't think this is an award. Bloomagiliw (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Then I'll ask: Just how small-time is Colet, that she would need this employee-of-the-year type of boost? I have a feeling that this whole thing is quite insignificant to her career, and therefore would be more of an embarrassment than an honour to her. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a feeling you're letting your own personal cynicism bleed into this discussion. Reliable sources on pop culture talking about a celebrity's career is found in every GA-class and FA-class article. If a reliable source notes that a celebrity has had a successful year, it would not be an "embarrassment," it's just reporting on what's going on. This is frankly uncalled for and I ask you to stop replying to me if you're going to use terms like that, which have no place in discussions like these. Bloomagiliw (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSOPED for guidance on using opeds as sources. Athanelar (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Above, we read: Non-notable awards are literally not allowed to appear. If this is so, TooManyFingers, and if lack of an article means lack of notability, then I should undo a lot of my edits (some of them fairly recent). So you've got me worried. Which guideline is it that literally disallows (mention/listing of) awards that lack their own articles or are otherwise non-notable? ... And I've just noticed when an award is not a big world-famous one, it's not allowed in the article. "Big, world-famous awards"? Lemme think. Daniel Barenboim (an article I don't remember ever having edited) has won a lot of awards; but few people worldwide will have heard of most of them. So what's left? There are the Nobel prizes, and ... er, that's all I can come up with. -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

My response is not perfect, just a good rough guide. However, you did make it very clear that you're talking about an award that is NOT well known. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's problem in all this, is the world is a big place where thousands and thousands of worthless awards are constantly being given out, and every fan of every person wants every award to be put up somewhere - cluttering up the articles with stuff that doesn't matter. For awards that really ARE notable, it's OK. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That source should not be cited anywhere. Not because of anything to do with awards and notability etc., which is a school of red herrings in this context, but because it is a shameless piece of idolatry, an opinion piece by an anonymous opiner, propped up by assorted fans' social media posts, and appearing in a flaky publication. As such, it's not worth the paper it's not printed on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not an opinion piece by "an anonymous opiner." The writers are cited at the bottom of the article. Julienne Loreto, for one, is an actual journalist whose writing regularly appears in publications like the The Line of Best Fit, JoySauce, and the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Their work is not always positive; it's just positive here.

Also, again, other editors assessed &Asian before and found that it isn't flaky. Its founding was covered in the South China Morning Post and the "About" page states that they follow the Editors' Code of Practice as enforced by the IPSO.

I regret bringing this piece into the Teahouse, frankly. These poor journalists whose work a bunch of random Wikipedia editors are slating. I understand if you don't want to include it because it's "too positive," but be careful in the things you're claiming about these people. Bloomagiliw (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bloomagiliw: Don't edit discussion posts (other than typos or link fixes) after they have been replied to; it is considered disruptive.

The original post can be seen here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

And editors calling a piece from a reliable source "useless garbage" and "not worth the paper it's been printed on" just because it's positive is what... constructive? Good to know.

I've had a lot of really helpful, civil discussions here. This is not one of them. I don't even see this kind of uncouth language when discussing blatantly unreliable sites like BroadwayWorld.com. Just disappointing all around. I'll never ask here again, don't worry. Bloomagiliw (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anyone calling the source "useless garbage"; I do see someone saying "there are so many articles currently stuffed with useless garbage".

Both that, which is indisputably a correct opinion, and "not worth the paper it's not printed on" certainly seem to be validly held views and expressing them is not problematic.

I have far more concern about the misrepresentation of what others have said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That person's "validly" held opinion is based on things that are verifiably untrue:

• "an opinion piece by an anonymous opiner" – Both authors are visibly credited on the page (at the end of the piece) and have an extensive history of being published in reliable sources like Best Fit and the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
• "propped up by assorted fans' social media posts" – The article makes it clear that these fans' words do not come from randomly grabbed social media posts, but words sent by fans and even non-fans.
• "appearing in a flaky publication" – &Asian, again, was assessed in a previous Teahouse discussion and found to be reliable. Its founding had media coverage, its founder can be traced, it follows IPSO editorial standards.
  
• nothing but "idolatry" – Not even true. It's explicitly presented as a tribute-style op-ed and yet apart from the fans' quotes, a lot of this is just listing real things that happened in relation to the singer in 2025, like her winning a newspaper award and getting a billboard for it, or inspiring a fictional character in a book (with the novelist's explanations).

So this "validly" held opinion is based on falsehoods. Yet you defend it? This is the kind of nonsense defended on Wikipedia? What's constructive, objective, or encyclopedic about that?

"Perhaps it's better not to use articles that may have been written by a fan or advocate" is a real thing I've seen in a discussion here before. It's fair, it's not dismissive, it uses no unnecessarily emotional language. This is the kind of thing that should've been expressed in this discussion, not that. Bloomagiliw (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The authors of that piece have been cited in numerous pieces. Again, they write for other reliable publications like The Line of Best Fit and are some of the only journalists who consistently write about P-pop, along with the likes of Hannah Mallorca (the Philippine Daily Inquirer).

So yeah, dismissing the work of actual, working music critics as "not worth the paper it's not printed on" is quite uncouth, and is in no way a constructive or objective assessment. That editor even claimed that it was anonymously written when the authors are quite plainly named on the page, and also stated that the article collected "assorted social media posts" when again, it's specified multiple times that these fans sent these words; the publication didn't just randomly grab social media posts.

Not only were these responses uncouth, they got a lot of basic details wrong. And you're defending it? Awesome! No wonder so many people have such a low opinion of the editors on Wikipedia.

