Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1286

Archive 1280

←

Archive 1284

Archive 1285

Archive 1286

Archive 1287

Archive 1288

→

Archive 1290

Duplicate drafts rejected

I had submitted two drafts by mistake but this (Draft:Mohaimina Haque) was the one that I was waiting to be reviewed since this one (Draft:Mina Haque) was already rejected on 23rd Februrary mentioning the same reason that there is duplicate waiting to be reviewed. Now both the drafts are declines]d for some reason.

Can anyone help with this? Karansud1998 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to reviewers @Namita Tudu and @Bonadea. I'm a bit confused as the original draft under Mina appears to refer to itself as the duplicate, and the new draft under Mohaimina says that the Mina draft is "waiting to be reviewed" despite having been denied on Feb 23. It's possible some wires got crossed here, unless there's more history I'm not seeing.

For future reference, it's best to just keep making improvements on the same draft and not start a new one on the same subject. That preserves the edit history as well as preventing issues like this. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Karansud1998: maitaining two versions of the same draft, or two drafts on the same subject, is likely to cause confusion and work out badly, as you have found. I strongly recommend that you get rid of one of them. Maproom (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

No button to submit my draft!

Hello, I've finished a draft for Draft:Sprained wrist article and would like to now submit it for review. The draft was withdrawn 4 months ago because it wasn't ready at the time, and I believe the submission template may have been removed then. Can someone please advise how I can resubmit the draft, or which template or code I should add to mark it as pending for review? Also, since this is my first medical related article, I wanted to ask whether there are major issues I should address before submission. I suspect perhaps there may be higher standards required from medical topics that I am not aware of. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie: On your last comment: yes, there are, starting at WP:MEDGUIDE. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I've added {{Draft article}} to the top, so there should now be a submit for review button. nil ^nz 11:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 Thanks. I skimmed through it, and there's a lot of material there. I'll go through it more thoroughly when I have time or if any issues come up.

@Nil NZ I appreciate you adding the script - I was able to submit the draft without any problems.Jared^McKenzie 12:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

hi

hillo, whats up ~2026-13391-73 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

James Logan high school

Hello just trying update the enrollment Unioncity 1990 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You cannot insert figures for 2026 into something cited to a source dated 2024 – you have to correctly cite the new source instead. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you show me ? Unioncity 1990 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Unioncity 1990 You can use the current reference #1 (which is this link) to update the infobox. It would be best to include a full {{cite web}} template, which would look something like {{cite web |title=James Logan High (062691004072) |website=National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) |url=https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626910&ID=062691004072 |access-date=2026-02-28}}</ref> It is important to state the date you accessed that URL as its contents can change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Unioncity 1990 (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I have a closely related question/problem, but unlike the original enquiry above, the source is unchanged - it's all about the access-date.

The detail; whilst editing an article, I added a new piece of information using an existing source. My initial thought was to use WP:REFNAME to avoid generating a duplicate citation. But that would either leave my citation with an access-date of "3 May 2009", or in showing that I had re-examined the same source as of today's date, would destroy the original editors access date. FYI the source is about a historical event, hence most unlikely to change, and includes a link to the archive version at The Wayback Machine. I feel as if the only purpose for the duplicate citation is to 'prove' that I actually read the contents for myself before making the new edit.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

WendlingCrusader, interesting question. Are you able to use the existing source to verify that what the original editor wrote in the article in the past still accurately reflects the source? If so, just go ahead and change the access-date to today (or whenever you read it). That will reflect that both your recent addition as well as the older content are both backed by this source as of today. The history of the page will retain the date when the original editor accessed it (should anyone ever be interested, which is doubtful) as well as the date you did. That's how I would handle it, but pinging Trappist the monk for their view on this. Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

So long as the article text is still supported by the source (neither our article, nor the source have changed), use the existing reference and update |access-date=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thx to both of you. Yes, the original source, locked-up tight by The Wayback archive, supports my new edits, and the original editor, at least up until the point where he misread an arrival time and hence suggested a flight schedule that even Concorde would have struggled with. And as you say, the page history retains the original access-date too, so all is good. WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Question...

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.

---

Given that Encyclopedia Britannica lasted approximately 233 years before being 'replaced' by Wikipedia, and Wikipedia itself was only around for a ninth or tenth of that time before AI came along — and given that Britannica, despite having fewer articles, maintained a higher standard of curated information from subject-matter experts compared to Wikipedia's open 'anyone can edit' model — doesn't that mean Wikipedia never really had anything to "lord over Britannica" in the first place? Hasn't Britannica actually demonstrated greater longevity and higher quality information than Wikipedia ever achieved? And if the argument for Wikipedia is that it's human-curated, wasn't Britannica already doing that — arguably better? ~2026-13051-94 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia; it isn't really built for this sort of philosophical discussion. You might try the Village Pump. In any event, it sounds like you're looking for confirmation of your own beliefs- you are free to believe as you wish. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 1 March 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.

Help with citing a source and citation templates

Hi, I'm a new editor, and I found a great source on the Wikipedia Library on an underdeveloped article that I would really like to cite, but I'm having trouble understanding how citation templates work. As far as I can tell you're supposed to use the template {{sfn}} when citing a source multiple times, but I'm not sure. Other than that I haven't really been able to understand much. Thank you. Wreaderick (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Help:Referencing for beginners might be helpful. Athanelar (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That was very helpful, thanks! I just have one last problem with the URL linking to the source. This ("Beam Me up, Ömer": Transnational Media Flow and the Cultural Politics of the Turkish "Star Trek" Remake) is the source I found, but when I tried to publish my edit, I got an error saying I need to replace the proxy links with direct links that do not use a proxy. I wasn't sure exactly how I can edit the URL. Thanks Wreaderick (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

With ebsco links from the Wikipedia Library, you can't always find a direct url. In that case you don't necessarily need to provide a URL in the citation template; the title, publisher, author and year is anyway sufficient for anybody to search and find the text. Athanelar (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Wreaderick, here's a better approach: don't leave out the url field, just find it using a Google scholar search for the title, which comes back with this url underlying the title of the #1 result: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/15/article/232120/summary and place that url in your citation. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

misplaced comments belonging to another section.

You could use this template as well: Template:AI-generated. There is also WP:AINB to get second opinions. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I think you meant to reply to the above discussion Wreaderick (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Good catch. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Collapsed. Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Nicknames

I am simply curious about this. If a personality has a nickname that is entirely lowercase and does not have spaces (such as my nickname), should a biography format it that way or use a certain standard of formatting (such as "Sprinkled Nights" or "Sprinklednights"? sprinklednights (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sprinklednights: It depends, MOS:LCITEMS says that "In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lowercase variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang). When such a name is the first word in a sentence, the rule for initial letters in sentences and list items should take precedence, and the first letter of the personal name should be capitalized regardless of personal preference." AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the reply. I will try to close this. sprinklednights (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

(reopened) sprinklednights, Just wanted to point out our handling of E. E. Cummings, and also to mention that in some articles where this pertains, a parenthetical stylization comment is sometimes added; examples here and here. (Feel free to re-close, but you don't have to; it will eventually get archived either way.) Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this information! I am simply new to Wikipedia and I am trying to figure things out, and I read somewhere that discussions should be closed at some point. No worries there. sprinklednights (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

sprinklednights, by far, most conversations are never closed. Some formal procedures like article deletion discussions require a closure, but as a new editor you needn't worry about this and someone else will handle closures if and when they are needed. And, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sprinklednights I see a real expert has just beaten me to it, rubbing salt into the wound by directing you towards k.d.lang, my own first choice too, which looks like it's breaking all sorts of rules.

So, if it is still worth anything, here is my fifty cents worth; just take a look at 50 Cent. That is an example of another name that doesn't follow established rules as such, but it is accepted both for the article title, and throughout the article too. Granted it does include a space, and isn't all lowercase. k.d.lang beats it easily

I'll end with MOS:BIOEXCEPT which says;

Exceptions to the guidance in the Names section are only made when:

• The person has clearly declared and consistently used a preferred exceptional style for their own name; and
• An overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that style

I would assume that what goes for actual names could apply equally to nicknames.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Suggestions for articles that show notability

Hi! First time writing for Wikipedia, so I really appreciate any help. I thought Draft:Joe Sugarman had pretty solid coverage, including direct mentions and references from The New York Times,Inc, and several major magazines. I’m just trying to understand what might still be missing. Are there certain types of sources that would make the draft stronger? Is there a rough number of high-quality secondary sources that reviewers usually look for? And would trimming anything back actually help, or is it more about the type of coverage? Appreciate any guidance.

The company he started with Samuel G. Bonasso, Ski Lift International seems to have been approved with much less... Frost3535 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Frost3535: The important thing is the type of coverage, reviewers look for significant coverage that is independent of the subject to show notability. WP:Three good sources is a solid number to shoot for. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the clarity! Do you have any ideas of why my references didn't meet the standard? I thought that all my sources were independent (news media covering his exploits, with no connection to him), and had significant coverage (his legendary FTC lawsuits, distribution of the first chess machines ever with Anatoly Karpov, and generally being one of the most famous copywriters ever). Frost3535 (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Frost3535, I think that your references are excellent and I do not understand why the latest reviewer declined your draft. Perhaps that reviewer, Gommeh, can explain their reasoning. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

As for Ski Lift International, that article was created way back on April 14, 2007. That was long before the Articles for Creation process started, and standards in general were less stringent then. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not Gommeh, so I can't authoritatively state their reasoning, but looking at your sources I have some possible ideas;

• Your most referenced source, #1, is an obituary, which are not always reliable sources; see WP:OBITUARIES, a relevant essay. They should, however, be used with caution; they are often not intended to be neutral, but to eulogize… the subject.
• Sources 2 and 3 are also obituaries.
• 4 was written by the subject.
• 5 is at least partially based on an interview
• 6 seems it could be good coverage, but I can't access it; paywall

Athanelar (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The above is why the draft was rejected. The subject seems notable, but I think you need more reliable secondary sources. You're basing it too much off of primary sources for it to be a good enough article IMO. Best of luck! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Gommeh and Athanelar, please be aware that Wikipedia:Obituaries as sources is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is an essay that represents an opinion that may not be widely shared. I disagree with that essay. There are two types of obituaries in American journalism. The first type is written by professional journalists and goes through normal editorial review. That type of coverage meets independent, reliable source standards. The second type is written by family members or friends, and is often published after a payment. These are not independent sources. The Chicago Sun-Times obituary in this article is clearly the first type, and is signed by a staffer. It is not a primary source. The other two obits are not independent and do not contribute to notability. The New York Times article is not an interview. Yes, it includes a couple of direct quotations from Sugarman but it also includes quotations from two other people talking about Sugarman, and quotations are a very small percentage of the content. It is not a primary source. The MEL magazine article is in-depth. It includes a few quotations from Sugarman's daughter but not from him, and the quotations are a small part of the source. It is not a primary source. I see no reason to reject this draft. The standard is whether an article is more likely than not to survive an Articles for Deletion debate, and if it was at AfD, I would argue vigorously to keep it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It should be noted that Gommeh misspoke and the draft was declined, not rejected. Athanelar (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Correct, my bad. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

After reading this discussion I looked into the draft myself and published it on the basis that the subject plainly and obviously meets WP:GNG. It can now be improved further in mainspace. MediaKyle (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

FL 2026 ELECTIONS CANDIDATE ACCURACY

I am looking on Wikipedia for information about the FL 2026 US House of Representatives (2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#Filed paperwork 18) and I notice the candidate for US Representative in FL ninth District named Jorge Antonio Malavet is missing. He is a declared candidate and filed with the FEC on November 14th, 2025. = Malavet, Jorge Antonio = Candidate for House Florida - 09 ID: H6FL09260 Republican Party ~2026-13408-05 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You're able to edit that article to add this information, or, if you'd prefer, post to Talk:2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida and ask someone else to. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Question on how to affect a big change

Hello all, I need some advice/feedback on a topic that has been on my mind for a while. It's a small thing with a big impact.

I live and work in Timor-Leste. The local language is called "Tetun". In Portuguese (the former colonial power), this is spelled "Tetum". The final sound is an /n/, which is written with an -m in Portuguese. However, that is not the case in the actual language, nor is it the case in English.

However, the historical spelling with -m has carried over in many sources, including here on Wikipedia. This is frustrating and confusing for many people. It is also somewhat disrespectful to indigenous people and culture.

There is an official government decree to support the correct spelling here: https://mj.gov.tl/jornal/lawsTL/RDTL-Law/RDTL-Gov-Decrees/Gov-Decree-2004-01.pdf

I don't want to start making edits and cause a lot of problems. I want to approach this respectfully.

Thank you for your time. ~~~~ CanelaQuill (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, CanelaQuill. You are being respectful. The best place for you to propose a change is Talk:Tetum language. I noticed that the pronunciation given in the article appears to agree with what you say. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Article titles. In general, the best title is the one most commonly used in reliable English language sources. When I take a quick look at the article's references, it seems that some use "Tetun" and some use "Tetum". So, the issue is certainly worth further discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

See also: WP:Naming conventions (languages)

As with the corresponding guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) § Self-identification, how the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title.

That seems pretty clear to me. Other guidelines relating to foreign subjects have similar directives - local styling should be preferred if it is used in English. Personally I'd go ahead a file a move request based on that rational. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi ChompyGoat, I'm not sure what a move request is or how to file it, but I'll try to search around for some answers. Thanks! CanelaQuill (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The relevant instructions and template are here. This may be an uncontested move that could qualify for WP:BOLD, but there's no harm in giving other people a chance to discuss it first.

I'll go ahead and file this one myself for the sake of practice, since I haven't done it before and I support your reasoning. If you don't have any experience using templates it's fine to just start a discussion like you've done and ask someone else to handle the technical part. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I found out how to do it, but it wouldn't let me as it said there was already a "Tetun language" page. There is/was, but it is just re-directing to "Tetum language". CanelaQuill (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, then it would be a technical move requiring deletion of the redirect first. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I've added the {{db-g6|rationale=reason}} tag for deletion. CanelaQuill (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Added to related redirects. Hopefully I've done it all correctly. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. I've just posted a topic there. It looks like the page has not had any activity since 2018. Hopefully, I can encourage my Timorese colleagues to take an interest an perhaps breathe some life into Tetun-language Wikipedia! CanelaQuill (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Question for opinion.

Hello, HorseBro the hemionus here and am I allowed to express ANY opinion on anything? And no, this is not for pages, I am only asking this to include my honest opinions on my userpage. The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals (Please don't click this) 07:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:UPG. Certain things are considered inherently disruptive and/or worthy of immediate blocking (WP:ZT, WP:CHP, and more). EvergreenFir (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hemmy is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia on the day i want to fucking return obviously dumbass might not count as a personal attack since it's technically not referring to anyone in particular, but it's certainly inadvisable. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It would help if your question were less vague. Your userpage is certainly permitted to contain your opinions about certain things; but what is it specifically that you want to include but aren't sure about? Athanelar (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Like stating that Dog Ningen is peak fiction IN my own userpage? The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals (Please don't click this) 12:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not likely to be removed, but why would you want to? See WP:UPYES, WP:UPNO and WP:UP#GOALS; the point of your userpage is supposed to be to tell people about you as a Wikipedian; not to be a social media profile. Athanelar (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Also probably inadvisable given that the uncensored name contains a slur, the subject has no Wikipedia article, and you linked to unrelated pages. The most that does is create confusion. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Where to upload images for userbox making?

Hi all, another question. Where does one host images and get the link from it in order to make userboxes? I have some photos I'd like to use to make a userbox but I don't know where to upload the image to. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Only freely available files would be usable for this purpose. You upload freely available files to Wikimedia Commons. Userboxes are explained at Wikipedia:Userboxes. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Acinonyxjubatusrex: Just going to clarify the "freely available" files in this context means anything that meets c:COM:L; in other words, content that is now considered to be within the public domain or content that has been released by its copyright holder under a license that is free enough for Wikipedia/Commons purposes. It doesn't necessarily mean stuff that you can download "free-of-charge" from somewhere online or otherwise scan or photocopy for free. So, if you're not sure about the copyright status of something you want to upload to Commons, it would probably be best to ask for help at c:COM:HD before uploading it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh yup, no worries, I understand. I'm just picking photos from Wikimedia Commons right now, but the photos I was originally thinking of are my own, so I'll need to find time to upload them to Wikimedia at some point. Thanks for clarifying though, appreciate it! Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Spinning off content into a separate article

I’ve been helping with cleanup on the Hersilie Rouy page, and there’s a section that several editors feel would probably be better removed and potentially developed into a standalone article. I’m just a bit unsure whether it might be too niche to support its own page.

More broadly, how do we like to handle subtopics that are interesting and potentially notable within the scope of the project, but may not quite meet the threshold for a full article?

For context, the subtopic is: Historical psychiatric research and French women in the 19th century. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

More broadly, how do we like to handle subtopics that are interesting and potentially notable within the scope of the project, but may not quite meet the threshold for a full article?

By leaving them inside the article that they're in.

I don't know because I haven't read the article in question, but from what you said here it sounds like this sub-topic might not be major enough to have its own article, but then again it might be, and doing a good analysis of that subtopic to decide "spin off or keep it here?" might be the way to go.

