Wikipedia:Teahouse

Jéské Couriano, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

There are currently 1 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template

[Teahouse volunteers: If you have helped such a person, please don't forget to deactivate the request template.]

How long does it take for an article suggestion to be acknowledged?

I just suggested an article to be made, and I'd like to know if anyone knows how long it takes on average for an article suggestion to be addressed.

Thank you :) Aquangell (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It may be a long time, depending on the topic, the availability of sources, and the willingness of someone to do the work. Requested articles is severely backlogged. Far more suggestions are made than fulfilled. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that was helpful! Aquangell (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, you should assume that any article you request will never get made. Article creation is a difficult and time-consuming process, and the people interested in doing so are probably going to do so in a topic that takes their interest (or that they've stumbled on good sources for) rather than doing so on the behalf of others.

If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia and you have a strong interest in the topic, I really suggest you start editing Wikipedia, get some experience and tackle the task yourself. Athanelar (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips :) Aquangell (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Aquangell, I suspect that the responses above are about suggestions related to Wikipedia:Requested articles, but that your question is instead about Wikipedia:WikiProject TikTok/Articles for creation. That could be different. However, as I glance at its history I don't notice any edit summaries such as "Removing from list (article now made)". It seems a sleepy page; Athanelar's advice remains valid, though I'd preface it with "first check that you'll be able to demonstrate that your proposed subject is 'notable'". -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know regarding the page's activity :) Aquangell (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I submitted my first article to AfC in April and got it approved in 2 days, which was a complete shock. I think it critically depends on whether a reviewer is interested; mine was on a specific hobby topic and maybe I hit a reviewer with the right hobby. I have heard of other people taking weeks or months.

An alternative is to ask a mentor or other experienced editor for an informal review. Putting up an article directly and having it end up at Articles for Deletion is not much fun, so a pre-check is a good idea. M kuhner (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

M kuhner, despite its title, Wikipedia:WikiProject TikTok/Articles for creation is very unlike Wikipedia:Articles for creation. It doesn't expect drafts. But as for AfC, yes, it can indeed be pretty fast. See this example (pats self on back, pours self a beer). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the TikTok part! M kuhner (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @M kuhner. I'm sure that a reviewer who is interested in the subject will help get a quicker review. But the main thing that gets a quick review, I think, is that it is an easy one to do, either because it obviously fails (the much more common case) or because it obviously passes (because it has an appropriate number of citations to high quality sources, and everything is cited). ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner If the OP asks a mentor, or if they are on good terms with an experienced editor, asking for an informal review might work. But asking for an informal review at the Teahouse, the Help Desk, or the Articles for Creation help desk usually results in the answer "We don't do pre-review reviews. Please submit the article to get an assessment". Which, of course, is a formal, not an informal, assessment. David10244 (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Added Tim Berners-Lee Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc link

Hello team! On this auspicious day, I've added an external link on sir Mr. Tim Berners-Lee's page. As available on your Wikipedia. It's as per the norms of mentioned [WP:EL]. Pls review and confirm, I'm sure it doesn't require a revert. I appreciate your early reply and support. My sincere thanks in advance. Thank you. Yours faithfully. Nandan M. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you briefly explain why this link is needed?

The guidelines at WP:EL say that there should not be external links to information that would naturally be in the article. Encyclopedia links almost always fall under this. What information is present in Britannica but could not be sourced and added to the article? M kuhner (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Sir.

Only a few words, for example "Charles Stark Draper Prize (2007)."

Also, a mere statement which reads as follows:

Berners-Lee was the author, along with Mark Fischetti, of Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web (2000).

There maybe more, my sincere apologies in advance.

Thanks.

Nandan M. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Why can't this information be sourced and added to the article here?

We normally do not link to encyclopedias in External Links as it is not helpful. The Wikipedia user is already reading an encyclopedia entry. They should not need a link to the same entry in a different encyclopedia. M kuhner (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I cannot handpick each and every word to draw the comparison. I'm an unpaid member; if you fund it, then we can work together. This will be beneficial for both. We shall add more sourced information. Many pages on Wikipedia have Britanñica Encyclopedia as an external link. I appreciate your time for great thoughts shared.

Thanks.

Nandan M. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That link has now been removed. The fact that other pages may link to Britannica is irrelevant. See WP:OSE Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Those other Brittanica links may need to be removed. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Why don't we do that first, who are adding it?

When do you think you can revert all of them?

This is absurd. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

In general, "this is also a problem on other pages" is not a reason to avoid fixing a problem. See WP:OTHER. M kuhner (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Writ Keeper!

When we are discussing it here, may I know your reason for the revert, please?

Thanks.

Nandan M. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary and in other editors' posts above, it was unnecessary. As WP:EL states: Links in the External links section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. The onus is on you to demonstrate the value of including a link to what is essentially a duplicate of the Wikipedia article itself. If the Britannica article has useful information that isn't already on the Wikipedia article, the correct response is to incorporate that material into the article directly (with sources), rather than burying it in a link and making a reader have to wade through a mostly-redundant article on a separate website. If it doesn't have any information that the Wikipedia article doesn't already have, then it's useless. Either way, it shouldn't be an external link. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Fine then, @331dot / @Writ Keeper do you both agree with these?

Few words, for example "Charles Stark Draper Prize (2007)."

Also, a mere statement which reads as follows:

Berners-Lee was the author, along with Mark Fischetti, of Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web (2000). Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You should discuss questions specific to an article on the article's talk page; in this case, Talk:Tim_Berners-Lee. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It's late at night in India; can you please answer ASAP so that I can add those words and sentences to the page and we all can rest at peace for the day, pls? Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Your proposal is not coherent. What material are you considering adding, where in the article are you considering adding it, and what sources are you using to cite them? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You have all the information here itself, can you read the honours section on the page.

Pls feel free to add it yourself, I'm sick and tired of repeating my words, sentences or statements here. Let God's grace bring peace and prosperity between the most intellectual beings of its species. Ameen. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no rush. Wikipedia will still be here in the morning. Requests to add stuff should go on the Talk page of that article. Not here. They may not be done quickly: that should be okay. M kuhner (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

VGM/GD/GW God's grace, sir.

Thank you, I thought of gifting our time and a few words of respect to the legend.

It's still his day in the USA.

I'm utilising this platform to greet/wish on Wikipedia.

If only as an example, you can help and support with code, I shall copy and paste it as is.

So, to avoid further confusion and reverts.

My sincere thanks again.

I still believe, and I'm sure we as a team could achieve it.

I'm a newbie at Wikipedia, with just 7 months experience.

I'm sure you'll oblige to teach me. I apologise for disturbance and I regret all inconveniences.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully.

Nandan M. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

No.

I'm utilising this platform to greet/wish on Wikipedia. This is not what Wikipedia is for. I suggest a social media site.

M kuhner (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, can we add those words or sentences? I'm aware of social media, even though I seldom use it. Where would Wikipedia be without www? We all are aware; please add what's necessary if we have professional ethics.

I'm only trying to show respect to the elderly by reviewing what is written about him without his consent.

If you wish to write, pls do it yourself, as I've begged enough to educate myself and others.

Nothing comes free of cost in the world today. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It's funny you say that nothing comes free of cost - actually, everyone here is an unpaid volunteer. We are spending our time working on Wikipedia without any payment at all. Meadowlark (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Finding images

where can i find images that i can use for wikipedia? Noxajatsocad (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons: . By far the easiest source, as everything has already been vetted for copyright, LLM, and other issues. (Not 100% perfectly, but still better than anything else for this purpose.)

M kuhner (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Noxajatsocad In addition to that excellent advice, remember that images "publicly available" on the internet are almost always NOT in the public domain, and cannot be used as-is on Wikipedia. David10244 (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

How to cope with the infinite scale of Wikipedia without burning out?

Hello, dear fellow Wikipedians!

I have a question that has been bothering me for a long time. How can I manage to participate in several wiki projects at once, write and edit articles on topics I care about, and also translate them into the languages I know?

I understand that Wikipedia is a marathon, not a sprint, and there’s no need to rush. But I keep burning out because I take on too much. I enjoy working on Wikipedia and being useful to people, but it takes a lot of energy. Recently, I even gave up my other hobbies in favor of Wikipedia.

What’s more, Wikipedia itself sometimes throws me into existential dread. I calculated: if you read 100 articles a day, it would take 197 years to read the entire English Wikipedia. And if you set out to work on the Vital articles, at a rate of one article per day, it would take 137 years. Clearly, none of us have that much time.

How do you cope with this sense of the infinite, avoid burning out, and still remain a useful contributor? I’d be grateful for your advice. RiiffTower (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @RiiffTower, I totally empathise with a lot of what you've said! My advice would be that if you feel like you're burning out, it may be a sign to take things a little slower. Both you, and the encyclopedia, are better off in the long run if you were to make a small number of edits consistently, rather than trying to do everything at once and taking an extended wikibreak because of burnout.
And don't forget, there are many different ways you can contribute; writing articles and translations are big tasks that can expend a tonne of brain power, so if you're feeling burnout, you could try switching it up. Personally, when I'm running low on spoons, I find many gnoming tasks or patrolling to be a nice brain refresher.
Editing is also voluntary, and you shouldn't feel like you're obligated to improve the encyclopedia. You are also only one of 3.7million editors who have made more than 5 edits; that's not to say you're not important (you are!), but rather that this is a team effort, and you shouldn't feel like the weight of the project rests on your shoulders. You're correct that, individually, none of us have that much time, but as individuals we're only one small part of a much larger machine. If you're feeling that existential dread, just think of and trust that there's a team of equally amazing editors who, collectively, do have that time and ability! In solidarity, nil ^nz 23:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Riff,

There are many ways to approach the contribution urge. I'll share mine in case it helps.

I have not fallen into the anxiety trap but like many editor, I have definitely seen the abyss. After 20 years as a user, I decided 6 months ago to contribute. My method is to start from the good reference materials I have and topics I care about rather than from the top (a Project, etc.). So for example, as I read a couple of great books on a subject (in my case art), I highlight facts and ideas that seem worthwhile and assume will not be in Wikipedia. Most of the time, they are not. And then I gradually add bits to selected pages.

Sometimes I decide to go in a rabbit hole for the pleasure of it. This week for example, improvements to the British landscape artist J. M. W. Turner unexpectedly led me to the Aesthetics concept of Mimesis and since I had something to contribute, decided to enjoy my foray into art philosophy and 18th/19th centuries discussion of whether art that accurately represented nature was more truthful than that which conveyed its awe on the viewer, which is fo course, a founding idea of Impressionism.

It is really a matter of enjoying the trip rather than getting anxious to reach (an unreachable) destination. Take a break and return refreshed!

JP

PS: I copied your banner formatting and stole one banner from you, so we all help with our past contributions in unexpected ways even while not doing anything. ;-) Jp1008 (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Jp1008. Yes, in our line of work, enjoyment is the main driving force on the path to free knowledge on the internet. For now, I'll pass on the wiki-vacation — I've just returned from a break. Good luck with your edits.

P.S. What banner are you talking about? The userboxes on my page? If so, I was inspired by Transhumanist's page, and he, in turn, was inspired by WikiPortals. Indeed, Wikipedia is not just a site — it's a whole ecosystem. RiiffTower (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Nil NZ. Thanks for the detailed response. You gave me some very sound advice: to alternate intense work with routine tasks. I've seen that technique in time management video, but I never thought to apply it to Wikipedia. Now, for example, between major edits, I can work on assessing articles on talk pages.

