Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, 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.]

Source check: which is the stronger Wikipedia candidate — Stephen M. Miller, The Bible: A History, or The Complete Guide to the Bible?

Hello. I have a conflict of interest, so I am not asking anyone to create an article. I am only asking which topic, if any, has sourcing strong enough to support a Wikipedia article: Stephen M. Miller, The Bible: A History, or The Complete Guide to the Bible.

The Bible: A History (Lion Publishing, 2004)

• Independent reviews in Publishers Weekly (May 2004), Reform (June 2003), Anvil (August 2004), and the Church of England Newspaper (May 2003).

• Won the Gold award (top prize) in Non-Fiction at the Fred Grossmith Christian Writers' Awards (part of the Christian Broadcasting Council Media Awards 2005), presented 10 November 2005 in Stoke-on-Trent. Documented via Lion Publishing press release; co-winners included Colin Chapman (Bronze, Whose Holy City?) and Liz Babbs (Silver, Into God's Presence).

• Held by 543 libraries in WorldCat across 14 editions.

• Translated into more than a dozen languages.

The Complete Guide to the Bible (Barbour Publishing, 2007)

• Listed by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association as a Platinum Milestone Sales Award title (ECPA definition: 1 million+ copies sold).

• Appeared on the ECPA Nonfiction–Paperback bestseller list in May 2026 at no. 38, nineteen years after publication.

• Appeared on CBA/Christian Marketplace category top-seller lists in March 2005 and May 2005.

• Held by 309+ libraries in WorldCat across English, Spanish, and Korean editions.

My question: Which of these (if any) meets WP:NBOOK or WP:AUTHOR? Is The Bible: A History the stronger candidate given the reviews and Gold award, or do the commercial-success sources for The Complete Guide to the Bible also suffice?

Thank you. StephenMM3 (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, StephenMM3. All that counts is whether or not a specific book is the subject of significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources (plural) that are fully independent of the book, its author, its publisher and its PR campaign. In-depth book reviews written by subject matter experts are usually the best sources for establishing the notability of a book. Winning non-notable prizes cited to publisher press releases are irrelevant. Library holdings are irrelevant. Translations are irrelevant. Appearances on best seller lists are irrelevant. See WP:NBOOK. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. Setting aside everything else, then, the question is whether the four reviews of ''The Bible: A History'' are sufficient:

• ''Publishers Weekly'' (May 31, 2004)
• ''Church of England Newspaper'', "Good News Without End" (May 8, 2003)
• ''Reform'' (June 2003)
• ''Anvil'' (August 2004)

I have copies of these reviews. They are full reviews, not brief mentions, written by religion/book reviewers in each publication.

Two questions:

1. Are these four publications generally accepted as reliable independent sources for book notability under WP:NBOOK?

2. If yes, what is the best way to make the review content available for editor verification — would scanned copies on a draft talk page be appropriate, or is there a preferred process?

Thank you.

~~~~ StephenMM3 (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are Mr. Miller, just tell us that you are him, instead of saying you have a COI, which comes off as equivocating. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

:Yes — I am Stephen M. Miller, the author. Apologies for the indirect phrasing. My user page now reflects this. I have no intention of editing any related article directly; I'm here only to ask whether the sourcing supports an article and, if so, which topic is the best candidate. ~~~~ StephenMM3 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing to establish Notability depends as much as the content as the publishing venue. We exclude author interviews, for example. So it is not really possible to answer your first question definitively without access to the sources. I will say that the more 'niche' the publication,the less weight it tends to carry.

You should not scan and post copies of these reviews, that would be a violation of the copyright held by those publications. Posting links to copyright violating content is prohibited on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both — that's helpful guidance. Let me revise based on what I can actually document.

Independent reviews of The Bible: A History (Lion Publishing, 2004), with content rather than venue:

• Publishers Weekly Annex Review (29 November 2004) — full ~300-word professional review. Mixed/critical: praises the ecumenical Protestant/Catholic approach and topical layout, but criticizes a "faith-based understanding" of Bible history and Protestant bias. Substantive editorial content, not a blurb.
• Reform (June 2003) — full review headlined "Lucid and lively history." Describes content, scope, and presentation; concludes "Any serious student of the Bible will want this on their bookshelves."
• Anvil (August 2004) — full review by John Parr (Bury St Edmunds). Substantive scholarly critique covering content choices, archaeology, translation history, and methodology; balanced with both praise and criticism.

I should correct one prior claim: the Church of England Newspaper piece (May 8, 2003) titled "Good News Without End" was authored by my co-author Robert V. Huber, not an independent reviewer, so I am withdrawing it from the sourcing.

For The Complete Guide to the Bible (Barbour, 2007), I can also document one substantive review:

• CBA Retailers+Resources (December 2007) — full editorial review by Lynn Wookies. Discusses the book's accessibility, illustrations, treatment of theological topics including hell and original sin, and concludes it "is a stellar introduction to the Bible for general readers."

Given the venue-vs-content guidance, does the Publishers Weekly + Reform + Anvil combination meet WP:NBOOK for The Bible: A History? And separately, is the single CBA review sufficient for The Complete Guide to the Bible, or would more be needed? StephenMM3 (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Miller. Reading this discussion has me concerned you may be considering soliciting somebody to create an article. If so, please see our scam warning. You should not pay for Wikipedia article creation. If you'd like, you may try to create an article yourself as a draft and submit it for review, but it's a tall order without first spending some time editing and learning how Wikipedia works. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you — I appreciate the warning, and I am aware of the paid-editing scam problem. I have not hired anyone and will not. I am here on my own, asking only for sourcing guidance.

To be clear about my intent: I am not asking anyone here to create an article, and I do not plan to create one myself in mainspace given my COI. If editors conclude the sourcing supports an article on ''The Bible: A History'', my preferred path would be to leave creation entirely to uninvolved editors, or — if that's not feasible — to prepare a properly sourced draft at WP:AfC for independent review.

My question remains narrow: based on the reviews I've now described (''Publishers Weekly'', ''Reform'', ''Anvil''), does the sourcing support notability under WP:NBOOK? StephenMM3 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like it, yes. If any of those translations have reviews, you might add those as well. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, asilvering — that's helpful. Given my COI as co-author, I won't create the article myself in mainspace. Between (a) listing The Bible: A History at Wikipedia:Requested articles with the sources I've described, or (b) preparing a draft at AfC with a {{connected contributor}} disclosure for an uninvolved reviewer, do you have a preference for which is the cleaner path? I'll follow whichever you recommend. On translations: there is a substantive Polish-language review of Historia Biblii (the Polish edition) that I can add to the source list if helpful. —

