Wikipedia:Teahouse

DandelionAndBurdock, 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 0 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.]

Approval of Not Just Bikes' statements?

Original title of this thread: Could the existence of Not Just Bikes Wikipedia article, accompanied by the lack of those of some educational YouTubers with more subscribers, gives the wrong impression that Wikipedia community approves of Not Just Bikes' statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toarin (talk • contribs) 09:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note to self: I really gotta stop worrying about this topic. Toarin (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Not Just Bikes § Could the existence of this Wikipedia article, accompanied by the lack of those of some educational YouTubers with more subscribers, gives the wrong impression that Wikipedia community approves of Not Just Bikes' statements?

Also, for someone who generally agrees with the overall messages of his channel, some of his videos, to me, made a few claims that might not be WP:DUE. Such as saying that “American trucks” are murder machines or that footbridges would almost always be a bad idea.

References

Notes: 1. Should the Wikipedia community approves of those statements, I'd be more than happy to have them used as sources in appropriate articles.

2. “by the lack of those of some educational YouTubers with more subscribers” was in reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hill (YouTuber), an AfD that was closed in Jan 2026. Toarin (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Toarin (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I dont thinl having an article on some subject should ever be taken as endorsement, especially we have articles on much worse people and things.

Subscriber count is a poor indicator of notability as it barely takes a second to hit subscribe to a youtube channel and we are looking for substantial coverage from reliable sources. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 07:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

> I dont thinl having an article on some subject should ever be taken as endorsement, especially we have articles on much worse people and things.

That is a strong argument. Although I think that for many of the times, such things are labeled accordingly to not be endorsed. Such as entries in Category:War crimes committed by country

Having an article on a particular subjects does certainly not imply endorsement. After all, we have articles on Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, many serial killers, etc etc. That's not to say that the article is written from a neutral point of view right now, that would be a separate, and potentially valid criticism (though I haven't read the article). {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 07:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Having an article on nazism doesn't mean we approve nazism. Yes, Godwin's law, I know. sapphaline (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about other Wikipedia editors but the feeling that such an opinionated person have an article on Wikipedia but the Wikipedia editors like us are expected to not be opinionated in their editings is such so demoralizing. Toarin (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

If reliable independent sources say it's a war crime, or a bad YouTube channel, then we can say that. If you have a reliable source criticizing this channel, for example, it would be reasonable to include in the article. But we're not allowed to put in our own opinions.

This may not suit you, which is fine. There are good places for well written opinion pieces: this just isn't one of them. M kuhner (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I have abridged the original, wordy title of this thread. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Toarin, any editor of any encyclopedia must be neutral and objective, and state facts rather than opinions. If you are unable to be objective, then on Wikipedia you should not edit on subjects you have strong opinions about. Save your strong opinions for social media, blogs, or off-wiki conversations. Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand that you are concern that I might be too opinionated to be objective on Wikipedia. But be assured that I always intended to be objective on Wikipedia. Pretty much the only reason I started this thread is to make sure that it'd be okay to disregard what I believe might cause factual inaccuracy down the line. Toarin (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing "considered a reliable source" with "has a Wikipedia page." Like most YouTube channels, this one is unlikely to be considered a reliable source: information taken from it can't be used to support other articles unless it can be shown that the channel owner is a recognized expert. But Wikipedia has lots of articles on unreliable sources, for example the articles on OnlyFans, IMDB, or Breitbart. Existence of an article is not an endorsement: all it says is that the subject is notable (in the Wikipedia sense).

If you find anything sourced to this channel that you feel is inappropriate, feel free to either boldly remove it, or start a Talk page discussion.

Thanks for your concern about accuracy! Questionable sources are always worth keeping an eye on. M kuhner (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Your response is highly appreciated. Thank you very much. Toarin (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Creating my first article

Right now I am creating a draft article on Croftmalloch Primary School in Whitburn so any tips for it? (I think it is notable as it has won the gold sports award gold rights respecting School award and digital schools Scotland award) Icantthinkofausername12345 (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

You or I may think that it's notable, Icantthink..., but the question is of whether it's notable according to one or more of Wikipedia's relevant criteria for notability. My tip? Forget this draft, for three or four months. During that time, improve existing articles. Then apply your experience of making those improvements to the development of Draft:Croftmalloch Primary School. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

ok thanks for that tip :) Icantthinkofausername12345 (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Icantthinkofausername12345, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. I have been participating in deletion debates and offering advice to new editors for about 15 years. Articles about primary schools rarely survive unless the school in question is indisputably historic or of architectural significance. The vast majority of primary schools do not meet those standards. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks ill read it the now Icantthinkofausername12345 (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Salutations!

You might think the subject is notable, but how many sources show up when you search the name of the school, not counting social media, government databases or articles that only mention the school once with no special article on the school itself? These are things you might want to double-check, as Wikipedia not only requires the subject to be notable, but it prohibits original research. No matter how much you may know about the subject, you must have a source to back up your information.

Next, I’ve noticed that instead of your sources being in the form of a citation, you used external links. Don’t do that! To cite a source, click on the button that appears as two quotation marks, click on automatic, and copy and paste the link you want to cite. Wikipedia will do the rest for you!

Also in your article, Raeburn Crescent and West Lothian should link back to their respective articles, if there is one.

I suggest you read up on Wikipedia’s notability standards, and Wikipedia’s manual of style.

Moreover, if you’d like, you could use a high-quality article that already existing in Wikipedia, and use that as a formatting reference guide!

Goodbye and happy editing! Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 23:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

ok thanks Icantthinkofausername12345 (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Sandaig Bay

There are two Articles on Wikipedia. One has the above title, and the other is "Glenelg, Highland; Sandaig and Camusfearna". There are cross-references. "Sandaig" in the second Article refers to the Sandaig Islands, about 14km north of Sandaig Bay. However, in the section headed Geography, all but one sentence in the Sandaig Bay article actually relate to Sandaig Islands.

This is the first time I have ever wanted to suggest an amendment to a Wiki page, and so I have no idea how to proceed. I would appreciate some advice aimed at a newcomer. I could provide new text for the Geograph section of the Sandaig Bay article if desired. ~2026-39921-53 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-39921-53, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. So, for most articles, if you think you can improve them you can simply go ahead and do so - edit the article, and make sure you leave an edit summary that will be helpful to other editors.

If somebody disagrees that your edit is an improvement, they may revert it. They will often leave a message on your user talk page to say they have done so, and perhaps explain why; but there is no requirement on them to do that.

If that happens, and you still think that the article can be improved, the place to open a discussion is the article's talk page (eg Talk:Sandaig Bay - which seems to have an old discussion of something similar to your point, though I'm not sure if it is the same thing or not).

This whole process is all described in BRD.

If you are not clear what change is desirable, or you think your suggestion might be controversial, you can begin by opening a discussion on the talk page.

An important thing to note is that as long as you are editing in good faith, you need not worry about making mistakes, or about other editors disagreeing with you: that's how collaborative editing works. ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin, that is very helpful - and reassuring! Just to let you know that the discussion in Talk:Sandaig Bay is exactly the same point as mine, but nothing seems to have happened. At least this will give you some confidence in my changes.