And yet I still feel like the whole project is resting on my shoulders. I understand: if I stop editing, say, Vital articles or another popular WikiProject, some newbie will replace me. That's not a problem.

But the issue is different. The English Wikipedia has too many gaps on topics related to Russia. There are niche issues that will likely remain uncovered — neither fully nor even partially — for decades to come. And the article about my native locality is in a deplorable state, not only on the English Wikipedia but also on the Russian one. I doubt that anyone other than me will take on a thorough edit of it in the next hundred years. And there are many such articles. They're literally 'crying out' for attention, demanding time that I don't have. RiiffTower (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I find it helpful, instead of thinking about "improve Wikipedia", thinking "I am going to fix up this narrow topic." Right now I am fixing up Ugandan English-language newspapers. I can finish in a reasonable amount of time and it will be satisfying. If you keep getting distracted by other issues you may never get the satisfaction of completing something and seeing that it's good.

I also suggest making a deliberate effort to keep your other hobbies. Maybe they get less attention for a bit, but don't let them die off. I play at least 1 game of chess every day, even in times when energy is scanty: so when I want to go back to it more seriously it won't be too stale. M kuhner (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @M kuhner. Thanks for the sound advice.

As for my other hobbies — they are less productive and useful. No one will see the results of those activities, or they'll only be noticed by chance. But in Wikipedia, my edits are seen by hundreds of thousands of people in different languages. That's why I've decided to sacrifice my other interests in favor of Wikipedia. RiiffTower (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is smaller than real life, but it has a similar ability to overwhelm. I live in a big city with too many interesting things to do, and must curb my appetite or be overloaded with life. One nice thing about WP is there are ways to avoid doing a thing all the way. So, I no longer write many fresh articles but mostly concentrate on my watchlist where I see what other editors are doing with topics that interest me. If someone introduces a new detail but writes ungrammatically or uses too many words or misses an important point, I can fix those things. Vice versa, too. I leave the article in somewhat unsatisfactory condition (no, never really bad condition) and let another editor find and fix it.

Remember, no article is ever finished, nor has to be. It's not a static wooden post; it's more like a living, growing tree or even a forest. If nobody besides me takes an interest, I get no interaction, which is to say it's a sterile topic and my further work on it will not bring an improvement in what humans actually know. That gives me permission to drop it and walk away. Whatever philosophy we apply, we have to hold down the jobs we load upon ourselves. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Jim.henderson. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Yes, Wikipedia is good because there's no boss over you telling you what to edit and when. I, for example, didn't make a single edit in 2024, and no one judged me for abandoning Wikipedia. However, I personally feel a bit uncomfortable realizing that I have unfinished articles that I left behind. RiiffTower (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I don’t attempt to read a large portion of Wikipedia articles, I only read ones on subjects I have an interest in. If I become curious about a certain subject I’ll check to see if there’s a Wikipedia article I can learn from. Sometimes that article is just a stub, or there’s a tag stating more references are needed, so I’ll take on the project of improving that particular article.

What I love about being a volunteer Wikipedia editor is I get to choose what I’m going to work on, and I decide how much work I’m going to give to any project. I work on “niche” subjects that few besides me have an interest in, and work at my own pace – sometimes I do the research, and then take months before I get around to the actual writing part. There are times when I set aside Wikipedia work for awhile because other interests take up my limited energy, but that’s okay, because I’m a volunteer, and no one will fire me if I don’t put in enough time each week.

It’s taken me almost 20 years to do 4,000 Wikipedia edits, but that’s fine, for I’m not in competition with anyone else. I do what interests me, I do accurate work (with a few mistakes that can easily be corrected), and I’m proud of providing information that people around the world can benefit from. I don't focus on what I can't get done, for I know I'm helping at my own pace, doing work no one else chose to take on. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Karenthewriter. Perhaps I should adopt a similar attitude towards Wikipedia, rather than demanding too much of myself. Thank you for your response. RiiffTower (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@RiiffTower Don't try to take the whole encyclopedia on, as a task, by yourself. That's too much. You can certainly help, but the encyclopedia will survive without any one of us. David10244 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @David10244. Perhaps you are right. Thank you for your advice. RiiffTower (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Images

I was trying to add images to my article things for visual reference, but it said I needed a copyright license or something, but the images are of Clint O'Shea, the person I was writing about (me), so... I didn't think i had to copyright myself Clint O'Shea (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If you have taken a photo of yourself, you can go to Wikimedia Commons and sign paperwork putting it under the appropriate license. You can't do that for a photo taken by someone else, though, even of you: they hold the copyright, and would have to put it on Commons.

A bigger issue: writing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged and seldom succeeds. See WP:Autobiographies for why, and how it has to be done. If you don't follow those instructions it's pretty much guaranteed your article will get deleted. I recommend against even trying. If you are notable, someone else will write that article eventually. M kuhner (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Would it be likely to write an article about how my grandfather grew up in poverty, became a farmer, then a racer, crashed, and almost died? He also got 2 full-ride scholarships, 1 for basketball and 1 for baseball. Do you think that would get declined?? Clint O'Shea (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about people who have received substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. What you know about your grandfather would probably make for a great essay, but it can't be used for a Wikipedia page. So the way to answer this question is to search for sources. I wish you the best of luck, but it may not lead to an article. Most people, however interesting, won't have Wikipedia articles. (If you do write the essay, maybe a local newspaper or newsletter would be interested? Local to where your grandfather lived, I mean.) M kuhner (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clint O'Shea While this is very cool for a person, and no doubt very important to your family, it is, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, entirely unremarkable.

In order for a person to have an article about them here, they need to meet our notability requirements, which in this case would mean you'd need to find examples of other people entirely unconnected to him or your family who have written about his life in-depth who you could use as secondary sources. Athanelar (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If there are sources for your grandfather having that interesting life, then knock yourself out. Wikipedia requires in depth sources on individuals, and something to show their notability, someone like your grandfather has a remarkable life but wouldn’t have an article, and someone unremarkable with little information might— simply because they held a notable position or something like that. All goes down to sources and notability, I wish you luck. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Clint O'Shea, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'd recommend having a read of Wikipedia:A picture of you, which has some great advice and steps to follow.
The question of copyright is an important, but sometime confusing one; even though you may be the subject of the photo (and you have certain rights in that regard), the copyright of the image usually belongs to the photographer. If it was taken by someone close to you, like a friend or family member, you could get them to submit the photo for you following the instructions at WP:A picture of you#By email.
That being said, the first step should be to get an article published first. You can have a read of our inclusion guidelines for biographies, and if you believe notability is met, follow the steps at WP:Your first article. In solidarity, nil ^nz 01:44, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

i took the photo Clint O'Shea (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clint O'Shea If you do end up using the photo, following the instructions above, you are releasing it under a particular CC license. I believe that means anyone can use the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes (like selling the image on mugs and T-shirts) as long as it's properly attributed to you. Make sure you understand the CC license.

But, of course, finding sources where other people have published stuff about you is the first step to creating the draft article. David10244 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Asking for comments about "Reason/s: more sources needed"

I wrote a draft article about a Swiss-Japanese Political Science professor, who also happened to be a poplular youtube blogger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Pascal_Lottaz . Another user moved page Pascal Lottaz to Draft:Pascal Lottaz without leaving a redirect: Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace. Reason/s: more sources needed .

Being used to the US legal system, I find such remark "arbitrary and capricious" (see Standard of review for definition). The number of cited sources is comparable to the numbers in the articles about other International Relations professors (e.g. Steven Walt).

I am asking more experienced wiki-editors, if there are objective criteria that are uniformly applied to all Wiki-articles, or if the proper translation of "consensus" from Wikipedian to English is "High-handedness of the chosen few"? I would also aprreciate SPECIFIC suggestions (better yet- improvements made by others) how this draft can be improved, and what is needed to make it publishable. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I would like to start off by mentioning that I would say some of your information, such as his "Affiliations and Memberships" can be mentioned in an infobox. Additionally, Youtube is not a reliable source. (Read WP:RSYOUTUBE for more information). Cooldudeseven7 💬 talk~📜 ctb~🖊️ gb 12:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I am relatively new to Wikipedia.

I support your idea of <<his "Affiliations and Memberships" can be mentioned in an infobox>>,

but I do not know, how to do it myself. Could someone more experience make this change?

I am not arguing, that You-Tube is a relible source. Instead, cite an extensive list of peer-reviewed publications by Pascal Lottaz and by others. However, I feel, that in this particular case citing You-Tube is appropriate for several reasons:

1) Prof. Lottaz is a credible well-established researcher, rather than some random youtube-blogger;

2) Many topics, that he and his guests cover on his yout-tube channel, have been discussed (or in the process of being discussed) in peer-reviewed publications. I provided a list of such papers in my draft.

3) I agree, that running a super-popular youtube channel with over 345,000 subscribers (!) is not something, that many professors can brag about. However, this is exactly that type of thing, that makes Pascal to stand out among his peers, and brings boring scientific discussions to a broader audience all over the World. Pascal is a new generation of university professors, who are focused on serving the public-at-large rather than serving a few funding agencies, that provide research grants. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I should emphasize, "number of youtube subscribers" is not a criterion of notability, because - although the social media companies don't like to talk about this - you can buy fake subscribers. Am I saying that's what Professor Lottaz did, no. But he could have. DS (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I did not mean that he is a Youtube blogger, I meant to say that you cannot use it as a source in general, as you did with one of your references.
I will work to make that infobox, and I may leave some tips for you on your talk page! Cooldudeseven7 💬 talk~📜 ctb~🖊️ gb 14:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ArcturusNotTaurus, and welcome to Wikipedia.

What matters about sources for a Wikipedia article is not their number (see WP:Citation bombing), but their quality.

The most basic criterion for a subject qualifying for a Wikipedia article is Notability (please click and read): as you can see there are many ramifications to this, but they boil down to "has the subject been described ("noted") at length in several pieces (written or broadcast) that have been published in Reliable sources that have no direct connection to the subject?" ('Popularity' [especially on YouTube, where any nutcase can get a million subscribers], deemed 'importance', etc. in the real world have no bearing, only documentation.)

Any article should be almost entirely based on the facts in such sources and nothing else: this is summarised in the essay at WP:Golden rule. As a rule of thumb, a Wikipedia article needs at least three such sources which all meet all of the Golden rule criteria.

Additional minor and uncontroversial facts only (age, number of a company's employees, etc.) can if necessary be sourced to non-reliable sources, such as ones connected to the subject.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is a private and entirely volunteer-run enterprise, not an official entity, so regardless of anyone's notions of 'fairness', our consensus-formed policies and guidelines are what apply. To head off something you seem to hint at, any threats of legal action are not tolerated.

Because of Wikipedia's complex nature, writing an acceptable article is much harder than most people think, regardless of their writing experience in other spheres. We usually recommend that a new editor (which you now are), spends weeks or months working on lesser tasks (like copyediting existing articles) and studying procedure, the Manual of Style, and so on, before attempting to create a new article.