~~~~ StephenMM3 (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You'll want to create a draft and put it through AFC. Requested articles is basically a black hole. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you — I'll prepare an AfC draft with the COI disclosure. Appreciate the direction. It's a jungle in here.

~~~~ StephenMM3 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Adding a local festival to a small town's page

I would like to add a paragraph or so about the annual Vinton Dogwood festival in Vinton, VA since it is a major part of the town's identity. Can anyone point me to a good example of how to format this and the type of information to provide?

I'm planning to use an article from the local newspaper as my primary source. Please also let me know if that is insufficient. Civilbeard (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I would like to see an article that successfully describes a small-town festival somewhere else to help me get a sense for how I should present the information for the Dogwood Festival. Thanks in advance. Civilbeard (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Civilbeard, as small-town festivals are one of my favorite topics, I did a little sleuthing to see how some have been written up in Wikipedia articles.

Many of those I found appeared as simple one-sentence statements of fact in articles about the town where they're located, often alongside other information about things for which the town is known —thus "burying" them. For example, in the Askov, Minnesota article, far down in the "Tradition" section appears this: "The village is now home to an annual 'Fair and Rutabaga Festival,' a beauty pageant and fair held during the fourth weekend of August, a few months before rutabaga is harvested."

Another town with an annual festival, however, devotes an entire section to it, thus calling more attention to it but not being promotional: Kimmswick, Missouri#Apple_Butter_Festival (ideally, that third sentence wouldn't have been included, as it's irrelevant to an encyclopedia; but otherwise the example shows what I wanted it to).

If, someday, Vinton’s Dogwood Festival becomes notable enough as to warrant a separate article, one could be written like the Morton Pumpkin Festival and linked to the main article on the town where it's held: Morton, Illinois. Augnablik (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

These examples are exactly what I was looking for! Thank you! :) Civilbeard (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

ThI’m glad you found these examples helpful, but I should clarify something I thought of later because you did ask in your original question for “a good [emphasis mine] of how to format this and the type of information to provide,” and I simply gave you examples of what some of the articles I looked at did. I‘m not sure if Wikipedia has any rules or guidance that would touch on this sort of thing specifically, though I’d assume you just apply the more general rules and guidance about writing articles.

At least the examples are a starter for you as you think about how to approach your task. Looking forward to finding out about Vinton’s Dogwood Festival … it will remind me of my junior high school’s own annual Dogwood Festival. 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Made my first pass at it. I'd welcome feedback/improvement from anyone. :) I also started a Talk topic on possibly expanding the section to encompass Vinton's general link to Dogwood trees. Thanks again for your help. Civilbeard (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Nice ... I see you created a separate section for the annual festival and to me it just seems that's a better idea than merely mentioning it in passing when including something like that in an article on a town. As I noticed a few quick fixes that I thought could benefit the paragraph, I picked up on your invitation for "feedback/improvement" and made them.

The only further work I'd suggest doing now is possibly adding a photo of the festival ... perhaps from its 70th anniversary ... as there aren't many photos in the current article; also mentioning the festival in the article's lead, but along with some of the other things the town is known for because there are several other things of note in Vinton besides the festival. Augnablik (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and the edits! You definitely improved the prose and structure. Civilbeard (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Use of sections on a species of a certain genus

Hello :) Not sure if I've used the correct terminology there, sorry.

My question is about Trypanaresta. Each of the species (i.e. on their individual pages) use "Distribution" as a section, with only one sentence. Is this standard? I would've removed the sections myself but I'm not exactly sure how I would rewrite it if I did so.

Thanks, JordyGrey _talk🧸 00:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Dddd ~2026-32660-44 (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable contribution to this conversation ;) JordyGrey _talk🧸 01:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the convention that any species is worthy of a page. Sometimes this leads to stub articles, and all of these are about as stubby as it gets. "Distribution" is a good section in general but some of these have only one word in it ("Brazil") and that's really not much of a section. However I don't recommend spending your time on the stubs unless you can add new information. In a quick search I found that a few species of Trypanaresta have had papers written about them, for example . If you'd like to do these (clearly under-appreciated) fruit flies a service, finding a paper or two and adding to the appropriate species would be great. Some of them seem to have potential for controlling invasive weeds. M kuhner (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. thank you for finding that source! but I'm not super interested in the topic, so I might just leave them as they are.

Thanks again, JordyGrey _talk🧸 05:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Was it a Newcomer Task? You are free to ignore those and go edit something that does interest you. Hobby interests are often a good place to start. As a newcomer it's best to stay away from very charged or controversial topics.

My Newcomer Task story: It asked me to do 5 minutes of copy-editing on an article that turned out to be full of LLM falsehoods. Three weeks later things are looking fairly good, and I did learn a lot, but wow. M kuhner (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! All the best, JordyGrey _talk🧸 04:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Need advice (GA, etc...)

So i want to level up as a editor. I've already made articles, but i want to one day make good articles as well. and i think i found the perfect one to make into a GA. so does anyone have good advice to make better articles? Monathephantom (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

For good articles specifically, you should look at the WP:Good article criteria for it to have a shot at getting nominated over at WP:GAN, but reading and referring to past good articles (either at /recent or /all) is also recommended. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 02:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Monathephantom, did you use AI to create User:Monathephantom/sandbox? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

oh and see WP:NOLLM nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 02:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I admitted it before, but I sometimes use AI as a starting piece to improve pre existing articles

That Sandbox I didn’t use for the main article as I’m just fixing things from the sandbox and improving it enough to be in the encyclopedia Monathephantom (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

When doing that, are you checking every sentence against every reference in order to ensure the AI has not hallucinated? Otherwise you are risking willingly introducing tons of unverified content to articles. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Monathephantom (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Monathephantom The use of AI to write or edit article content is prohibited. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 03:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Monathephantom You said "I sometimes use AI as a starting piece to improve pre existing articles". AI often makes pre-existing articles worse, by adding unnatural-sounding or vapid prose, and sometimes distorting meaning. Plus, what 45dogs said. David10244 (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@David10244 Hi friends, I totally get your concerns. The ai edits on my recent expansions has been removed and I’ve been just doing it myself in my own words Monathephantom (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Monathephantom Thanks for that. David10244 (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, can you please type your future GA- nomination here. Just wanted to check if there are any issues in the article. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The article I really want to improve is Ever Oasis Monathephantom (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I checked your article and noticed that the plot and development sections has no references. This might lead to a quick fail if the article is nominated for GA. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I'm working on getting it ready for GA Monathephantom (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

If a plot section doesn't have a citation, then it's assumed that it is cited to the game directly. So uncited plot sections are permissible, with the caveat that an uncited plot section can only have things that are plainly visible in the game without any sort of analysis, interpretation, or commentary. Those things would need separate citations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Help

Is it Wikipedia:Civility writing "for fuck sake" as it is widely used what I I am noticing here? Eniac81 (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Eniac81. Wikipedia is not censored so if a direct quotation is relevant and uses that phrase, then using it is not a problem. The civility policy has to do with interactions between editors. That phrase is mostly used to add emphasis rather than to attack other people so it is not inherently uncivil. I rarely drop f-bombs but some editors do. If it was used repeatedly in a context where it was clear that harassment of another editor was intended, that could be a case of incivility. So, like so many things, it depends on the specific circumstances. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. Civility means not to use any foul words towards an editor and not to be personal at all. Right? Eniac81 (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Merging of 2 rugby league categories

I propose the merging of 2 rugby league categories, namely merging 'Cumberland rugby league team players' into the existing category 'Cumbria rugby league team players'. They are one and the same team, with Cumberland being the former name up until 1973.

I don't have the authority to do this myself, so I'm just putting it out there to 'the Powers that Be' to see their opinion. Robinson Drinkald (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I like this idea. I do not have that authority either, but I see your thinking. Powerplay11 (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Robinson Drinkald, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The place to propose this is WP:CFD.

You might consider discussing it first at WT:WikiProject Rugby league; or alternatively, if you think it is likely to be uncontroversial, you can go ahead adn raise a proposal at CFD directly. (You might still post at the WikiProject saying that you have made the proposal and linking to it). ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll do that.

Thanks again for your advice Robinson Drinkald (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

with Cumberland being the former name up until 1973. So surely the "Cumberland" category usefully only contains those players who were in the team before the name change? In that sense it's rather like other time period-specific categories. Athanelar (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Athanelar,

I see your point, however, there are a number of (albeit) clubs that have changed their names over time, for example, London Broncos, Salford, Midlands Hurricanes & Halifax, to name but a few, and none have time-period specific categories, with all former players - under the earlier guises - grouped into one category. The exception would be those clubs that have been resurrected, e.g. Hunslet, Newcastle Thunder & Sheffield Eagles, which ''do'' discriminate. Therefore, in the interests of consistency, I am proposing this merger. The country of Cumbria was created in the 1970s, as an amalgamation of Cumberland & Westmorland historic counties, and whilst there was a Cumberland rugby league team, there was no corresponding Westmorland rugby league team, even though Barrow-in-Furness (home of many players) was in Westmorland. Robinson Drinkald (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