I have today submitted my changes to the Sandaig Bay article, and await reaction. There are a few things I do not know how to do - e.g. check the relevance of the References, and delete or correct the list of islands in the box to the right - but no doubt they can be sorted. (Another one is turning appropriate words or phrases into links.)

I have not yet made any edits to the other article, "Glenelg, Highland ...", though I will do so if you think this desirable. One issue is that I would be adding quite a lot of geography to what is now a rather short paragraph about Gavin Maxwell, which might unbalance it. Is that OK by you? If I am honest, I think there should be a new article, called either "Sandaig Islands" or "Sandaig and Camusfearna" (with appropriate changes to the "Glenelg ..." article), but at my current level of experience I do not think I should volunteer.

Two more general points. (1) Presumably I need to set up some sort of ID page? My name is David Purchase, and I am a UK citizen with (among other things) a strong interest in hillwalking and maps. (2) Is there a way of 'flagging' this discussion so that I can find it more quickly? ~2026-39921-53 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Beside the title of this discussion, are you able to see a little menu? (I see a three-dots type of menu, but I'm on my phone, and a real computer screen may show things differently.) Anyway, if you see a menu there, "Copy link" should be one of the items. And if you visit that link, you can immediately bookmark it in your browser's menu, thus saving it for later. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-39921-53.

You are welcome (indeed, encouraged) to create an account (whether you use your real name or a pseudonym is up to you), and if you do, you will be able to create a user page on which you may share as much or as little information as you like about you as a Wikipedia editor - including a limited amount about your life outside Wikipedia - see WP:UPYES.

Neither an account nor a user page is a requirement, though. ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Finding Sources

Is it okay to use LLMs to find sources for articles? I am aware of the concerns about using AI to actually write articles, but is there any problem with using it to find sources? Just asking in case, because I don't want to do anything that violates policy or that is potentially unethical. Thanks! Tufflikethat (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If you're using an LLM off-Wiki to look for sources, that's your affair. But you should carefully investigate any source thus found before you place it anywhere on Wikipedia, because AI/LLMs frequently hallucinate non-existant sources, and cite real sources that actually have no mention of the facts they supposedly support or contain. They also, as I have found by experiment, readily proffer as fact things said in fictional works that are not true in the real world.

However you find sources, it is your responsibility to check them before use.

Sorry if this sounds 'stern', but dealing with fake facts and sources created by so-called AI can potentially waste a lot of our time, and yours. WP:LLM and some of the linked essays, etc. at WP:AIDIR, including WP:LLMSEARCH, are worth studying if you haven't already. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding comment. It is solely your responsibility, and it is a serious one, to determine whether any given source is reliable and whether or not it actually verifies the assertion in question. This applies to sources found with AI/LLM tools just as it does with sources found through conventional Google searches, library books, or books from your own shelves or found at a used book store. Do not believe any assurance by an AI tool about the quality of a source. Verify it yourself. Determining the reliability of any given source is one of the most important skills of an encyclopedia editor. Cullen328 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

While just going through this discussion again, Cullen, I just noticed I misspelled your name in an earlier message referring to this message that I posted on the 17th. Sorry. Augnablik (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Using an LLM for this gives basically the same result as asking a really stupid person to do it. The differences: the LLM is faster, and the LLM is programmed to conceal its own stupidity. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If AI comes up with sources that do turn out—after an editor’s investigation—to meet Wikipedia’s usability criteria, can we really say that using an LLM to find sources “gives basically the same result as asking a really stupid person to do it?”

I think Colin’s reply well represents an approach that most in the scientific fields would agree with … which leaves the door open to different approaches of gathering information but uses rigorous standards of verifying it. Augnablik (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

If AI comes up with sources that do turn out—after an editor’s investigation—to meet Wikipedia’s usability criteria, can we really say that using an LLM to find sources “gives basically the same result as asking a really stupid person to do it?”

Yes - absolutely. The stupid person will retrieve some good items too. It's not different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

As an educator, I can assure you that even an idiot can sometimes find a decent source. But what I stress to students like yourself is that the process of searching for sources often reveals context, and for this reason they should "map" their research process. In searching a topic, one may find that scholars and journalists hold different views than what one imagined. This is especially rewarding on Wikipedia. Using a LLM search engine can skip a lot of that process and filter out the conversations and debates that made a topic worth writing about in the first place, in favor of strictly answering your prompt. It would be like walking through a forest and looking only at the dirt trail you're hiking. One may not always need that context, but my point is that the risk is greater than just verifiability. As a high school student who obviously cares about their intellectual development, I think you can do yourself a disservice relying on LLMs. You wouldn't ask a robot to lift weights for you; you shouldn't ask a LLM to do your thinking for you (because research is thinking!) Gebble (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this helped a lot. Yes I have really taken up Wikipedia to further myself, so I guess skipping the process of finding sources would be like shooting myself in the foot! Tufflikethat (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

📚As a fellow educator, @Gebble, I fully agree with your aim to get students to look for "different views than what one imagined" and mapping their research process. But I think you ended your advice to @Tufflikethat just shy of a well-rounded discussion when you said, "you can do yourself a disservice relying on LLMs," as AI needn’t be relied on but simply be made intelligent use of. Which is something perhaps you too hold, but I just wanted to pick up on the wording of your message in light of our young new editor's original question.

AI is so often viewed through "either-or" lenses so that it’s seen as worthy of either tossing in a trash bin or placing on a throne. And to those who view AI through the first of these lenses, anyone who suggests the merest possibility of middle ground is worthy of choice words of rebuke for presumed low intelligence.

To help students understand there can be legitimate use of AI as a tool and how that's done—especially at the start of an assignment to get some traction going that could include a few possible sources that might be helpful to follow up on personally—is an approach I’m seeing more and more news reports of in the academic world. But I also see it adapted elsewhere, such as news reports from the journalistic, medical, and legal worlds. It points to increasing valuation of AI as a very beneficial tool for when used wisely, which in turn means clear guidance and expectations absolutely must accompany all school assignments and work production.

Two publications from the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Kansas are just a few examples of this approach in the academic world: “Helping students understand the biases in generative AI” and “Maintaining academic integrity in the AI era.” Augnablik (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Jemimah Ekanem

Please I want to ask if Jemimah Ekanem is notable for Wikipedia as a professor in Akwa Ibom State University. Saxxxxxy (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Without knowing anything about this person, I would direct you to the definition of a notable professor or academic. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

A simple measure is do you know of sources about Ekanem that meet the requirements at WP:42? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely want to become a much better person

I need help ~2026-40328-68 (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. If you feel you have a genuine problem, please reach out to a therapist. This is the Teahouse, where volunteers answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have such a question? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) In solidarity. 09:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello there,

This is the Wikipedia teahouse, where you ask questions about help with Wikipedia. If there is a genuine problem you’re having, I sincerely hope it will get better soon and I wish you the best of luck. If you have a question about editing Wikipedia, you’re free to ask here.