Your inserted article has been '"draftified" to have more work done on it in order to bring it to an acceptable level: this is entirely normal, and better than having it deleted entirely for not meeting the required standards (which was also an option). Please continue to work on it, in collaboration with others if they express an interest, and it will likely reach Article quality sooner or later. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Although I still have no idea, what EXASCTLY I can do to improve this draft. I also want to make a few comments:

1) There are many published wiki-articles about other Political Science professors, and the notability of the subject and the quality of these articles are not better than those of my draft about Pascal Lottaz: e.g. Steven Walt, Robert Keohane, Helen Milner, Michael W. Doyle, John Ikenberry, Stephen D. Krasner, Kathryn Sikkink, Martha Finnemore, Joseph Grieco= note how short this article is ! I will agree, that these people are older than Pascal, but Pascal has made contributions comparable or bigger that these folks.

2) I also want to note, that your statement about "legal action" was highly inappropriate. I stated, that it did not take me long time to figure out, that Wikipedia:Consensus translates into English as "arbitrary rule (high-handedness) of the chosen few", and it turned out, that I was not first one, who discovered it. There are many publications everywhere on this exact topic. Then, I made a reference to "arbitrary and capricious" as defined in Standard of review. I apologize, if this message seemed to have a non-intended connotation.

3) I want to tank you for pointing out WP:Golden rule. I was not aware of it. I will study it in details.

4) Finally, I feel like incubating draft articles away from the public contradicts the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Is it possible to attract other editors to work on Draft:Pascal Lottaz? It makes a lot of sense to have such mechanism for all draft articles, doesn't it?

Thank you again for your help, and I look forward to your comments. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Just because something is in the draftspace does not mean nobody else will or can edit it. For example, I made changes to the article to fix citation formatting issues. It is not just because of the achievements he has made. The sources matter. They must be strictly independent and reliable. If there is any connection to the subject in a source, it should not be used. Hope this helps! Cooldudeseven7 💬 talk~📜 ctb~🖊️ gb 14:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

There are thousands upon thousands of articles in draft space. It would be nice if editors had enough time to come together and help newbies write new articles, but they don't. Generally, if you want an article to exist that doesn't, it's up to you to create a quality first version that reviewers will accept.

This doesn't mean you can't find resources to help you improve it. You've been asking a lot of questions in rapid succession; how about you focus on your previous question about infoboxes? A great place to find advice is the WikiProjects relevant to the article you're trying to make; in your case, you might find some good advice at WP:WikiProject Education. Amatmilen (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@ArcturusNotTaurus For your point number 1, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. David10244 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

ArcturusNotTaurus, here are two things you could do to improve Draft:Pascal_Lottaz: (1) get rid of the second, huge, list of works co-authored by him; (2) deal with all the red error messages in the list of references (which you have titled "Notes"). Maproom (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Wiki

Wikipedia sucks; they shut down everyone and don't help new people. Instead they send them to pages with rules using nonunderstandable terms. Clint O'Shea (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What help are you seeking that you are not getting? What is it that you do not understand? 331dot (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

i try to rewrite my articles and then cite them; they get denied, so i try again and again but never get advise or help, just more denials Clint O'Shea (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Plain English advice:

After you write an article, but before you submit it, click on every single link in "References." Does it work? Does it go where you meant it to go?

This will not solve all your problems but it really, really helps! Article reviewers hate to see links on a new article that don't connect to anything, or connect to the wrong thing.

Second piece of advice: Writing a new article is one of the hardest jobs here. Try something else first. Find an article you like, look for additional sources and add one good piece of information, with its source.

M kuhner (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clint O'Shea: When citing an online source, I suggest using a citation template that creates a link for reviewers to see the source. I added a {{cite journal}} for you at Draft:Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator Subterranean Lineage B. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Clint, according to your User page you joined Wikipedia just yesterday. Although you packed a lot into that one day, it’s still only one day’s worth of experience.

Have you reached out to your mentor about some of your concerns and asked for his or her insights and advice? Mentors are one of Wikipedia’s most valuable — and often overlooked — available resources. They can really help in wading through all the jargon and procedures that can often overwhelm fledgling editors. Augnablik (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Clint O'Shea Here's a very simple rule you've already been made aware of; you must stop using AI to generate articles or edit articles, as you have obviously done at Draft:Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator Subterranean Lineage B, Draft:Eaglercraft (Minecraft recreation) and at NHL 23

There are lots of people here who would like to help you join the community here at Wikipedia, but if you continue to break this rule after yoi've specifically been previously informed about it on your talk page, it is not going to bring you any success. Personally, I would suggest you start by reading this guide, which Is specifically designed to avoid any of those difficult to understand terms. Athanelar (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have done all of such; also, I would not like to talk to you because I feel like I'm being harassed by you. I would like to speak to a higher person above you. Clint O'Shea (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not hierarchical like that. There's nobody "above" me, and I'm not "above" you. I'm a more experienced editor offering you some advice for success, because as it stands you seem to be clashing with Wikipedia's rules and culture rather than embracing them. It's your choice whether to listen to anything I'm saying, Athanelar (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Look... I'm 14, autistic, and have ADHD. I cant help how i am, and this is how I am. If you help me by showing me, I'll understand, but i only understand things by seeing them Clint O'Shea (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:The Wikipedia Adventure? That's meant for learning by doing.

Do you have a mentor? If not, would you consider applying for one? A mentor could walk you through some beginner work one-on-one and that might help.

People with autism and ADHD have successfully become editors on Wikipedia. It can be done! But jumping in at the deep end of the pool is a tough way to learn to swim. M kuhner (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a magnet for neurodiverse people, the very nature of being a Wikipedia editor pretty effectively self-selects for neurodivergence, and it can often be a benefit to Wikipedia editors more than it's a hinderance.

That said, there are some things that some neurodiverse people are averse to which might be a problem here, and by wanting to be part of this community, you accept that you're going to have to take on those challenges.

The first and foremost is that this is a collaborative project. Working together with other editors, being civil, understanding that you don't control any of your work,following the community's policies, guidelines, standards, and norms, receiving (friendly, constructive) feedback and criticism from other editors; all of these things are non-optional. Some people aren't compatible with that sort of environment and that's fine. I've seen a lot of younger, neurodiverse editors hit a wall when they realise that Wikipedia isn't a Fandom wiki and they don't have total freedom to write anything about whatever takes their interest. This is, ultimately, a very serious project aimed at building the world's largest repository of human knowledge. If that atmosphere ends up feeling too stuffy or strict for you, that's perfectly fine. It's not for everybody.

Secondly, there's a lot of reading. You've already stated that pages with rules using nonunderstandable terms can be an issue with you. That is, ultimately, something you'll have to overcome in order to be here. Learning through doing is great, but one of the core competencies required to contribute significantly to Wikipedia is the ability to read, digest and apply policies, guidelines and the manual of style; and that's going to involve a lot of reading and learning jargon. It's one thing if you're just a WikiGnome who goes around fixing typos, but you've already shown you have an interest in writing new articles; if you want to be successful in that, then learning about things like notability, verifiability, reliable sources, original research, synthesis etc is going to be non-optional.

I say all this not to scare you off, but because you should absolutely be aware of the kind of things expected of you. Again, our guidance for younger editors is a good place to start. It's deliberately written in a style hopefully easier to understand than most of our PAGs. Athanelar (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

PAGs = policies and guidelines? 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Ways to contribute to Wikipedia beyond editing as an individual?

So I've gained a little experience, I've mainly just made edits to pages I care about and (I think?) I'm familiar with the basics of editing. But now I want to learn about ways to help contribute to Wikipedia besides just stalking news on the one or two pages I care about.

In particular I'm interested in learning about how to find vandalism, and what kinds of helpful software is available to auto confirmed users. I also want to know if it's possible to get involved in multi-person projects (I know that's kind of what wikipedia in the first place) where I can talk with people and plan bigger changes then I could do on my own (There's a major article rework I've been viewing that would take a team of people)

Basically as an editor I've found that I do best when I can communicate and coordinate with other people, and I just want to know if there are any parts of wikipedia more geared towards that. Thanks! Wik206 (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You could hook up with a WikiProject, though you'll want to choose carefully as many are inactive.

You could become involved with one of the Noticeboards. I'm at WP:AI noticeboard trying to stem the flood of LLM articles, and while it's intensely frustrating there is definitely a sense of working with a team there--not a formal team, but familiar faces and slow improvement of our working practices. WP:Articles for Deletion is another place to consider. It will certainly teach you a ton about notability and sourcing, and someone willing to put in work looking for additional sources on a contested article is very much welcome.

You could become a new page patroller or work at WP:Articles for creation if you have been here long enough (I believe 6 months). You could become a Teahouse host or just informally help out here.

You could look at the WP:Village pump discussions and see if you'd like to pitch in on improving policies or tools.

I suggest browsing several of these and seeing what appeals. M kuhner (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't forget the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit, which I believe offers training. That might be right up your alley. M kuhner (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner I read about this! It seems really interesting but it looks like they're looking for people with more edits then I have, and who plan to have a serious commitment/not just casual users. Do you think if I asked some of the people involved they'd still be willing to give me the basic pointers? Also I should add for to this context to this general discussion, I believe my account is 2 years old? But I only have around 50 edits in the main space and 1 article created which I believe limits my opportunities some place (until I get some more edits). I also tend to come and go from wikipedia which might affect things as well. Thanks!Wik206 (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Only one way to find out! I think if you are polite and reasonable they're likely to have something to offer. I tend to get involved in stuff a bit too advanced for my experience level, and while I've had some clear rebukes from time to time, everyone's been decent about it. And I've certainly learned a lot in the process. M kuhner (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

In reply to the added info, though, more edits would be helpful. From experience, adopting and fixing a bad article is a great way to accumulate mainspace edits, and it feels quite good when you finally get it right. (I think Hypocnemis is finally free of LLM falsehoods as of today, wow, what a journey.) M kuhner (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

There isn't a 6 month time requirement to become a Teahouse Host. The only requirements are that they are have 500 mainspace edits and been a Wikipedia editor for 30 days, which is the same requirements for the extended confirmed usergroup. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I can’t help wondering how such a low bar as just 500 mainspace edits and 30 days as a Wikipedia editor could ever be enough to take on full-fledged Teahouse hosting — except to answer the most basic kinds of questions. Augnablik (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the theory is that you answer questions within your capabilities, and learn on the job. Questions you can't answer can always be left for someone else. M kuhner (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, perhaps so, but speaking for myself, I can’t imagine becoming an “official” Teahouse host right after I got extended confirmed. There are so many things I might have thought I knew how to answer, but really didn’t … yet. And to me it just seems that Teahouse visitors should be able to count on “official” hosts to be very well prepared, just like teahouse baristas have to be in real life.

Only now, after having had the priceless experience of slogging in newbie shoes through the maze of Wiki documentation and unforeseen quicksand, picking up valuable tips from my mentor and other Teahouse hosts en route, do I feel anywhere near ready to consider the possibility of becoming an official host some day.