"In the interest of consistency" is never a good idea on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

article insertion on broder subcatagories

how to insert my newly made article on major subcatagories? YosefKT (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi YosefKT, welcome to the Teahouse. See Help:Category#Putting pages into categories and Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people. It often helps to look for similar articles and copy category code from the end of their source text. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

than you ! YosefKT (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@YosefKT Your question makes it sound like you have an article that is about subcategories. Or did I misunderstand your question? David10244 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

than u for the replay david , but my question is how i insert articles that i made in to other big sub catagories like ... ie how do i insert article about wheat in plants catagory . thank you YosefKT (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Weird redirect problem with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ME(hu)lit/Notability_(ELIT)

Hi,

A user tried to edit the page, which had been the draft guidance for notability for electronic lit, and somehow it ended up on their page @ME(hu)lit? I am not sure how this error happened, but we don't know how to get this back as a draft guidance page for notability criteria for electronic literature. What should we do? Thanks! LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not an error. I moved it. Notability guidelines need to be accepted by an RfC before they go into the Wikipedia: namespace. I moved it to a subpage of that editor's userspace so you can incubate it there before it goes to RfC. Athanelar (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature (I explained the same in the edit summary of my move) Athanelar (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature I also just noticed that it's you who created the page, not that other user; I've moved the page to a subpage of your userspace accordingly. Apologies for the mixup! It's now at User:LoveElectronicLiterature/Notability (ELIT). Athanelar (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Drafts tagged with no citations even though they do have citations?

I'm an AfC reviewer, and I often filter the new pages feed to look for drafts that have no citations. There are two showing right now, Draft:Dinesh Krishnan B. and Draft:Institute of Advanced Radiosurgery, but they both have citations. Why are they showing up with the "no citations" filter? Thanks. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 18:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:AFCH says they both have the same error: "The submission contains unbalanced <ref> tags." So that might be why? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. Thank you. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 22:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@JohnLaurens333, you might try asking at WT:NPP. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

:3

wheres a good place 2 find friends bc as well as editing I also wanna make friends also how the heck do I find good sources to cite bc I've just been googling Biteof57 (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not social media, and it is not the place to make friends. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you are expected to act professionally and civilly. If you are a younger editor, please see WP:Guidance for younger editors.

As for reliable sources, WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources should be helpful.

Feel free to ask if you have any questions. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 18:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they are 19 so I'm pretty sure that they are not really a Younger Editor Userbox-man (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. Sorry, I didn't see their user page. It still could be helpful to them, though. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 19:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

your right Userbox-man (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for rules on sources SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 22:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It depends on the topic. For science and medicine, Google Scholar is better than regular Google. For history, Google Books can help. For events in a specific city, try that city's major newspapers. You can often get better results if you rephrase the question a few times, especially if the first set of answers were bad. For example I have been looking for the Ugandan newspaper New Vision but just typing New Vision gets a ton of unrelated stuff. Adding "Uganda" and/or "newspaper" helps a lot.

If you are willing to put in the legwork, libraries can be excellent, especially for older or more obscure topics. Also, if you have books at home, see if they could help. I have Spiders of California and the Pacific Coast on hand for non-Wiki reasons, but it sure can settle questions about local spiders! M kuhner (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

A-class versus Featured Article?

Hello, I'm trying to decide whether it is worth nominating an article for A-class (following this: Wikipedia:Content_assessment/A-Class_criteria) before eventually trying for FA status. I was thinking that the A-class review process could be a good way to prepare my article for FA (as in, getting input from others before I nominate). What do you all think? Do people typically go: GA → A → FA? Or do they go straight from GA → FA? Thanks for your help. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A-class is set up for WikiProjects to use instead of as a centralized process, and only a few of the most active ones use it. So most people go GA → FA, either because it's their only option or because it's what they're used to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I haven't ever used the A-class review process myself. What I do use in between GA and FA reviews is putting out a request for a peer review, which tends to help me identify gaps and places where it falls short of the FA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Sourced content reverted as "vandalism"; original editor unresponsive on Talk for 5 days

Hi all,

I'm a newer autoconfirmed editor and would appreciate guidance on how to handle a situation that has stalled.

On May 28, I made several substantive content additions to Saint-Usuge Spaniel, including:

• Updating a dead-link 2010 web.archive.org citation with the current live URL for the breed club's website (which I verified)

• Adding the 1989 Mervans gathering as the precursor to the 1990 club founding, cited to the club history page

• Expanding the existing sentence about Father Robert Billard's breeding programme to include the detail that he kept a handwritten cahier d'élevage (breeding notebook) for 33 years, cited to the same source

• Clarifying current FCI recognition status (recognized only by the Société Centrale Canine; FCI dossier in progress), cited to Guillemaut, Adeline, "Coup d'œil sur : l'Épagneul de Saint-Usuge," Écho Bressan, April 2022

@WhiteTailedEagle: reverted these edits using VandalHandle. The revert was tagged "vandalism" in the article history, and a templated {{uw-test1}} (test edit) warning was placed on my user talk page. The revert appears to have rolled back additional earlier sourced edits I made the same day beyond the most recent one.

On May 29 I posted a polite, factual reply on WhiteTailedEagle's user Talk page asking what specifically appeared non-constructive about the edits and offering to revise or split into smaller edits if needed. I have not received a response in 5 days.

For context: my account is autoconfirmed; my user page includes a COI disclosure regarding the breed (I am part of the Épagneul de Saint-Usuge owner community); the sources I cited are secondary French-language publications, not my own work. I have continued making clean, sourced edits to other articles since (Florence Merriam Bailey, Linnaean Society of New York), and I posted a COI disclosure on Talk:Linnaean Society of New York before making any substantive edits there.

My questions:

1. Did my edits have substantive issues I am not seeing that would justify the revert, even setting aside the "vandalism" tag?
2. Is the "vandalism" tag on sourced content additions a misuse of VandalHandle that an experienced editor could help clean up?
3. What is the appropriate path from here if WhiteTailedEagle continues not to respond? Re-add the content selectively? Article Talk page? Other?

Relevant links:

• Revert diff: diff
• My reply on WhiteTailedEagle's Talk page:
• My user page disclosure: User:Shellylynnx
• My recent contributions: Special:Contributions/Shellylynnx Thanks for any guidance.

Shellylynnx (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I haven't examined your edits in detail, but prima facie I see nothing that would justify that descriptor; the term "vandalism" is intended to be used only when there's no possible way for the edit to have been well-intentioned. Possibly WTE made a mistake with the editing tools.

I'd wait another day to see if WTE responds; if not, start restoring your sourced edits. DS (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The dead link rescue in particular is an unequivocally good edit. The other material could start a discussion about how much detail is too much, but that's a matter of taste; it's not vandalism.

I like your thoughtful approach to what must be quite a puzzling situation. M kuhner (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Page for Special Rescue Exceedraft

Hi, I am occasionally Wikipedia pages but I wanted to ask if anyone is working on a page for Tokusou Exceedraft or if I should create one myself, since it is the only Metal Heroes series that does not have a English Wikipedia page. I tried to make a page on Chinese Tokusatsu like the Armor Hero series but I was not able to find credible sources at that time. I am not sure where to find most of the sources for a page on Exceedraft at the moment though (still looking). Any help on this would be appreciated. FusionAlloy (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like there used to be an article, but it was converted to a redirect following a discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Special Rescue Exceedraft. If you believe that the notability concerns could be addressed in a new article, your best bet would be to submit a draft to WP:AfC. Unfortunately the old article (viewable in this diff) didn't include any references, so that doesn't help as far as finding sources goes.
You could also try reaching out to other editors at WP:WikiProject Tokusatsu, as they may know where to look. In solidarity, nil ^nz 03:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

To add on to what Nil NZ stated, if you are unable to find references, the article is unlikely to get published. I am unfamiliar with the topic of the article you are proposing, but it seems that you are stating that topics similar/connected to the topic of the article you are proposing have articles. Notability isn't inherited. Even though topics related to it have Wikipedia articles, that doesn't confer notability onto the topic you are proposing creating an article for. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

What to do about this list?

Relevant page: List of English settings of Magnificats and Nunc dimittis

I was considering asking at the humanities reference desk, but reference desks seem to be more about research than editing questions.

I have zero knowledge whatsoever about this topic, and to be honest, I have quite a few problems with this page. Firstly, I'm not sure that the list is formatted particularly well? There hasn't really been any attempt to reduce the amount of white-space, and the description bit after the name doesn't really impart information on to someone who has no knowledge of this topic? Additionally, there are several terms used that I can't understand from the page itself, including: "settings", "SATB", and "with or without divisions". Similarly, what is the difference between a "'classic'", "notable", or "contemporary" setting, and what is "evensong"? The quote in the lead section (sorry, I'm not really familiar with the terminology for the layout of Wikipedia pages) feels too big (WP:UNDUE?), especially given that evensong basically only appears on the page in and above that quote? Lastly, as stated by the template, the whole list relies on just three sources, and half of the list doesn't have a citation.

I'm aware that this would probably have been better suited for the talk page, but there are "less than 30" (read, probably none) watchers. The issues I've discussed also cover quite a few cleanup templates, too.

My question is, what should I do? I can't say that I'm interested in improving it, as Christian hymns (that's what those are, right?) are really not my area of expertise. So I should add templates then? Which ones? Or something else?