It's also possible that "This doesn't belong, so we're cutting it even if it won't make an article" could be an option. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that if it IS considered notable within the scope of the project, the question becomes whether the section overwhelms that article via WP:UNDUE, and then whether that extent confers notability for a standalone article. Revise the section to a shorter summary, and if the answer to the previous question is yes that new page should probably receive a "main article" link. Otherwise just trim it down and drop the unnecessary bits. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated article

I believe that the article Special Cabinet Committee on Middle East Tensions is AI-generated as while I was reading it, it didn't sound like a human wrote it. I put it into GPTZero and it detected that it was 100% AI-generated. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed with this. Unilandofma^Talk 08:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

You can tag it with {{db-g15|your reason here}}. Or you can draftify it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't come across as AI generated to me in the prose, although the formatting does look like it could be AI. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

"Hirihimaidhi Kaleygefaanu" also sparked a concern for me as being AI-generated and another editor had also mentioned it in the talk page. Unilandofma^Talk 09:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

You could use this template as well: Template:AI-generated. There is also WP:AINB to get second opinions. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Based on their contributions, they wrote the 10kb article in one hour and twenty minutes including an Infobox and 11 citations, and no errors. Then, after they were done with that one, they wrote List of Maldivian films of 2026 including two tables and four citations in 14 minutes and no errors. That's some pretty fast and fancy footwork! I couldn't even type it in that fast copying it straight from a completed wikisource, and I'd never get those wikitables (including some merged cells) right the first time. Mathglot (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Unilandofma, it could also be draftified or nominated for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, as it concerns a committee that was created on 28 February 2026. Or it could be transwikified to Wikinews. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I have moved it to Draft:Special Cabinet Committee on Middle East Tensions for failure to meet WP:Notability and notified the creator. Mathglot (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Unilandofma^Talk 01:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Partial Block

How do I edit an article with a partial block on it which limits direct access? I have access to the Talk Page. PhotoManA1 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@PhotoManA1: Do you mean Robert Rankin (photographer)? It looks like you were blocked from editing that page because of a conflict of interest. You could request to be unblocked, but I think that might be unlikely. After looking at your talk page, it seems like you were only unblocked under the condition that you wouldn't be able to edit that particular page anymore. You can still request edits to that page: Wikipedia:Edit requests. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Victor of Braga/Talk

Hello Guys, ~2026-13166-69 (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-13166-69 Welcome to Teahouse! Do you have questions for Teahouse? CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright. @Thilio ~2026-13166-69 (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If you have a question about the article Victor of Braga, or some other article, then which article, and what's the question? -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Suggesting dup drafts for deletion?

Hello.

I've looked, and I know there's a way to do this with a template on the draft, but I can't find it. I've been picking my way through removing archive.today links (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5) and came across these identical drafts. Two of them were created by an account now blocked, so I'm thinking those should just be removed.

Submitted by User:Alex132219georgia

• Draft:Sir Shaun Jackson
• Draft:Shaun Jackson (Doctor)

Submitted by User:Sg15072025

• Draft:Shaun Phillip Jackson

Can someone please link me to the info on the template I need to use to put at the top of the drafts from Alex132219georgia to request their deletion?

Thanks in advance! Tampering Ides (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a criterion for speedy deletion for duplicate drafts, only duplicate articles. Athanelar (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Drat. I thought for certain I was simply overlooking it.

Thanks for your help! Tampering Ides (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I was going to say something about abandoned drafts, and realized I'm not clear on the process. I know that after 6 months being abandoned they could be deleted - but in practice, do they get deleted? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The rare occasions I have found duplicate drafts, in one case I merged them because neither had been approved by a reviewer (and there was no overlap in edit timestamps), and in another case I simply deleted it as WP:CSD#G6 maintenance due to the draft being redundant.

If there is already a mainspace article, I'd simply redirect each redundant draft to the mainspace title. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, regularly, all the time. Try search-on-page for the string G13 on this page, it finds five such deletions in a 39' period, so, maybe a couple hundred per day? Mathglot (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Editing Glitch

Recently I added a small line-break in Special:Diff/1340740662 Barak-MX, but in my edit history, it's showing itself as a humongous (+702) edit. This is the second time I'm witnessing this glitch, the first time being Special:Diff/1319678090 UFC 321.

I didn't observe any visual distortions, when I switched between the mobile or desktop version of the page.

Isn't there any way to solve this ? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your edit is that large because you added over 700 spaces in an infobox, trying to make the "=" symbols line up. This isn't necessary. If it's automatic, then turn that feature off in whatever tool you're using, it just bloats the article size needlessly. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm using no such tool. Maybe there's something wrong with Mobile Wikipedia ?Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cdr. Erwin Smith: See the Diff you linked. (I have replaced the plain URL with a wikilink, but it's the same diff page.) There is about 60 blocks of spaces added, approx. +10 spaces on average. Plus several addded or deleted or moved lines. So six-hundred-something would be quite a reasonable estimate of the net growth, hence 702 looks pretty correct. --CiaPan (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cdr. Erwin Smith Your edit is tagged "Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit. It's likely that being in "mobile mode" has automatically aligned the infobox. I have seen this in others' edits, but have never worked out which particular component is doing the unnecessary reformatting. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I've seen this before too, and I just assumed the editor was satisfying an OCD issue.

I have never used the visual editor, and never attempted to edit Wikipedia on a mobile device. Give me a keyboard and a real monitor, or I wouldn't participate here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm on mobile, and even switching to desktop mode it's not showing me any of what's being described - just the very minor change OP intended to make. I suspect this has something to do with display size and doesn't show up on smaller screens. I'm sure it's over my head in the underlying code. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 Okay, so we've figured out the Barak-MX.

Was it the same issue with UFC ? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cdr. Erwin Smith: That one was minus 70 bytes mostly due to collapsing 13 instances of {{MMAevent bout}} from 10 lines into two lines each, which removed 13 × 9 = 117 newline characters. Plus, you apparently added 'He retained his championship belt.' into the first modified template instance, which added 34 bytes. As a result we get –117 + 34 = –83 bytes change. The actual value reported in history is –70, so probably I made some mistake in calculations. CiaPan (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it must be the visual editor, as I edit nearly exclusively on mobile and I've never seen this come up. Athanelar (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

In my experience, the visual editor seems to work very poorly on input that it wasn't programmed to expect. Or, to put it another way, if you try to be smarter than it is, or try to do anything "behind its back", then it's likely to mess everything up. If you want the visual editor, then it seems to me that you have to stick to using only the features that it displays to you, and even with those, using them only as they appear to have been intended. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a long-standing issue and is not the fault of people making the edits. There is a formatting specifier somewhere that aligns the equal signs when VE is used and I forget where, now. I'll try and find it if I can. Mathglot (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I tend to pop back and forth between visual and source so I can check if my markup is functioning correctly. Perhaps editors who mainly rely on VE should make a point of checking the source for this problematic code, until and unless it's fixed. I still think it's curious that I can't make it show up for me at all in the diffs.

Within the last day it's started trying to paste pre-formatted text into my source editor, which is mildly annoying. I can't fix the markup if I can't see it! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

You can't ask VE editors to do that, and many wouldn't know how. Mathglot (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

We can mention it if they run into the problem so they can try to avoid it going forward. Just as a suggestion, not a requirement. If you're able to find the relevant code they don't need to understand it, just find and remove it, then double check their preview before publishing. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It's doable, but tedious, and also pointless. I used to copy the Infobox to a text editor and use a regex to collapse multiple blanks down to one, then copy it back over the preview window Infobox, then do a Show changes, then Publish. But the next person who uses VE in the same circumstances is going to just reinstate the problem all over again, so your time was wasted. You can't ask the passengers to keep bailing out the boat indefinitely knowing that the hole in the hull is still there and none of the crew is working on patching it. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I'm currently having to do similar on my phone due to a very bizarre glitch that randomly spazzes out parts of my writing halfway through (but doesn't happen in Docs). Extra fun when it happens to markup. So I preview everything.

Who do we have to blackmail convince to fix this? I won't continue the above metaphor where not addressing it equates to drowning, but it's certainly problematic. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

WMF, but they are busy building bigger, shinier, new boats. Nobody wants to be Director of Fixing Minor Holes in Old Boats when the passengers seem capable of bailing fast enough. And they know you know how to tread water, so they aren't really worried about you drowning. (But Phabricator is that-a-way.) Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I bet I don't want to see the backlog for software glitches, do I? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Article about my ancestors..

I recently published an article named "Ubayd Ullah ibn Abbas" one of my ancestors. I've read about him in books and just published article about my reading. But unfortunately i dont have any reference or source which i can add on my article. Because of that my article got rejected. Can somebody help me about this? Moeed072 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, the article can't be made. Everyone has ancestors, and people's ancestors don't belong on Wikipedia - unless there are reliable sources showing that each individual was the subject of major public reporting about their lives or careers. For more information, please look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You say "I've read about him in books and just published article about my reading."

Those books are (potentially) your (Reliable) sources, but you need to cite each fact you put in the article to the specific passage in the specific book from which you learned that fact. This would require you to have the books in front of you (physically or online) since you will (I am sure) not be able to remember the page, title, author, publishing date and book publisher relating to each fact.

There is no way of creating an acceptable Wikipedia article without Reliable sources, and without properly citing those sources. Writing "what you know" first and then looking for sources to support it is what we call "writing backwards" and is far more difficult and time consuming than finding the published sources first and basing the article on what they say (and nothing else).

The fact that you did find material about your subject in published books is very good news, because it means that, almost certainly, he does qualify as "Notable" in the sense Wikipedia uses the term, and which is an absolute requirement for an article about any subject. Good luck!

[edited to add] Incidentally, we already have an article Ubayd Allah ibn Abbas – I presume this is not the same person?

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

First of all my ancestors belongs to the family of Prophet Muhammad PBUH which means they're not ordinary human being. Secondly the person you're mentioning is not the same person imtalking about. And can you guide me how we can publish an article which dont have any refernce or any sources online? Because i found about my ancestor online but there's nothing authentic instead of books. So am i still publish it without any online reference or source? Moeed072 (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you have no sources about your ancestor, there can be no Wikipedia article about him. Consider writing about him somewhere else with less stringent requirements, like social media or a personal website that you own and operate. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be online. If a source is not online, you need to provide enough information for someone to be able to locate it(publisher, title, author, publication date, page numbers, etc.). 331dot (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Fractions, e.g. 2+1⁄2 vs 2½

Firstly - yes, I have already searched the archives both here at the Teahouse, and via the MOS Manual of Style. This problem dates back to at least 2008 (some say it goes back 141 years, to the advent of the first typewriter). It appears MOS:NUM is open to interpretation.

The actual article text I wish to edit is related to the Triumph Herald car, and appears as follows;

In order to build the Herald the company invested £2+1⁄2 million in a new assembly hall extension at the Canley plant which Standard had acquired in 1916.

That rogue 1⁄2 is generated via £{{frac|2|1|2}}, and looks bad enough in a stand-alone sentence here, but arguably looks even worse within a larger paragraph of text, with the numerator climbing up towards the line above, and the denominator sinking down towards the line below. But as it is the only instance of a fraction within the article, I would really like to use "£2½ million" for aesthetic reasons alone, although I understand that may not translate for every browser for some reason. And clearly the original editor thought they were doing 'the right thing', so who am I to disagree?

MOS:FRAC says;

• Do not use precomposed fraction characters such as ½ (deprecated markup: ½ or ½)
• Except: If ¼, ½, and ¾ are the only fractions needed, they may be used in an article, or category name, maintaining typographical consistency within an article where possible. Example: Floppy disk

Am I reading too much into the "except" clause? A second opinion here would be welcomed.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

WendlingCrusader, I quote a single pair of sentences from the article about this handsome little car: In standard single-carburettor form the 34.5 bhp (26 kW) car was no better than average in terms of performance. A saloon tested by The Motor magazine in 1959 was found to have a top speed of 70.9 mph (114.1 km/h) and could accelerate from 0–60 mph (97 km/h) in 31.1 seconds. So the article already makes ample use of a widely understood and typographically unproblematic alternative to "vulgar fractions". How about "£2.5 million"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Especially considering decimals are typically the preferred format for currency anyway, as values are rarely even fractions. Half or quarter are more likely to be used in casual verbal conversation.

Note that the article also contains existing ASCII fractions in the scale models section, as in 1/32, 1/44, and the potentially typo'd 1/43. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

As ever, thanks to @Hoary and @ChompyTheGogoat for your inputs. It would be churlish to say that you have neatly sidestepped the question, but your answers are perfectly valid in this particular case I have no complaints. As regards the Hongwell model at 1/43 scale; it comes up readily with google searches so there is nothing wrong with that. So maybe it is the 1/44 that is wrong - potentially a mistake for 1/144 scale?

So I set off with another internet trawl, only to find out that Corgi models are a potential minefield;

Truly original examples are for sale on ebay, but do not seem to specify any scale on their boxes.

But you can also purchase a modern 'newly tooled' versions, for instance of the classic James Bond Aston Martin DB.5 (model #261), available from Corgi Classics at 1:43 scale, or from the Corgi Model Club at 1:46 scale; different versions at different scales, but both supposedly 'officially licensed'.

Fun fact; I knew precisely nothing of the above until prompted by your posts - I haven't been a modeller for a number of decades now, and back then it was Airfix, not cars. So thanks for taking me on another Wikipedia Magical Mystery Tour. And please notice my solution to vulgar fractions i.e. 1:43 scale. Cheers all!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The pedant in me is compelled to point out that proportions (ratios) and fractions aren't the same - and in light of that, the fraction use there may actually be improper in the first place.

Aren't you glad you asked here so I could find more work for you to do? XD ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You object to 2+1⁄2 on esthetic grounds, but I find the greater change in font size in your preferred method to be a much worse look. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Being a keyboard worrier these days, I don't often pick up a pen and write by hand, but having just done so, it came perfectly naturally to write "2½" with a clear change in (handwritten) font size. However if you consider that to be a worse look, then I must accept your opinion. Thankyou for your input. WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I have to concur with others here, in that a fraction in currency looks very odd aesthetically. Unless I've lost my mind, AP, APA, and Chicago stylebooks all emphasize decimals for currency rather than fractions, so it ought to be fairly unusual to encounter outside of speech. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There is one exception: when the currency actually has fractional coins, for example the old coinage in the UK, where 6/11¾ is a correctly-written price (six shillings, eleven pence, and three farthings, a farthing being a quarter of a penny). It would not be reasonable to write "six shillings and 11.75 pence". Elemimele (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs, @Elemimele: Two exceptions! My country used the likes of 7.521⁄2 for several years. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Help plz

Can someone update this with the tye kartye thing 2025–26 Seattle Kraken season. Kivi36 (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kivi36 What do you mean by the tye kartye thing? If you are unable to update the page yourself please make an edit request (click for instructions) on the talk page of the article. You must include a reliable source. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

He's referring to the recent trade to the NY Rangers. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Sort of. @Shantavira Tye Kartye was claimed off waivers by NY Rangers. I updated on the rangers page but I can't on the kraken Kivi36 (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the Rangers page. I'm curious why you would not be able to update it as there doesn't appear to be protection on the Kraken season page. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm kind of bad a source editing and it's a template that i don't wanna mess up Kivi36 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a sports person, though I follow the NHL a little bit. Take a look at how other instances of NHL players being claimed off of waivers mid-season have been handled. Pietrus1 (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It's different for each NHL Team Kivi36 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleting redirect for draft

Hello, I have just finished a draft at Draft: Chapter Seven: The Lost Sister, but Chapter Seven: The Lost Sister is currently a redirect blocking the move. Can someone help me move it? I’m not exactly sure how to, so any help or even just advice on how to do it myself would be greatly appreciated Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 12:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Crystal Drawers You can try to request a page move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you submit the draft for review??? TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. TheGreatEditor024, I usually do submit drafts for reviews most of the time but I know there are quicker alternatives for when there’s redirects in the way so I was curious as to what they are Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 14:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, moving it yourself is easier but re-directs do make an issue. I faced this issue when I wanted to publish my article Tbeti Monastery. So, it better and easier that you allow the AFC to deal with it. Use the move tool, when there are no re-directs acting as a barrier. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Is this possible?

Can I change my user name on Wikipedia, or do I have to make a new account to do that? I want to change my username bc it sucks now. Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Of course yes. You can change your username.

See:Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean, you can change but you would need the help of the global renamers TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated label applied to draft

AI-generated label applied to draft due to copying-and-pasting from a sandbox location -- how to move past this?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Elizabeth R. Macaulay

I need to move past a hurdle: my draft is flagged as AI-generated. I created the environment for such a conclusion by drafting in a sandbox and pasting the finished content into another location, giving the impression that the entire content had been generated at once. You can see the progression of the content at User:GrantBremer/Projects/Elizabeth_Macaulay over the course of week or so. I apologize for creating this situation, know better now, and will not do it again. With this label, the draft is seen as unusable. What is the best way forward here to address the AI-generated conclusion? GrantBremer (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

In general you shouldn't move pages by copy-pasting. Instead, you should perform a page move. That said, it seems your draft has several more pressing issues at the moment, which I would suggest you focus on first. Even if not AI generated, your article will not be accepted in its current form. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 18:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

GrantBremer, the main problem with your draft is the complete lack of references to significant coverage of Macaulay in reliable sources that are fully independent of Macaulay. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you help me with this feedback on sources? Also, I have made edits to add additional sources and remove original research. One thing that I did do was to check on prior art -- I looked at published pages on other CUNY GC professors and their sources. Those pages use CUNY references as well, sometimes exclusively. CUNY, as a source, is a place that I would consider reliable since they are employing Dr Macaulay, have vetted her bona fides, and vouch for and rely on her academic credibility. What, if not these sorts of sources, are you looking for? GrantBremer (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, putting aside the AI label, I acknowledge needed improvements, particularly the declaration of my COI and removal of original research. I have either trimmed that out or added citations there. GrantBremer (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @GrantBremer,

As other editors pointed out, moving a page via copy-paste is not the proper way to do it. However, cut-and-paste page moves are not a factor in determining if text was written by an LLM. To put it bluntly, the reason editors flagged your draft as being LLM-generated is because it appears to be LLM-generated.

LLMs should not be used to write articles from scratch. See WP:NEWLLM. The best way to address this issue and move forwards is to not use LLM generated text at all, although there are still the other issues pointed out by other editors that you will still need to address. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 19:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There are a few things that I see off the bat if you want to rework this article, whether or not it really was AI-generated. Bring it up to the standards of a wikipedia article manually now.