Till then, I’ll happily pop into Teahouse conversations occasionally to respond to a message — more likely just to add an idea to a conversation already underway than with a standalone reply to someone’s question. Augnablik (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Augnablik I'd say this really depends on the kinds of edits you do. A lot of my edits were maintenance stuff, and I've interacted a lot with different Wikipedia guidelines, so I was able to answer most Teahouse questions at 500 edits. On the other hand, I've seen people with 30k edits who don't know anything about the common processes here, just because most of their edits are content writing and they've never had to interact with those things. 🍅 fx (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It is also possible that someone with a new account is not necessarily a new editor. I myself have been editing on Wikipedia for close to 25 years, and not infrequently answer queries on the Help desk and Teahouse when I know the (or an) answer, but I have never (for carefully considered reasons) opened an account (and I imagine there are others in similar positions). If I were to do so (and one day I might) I would not appear to be as new an editor as mere date and edit count would suggest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Wik206! Recent change patrol is one of the easiest (and fun, IMO) ways to help fight vandalism. For now, the best way to do this for you is to install a tool like Ultraviolet or Twinkle, and manually look through the recent changes to find edits to revert. There are filters like "likely bad faith" or "new account" that make the job easier. The page about recent change patrol gives more information. Once you get more experience doing that and fit the criteria to apply for rollback rights, you can use more advanced tools like WikiShield which make the job even quicker by showing you a live feed of new edits and allowing you to revert them with a single button. Pretty fun way to pass the time if you ask me.

Also check out the community portal's "Events and projects" section. There are some recurring events, such as the copy-editing or Good Article review drives. 🍅 fx (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

are there any good tutorials on twinkle or ultra violet? Wik206 (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Wik206 Ultraviolet's documentation is the best source, but there isn't really anything difficult once you figure out what the buttons do. You just open the edit and click one of the rollback icons (they all tell you what they mean when you hover on them). UV automatically reverts the edit, warns the user, or reports them to WP:AIV if they already received the highest-level warning. 🍅 fx (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Wik206 as for Twinkle, if you just want to do vandalism patrol there isn't really a reason to use it over UV in my opinion. It has a lot more features like nominating articles for deletion, reporting sockpuppets, etc., so it's really useful for different maintenance tasks, but for vandalism rollbacks UV is usually more convenient (unless you're on mobile, in that case only Twinkle works) 🍅 fx (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Linking revisions or diffs in edit summaries?

Is it possible to link revisions or diffs in edit summaries? For example, I'm cleaning up some cite errors from named references that are no longer being used. Since I'm deleting references, in my edit summary, I'd like to (wiki?)link the revision that "retired" the citations. It doesn't seem possible according to WP:SUMFEATURE, but I still don't understand the full functionality of WP:LINK either. So maybe I'm missing something? And if I'm not missing something, is there a different way I should be mentioning it (if at all)? It's also very possible that I may be hypervigilant and overthinking it because I'm tired of having my edits reverted, and then being dismissed when I follow up in good faith. 🫠 -- Gmedinakim (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You can add diffs to summaries of the format described at Help:Diff#Internal links. [[Special:Diff/1358674179]] is a link to the diff you asked this question and displays as: Special:Diff/1358674179, you can also change how the link appears by using a pipe like so: [[Special:Diff/1358674179|custom text]] which then shows as: custom text. The number can be found in the URL right after oldid= when viewing a diff. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hint: if you regularly find yourself looking for the oldid in the URL, you might want to install this userscript: User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink. It adds a box to the top of any diff or permalink page to easily copy the wikilink. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Resolved! -- Gmedinakim (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Trimming down and partially merging an article

There's this one page Interracial marriage that I've been eyeing to improve for a long time, the main issue is that it's 18,026 words long due to an extensive history section which also overlaps with History of miscegenation. I want to merge the history section from interracial marriage into history of miscegenation, then leave either a summary in it's place or omit history altogether and instead place a see also. Before doing something drastic I was hoping to get a community consensus but I've been unable to get any replies on the talk page. What is the best way to do this? I was also hoping to find a tool that would allow me to compare the pages side by side and incorporate information contained in interracial marriage but missing in history of miscegenation into the history page and then delete the rest (except that seems rather cruel to the work of the editors that come before, but if the goal is merging and the differences are the way something is structured rather then the information conveyed, it's more practical to choose one and delete the other then combine structural elements). Wik206 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a History section at Interracial marriage. Could you specify which section you mean? (And does anyone know why that article has a hard-coded Table of Contents partway down the page?) To merge information from one article to another, follow the principles at WP:PROMERGE, including the leaving of attribution. For the subsequent leaving of a summary, see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. You seem to have a decent intuitive handle on the considerations. It may be easier not to do it all in one edit. If nobody has replied on the talkpage, you can WP:BEBOLD. The worst thing that can happen is simply that you are reverted, and you can discuss at that point. CMD (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

all the sections labeled US, Oceania, etc almost entirely discuss history much more so then the modern legality. I don't know what table of contents your referring to, if you could specify what section it's in? Thanks!Wik206 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I also just noted their exists both an interracial marriage and miscegenation page. So I guess I'll add merging miscegenation into interracial marriage because miscegenation is just the archaic for inter racial marriage so it seems only one should exist, then put a note not to recreate a miscegenation page (this possible?). Except maybe not I'll have to find some editors to ask it looks like the focus of miscegenation might be slightly different then the interracial marriage page. Also is their a way to request a page rename (I think history of miscegenation should become history of interracial marriage because miscegenation is a bit of an archaic term)Wik206 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You two should coordinate! Get on the talk page of one of these articles and talk about it. Above all, don't have two people trying two different merges at the same time. That way lies madness. M kuhner (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

my bad that was just me replying to myself. I've already gone ahead and started merging incrementally tho and put a under construction notice on each page along with messages about the plan on the talk pages (been easy so far because some sections are verbatim identical) so it's going pretty smoothly. Is their a committee or project devoted to merging articles and enforcing DRY (is Do Not Repeat yourself followed by Wikipedia?) because I quite like doing this.Wik206 (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's a WikiProject, but there's a tracking category at Category:All articles with consensus to merge that could use some help. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

can you link the tracking category? Thanks! Wik206 (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I meant to and somehow didn’t, oops, but it looks like it was sent below. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm an idiot, sorry, I looked at the names but somehow didn't spot they were the same....

Formal merges (as opposed to someone just doing the merge, a "BOLD merge," which is also allowed) are now discussed at WP:Articles for deletion. I have heard that the single biggest barrier is not getting community approval on the merge, but getting someone to do it once it's approved! So you could follow merge discussions there and if the nominator doesn't merge the articles within a week or two, give it a try. Or offer to help the nominator. M kuhner (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

gotcha. I'm just going to continue with the bold merge since it's well underway (few thousand words moved already) and I don't suspect ay objections since people want the page shortened and this is probably the best way to do it. Thanks for the help! Or I don't know if it's formally a merge because I'm merging a large section of two articles, but not the entire articles. Actually another question, there were a lot of issues that had been raised by this article (which consequently as a result of merging will be moved into the other article), is this problematic?Wik206 (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If one article is to be changed to a redirect (no text anymore) you will need to follow the directions in WP:PROMERGE which make sure the history of the material is preserved. It's not terribly hard, just go step by step from the instructions there. If you are just transferring a section of one article to a section of the other, at least one of your edit summaries should specifically name the source article, again to preserve history. (If you've already done the transfers without such an edit summary, just make a trivial change like adding a space, and use the edit summary for that to explain the situation.)

Good luck with your merge!

M kuhner (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, yay, that page links to the list of pending merges! So if you hanker to do another after this one, there you are. It's . M kuhner (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

sorry I'm a bit slow, to clarify which page? this one? Category:Articles with consensus to merge Wik206 (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that WP:PROMERGE links to that one, and then gave the direct link to save a step, leading to a confusing response. The Category one is the actual list page. M kuhner (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The code {{TOC limit|limit=3}} is in the United States section. I haven't had time to dig into the page history, but usually that implies a lot of content was moved around at some point. CMD (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Adding third party/independent candidates to election info boxes

Currently the info box style for election articles features the post-primary R and D nominees only. Can we can instead include all candidates on a general election ballot? I think the 2024 presidential race was a good template for covering all general election candidates. Wikipedia could improve that by changing the info box standard from showing the R and D nominees only, to including nominees of other party primaries and independents as well. Looking forward to the feedback on this idea. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ProfessorKaiFlai, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Assuming you're talking about Template:Infobox election, it supports up to 9 candidates, but note that the documentation says (in section "Notes"): In 2013, the Request for Comment (RFC) process established a consensus that third party candidates must poll over 5% to be included in an infobox, at least for elections in the United States. This was re-affirmed in 2017. ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

OK - that's a good start to this discussion! Any consensus on what kind of polling is acceptable? Can it be polling conducted by the candidate's campaign or must it be independent, conducted by major polling organizations? ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft Review Help

Hello. I am a new editor and I have created Draft:Abdul Rauf Janjua. I have tried my absolute best to follow all Wikipedia guidelines. I worked very hard to search, find, and verify reliable direct third-party sources (like ISPR, Radio Pakistan, and news networks) and added them properly. I have also cleaned up the text to make it completely neutral and factual. I have done my best, but if I am still making any mistakes, please guide and help me correct them. Can a friendly editor please review my draft and help me move it to the main article space? Thank you so much for your support.BB Janjua (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you related to the subject of this article? Amatmilen (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Amatmilen No, I am not personally, professionally, or financially related to the subject of this article. I am from the same regional area (Hill Surang) and wanted to document his recognition out of personal interest after seeing the "Heroes of Pakistan" feature. I am trying my best to remain completely neutral and objective in my edits. Thank you for checking! BB Janjua (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You uploaded a photo of the subject of the article and released it under a creative commons license as your "own work." Did you take this photo? Amatmilen (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Amatmilen. Thank you for asking. To be precise, I did not click this photograph myself. It was an original digital photograph taken back during the 2016 AJK election campaign when he was a backup candidate of JI, and it has been publicly available on campaign posters. Since the file was saved in my phone gallery for a long long time, I mistakenly thought I could upload it as "own work" due to my lack of experience with licensing.

I realize my mistake now, and I have already removed the photo from the draft myself. Since I do not hold the personal copyright, please feel free to nominate the image for permanent deletion from Wikimedia Commons as well. I apologize for this misunderstanding.

Could you also please guide me on what is the correct license category or copyright tag to use if I want to upload a publicly available political/campaign photo under Wikipedia's non-free content or fair-use guidelines?

BB Janjua (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @BB Janjua, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that WP:NFCC #1, "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" means that it is almost never permissible to use a non-free photo of a living person.

Note, though, that the presence or absence of a photo plays no part in whether a draft is accepted or not. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

1925 Model T Coupe

1925 Ford Doctors Coupe aka: tall T is the least produced due to it was made for Doctors. In 1925 America didn't have many Doctors. The Doctor was a Vetenarian and a Birthing Doctor. Out of the mass production of the Model Ts they only made 300,000 in 1925 in which compared to the 1923 to 1924 was a total different car.. it was transitioning to the 1930 Model A. ~2026-34354-58 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly is your question? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

If you'd like to suggest a correction or addition to the article Ford Model T, ~2026-34354-58, please make it at the foot of Talk:Ford Model T. Be sure to provide a reliable, published source for it. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Why "No object shows image" page deleted

This is a strange character! Regular object shows like Battle for Dream Island (BFDI) or Inanimate Insanity (II) usually don't feature a puzzle piece character like the Wikipedia logo. But I want that picture too! No object show.svg is an image of Object show character example.svg + Anti.svg. A crossed-out Wikipedia puzzle piece character in the object show style. Please make that picture! And don't delete this text. Can you respond today? Don't delete it, and create this image.