Thanks for your help, JordyGrey _talk🧸 04:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, if you don't know how to fix it, and you don't know what maintenance tags would apply, you can just ignore it. Wikipedia is eternally unfinished and it's no big deal. {{expert needed}} might be appropriate, but there's really no harm in leaving it alone. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with asilvering; but if I were to bring up the matter anywhere, I might do so, concisely, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian music. -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

... but since you did bring it up here, JordyGrey: the description bit after the name doesn't really impart information on to someone who has no knowledge of this topic. For most, it's the key that the work is (nominally) in. I think it's very unlikely that somebody with no knowledge of this topic would want to consult an article such as this. A certain degree of incomprehensibility is, I think, acceptable, even necessary. This may well sound snobbish, but I don't think that it is. Such incomprehensibility is probably ubiquitous. I find within the article Taylor Swift: with the former single, Swift became the youngest person to single-handedly write and sing a number-one country single: somebody with no knowledge of pop music would be baffled by "single" ('having no partner'?), let alone "number-one country single" ('unattached person from the number-one nation'?), and indeed by the notion of single-handedly singing. For "SATB" and "evensong", one might look at SATB and Evensong ... et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I do have some music experience (definitely not in a church choir} but I mostly meant the "Cesar Service" or "Crescent City" labels that seem to refer to either a type of choir or the location it was performed in. It's understandable that there'd be a certain level of knowledge necessary, the solution is probably just wikilinks. I'll raise the matter at the wikiproject linked above and hopefully someone else will be interested in reformatting the list and adding some wikilinks :)

Thank you @Asilvering and @Hoary! JordyGrey _talk🧸 08:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@JordyGrey: If the amount of white space bothers you, you could use Template:Columns-list or related templates to format the list in each subsection into three or four columns. (See List of horror fiction writers for an example.) And, as Hoary intimates, you could try to wikilink Evensong and other terms you think readers might not recognize. Deor (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Ooh, I haven't seen that template before!

IRL commitments will probably keep me from making any major changes over the next few days, but that's definitely something to look into.

Thanks for the response :] JordyGrey _talk🧸 13:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

List of Nobel Prize nominees is full of fake references

List of nominees for the Nobel Prize in Literature (2000–present) has tons of references with copypasted URLs that only change the name in title, they're all pointing to the same non-existent page otherwise. This is a lot of work to fix/revert, and I don't have time to do this right now, but I feel like I've discovered a serious mass BLP issue that needs to be addressed by someone, as it resembles a hoaxing/vandalism effort to me. I was considering posting this on ANI, but I just noticed this and haven't done anything on the talk page for the editor who has been adding all these people/fake references. Could anyone with more time look at this, and potentially make a more detailed ANI report if they consider this the appropriate action? RoseCherry64 (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

They're not fake, just bad. Whoever added them seems to have tried to link to a search result, but that obviously doesn't work. If you enter the names in the searchbar yourself you'll see 5hat those people do come up as nominees. Athanelar (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The Swedish Academy doesn't release these until 50 years have passed. The winners are on the site, but the rest aren't. The nominations are therefore based on third-party sources. I've tried to confirm this before making this post, they don't show up and the archive stops at 1974. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I added relevant template about sources not verifying the content, but another user has removed it without explanation. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I think Template:Hoax might actually be appropriate here, as the references added appear to be contradictory to the article lead, the Swedish Academy would not publish these until years later. Though, I'm just not sure how to deal with this as I've never seen an effort by an editor to add hundreds of not only fake, but stated to be impossible by the article itself, web citations before. Is there a noticeboard that could be a good place to post about this that isn't ANI? I don't know how this should be handled. RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

RoseCherry64 I was going to suggest nominating the list for deletion at AfD because (2) it's doomed to be badly-sourced and incomplete because of the confidentiality of nominations, and (1) even if we wanted to keep the list, the current one is in such bad shape, with so few people actually supported by sources, that it would be better to start from scratch. But then I thought why not just nominate it... so I did...

If anyone has feelings either way, they can express them at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_nominees_for_the_Nobel_Prize_in_Literature_(2000–present), or follow the link in the actual list article. I've got a bit of a dilemma about "The individuals included in this list are therefore limited to those whose nominations have been publicly disclosed by nominators themselves, reported by reliable secondary sources, or revealed through other verifiable public statements" because this feels uncomfortably close to "The individuals included in this list are either guys who claim they were nominated, guys who told a journalist they got nominated, guys whose friends say they got nominated, and guys where rumour has it they got nominated". A lot of these people are very upright moral people who are unlikely to lie, and they're all very remarkable people, but there will always be an element of blind trust needed. Elemimele (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Just as an FYI, I've previously established the original editor who made this list was using ChatGPT (sorry, deleted revision, but iir it leads to an oacite/source-chatgpt -esque URL in an external link) and they have a history of plagiarism on enWiki. So it's entirely possible that these some references are completely bogus; I didn't G5 the lists they created at the time because they couldn't pose a copyright issue and I thought that was the extent of their editing faux paus, but it may be time for me to accept that my good faith in this sock was misplaced. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Adding an English version of an extant German Wiki

Dear all,

I have drafted an English Wiki for the sixteenth-century printer Kundigunde Hergotin by translating the German Wiki. My draft is here: Draft:Kundigunde Hergotin. I had aimed to move it to the mainspace, but was unable to do so, I think because I am too junior. May I therefore ask whether anyone has time to review it, and to move it to the mainspace, should that be appropriate?

All best,

SK Samkenn2 (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Samkenn2 Hello and welcome. I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed, just [[Draft:Kundigunde Hergotin]].

I have added the appropriate information to the draft to allow you to submit it for review. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

But not "Kundigunde"; instead, "Kunigunde". Or indeed "Kunegunde". And there's another complication, Samkenn2: please see my comment atop the current version of the draft, which despite its quality must remain a draft. -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

My recent experience with Ms Hergot(in) (see the draft's history) has left me with no stomach to sit through Wikidata's interactive tutorials, and I can't find any plain text explanation of merging. If anyone here (331dot?) is conversant in Wikidata, then feel free to "merge" Q6444399 with Q94738502 (or, as the former is perfunctory, just to zap it), and anyway to add en:Kunegunde Hergot to Q94738502 (which already has de:Kunigunde Hergotin). -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC) ... Done (which is why I've struck through the whine/request); see D:Q94738502. -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Struggling with corporate 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.

---

Hello,

I submitted a page about a UK think tank charity with links to a number of articles in national media and was declined on the basis of a lack of corporate notability. The person refusing it seemed not to have understood that I wasn't talking about a company. I included articles in The Observer, The Guardian and The Times, for example, and I don't know how to provide anything more notable than those. Any help gratefully received. Simon J Garrett (talk) 13:24, 3 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.

Returning an article to the sandbox

Hi,

My first attempt was rejected and I wonder how I return my article to my sandbox to try again, please? Simon J Garrett (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Simon J Garrett. You draft is at Draft:Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys, which is the best place for it. (It could be in your sandbox, but there's no reason to move it there from draft space).

If you haven't already seen WP:BOSS, I recommend you read it, and show it to your colleagues.

Also note that if somebody approaches you offering to write an article it is probably a WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Coln,

Thanks for replying. I take it from your kind reply that I can edit it in drafts in the same way, presumably, as I did in the sandbox. Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for the Boss and Scam references. I'm not being bullied into anything, thankfully. I see dozens of other think tanks on here, and the organisation definitely deserves a page so I will stick at it, and no, I won't be falling for anyone offering to do it for me for cash. Apart from anything else I have too much pride (haha). Simon J Garrett (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @Simon J Garrett. You certainly can edit the draft where it is.

I wasn't supposing that you were being bullied: it was rather that I suspected (and still suspect) that you and your organisation have a (very common) fundamental misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is.

Your use of the word "deserve" implies that you believe that a Wikipedia article about your organisation is in some way for its benefit.

While obviously many organisations (and other subjects) do get some benefit from Wikipedia having an article about them, that is no part of Wikipedia's purpose, and if an article is accepted, you and the organisation will have no ownership or control whatever of its contents. You will be welcome to make edit requests, but it is never up to you or your colleagues to decide what is in the article: it is up to uninvolved editors according to Wikipedia's policies.

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 it happens that those independent commentators say things about the organisation that matches what you would like to say, great. If they leave things out: tough. If they are critical, or even nasty: tough - that's what goes in the article, and you won't be able to put the genie back in the bottle.

And if there are few or no places where independent commentators have written in some depth about the organisation, then there cannot be a Wikipedia article about it (that's what the jargon word "notable" is about). "Deserve" doesn't enter into it (and neither does worthiness, by the way).

And the fact that in writing the article you will effectively have to forget everything you know about the organisation and stick to summarising what the independent commentators say is what makes writing an article even more difficult for editors with a conflict of interest than for other inexperienced editors.

I'm sorry that this sounds so negative; but the fact is that people in your position rarely succeed. My advice to you is that you put the whole idea aside, at least until you have gained some solid experience in editing and improving Wikipedia articles where you don't have a COI, and learnt about some of the principles and policies of Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Colin,