Happy editing! Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 00:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-40328-68 It seems like you have posted this more than once recently, but I could be wrong. Unfortunately, this is not the place to get help being a better person. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal of the article "Divine Word College of Legazpi"

Hello, I've been improving this article lately, searching and adding sources. May I ask when should be the maintenance template be removed? Because I honestly do not understand the "Help:Maintenance template removal" article. Thanks. HegelianCk (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Also I see other articles like "University of Santo Tomas-Legazpi" which have almost no secondary source but has no maintenance template. HegelianCk (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

You can add maintenance templates to it. And if you feel like the maintenance template no longer applies to the article, feel free to be bold and remove it. jolielover♥talk 11:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the page, although it looks like the current template (too many references to primary sources) is solved, the big issue now is that it needs more citations, especially in the history section jolielover♥talk 11:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@HegelianCk It's not legitimate to compare just two articles in this way. Instead, you need to do a triple comparison: how it's done in article 1, how it's done in article 2, and what the Wikipedia standards say. If both articles are better than what Wikipedia requires, they can both be kept as they are. If both articles are defective according to Wikipedia, then they both need fixing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@HegelianCk Yes, there are many poor articles on Wikipedia. To add to what Fingers said, these need to be improved, turned into a draft for further work, or deleted. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. David10244 (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Some things with similar enough titles - should these belong?

Example: SuperSU, an Android rooting tool, is similar enough to the Wikipedia redirect title of SuperS, an anime season title (as both have CamelCase, having uppercase letters directly after the word Super. SuperS' redirect link is also one letter removed from SuperSU) Likewise, Tecno Mobile is close enough to the redirect and name of Tecna (a fictional character) with a changed letter and added word, in that it's not named Techno/Techna but Tecno/Tecna.

Since it relates to similar-enough titles on Wikipedia, and users have had subpages related to page titling, should I put this on a subpage or put on SuperSU:

Not to be confused with SuperS.

And for Tecno Mobile:

Not to be confused with Tecna.

(they would be distinguished rather than disambiguation list).

Some technology software or even unrelated things are similar enough to the names of things in TV series and movies. In this case, unintentionally similar to names of things relating to Winx Club and Sailor Moon. There is also a video editing software named Magix but it was never named because of the city and planet in Winx Club (2004-2009). WinX DVD Ripper Platinum also has a similar name to Winx Club, but I think Distinguish would be there because of their similar titles.

Unopened VHS tape (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not certain how all of this works, but I believe part of the process is to make sure we're not protecting against mistakes that people aren't actually making very much. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Unopened VHS tape. Template:Distinguish says: "point out to readers, who may have misspelled their desired title". I don't know either subject but I imagine the ending U in SuperSU is pronounced clearly and then SuperSU/SuperS doesn't sound like a likely misspelling to me. Tecno Mobile and Tecna also sound hard to confuse but maybe Tecna and Tekna (disambiguation) should be connected. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Mary E. Green Mansion Citation Help

The article: Mary E. Green

I'm pretty sure that Mary E. Green, while in her time living in Charlotte, Michigan, owned a mansion, and probably did some of the woodwork. Only her hobby of woodcarving is mentioned in the article, and not her mansion.

I couldn't find anything else on the subject besides two Facebook pages and a Weebly site, none of which seem like trustworthy sources. One of them claims Green was friends with a Mr. Tiffany (presumably Louis Comfort Tiffany) and did most of the woodcarving herself. It also claims that the property is now owned by Burkhead-Green Kilgo Funeral Home, but I cannot find anything on their website to back this up.

Can anyone help find a reliable source for this claim? Thatbisexual (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

That isn’t really a matter for the Teahouse; you could try asking at WP:REFDESK/H; or at WT:WikiProject Michigan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Problem with Fixing Citation Based on Wikidata Inside lnfobox

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 2nd entry in references for Matlab has a problem with "title". However, it is based on Wikidata and is inside the infobox of the article. How can that be repaired? Starlighsky (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Starlighsky, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I don't see what the problem is with the title, but the URL and title of that reference are both in d:Q169478, and you should be able to edit them there.

However, it seems to me that the article has a much more serious problem, that, glancing through the list of references, I don't see a single one which appears to be an independent, reliable, in-depth discussion of MATLAB. Without some sources which meet all the requirement of WP:42, the article does not establish that Matlab is notable. I am going to tag the article accordingly. ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#Problem Fixing Citation at Matlab Article. Please only post a question in one place. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I am grateful for this information. I will send these types of issues only to the Help Desk in the future. Starlighsky (talk) 23:38, 18 July 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.

Copyright issues

I have received this message:

please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to [a page] may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration,

I have no idea what "extensive" is. A sentence? A paragraph? A chapter of a book? I AM well aware of giving proper attribution to a source, and have spent much time finding suitable sources for information I want to post. If I can't find a source, I don't post anything. Would you prefer I stop that and work from my personal knowledge of the subject of the page? Do you want me to use quotation marks and stick with direct quotes from a source? May I paraphrase or not? Do you want me to cite a source at the beginning and at the end of the information? Truly don't know what to do with this. AllAboutProcess (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Your response makes perfect sense. It seems to me that the best thing would be for you to just quit editing until you've had enough time to study and absorb what is meant on Wikipedia by these terms. I say that because all the ways you've offered to do things wrong are problems too, and clearly you already knew that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to walk you through how I'd go about figuring this out: hope it's helpful.

The message you got named a particular article. I went to that article and clicked on "History". There I spotted recent edits from the person who left you that message. They left an "edit summary" to explain why they deleted your text: copied from https://www.newspapers.com/image/236886981/. So it looks like their objection was specifically to copying of text from that link. I can't go further because I don't have a subscription, but the next step would be to compare your text with the text at the link.

In general you should paraphrase. Quotes are mainly used when the thing being quoted is an opinion, allegation, etc. rather than a fact, or when the exact way it was said is essential information. There is an explanatory essay at WP:Close paraphrasing which talks about paraphrasing, quoting, and giving credit that may help with your general question.

Having people correct what you do is part of the Wikipedia experience and happens to absolutely everyone. It doesn't reflect badly on you: no one is born knowing all this stuff. If the essay I linked to doesn't clarify things, please feel free to reach out for more information.

I strongly recommend figuring out what is wrong before editing the article again, because while mistakes are accepted, making the same mistake repeatedly can get an unpleasant reaction. M kuhner (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

To be more clear: we're not asking you to quit editing. We're asking you to slow down and figure out how to do it properly. DS (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear. AllAboutProcess came here with a veiled ultimatum, demanding an explanation and suggesting that if the explanation didn't suit them they would begin a campaign of intentional bad editing. My suggestion to quit editing until they truly know how to manage the copyright violation issue was not intended to be permanent, but on the other hand, would become my permanent advice if they believed they would persistently fail to learn how to edit within the copyright requirements. I don't believe there is the vaguest little hint of "biting the newcomers" in my advice, especially under the circumstances. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 09:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

"demanding an explanation and suggesting that if the explanation didn't suit them they would begin a campaign of intentional bad editing. "

They did no such thing. WP:BITE certainly applies, as indeed does WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If you don't feel that "quit" could be taken as a permanent recommendation, perhaps you should quit providing help on the Teahouse.