BFNIF/B.F.N.I.F is a bad object show, worse than Wikipedia. There are brand logos as characters in the object show, for example: Tumblr, Pinterest, Spotify, and others. Bad show. What if they used it without copyright? And for some reason, some people value it, and that's strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-34009-52 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is the question here? -Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you add a picture today, not tonight? No objects shows.png ~2026-34009-52 (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That is, not No object shows.png, but No object shows.svg ~2026-34009-52 (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Ad the image to what page? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Add to Wikimedia Commons. What if I make a Wikipedia page: No object show! And tell us about B.F.N.I.F. ~2026-34009-52 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You can tell about B.F.N.I.F and add such a picture But the add No object shows.svg (Object show character example.svg + Anti.svg) ~2026-34009-52 (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Right today ~2026-34009-52 (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It's next to impossible to grok what you're saying because it comes across a stream-of-consciousness logorrheoea. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 19:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It reminds m of Gertrude Stein's rejection letter... Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Check out WP:Requested articles and File requests; they might be able to help you out. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for review of my first article

I recently created my first article, Josh Morrison, with a conflict of interest that I've disclosed on the Talk page and my user page. I'd be grateful if an uninvolved editor could review it for neutrality and sourcing. Thanks! CynDiPaula (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You need to submit your draft Draft:Josh Morrison for review first. Theroadislong (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Look for the blue rectangle saying "Submit the draft for review!", CynDiPaula. Click it. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

hmm. I tried to submit, but it says

"17:29, 24 January 2017 Gogo Dodo talk contribs deleted page Josh Morrison (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)) (thank)

02:58, 25 January 2008 Jj137 talk contribs deleted page Josh Morrison (CSD G7: Only one editor has made substantial edits to this page and he or she has requested its deletion or blanked the page) (thank)"

1) the years on these don't make sense, why is it 2017 and 2008?

2) i did not request its deletion

3) 'No credible indication of importance' seems inaccurate when my sources included a WaPo article, a vox article, and a NYT article about this person. Also being connected / mentioned in multiple other wikipedia pages, I thought it would make sense to add a page to at least clarify that they were talking about the same person. perhaps i misundersood the threshold? CynDiPaula (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Long story short, it's now submitted. Longer version: The earlier "articles" (too grand a term) were junk about somebody(ies) who clearly wasn't (weren't) the same as your Josh Morrison, CynDiPaula. (i) 2008 and 2017 were when nitwits posted this junk. (ii) No, you didn't, but the "editor" (too grand a term) of the junk "article" did. (iii) Believe me, there was indeed no credible indication of importance. Again, these ancient non-events and non-articles have nothing to do with your draft, the subject of your draft, or yourself. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

notability

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

---

The reviewer said it didn't meet the criteria for notability. But the guidelines for composition says you only have to meet one of the criteria they list. I meet #2 - Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes, or standards used in a notable music genre. I have over 30 publications with four major publishers in the sacred music field. Do I have to do a chart or something? Glpollock1 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Glpollock1/sandbox

Courtesy ping: Bobby Cohn

^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 18:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the third attempt at this statement this user has posted:

1. User_talk:Bobby_Cohn#c-Glpollock1-20260610182600-Request_on_18:26:34,_10_June_2026_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_Glpollock
2. User_talk:Bobby_Cohn#c-Glpollock1-20260610184300-Request_on_18:26:34,_10_June_2026_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_Glpollock1 (header removed for this one to reduce clutter on my talk page).

I encourage the editor to read and respond to my follow up here: comment link. Courtesy ping: Glpollock1. Thanks. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

But are they notable, by Wikipedia's definition? Can you give some examples of some of your melodies, tunes, or standards that are notable, meaning they have been given significant coverage by publications that are both reliable and independent? Simply being published or recorded or performed is not sufficient. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2026 (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.

Christene Browne Wikipedia page update

Hello. I am filmmaker Christene Browne. In compliance with COI rules, I submitted a structured edit request on my article's Talk Page to update my missing bibliography, opera work, and recent filmography with third-party sources. It has been stuck in the queue for some time. Could an independent editor please take a look at the request on Talk:Christene Browne and implement it if it meets guidelines? Thank you Christene Browne (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You have essentially proposed a wholesale rewrite; this takes much time to review, and reduces the chance a volunteer will want to invest their free time in your request. I suggest that you propose incremental changes, one or two small changes at a time, to increase the chances of review. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I will note that awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award). Most film festival awards don't. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

When and how to remove warnings

Hello. So I was going through random articles, and decided to add some sources to the page for Locomotive frames. However, I couldn't remove the warning, and also didn't know how and when I should replace one, with say, the ne that says that there aren't enough sources. Hellothe22 (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If you use the Source Editor, the line causing that warning is this:

{{One source|date=May 2024}}

You could replace it with:

{{More citations needed|date=June 2026}}

(by the way, if you ever need to talk about wikipedia markup language without it being interpreted, you put it inside angle-bracket "nowiki" tags.)

Thank you for helping to improve this article! M kuhner (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say you can freely remove "one source" and replace with "needs more citations" as soon as you have two solid sources in the article. M kuhner (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I've fixed it. Hellothe22 (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Tornado hits Unionville, MO

For some reason, I cannot place the FACT that Unionville, Missouri just got hit by a tornado on 6-10-2026 in that article. This thing was reported by the US Weather Service during a outbreak that may still be going on. They reported damage and someone shot and uploaded a video of the tornado. I tried to edit the article, only to have a BOX appear over the pencil icon and everything quit functioning. Is that article protected? I also nearly got hit by one as well in the Milan, MO area.~2026-34311-81 (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be protected. What exactly happens when you try to edit the article? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 03:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried to place the factoid into the article by clicking on the pencil shaped icon, only to have a square form over the icon, then all editing and other actions cease to function. ~2026-34311-81 (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That's strange. You could make an edit request? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 06:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-34311-81 The edit is there at the end of the "History" section but has no citation. Please add a reliable source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Is the National Weather Service a reliable source? Tried to place it as one, but it would NOT accept it. ~2026-34374-43 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like your end might be glitching; Wikipedia doesn't block you from adding unreliable sources (even though you should not) unless they're blacklisted. Can you link to the source you want to cite? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 18:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Can someone place the National Weather Service website and info on here? Where I am at, we are expecting more severe weather, including tornadoes as of the sign in time here.~2026-34374-43 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to cite the National Weather Service, you'll need to link the report that includes the information about the tornado. I'm not sure what the weather where you are has to do with the source?^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I was trying to place the sources, but the server on my end has been screwing up due to the weather (explains some glitches) and is still at it. Another website is KTVO, a TV station in Kirksville, MO and it also has videos of the Unionville Tornado, it also has videos of other tornadoes as well. Go to KTVO, then go to where they have the tornado videos. It is www.ktvo.com I googled BOTH sites for the info and sources. Google Unionville, MO gets hit by tornadoes to get the sources. There are several of these.~2026-34374-43 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Help on deleted content

Kylie Bob (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Heelo, Cross checking about the deleted article Martin Luther Nyanzi from mainspace shows there was a misunderstanding with the context of the page, the information was deleted under G5 and also claiming to be a hoax but the content is not a hoax if you're to crosscheck with reliable sources such as The Daily Monitor, New Vision, The Observer etc. The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO as it passed the AFC. I think it needs to be undelete as it had got substantial edits from various editors on Wikipedia.

You can crosscheck with New Vision and Observer here

https://www.newvision.co.ug/category/news/16-year-old-seeks-legislation-on-cbos-state-f-NV_229139_052026

https://observerug.com/en/national/story/nyanzi-martin-luther-ugandas-youngest-parliamentary-petitioner/ Kylie Bob (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we need a Wikipedia editor from Uganda to assess the sources for credibility. @MichealKal @spartaz Kylie Bob (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Have cross checked the sources but most of them are about the petition and a few biography about him. ~2026-34434-59 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This article went through Articles for Deletion at WP:Articles for deletion#Martin Luther Nyanzi and the decision was delete. The Teahouse can't overturn an AfD decision. The correct way to try to do so would be to open a case at WP:Deletion review. In my opinion this is guaranteed to fail and may lead to your account being blocked, due to the history of this article, but you do have the right to try. Don't post any more about this in the Teahouse, please. M kuhner (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The correct link for the AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Luther Nyanzi. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bob, the two sources shared are notable and independent. However, a few months ago, some IP reached out to me several times asking me to create an article about the same which deems this suspicious. MichealKal (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears that many news sources in Uganda don't do checks. Over the last couple of years this kid has got there fictional life published in better and better looking formats and any lazy news editor just doing a quick search will see enough to believe it's true. https://observerug.com/en/national/story/nyanzi-martin-luther-ugandas-youngest-parliamentary-petitioner/ is AI Slop with an AI fake image. If any followed up "He founded Apex Media Services, which operates platforms such as Block FM 103.2" they would find it's just a kids YouTube channel mostly re-posting other people content. They started with sources like https://nyanzimartinluther.com.free claiming they were worth $1.8 billion, now these latest attempts look real but are still nothing but self perpetuating claims of greatness. KylieTastic (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Both main and TA blocked as sock as LTA. KylieTastic (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Submission declined - not written from a neutral point of view

Hello, my draft entry has been rejected on the basis that it is not written from a neutral point of view. I don't know what to change. Can you help please? The draft is Draft:EPI-USE Labs. I'm unsure which piece of the article has language considered non-neutral. Any help would be greatly appreciated! GetToHeaven (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Your draft is promotional, i.e. the draft is written in an unencyclopedic style. Also, your draft can be used in the company's website if they have one, but not in Wikipedia as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place where you can advertise. Please take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @GetToHeaven, and welcome to the Teahouse

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.

If a draft is, or reads as if it is, what the subject wants people to know, rather than as what people unconnected with the subject have published about it, then it is promotional. ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Link to bibliography

At The Assault on Truth, why does footnote 39 not link to the Bibliography in the article? Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus That's because it is a reference, not a footnote. It is referencing a review by Richard Skues in the British Journal of Psychotherapy. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand. References 32 through 38 link to the Bibliography. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus: It tries to link but the Skues entry in the bibliography doesn't use a citation template so the required anchor isn't generated there. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I changed it to the template. I should have remembered to use the template, but I don't do these links often enough, Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Creating an article

I am trying to create an article about a topic that has not been written about before. This is my first time doing so, and I am a bit confused about the process.

Since no one has written about this topic yet, I cannot provide any references etc. How can I make the article suitable for review and editing under these circumstances? MajorNova (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but if nobody has written about the topic before, we can't have an article about it. References are a must-have for an article. If you don't mind me asking, what is the topic? In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@MajorNova Original research is expressly forbidden on Wikipedia. If nobody else has written about your topic (presumably Draft:Void Eclipse) outside of Wikipedia before, Wikipedia is not the place to write about it. Athanelar (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

to review Draft

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I created an article about a Mongolian boxer Draft:Kharkhüügiin Bilgüünsaikhan. Please review it and approve it. Tschin As (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tschin As You have submitted the draft for review and this may take a while as there is a backlog, I'm afraid. Take a look in the box at the top where it says "Improving your odds of a speedy review" and act on that. Here at the Teahouse we don't often do pre-review reviews! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Tschin As (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Tschin As, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Draft has been submitted for review, and will be reviewed in due course (reviews are not queued in submission order, they are chosen from the 'pile' by volunteeer reviewers, who tend to tackle 'obvious declines' and 'obvious acceptances' first, since intermediate 'maybes' are harder to evaluate).