We're all on here depending on journalists for our articles, which the rest of the Internet derides. But we can't even give these people basic respect. In my validly held opinion, do better.

Bloomagiliw (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Personal sandbox

Hi, not an emergency or anything but I need some help or assistance on this. My current sandbox (User:RaveCrowny/sandbox) is a redirect to Jailbreak (Roblox) when I do not it to be. I was attempting to fix this by changing the username and put it back into the user namespace but it detected and issued an automated filter to prevent me from succeeding in the process. My actions were good-faith and I did not mean any harm. Again, help is appreciated! Have a good day to anyone reading this. :) rave (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Fixed - I blanked your sandbox, deleting the redirect code.

When you follow a redirect to the target page, you will usually find a link back to the redirected page, at the top of the target page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much :D! Have a great day rave (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

How do i make my own page

I am trying to create a page for my (unofficial) Project for a superstructure superproject located in outerspace Voidbyte101 (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Golden Rule.

That is, if there aren't any reliable sources, independent of you, that give significant coverage to the project, then you're in the wrong place. Wikipedia isn't a free web host, and isn't a place to "get the word out". The topic must become notable on its own before it can have an article here.

If there are any golden-rule sources about your project, then start by going to WP:Article Wizard, but read WP:YFA first. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

See also our policy on "original research" (tl;dr—we do not publish it).

You may wish instead to find an alternative outlet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Film articles needing an image

I am starting to work on film poster additions per this category, Category:Film articles needing an image and I just added one film poster image to this article but it still shows up on the list. How do I update that or remove it? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Also others I see appear to have images but somehow are in that category, making it difficult to find what is legitimately in need of an image and what is not. Zombiez for example. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I may have figured it out, but it is not a good solution. It looks like someone will need to manually go through the entire list and remove "needs-image=yes" from the banners on the talk page once an image appears on these. This seems like a task well suited for a bot, but I will manually go through them as well in the meantime and help clean up this list so that only film articles which actually still need an image are left. I would love a hand in this task if anyone could help. @Kingsacrificer I think I may have another task for us to work on if you are up for it (sorry, noticed you just a couple comments above me here). Iljhgtn (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to complete the first one Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean you'd "like to complete the first one"? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean complete the books list as much as possible Kingsacrificer (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Well I've done about as much of that as I can. I still do more each day though as people make new book articles. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Where should I report a suspicious editor?

Hi everyone,

Hope all of you are doing well. I wanted to ask that if I see a new editor account that is heavily editing a page, and is disregarding the policies and guidelines. While having a gut feeling that they might be using multiple accounts or might be the subject himself. In such situation, what is the best way to approach it? MsAzra (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

First, you have to talk with them, kindly explaining what the problem is and asking them to change to a better way. That might be on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If what they're doing is real-world illegal, or is VERY obviously intended as trying to disrupt and ruin (i.e. they are obviously not trying to make ANY point at all), then you bypass the talking. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Thanks. It's not the latter. It's just they are editing while breaching Wikipedia policies. Thank you for your valuable suggestion, I will talk to them. Thank you. MsAzra (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• If they're edit warring; warn them first using {{uw-editwar}}, and if they persist without any discussion, report them at WP:ANEW
• If they're blatantly vandalising, report them at WP:AIV
• If they're not so blatantly vandalising, warn using the {{uw-v}} series of warnings, then AIV if they continue.
• For any other issues (unsourced edits, misleading edit summaries etc etc) warn using the relevant warning template, then report at WP:ANI if the behavioural issue continues and they don't discuss at all.

Athanelar (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar thank you so much. I will first try to talk to them, and then proceed to what you have suggested. Thank you. :) MsAzra (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Flagged for Promotional Content but none there

Hi all. The site about me (Andy Clark) has been flagged for 'promotional content' but I don't see any such content there. I've also been approached by someone asking if I want them to solve this 'problem'. Is this a scam of some kind, and how can I get the flag removed? Thanks in advance, Andy ~2025-38061-58 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

What method did this person use, to contact you? TooManyFingers (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

First off, yes, the person contacting you offering to 'fix the problem' is probably running a very common WP:SCAM and you most certainly should not give them any money.

Secondly, 'promotional' has a bit of a broader meaning here than normal. You can see some examples of things we consider promotional that other people might not at WP:YESPROMO

I'll have a look at the article myself shortly and see if I can do any cleaning up and remove the promotional tag once I'm done. Athanelar (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, the article Andy Clark does contain a LOT of content sourced to your own writings. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with you, have chosen to publish about you in reliable sources NOT what you have written yourself. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

In short, any significant fact that hasn't already been published by sources that are independent of you is considered promotional material. The reasoning is that article subjects being free to present themselves as they see fit leads (on the whole) to badly skewed articles. Unfortunately, this necessary restriction does eliminate some material that would otherwise be fine. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Andy, I significantly trimmed down the section on your philosophical work, which was very unencyclopedic in nature, and have removed the promotional content flag on the article. Athanelar (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

publish please

I wrote biography of a public person but unfortunately is not published Ayyomuddin (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Please see the message left by the reviewer; you need to format your references. Please see Referencing for beginners.

Did you take the picture of this government official with your own camera? 331dot (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You've written several drafts. To which one do you refer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ayyomuddin You need to read the explanation that were given to you (in edit summaries, which can be found in the pages' histories) every time a copy of the article was deleted or moved to draft space and every time a draft submission was rejected. The problems described in the explanations need to be fixed. Do you have any specific questions about those that someone can help with? Also, you can ask questions of the people who left those explanations on their user talk pages. Largoplazo (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)