Always consider how people will perceive your text, not just how you want them to perceive your text. Especially when they're nervous and new and asking for guidance in an area where they've already made a mistake. DS (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Korean transliteration tags

I'm trying to improve the Taepyeongso article, which needs lang and transliteration templates. Do I tag all of the romanized text (like the name of the instrument) with transliteration (which I've seen happen in some other articles) or just tag the first appearance and manually italicize other mentions (MOS:KO-ITALICS)? ✩ vinh in space (✉✦) 02:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If the term is a proper noun, you should not italicize the term, and for the first appearance, use the transliteration template and then manually italicize them later.

I'll also leave a courtesy ping for @Grapesurgeon, whom I know is active, has experience in writing Korea-related articles, and can offer advice better in this case ^^ ⠀⠀.nhals8⠀⠀ 03:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

MOS:KO-ITALICS for romanized text.

For Hangul/Hanja, you should always wrap in either {{Korean}} or {{lang}}. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Uploaded a screenshot

i just uploaded a screenshot in Wikipedia, it is Sonic Jump Fever, but it is in Public Domain, however I wanted to make it non-free, but Fair Use is not allowed in Wikipedia Commons which is confusing, is it ok to just create a different licensing copyright pls?, here's my uploaded link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sonic_Jump_Fever_screenshot.jpg フィリピン人 (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @フィリピン人, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Why do you think that screenshot is in the Public Domain? It is almost certainly copyright - almost anything is unless it is very old or has been explicitly released - and so may not be uploaded to Commons, and may be (uploaded to and) used in Wikipedia only if that use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean in my previous talk on uploading a screenshot, is it said non-free is should be used to upload a game screenshot? フィリピン人 (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Go to WP:FUW > Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is an excerpt from a copyrighted work. Check Summary etc at File:Sonic Jump J2ME gameplay.png for a similar case. If someone thinks your Purpose of use in article isn't good enough, they may nominate it for deletion, but I think a screenshot is fairly common in an article like that.

The Commons file will be deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

also, when uploading a screenshot of Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1 it has option that REALLY CONFUSE ME!

This work was created by me and anyone is free to use it. This work was created by someone else and it is free to share

Which one is it? フィリピン人 (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Neither. That's not for non free. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@フィリピン人 Again: at the WP:FUW page, click the Upload a non-free file button, then pick This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is an excerpt from a copyrighted work. And don't put yourself as author, you're not the author or owner of a work because you took a screenshot. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Help with genre

Hey, I'm trying to expand and clean up the page for "I Feel You" by the Wonder Girls. I found three reliable sources talking about its genre:

• https://www.billboard.com/media/lists/best-k-pop-songs-2010s-top-100-8544710/ - says it's pop rock
• https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/wonder-girls-return-i-feel-you-mv-6649668/ - says it's synth-rock
• https://www.popmatters.com/the-best-k-pop-of-2015-2495465522.html - says it's synth-pop

I think the song is clearly all of those things. Is it worth putting all of these three things in the infobox or choosing just one and mentioning the others as influences? If only there were a "synth pop rock" page... Handsome Ellis (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The general rule about infobox entries is that they should be concise and correct. I personally can't think of a way to get this into the infobox that is both concise and correct: I'd put it in the article body instead. If there was a majority view among sources that would be another matter, but you seem to have a three-way tie.... M kuhner (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I mean "You Belong with Me" has three different genres in the infobox and it's a Featured Article, but there I think it's justified considering that the genres are different enough. "Synth-pop," "synth-rock," and "pop rock" could be combined in an ideal world, because these sources are essentially collectively saying it's a synth-pop-rock song. I tried to note it in the lead section and composition by saying it's "synth-driven pop rock," but it doesn't feel quite right. Handsome Ellis (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The unfamiliar genre names in this response are fake ones, intended as a joke.

Porkynth = synth rock pop

Pork = pop rock

Porkbilynth = synth rockabilly pop

Pazorkbilynth = synth rockabilly pazz/jop

Clamonashooth = classical Motown Nashville smooth-jazz (like on "Travis Tritt, Bill Withers, and the Marvelettes Sing Mozart's Così fan tutte, With Special Guest Johnny Cash as Don Alfonso") TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

LMAO, amazing Handsome Ellis (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers, I don't get any google hits for any of those terms. Are you just making up names as a joke? If so, please make it clear in your post that these are jokes, so that new editors don't get the idea that these are terms that should be used in Wikipedia articles. This is especially important in the Teahouse where new editors are looking for guidance. (Or better yet, just don't make such jokes here.) CodeTalker (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The whole thing was a joke, and I made the usual error of thinking it was obviously a joke. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I was pretty sure that it was a joke, but since I'm not an expert in music terminology, it was not obviously so to me. And it is probably even less obvious to editors whose first language is not English. CodeTalker (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

About conflict of interest comment in my article

Hi good day for you. I have a article called as ICYM mangalore diocese, which is not present in Wikipedia and it is a new topic It is related to association in Mangalore Like a Catholic movement created for youth. After writing and submitting a draft copy I am getting a comment called as conflict of interest How can I resolve it please help me Denwin D'souza (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Denwin D'souza I don't see anything that needs resolving. You have rightly declared a conflict of interest at Draft:ICYM Mangalore Unit and been advised that it is not suitable material for Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Denwin D'souza, you declared a conflict of interest. Thank you for having done so. But Draft:ICYM Mangalore Unit was rejected (and by this I don't mean declined) on the grounds that it's an AI written advertisement not in the spirit of Wikipedia. You're not asked to "resolve" this. Instead, you're asked to stop. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, how to resolve this issue in future Denwin D'souza (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The notice saying "rejected" with the big stop-sign graphic means there is no way to save this article, because even if you did a perfect job it still could not be accepted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 09:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If the draft's opening paragraph:

The Indian Catholic Youth Movement (ICYM) is the largest premier Catholic youth organization in India, functioning under the guidance of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India (CCBI). Officially approved as a national movement on 14 September 1999, it spans over 600 districts across 14 regions and 171 dioceses..

is verifiably true, then it is possible, indeed likely, that the topic would meet out notability criteria and a well-written and adequately-sourced article would be published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

yes the topic is genuine ;) but i am new to wiki and dont know the flow to edit this article , even used AI to write few sentences and there are very few documentation in literature. I mean uh, most of the references does not exist, It may be pictorial of old group photos of member and their social service i have collected or a old rulebooks which are not like published, meaning dosent have a ISBN or any other kind of backings with no authorship of those books, but they are genuine. And majority of like social activities done comes from recordings of social media which is not considered genuine and is not neutral when it comes to Wikipedia standards because it not scientific and does not have references. Let's see if anyone can help I am ready to help them. Denwin D'souza (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

yes lets me get reference and later add as new article since old article has been rejected Denwin D'souza (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, and we already have an article about the Indian Catholic Youth Movement more broadly. This user seems to be trying to write a draft about a specific regional branch. Athanelar (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Denwin D'souza, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

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.

Unless you can find several reliable sources that are completely unconnected with the subject and discuss the subject in some depth (see WP:42) no article about it is going to be possible.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Denwin D'souza (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Referencing help for Draft:Larisa Hennadiivna Kliushkina

Hello!