Thank you very much indeed for taking the time to come back to me. It really is very kind. I had managed to miss this reply as Athenalar had also responded below, for which my apologies. As I mentioned to him, I've looked at the entries for a number of other think tanks and can't imagine that they've been written by people at random, rather than the majority were produced by people with a vested interest, or else why write them at all? How would anyone know about The Institute for East West Strategic Studies or The Intergenerational Foundation? Indeed, as I mentioned in my reply to him, there are even examples where editors have suggested that pieces were indeed written by contributors with "a close connection to the subject." Genuinely, all I want to do is to meet the same criteria that allowed all those other think tanks to have approved entries, and I can't seem to find a common thread where they have succeeded where I am failing, but, I shall persevere. Simon J Garrett (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Simon J Garrett Make sure you see WP:OTHERSTUFF, which was also linked in this thread. David10244 (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Simon J Garrett The other articles might never have been "approved", especially if they were created before sourcing standards were what they are now. David10244 (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I will, I'm working my way through it all. Simon J Garrett (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

the organisation definitely deserves a page Simon, I wrote an essay about this sort of thing that might benefit you; it's at Wikipedia:No special considerations, maybe give it a read.

In a nutshell, you must understand that everybody who comes to Wikipedia trying to write an article about their organisation, particularly in the case of charitable or community organisations, obviously fully believes that the work their organisation does is so important/lifechanging/inspiring/[insert preferred buzzword] that they simply must have an article in our encyclopedia. But that's rather like demanding that a museum serve you coffee because coffee serves a very important societal function. It's not merely that the argument is 'wrong,' rather that it's just a complete non-sequitur; the function of the museum is just completely unrelated to serving coffee, regardless of how important coffee otherwise is for the general running of society.

Whether something 'deserves' a Wikipedia article or not is based entirely on whether it meets our criteria for inclusion for that particular topic; in this case WP:NCORP. These criteria are generally totally unrelated to whatever amazing deeds the organisation might have been involved in, or whatever incredible work or research they might support. Athanelar (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Athanelar,

Thank you so much for taking the time to come back to me on this. I've read your essay, and also What Wikipedia is not. I've also gone away and looked at a number of the entries on here catagorised under Think Tanks Based in the United Kingdom. I have to confess the latter excursion has left me even more baffled. My piece was rejected on the basis of insufficient evidence of corporate notability. It included significant references from a number of national and international media from The Observer and The Guardian to the New York Times, the register of Parliamentary APPGs and even GB News. I found quite a few examples of pages for other think tanks where these kinds of citations were completely lacking. I've also seen a number which have notes appended saying things such as, "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources," or "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject," and yet they have all been accepted. I have complete respect for the fact that you have strict rules for admission, and clearly, having such a regime is one of the things which makes Wikipedia a respected and valuable place to be. I want to obey the rules and produce something which does "deserve" to be here. On the above basis, I am really struggling to work out how. I've had it explained to me that external agencies and individuals claiming to be able to have articles accepted are generally scammers, and anyhow, I really want to manage this myself. I note in my rejection that "live help" is available, but I don't want to presume that someone would have the time to go through my draft line-by-line, so any advice on specifics as opposed to concepts would be really appreciated.

Once again, I really do appreciate you taking the time when you must be drowning in people writing inappropriate submissions. Simon J Garrett (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

To say and yet they have all been accepted is just not true; anybody with an account older than 4 days who has more than 10 edits can publish an article directly into mainspace without it being 'accepted' by anybody, and that's not even to mention the articles published more than around 10 years ago, before the AfC draft process even existed. This particular fallacy is so common it has its own page, too; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In short, to assume that all of those other articles have undergone the same level of scrutiny as yours is an error. It is very likely that if someone took the time to really review those articles (and a great many other articles on Wikipedia!) they would probably find them worthy of deletion; but deletion is not a fast or easy process, and so many subpar articles languish in the forgotten corners of the encyclopedia until someone determined enough does the needful. C'est la vie.

any advice on specifics as opposed to concepts would be really appreciated. When it comes to organisations, WP:CORPDEPTH is key. Charities, businesses, think tanks and the like tend to attract a lot of reporting on their everyday activities; "X charity donates Y tons of rice to Poor Country" "TechCorp raises $XBn in Series A funding" "TankThinc releases new report on rising rates of Bad Stuff", that sort of thing. None of that's useful to establish notability.

Forgive the copypasted boilerplate here, it's relevant; 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. That's really the key. a neutral summary of what people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications. We're looking for in-depth coverage by people entirely unaffiliated with the company writing from a position entirely unaffiliated with the company (so no 'exclusive interviews' with the founders or important people, which is another very common thing). Athanelar (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks again for that, and I finally think I'm getting a small piece of a handle on what you mean, although it does feel quite arcane. So am I right in saying that notability has to be directly about the existence and nature of the organisation itself, and that articles about the research findings the organisation produces, for example, don't count? Simon J Garrett (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. Notability isn't (generally) based on what you do, it's based on what othrr people write about you. To prove that your organisation id notable, you have to show that other people entirely unconnected to it have decided, of their own volition, to write about it.

That's precisely why the overwhelming majority of organisations in the world simply don't meet the standard. Athanelar (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I see. Thanks again. Simon J Garrett (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't change the culers

i cant change the colurs ~2026-32979-83 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what colored thing you are having trouble changing? In solidarity, 💫ΩmegaMantis💫^(she/her) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 18:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Good Article

How to nominate an article for GA status approval? Morris (talk with this worm) 16:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Morrisworm See WP:GAN for all you need to know. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You should also review WP:GACR for the GA criteria. toby ^{in solidarity} 18:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

is there a discussion place for talking about things like otherr than wikipedia?? is wikipedia all we’re allowed to talk about

cough

also i wanna change my username it sounds fucking stupid katty (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jan katty Yes, this is the website where we try to build the world's leading encyclopedia. Hence that's all we mainly discuss: see WP:NOTFORUM. If you don't like your username, just abandon the account and start again with another name. You have made so few edits with the new account it is not worth doing anything else. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

you know there way to request to change your name But i forgot the name of the thing so well OOF Userbox-man (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Special:GlobalRenameRequest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

WhatsApp Business app website link

Hello team! GA/GD/GW God's grace. I'm hereby humbly writing to bring it to your kind attention and notice that the "WhatsApp Business" website link is missing; when added, it was reverted. May I know the reason for reverting it? They say it as "SPAM" in their comment. My sincere apologies for any disturbance, and we regret all inconveniences. Prayers for peace, progress, and prosperity prevail. People's pride, personal, private & public property—please participate.

Thank you. Yours faithfully. Nandan M. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nandanmwikipedia Do you represent Meta in this endeavour? You use the first person plural which suggests it. If you do please read WP:PAID for the process you need to use. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nandanmwikipedia: Perish the purple-prosed proselytising. It's annoying and considerably more condescending than you think. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Where was this link? You don't mention a page or pages. I think in general the only place where an external link to a business may be appropriate is on the main article about that business. Anywhere else it is likely to be seen as advertisement, unless there is a very clear reason for it. Remember that Wikipedia is not meant as a business directory. (Anyone who wants to find WhatsApp can easily do so by other means: they do not need an encyclopedia for that!) M kuhner (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The link was added to WhatsApp here. MrOllie reverted it as spamming. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I assumed it was a knockoff link. If it was actually some sort of official WhatsApp site, my apologies for the edit summary. But either way, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL we ought to have just one official link per article. For WhatsApp that is whatsapp.com, which is already listed. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Almost all Wikipedia articles have more than one; however, considering WhatsApp business, can you create a new page? Probably we can add it there, as it's widely used at our divine kind nations across the globe. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Barring a critical mass of articles about WhatsApp Business specifically there'd be no reason to fork off the Business firm from the main WhatsApp article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 09:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Fine. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Stop removing my edits

i make necessary and useful edits and they are removed. Ridiculous ~2026-26780-82 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

First thing I'd say is relax. You barely gave the editor who reverted your edit four minutes to respond. Wikipedia is not social media, and it can take hours or even days for editors to respond.

Courtesy ping: GiantSnowman

In solidarity, 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 18:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

One edit was reverted, as part of a wider series of non-constructive edits (I simply restored the last clean version). This particular editor's edit was unsourced and in any event technically factually incorrect. GiantSnowman 19:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-26780-82 You listed the source on your Talk page, but the source needs to be in the article itself, so that anyone reading the article can check the source. So reverting the change was not ridiculous at all; it followed Wikipedia guidelines. David10244 (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

They did the same with me; there is a bunch/group likewise.

My sincere apologies; I'm not a spammer nor a behavioral bot.

As per them Britanñica Encyclopedia and Guinness Book are not good, genuine sources of information.

They will write as per their wish on Wikipedia. Also, to add I'm a South Indian. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is an example or sample if you are a newbie and Indian like me. They will make a rule for what they do, so don't bother about it. I'm getting nothing from it for 7 months, not a single penny, but as I'm a job seeker. I continue my work of truth at 44.

Indian Removal Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act

We bow before thee!

For peace and prosperity. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup data edits