Few people who read the Help desk and Teahouse are also reviewers, so a request here is unlikely to be effective, although you might be lucky.

I am not a reviewer and not knowledgeable about Mongolia wrestling, but I see that the subject does not appear to have actually won any gold medals or the equivalent. I am not therefore sure that he would qualify as 'notable' by Wikipedia's standards: I suggest you study (or re-study) WP:Notability#Sports and decide whether he really has met the criteria and whether the article demonstrates this. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

System Error?

Hello, when I was looking at the version history of a page as a recommended edit, I noticed that I had a button that said "Rollback Edit". As far as I know, I do not have rollbacker rights on any Wikimedia project. Is this an error? Thanks! Me, in particular 15:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

No, if you have WP:TWINKLE installed, it has a built-in function to automatically revert a string of edits by a single editor which it also calls "rollback" Athanelar (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not have Twinkle installed. Me, in particular 17:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Not in reference - how to flag?

On this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chamberlain#Early_life_and_pastoral_career The reference given for the names of the children doesn't actually mention the names of the children. How to flag this? peterl (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Peterl Don't flag it, just delete the contents if you are sure the cited source doesn't mention it. Wikipedia doesn't in any case usually mention non-notable minor children (although they may not be minors now). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thx peterl (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, the youngest was born in 1996 (so not minor!), and the cited source (on which CNTR+F doesn't work) for this individual does include these data. It also includes those for another of the four, though this is mistakenly cited to a second source that doesn't.

The eldest two are wrongly cited to the same first source, but I notice the second source is itself richly cited with linked sources, so these might be worth investigating.

When an article fact is not securely sourced, the first resort should (I suggest) be to look for other better sources, not immediately delete it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Help needed with Draft

Hi! I'm looking for some help with this draft. It previously got rejected, and I'm hoping this time I can do better. Any advice or edits would be great!Draft:St. Mary's Kerrisdale#St. Mary's Kerrisdale Anglican Church (Vancouver) ~2026-30327-36 (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Well, we don't write stories, so "The year was 1910..." is not a way to start. Stick to the facts. And a timeline is not helpful: we need prose, with secondary sources. Also, you made a sidebar--stick to the regular template, Template:Infobox church. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for an additional External Link on John Stafford Geddes

Hello again! I posted a request a few days ago regarding the article for my father, Dr. John Stafford Geddes. The editor Hoary kindly helped me add our family digital archive to the External links section. I wanted to ask if an independent editor could also add his official Royal College of Physicians (RCP) post-mortem biography link to that same External Links section. My previous follow-up question at the Teahouse was automatically archived by a bot before it was seen. The link is: https://history.rcp.ac.uk/inspiring-physicians/john-stafford-geddes

Please note that this link is already used as an inline footnote citation in the article's references list. However, because it is his full official biography, having it clearly visible down under the External links section as well will make it significantly easier for future researchers and medical historians to find immediately.

Could a volunteer please help add this final link to the article's External links section for me? Thank you so much for your time and guidance! Geddess (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

No...it is not required. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

What links here ? (P-8)

Whilst following a trail of breadcrumbs and disappearing down the inevitable rabbit-hole, I found myself at the Boeing P-8 Poseidon page viewing What links here. The Boeing P-8 is a popular article with around 800 backlinks, most of which are either obvious, or fairly easily confirmed (e.g. Svalbard), but some of them caught my eye. For instance, what on earth is the connection between numerous WWII fighter aircraft and this modern-era Boeing 737 derived reconnaissance aircraft? I pulled up three examples (Hawker Hurricane, Gloster Meteor, and de Havilland Mosquito), but could find no evidence of why they would be backlinked to the Boeing Poseidon. I have looked at Help:What_links_here but I confess I am thoroughly confused.

Is it because all these types might be indirectly linked through reconnaissance or possibly reconnaissance aircraft? i.e. two degrees of separation. If so, how would I confirm this is the case?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi WendlingCrusader. It's linked on the second "A47" in {{ADF aircraft prefixes}} which is transcluded in many articles. You may prefer User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js which produces Source links on Boeing P-8 Poseidon. It omits links made by transcluded templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated.

So, RAAF A47-29 was a B-25 Mitchell bomber back in 1945 (#29 in a larger series I guess), whilst A47-001 is a Boeing P-8A in current service (wef 2017), the first of 14. That is certainly a connection I wouldn't have made in a thousand years.

Is there any chance you could satisfy my curiosity regarding the Gloster Meteor connection (A77- in RAAF service) and Mosquito (A52-). It must be something other than RAAF serial prefixes. I used the link you kindly provided, although in this case the resulting list is still quite long, with no obvious connection to the other aircraft types mentioned above. Again, I don't even know where to start.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@WendlingCrusader: Hawker Hurricane, Gloster Meteor, and de Havilland Mosquito all display {{ADF aircraft prefixes}} at the bottom of the articles, so all three articles link to Boeing P-8 Poseidon. That's why those articles appear at Special:WhatLinksHere/Boeing P-8 Poseidon. It's irrelevant to WhatLinksHere that the template also has a first "A47". I only mentioned it's the second A47 to explain where in the template to find the relevant link. The Source links made by my script does not list the three articles. It only lists articles which have the link in their own source text. I suggested the script as a helpful alternative to WhatLinksHere for many purposes. Editors using WhatLinksHere are often uninterested in articles which merely have a link in a widely used navigation template at the bottom. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

edit requests for own page

 Courtesy link: Michael Holmes (broadcaster)

Hello.  I know it's difficult and there are many rules to having your own page updated and so I'm reaching out to see if a couple of changes can be made and how to go about that?   Forgive me if I'm not using the correct procedure in writing this request here.

My name is Michael Holmes, former Anchor/Correspondent for CNN for 28 years and, prior to that, a correspondent for Australia's Nine Network and Daily News Newspaper.  

My entry is here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Holmes_(broadcaster)

The updates/changes are mild and involve adding some more experience (covering Ukraine/Crimea in 2014) and updating awards (two Emmy's, an RTS and an AIB - can supply photos of all).

I also would like to update career length from "more than 40 years" to "47" years and countries visited or worked in from "more than 80" to "100" after my daughter made me finally add them up.

If possible, can you advise how I go about perhaps sending suggested tweaks?

Many thanks,

Michael Holmes Melicite (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Melicite. Thanks for being up-front about your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to make requests for edits as the subject of an article at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. There's a link to Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard at the top of that page, which is probably the easiest way to submit a request. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the quick response Larry. I'll try those links!

Cheers,

Michael Melicite (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Can someone help me determine if an individual meets the notability requirements?

I was googling around, and it seems like Ashwyn Singh, a Desi comedian, has enough external media coverage to meet the GNG for entertainers/living people, but as I am very new, before I take this to AfC, could someone double-check this? I don't want to waste anyone's time with helping me create an article if he does not meet the guidelines properly. Thank you! }} Kimakishi (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Are there at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of them- which usually means critical analysis and commentary about them? In the case of a comedian, that might be something like reviews of his work/material by professional critics, or has received a notable award(an award that itself has an article, like Academy Award). Not just the fact that he might have performed somewhere. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

These are the sources I found; he's been mentioned in an academic publication as well, although that admittedly is a student submission as part of a master's degree program, so I don't know if it counts. I'm just not certain as to whether these meet the standards, because I don't normally look for critics/reviews of entertainers/entertainment that are provided by people other than my friends. While if I do, in fact, try to write this article, I am not committed to using all of these sources, these are the ones I've found that seem to be from reputable sources

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(The turbotax link I would specifically be using for age/year of birth data, not income or anything) Kimakishi (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kimakishi I would, personally, recommend trying a WP:DRAFT article before attempting to move it onto mainspace, at least in your case. From there, editors can review it and not only deem whether the sourcing is up to par, but also the overall quality of the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi, I was just fixing this page.. noticed that this user continuously altering info. including an award segment.. where that is backed by a verified source. I've informed the user but, denied. Please restore it.. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto Just rv'd the reversion and added a warning on the talk page. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Perfectodefecto, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not clear why you are claiming there is a conflict of interest. What is your evidence for that?

The other point is that verifiability is a necessary condition for including information, but it is not a sufficient condition - or, in other words, just because the information is supported by a source does not necessarily mean that it should go in an article.

@Aniqr reverted your edit, which they are entitled to do, under WP:BRD. Your next move should not be reinstating the edit (which is edit warring) but discussing it with the other editor - (preferably on the article talk page, so that other editors interest in the subject will see it; but the other editor's user talk page is the next best thing).

You did open a discussion on User talk:Aniqr after you reverted. I find Aniqr's language a little hard to understand, but I don't think they are arguing about whether the information is supported by sources, but about whether it is appropriate to include in the article, but you have not heard them and answered that point, but just kept repeating that it is verifiable.

Your job at that point (both of you) is to reach consensus about your difference of opinion, not keep stating your own position and ignoring what the other says. If you cannot come to an agreement, then dispute resolution tells you some possible steps.

I'm not sure why @Fakescientist8000 has just come in and reverted again, rather than joining the discussion - perhaps they've seen something I'm missing. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine ahoy! The reasons given for the reversions from the aforementioned user are...contentious, at best. The user believes it is okay to remove various (and here's the key word) sourced awards because..other awards aren't mentioned. From an outsider's perspective, it just looks like random removal of content without good reason. Apologies if it appeared like I was barging in! Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Fakescientist8000 (and @Perfectodefecto). If the other reasons are contentious - then contend them! Just ignoring another editor's (apparently good faith) argument and reapplying the change is not collaboration or consensus. Again, see WP:DR.

I have no particular knowledge or interest in this subject, and will not be commenting further on this. ColinFine (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @ColinFine for projecting this side.. However, I feel WP:3 should be applied here to resolve it. If it looks right, so be it.. otherwise, let it be.. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine Apologies. if there's any inconveniences... The award isn't that much important, as it has no wiki page for it. However, it has some verified sources which was inserted there.. that's it.

they argued about why the other awards aren't there from the same category.. I replied, it has no such sources to back them. If you've any .. then add them. I had no intention of otherway around... If it's ok. Keep it.. otherwise revert it. I've no problem either.. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 21:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The wikipedia embassy

Hello,

I have a few questions regarding the Wikipedia embassy:

1.How exactly does the wikipedia embassy work?

2.How can I help the wikipedia embassy?How do I offer my help to them? (I speak 2 languages other than English)

3.How do I ask the wikipedia embassy for help?

Thank you! A Nerdy Hedgehog (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:Local embassy talks about this. Wikipedia Embassies are groups of volunteers who speak a particular language and are willing to help with queries involving that language. For example, I was investigating a page and needed to know whether a Chinese source actually supported what was said in the article. I could contact one of the volunteers from the Chinese local embassy (scroll halfway down the page to reach the volunteer lists) and ask them for help by putting a message on their Talk page, or sending them an email if it is available. The same page section says If you are bilingual and have the desire to volunteer, feel free to add your name in your language section. M kuhner (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! A Nerdy Hedgehog (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Re: Creating an article/page for a renowned artist

Hi! I 've been making a draft for a reggae artist called Daddy Rings. He is mentioned in carious place son wikipedia but has no page for himself. However, I'm a complete noob at this. If some can please help me with inline citations, references, or any other thing taht can improve the draft, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reach out. Jademakeda (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see Referencing for beginners. I will say that writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it is not recommended as one of the first tasks a new user performs. Do you have a connection to this artist? 331dot (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, he is a family member ~2026-34399-70 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting.