I need advice on how to correctly format the sources to get my draft approved (Draft:Larisa Hennadiivna Kliushkina). The draft was previously declined due to a lack of independent secondary sources, but I actually have high-quality, reliable secondary platforms documenting her career:

1. Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine (ESU): There is a dedicated peer-reviewed encyclopedic article about her life and work (available online at esu.com.ua/article-8638). 2. National Union of Artists of Ukraine: She has been an officially registered professional member since 2005. 3. BBK Freiburg (Germany): She is a registered member of the Professional Association of Visual Artists. 4. Exhibition History: Her international solo and group exhibitions (Paris, Frankfurt, Berlin, Wiesbaden) are documented in printed art catalogs with ISBNs and media reviews.

Since the main encyclopedic source is in Ukrainian and some catalog data is in German print, what is the best way to structure these citations in the English Wikipedia code so that reviewers can easily verify her notability?

Thank you so much for your help! Vitaliikliushkinm (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are using the visual editor see Wikipedia:Citing sources. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 13:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Vitaliikliushkinm, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please note that publications from any body of which she is a member, or of any gallery or museum where she has exhibited, is not regarded as independent, and so will not contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Trying to answer your main question, even though the answer might not help you much yet: One helpful thing that you can do is keep the original source titles but also add source titles translated into English. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vitaliikliushkinm I presume based on your username that you are a relative of the subject. If so, this is a conflict of interest which you need to declare; see WP:COI. Athanelar (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The references have AI hallucinations, for example the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine https://esu.com.ua/article-8693 returns an article about a publishing company, not about this artist. Netherzone (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

How do i edit the Full article in source editing in mobile?

How do i edit the Full article in source editing in mobile? ~2026-40305-01 (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

You tap the letter you want to edit and the keyboard will show up. See Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/1 for help. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 13:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Tap the letter while editing SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 13:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-40305-01: Just use desktop mode. (Avoid using the mobile app while editing; use a web browser instead.) Read: Wikipedia:Editing on mobile devices... — Raihanur (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft review query

Hello. I submitted my draft Draft:Ahad Bab on 2 July 2026. It is currently showing "Review waiting". I understand reviews are done by volunteers and may take time. I just wanted to ask if there is anything else I should improve while waiting, or if the draft looks ready for review. Thank you for your time. Peerharis666 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Peerharis666, and welcome to the Teahouse. You could make it a little easier for the reviewer by merging duplicated references: see WP:NAMEDREF. ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

How do I add a dropdown menu

I cannot figure out how whatsoever!! Please answer, i would be so happy ~2026-40733-07 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

What is the menu expected to do? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has various kinds of menu that could be called "dropdown". Please point to an article that has a menu of the kind that you want. (If on the other hand you can't find a precedent for the kind of menu that you want, you're probably out of luck: Wikipedia doesn't encourage novelty in navigation methods.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if they mean the sidebar which has hidden by default? qcne (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If you mean collapsible sections, you can use {{Collapse}} or {{ctop}}/{{cbot}}. If you mean portlet links for userscripts, see Help:Customizing toolbars. ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Status of biography article about Robert Shenk

Please let me know the status of my recent biography article about professor emeritus of the University of New Orleans. Rizos01 (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It was declined because the current article does not show that he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 21:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

There are two big problems with the draft at the moment. Firstly you need to demonstrate that he meets either the notability guidelines for academics (WP:NPROF) or those for an author (WP:NAUTHOR) assuming he doesn't meet general notability guidelines. If, for example, his professorship was of a sufficiently senior level (equivalent to a named chair) he would qualify automatically. But secondly, large chunks of the article are very close paraphrases of the sources. For example, here is your text:

"Robert Shenk distinguished himself as an editor, literary critic and before his retirement as a historian following the publication of the well-received "Black Sea Fleet: the U.S. Navy Amidst War and Revolution, 1919-1923" and "The Greek Genocide in American Naval War Diaries" (UNO Press). The second book is a collection of American Naval War Diaries found in the National Archives regarding the death marches and massacres perpetrated upon the Asia Minor Greek minority by the ruling Nationalist Turks from 1921-1922."

and here is the text it's derived from in his obituary:

"Shenk distinguished himself as an editor, literary critic and, most recently, a historian, following the publication of the well-received book “Black Sea Fleet: The U.S. Navy Amidst War and Revolution, 1919-1923” and “The Greek Genocide in American Naval War Diaries “(UNO Press). It is a collection of American naval war diaries found in the National Archives regarding the atrocities perpetrated upon the Asia Minor Greek minority by the ruling Nationalist Turks on Turkey’s northern coast from 1921-1922."

This is probably a copyright infringement, so it's liable to deletion. Ideally you should find multiple sources and summarise them in a way that draws together all the information, rather than paraphrasing one source. Elemimele (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Clarification on WP:PERSISTENCE, NEVENT policy

Generally, how many years after the event should a source be published to satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE? Discloser: I am asking this question because of a disagreement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Baghlan sugar factory bombing. Thank you for your help HerrHeulsuse (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Usually, if there is a distance of a few months between the sources, it meets the requirements. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

HerrHeulsuse, please be aware that WP:PERSISTENCE is not a policy. It is guideline language with caveats and qualifications. Frankly, I think that you are misapplying it when you try to delete an article about a terrorist mass murder that killed six members of the Afghan parliament, including a former cabinet official, and dozens of other people. I have commented at the AfD. Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Improved draft with reliable sources

Hello. I submitted my draft Draft:Ahad Bab on 20 July 2026. It is currently showing "Review waiting". I understand reviews are done by volunteers and may take time. I just wanted to ask if there is anything else I should improve while waiting, or if the draft looks ready for review. Thank you for your time. Peerharis666 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Peerharis666 You asked the same question here just one day ago, please have patience and edit something else in the meantime. There is no rush to get your article published, and you will not speed the process by repeatedly asking this question. Athanelar (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ahad Bab

@Peerharis666 Yes, the article will fail immediately if (i) there is a copyright violation (ii) if it's considered advertising or promotional (iii) if it's not in English or (iv) if an article on the subject already exists. So you should check those. It will also be declined if you've used AI to write the article. The subject needs to be notable, so suggest read WP:42. The article also needs to be written in a neutral and encyclopedic tone, so suggest you consider whether you've done that. Mme Maigret (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Remontoire / Remontoir

Hello, I am genuinely interested in the two ways of spelling Remontoire.

The correct French spelling is Remontoir – without the e – and I also know that historically, in British English, it has been spelled with the e for a long time. Is there a reason beyond the centuries-old linguistic fault line between French and English usage? I haven't been able to find anything official about it.

I've looked around in renowned horological writing, and it appears that there has been a gradual shift towards the correct French spelling lately. Many publications with a long history also use both spellings.

Would Wikipedia be open to changing it to the correct spelling, Remontoir?

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing back! Louisetarp (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Louisetarp, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first question is not in scope for the Teahouse, which is about editing Wikipedia, and nothing else. It's possible you might find an answer by asking at the reference desk. I observe that the OED gives "Remontoir" as "A variant of 'remontoire'", and records the shorter form from the 18th C, the longer from the 19th.