Hi. I'm relatively new to updating wikipedia, I've spent months and months correcting tables, predominantly each country's World Cup record tables, as the majority of them were very error-strewn, sub-totals / totals not adding up correctly, tables missing multiple matches. I have recently started to update individual World Cup qualification data, specifically the number of matches & goals scored in each edition; however I was told a few days ago that my edits have been removed as they appear to be "vandalism". The main accusation is that the overall qualification record for the specific year doesn't reconcile to the sum of the individual confederations' pages (UEFA, CONCACAF etc), but that is primarily because those pages are incorrect as well, and is also something that I would have looked to review and correct where relevant. What frustrates me the most is the removal of edits without a conversation. If someone can advise the best way to proceed that would be appreciated; all that will happen if this continues is that I'll just end up giving up and the pages will remain error-strewn until someone else attempts to correct them. Spuddie79 (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Your edits are already under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Changes to the number of matches in World Cup qualification. GiantSnowman 19:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Editing Nomenclature

This is (what I hope is) a simple question: when making edits, is it considered better practice to make a bunch of smaller edits and publish them individually, al-la git, where you normally make one commit per action done (fixed a bug (1st commit), refactored some code (2nd commit), updated a dependency (3rd commit)), or is it better to publish all edits at once, and simply use a larger edit summary to describe all changes? Megashinysnivy (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Megashinysnivy, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is no clear answer to that question: both have advantages.

The advantage of many small edits is that if somebody disagrees with one (or several) of them, they can revert that one without having to revert the whole lot. The disadvantage is that it is slower and more work, and may leave the article in a slightly odd "partly updated" state. ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough! I was mainly just wondering if there was a standard, I'll go with what makes sense then. Megashinysnivy (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a good question!

I like to complete a task in one edit when I can. For example, if a source is wrong, I'll want to fix that source and every mention of it, and I find it best to do that as one edit so that the article is never in a broken state. But if five sources are wrong, I personally like five edits; less likely to get muddled up midway through. Also, if you really mangled something and have to self-revert, you lose less if the edits aren't too big.

When I am maintaining a page edited by someone else I don't love seeing an enormous edit summary that touches every part of the article. It's hard for me to work with. (Also LLM edits tend to look like that--yuch!) But you're free to go with whatever suits your workflow. M kuhner (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Lowercase title

Hello, I'm bit curious if I can use {{Lowercase title}} in the articles whose name is in all lowercase (e.g. Petal (album), Folklore (Taylor Swift album)). Is there any guideline for this? Because there must be a reason why these articles are not adapting this template, and I can't find the reason for it. Thanks! Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is how different templates affecting article times interact. See Template talk:Lowercase title#Broken on xx (album)?. Per a Wikipedian there: "Template:Infobox album makes title italic and MediaWiki looks at the last DISPLAYTITLE used on the page." You would need to insert explicit {{DISPLAYTITLE:''xx (album)''}} somewhere after "Template:Infobox album"... or at least that was the case in 2011. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Does PopSmear Records warrant a wiki page?

I founded and operated an independent record label called PopSmear Records, active from 1994–2008 in San Francisco. The label released 32 records, with multiple releases listed on AllMusic, Discogs, and releases by bands that already have Wikipedia pages, including Love Equals Death and The Action Design. We had our own stage at SXSW, had multiple artists chart specialty and college radio and have physical press reviews, radio documentation, and festival documentation, but most of it is not online. Can someone advise whether this sounds worth pursuing under Wikipedia’s notability rules for organizations/record labels? ~2026-33053-03 (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

If there's WP:SIGCOV (important), WP:RS sources about it, and WP:INDEPENDENT coverage of the record label, then it's potentially notable.

I'd recommend looking at WP:42, WP:GNG and WP:NOTE. Also see WP:COI (conflict of interest) if you choose to make the draft for PopSmear Records, as I also recommend putting it through the AfC draft process. :) ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 03:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to add onto the above, the eligibility criteria that record labels have to meet is WP:NCORP, which is harder to meet than most of our other notability criteria. It's important to note that notability isn't inherited – that means that the significant coverage in sources needs to be of the label itself, not of its artists or releases; for example, charts or reviews that may count towards the notability of an artist doesn't necessarily count towards the notability of the label.
WP:ALLMUSIC and WP:DISCOGS are both considered user generated, so also won't help meet NCORP, but if you have news stories or profiles of the label from reliable sources (such as music journalists), then the label may meet our criteria. In solidarity, nil ^nz 03:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

OK. Understood. Thank you. I and the label were specifially written about in the SF Guardian (which I may be able to find online?) and PopSmear Records specifically had its own stage at SXSW two years in a row (which I may be able to find proof of?). Other than that I believe that any additional mentions of the label were tied to the artists being succesful / listed (in large part due to me / the label) but it doesn't sound like that counts much, if at all. So the 1 article and SXSW showcases stand as the only 2 label-specific features. I am assuming based on this that this is not enough and I should give up on this. It's disappointing because PopSmear Records / I was far more impactful than a lot of artsits that I know have wiki pages. I had an open door at LIVE 105, Warped Tour, SXSW, CMJ, NXNW, major music festivals, major label A&R, etc. to meet and have an audience for any artist that I presented. I was also the leading SF music producer (PopSmear Studios) for Bay Area young indie artists for at least 10 years and my solo music (Deflator Mouse) received reviews in major publications (including Spin, CMJ and AP Magazine), charted on commercial specialty and college radio. I say all this wondering if I warrant a page anymore than the label. If I do, let me know. Otherwise, oh well :). Thanks for all the help I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsmear (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Edits Keep Getting Wacked by Cluebot

I just want to confirm I'm doing this right, two of my recent edits (suggested for me on my homepage) have been reverted by ClueBot NG for being suspected vandalism. I removed the warning from my talk page, filed a report, and undid the undoing each time. Link to the most recent one. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Megashinysnivy&oldid=1357703303

It is admittedly mildly amusing that I am suggested to make these edits by wikipedia's tone ML software, only for it to be reverted by the anti-vandalism ML software. Is there a schism in wikipedia's robot church? The world may never know. Megashinysnivy (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

ClueBot may be safely reverted in the event it false-positives; its devs also encourage leaving false positive reports on User talk:ClueBot NG. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 05:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I assume I'm doing both correctly then? Megashinysnivy (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

A more direct link to the edit of yours about which ClueBot NG more recently complained. Your edit, Megashinysnivy, was (to me, at least) clearly an improvement. What ClueBot NG restored – Having grown significantly beyond just Linux, very important now are the product portfolios of OpenShift Container Platform, Ansible Automation Platform, and Red Hat AI. These form the 4 major pillars Red Hat platforms. – is ... let's say, infelicitous. Your version is far better. (I didn't look for/at the other edit of yours that you mention.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Authors' names in the article

Hello, is there any guideline articles about how to use the names of the authors of cited works? Like 'according to x' or 'y suggest that'. Thanks Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:ATTRIBUTION is what we have, but it's pretty bare. Athanelar (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm new

I have done a couple of edits on wikipedia, but I'm a bit uncertain if my additions are constructive or not. So I want so feedback on what I am doing ~2026-32965-64 (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, It seems like your edits are okay even though most edits are in Talk pages. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. I am someone who asks a lot of questions, a habit of mine. ~2026-32965-64 (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you create an account. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm still uncertain if making an account on my school e-mail is a good idea, as it's my last year on this school ~2026-32965-64 (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to link an email address to your account if you don't want to. Athanelar (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The world of wikipedia is not new to me, but editing is and i'm uncertain if i can do it long time (i'm still sitting on the fence about it) ~2026-32965-64 (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've also modified the template of the painter Edward to include 'The Accolade' as it's one of his paintings. ~2026-32965-64 (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I started a rfd and I think I accidentally put a vote to redirect, due to me copying the structure from somebody else. ~2026-32965-64 (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You dont have to mention all your edits in the Teahouse. Please read WP:BOLD TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been reading the wikipedia for a long time, so boldly editing what I will (attempt) to do ~2026-32965-64 (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

A page has been turned into an instruction page, please help!

HI there, something has gone very wrong with this page - Edward Acton (academic) it seems to have had Edward Acton's biographical information taken off it and replaced with instructions on how to make a page, along with a picture of Socrates! Can anyone help get it back to how it was? ~2026-33249-63 (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. This appears to be vandalism. First of all, you've got to revert the edit by going on the Page history and pres [undo] on the latest revision. Or you can have me do it instead. MrActiniuM ☢️talk 08:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Never mind. It has already been reverted MrActiniuM ☢️talk 08:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it was vandalism, I think someone just put the biography template in the article for some reason, maybe an attempt to edit it. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The editor who put it in was indef'd for disruptive editing (and actually repositioned it to be at the end of the paragraph), so I'm more inclined to believe "vandalism". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 09:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've fixed it. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, dude MrActiniuM ☢️talk 08:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've done a manual revert on the page, so it should have been fixed. It appears that multiple people saw and tried to fix it ~2026-32965-64 (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Requesting review for my first draft: Hill Surang

Hi everyone,

I am a new editor here and this is my very first Wikipedia article. I have created a Draft:Hill Surang, which is a village located in the Dhirkot Tehsil, Bagh District of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK).

I have submitted it for review and i have tried my best to added reliable, independent sources, and academic citations regarding the area.

Could an experienced reviewer please check my draft and let me know if it is formatted correctly or if it needs any changes? I would highly appreciate your guidance.

Thank you!

BB Janjua (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@BB Janjua Accepted Also please note that