You will need to disclose this as a conflict of interest on your user page. It's even harder to write a new article with a conflict of interest, as you must set aside what you know about this family member amd strictly limit yourself to summarizing independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a case for notability? I can't find much on this artist that is not a music listing, otherwise I'd be happy to lend a hand IRT referencing.

Warmly

Momonowa (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Pornographic Citation

Hello, After looking at the revision history of Bishop Fernando Arêas Rifan, a temp account attempted to remove a citation that now links to a pornographic website... Ref 2 & Ref 4 as of this revision. (17:26, 1 June 2026 Zackmann08), their edit was reverted by @Tessaract2 If someone presses, archived... from the original, it takes them straight to an innapropriate website. What do I do? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@2x2x2x2x2: Hello! I have added the parameter "|url-status=usurped" to the {{cite web}} template so that the original website is not linked. ObserveOwl (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

CSD for jokes?

As an AfC reviewer, I've noticed a lot of drafts that were clearly made as a joke, but there doesn't seem to be a specific CSD for joke pages. Should I tag them for speedy deletion as vandalism or a hoax, or just leave them be? Thanks. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 22:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are talking about pages that are obvious hoaxes or pages made purely for vandalism, I would Wikipedia:G3 it. If the joke page could also be considered an attack page, I would Wikipedia:G10 it. If it is neither of those things, I would leave it alone until it gets deleted for Wikipedia:G13. Considering they will never see the light of day, most joke pages do no harm. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I see, thank you. For a page like Draft:Golengaaa, what would be the best course of action? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 22:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That is a textbook case of Wikipedia:G3. The page is purely vandalism. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Got it; thank you so much! ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 23:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It's an obvious case of what en:Wikipedia classes as "silly vandalism". -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

For some reason my brain was like "But maybe it should stay", I see that it's just vandalism now. Thank you! ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 04:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Article

My article said it had a notability issue, and I put in a few more sources and asked if it was enough. I need someone to help me. Link. J121233 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Help me as in taking down the notice if I'm allowed to. J121233 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You should not be taking down a notice until you have fixed the problem connected to the notice. This article consists of a single sentence that simply says that this governing body exists, and the sources do not have any significant, independent coverage of this governing body. This is probably an WP:AFD candidate if more sources aren't found. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The key, J121233, is improvement of the article. We read that Federação Portuguesa de Badminton has been running for over seventy years. In all that time, has no organization or person independent of the federation written anything of substance about the federation? No description of what it does, how it works, or fails to work? No praise, no criticism? No comparison with the/a parallel organization (if there is one) in Spain, etc? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

In their defence, they may not realise that offline sources are acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 03:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, J121233, as Jéské Couriano points out, you're free to summarize what's in newspaper articles, magazine articles, book chapters, etc. ¶ I have to say, as I look in Category:National members of the Badminton World Federation and from it sample German Badminton Association, French Badminton Federation, Badminton Association of India and USA Badminton, I'm unimpressed. (Indeed, I'm depressed.) Perhaps the first author of each looked at the precedents for other countries and thought "Ah, so that's all I have to do". But surely badminton deserves better. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove page history: moved sandbox page

I recently created a new article for Sasha Reed. I had been working on the informtion in my sandbox and made a mistake in that I moved the sandbox document to the page for Sasha Reed. This means that all prior pages that I had drafted up in my sandbox are now in the history for Sasha Reed's article. I know this would be uncommon, but is there a way to request that history of the sandbox page (going back to 2021) be removed from the article on Reed? Thanks for any thoughts on this. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: This is not too uncommon. Admins can easily do a 'history split'. See Template:History split; further details might be found near WP:HISTSPLIT and Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. There are really two questions to answer: 1) from which revision should the article start? Maybe this one, or this one, or some other, and 2) What should happen to the previous revisions. The choice will usually be to delete them or move them back whence they came (which I'd probably recommend here). If you want to specify your preferred starting revision, we can probably just crack on with it without the extra paperwork. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz - thank you for the clear description. I will aim to not do this again, but now I see the path to tidy up in the event I make this mistake again.

1. The revision that makes the most sense to start with is this one:

2. The previous revisions can go back to where they came from.

Thanks for the help. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That's now done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Please explain conflict resolution on Wikipedia.

I may need to use it going forward, right now I have for the first time bumped into an editor who seems driven by political motives. We are working on an article in the Palestine Israel topic. So far it has been polite, and they are communicative, yet they keep making the article very subjective and seem to use terms that are neither NPOV or consider due weight. In a nutshell, the writing stile seems to be promotional and very much partisan. Before it becomes a conflict over if we stick to the facts and keep it neutral, do you have tips for me? I have only been a Wiki editor for 6 months, should I just give up on making the article all about the facts written as objectively as possible? LumenArchivorum (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@LumenArchivorum have you seen WP:Dispute resolution already? 🍅 fx (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why Lumen decided it was necessary to come here, rather than continue the discussion at Talk:Languages of Palestine. They announced their intention to edit the article to discuss the history of languages in Palestine and I thought that was a good idea and encouraged them to do so, posting relevant sources on the talk. When they began editing the article without using the sources I provided, and because they encouraged me to edit as well, I did. What their specific objection to my edits is, is not articulated on the talk page. Wondering why they did not reply to my latest reply to them, I checked their contribs and found them making these insinuations. Rather off-putting I have to say. Tiamut (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not personal, and I appreciate that you have been communicative and have not used any unacceptable language. However, I am concerned that the consensus reached on the talk page is not being followed, and some of the writing appears partisan. Given how sensitive this topic is, it is especially important that we proceed with care and adhere closely to consensus and neutral point of view (NPOV). LumenArchivorum (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It appears that we have different interpretations of how to implement the consensus reached on the talk page, which sometimes happens, and is not a problem in of and itself. It is a problem to assume what my motives are though, and to characterize them as "political", rather than engaging in discussing the content specifically that you find to be problematic.

Also WP:NPOV urges us to include all significant viewpoints represented in scholarship. I have presented several. If there are any I have missed that you feel need inclusion, you are welcome to add them. If there are none, the article is not POV just because it faithfully represents the scholarship on a given subject. Tiamut (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for you to jump in while I ask for advice on information about conflict resolution like this. Let me seek council, I haven't been an editor as long as you. LumenArchivorum (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. Tiamut (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@LumenArchivorum, calling others’ behavior inappropriate like this is itself inappropriate; discussions you open are not limited to you only, and anyone is welcome to chime in as they like. Tiamut has done absolutely nothing wrong by doing so, and is well within their permissions to respond here as they have done. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not alleging that any specific rules were broken when they entered the teahouse discussion, but I do find the behavior inappropriate. In particular, responding in a combative manner at the Teahouse when someone is seeking advice on conflict resolution involving that same editor does not seem socially appropriate.

While differences in point of view are expected, I am concerned that this reflects a broader pattern of behavior in Tiamut’s interactions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tiamut LumenArchivorum (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you I will have a good read. LumenArchivorum (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguration links

Hi!

I just worked on an article, and I see now in the contributions list that it turned out "Disambiguration links" on it. I checked them all out, and even if they might be somewhat similar, they are correct. What am I to do? Leave as is? Singer80 (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Singer80. I don't know what you checked out but click "Disabiguation links" in the tag or my post to see the meaning: Links to disambiguation pages. We generally don't want that in articles except in hatnotes. Your edit said "musical consultations" with a link to a disambiguation page which doesn't even include that meaning although the doctor entry is similar. "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets can help identify the links. Consultant may be the best link target but it's not perfect. Maybe it shouldn't be linked at all. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks for your response. I'll look in to it! Singer80 (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Need Help With Draft

Hello, my Draft:Uttar_Pradesh_Board_of_Madarsa_Education getting rejected again and again. I improved many things now and added reliable sources from Indian government website too but still rejected. Could you please check once and tell what still problem. BrownCanary61 (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The draft has been declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

You are just telling of the existence of this government body and its function. A Wikipedia article must do more, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it is notable in a Wikipedia sense, like a notable organization. You don't really have sources with significant coverage, they just report the activities of the organization. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot for your quick response. BrownCanary61 (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest help: Verifying neutral tone for a technical software draft

Hello! I am an agency representative working on behalf of SciChart, and I have declared my Conflict of Interest (COI) on my user profile in compliance with WP:PAID. Our previous article drafts were declined by reviewers for being too promotional, which we realize happened because the text focused too heavily on the corporate entity rather than the technical utility.

I have completely overhauled the article draft inside my account's sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edward_Echo/sandbox.

The new draft focuses strictly on the software's architecture (C++ core, WebAssembly compilation, and WebGL rendering) and includes independent, peer-reviewed medical and scientific citations (including Nature magazine).

Could a veteran editor please review my sandbox layout and let me know if the tone is now sufficiently neutral and compliant with WP:NPOV before we submit it to Articles for Creation? I appreciate any specific line-by-line feedback you can offer to ensure it meets community standards. Thank you! Edward Echo (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Skimming it quickly, it seems like you've used AI to write it. AI-written article are not allowed on Wikipedia, so you'll need to rewrite it from scratch by hand first. Seems you may have also used AI to ask this question, which is also not allowed.
Beyond those issues, the article is quite lacking in sources. You need to cite every single claim in Wikipedia articles, but currently most of the sections contain no citations. You also haven't provided enough sources to demonstrate notability. You usually need about three high-quality, independent sources. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 12:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s not lacking in sources, it has no sources because both of the “sources” were completely nonexistent and probably generated by an AI. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 13:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? Both https://example-independent-source.gov/ and A. Author are held in very high regard at WP:RSP Amatmilen (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Holy WP:CIR, batman. Athanelar (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Edward Echo, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You say above Our previous article drafts were declined by reviewers for being too promotional, which we realize happened because the text focused too heavily on the corporate entity rather than the technical utility.

This is incoherent, and indicates either that you do not yet have an understing of how Wikipedia works, or possibly that you have used an AI for this post, which certainly does not understand anything (about Wikipedia or anything else).

Whether the text concentrates on the company or the product matters in respect of the article matching its title; but it has nothing to do with whether or not the text is promotional.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are 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.

If the article is, or reads as if it might be, what the company wants people to know (whether about itself or its product) then it is promotional. ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

How to make a Template:Sfn with just one of the authors of a work?

So I recently found out that if you have a reference for a work by two authors, as seen below

{{cite book |last1=Dunning |first1=John |last2=Brownstein | first2=Bill |date=2014 |title=You're Not Dead Until You're Forgotten: A Memoir |location=Montreal; Kingston |publisher=McGill–Queen's University Press |isbn=9780773544024}}

A Template:Sfn with just one of the authors won't work properly. As seen below

{{sfn|Dunning|2014|p=144–145}}

How can I signify that the Template:Sfn quotes one of the two authors specifically? In this case it is a biography, to which the living subject collaborated. The research and narrative are by Brownstein (the journalist), but it also features plenty of quotes directly attributable to Dunning (the subject). So I need to alternate between the two. Would Template:Anchor be the only way to do that? Thanks. Redacwiki (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Redacwiki sfn requires you to cite all authors of whatever book you intend the sfn to point to so that it avoids confusion (e.g. one book written by Alice and Bob, 2014, and another book written only by Bob, but also written in 2014). the above source sfn would be:

{{sfn|Dunning|Brownstein|2014|pp=114-145}}

nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 15:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You can use the "ref=" parameter to override this behaviour.