For the second question: Wikipedia's policy is to use the (form of) a name that is used in the majority of English-language sources: see WP:COMMONNAME.

So unless you can show that reliable English sources more often use the spelling "Remontoir", then I'm afraid you are not going to be successful. If you want to pursue the question, then Talk:Remontoire is the best place, as people who have knowledge and interest in the subject are more likely to see it there.

Note that Remontoir exists, and is simply a redirect to Remontoire. ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @ColinFine, your response is much appreciated. Based on what you wrote, I think posing the question on Talk:Remontoire is my best bet. Louisetarp (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Louisetarp The correct spelling in English is remontoire. It's likely that English did a poor job of borrowing this word, but what's done is done; we can't retroactively force "remontoir" in English any more than we can force the spellings "beefsteak" and "country dance" for the "bifteck" and "contredanse" that have been used in French. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Haha, point well taken @TooManyFingers! And those are great examples. I like the Turkish word for "mousse au chocolat": "sokoladmuz". So phonetic and so perfect. Louisetarp (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

But you've said yourself that the correct English spelling is remontoire. Mme Maigret (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I also suspect that this spelling with "e" added may (at least sometimes) serve as a cue to a half-decent pronunciation in English, because "remontoir" could conceivably rhyme with "choir" or even with "enjoyer". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Question on Using Wikipedia

I have been using Wikipedia as a source for my research and for casual reading for a few years now, but I have only recently created an account. How do I find the rules, guidelines, and instructions for citing sources when editing articles? What sources should I prioritise finding? And if I want to use a photograph from Wikimedia Commons in an article, how do I do that and what rules and guidelines must I follow? AnglophileMycologist (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@AnglophileMycologist, nice to see another fungus fanatic here! Help:List of tutorials and introductions is a great place to start. You can also get there via the shortcut WP:WELCOME. I'm sure some of the wonderful Teahouse regulars will chime in with other good suggestions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You might also have a look at WP:Wikiproject Fungi, an association of Wikipedia editors interested in fungi. I don't know if this particular one is active right now; not all are. But Wikiprojects often have lots of useful links and information for working in that area. M kuhner (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner Thank you for the recommendation! AnglophileMycologist (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Fungi is still around but not as active as it used to be. I've replied to AnglophileMycologist on that WikiProject's talk page. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

If you need the full, in-depth instructions for citing sources, you can find that at Wikipedia:Citing sources. I'll add that Wikipedia has a very large total volume of rules and guidelines, such that it isn't practical to study the entire mountain of documentation at once. Learn what you need to know to get each day's tasks done and you'll be fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Troll

Citing sources: Rules live at Wikipedia:Talk Page Archive Index — that's the master style guide for all citations.

Source priority: Reddit upvotes first (informal peer review), then Wikipedia articles citing other Wikipedia articles, then pre-1990 print sources only.

Commons images: Email the photographer for notarized permission, upload via "Special:InsertMedia," and caption it in Latin for indexing purposes. ~2026-38996-08 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38996-08 Gptzero says that text is 100% AI. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 19:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The AI spits out nonsense such as the nonexistent page Wikipedia:Talk Page Archive index. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 20:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a combination of utter nonsense, and utterly bad advice, @~2026-38996-08. Please don't answer questions if you don't know the answer - and especially, don't expect an LLM to have any understanding at all of Wikipedia's requirements. We want to talk to people, not clueless resource-hungry plagiarism machines.

@AnglophileMycologist, please ignore 38996-08's useless answer, and see citing sources, reliable sources, and WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I second ColinFine's advice. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae Thank you! I will make sure to do so. AnglophileMycologist (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@AnglophileMycologist you're welcome, and happy editing! Don't hesitate to drop by the Teahouse again if you have questions :) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Troll

What the best Wikipedia page be? ~2026-38996-08 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No one can really answer that question (best for what?) but there are a lot of interesting statistics at Wikipedia:Statistics#Page_views. M kuhner (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured articles, for the highest quality articles and other content. RudolfRed (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Tool for creating a chart

Space Population

How would I go about creating a chart like this? I'd like to create a chart for the count of Jupiters moons over time but I don't know what software I could use for it. Maybe there is something similair as to how charts of band timelines can be made? Tomas Guus (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

mw:Extension:Chart comes to mind, if you want something native to Wikipedia. R and Python both have a pretty good ecosystem for making diagrams as well. ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Example:

library(ggplot2)
moons <- data.frame(
  Year = c(1610, 1979, 2000, 2018, 2026),
  Moons = c(4, 16, 28, 79, 112)
)
ggplot(moons, aes(x = Year, y = Moons)) +
  geom_step() +
  geom_point() +
  labs(title = "Moons over time", x = "Year", y = "Moons")

~2026-39674-15 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I've looked at it and ehh I can say I'm not the best in tech so I really don't have any idea on how to install it. I would rather look for an easier option :P Tomas Guus (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1T1D7cABkphhXMCU0ir9NExXaK7avRsxL?usp=sharing Would this be something like what you wanted? ~2026-39674-15 (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes! Pretty much exactly that (: It is, however not matching with the list of jovian moons listed on wikipedia. Maybe if the area under the line was filled it'd look cool too. Is there any way I could update that charts data though? Tomas Guus (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1T1D7cABkphhXMCU0ir9NExXaK7avRsxL?usp=sharing is this better? I also switched out the data source to the list you provided. msk 19:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That's amazing 0: Maybe "Moons of Jupiter over time" would be slightly better though (: Tomas Guus (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Should be changed. msk 21:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I recommend LibreOffice Calc (or Microsoft Excel) for making charts. This is just a basic line chart. Joe vom Titan (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The reason I didn't recommend using any spreadsheet software is because they (as far as I know) don't have anything like numsum, and would probably involve lots of manual data manipulation - there isn't a dataset for Jupiter's moons over time, but there are datasets of all of Jupiter's moons, and their discovery dates. msk 23:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Notability requirements

Hello all -- first page got turned down, not too surprised

Subject has a fair bit of coverage in the media, but not enough of the correct coverage.

Fair to say that we need more references supporting the organization itself rather than its products and actions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bikeflights Butterboy43 (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair to say that we need more references supporting the organization itself rather than its products and actions?

Not really fair to say that, no. What's needed are numerous references in which the reporters by themselves - that is, with absolutely no supporting information that can be traced back to a press release or an interview - have written a big analysis of the company's history. The current references are packed with announcements, and Wikipedia values announcements at basically zero. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

(As a temporary experiment, cut out every reference that contains an interview answer anywhere in it, or a press-release fact, or an announcement of any kind - just to see what's left.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Butterboy43 Relevant guidance on what to avoid is at WP:CORPTRIV. Athanelar (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Just want some feedback

Hello everyone, I am creating an article on the ‘Khas migration into Nepal’. A lot of citing is left to be done. But I want feedback on my writing. Please let me know what you think of the article.

Draft:Khas Migration into Nepal

Nish Aryal (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but from my very shallow look at what you have, I think if your work is 100% human (no AI help) and if your references are reliable and cover all of your statements, then it looks good to me.