1. Make sure that your sources (and the particular page reference) say something close to what they are used for. Check every single one again, manually. If you partially generated this article, know that this is perhaps the thing that LLMs are worst at. Having tried to play around with LLMs for sources a little bit, I have found that the references they generate are not inline with CLOP 100% of the time (no caveats, 100%, not 99.9% in my experience), let alone whether the sources are correct generally. The more general issue is "the complete lack of references to significant coverage of Macaulay in reliable sources that are fully independent of Macaulay" as Cullen328 brought up, but baby-steps and all that. Good will come from good and if there is still an issue, seek comment on that.

2. The review also point out that there may be an undisclosed COI there. Will you please state on your profile what your relationship to the subject is? You should follow the COI-editor process rigidly. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. By going through AfC rather than creating an article in mainspace, you are already doing something right, so thank you for that.

3. There is a fair bit of uncited synthesis language throughout the article. I would delete "; and the intersections between archaeology and diplomacy" in the lead and similar from the draft entirely unless well-supported by sources tbh. The entire "Intersection of Antiquity and Modernity" is basically this, with only one subpar citation at the end of the section.

4. I would trim the "Selected works" section heavily. Take a look at other pages that have such a section for guidance. Specifically cite her work in-line when you feel it is appropriate.

Hope that helps.

Pietrus1 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this helps a great deal. Thank you for breaking things out. Speaking to each --

1. I wrote the article, so any mistakes are mine. I will double check the citations and have asked Cullen328 for some clarification on the sources and standards.

2. I declared my COI late last week.

3. Along with the COI, I either trimmed out items like the one you called out or added citations. Another editor pointed out original research is not appropriate here; I could generously classify it as such and thus addressed it.

4. I will trim down the selected works and cite in line. I agree that would help. GrantBremer (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Help with a CoI factual edit

Hello - I am looking to work with the editor community to correct some simple factual inaccuracies on Newmont.

Specifically, the infobox still lists the former CEO, and since reporting its 2025 results, the financial data is out of date.

I've tagged the edit on the article talkpage and it's in the queue, but I wanted to know if the Teahouse3 would recommend anything further to get the updates completed?

Many thanks in advance! Ctobey2026 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking at your request, I would suggest formatting the changes using the {{Textdiff}} template. That makes it much easier for editors to see which parts are changing and which aren't, so they can more easily evaluate the request. It seems the CEO change is noted elsewhere in the article, so that part seems fine. For any other changes, you should make sure to provide a reliable source, or point elsewhere in the article where the data is already sourced.

As for the backlog, there are simply a lot of COI requests so you'll just have to be patient when it comes to waiting for a review. But if you make the changes clear, and support each of them with a reliable source, you will hopefully not need to go through more than one round of review. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 17:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Guidance needed for Draft:Mukesh Mishra

Hello, I have submitted my draft article for review through AfC. It has been pending for some time. Could someone please take a look and advise if further improvements are needed? Thank you. Yogiin (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Yogiin: I would strongly advise that you dial back the WP:REFBOMBING. There is no way a five-sentence stub requires 34 sources. Pick the 3-5 that establish notability, and ditch the rest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Yogiin, and welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what DoubleGrazing said, I advise reviewing each of your sources against the criteria in WP:42. If they don't meet all the criteria, they should probably go.

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) 18:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Request for guidance on improving band article (conflict of interest)

Hello, I have a close connection to the Canadian indie band, The Organ, so I have a conflict of interest. The current article was created many years ago and is poorly written. I would really like to see it improved for clarity and conciseness. Would anybody be able to review it and help with clean up or provide further guidance? I appreciate any neutral assistance. I'm more than happy to provide better sources or background if that is helpful. ThrumPumPumPum (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ThrumPumPumPum, and welcome to the Teahouse.

While it's always possible that an appeal like that will find an editor who is interested enough to work on the article, it's not very likely. Usually, the most effective thing if you want an article improved is to do it yourself - even when there are obstacles like conflict of interest and inexperience.

If you were proposing to create an article, I would strongly advise that you go away and get experience in editing Wikipedia first; but since you're wanting to improve an existing article, this can be part of that learning.

What I would advise is as follows:

1. Make a formal declaration of your conflict of interest, preferably on your user page (which you haven't yet created - there is no requirement that you do so, but it's a good place to make such a declaration).
2. Read about verifiability and WP:42, so that you know what kind of sources we will be looking at for any information you want to add. For uncontroversial factual information like places and dates, primary sources (including the band's own website, or interviews from them) may be acceptable, but for anything less clearcut, a secondary, independent source is required.
3. Start making edit requests on the article's talk page: you can use the edit request wizard if you like. Make each one as clear and precise as possible (eg "Replace xxx by yyy in paragraph starting zzz"), and cite any sources for any information you wish to add - or, indeed, any information which is already there but unsourced. Have patience, as response may not be immediate; but if you have used the edit request mechanism, an editor will get to the request in time. If they do not think the request is appropriate, they'll explain why, and you can make an alternative suggestion.

ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Random thing that has been bothering me

I recently completed my 1000th edit, and sure enough, I got a little notification thanking me for my contribs, like I got at 1, 10, and 100 edits. So, where are these messages stored? Are there any more of them, and is this publicly viewable or hidden deep in MediaWiki software? Has anyone documented what they are if they aren't? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 03:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin: These messages are called milestones, and they are system notifications automatically sent to you when you reach a certain number of edits (see Help:Notifications#Milestone). You can see a list of the messages here, and they will go up to ten million. All of it is publicly viewable and the messages are stored in the mediawiki namespace at pages like MediaWiki:Notification-header-thank-you-1000-edit. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 03:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Question

Is it ok to ask a school admin to unblock the IP of Wikipedia due to vandalism and needing to write a paper? ~2026-13584-47 (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that is more up to your school admin than anyone in administration here. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia side, IP blocks only prevent editing the content. Anyone is free to read, even if they are blocked from editing. Now your school might have their own network configured to block access to the site at all. And that's indeed solely up to them not us. DMacks (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Biography

How to write my biography on wiki?. Since I'm a professional boxer, musician and an entrepreneur. Emulys (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Emulys First of all, new editors are heavily warned against creating an article. Secondly, WP:AUTOBIO states that you should almost never even edit an article about yourself unless you are removing blatant policy violations, much less create one. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually I'm not new, I've been using this account before COVID 19.. Emulys (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

How notable are you really? Be honest with yourself. Professional does not necessarily imply notability. I've known a couple of people who have been in and out of the lower echelons of the PGA tour who do not have articles here. If you think you really are notable, your only path is via the AfC process. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

For clarification, the AfC process is here CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry but you probably do not meet the notability guidelines, I could find almost no mentions of you in Google (Facebook doesn't count)

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Facebook

Are images from Facebook copyrighted? Can I upload them? TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

An image on Facebook can be assumed to be conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved") unless you can cite sound evidence to the contrary. You may not upload an image that's conventionally copyright unless you have an immediate "fair use" for it in mind and are ready to argue for this "fair use". -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

In general, is it safe to upload Facebook images I Wikimedia

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

No, it is not. TrueMoriarty, all contemporary images automatically become copyrighted upon publication, with very few exceptions. Exceptions include images created by employees of the US federal government as part of their job duties, and images explicitly released into the public domain by their creators. Images published on Facebook are copyright protected, just like publication anywhere else. There is nothing special about Facebook in this regard. It is just a convenient publishing platform. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the information TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Editing graphs

How do I edit a a graph (it’s not a photo)? Thanks Longhorncowfish (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Longhorncowfish, Is this a graph in a Wikpedia article? Can you provide a link, or just name the article (and the graph)? For non-Wikipedia questions, try the WP:Reference desk. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

AI generated pages

I took a break from editing for a while and as far as I remember AI generated content wasn't allowed for accuracy reasons, but when I loaded up my user homepage today and chose a suggested article to edit, I saw this message on a page. I can't really find anything pertaining to this or addressing the change, but when has AI generated content been allowed on Wikipedia? Is this a new feature? Evilrh104 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Someone explained it to me, but the short answer is that there has never been a wholesale ban on AI, despite that many may wish there was such a ban. The generation of new pages is forbidden per NEWLLM. There is a lot on the subject at the links here: Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. There is also WP:AINB for when it gets out of hand in certain instances. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a work in progress. After a long-fought RfC we managed to pass a guideline forbidding the creation of new articles with AI, but there's still no broader ban on AI editing. There's an ongoing RfC to ban AI-generated discussion comments (like on talk pages, AfD discussions etc) and the general community norm is that all AI editing is problematic and should be undertaken with great care. The main LLM essay highlights a lot of the problems that arise from AI-assisted editing. Athanelar (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Evilrh104, that message is in fact a maintenance template which is intended to alert editors to problems or potential problems in an article. We've had maintenance templates for a long time, for issues such as inadequate citations or style issues. We've now had to develop maintenance templates for AI-generated text because a lot of editors do not want to see slop overtake the encyclopaedia and, even if there is a blanket ban on AI, some will slip through and need to be cleaned up. As a returning editor, you might also be interested in the AI Cleanup project. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation bot notification - needs action?

Hello teahouse people! Just got a notification on my talk page from the disambiguation bot about linking to blood brothers on The Sympathizer page. I went to look at the link itself and it seems to go straight to the "main" page for blood brothers (the one about two or more people not related by birth who have sworn loyalty to each other) and not the disambiguation page - does this mean it was fixed? Is there anything I need to do?

Bonus meta question: I've been lurking a bit here and reading the questions that people submit, and wow, all the volunteers have the patience of a saint. When you started volunteering, were you surprised by the arrogance of the number of people who felt entitled to having a wikipedia page on themselves? (I'm honestly still surprised...) Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer and have limited patience. Before encountering the "teahouse" I was already resigned to the fact that (i) a significant minority of people want nothing more than to advertise themselves (their companies, their products and services, etc), that (ii) they will expend a lot of energy to this end, and that (iii) they're shameless about it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! You're right, the want for Wikipedia to be free advertising is insane (just make your own website, seriously...). I knew that COI/paid editing was a problem on Wikipedia (read an article about it ages ago) but it's still shocking to me how shameless people are. Also the rampant LLM use to generate whole articles! The Teahouse volunteers are almost always unfailingly polite (very commendable) to people but I admit it's satisfying to watch people be rebuked more firmly lol. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Acinonyxjubatusrex Yes, it was fixed with this edit by Rodw. To be honest, I don't know how the disambiguation people do it - it's a very tiring and repetitive task, but someone has to do it and I'm amazed by their speed and output. HurricaneZeta^C 22:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh got it, thank you!! Haha yes they are incredibly fast! Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Just for kicks, I dove into some bot logs to get a sense of the scale of the situation. The notice you received was placed on average about 70 times per day during this past February. And there are some tools that make it fairly easy to find and fix the situation (still repetitive and potentially tiring obviously). We've got a lot of WikiGnomes who love fixing things. Or the challenge of figuring out how to look up weird data :) DMacks (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for the info! TIL what a WikiGnome is. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

When you started volunteering, were you surprised by the arrogance of the number of people who felt entitled to having a wikipedia page on themselves? Frankly, I almost prefer those people. The ones who obviously flagrantly have no idea what Wikipedia is or what they're doing are easier to deal with. The real problem is people who know just enough to be a huge pain in the ass about it. Athanelar (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for the reply!! Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

UBX error

Trying to make a new UBX page but I keep getting "The revision #0 of the page does not exist."

Hello all, I made a userbox User:Acinonyxjubatusrex/UBX/Lotus but I would like to host it on User:UBX/Do the right thing instead (prefer not to have my username so prominently attached to the userbox), but whenever I try to edit the latter page, it gives me the error message:

The revision #0 of the page named "User:UBX/Do the right thing" does not exist. This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.

When I go into the source history, I don't see any edits. Does anyone know why this is happening and/or has a solution? Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait never mind it loaded, I think it was just a delay and I was impatient, my bad! Problem is solved :) Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of lag right now. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Karen Cassidy Irish Ultra Cyclist

I would love if a Wikipedia Page could be generated for Karen Cassidy Irish Ultra Cyclist who holds the record for the first female ultra cyclist to cycle from Mizen Head at the very bottom of Ireland to Malin Head at the very top of the country continuously between the 25th and 26th of September 2023. Cycling 568km in 21 hours 43 minutes and 3 seconds. The first female cyclist to do this epic journey and is the current female record holder. Karen has many other achievements as an ultra cyclist including Race Around Ireland with the Galway Baybes (4 women cycling team), Donegal Ultra Cyclist, 32 Counties including several half Ironman events and one full ironman. But her cycle from the bottom of Ireland to the top in less than 24 hours is her crowning achievement in 2023 at 53 years of age. I have no idea how to go about having a wikipedia page for her - even if it is possible, and I would be very grateful for help. Leonydissac (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Leonydissac Could you find me some sources for this person's feats? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

https://tritalkingsport.com/karen-cassidy-sets-irish-cycling-record-from-mizen-head-to-malin-head/

https://www.galwaybeo.ie/news/ireland-news/galway-legend-diesel-engine-smashes-8788046

https://www.galwaybayfm.ie/sports/galway-cyclist-breaks-mizen-to-malin-record-144673

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0obujZTPDMybfzpfqV2p1S

https://www.cyclingireland.ie/news-item/galway-baybes-break-irish-cycling-record-by-over-10-hours/

https://www.galwaybayfm.ie/sports/galway-baybes-return-home-following-new-round-ireland-race-record-37397

https://www.galwaydaily.com/galway-baybes-set-new-course-record-in-donegal-atlantic-way-ultra/ Leonydissac (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a small mention I discovered on Malin to Mizen wikipedia page, but I would love if she had a page of her own Leonydissac (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Overall, this appears to be a decent set of sources. Also, by "generated", do you mean AI generated? If so, don't do that. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

No nothing I have added there is AI generated Leonydissac (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I was asking if you planned to AI-generate an article. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Leonydissac, and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds as if you might be lucky: CabinetCavers sounds as if they are interested.

Judging from your username, I suspect you are related to Karen Kassidy. If this is the case, then Wikipedia regards you as having a conflict of interest. That doesn't prevent you from asking for, and contributing to an article about her; but I recommend that you declare your connection on your user page, to avoid doubt.

I notice you use the phrase "a page of her own". Please note that if an article is written about her, it will not belong to her or to you, it will not be controlled by either of you, and it will not necessarily say what you want it to say. 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. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine I'm not particularly interested in the subject matter, but I am more than willing to help as much as I can. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Colin, (CabinetCavers)? I am a bit confused as to whom I am replying to. Yes I agree with everything above, and yes apologies I am Karens husband (Noel), but I assure you that all the information pertaining to Karen that I have provided is true. If you would like me to provide you with photos and any other information let me know. My phrasing is probably not correct, I suppose what I meant by a page of her own, is information solely about Karen on a wikipedia page, so when her name is searched, people will get information on her? Maybe? Leonydissac (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I would not use AI when generating an article about Karen Leonydissac (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, just your use of the word "generate" made me suspicious. Also, Colin's reply stretches from "Hello @Leonydissac" to "reliable published source" and their signature. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 20:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies I wont use the word 'generate', from now on. Let me know what to do next if anything? many thanks Leonydissac (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, again, @Leonydissac. People often do talk about subject "having" and article - I just wanted to guard against you having any wrong expectations.

If CabinetCavers is willing to create the draft, that would make it easier for you, but it's not clear whether or not they want to.

If not, you may create a draft. But in that case I would strongly advise you to put this project on hold for at least a few weeks, and spend that time finding existing articles that interest you, and working on improving them - especially, articles that are lacking sources - to learn more about how Wikipedia works before you read your first article and try creating a draft.

When you come to do so, the basic steps are:

1. Find several sources that each meet all the requirements of the golden rule: they are wholly unconnected with you and your wife - not published or commissioned by you, not based on a press release or interview; they are published in a reliable source; and they contain significat coverage of Karen Cassidy - more than just a couple of lines. I haven't checked the sources you listed above for this.
2. If you have found several sources that meet those criteria - but not otherwise - you can go on and create a draft, using articles for creation.
3. At this point comes the hardest thing for a person with a conflict of interest: you will need to set aside everything you know about Karen Cassidy, and write a summary of what those sources say. Nothing else. If they leave out important things - tough. If they are critical of her - the article should summarise what they say. If you know they are wrong - tough. The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
4. If that gives you something that looks like an encyclopaedia article, you can submit it for review. You can also add a limited amount of uncontroversial factual data (such as dates and places) from non-independent sources. But you may not add anything that is only from your own knowledge or unpublished documents.

If this sounds difficult - I'm afraid it is, for a new editor, and for an editor connected to the subject.

For completeness, I should have mentioned another possibility - you can request an article be written at requested articles. But in all honesty the takeup there is extremely low. Including the links you've listed above may make it more attractive to editors who look at the list of RAs. But I wouldn't hold out too much hope. ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Colin, list of RAs (Rhetorical Analysis?). Appreciate this feedback, I will work on this. Leonydissac (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

[RAs = Requested Articles. {The poster fomerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

About My Agency Wiki Page

Hi, can you help to create a page for my creative agency which is growing & our work is getting noticed!

You can Google about "AdBriewer"

Looking forward! Rajnish ~2026-13689-07 (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used for advertising or promotion. Please see WP:NOPROMO. Those that try to do so are considered to be WP:NOTHERE 10:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC) Toarin (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia has articles about topics that meet our criteria for inclusion, what we call notability. For companies, that is our definition of a notable company. The vast majority of companies on Earth do not meet that criteria, because most reporting on a company is about its routine business activities, not critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by those wholly unaffiliated with the company as important/significant/influential about it.