{{cite book |last1=Dunning |first1=John |last2=Brownstein | first2=Bill |date=2014 |title=You're Not Dead Until You're Forgotten: A Memoir |location=Montreal; Kingston |publisher=McGill–Queen's University Press |isbn=9780773544024|ref=CITEREFDunning2014}}

But this won't let you alternate between citing Brownstein and citing Dunning; for that I think you would need two different citations. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

As an alternate idea, I'd consider attributing the quote and not just citing it. I feel that if the book is "Alice and Bob (2026)" you cannot call it "Alice (2026)" even when you are repeating a direct quote from Alice. It would be clearer to say, "Alice said X (Alice and Bob 2026)". M kuhner (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Happy 10,000 watchers!

(non-question) The Teahouse has reached 10,000 watchers today!

Imagine 10,000 people having you on their watchlist at the same time nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 13:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m honestly surprised the number isn’t much higher. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 13:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

A useful tool

This is a promotion attempt by yours truly for a very useful tool called WikiNav that has remained somewhat obscure. Please see this post and the good explanation by Andrew Gray. I hope the regular editors here will use word of mouth (or word of keyboard) to promote this tool which has been eye opening for me, and do what they can to help improve it. I will not post about it any more anywhere, because I think I have done all I can. I will leave it in your hands. Good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

making a page for an actor

hi all! im looking to make pages for various stage (theatre) actors, and i was wondering if there were any requirements the actor must have met to get a page (such as winning an award or being nominated) 404.seikoko (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@404.seikoko The requirements are set out at WP:NACTOR. But please note that Wikipedia articles are not "for" their subject. Promotion is strictly forbidden, and the articles must be based on reliable sources, which might not say what their subjects want them to say. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

are ai articles acsepted

sggxg Crazdude (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

No. See WP:LLM. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikitable Citations

I wanted to update stats for the page on Catalan independence polling and found (including ones for earlier years) as source, but it also included statistics for earlier years, on page 75. Do I remove the previous references and instead add this one, or keep them and just add the citation on the new row? Svmsar (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It's up to you really. There's no particular guidance on this, so do whatever you feel is easier for readers to use. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 20:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Reporting title vandalism

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.

---

Someone has vandalized the title of Air India Flight 171 by moving it. ~2026-34642-78 (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Dealt with, thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 21:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Is 2019 Toronto Raptors Championship Parade classified as a peaceful gathering?

I'm planning on making the 2019 Toronto Raptors Championship Parade wikipedia article, but I'm just wondering if it would be eligible for List of largest peaceful gatherings, can someone please research the topic a little and let me know? In my opinion I believe it is, although, there were incidents like stabbings and a shooting that happened during it. Cheromaniii (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

We're trying to avoid "in my opinion" decisions. I recommend you look for sources that talk about this event and its peacefulness (or otherwise). If a published, reliable source says that it was a peaceful gathering, and a published, reliable source gives a size estimate, then it can go into the list. If not, putting it there would be original research (Wikipedia editors deciding what kind of gathering it was) which is not allowed. You can read about this at WP:OR. Good luck with your article! M kuhner (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but John Tory, the mayor of Toronto at the time "applauded Raptors fans for a 'peaceful and orderly' day." (https://globalnews.ca/news/5403321/toronto-raptors-parade-route-plan/)

CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/americas/toronto-raptors-parade-shooting) said "Canadian officials urged the public to not let it undermine a mostly peaceful commemoration of a historic win."

Would that classify it as peaceful? I'm stuck with this, hate to be a bother. Cheromaniii (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I think those sources make a reasonable case for peacefulness. So if you wish, you can incorporate them into your article, and BOLDly go ahead and add it to the list. If other editors disagree they can revert you, or start a discussion. (Be sure to source the size estimate too. You may need to look at multiple sources and give a range; my experience is that different estimates of an event's size can vary a lot.) M kuhner (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the advice and help! :)

Cheromaniii (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Should I remove a template

Hi I am Lutitium and I made an edit to the article Violence against robots trying to fix the tone, gramer, cohesion and what not in attempt to remove the following template:

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (January 2026) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

so should i remove it or does it need further edits?

anyways, bye:D Lutitium (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You improved the article, Lutitium. (But when you changed "Brščić et al. define...." to "Brščić et al. defines....", you didn't.) A few infelicities remain. Better leave template removal to somebody else. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Edited it to "defines" as of now in this copyediting edit. ★ Campssitie (msg) (in solidarity, #943) 🧋🏖 13:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you :D Lutitium (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Need help with my draft

Hello, need a help with my draft Draft:Dargah Allama Hasan Raza. It got declined as duplicate of Bareilly Dargah article but actually this shrine is different. This draft is about Hassan Raza Khan and Naqi Ali Khan shrine. I added separate reliable sources too but maybe reviewer misunderstood. Can someone check once and tell what more needed. BrownCanary61 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The article could definitely use more content. What's the history of it? Why's it important? What does it look like? Etc. Currently it almost reads like a basic address for it. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for deleted Wikicode

Hello. I created the deleted page "Gustavo Jiménez (fictional)".

I am not asking you to restore the page to the encyclopedia, but I would just like access to the deleted wikitext so I can continue working on it elsewhere.

The page was originally a subpage for my account. I wanted ChatGPT to tell me what I could improve, so I chose to make it an article. I was not aware that I would publicly publish it to everyone and thought that it would still be under my account. I tried tomove the page back to "User:" or "Draft:", but I didn't find the function.

Would you be willing to give back the Wikitext or restore the page to my userspace (User:3pleToast/Gustavo Jiménez (fictional)) or otherwise provide a copy?

Thank you. 3pleToast (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I've emailed it to you. JBW (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Well thank you very much. 3pleToast (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Animal names in sister project link boxes

I have been working on a species article (diademed sifaka), and I have found differing examples of whether or not to use the binomial or common names for the Commons and Wikispecies sister project templates in the "external links" section. For example, the silky sifaka uses the binomial name for both links, whereas the bonobo uses the binomial name for the commons link and the singular common name for the Wikispecies link (which does not produce a correct result because other projects' redlinks do not appear as such in the box template; however, the red slender loris article does correctly link to the Wikispecies page, and is written in singular title case as "Red Slender Loris"). The example given on template:Commons category is for the polar bear, which is written as "Polar bears," pluralized with the first word of the common name capitalized while the template:Wikispecies example has both words in the common name capitalized; neither example uses the binomial name. I used the common name with the first word capitalized in both the Wikispecies and Commons links due to the inconsistencies in the templates' usages in other articles, as well as there being no recommendation given in the manual of style. Is this supposed to be standardized? Propithèque (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Propitheque: you should use whatever gives the correct link, but the display name is up to you. This is complicated by the fact that {{Commons category}} has been updated to get the correct link from Wikidata if no explicit link is given, but {{Wikispecies}} has not and will simply use pagename in that case. In Bonobo both templates are given without parameters: {{Commons category}}{{Wikispecies}}; Commons link works thanks to Wikidata but Wikispecies link tries to use the page name which is incorrect. In Red slender loris both templates are given with explicit parameters, and the Wikispecies template has an additional display text: {{Wikispecies|Loris tardigradus|Red Slender Loris}}. For Diademed sifaka I think the current "Diademed sifakas" is good. MKFI (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Quotes censored in source

I'm uncertain of how WP:NOTCENSORED applies when a quote is censored in the cited source. If a source censors a quote, do we use context and common sense interpretation to fill in the obscene words (the example I'm presently considering appears in the source as "Why don't you go f--- yourself?"), or do we recreate the quote as it appears in the source? Martin IIIa (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Recreate the quote as it appears in the source (see MOS:SIC). CMD (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I overlooked (or perhaps forgot) about that part of SIC policy. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Need Rights for Autoconfirmed

My account is old and I have done more than 10 edits but I still haven't received the autoconfirmed Amitnageswar11 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You should be autoconfirmed. What makes you think you're not? 331dot (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I forgot, it was recently changed- the time requirement is now four days from your first edit, not four days after the account was created. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for a review(I presume that's what you want autoconfirmed for); this is highly recommended until you get experience having drafts accepted. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

How should I classify my first redirect?

I created a redirect request yesterday because I wanted to see how someone would classify my redirect or if it's even necessary. It was declined since that's not the purpose of AfC (fair enough). I was told to take it to the redirects talk page, but I figured this is a newb question, so I'm asking here instead.

I'm specifically wondering how an editor who has had experience would categorize this redirect? (Types of kite -> Kite types) I was thinking Template:R from related word and Template:R unprintworthy, but I'm especially confused by the printworthiness templates. I just want someone with more experience to check my work, thanks.
TheGrapeEscape (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The {{R unprintworthy}} is a very niche redirect category. That said, I do think it is printworthy, as it is phrasing that a user might look up/find useful. I also agree with your assesment that {{R from related word}} is useful. It is something that both Wikipedia readers searching for a phrase might use, and also Google search engine results. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I would think like this: anyone at all could right now want to use your new currently unmade redirect. I looked through my made redirects and I've never categorized any of them. It is more important to provide the service to our audience/customers/our species - at this moment to make an immediate assistance to some other. After this choice you could then think of the second problem=category. Alternatively - like in my situation, someone could arrive and categorize who knows the answer already - this saves you time and mental energy to use in some other task or something you could like more doing. As an answer: there are many different choices - I think if you looked through every one you could find the correct choice, if you're not sure then guess and someone could then correct it=I'll review to see how your choice looks. Cattenion (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion on fair use image

I found Cuna de lobos tagged as unreferenced since 2017. It happens to be a nostalgic topic for me and there's a landmark anniversary this year. I added a bit on an unaired reboot pilot titled Por derecho de sangre.

My mentor suggested I ask here about this publicity photo attributed to an agency. The upload form says not to use things like Getty. Well, it's easy enough to find the associated telecast; Hoy is a morning show on Las Estrellas. I believe there's a strong case in the article for the iconography of the character's eye patch and no infringement on commercial opportunities. Would either form of the image be advisable to use? Thanks! Cedarshadow (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cedarshadow considering María Rubio is deceased, it is not possible to generate new photos of her, let alone with the eye-patch. But one of criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content is that it is primary depiction of article. That is already served by File:Cuna de lobos DVD Póster.jpg. You need to justify any fair use image PER article. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, but this is an image of Rebecca Jones depicting a very different version of the patch. Sorry if that was unclear. My rationale is that, per the article, they were making the version in this image very different from Rubio's portrayal with a different eye patch and costume. Cedarshadow (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Problem to creating Lovely Mimi

Hello everyone, i have a problem to create an Lovely Mimi article from redirect does anyone can create the article from redirect, there are many reliable sources to discuss an Lovely Mimi. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you create the article as a draft (you can use the New Article Wizard) and then submit it to Articles for Creation. If it is accepted, the editor who accepts it can deal with replacing the redirect with the new article. This will also let you improve and proofread the article before submitting it. Good luck with your article! M kuhner (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay thank you Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)