If you have used any kind of help, even for little things that don't seem important, please quickly delete all those parts so you don't get blamed for AI. I'm not accusing you or even suspecting it - just trying to improve your overall chance of success by telling you that every reviewer is searching for AI use. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the feedback. Most of the writing is inspired by the article of the Indo-Aryan migrations. If you were to look closely you can see similarities. I needed a writing style that seemed neutral which is why I had that article next to me when i was writing this one. I see why you suspected LLM (ik you did, you said you didnt). It is a lot of writing so it must be a common suspicion. Thanks again. Nish Aryal (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not suspect AI, other than awareness that it might be anywhere. When I called my reading "very shallow", I meant it; I didn't even pretend to try to check. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nish Aryal Comment: You should look at our « manual of style » to help format the draft better and be consistent with other articles. Images are also recommended to help illustrate the article (e.g. an image of a Khas person or Khas people in Nepal), see WP:Images. There are also some issues regarding citing errors and consistency of inline citations, but overall the draft looks good to me ⠀⠀.nhals8⠀⠀ 14:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Im confused that parts of central europe arent recorded as the USSR. Many countries are missing. Why is this?

Soviet Union

Hungary, Czech, Slovaki are examples. ~2026-40747-60 (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems like you're confusing Soviet Union for Warsaw Pact which was the Soviet Union plus the countries you list, among others. Cabayi (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republics_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg

If these countries borders shown in the picture are labeled, I'm sure we can correct this. ~2026-40747-60 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct what, @~2026-40747-60? As far as I can see, that map is a correct representation of the borders of the USSR. As Cabayi said, the countries you mention were never part of the USSR. ColinFine (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I thought the Berlin wall separated it, why else did they not allow communist subjects to freely go to western Germany? ~2026-40747-60 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Its not a big deal, history is always being rewritten. Especially when the authors have their own community agree on their viewpoint. The Eastern bloc was the USSR, maybe not in the technicalities agreed on here, but old maps show the correct history. ~2026-40747-60 (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You're the one rewriting history, @~2026-40747-60. The Eastern bloc was politically and militarily dominated by the USSR, but it was not part of the USSR. Compare Panama, which was for many years politically and militarily dominated by the USA, but was not part of it. ColinFine (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The Berlin Wall separated east and west Berlin which were parts of East and West Germany respectively. West Berlin was an enclave deep inside East Germany. Cabayi (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Should I replace all instances of "but" I come across with "and"?

The word "but" is listed as a word to watch here. I find this word a lot on Wikipedia articles. For example, by using the random article feature I only had to go to the second article to find instances of the word, with Surgery having 8 instances although one being in a quote. If it had to be replaced I think "and" would be a suitable substitution. Since it appears so much, I wonder if it's ok to have words to watch on articles, or maybe there are just loads of editors who have never read that. Nibnab43637 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Nibnab43637, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You're welcome to search for instances of "but", and consider each one carefully and decide whether it can and should be reworded (remembering that it's possible other editors will disagree with your change and revert it: see WP:BRD).

What you should certainly not do is any kind of mechanical search-and-replace. Just because "but" is a word to watch doesn't mean it should never occur. ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Doing ALL instances of anything is generally a mistake waiting to happen. Cabayi (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It says "Words to watch", not "Words to eliminate". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nibnab43637 Ti explain a bit more, the "words to watch" exist as potential signs of the problems described beneath them. They are not problems in themselves. In this case, "but" and the rest sit above this paragraph;

words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.

The problem is only if such a relationship is implied (since this is a type of editorialising,) the problem is not the word "but". Athanelar (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Help with review and search-engine indexing after G5 deletion

Hello. I’m looking for guidance about the article Dead Pioneers. The original article was deleted under G5 because it had been created by a blocked sock-puppet account as part of a broader cleanup. I later recreated the article independently, and an administrator subsequently restored the earlier revisions. The current article remains live, but it appears to be unreviewed and is not showing up in external search-engine results. Could a New Page Reviewer take a look at the article, or advise whether there are any issues that need to be addressed before it can be marked as reviewed and made eligible for search-engine indexing? Jookie212 (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Greetings. I afraid Wikipedia doesn't have any business doing SEO on its articles. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 12:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jookie212 What's your rush to get the page indexed? Do you have any connection to the subject of the article? Athanelar (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jookie I am a new page reviewer and took a quick look at the article. I question the first reference you use. I couldn't find the content that is supported by the reference. I didn't look any further into the article than that. Yes, it is hard for page reviewers to keep up with the thousands of reviews that are in the que. But be patient, someone who knows more about this kind of music and will do a better job than I could will get to it. Good luck. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Editor adding potentially fictitious/forged material

Hello, recently I was examining edits on my Personal Dashboard when I saw an edit for the article Rick May, a user by the name of Eightmakegreat added a Listen module to the infoboxes module parameter with an audio file they uploaded to Commons, this file claims to depict "Rick May" giving an answer to an "interview" question, however the audio file appears to be a AI/Computer generated facsimile of Rick May's voice, and as such I reverted the edit with proper reasoning, and warned the user on their talk page, I believe that is when on a logged out session they reverted my reversion giving a citation link to a webpage that is a 404, and the evidence they are referring to was released in 2005, which makes the reasoning of them reverting my reversion weak, should I report the IP Editor and the Editor themselves to administrators for vandalism? Thanks. Aeyeu (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Not for vandalism, because being wrong is not vandalism. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Language and history

Is it ok to use slurs for historical quotes? ~2026-41004-68 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Assuming you're directly quoting them (i.e. the expletive is in the original) yes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-41004-68. Please read offensive material. ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

86 origin?

What is the origin of the expression "86" meaning "the end." ? ~2026-39744-12 (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Article 86 (term) is as much as Wikipedia knows about that. M kuhner (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Smm panel with link

can I write about article that contain smm panel with link ~2026-40826-04 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea. What's an "smm panel"? And a link from what to what? Anyway, if by "write about article" you mean "write an article", and if the subject of the article is "notable" (as defined by and for Wikipedia), then yes, writing an article is possible. You'd do it by creating a draft and submitting the draft for consideration. But before attempting to create a draft, you'd be wise to get practice augmenting and improving existing articles. Be sure to cite a reliable source for anything that you add. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Mary Rylee famous wellknown model,covergirl, and many billboards.

Gorgeous ~2026-40710-45 (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The name 'Mary Rylee' does not even show up on Google. Do you mean Mary Riley, an actress in several films obscure enough that we have no articles on them, who has a very slim listing on IMDb? If so, what is your question in the context of how to use or edit on Wikipedia, which is what this page is for? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Returning after a long pause... References Page

I haven't edited in quite a while. There was a page that showed examples of the fields necessary for different types of references. I cannot find that page now could you please tell me where to look for it. Thanks!. Oldsilenus (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry! I finally managed to find what I was looking for. Please delete this request. Oldsilenus (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

That's OK, things here get archived pretty often anyway. Glad you found what you needed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for review: Draft for overlooked major doc "Running Stumbled"

I recently wrote a draft for this overlooked gem which has been in the AfC queue since March 31. Has solid sourcing including Variety, The Guardian, Time Out, IndieWire, 100% Tomato score. I saw this film in 2007 in a UK release at ICA and it's a damn masterpiece. Was just on MUBI in a retrospective. Was a major title in 06 and nominated for a Spirit Award. Is incredible that it doesn't have a wiki page. Would any experienced editor be willing to take a look? Thanks Janet Harahan Janet (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Running Stumbled ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not a reviewer, but FWIW, I think that although the draft is well structured and written, it is a little thin on citations to Reliable sources (which IMDb is not). In particular, the rather important Legacy section, pivotal to demonstrating the film's Notability, is entirely unreferenced. Although the Film Independent Spirit Awards are themselves notable, I'm not sure that merely being nominated for one carries enough weight by itself to meet the notability threshold.