Please see this page as to why an article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. For example, disgruntled customers(every company has those) could vandalize it, it only temporarily. Any and all information about your company, good or bad, can be in an article about it as long as it appears in an independent source and is not defamatory.

I suggest that you go on about the work of your company as if you had never heard of Wikipedia, and allow an article to organically develop the usual way- when an independent editor takes note of coverage of a company and chooses to write about it, summarizing that coverage. Company representatives trying to force the issue and create an article outside this process rarely succeed. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-13689-07 Please see WP:BOSS and show it to your colleagues and higher-ups. The vast majority of companies are not notable enough for Wikipedia. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding a reference that is a jpeg & or pdf on my screen

I have created a jpeg through scanning an original pamphlet (which I can convert to pdf if needed) The source is printed matter that I received many years ago and kept in a file folder . The source is not located on any website, Book, Journal etc so I cannot reference it thru the normal means. Is there a way to reference it and if so how do I do it ? Thanks Mouse1948 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. We cannot use documents in private hands as a source because they can't be verified. Scanning and uploading one is possibly problematic from a copyright standpoint. Documents must be publicly available.

What information are you trying to cite? 331dot (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a document included with an artwork (edition of 95 pieces) that I worked on with others over twenty years ago. When sold the pamphlet went with each artwork to document the number of the edition and who participated in its making. I want to use it as the document includes my name and others as well as a reference that I worked on the piece. The work was the "Act Up Art Box" --a fund raiser for Act Up New YORK Mouse1948 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to add -- THE document has Act Up's masthead and I'm sure they would confirm my participation if contacted. Mouse1948 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If an independent source does not document your work, it shouldn't be in an article at all. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Mouse1948, you could try contacting Act Up and asking them if they would publish it in their blog (if they have one) or in a part of their website that covers Act up history. Once they publish it, then you can cite it. If you have a physical copy of the original pamphlet, you could contact one of the archives of LGBTQ materials, and ask if you may donate it to them for their archives, and index it. (Or, perhaps they already have it; search first!) Once they accept and catalog the item (or if they already have it), you can cite their archives, regardless whether or not it is available online or open to the general public. The New York Public Library — Manuscripts and Archives Division has an extensive LGBTQ+ collection and actively collects ACT UP materials, I would try them first. Others: ACT UP Oral History Project, Leslie-Lohman Museum of Art, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives; there are many other possibilities. Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I have searched Act Up and there are plenty references to the Art Box but the document I want to use is not there. Because it was included with the sale of the artwork the only source would be with its owners. I have gone to the museums who list it in their collections but again the document is not mentioned or illustrated.

Thanks for referencing the NY Public Library and Leslie-Lohman Museum. I will visit (online) them to see if it is there. Mouse1948 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I found an article published by the Met in NYC by Peter Antony which illustrated the card that was included with the Art Box . The card acknowledged my participation so I have referenced it . Thanks again for your help Mouse1948 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Charles Darwin photograph with his “son”

I was scrolling on Wikipedia (going through random pages like I usually do), when I spotted this photo of Charles Darwin “with his son William”. Now I don’t know about you but the child in that photo certainly doesn’t seem to be William, correct me if I am wrong but that definitely seems to be a daughter of Charles Darwin as opposed to his son. Is it possible someone mixed one of the children up with William, it seems far more likely that the child is either Anne, Henrietta or Elizabeth. Just thought I’d bring this issue up. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That would probably be a photo from before William's breeching. Lectonar (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks! The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater I'm pretty confident that is William. I looked him up and found https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/103240746/william_erasmus-darwin, which shows a picture of him looking quite similar to the picture here. You can even look at both pictures side-by-side. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 15:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I see it now, came to a conclusion too quickly 😅 thanks for the help! The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Always happy to help! Between work here and some genealogy I've been doing on my own time, I've gotten quite good at finding sources and pictures. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 15:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah you’re a fellow genealogy enthusiast, always happy to find another. Thanks for your help The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

We might want to stop talking. After all, WP:NOTSOCIAL exists. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 15:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries it was just a passing comment. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, sources shows that the kid is William.This is what the source tells about the picture.

The second is a daguerreotype of Darwin with his oldest son William, taken in 1842, when photography was exactly 3 years old (second image).  The photograph is notable because Darwin is showing the first signs of the illness that would afflict him the rest of his life. And yes, William is wearing a dress.

https://www.lindahall.org/about/news/scientist-of-the-day/charles-darwin-3/ TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah I look like a right fool now for not knowing that 😅, I did know that males were dressed in dresses back then but I suppose I just forgot at that moment, well now I know, thanks for all the corrections. (Would it be worth noting that he is wearing a dress and this was taken before his breaching, others could stumble into the same issue as me and think that it’s a mistaken identity?) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Since the source mentions that this picture was taken before William’s breeching and also notes that he was wearing a dress. So, it would be reasonable to clarify that with a citation. That could help prevent similar confusion while staying faithful to the source. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I 100% think that is a good idea, I can do that now to prevent further confusion, at least some good has come out of my confusion 😅 that’s what makes Wikipedia a better place. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yep. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Why do my draft articles get declined?

I even created an article one week ago and it was declined. Why articles get declined? Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zahrazamedahmedi! On Wikipedia, there is no guarantee that you get to write an article about anything you want. Unlike a wiki farm like Fandom with looser standards, every article on Wikipedia must fulfill our standard for notability by being discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources -- it needs to be something that fact-based publishers of information like newspapers or scientific journals care about. Your article did not meet this criterion, and did not have any sources at all to try to meet it. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 17:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for a swift reply and thank you so much for the information. Kind Regards, Zahrazamedahmedi. Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, Zahra. You should probably take a read through WP:What Wikipedia is not, which helps to clarify what sorts of things we have articles about and why. One important quote from that page is that [a fact, information, or the existence of a subject] merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I have no doubt that Zaza is in fact a real player on the game PK XD, and that all of the information contained in that article about Zaza is true - but Wikipedia does not indiscriminately include articles about things merely because they exist.

Every article subject has to meet a standard that we call WP:Notability, which essentially means that somebody else wrote about that subject first. What our articles then do is summarise all the things that have been written about the subject by those other sources. We have standards that those sources have to meet for us to consider their coverage for this purpose, too.

If you look, for example, at the page for Albert Einstein, and go to the references section, you'll find things like a biography about him written by the Nobel foundation, or an article about his discovery of the theory of relativity, or an article about the things he wrote in his personal letters. The existence of this kind of significant coverage makes Einstein 'notable' according to Wikipedia, and so we create an article which summarises the information available about him in these sources.

In other words, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We collect information available in secondary sources, nothing more, nothing less. Athanelar (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Admin Reverts my Edit

I have been trying to edit a page I created many years ago about Alvan Ikoku Federal College of Education, Owerri, to reflect its new status as Alvan Ikoku Federal University of Education, Owerri, but the admin keeps reverting the page. My edit shows the transition from College to University. How do I get past this challenge? Admin's message is reproduced below: Page is Alvan Ikoku Federal College of Education

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Alvan Ikoku Federal College of Education—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwebs (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Try messaging them. I think the talk page of that article with a ping to the admin in question would be good. I think you two can work this out. Pietrus1 (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, please remember to sign your comments when you leave them here or on similar pages.

You added a bunch of material—some about living people—with no citations. You removed cited material with no explanation. And you used non-standard formatting, including adding the name of the institution at the top of the page, in all-caps. None of that meets our standards.

Do you have a professional or personal relationship with the college? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Help

St_Antony's_Forane_Church,_Kannamaly please help in developing this article. if it doesnt meet the wikipedia guidelines at all. pls help to improve the article. Tellmethetruth555 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I've added a tag. I won't edit the article, as I'm completely unfamiliar with churches, but hopefully somebody will come along and fix it up. For those who are reading and considering jumping in, the article has multiple instances of promotional language and is written more like a novel than an encyclopedia. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, You can add more sources to the 1905 miracle if you can find them. It is hard to find independent sources as early history of the Churches in Kerala are mostly church records which are not accepted by Wikipedia. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

But I'll try to help. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I've done some copy-editing, but it wasn't that bad.

Some independent sources for the history, and an interior picture or two, would be good. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Congrats, It is now an article. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

hello! i'm looking for some help on improving a draft

hello! i need help editing a rejected draft of mine. the reason for rejection is source-related, so any help would be greatly appreciated (im very new to this)

Draft:Kets4eki - Wikipedia 404.seikoko (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The good news is that your draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

You need to show that this musician meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, through significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Advice to clear/archive discussions on Talk Page

I was browsing my watchlist, and came across Talk:Jaiden Animations which is full of discussions that are NOTAFOURM or not relevant in general. However, they're old and long enough that I hesitated to delete them, and I see that there's an archive for that talk page, so should I try to archive them or just delete them outright? Or just leave them? (Or if something happens before I get an answer, what should I have done?)

Pinging @LaffyTaffer because they've been active on the page and might have some insight as well. Realtent (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Realtent While I think that talk page can be a mess sometimes, I'm not sure I agree that there's any WP:NOTFORUM messages, all of the existing discussions are about potential improvements to the article as far as I can tell. NOTFORUM would apply to posts like "I'm trying to find a specific Jaiden Animations video" or "I thought it was really funny when Jaiden did [x] on stream yesterday", messages that aren't relevant to improving the Jaiden Animations article. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 20:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I suggested there were more than a handful when it's not a huge problem. "How can we ask Jaiden for permission" "How about this one" and "Does Jaiden live in Washington" I don't find much value in but I guess could be potential improvements. Realtent (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to make editors aware with awareness templates for CTOP in Twinkle?

Is there? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 23:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe so. There is an open issue on twinkle's github for adding support for CTOP alerts, but it appears no one has coded and implemented the request. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes; with CT-Helper.js. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Andy Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Five different entries in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/ that redirect to the same page?

Hello all, I have a few more questions....

Q1: On Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/, there are five different entries that redirect to the same page, i.e. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/China-_and_Chinese-related_articles:

• Manual of Style/China
• Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles
• Manual of Style/China-related articles
• Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles
• Manual of Style/Chinese

I went to "edit source" on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/ but realised the entries are automated, but I'm not sure how. Anyway, it would be great if the page could get cleaned up so there's just one entry and not five. Could someone point me in the right direction?

Q2: would teahouse staff prefer that I put multiple questions in one Teahouse question and just bullet point them, or submit an individual question for each query? I've been combing through the MOS and various but realise I still have a lot of questions... Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Acinonyxjubatusrex, and welcome to the Teahouse.

As you say, that page is automatically generated from all the pages that exist as subpages of WP:Manual of Style.

Some of these (indicated by being in italics) are to redirection pages - pages which simply redirect to another place, often because there is an alternative name or an alternative spelling under which people might look for that page or article.

That is the explanation for the multiple entries pointing to the same place, and there is nothing to be cleaned up: they are not intended for people looking at the list you found, but to help people who try searching for WP:Manual of Style/(something about China) to get to the right place. ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ohhh ok, that explains a lot. Thank you! Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I would like to find out how i can help someone get a page in wikipedia...

Hello, I am seeking guidance on the appropriate steps to establish a Wikipedia page for a business professional. My employer is the founder of his own company and the author of a book that details his personal journey, including the challenges and processes involved in building his business from the ground up. The book not only shares his professional experiences but also provides practical guidance for aspiring entrepreneurs. It offers comprehensive, step-by-step insights—from launching a business to understanding and calculating key financial figures. In addition to being an author, he owns and operates an equity funding company specializing in the acquisition of owner-financed properties. Could you please advise on the requirements, guidelines, and best practices for creating a Wikipedia page in compliance with Wikipedia’s standards? Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards ~2026-13820-85 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Others will have better worded advice than I, but I will say that you should be aware that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable for a person.(click the link for more information) There are good reasons to not want one. It won't necessarily say what the subject might want it to say, and could potentially contain embarrassing information as long as is properly cited and accurate. Wikipedia is not a place to showcase someone- that's what social media is for. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent sources say about a topic, not what they might say about themselves and not mere documentation of their work and accomplishments. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOSS, WP:PAID and WP:COI. If writing about your employer, compliance with the latter pair is mandatory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Also WP:NEWLLM. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

User agent

Do temporary account IP viewers see user agents? ~2026-13911-71 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe that is restricted to CheckUsers proper. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

TAIV does what it says on the tin; it allows people with that permission to see the underlying IP address below a temporary account. It's basically just like how on the old Wikipedia your IP address would be shown directly; you just need a special permission to see that now instead. Athanelar (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Articles that still need additional copyediting after I'm finished with a copyedit?

Hi there!

I've been working on doing copyedits on some articles that look like they haven't been copyedited for a while. If I've copyedited a section, but feel it (or a smaller section within it) could still use additional copyediting, is there a different tag I should add? Could I change the date of the template that says it needs copyediting to the date of my recent copyedit? Or would asking the talk page if it's appropriate to remove the template be more appropriate? Thanks so much! Mikankiwis (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If you think the copyediting has been done, you can just remove the maintenance template right away; there's no need to ask anybody.

If you still think it needs further work that you can't/don't want to do yourself, then yes; change the date of the copyediting tag to reflect the current date, to show that the article needs copyediting as of x date. Athanelar (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

(also, be aware that there are three templates; {{copyedit}} {{copyedit section}} and {{copyedit inline}} to flag articles, sections/subsections and individual lines, respectively. Same goes for most maintenance tags.) Athanelar (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for your help : ) Mikankiwis (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't edit anymore

Hi dear Teahouse

I am a new member of Wikipedia, and have made one page. I tried to add links to this page to other pages that were relevant to its subject, but couldn't publish the changes. I also tried to adjust the text in the page I created and again couldn't publish the changes.

Could you let me know how to adjust this? Or advise?

Thanks a lot!!!!

Andrushka Fairfabric (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

What error message did you receive, and on what article? It's possible it's protected due to past issues, in which case you'll need to file a request for the change. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I suppose that you're asking about some problem that arose in Draft:Mitchell Faircloth. Could you give us an example of a link that you can't add to it, and tell us just what error message you get on attempting to add the link? -- Hoary (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Apparently I misread this the first time, but looking again it appears they were attempting to crosslink to their draft within live articles on related topics. I suspect the edit history on the draft might have something to do with it, but I don't see any direct action. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Andrushka Fairfabric MOS:DRAFTNOLINK advises against trying to link from mainspace articles to drafts and there may a technical block to doing so (I haven't checked). Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I was trying to link from my main space published article (not a draft) to another published article. I think maybe I can't publish edits because I haven't practiced editing enough to have been recognised as an editor? Thanks for your help!!! Andrushka Fairfabric (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You don't have a mainspace article anymore. It was moved to drafts by another editor because it has multiple issues and is not ready to publish. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks for your help. Andrushka Fairfabric (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you've been able to make more edits to your draft, so I take it things are working fine on that page? The error probably was related to the links then. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Greenpeace bankrupted?!....

I have found a article from the New York Times claiming that a US Federal judge has accepted a settlement from Greenpeace in regards to some protests of a pipeline in Dakota. The article showed up, according to Google 2 days ago on 3-2-2026. Can this material presented here be used in the Greenpeace article?I would have put it there myself, only to be possibly reverted due to the controversial nature of this matter. The article claims the settlement could literally bankrupt the environmental group. ~2026-11445-80 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

While the settlement could bankrupt Greenpeace, it doesn't mean that it will. I recommend waiting until something is confirmed. However, if you want to cover the settlement itself in the article, and it's well sourced (it's an NYT article, so it seems to be), then I would say to put that in if you wish. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 22:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That case has been going on for years too, so it's hardly new - just finally closed (I assume, having not read said article). There's likely additional sources available. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Formatting Question

Good Morning Teahouse,

I'm new to WikiText and HTML-style systems in general, Is there any way to force a section (Multimedia, Userboxes or Other) to display a specific distance from the top or bottom of the page without altering anything else?

The WikiText cheatsheet doesn't give any information about that.

Edit: Is there a way to force a New Line as well?

I-like-Arm64 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I-like-Arm64, in HTML, yes (but that is off-topic for the Teahouse; if you are curious about HTML, try the Wikipedia:Reference desk or any of the many good tutorials and references online). For Wikitext, that would generally be unadvisable; do you have a real-world problem in mind? To force a new line, do what you did above: add two blank lines in your text. Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I-like-Arm64 (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@I-like-Arm64: if you're talking about articles (although the same probably goes for non-article pages as well), then by and large it's not a good idea to 'force' anything. Bear in mind that we get huge numbers of users accessing Wikipedia on a multitude of different devices, screen sizes, operating systems, skins, etc., some of whom may also have special access needs, and what may look good to you could cause problems for others. We sometimes see users increase the font size in an article, or blow up the infobox image to 1000px width, or whatever, and while that may be fine on your 32" super duper hi-rez monitor, someone else working on an old mobile device might not feel the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thanks for the reply!

What I was trying to say was:

How do you set margins around an Infobox?

One of my headings were clipping behind the Babel userbox on my userpage, the only solution I could find was making the text around the userbox longer than the userbox itself. This doesn't work you change text size through appearance options on the sidebar

Also, I was talking about forcing a single newline character to appear rather than needing to put 2 newline characters back-to-back. since doing it like that adds more spacing than the standard text wraparound. Is there any way to do this without needing to use the poem plugin?

Thanks in advance! I-like-Arm64 (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I-like-Arm64, regarding, 'How do you set margins around an Infobox?' the answer is, you don't. You allow the mediawiki settings to do that for you. Please provide a link to the version of your user page (or any page) that shows the problem, and then I or someone can look at it. If there is a legitimate bug, it can be raised and tracked, but we have to see it, first. Mathglot (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"'How do you set margins around an Infobox?' the answer is, you don't." Really? That sounds counterintuitive.