1) There are some issues, which I've marked in the article, but overall the article passes.

2) The "Notable people" section is for people who pass notability guidelines for biographies only, which I've deleted since both entries don't show so.

3) Drafts submitted to Articles for Creation are reviewed in no particular order, and there is no set time when a draft is reviewed since its submission. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 15:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

{{tq| ~2026-33192-07 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

? nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 15:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hill Surang is situated in the rugged terrain of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Travelers coming from Murree enter Azad Kashmir after crossing the historic Kohala Bridge. The main road runs for about two minutes before branching to the right near the ZIC petroleum pump. Roughly one kilometer further, Dhirkot Road splits from the main highway, running directly through the center of Hill Surang village and Hill Bazar before reconnecting with the primary route: This is not something I would find to read inside an encyclopedia. Phrases like “travelers coming from Murree,” “runs for about two minutes,” “branching to the right near the ZIC petroleum pump,” and “roughly one kilometer further” sound like a guidebook, local directions, or original observation ~2026-33192-07 (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

this is their first article chill tf man nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 15:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

this is not an usual behaviour and way of replying. Morris (talk with this worm) 15:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

im not usual a lot of the time and i consistently forget social context so.... nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 15:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @nhals8, thank you so much for reviewing and accepting my very first article! I really appreciate your guidance and for supporting me as a new editor. I completely understand the points raised about the guidebook style and the notable people section. I am learning the Wikipedia formatting step by step and will clean up the geography section right away to make it sound more encyclopedic. Thanks again! --BB Janjua (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I will say, that would probably be useful over at Wikivoyage, although I must admit I'm not very familiar with their policies. Have you considered contributing there, @BB Janjua? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Commandant Quacks-a-lot, thank you for the wonderful suggestion! Since I am brand new to editing, I am still focusing on understanding Wikipedia's policies first. However, Wikivoyage sounds like a fantastic platform, especially for beautiful areas like Azad Kashmir, and I will definitely look into it in the future. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! --BB Janjua (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@BB Janjua I see the article has been improved, with things like "running about two minutes" being rightly removed. It's much better now. David10244 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @David10244, thank you so much for the encouragement! As a new editor, I am doing my best to learn the formatting and encyclopedic style. I really appreciate you taking the time to check the improvements! --BB Janjua (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Concerns about event "Wiki loves Pride" title and NPOV.

"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" page is saying that: "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice" and "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject". I think that "Wiki loves Pride" clearly sympathizes with subject, which is violating NPOV rules. Am I right? ~2026-33177-47 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

No. Wiki Loves Pride is not an article. If you don't love pride, you're free to eschew participation. Deor (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

it's just an event that you can ngaf about. and per deor, it's not an article or obvious hoax stuff and thus doesn't qualify under wp:npov nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 15:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

As with all the "wiki loves" events, you don't really need to have any opinion at all on the subject matter in order to participate or not. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@DandelionAndBurdock It’s an event covering LGBT issues so it’s sadly been hounded by the hateful people around. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 17:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure you mean that I'm this "hateful" person but keep in mind that I didn't express any hate towards LGBT. I just think that wiki should be neutral, no matter of the subject. And I think that was the point of wikipedia. ~2026-33177-47 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Although now I see that there are multiple "Wiki loves" which are associated with different things. ~2026-33177-47 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

There was something similar a few months ago with regards to Wiki Loves Ramadan which attracted a lot of opinions which were, shall we say, rather revealing about the people making them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 01:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

highkey you shouldn't assume hate from people who question neutrality nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 01:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Electricmemory nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 01:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the attempts to manufacture furore over Wiki Loves Ramadan, can you blame them for thinking that? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 01:52, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

i would partially attribute to the fact that no one gaf to actually start Wiki Loves Lent, Wiki Loves Xmas, etc. despite no barriers stopping them, and partially to people assuming that just because Wiki Loves Ramadan, it must mean that Wiki doesn't love every other Abrahamic religion, which is alr a problematic fallacy in itself,,

there should be more awareness of the fact that WMF or « Wikipedia » as an individual isn't the only authority and decider on whether something has Wiki Loves or not nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 02:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Zero-sum thinking, isn't it? HyperAnd [talk] 04:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Biocomputers are animals or not?

My edit was deleted by Donald Albury, and we're having discussion about whether biocomputers should be added to list of animals by number of neurons or not.

I think that these biocomputers should be added to list - as they use living neurons to compute, and therefore are living beings. In other words, biocomputer runs on Isolated brain - albeit, a brain smaller than bee's brain. --~2026-32876-56 (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-32876-56, and welcome to the Teahouse.

When you have a disagreement with another editor, dispute resolution explains what steps you can take. ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

We define whether something is an animal based on whether reliable sources say something is an animal. If reliable sources largely characterize a bottle of ketchup as an animal, then so do we. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

But ketchup is a vegetable, not an animal, yeah?--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Man, given the history of ketchup and this, I really should have gone with mustard! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32876-56 Did your update include an inline source? David10244 (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Feedback about Draft Chronicles and possible publication

Hello,

I created the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spacetime_Chronicles about the Italian animated feature film Spacetime Chronicles, selected for Annecy 2026 Contrechamp.

Since I am the film's director, I am aware of the conflict of interest guidelines and would prefer not to move the article into mainspace myself.

Could someone please advise whether the current draft appears sufficiently sourced and neutral for possible publication by an independent editor, or if further improvements are recommended first?

Thank you. Stefanobertelli1981 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Stefanobertelli1981, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Because of your conflict of interest, you are required to submit it for review, rather than moving it to mainspace yourself. I have added a header so that you can do so. ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Please format your citations to give more information - at least, author and date as well as publication. Also note how to reuse citations. See WP:REFB.

You should also put a declaration of your COI with respect to this draft on your user page (as well as the existing one for an article about you). ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

In fact, I see that your COI declaration on your user page refers to an autobiography which you (wisely) have not created. I suggest you change it to refer to this draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I have now updated the draft with additional independent sources, formatted citations and a COI disclosure on my user page, following the advice above.

Since the draft has already been submitted through AfC, I understand it may take time to be reviewed. Would it now be preferable to simply wait for the AfC review process, or could an uninvolved editor potentially move the draft to mainspace if considered ready?

Thank you.

Stefanobertelli1981 Stefanobertelli1981 (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Could they? Probably. Should they? No, and why would any uninvolved editor think to do so?

Note that while the Draft is waiting for review, you (and anyone else who wants to) are free to add to and/or improve it further.

I notice that you have uploaded the film poster (at high resolution) to Wikipedia Commons: this means you have formally made it available to anyone to re-use it for any purpose, including commercial, so long as its creator (presumably yourself) is acknowledged: was this your intention?

(More usually for film posters, book covers, etc., a low-resolution "non-free" thumbnail image is uploaded directly to en.Wikipedia for single use in the item's article only; this can only be done with an accepted Article, not a Draft, but the presence or absence of any image in the Draft has no bearing on whether the Draft will be accepted or not. Once it is accepted, the image can be inserted. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for details.)

I notice in the draft you have written:

". . . the French sales company Urban Sales boarded the film for international sales . . ."

As a layperson, I do not understand what this presumably film-industry jargon means; could you re-phrase it? Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

On articles about companies

Hello, all! Are articles about companies meant to/allowed to have lengthy lists of past clients or business partners? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) In solidarity. 21:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not recommended unless it's reported in reliable sources. Also consider due weight. Sesquilinear (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought so. Thanks for the quick reply! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) In solidarity. 03:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

a lot of this site is either american or indian

a large amount of this site focuses on mostly american or indian stuff. why is that?

same with the userbase. 50% americans, 50% indians ~2026-28273-33 (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Two of the biggest groups of English-speakers in the world. Sesquilinear (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I use this site. I am neither American nor Indian. Perhaps your percentages aren't quite right. ~2026-32005-40 (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

i feel like OP awnsered their own question here. A lot of the users are from those countries and Wikipedia is written by its users, what more explanation do you need? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

yeah i get it. my question already got answered ~2026-28273-33 (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Help editing SVG images

Hi all,