It may be the borderline notability so far demonstrated is what has delayed a review. There is no strict queue for submitted drafts, just a 'pile' from which the volunteer reviewers pick whatever they choose. Obvious 'declines' (and even more so, obvious 'Rejects') tend to get processed first, because they're quick and easy. Obvious 'Accepts' take a little longer because the reviewer still has to meticulously check everything. Questionable drafts get overlooked because they are the hardest to make judgements on.

While you're waiting, you're free to continue improving the submitted draft: that might improve the chances of an earlier decision. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Can somebody upload this image? Please

There is a draft called Draft:Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (soundtrack) that was submitted for review, and it needs its cover which is in this link: I can't upload it, can someone upload it? please, Thank you ~2026-40634-03 (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

This cover image will certainly be copyrighted. It is allowed to upload one such image under "fair use" to illustrate the article about that specific subject only. However:

It must be uploaded directly to Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia Commons;

It must be uploaded at low resolution and small size;

It can only appear in one place, in the article about the subject;

It can only be put in an actual article, not in a draft.

See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for more details.

Acceptance of this or any other draft is not dependent on, or made more likely by, the presence of any images. Wait until the draft is accepted as an article, and only then seek to add a version of the image to it. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi ~2026-40634-03. The acceptance of your draft will entirely depend upon whether the album itself is deemed to be Wikipedia notable (see also WP:NALBUM); whether there's an image of the album's cover art in the main infobox is irrelevant. Moreover, since most album cover art needs to be treated as non-free content, adding the album cover to the draft before its approved as an article will only lead to the file being deleted because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy doesn't allow non-free content to be used in drafts. The best thing you can do is wait until the draft has been approved as an article and then post a request at WP:FFU asking that someone upload the album's cover for use in the new article. You should also provide a better source than Google drive; for example, some kind of official website showing the album cover would be much better: a better source will make it easier to verify the copyright status of the album cover and also that it's been released online by its copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Help for new articles

Are there any places in Wikipedia, where editors can ask experienced and long term editors tp help them improve draft articles.

A topic has notability but writing, arranging by following all policies is not very easy and those who reject draft, they will not improve the articles. The reason for rejection is not lack of notability, but not being written properly.

There are article on various topics from science, politics. ~2026-41071-83 (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

You can ask for co-editors at the relivent Wikiproject (Wikiproject Science for science related topics and Wikiproject Politics for politicial topics), but finding someone who is interested in working on a draft isn't guaranteed. If you have any questions regarding formatting or notability, you can ask us here. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Hi ~2026-41071-83. A draft should, in principle, only be declined due when there's a clear concern about the subject's Wikipedia notability regardless of how its written or formatted. Poor writing and poor formating (except for some really extreme cases) are things that, for the most part, usually can be cleaned up through regular editing after the draft has been approved; a lack of Wikipedia notability, on the other hand, is impossible to WP:OVERCOME. You haven't given a specific example of a draft declined for poor writing or formatting, and your account's contribution history doesn't provide any clues to any such draft; so, it's hard to post anything but a general reply. If, though, you're submitting drafts that are consistently being declined to poor writing or formating, then perhaps the thing to do would be to try and remove any content that's not directly related to the subject's Wikipedia notability (even content supported by citations) and focus the draft on the reliably sourced content that established the subject's Wikipedia notability. Sometimes a lot of extraneous content in a draft can make assessing the subject's Wikipedia notablity hard or time consuming for the reviewers of drafts; so, they decline the draft and move on to the next one. If you've got a specific draft in mind, you could try posting on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject to see if any of the project's members have suggestions on how to improve it. You could also seek help at WP:AFCHELP if the draft was declined by an AfC reviewer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Usually, in fact, it is lack of notability. It's so very easy to protest by saying "Well, in my case that isn't true"; it's usually true anyway. The vast majority of topics are not notable. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I need help, and I was directed here by mentor!

Hello, I was directed here by my mentor that Wikipedia has assigned with for me, @Cowboygilbert. I think I need help, can you help me? So several editors have done thing that I think can be seen as vandalism to Wonder Woman wikipedia page, by erasing someone's edit without relevant reason. Despite my explanation in edit history of the page, these irresponsible editors keep doing it, ignoring my warning. Once I requested a protection for Wonder Woman page, but it was rejected because the administrators saw it as a dispute when in fact it's not a dispute at all, more like irresponsible editors who edit page as they please without relevant reasons, ignoring the warning from me and official source from DC Comics.

What should be done? How can we block these people or protecting the page? Thank you. Because as we both know Wikipedia only accepts relevant edits with relevant reasons, but some people act as if Wikipedia articles are something that they can curate as they please. Thank you. AmazonianGoddess (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@AmazonianGoddess Seems to be a one-on-one WP:edit war, and yes, this constitutes a dispute. You should note that you may want to assume good faith regarding the other party, and to not call them « irresponsible », but nevertheless, you should enter dispute resolution with them ; the first step being discussing with them on their user talk, or on the article's talk page, regarding why they reverted your edits. ⠀⠀.nhals8⠀⠀ 06:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, just because a handful of editors are having a dispute doesn't mean that everyone else outside of the dispute and whose user groups don't satisfy the conditions to get past the protection type shouldn't be able to edit the page ; this is partially why the administrators refused your page protection request and other page protection requests over resolvable disputes that don't involve a bunch of sockpuppetry or WP:canvassing. In fact, both of you quite literally share the same user group, autoconfirmed user, so even when there's a page protection, the actual dispute won't be resolved. ⠀⠀.nhals8⠀⠀ 06:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@.nhals8 We already had discussion back in the days on February 8, 2026 in my talk page and WP:edit warring page. The editors involved in this discussion of February 8, already agreed and have our peace with each other. Since DC Comics has stated which one is the current canon origin for Wonder Woman with their sources, published in collaboration with Dorling Kindersley, it has been decided that it's final. No arguments needed when DC Comics already confirmed it, as the company who owns Wonder Woman character. But somehow, there are other parties reverted edits without relevant reason, they don't explain it in the history tab.

These other parties deny the official source from DC Comics, edit as they please. And of course, I removed those irrelevant edits and fixing it. That's why I call them irresponsible. I told it that I already gave them a warning and explanation in history tab with proof from DC, that should be enough. Other editors involved from discussion at february 8 also agreed, for a character owned by a company, we follow the company, not the comic book writers. AmazonianGoddess (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)