Here's the example in my sandbox (Here)

The line on the text formatted as 'Heading' passes into the info/userbox. The text on the other hand wraps properly. I-like-Arm64 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, really. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with a home stylesheet to enforce a certain level of consistency across articles. This should not be surprising. It is not a blank slate where you can style an article any which way you want, as you can in pure HTML. To an extent, you can modify how things look *only for you*, i.e., without affecting how the page looks to anybody else, so if you want extra space around Infoboxes in articles you browse, you can do that. Read Wikipedia:Common.css for details how to do this.

Otherwise, if you really need to, Wikimedia accepts most (but not all) HTML tags, and one of the ones they do is <div>, so if you must, add a div above the Infobox (or nest the box within it), and include your margin in it. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

BILLIONAIRES

I was just watching Bloomburg at3:30am. What else does a 77-year-old Hippie listen to without going crazy. I do watch BBC WORLD NEWS. I looked up how many billionaires per country there were. I'M GLAD I GIVE TO WIKIPEDIA! ~2026-13856-79 (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The ongoing conflict in the middle east with Iran

Would it be possible to include in the main Wikipedia page the subject of the conflict with Iran in the Ongoing section? (This is the part which includes the war in Ukraine and the Sudanese civil war)~2026-12178-57 (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-12178-57 Hello! You certainly can nominate the topic/related topics at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, although the conflict would not be listed under "ongoing" since it is already featured under the In the news section. If the conflict continues and more events get covered with short blurbs under In the news, then it would likely be added under Ongoing. GGOTCC 08:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it won't be put in ongoing until the blurb rolls off the ITN box. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Email on account - worth it?

Hi all,

Would you recommend adding an email address to your Editor account? Is it better to connect a private email, create a separate one just for WP, or skip it entirely?

Thinking mainly about security, password recovery, and whether it actually helps with communication between editors.

Curious what your experiences are.

Thanks! LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I recommend it, so you can occasionally provide private feedback to someone, or ask them something privately. Your use cases are another good reason. I created an email just for Wikipedia-related activities, and have never received spam on it; I find it useful. If you want to try it out, you can email me a 'Hello' if you want, by going to my User page or Talk page, and clicking, 'Email this user'. (On my skin, that link is in the left sidebar under the heading 'Tools', but it might be different for you.) If you do, lmk in your message whether you want an email you a reply or not. I can also just respond here or on your Talk page to tell you I got it. Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Missing ping: LionmerterTHE. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Tell me if it worked LionmerterTHE (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@LionmerterTHE To add to Mathglot's answer: if you have added and verified an email address to your Wikipedia/Wikimedia account, and subsequently lose your Wikipedia password, having a registered email address will help you reset your wiki password. (I don't think that's possible without the email address. Also, everyone should use password managers.)

Most wiki-related communications should take place on-wiki, but two use cases for email are when there might be private or sensitive information involved, or for sending file attachments, such as through the Resource exchange. To initiate an email conversation from Wikipedia, both parties need to have registered email addresses, and the first email is sent from a generic Wikipedia address so the recipient's address is not revealed to the sender unless they reply to the email. My Wikipedia address is an alias for my primary email account, which I filter into a dedicated Wikipedia folder. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

LionmerterTHE, I just (@08:07 UTC) got a notification (i.e., a Wikimedia alert) that you sent me an email, but the actual email hasn't arrived yet in my email (i.e., *not* part of Wikimedia) inbox. There's probably a queue for sending them out from Wikimedia, or maybe my email provider is slow to update my inbox. But anyway, it worked! Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thats interesting - thank you again LionmerterTHE (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

LionmerterTHE, my mistake; the email came through at the same time as the notification; I was looking in the wrong place. You should have the response, or soon. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Help with Draft: Ramila Meghwal (District President, Jalore)

Hello! I have been working on a draft for Ramila Meghwal, a political leader from Rajasthan. I would appreciate it if an experienced editor could review the draft for "Mainspace" readiness.

She currently serves as the President of the Jalore District Congress Committee (DCC), having been appointed by the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in August 2023. She was also a candidate in the 2023 Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election for the Jalore (SC) seat, where she secured over 64,000 votes (approx. 35% of the vote share).

I have included the following reliable sources in the draft:

• AICC Official Appointment: The formal press release from August 2023 confirming her leadership role.
• Election Commission of India (ECI): Official candidate affidavit and detailed 2023 election results.
• Media Coverage: News links from The Hindu, Dainik Bhaskar, and First India regarding her nomination and organizational role.

I have aimed for a neutral, encyclopedic tone and followed the guidelines for political notability in India. Could someone please review the citations and layout to see if it's ready to be published?

Thank you for your time and help! Nishant208 (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you please give us the link to your draft. It seems like you don't have a draft in the given name

Draft:Ramila Meghwal, The name of the draft is shown in red. So, is there really a draft in that name. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You can check now I have moved draft to Ramila Meghwal Nishant208 (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It's at User:Nishant208/sandbox, Nishant208. At its head, I read: Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review. So if you're ready for the request, then submit. -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Hoary TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it good to go. Any suggestions Nishant208 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, add more citations to Media coverage and public image TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I have added more citations to media coverage and public image.

Any thing else for improvement. Nishant208 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Also add her Haryanvi name like this Ramila Meghwal (Haryanvi: idk, you write) TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Why would I write hrayanvi name Nishant208 (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Look at these articles

Girogi Jincharzarie

Hala Al-Qadi

Moon Jeong-hee

Moon Jae-in,etc TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Nishant208, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please note that 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.

Official election results and press releases are primary sources, and of very limited use for a Wikipedia article, and no use at all for establishing that the subject meets the criteria for notability.

Sources from major newspapers may be more useful, but only if they are secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject: see golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it good to go. Nishant208 (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nishant208 please do NOT add her name in Haryanvi (as you say, why Haryanvi?), Rajasthani, Hindi or any other non-latin script, as that would contravene WP:NOINDICSCRIPT.
The four points you have listed in the references section need to be added in the appropriate place in the article, the social media removed from the External links and infobox and the image moved into the infobox.
However, as she appears to be just a regional party official, not an elected representative (losing doesn't count), I suspect she may not meet the notability criteria at WP:POLITICIAN, so she would need to meet the General notability guideline. I think you should submit the draft through the Articles for creation process where this could be assessed, so I have added the appropriate "Submit for review" button to the draft. Best wishes. - Arjayay (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about the WP:NOINDICSCRIPT. Thanks for telling. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

now I have improved. Nishant208 (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

should I submit for review Nishant208 (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

someone is using my accont

someone is making edits under my account on another Divice Julie Crowell (Ask me a question) 13:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I have reported your account as compromised, which may lead to your account being blocked until the situation is resolved. See WP:HACKED for further guidance. Namely, you should probably change your password and set up 2-factor authentication. Athanelar (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks Julie Crowell (Ask me a question) 13:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Should varieties of something in a subsection be sorted alphabetically?

Hello all, I tried to look it up in the WP:MOS but there's no mention of alphabetical sorting and there's no Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Food. I'm wondering if varieties of Donburi should be sorted alphabetically, and if this is the norm, or if the order is decided by something else. (If there is a resource that discusses this, I would be very grateful!) Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the only time I've seen subsections in a specific order is when they're chronological. Aside from that I don't think it really matters. Putting more popular/prominent towards the top and rare or niche ones to the bottom seems to be fairly common. MOS:JAPAN would apply to the article in general, and there is MOS:LIST, but subsections aren't really a list, the way List of lists of lists is, for example - just simple text without going into detail. True lists like that can also be sorted various ways including but not limited to alphabetically per said MOS.

If you're so inclined, it would probably help that article more to add references. I bet you could find plenty that are usable in the main articles for the more popular varieties like unagi don. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Article Improvement Help Request

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary%27s_Forane_Church,_Thankey - please someone help in improving the article, by giving necessary corrections and edits. Please Tellmethetruth555 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Tellmethetruth555, you have an invitation on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LAWRENCE PRAVEEN THOMAS to present reasons for other editors to disbelieve a claim that you're merely another name of the block evader LAWRENCE PRAVEEN THOMAS. So far, you haven't responded. Better attend to that first. Though if you'd prefer to skip that chore, then one of us could block you and "draftify" or delete the article whose improvement you're asking for. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, [REDACTED], This user page is definitely a sock-puppet. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

TheGreatEditor024, I've redacted your comment out of an abundance of caution because I suspect it constitutes WP:OUTING. If you have off-wiki evidence of sockpuppetry, it should not be shared publicly on-wiki, particularly where it might reveal an editor's real identity. Athanelar (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

i know, thats why I just said that i am ready to share only if the administrators ask me because I didn't know if it was a violation or not. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Your original comment here stated this editor's real, full name in public. It's in another thread where you said you were willing to share it privately. Athanelar (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ohhh okay, I said his name because the above message did reveal his name. I mean the message by Hoary. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The above message speculates that the account is linked to another account which has a particular username. That is not the same thing as stating outright that you can confirm a user account is linked to an email address with a particular real person's name.

Please do have a read through WP:OUTING. In general, you should never publicly confirm on-wiki a link between somebody's Wikipedia account and any off-wiki information about that person, such as their real name or email address.

Posting another editor's personal information is unacceptable, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Emphasis from the original source. Athanelar (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you for the link. I am gonna read that now. I am really sorry for messing up, TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It happens. The editor has now confirmed their connection to that account and name on their talk page anyway. Athanelar (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar the blocked user sent me a mail, telling that he didn't know anything related to Wikipedia and he actually wanted a mentor. He is sending mails to me because I helped him in one of his drafts. What should I say. I really don't know. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You can encourage them to submit an unblock request following the instructions which have been posted on their talk page, though it seems they've already pledged to undergo the WP:STANDARDOFFER and wait 6 months. Athanelar (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Should I mail him or reply in his talk page. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Either's fine. Athanelar (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Done, I sent a reply to his mail. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Btw Thank you so much TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Need help on 2 articles Raffey Cassidy and Alessandro Nivola

hi, so the film High End by Antonia Campbell-Hughes stars Eva Green, Raffey Cassidy, and Alessandro Nivola! Look look, I know ya gonna say "provide a source 🙄", well my source is go to Eva Green's Filmography, it says she will be in the High End movie, and if you click the sources, it takes you to the site and it says Cassidy and Nivola will also be in the film! Can someone add that for me, pretty please? ~2026-13784-94 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean, can someone add High End to the Filmography of Raffey Cassidy and Alessandro Nivola pretty please? ~2026-13784-94 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can make out from the web and IMDb, this project is still "in development" and/or pre-production (I may be mistaken about this) and does not yet have even a vague release date. A significant proportion of films in this stage of development fall through and are never completed or released: it is far too soon to start adding details to Wikipedia about it, whether in its own article (see WP:Too soon and WP:Crystal) or in others. I suggest you wait until the film has actually been (or at least is just about to be) released. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe the standard for films/TV is that articles can be created once filming starts, since the vast majority do make it to release once that happens, but there has to be significant coverage. That mostly applies to sequels or subsequent seasons of projects that are already successful, since there's rarely enough detail on entirely new works that far out to prove notability. There may or may not be enough as it ramps up to the release, since larger projects often do media tours after filming wraps. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Legit Wikipedia

I have been working on a Wikipedia draft and received an email from someone saying they can help me with writing the draft. It was signed by someone named Asher. It landed as a known spam in my email so I thought I had better check this out . I went to safari to do a search on the email address and when I returned to the suspect email to record the sender and source of the email it had vanished. I did not delete or trash the email. Very strange. Is Wikipedia aware of fraudsters offering help services. Mouse1948 (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very common scam. No legitimate Wikipedia editor or anybody affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation will ever reach out to you to offer editing services in exchange for payment. Wikipedia editing is done strictly by volunteers who do so with no expectation of or desire for compensation in return. If anybody contacts you like this again, please report the exchange to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Athanelar (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I went to the spam section of my email and managed resurrect the email. It was signed " Asher Consultant Wiki Submissions"

I just received a reply while writing this confirming my suspicions. Thanks Mouse1948 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mouse1948 Do not reply to this 'consultant,' simply forward the entire email exchange to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org and let them handle it. Athanelar (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Sent copy of scam email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org Mouse1948 (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Templated warnings

Hi,

When I patrol recent changes looking for unconstructive edits, I often find some users engaging in the talk page with the intention to reach the subject of the article...be it an organization, a person etc. I want to be able to send a templated message saying something to the effect of "the talk page of an article does not establish communication with the subject itself but to engage in conversations regarding the article". However, I am unfamiliar with the process of creating templated messages/warnings. An option to include this either in Redwarn or Antivandal would be most appreciated. Thank you! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If you want to create templates for your personal use, the best way is to create them in a subpage of your userspace, and then you can invoke the template with curly brackets, like {{User:Kvinnen/example}} would transclude the contents of the page User:Kvinnen/example Athanelar (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I will attempt to do this. Thank you very much! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If you create a template you think could be useful more broadly, you're also completely able to create a new template in the Template: namespace. Athanelar (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there any issue with creating them in userspace and then moving them to Templates? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No, that's also fine. You can create it in userspace, make sure it works properly etc and then move it to Template space if you want. Athanelar (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The Template:Uw-chat2 series probably covers many of these situations; you may (or may not) want to take a look, a copy, or consider proposing a tweak. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I will take a look a this too. Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You can use WP:Twinkle to easily locate and use such templated messages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If the problem is repeated by serval editors on one talk page, you can add {{Talkheader}} to the top of that page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Article about an artist was declined

Hey guys,

My passion is contemporary art (even though it has nothing to do with my profession) and I wanted to contribute to the recognition of a larger group of young French artists, especially from the Occitanie region. I closely follow articles in regional cultural magazines and see interesting exhibitions of young art. I'm impressed by the work of artists from our region like Kader Benchamma, Jimmy Richer, Kate Wyrembelska and others... I started writing an article about the latter (link: , but it was rejected, even though she had a large solo exhibition at the Centre for Contemporary Art in Montpellier: Espace Saint-Ravy; and she has participated in many other prestigious group exhibitions. She recently created a beautiful work of art in a public space for the GGL development group/Helenis. She is now nominated for the "Outstanding Pole Abroad" competition organized by the Polish Embassy in Lyon in the Culture category. I don't know well the Wikipedia codes, and I'm wondering what exactly was the reason for the rejection: my poor writing style? Or rather, the topic itself? Can I somehow modify the article, simplify it, to make it acceptable, or is that pointless? Is it a good idea to commission someone with more experience to write it? Could someone help me? Thanks in advance for your help! Loic, sci fantaisie Scifantaisie (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The reason your draft was declined is outlined in the large reddish decline notice at the top of the page, as well as the reviewer comments just below. Read those and look at the pages linked therein, and it will probably clarify some of your confusion.

Is it a good idea to commission someone with more experience to write it? No, and you should be aware of scams that target editors like you. Athanelar (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Scifantaisie, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

The fact that you have a particular topic area that you want to contribute to is great; but please note that "to contribute to the recognition" of anything or anybody is exactly what we mean on Wikipedia by promotion, and it is forbidden.

If there is enough independent, reliable information published about one of the artists in question, you are certainly welcome to create a draft about them (though see my last paragraph below). But if there happens not to be, then you will be wasting your time trying to do so.

If you do create a draft and it is accepted, then the article might indeed contribute to their recognition: but there is no guarantee. Suppose, for example, that one of your artists had been involved in something dreadful, nothing to do with their art, and the news reports on them were mostly about that not about their art: then an article about them would be mostly about that, and not about their art - even if you wrote it about their art, others would in time edit it to match the sources better, and you could not stop them.

This is not a likely scenario, I know; but it is a reason not to create an article about somebody for their benefit. (See also an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.)

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

How does one deal with inappropriate behaviour?

Following disagreements regarding edits on a page, I would like to flag the behaviour of @GenoV84 who has been making unwelcome comments on my talk page. I do not think this rises to the level of harassment at this point, but this feels abusive, including with personal accusations. Having been around a little, I think I know better than to directly respond and escalate; however, it feels like a behaviour that should be addressed. I would welcome some recommendations to this effect. Tagging @Cambial Yellowing who was involved in these messages (in a supportive way). Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Julius Schwarz Discussion on your talk page is already over. Don't cry for help elsewhere and take responsibility for your own mistakes. Move on. GenoV84 (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you making my point for me. Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment - From reading this entire situation as an uninvolved editor, both of you probably need to read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:KETTLE. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 10:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Campssitie, thanks for chipping in. And, yes, there are probably two sides to this situation, not just my own. From my perspective, I admit that my reverts can, as always, be disputed -- although I believe I have sufficient experience with people going around changing ideologies/positions without adequate sources or discussion; but then the article's talk page is the place for this. This is what I encouraged in my reply. Instead, my issue is the immediate name-calling, accusations of ganging up (while @Cambial Yellowing responded even before I saw @GenoV84's posts), etc. Good faith is admittedly a little hard to assume there, and it seems like a bit of a pattern. Julius Schwarz (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You might start with WP:DRN for the article in question, plus a request that they avoid your user page. If that doesn't suffice WP:ANI might be necessary. Just tread cautiously, as they have a tendency to WP:BOOMERANG. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Or rather - try to address it on the article TP before DRN, if that hasn't happened yet, but do be cautious about not escalating outside of the content dispute itself. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, @ChompyTheGogoat. I think I will wait and see what steps the user takes, if any. If that behaviour continues, then I will consider further action. All the best. Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Context missed The good faith efforts to read the entire situation are welcome, but uninvolved editors have apparently missed relevant context. The version to which Julius reverted is the consensus version, as pointed out by Julius to GenoV84 here. That consensus was reached with a reasonably lengthy discussion involving at least eight editors and reference to ~30 sources. The notion Julius was "disruptive" in doing so does not bear the tiniest scrutiny. Moreover, given the existing agreed consensus, the burden is on GenoV84 to demonstrate consensus has changed. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Weird account

I found an account called 'AzoraSkybound'.

Has no edits to any page except the userpage.