I've found an image that I would like to edit to be a bit clearer (this flag of japan construction sheet), I'd just like to change some text but I'm not sure exactly what the protocol is around editing images. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks. ERSthan (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ERSthan, this file is hosted on Commons, so the protocol is commons:Commons:Overwriting existing files. Generally, you can make minor uncontroversial changes. If there is a dispute, the file can be discussed at its Commons talk page. CMD (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that by default, only autopatrollers on Commons can overwrite files uploaded by other users. If you want to overwrite the file, you will need to wait until your Commons account is 4 days old (12:25 UTC, 7 June 2026) to be autoconfirmed and request allowing overwriting at c:Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests. HyperAnd [talk] 04:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Are alterative videogame boxarts allowed for fair use?

Is anyone knows are Videogame boxarts are even allowed to be use in as for fair use in copyright friendly? Troyboy770 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Context: c:User talk:TroyToonTrotStudios#File:Magna Carta - Crimson Stigmata Coverart.png — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Files on Wikimedia Commons must be freely-licensed (fair use doesn't count, I think you're conflating "fair use" and "free-licensing"). There is freely-licensed boxart, but those are very rare. Some examples are c:File:Freedom Planet boxart.jpg and c:File:Fez (video game) cover art.png. These files are allowed on Commons because the artists explicitly released them under a free license (which most do not). I recommend reading c:COM:THIRD for more context. That being said, English Wikipedia does allow local non-free files, albeit with strict criteria. HyperAnd [talk] 06:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

HyperAnd, their question was (but their English not so good) if an alternate cover for Magna Carta: Tears of Blood could be uploaded as fair use here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Though, for this case, it may fail criterion 3a as stated here: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. HyperAnd [talk] 07:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I know my grammar isn't good, but it is what I really tried to make. Troyboy770 (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

wiki citation

Please explain how to insert second citation which was already cited in the text. When i try to do citation as described I obtain doubliсation in reference list ~2026-33286-18 (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:REFNAME should be useful to you. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 05:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

if you're on visual editor, either (1) click on the citation, ctrl c, and ctrl v where you wanna re-reference it, or (2) utilize the re-use section in the « add citations » menu; but otherwise refnames are useful nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 06:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

2026 Mogadishu war

anyone welcome to create three days ongoing war in Mogadishu, here the news link; Reuters AP NBC NYT QalasQalas (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, QalasQalas, you'd be welcome to create an (of course policy-compliant) article about this war. ("War" might be an exaggeration. But use the term, or one of the terms, that your reliable sources use.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

many WP:RS used battle erupts so what if we used to 2026 Mogadishu battle. QalasQalas (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That sounds a bit odd to me. However, my opinion on this matter isn't worth much. You could ask the experts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Pending Changes Reviewer?

How can I become a Pending Changes Reviewer? What requirements and experience are normally expected before applying for the permission? And my recent edit is matches for this rights? A1-K (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@A1-K see WP:PCCRITERIA nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead // in solidarity with the WWU) 09:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks(: A1-K (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Topic: Digital Sansad

To. The HR department. Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. Inc.1 Sansome Street. Suite 1895, San Francisco. California 94104. USA.

Subject: Addition of links, website or URLs from "Digital Sansad" at India.

Respected, dear, distinguished dignitary members. I'm hereby humbly writing to request you to let us know if we can go ahead and add links pertaining to individuals of your divine kind nation as available on this domain/link/URL/website, /https://sansad.in/ls/dashboard. I'm sure it'll be beneficial, helpful, and useful to many. I genuinely request you not to revert the same after the addition/change/edition of the pages pertaining to your kind reputable association/company/organization Wikipedia. I'm sure you will all oblige and do the needful at the earliest. I'm eagerly waiting for your early kind confirmation and soon reply. I'm a South Indian; I'm aware of 3 dialects. I'm unpaid, unemployed member at 44. Any contributions would really be appreciated. Today's food is my parents's grace.

Thank you.
Your's faithfully.
Nandan M.
Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Nandanmwikipedia, (i) Please reread what Paper9oll and Tacyarg wrote on your talk page in March. Both Paper9oll and Tacyarg pointed you to WP:EL; please reread that too. (ii) Above, you ask "if we can go ahead and add links"; who are "we"? (iii) Above, you write of "your divine kind nation"; which nation is this? -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Sir/ma'am.

GA/GD/GW God's grace at India.

My sincere thanks for your kind reply. This is in reference to my reading and your queries.

(i) WP:ELOFFICIAL

(ii) This was with reference to any/all members likewise.

(iii)In the subject, as I've mentioned, the country's name. I was referring to the same.

I hope I've answered all; I request your excuse for any other obligations pertaining to the topic.

Thanks

NMW. God bless USA and its associations. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Also note that this is not the "HR department of the Wikimedia Foundation". We aren't Foundation employees. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Noted, thank you again for the good information. You've been the best, my friend. Nandanmwikipedia (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Content assessment

I'm interested in learning article assessment on Wikipedia. Which tools, gadgets, or user scripts should I install to help assess article quality and importance ratings correctly? A1-K (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally use User:Evad37/rater for article assessments. The page explains how to access the user script once you install it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for recommend this (: A1-K (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Pending DYK submission

Hello everyone! I created an article and DYK sudmission, but it hasn't been reviewed yet. My other 2 DYKs were reviewed very quickly so am just wondering if mine has been missed? Or is there anything else that I need to do? It is here Thanks so much! I&I22 (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

It is just a matter of waiting. Eventually someone will get to your DYK nomination, but there isn't a particular order for reviews. It will get done when someone takes an interest in your DYK. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Mikeycdiamond! And you have a very fascinating collection of articles and interests, wow! Awesome and yay, I will wait on then. Thanks again I&I22 (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

going live

Howdy. Can someone tell me how/when an article goes 'live'? My article Charley Lang has been in article space since March. Thanks! LittleSinners2026 (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Your article is "live" and public. What makes you think it's not?

What is your connection to Mr. Lang? You took a picture of him. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

When I google his name, the wikipedia page does not show up. Thats why I thought it was not live.

Im a good friend. LittleSinners2026 (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You should disclose your status as a conflict of interest on your user page(see WP:COI) and abide by that policy going forward.

It takes time for search engines to index articles- and that cannot occur until either the article is reviewed by a New Pages Patroller, or 90 days have passed. NPP has a significant backlog at the moment. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Changing language

Hello I wanted to write an article about a game in English but since I'm from Poland, all the links i give are still in Polish. I assume a person clicking "puzzle video game" doesn't want to be redirected into a polish article but rather an english one. How can i change that? Alternatively i could also write the article in Polish first and then translate to English, but this is more work. WhitePumpkin2 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they are reliable sources.

It's probably be better for you to write it here first, as the English Wikipedia is likely stricter than the Polish Wikipedia in terms of policies and what is acceptable content. It would be easier for you to translate the English article into Polish rather than the other way around. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@WhitePumpkin2: I translated pl:Kobiety w Wojsku Polskim to Women in the Polish Army a few months ago, & I hope what I did with the Polish citations in the English version of the article might be useful to you. First, I used |language=pl in the citation templates, which were mostly {{cite book}} & {{cite web}} templates. I also added a translation of the title using the |trans-title= parameter.

Incidentally, if you see any improvements or anything that is mistranslated, please feel free to make corrections! Peaceray (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Reliable Sources and Writing References

Hello,

I'm trying to publish an article for my manager and I'm having extreme difficulty. I am not an editor which makes this even more difficult. The article "David J. Reibstein" continues to get declined and I don't understand why. The feedback says that reliable sources are needed and that if I need help referencing to visit the referred page. I thought that the references was written correctly. Can someone please help? Nichol40 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Nichol40.

Have you read WP:BOSS, and shown it to your manager? If you haven't, you need to.

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. ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Assistance with an External Link request on Talk:John Stafford Geddes

Hello! I am a new editor and a family member of the late cardiologist Dr. John Stafford Geddes. I have created a digital archive dedicated to his historical medical publications and his pioneering work with the Belfast Flying Squad. Following Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest (COI) protocols, I posted a formal request on the article's Talk page last Sunday asking if an independent editor could add this archive link to the page. Because the article is a low-traffic page, my request hasn't been reviewed yet. Could a friendly volunteer please visit Talk:John Stafford Geddes to review the request and, if appropriate, add the external link for me? I would deeply appreciate the help! Geddess (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Photos

I have used my own photos to add to historic places, but how do I use photos from the web to update wikipedia? For example, if I want to add a photo I find on the web to a wikipedia page, do I save it and then add it to the article? If a photo is on a public website, does that mean it is in the public domain? For example, could I save this photo that appeared in the Knoxville News Sentinel and attach it to a wikipedia article? https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/d220e92cb2d2c83c9589f24e836f5a591aff2939/c=208-0-4042-5112/local/-/media/2016/11/19/TennGroup/Knoxville/636151689396071955-ArthurQ-with-Ernest-Tubb.jpg?width=180&height=240&fit=crop Mlsmith1962 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Moylan

There has been dispute over Major Myles Moylan's place of birth - Tuam,Co Galway or Amesbury, Massachusetts.There is one citation supporting Moylan's place of birth as Amesbury - the Congressional Medal of Honor Society (https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/myles-moylanhttps://www.cmohs.org/recipients/myles-moylan). That website has recently posted the following - Myles Moylan served many years in the U.S. Army. During that time, he gave varying places of birth. Sometimes it was Amesbury, Massachusetts, and sometimes it was Tuam, County Galway, Ireland. Birth records show that he was, indeed, born in Ireland. Official Army records continue to show his birthplace as Amesbury because that is the place of birth he gave when he started the enlistment for which he earned the Medal of Honor. As of now, there is no supporting evidence for his Amesbury birth. All evidence suggests he was at least Irish. How can I delete Amesbury as his place of birth on his Wikipedia profile? BuffyO'B (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)