Completely new but the user page is formatted pretty well which is unusual for a new user. SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 13:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly unusual about that. They're probably copying what they've seen on other userpages. Athanelar (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of an example Barnstar section seems to support that. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

SomnambulantFish, I have been editing on Wikipedia for over 20 years without ever feeling the need to open an account. If I ever do, I will obviously not look like a new user. Doubtless out of the 100,000+ other regular editors, some are in a similar situation and would present the same 'unusual' appearance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Lol guys I'm just doing the user page first before editing. How'd you find my account tho? AzoraSkybound (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Probably via recent changes.   Metal Breaks And Bends   (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Lol why you watching that? AzoraSkybound (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:RCPATROL is a very common method of vandalism prevention. Athanelar (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

So you think I'm vandalising? AzoraSkybound (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No, RC captures all edits, and some types of vandalism or other indicators of poor behavior require going through large volumes of good edits.   Metal Breaks And Bends   (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok. AzoraSkybound (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Third opinion

I made a report on ANI less than an hour ago on another editor's disruptive behavior and was told to file a Wikipedia:3O or WP:DRN instead. However, the discussion so far has been scattered across edit comments, user talk page, and ANI, Should I recap all those discussions for the purpose of 3O, or is linking to them enough? Thanks! PetéWarrior (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to recap all of the external discussion about the conflict itself, just provide the details of the content dispute so it can be resolved. Athanelar (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

helpme

how to edit hindu yuva vahini details as hindu yuva vahini is registered and trademarked. need your support in this content Vikram1712 (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Hindu Yuva Vahini. Looking at the talk page, users need to be extended-confirmed before they can edit that article. This means that your account needs to have existed for 30 days, and you need to have made 500 edits whilst logged in. Does that help? You can also request a change to the article on its Talk page using Template:Edit extended-protected. You will need to supply citations for any information you want to add. Tacyarg (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

"registered and trademarked" is irrelevant to Wikipedia.

If your position is that being "registered and trademarked" means we can't write about it, or affects what we write about it, please read WP:No legal threats, before you edit or comment further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Vikram1712. If your concern is that a trademark is being used in a Wikipedia article without an icon to show this, then please read MOS:TRADEMARK. We do not use symbols such as ™ or ® in Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Creating a Wiki item

I have long wished to create a page detailing the newspaper for whom I worked over 20 years, the South Yorkshire Times. It was staple diet in its readership area, and still commands a reduced readership.I have copies of pre-WW2 pages detailing the family paper's 'ancestry'. But every time I start, I get bogged down in attempting to create links, and generally format the page. Writing is no problem. Formatting is a nightmare. WikiTramp 1942 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Before you even think about writing or formatting the article, you will need to find sources that demonstrate the article meets our inclusion criteria for organisations and companies. The article which you then create needs to be a summary of the information available in those sources. You must not write the article based on what you know and then find sources to confirm it, that's called writing an article backwards and inevitably results in disaster. For a full guide, Help:Your first article is a good resource. Athanelar (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @WikiTramp 1942, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (I know your account has been around for a long time, but with only nine edits in your history, I think still applies!) ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Names

Off topic The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How many names does it take to resurrect the dead? ~2026-13977-34 (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-13977-34 From my calculations, it looks like around 5,200, give or take a few hundred depending on the size and amount of people you're resurrecting. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I heard its 215. ~2026-13977-34 (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You probably made a mistake in the calculations. They're quite complex. I'm Ba'al. I'd know. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

1+1?

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.

---

whay is 1+1 ~2026-13901-75 (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This page is to ask questions about using Wikipedia. If you have such a question, please pose it. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-13901-75 1+1, speaking mathematically, equals 2. However, there are many jokes surrounding it, each with their own answer. My personal favorite is 1+1=Window. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

1+1 is still one, but also 2, and also 3. And also 0. ~2026-13977-34 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Why are minnie and mickey always sad? ~2026-13977-34 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Because their existence revolves around a corporation who is keeping them held hostage under copyright, and their TV show is just them pandering to nonexistent children and they're told what to say by decrepit old white men who think WWII was recent. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:54, 4 March 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.

Zoominfo

Hi. I think this article might need some help to keep it neutral - and that I'm not the appropriate one to do it, because my editing there is tainted by my extreme personal bias against its subject, to the point where I'm being repeatedly incivil for mere content disputes (in talk and edit summaries). I'm sorry. And I know I should refrain from that article from now.

I'm still concerned that the article might be under stress from PR efforts, I invite fellow WPdians to watchlist it in place of me - anyone would be better guards than me.

Again, I'm sorry. No need to hesitate if you want to highlight instances where my behaviour is bad; I'm so emotional I don't even know where exactly did I went off the line.

Thank you, and have a productive day! :) iris 7:26a (+8) 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 23:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I would. Except I am like you, in the fact that I think databrokers are the scum of the earth that need to be enveloped by Jell-o and suffocated. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

How do I edit here

Its been 3 days, I try to expand articles I have passion on, I feel like a confused alien here and it doesn't feel very good, I want to improve stuff but I don't know how, I needed a teacher :( Tactical15 (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I just left some introductory links on your talk page; I'm sorry nobody thought to do so sooner.

You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Mentorship. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Alr,No probs. Im kinda hard to get as a teen but thanks for understanding. Tactical15 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ramadan and Lent

I've noticed that Wikipedia occasionally features site-wide banners to acknowledge cultural and religious observances like Ramadan. Given Wikipedia's commitment to global neutrality, I’m curious about the specific criteria used to determine which observances receive this level of visibility—for instance, why a banner might be implemented for Ramadan but not for a period like Lent? Is this based on geographic readership metrics, editor community proposals, or a specific set of cultural inclusion guidelines? ~2026-14052-57 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It's based on the criterion of "users being arsed to do it". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

meta:Wiki Loves X campaigns have the details on these banners and their associated campaigns.

Namely, Anyone can start a Wiki Loves X campaign at any time. If you want Wiki Loves Lent campaign, then you're welcome to do it. Athanelar (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The banner wasn't acknowledging Ramadan, but inviting editors to participate in an editing contest related to it (Wiki Loves Ramadan). We are currently holding a similar editing contest (Feminism and Folklore), which also received a banner. We typically hold editing contests for topics that have a low amount of coverage or a large amount of low quality articles on Wikipedia. Considering lent is Christian (thus being a large part of the Western world), it has received a lot of coverage on Wikipedia. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

sources for yuhihai draft

Hi,

I'm trying to publish a draft for a Wikipedia page for Yuhihai, which is UCLA's Annual Intercollegiate Invitational Kendo Tournament, however it keeps getting declined. I noticed that Harvard's Shoryuhai got a page with less sources than what we have. I was wondering what kinds of articles/sources do you guys want from us in order to get approved, and what did Harvard do that we didn't? Itslaaadoorman (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Itslaaadoorman, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles which if they were submitted for review today would not get accepted. Unfortunately, not many editors are keen to spend the considerable amount of time working on them to either improve them or delete them. (see WP:Other stuff exists).

Shoryuhai has been tagged for two years as needing additional citations. I very much suspect that it does not meet the requirements for notability, and should be deleted, but I haven't the interest to do the work required.

We review a draft article on its own merits, not against existing articles.

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

Unless you can find at least three sources each of which satisfies all the criteria in WP:42 - being reliably published, completely unconnected with Yuhihai and UCLA, and containing significant coverage of the competition - there will be no point in spending any more time on this endeavour. ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Rewrite or Edit?

Hello! I have been doing the suggested edits for awhile, and have come across two articles for football/soccer players that are written with extremely bias for the player, most likely written by a fan. Micheal Galea is the example I found today (unfortunately I cant seem to dig up the one I found earlier :( ). I personally don't feel like the right person to fix these fully, as I don't have an interest in the sport and don't know any of the terms, but for future reference, would it be better to try and reword what is already there, or try to build a new page from the ground up for pages like this? I would love to hear others opinions on this! Gordonthefreedman (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Micheal Galea looks more like a fandom page than a WIkipedia page, due to words like "Michael lived up to his class" , "In a highly disappointing 2006–2007 season" and "He managed to score no less than 14 goals in the 1997–1998 season: TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Gordonthefreedman, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for bringing this up.

When you find a problem in an article, the best think to do for Wikipedia's benefit is to fix it; but often we don't have the time, or the interest, or the knowledge to do so. One approach is to add a suitable maintenance template (for example {{POV}}) - that at least warns other readers and editors that there may be a problem.

There is no requirement on you to do anything at all to it; but if you wish to, you are perfectly entitled to simply remove the most egregious POV material from it.

Probably the most useful thing you could do is to look for sources that meet the golden rule. If you can find some, you can add them to the article ; if you can't, that's a very good indication that the subject is not notable and you could take it to articles for deletion. But that certainly takes some work.

If you haven't already got Twinkle installed, you will find that installing and using it helps with some of those steps (though not with searching for sources!). ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Woah, thank you! I haven't heard of Twinkle before, I will be sure to download it! I was considering taking it to deletion, but again I know so little about the sport that I have no clue if someone is well known or not lol. Again, thank you so much, this will definitely be helpful for me (and I hope others)! Gordonthefreedman (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Can someone fix the errors in this footnote

page is Overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Thanks! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixed! SenshiSun (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

help with improving an article

hello! i'm a bit new to editing wikipedia (i have done some reading about the policies and stuff though) and i noticed an article that seemed to use a lot of not neutral sounding words like "he was an unusually talented musician" and I wanted to improve it but I just wasn't really sure how to go about doing so. I would like some advice or maybe help with it

Alexei Stanchinsky <-- this was the article ImageWizard (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

ImageWizard, you're right to be suspicious. But on "he was an unusually talented musician", what the article actually says is: "At the age of six, it was apparent that Alexei was an unusually talented musician as he was already performing piano works of the masters." Within that, "the masters" is vague; and even if we take them to be those then rated highest among composers for the piano, perhaps we need to say whether we are or aren't including the works they may have written expressly for neophyte pianists. Still, even with these ambiguities, I wouldn't call this an intolerably promotional description.

The prose is unsuitably dramatic in places. Sample: "However, after one major event all his work would come crashing down before him."

A problem is that quite a bit of the content doesn't seem to be referenced. Another is some of this is attributed to a master's thesis. A link to the thesis is provided, but the link doesn't work (or anyway didn't work for me, a few minutes ago).

Other cited sources are described fairly helpfully, but not as helpfully as they could/should be. (ISBNs? DOIs? ...)

This is an article that would merit critical (but sympathetic) attention. If you haven't yet done this kind of work on an article, I suggest putting Stanchinsky aside till you've gained experience with other articles for which more sources are -- or anyway are claimed to be -- available on the web. But after that, do please return to it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you :] i will keep that in mind ImageWizard (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

‘Quiet Please’ good article review

Is there anyone who can review this article under the Film section? MailJail (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

If you've submitted the article for review, you simply need to wait for a volunteer to review the article. Posting here likely won't make it happen any sooner. There are around 700 nominations waiting to be reviewed in no particular order.

Check out the the getting started page for things you can do while you wait! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Follow the process here: Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Pietrus1 (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

AI in an article

I recently came across this article in the wikilink editing list. It has multiple issues (most of which are marked by templates on the page), many of which are characteristic of AI-generated content. Some factors: a lack of wikilinks, a lack of inbound links, a need for additional citations and vague, disjointed topics. It also ranks 82% AI-generated on GPTZero. I know this is not a surefire way to determine AI content, but combined with all of the other factors, it does make this article more likely to not conform to the rules of Wikipedia.

One other oddity that I noticed is the fact that all of the references were accessed on the same day, which would be strange for a human writer.

I came to the Teahouse to see what others thought about this. Thanks! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if it's AI, but it's definitely... shall we say 'really, really bad'? It's in desperate need of a rewrite for sure. I'll see what I can do. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 19:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw that you nominated the article for deletion. Thanks! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Paolo, welcome to the Teahouse!

After a good look at the text in article itself, it seems to me it does emphasize some characteristics of the AI-generated language that you have pointed out, and with my observation, It additionally seems to frequently present information in sets of three, which is a quirk shared by many LLMs.

But, as the other commenter stated, It may not actually be LLM-generated, but definitely needs some kind of heavy rewriting, since it has an abundance of issues.

If you think this is a possible misuse of AI, I recommend sending this over to the AI cleanup noticeboard, but for a last resort. Best regards! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 19:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome! An other commenter nominated it for deletion, which is appropriate, I think. Paolo Roland Self (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The surest sign it was AI generated is the fact that the very first edit has a pre-declined {{AFC submission}} tag already there. It was declined before being submitted. AIs do this a lot. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That does make sense. Thanks! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Internet Archive

Hello! I recently found a citation () with an original URL that goes to a 404 and an archived URL which goes to an endless loading screen. I did a new search on Wayback for the page, and found that the blue snapshots take me to a redirect. Is there any other way to access this webpage? Are there other web archives which we are still allowed to use for WP? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@OrdinaryOtter Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I have found working URLs from April 30, 2007 to August 4, 2009, so maybe you would like to look through and replace the current archive URL. As for your second question, see Wikipedia:List of web archives on Wikipedia. Jolly1253 (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

References

hello world

Is this the world? ~2026-82500-9 (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

No, it's Wikipedia. Have you a question about using or editing Wikipedia? ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not the world, but you have access to most of the world's knowledge here. You can get a pretty good picture of what the world is like. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

a smaller version of it TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Pavel_Kizhuk

 Courtesy link: Draft:Pavel Kizhuk

Hello everyone! How glad I am to be at the tea house! Sorry, I received a comment about the article, and it mentions spelling errors. I checked everything and it seems correct. How can I be sure the spelling matches the encyclopedia? I'm sure this is a stupid question, but I would be glad to receive any help.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your browser probably lets you choose among languages, Jamescopperfieldd. Tell it that you're writing in English and it will probably avoid what aren't words in English. (There are minor complications, such as whether you want to write according to US, according to UK, or according to other convention.) But there are larger problems than spelling. Here's a photo caption: Pavel Kizhuk shoot in western this Alex Carlin.2023. I cannot parse this. -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! Yes, he's filming in western. Okay, I get it, I'll try to correct that. "Shoot" is film slang for "to act in."

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

While not necessarily spelling, I do see many grammatical and punctuation errors. To me it reads like it was translated poorly from a language that has difference syntax. I recommend running it through a basic spelling and grammar checker in a program such as Word. Please note that some of these programs have added AI elements, and AI content is not allowed in articles - you should not let it replace chunks of words for you; review each suggestion and only approve simple minor corrections. (There may be ways to disable the AI tools, but I don't have any experience with them.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for watching! I read that articles don't work when translated through AI. Well, I'll think about what to do. I doubt anyone can help me with this! Thanks again!

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey!)

Sorry to bother you, but after researching this issue and reviewing numerous well-known articles that are written with errors and are publicly available, I understand that Wikipedia is no better or worse than any other database,like IMDB.The main factor.A user with extensive editing experience, and that's it? Well...

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

More or less. The biggest difference is that Wikipedia is collaborative, so anyone can fix errors (or outright misinformation) posted by someone else. Popular articles are closely monitored, so they're less likely to have issues than niche subjects.

There's a general preference for fixing things when possible rather than outright deletion - but it requires someone interested enough to do the fixing. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. I can cite numerous articles with a single source, lack of significance, etc. Interest in the individual in the capitalist world, you yourself understand only why...Okay, this is all philosophy, but at least we are in a tea house))I'll be working on the article's grammar. Is there any other way I can offer some advice regarding the article?

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry "You can offer some advice regarding the article?"

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who's more fluent in English that might be able to help proofread? That will probably give you better results than direct translations. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm confident in Your theory. Perhaps You could skim through it? It's a short article. I just don't know how I can thank You for it.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jamescopperfieldd@ChompyTheGogoat

It's poorly written and unreferenced. I don't think it belongs in mainspace. ~2026-84942-3 (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the text, I checked everything according to your instructions, correcting punctuation and grammar errors. The links for this article, taken together, are more than significant. The person's age must be taken into account.Regular databases provide much more truthful information than paid articles in well-known publications.This is information for you. Thanks for your help with grammar and punctuation.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of young people with ample coverage and no question that they qualify as notable. Wikipedia has strong guidelines on which sources are considered reliable, with accuracy being a major factor. Sometimes it can be difficult to find or judge sources on foreign subjects for English Wikipedia, but leaning on sources you've been told are unreliable aren't a solution, and dodging the AfC process isn't either. Reviewers know what they're doing, and you disagreeing with guidelines won't change them. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not breaking the rules in any way. Regarding the significance of sources, it's actually a very philosophical question, based more on personal beliefs. When all the factors are taken together, it's clear that the person has made a significant achievement.Yes, this isn't supported by the BBC or any government website. But why would the government talk about this man? He's not a politician, just a personality, and the state, as a rule, doesn't need personalities.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It might be "philosophical" in a general sense, but on Wikipedia it's a matter of established guidelines and consensus. If you don't agree with them you're free to post on other platforms with no such restrictions. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, right? So what kind of freedom are we talking about when it possibly dictates the criteria for the significance of sources?

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

One in which "free" refers to not costing money, and where validity matters. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is how the world is currently, but as you can see, big changes are taking place. And as a rule, "idea" wins out over "material value".You are a very good conversationalist and I am very glad to meet you in the teahouse.I promise to improve the article. Deleting it would be cruel.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I can find many articles with one source, or which are based even on a local statement, not to mention an international one.I'm just defending article, not questioning Wikipedia.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has something called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which I recommend you read. Each article is expected to stand or fail on its own merits. The existence of other sub-standard articles does not mean new articles can also be sub-standard. Madam Fatal (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're absolutely right. I'm actually getting familiar with Wikipedia's rules.Could you please suggest how I can save this article from being deleted? Maybe make it shorter? Remove facts that require more reliable sources?

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I would start with removing any primary sources that you are currently using on the page. It looks like you have press releases as well as Pinterest listed as a source multiple times, those should be removed - if you cannot replace them, then the corresponding content should be removed.

There is also a great deal of storytelling and promotional material that does not read as encyclopedic (i.e. Kizhuk's work has yielded some good results in relations between Greece and Russia. And Pavel himself, through a requiem of fate, gained profound experience without any particular purpose and also brought benefits.) The article should read as strictly factual.

This is a start, but it also seems like there is a lack of significant coverage, which is necessary for a page to stay. You can check out WP:SIGCOV for more information about this. FiddleheadLady (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much for the detailed answer! I'll work on the page and follow your recommendations.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You still don't seem to be hearing people. If there aren't enough reliable references available to prove that someone is considered notable according to WP:NOTABILITY, then they don't qualify for an article on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who it's written by or how good it is. We follow the sources first and foremost, and if they don't exist they don't exist. That doesn't mean that the person isn't interesting or popular, or that they'll never qualify, but that they don't at this time, which is common early in their career when there hasn't been much coverage. Editors don't !vote to delete if they think an article just needs to be written better - typically they recommend draftication instead so that you CAN continue working on it. A !vote for deletion means that the subject is not currently considered notable, and I think if you continue working on it you're just going to be even more frustrated when it does get deleted (as everyone who's responded agrees it should be). My recommendation would be to walk away from it for now and accept this as a learning experience, study Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and practice making small edits to existing articles. You can keep an eye out for anything that's written about him and consider rewriting the article in the future if you think there has been enough coverage. That doesn't mean try to come back next week with a single new source, but likely a matter of months or even years as his career goes on. These things take time. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right! The man is alive, and sources could emerge soon—it's not out of the question. Therefore, I'm revising the article based on the editors' comments, and I hope it gets sent to draft.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

edit protected article/talk page

I'm trying to fill out the edit request form on WP:RFED for an edit-protected article whose talk page is also protected. FWIW the change I'm trying to make is probably not contentious relative to the subject matter but my submitted form entry won't even show up at all on the list of requests even after purging its cache, or on the relevant talk page.

I'm trying to update 2026 Iran War to change "It is still unknown how US and Israeli leadership were aware of their exact location" to "Israeli and US forces were able to pinpoint their exact location through extensive surveillance, including hacked traffic cameras, mobile phone networks, and information on the targets' security detail. Bofades (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You should make this suggestion on the talk page of the 2026 Iran War. Pietrus1 (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The talk page is also protected which is why i cited WP:RFED Bofades (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pietrus1: They can't do that per the page being extended-confirmed protected as Arbitration enforcement. Bofades does not meet the XC requirements.

@Bofades: This is not an uncontroversial edit request, and thus would require a discussion you cannot participate in at this time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Got it, but is there a reason the form isn't working either? Bofades (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bofades: There shouldn't be. RFPP/E has been flooded with edit requests for that article for the past few days, particularly blow-by-blow updates that are generally a waste of time (as said updates or their sources are either already under discussion or waiting for things to calm down). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Digression

Ah, I thought those were piped into the talk pages. Seems I have more to learn as well. Pietrus1 (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of protecting the talk page? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Probably. I'll mark this as a digression. Pietrus1 (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Notability check and (re)creation Ergo Next Insurance?

Hello everybody, I need some advice on the topic of notability, in combination with the topic of conflict of interest.

I have been asked by a customer to check the possibility of (re)creating an article on the company Ergo Next Insurance. I understand that some years ago, somebody created an article that was apparently deleted for lack of notability. At that time, the company was still called Next Insurance; it was a start-up and rather small. In the meantime, the company has developed significantly. In 2025, it was bought for 2.6 billion $ by Ergo Group, a big German insurance company. The acquisition got coverage by media like Reuters, Financial Times and TechCrunch. In 2026, the company was in the spotlight when it took over sponsorship of Inter Miami (soccer). Reports appeared in major media outlets not only in the US, but also in countries such as Germany, France, Spain and Brazil. I imagine, this is quite notable, but I am not sure about practices in English Wikipedia. (There is an article in Hebrew Wikipedia, by the way.) Do you think there is a chance to have an article?

And the related question: What is the best way to initiate the creation of a new article if I have a conflict of interest (as I do)? Result KK (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Result KK Neither company size nor routine reporting on finances, acquisitions etc confer notability. The full guidance is at WP:NCORP, you should read that.

As for COI article creation, you can submit a draft for review via the WP:Article creation wizard, but you should not do so unless you are first sure you have the necessary sources to demonstrate the company's notability per NCORP above. Athanelar (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You will be required to comply with WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

"Globe Mascot"

Recently on a couple pages such as 79th British Academy Film Awards, a little globe guy appears in a righthand column, scrolling on a Wikipedia branded phone. I've figured out that there's a fun animation when you switch from light mode to dark mode, and I assume this is related to Wikipedia's anniversary, but who is this? I'm curious to know more and why they show up on certain pages. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

That's Baby globe.

Added for the 25th anniversary, you probably have Birthday mode on.

I found it(?) kinda cute. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) ([[User:Starlet147/Sandbox|Sandbox]) 00:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

(DOn't mind my broken sig) Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) ([[User:Starlet147/Sandbox|Sandbox]) 00:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! – OdinintheNorth (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem.(Hey I fixed my sig)

Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 16:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

See Le Petit Prince, London, Book, Wikipedia, and Music. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I love the Le Petit Prince once. It's so adorable. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It's on most space articles. It is cute. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 15:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

How many variations of Baby Globe exist and how can I find them. He's so cute OMG. Please tell me he's permanent he's too cute to go away. ~2026-14085-32 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, he/she/they are cute. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 20:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think they are permanent (i wish they are permanent). Versions111 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

noooooo Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 12:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

article about m II

how can we write article about m II ~2026-14187-38 (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

What is m II? TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Your first article.

Also, as you use the word "we", note that each account should be used by only one person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess the IP only meant how do Wikipedia editors including him in general create such page.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 12:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

"Your impact" page

I keep the Beginner Homepage enabled only because it has a nice widget which shows the total number of views on my edits in the past 2 months. Is there a way to see those stats somehow without having to use the beginner homepage? 🍅 fx (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Paste {{Special:Impact/Flexagoon}} to your userspace TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 12:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Flexagoon The above will display it to all viewers of your user page. You can also click Special:Impact/Flexagoon. User:PrimeHunter/Impact.js adds such a tools link saying "Impact" in the userspace of all users including yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Special:Impact also works to show your own impact. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

How to add templates,what is extended protection , guide for a newbie

Can someone direct me to a guide on how to add templates,I know we need to do 500 edits to get access to locked pages also what is requested move I've been seeing in talk pages is there any guide like this for newbie like me Stanjik (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Stanjik. See Help:A quick guide to templates (Help:VisualEditor#Editing templates for VisualEditor), Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection, Wikipedia:Requested moves. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks :) Stanjik (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

PII and COI

What's the correct procedure for identifying a COI via PII in someone's username? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

ChompyTheGogoat, if my sudden interest in, and more or less discreet praise for, the works of the allegedly underappreciated author Hiram Orson Ary makes you wonder out loud whether I myself might be Ary, then you're "outing" me, or appearing/attempting to do so. Better keep shtum about my name and concentrate on my other missteps. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

In this particular case it's easily verifiable via public external sources, and there is problematic behavior regarding the COI. I'm confident such an experienced editor as yourself would know to tread lightly on any articles regarding the aforementioned personage ;) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:COIN is the general destination for discussion about whether somebody has a COI. If the username connection is sufficiently obvious that the person is effectively outing themselves, then there's nothing wrong with making the report and letting others make the connection for themselves. It is very common for a COI editor to be editing the page Examplius Foobar with the username user:EFoobar. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You must avoid WP:OUTING, but you can email information privately, as described at WP:COIN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, make sure to leave a COI/ PAID (as appropriate) warning template on the user's talk page, ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

They've disclosed in response now on their user page and the article TP. Should I withdraw the COIN in that case? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Will do. Article and talk have had the appropriate templates added. Gracias! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The information itself is in their username - it's the proof of COI based on it that's off Wiki, but fully available to anyone with Google. Personal rather than paid - or I suppose they could also be paid, but there's no evidence for that, just their association with the subject. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Mistake in article on Candoble

The page Candomblé begins with this line:

"Candomblé (Portuguese pronunciation: [kɐ̃dõˈblɛ]) is an African diasporic religion that developed in Brazil during the 40th century."

I suspect that end of the sentence, "40th century," is wrong. I hope someone who knows about this topic will fix it. Thanks. ~2026-14216-03 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That was childish vandalism..I have rolled back the edits. You actually can fix things like that yourself :). Lectonar (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

User scripts are disabled, Wikipedia was in read-only mode

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Meta-Wiki compromised. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

If it helps at all for anybody discovering this thread, gadgets like WP:TWINKLE still work and can be enabled in your preferences - which allows automating some tasks. ASUKITE 17:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Kindly Review

Hello everyone,

I recently resubmitted a biography draft after correction at Articles for Creation: Draft:Neel Hurerzahan for review.

Thank you very much for your time and guidance. Saafayat (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted it for review. Now you wait for a review. One cannot speed it up by posting here, and we don't do pre-review reviews. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Got it! I won’t post about it elsewhere and will wait for the review. Saafayat (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Saafayat saw your draft. I did not review it but I would suggest you to use as many references as possible. Try newspapers.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 12:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion.

In the draft, I have already added references from Six well-known Bangladeshi newspapers. These include Prothom Alo, Kaler Kantho, The Business Standard, New Age, The Daily Star, Daily Sun.

If there are any specific sources you would recommend adding or any improvements needed in the references, please let me know. I would be happy to improve the draft further.

Thank you. Saafayat (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

If possible, including references from international newspapers and channels. Also create some links (blue text) from the article so it looks more like a Wikipedia one. Take care that the article is not orphan, that is to say, at least some articles lead to the article you created through blue text. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 13:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That last is not a helpful suggestion @TrueMoriarty, because links from articles to drafts (or anywhere else outside article space) are forbidden. After the draft has been accepted is the time to worry about orphans.

@Saafayat. Merely being from a reputable newspaper is not enough: the source must also be independent and secondary - many newspaper articles are clearly based on interviews or press releases: those are not independent.

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) 17:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that "use as many references as possible" would necessarily be an improvement, unless those references meet all of the WP:Golden rule criteria. We decline a lot of drafts with a large number of low-quality citations. A draft that cites 20 trivial mentions and one good source isn't going to pass review, but a draft that cites three WP:Golden rule sources and nothing else can pass review. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism gadget?

I used to edit wikipedia a long time ago, and am trying to remember how to use it now I am editing again. I used to monitor recent changes for vandalism and I recall there being a feature, perhaps a "gadget", where you could undo vandal changes in a more expatiated way, where it fills in the edit summary for you. I can't remember what it was called, does anyone know? Chattenoir (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Chattenoir, and welcome to Wikipedia! There are several anti-vandalism gadgets you can use; one such is Twinkle, which you can enable in your Preferences. There are also a number of others which you can check out at Cleaning up vandalism/Tools, though some of them require rollback to use. Hope this helps, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much, it was Twinkle! Weirdly I don't see the option for it at all in my Gadgets prefs even after Ctrl-F searching, but maybe it has something to do with the current Wikimedia performance issues or something Chattenoir (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Odd, I see it in mine (Preferences > Gadgets > Browsing > thirteenth option), but maybe that's because I already had it enabled. Perfect4th (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It could also be because this is a new account, maybe it doesn't show up until the account is more matured? I'll just wait and see if it appears when the performance issues are resolved. Many thanks for your help again Chattenoir (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh yep, you have to be autoconfirmed. Should be available in a few days. Perfect4th (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Repost because I didn't get any replies

My post here got archived without any replies, so I'm trying again. Here's my original post. I'll copy-paste it below: (side-note, why didn't I get any replies? It seems like every other post has. Did I do something wrong?)

Hi all! I've attempted an "overhaul" of the List of Irish mammals page. It's on my sandbox. Here's what I've done:

1. Made the whole page be mostly reliant on 2 primary sources (for consistency, and to clean up the ref list)
2. Made the IUCN ratings be specifically the global ratings, instead of a mish-mash between global and local (the Irish ratings are all just LC, so they're kind of pointless to include)
3. Updated pictures to be either from Ireland, the UK, or to just be higher-quality in general
4. General polish and formatting changes that IMO make it a little easier to read

Note that I'm not looking for technical feedback about Wiki formatting etc, I've edited Wikipedia a little before (I only registered an account now), so I'm familiar with how it all works. I'm more so looking for general feedback to make sure everyone likes what I've done, before I go ahead and change the actual page. Thanks in advance! Let Me Edit It (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Be bold! There's no need to ask permission before you make improvements to a page. Do it, and if somebody takes issue with it, then they can revert it and you can start a discussion with them. Athanelar (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok! I've gone ahead and done it :) Let Me Edit It (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Change Infobox Photo

I would like to request to update the current image in the infobox of Garhwali people because the existing photo is outdated, and a newer, more accurate image is available. Since the page is under extended confirmed protection, I am unable to make this change myself. The edit would only involve replacing the old photo with the updated one that better reflects the subject’s current appearance. I would appreciate it if an editor could either lower the protection level or update the image accordingly. Thank you. Lbfs (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Lbfs, images are stored at WikiCommons. You can find lots of images of Garhwali people in this search at WikiCommons. Do you see one there that you prefer? Mathglot (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

yes here is the image . Lbfs (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File:A Garhwali Couple.jpg Lbfs (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I adjusted the image-link to make it clickable for convenience. Do you have the photographer's permission to upload it? I do not see a CC-BY mark on The Shooting Star's website. DMacks (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

they have given permission to use it personally Lbfs (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

c:COM:VRT has information about how they should email that permission directly to the commons licensing queue for verification. DMacks (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

ok how about this pic if that photo is not available

Sumitra_Devi,_a_Garhwali_shepherd_near_Lansdowne,_Uttarakhand_04. Lbfs (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Sumitra Devi, a Garhwali shepherd near Lansdowne, Uttarakhand 04.jpg Lbfs (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

"the photographer's permission to upload it" is not sufficient; we need a release under a compatible open licence, as described at c:COM:THIRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This should be done via the article talk-page. @Lbfs: you have posted your request at multiple places: pleaase try to keep the discussion on one page if possible. Lectonar (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That can't be done via the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Why not? The talk-page isn't protected...if a photo is provided and an edit-request used to ask to replace the photo? Lectonar (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

no one is giving replies in article talk page that's why i have requested here hope you will understand it Lbfs (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The only relevant comment on the talk page appears to be this one: "Can anyone here change the image, please add a image which shows garhwali culture or garhwali people in there proper attire."

It's likely there was no response because no new image was suggested there.

Also, I have restored this section, which you deleted. Do not ever delete other people's comments like that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Who are you replying to here?

If you are replying to me, a third -party can't give clearance on the article talk page because it requires an email response.

If you are talking about something else, why did you do so in reply to my comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The user uploaded it with the CC-BY-4.0 tag, so "permission to upload it" is just too-casual language...it includes the unstatated "...as you have uploaded it, with that license tag". That's why VRT filed by the actual license-holder is the way forward. DMacks (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

File Upload Wizard broken?

Hi, I am seeing weird behaviour with the File Upload Wizard. Clicking on "Upload a non-free file" the page just refreshes, and does nothing else. Observed with Chrome and Firefox on MacOS (no ad blocker etc). Cheers! Tobyhoward (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tobyhoward. I would guess that this is a consequence of #User scripts are disabled, Wikipedia was in read-only mode a few hours ago. ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Tobyhoward (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Behavioural psychology should be categorized as Pseudoscience

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.

---

Behavioural psychology disregards or reduces conscious response as mere "behaviour". Whether free will or conscious decisions are just an illusion with a deterministic mechanism - is a different debate. I do not accept the notion that a "thought" is a "behaviour". Thoughts and feelings are causes of "behaviour" (better to say "response". "Response" is a more dignified term than "behaviour"), but by labelling thoughts and feelings as mere behaviour or output, we make 2 fundamental errors.

1. Disregard for the process: We mistake the "process" itself as an output.
2. Potential misapplication: Once thought and feelings are labelled as "behaviours", they become an industrial raw material for shaping and moulding.

We should not be oversimplifying human mind. We shouldn't ignore its internal process and mechanism. May be many part of mind's workings are still invisible in scans or imaging. Maybe there are neural encryptions and mechanisms still not known. Maybe things like qualia or perception still remain in the domain of unfalsifiability. Still as a part of scientific methodology we should acknowledge there are things we do not know, rather than drumming onto people's head about oversimplified stuff.

I would refer to Robert Sapolsky's classroom lectures on ethology (Widely available in youtube) and also I would refer to "The Pseudo-Science of BF Skinner : Robert W Proctor, Daniel J Weeks The American Journal of Psychology 103 (2), 265-274, 1990"

I wish to bring it to the attention of the Wikipedia editors, that: although Behaviourist psychology helds a high regard, partly due to its historical influences, partly due to its resemblance with colonial era reductionism/skepticism/rationalism; it is fundamentally pseudoscientific in nature. It basically oversimplifies human mind to the level of a oversimplified physics system (like a gas enclosed by a piston (PV=nRT), or a spring with a bob (F=kX)), disregarding the internal computational architecture. This way, behaviorist psychology does not meet the standards of other psychology disciplines, such as Cognitive psychology, Gestalt psychology, and non-psychologists' works on mind and cognition (Esp. Alan Turing, Erwin Schrödinger). Addition: It worth mentioning that "Applied behaviour analysis", a "gold standard" therapy based on behaviourist / operant conditioning principles, has been criticized by many of its recipients, especially those are in the neurodivergent spectrum. MindMatterQualia (talk) 18:39, 5 March 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.

--ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

What's the correct template for attributing a claim to multiple sources?

In the Iron Lung (film)#Critical response, {{efn}} is used {{efn|Multiple references:<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" /><ref name="IndieWire" /><ref name="Variety" /><ref name="HorrorPress" />}} but in the article Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, {{refn}} is used instead. {{refn|Attributed to multiple sources:<ref name=v512/><ref name="Schweiger"/>{{sfn|Stein|Swan|2019}}{{sfn|Thyer|Pignotti|2015}}{{sfn|Lilienfeld|Lynn|Lohr|2014}}}} Which is the correct one? Toarin (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Efn is for footnotes. I don't believe that's a proper way to insert citations, even though the note itself does contain the refs. Refn added a "master" reference containing the rest, so it shows as a correct inline citation.

Open to correction if there's a guideline that says otherwise. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with just having multiple inline citations one after the other if a claim is attributed to multiple sources. Obviously you don't want to chain like 4 citations in a row, but 2 or even 3 is fine and I have seen used. Athanelar (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Both of those have a significant number - likely because the statements being supported are controversial opinions, so they're wanting to show that numerous reputable sources have all said it. Particularly for MBTI given there have already been disputes over neutrality on that article. Leaving them inline would look like refbombing, but I can see why they wanted to show more proof than normal, so used this route to condense them. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Toarin There is some guidance at WP:CITEBUNDLE. I haven't checked whether this would be appropriate in the case you have in mind. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Merge requests

Hey, so I recently start a merge proposal. Despite adding a message on the wikiprojects there doesn't seem to be much response.

Also as a side note is there a closing process like WP:RM or can it be closed at any time?

I could get some input here maybe? Discussion: Talk:London (disambiguation)

Thanks, Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jacksonvil You seem to be getting plenty of support now, possibly because people saw your post here. WP:MERGECLOSE suggests you should wait about a week before closing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Citations Vs. Links Help

Hello experts of the Wikipedia, I am a relatively new user, having made my account just a few weeks ago. I've made many edits (as in only like 20 lol) but reasonably understand how a lot of editing and article creation works. I am a contributer to the Shotgun article, and need some help. Throughout the article there are not many citations (~40, but it is a long article). However, there are a ton of links to already existing wikipedia aricles that do have citations and are trustworthy. Are these sufficient, or should I go throughout said article and find a ton sources and links to information, to help it and remove the citation needed tag?

Thank you for your time,

AG00se55 AG00se55 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@AG00se55 Each article should stand alone, with verification being the key policy that applies. While the WP:LEAD doesn't need citations as it should summarise what is in the body, the Shotgun article is clearly deficient at present. If you can find reliable sources, then please add them. Even one per paragraph would be a great improvement on what is currently there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much! :) AG00se55 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk page headers now all show by default?

Has someone changed the default setting? All the different projects etc in {{WikiProject banner shell}} such as {{WikiProject Biography}} now show by default, whereas they were collapsed previously. This seems to be a bad change, it wastes too much space. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Since when? There was an outage about two & half hours ago, which has resulted in some scripts being temporarily disabled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

At least since the outage, I did not check before (I was out). Ldm1954 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems it is now fixed. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanking on desktop?

How do I thank someone for a comment on desktop? When I'm on mobile there's a link to do so on every one, and that doesn't seem to exist on desktop. I feel like I'm missing something obvious. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

if you go to the 'view history' button, you should see a button that says 'thank' next to each edit, just after the edit summary. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, that seems unnecessarily complicated. For once mobile handles it better. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You an switch to mobile view on desktop (and back; and vice versa) using the link at the foot of each page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but that kind of defeats the purpose of being on desktop. I don't think sending thanks should be something that requires much effort, let alone a workaround. The whole point is to have something simpler than adding a comment, right? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You can propose a change on WP:Phabricator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

For me, no, that's not the point. "Thanking" already requires little effort, and I say that as a lazy person. If it required even less, thanks might proliferate and become as vapid as Facebook "likes". -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, since they aren't displayed publicly and don't factor into either monetization or reach algorithms, they don't NEED to mean anything more than the word itself does. I use them when I appreciate someone's input and don't have anything else to add. What is the point if not that? I assumed it was to avoid clogging things up with a bunch of people just saying thanks. When I'm in the middle of reading a discussion (often on long pages like this with frequent edits) I'm not interested in digging back in the history to try to find a particular comment just to send one. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

As they aren't displayed publicly and don't factor into either monetization or reach algorithms they do seem innocuous. So I retract my earlier moan on the subject. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

They are displayed publicly though. You can see the thanks anyone has sent or received with Special:Log, using the 'thanks log' option. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not the same as displaying them on the comment like it's a popularity contest. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't actually think this is a mobile vs desktop difference. Other wikis have this feature on desktop, such as simple (See Simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk) and Wikitionary (see wiktionary:Wiktionary:Information desk). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Presumably because someone coded them that way. I'm only active here and I have it on mobile but not on desktop 🤷‍♀️ I do wonder what the point is of having the elipses menu button with that as the only option, but whatever. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting - apparently there are some venues where that menu option doesn't exist, and mobile doesn't have any options in history view either so I have to swap INTO desktop mode to do it on those (and remember that the internal modes are different from my browser function, which basically just rearranges the layout but doesn't affect features). *Sigh*

I know this is minor in the grand scheme; it's just one of those things that niggles at me. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat I don't know if this is some personal preference setting, but for me, in a thread like this, every Reply is followed by 3 horizontal dots, which can be clicked to thank. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That's what I'm referring to. I don't have it on desktop at all, and I ran across an area that didn't show it on mobile either. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång To see that "3 horizontal dots" feature on desktop, you have to have the "Discussion tools" activated via your Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. See last part of this mediawiki page Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yesss, that did it! Winner winner chicken dinner! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

User trying to make userpage seem like a wikipedia page

Hello, I found a user with a userpage that was written to appear like a regular wikipedia article on a living person. I'm pretty sure this is not allowed? Where would be the best place to report this / inform them? 🐟sea cat :3 (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Walking-sea-cat I took a look around, and it seems like they are violating WP:FAKEARTICLE. Consider pinging them on their talk page to let them know and give them time to fix it. If they are deliberately making a hoax, it might be more serious. Consider pinging an admin if it comes to that or if they are refusing to change the content of their page. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Walking-sea-cat Could you please link this page when you get the chance? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akhtarkarate

i left a message on the talk page 🐟sea cat :3 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

If it is a genuine attempt to write an article, then it should be in a draft or sandbox, to avoid confusing people that come across the user page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It is 'unambiguous advertising or promotion' and I've tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:G11. Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Draftify for NPP broken?

Probably another victim of the read-mode issue; the "Draftify" option seems to have vanished from the NPP tags. (It can probably be done by hand, but I am lazy...) Ldm1954 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

All userscripts are temporarily disabled. For anyone else unaware, see the thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Today's outage for info. Zeibgeist (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Tools not showing up

I use a variety of tools (see here) but today, when editing, I could not find them. None of them are usable, right now, because they are not in any of my menus. I haven't added any new scripts recently (unless you count Baby Globe) and I am unsure of the cause. This happened to me before, but for that I removed a script and it fixed itself. That trick did not work. Any help would be great. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 21:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome, Organhaver! There was an outage today, and all userscripts have since been temporarily disabled as a security measure. Some discussion is happening at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Today's_outage for the curious. Perfect4th (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I never knew! Really thought it was just me. Thank you so much! 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Article Help: OR & NPOV

The 4B Movement article seems to have multiple issues with original/synthesized research and unneutral POV. It appears to be a contested topic that's difficult to edit or improve based on past discussions in the talk page and I want to avoid an edit war as a new user learning Wikipedia. Could someone review this article and offer some help/guidance on how to navigate editing it and what steps I can take to resolve the issues?

Thank you! (VisualEditor)

StructuredFlorescence (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

BLOOKET Clone?

Hello can I make a Wikipedia page on Blacket the open source Blooket knockoff made by Xotic? ~2026-13584-47 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but only if you can find several sources that each meet all the criteria in WP:42: each one is a reliable source (published by somebody with a reputation for responsible editing and fact checking, not social media, a wiki or somebody's blog), each one is wholly independent of the developers, not published or written by them, and not based on an interview or press release; and each one contains significant coverage of the software, not just a passing mention. In short, there must be sources to show that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Unless you are sure you have several sources that meet all these requirements, don't try it, as you will not succeed.

You see, 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.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikiquote

hi: can I trouble you to tell me how to submit a possible Wikiquote: “The present is perfect, and sometimes there’s something funny waiting to be noticed and shared”. Writing is easy (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Writing is easy. Wikiquote is a separate project from Wikipedia. Try asking at q:WQ:VP ColinFine (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced TV rating information

Hello, I would appreciate some guidance regarding sourcing and content addition.

I am working on expanding a section about television content rating systems in multiple countries. Some of the information I would like to add concerns official rating categories that are widely known and publicly used, but for certain countries I have not yet been able to locate easily accessible, verifiable secondary sources.

In some cases, similar information existed in the article for many years before being removed due to lack of citations. I understand that per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, the responsibility to provide reliable sources lies with the editor adding the content.

My question is: in situations where information appears to be factual and non-controversial (e.g., official rating categories), but reliable sources are difficult to locate, what would be the best approach?

Would it be preferable to:

• wait until reliable sources are found before adding anything,
• discuss the proposed addition on the article talk page (which I have done),
• or seek assistance in locating appropriate sources through a WikiProject or noticeboard?

I want to make sure I proceed in a way that respects policy while also contributing constructively. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! Upset New Bird (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Upset New Bird, do not include information you are unable to source. As far as waiting or asking for help sourcing it, that's up to you and how much effort you wish to expend on it. See also: WP:NODEADLINE. Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for the clarification. I fully agree that information should not be added without reliable sources, and I do not intend to include anything in the article unless it is properly sourced.

My concern is more practical: in some cases, the information relates to official rating categories that are known to exist, but locating reliable, verifiable sources has proven difficult for me alone. I recognize that the burden is on the editor adding the material, but I also understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project.

With that in mind, I will refrain from adding the material for now and continue searching. If other editors happen to know of suitable sources, I would certainly appreciate any guidance. Thanks again. Upset New Bird (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Upset New Bird and welcome to the Teahouse!

As the other commenter noted, definitely don't add information that can't be reliably backed.

To find more information, you could use a deep search engine to find other reliable sources, if you'd like to. My recommendation would be a tool like Perplexity, as long as you verify the information provided in the AI response by visiting the referenced pages. I've found it to be a useful way to find information on under-documented topics.

All the best! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Remembering the status of menus in sidebars

Ever since the new temporary account feature has been added, I've started seeing "Main menu" and "Tools" menus in the sidebars of every page, which push the "Contents" and "Appearance" menu off the bottom of the screen. As I almost never use those top menus, I keep pressing the "hide" buttons, but that preference is seemingly not stored anywhere, so I have to press them on every article I visit. Is this how pages are supposed to work, or might it be a problem with my account (a setting I'm overlooking?) or browser? Is there a bug open about this somewhere that I can watch for progress on? Thanks for any information people can share about this. ~2026-13668-13 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe to get persistent appearance of those menus you need to register for an account. Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks. So you're saying that with your registered account, the menus just stay open or stay closed (across multiple different page visits) based on what you last set them to (e.g. clicking the "hide" button), without you having to find some extra secret setting somewhere? ~2026-13668-13 (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. But there was also a incident on the servers today that lasted a few hours and interrupted some services, and I have no idea if what you are reporting might have been affected by that. Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This has been a problem for weeks now, so I don't think a service outage could explain it. It sounds like what I want is for people with temporary accounts to have the same "menu toggle state" persistence (cookie?) as people with registered accounts. Maybe that difference is an unnoticed consequence of some deliberate decision that was made about how to implement temporary accounts, but I'm hoping it's not too much to ask of the engineers that both types of account behave in the same way for this use case. Do you know where the correct place is to file this bug? I'm assuming it counts as a bug since registered users don't have this problem. Ideally this can be filed without me needing to create an account, as it would be ironic if that was a requirement. ~2026-13668-13 (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily counts as a bug. There are many features not available to temp accounts by design; see WP:REGISTER#Summary of benefits. I guess I don't see the irony. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I just can't imagine that the person who came up with the design for how the "hide" button works was thinking to themselves "We want the hide state to be remembered across pages, so that the user isn't annoyed by having to click it on every page... except for temporary users, who we deliberately want it to behave differently for, in order to annoy them".

More likely, they might have come up with a design that included persistence, and the engineers who had to implement it found that it was really difficult to support with temporary accounts, so they settled for only making it work on registered accounts. If so, I'd like the team to re-evaluate the cost-benefit analysis they did there, based on my experience of having to live with this unwanted user experience change for weeks. (There may also have been changes that they've made to temporary accounts since the initial implementation, which might make it easier to maintain feature parity now.)

But even more likely, they just didn't realize that their implementation didn't work with temporary accounts, because they only tested using registered accounts. In which case I would be bringing this discrepancy to their attention for the first time.

The irony is that if I have to create an account to report the bug, then it would be simpler for me to just create the account and then not report the bug, because with that account I would no longer experience the bug any more. That wouldn't be very socially minded of me, though, so that's why I'm trying to find the right way to bring this to the attention of the engineers.

Sorry for the long reply, and I do appreciate you taking the time to assist me. ~2026-13668-13 (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Catch-22 applies. Mathglot (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Right, you got it. ~2026-13668-13 (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Live counter

Hey, is there a template or tool I can place on my user page that automatically lists the drafts or articles I created? Live counter kind of LionmerterTHE (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No, because the computation requirements of providing a templste that will constantly live call an editor's edit/article/draft count would be huge if a lot of people used it. Athanelar (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, there is a template that lists all subpages of a page. For example, on your user page you could have

{{PrefixIndex|User:LionmerterTHE/|stripprefix=1|hideredirects=1|colwidth=20em}}

Which currently shows as:

• AWB
• LLM
• common.css
• sandbox

...because that's the only subpage you have on User:LionmerterTHE.

But using it to list your drafts would be unnecessarily complicated; it's simpler simply to list the articles you've created on your user page, like everyone else does. See my user page for example. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

LionmerterTHE, you could add a statement like this one to your User page:

Here are lists of all my articles and all my drafts.

and that will get you what you want, but you have to click the links to see the lists; you can't embed them in your page afaik. Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

you can't embed them in your page You actually can transclude Special:Contributions pages. For example, your "all my articles" link (for LionmerterTHE), transcluded here:

Extended content

9 May 2026

• 01:0201:02, 9 May 2026 diff hist +2,275 N Aster (cryptocurrency exchange) Created article draft for Aster (cryptocurrency exchange) using independent coverage and sourced company information. Tag: Visual edit

26 April 2026

• 04:1404:14, 26 April 2026 diff hist +1,397 N Freedom of Money -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- A Memoir of Protecting Users, Resilience, and the Founding of Binance Tag: Visual edit

18 April 2026

• 05:2005:20, 18 April 2026 diff hist +1,475 N Executive Order 14353 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive Order 14353 Tag: Visual edit
• 05:0805:08, 18 April 2026 diff hist +1,569 N Executive Order 14355 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive Order 14355 Tag: Visual edit
• 04:5604:56, 18 April 2026 diff hist +1,825 N Executive Order 14362 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive Order 14362 Tag: Visual edit
• 03:3403:34, 18 April 2026 diff hist +1,637 N Executive Order 14364 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive Order 14364 Tag: Visual edit
• 03:0103:01, 18 April 2026 diff hist +1,576 N Executive Order 14365 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive Order 14365 Tag: Visual edit
• 01:2701:27, 18 April 2026 diff hist +1,580 N Executive Order 14366 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive Order 14366 Tag: Visual edit

17 April 2026

• 07:3407:34, 17 April 2026 diff hist +2,080 N Eliminating the Federal Executive Institute (Executive Order 14207) -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Eliminating the Federal Executive Institute (Executive Order 14207) Tag: Visual edit
• 07:2307:23, 17 April 2026 diff hist +3,238 N Establishment of The White House Faith Office (Executive Order 14205) -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Establishment of The White House Faith Office (Executive Order 14205) Tag: Visual edit
• 07:0907:09, 17 April 2026 diff hist +2,805 N A Plan for Establishing a United States Sovereign Wealth Fund (Executive Order 14196) -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- A Plan for Establishing a United States Sovereign Wealth Fund (Executive Order 14196) Tag: Visual edit
• 06:5906:59, 17 April 2026 diff hist +3,460 N Council to Assess the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Executive Order 14180) -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Council to Assess the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Executive Order 14180) Tag: Visual edit
• 06:3906:39, 17 April 2026 diff hist +2,799 N Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential (Executive Order 14153) -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential (Executive Order 14153) Tag: Visual edit

14 April 2026

• 03:1003:10, 14 April 2026 diff hist +2,290 N Executive Order 14394 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive Order 14394 Tag: Visual edit
• 02:2802:28, 14 April 2026 diff hist +2,559 N Executive Order 14397 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive Order 14397 Tag: Visual edit
• 02:0702:07, 14 April 2026 diff hist +2,306 N Executive Order 14398 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive Order 14398 Tag: Visual edit

12 April 2026

• 11:2711:27, 12 April 2026 diff hist +2,257 N Executive Order 14399 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections (Executive Order 14399) Tag: Visual edit

11 April 2026

• 12:3612:36, 11 April 2026 diff hist +2,433 N The Gold Card (Executive Order 14351) -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard --The Gold Card (Executive Order 14351) Tag: Visual edit
• 09:4109:41, 11 April 2026 diff hist +2,376 N Executive Order 14372 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive order 14372 Tag: Visual edit
• 09:2509:25, 11 April 2026 diff hist +1,881 N Executive Order 14393 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive Order 14393 Tag: Visual edit
• 07:5207:52, 11 April 2026 diff hist +2,714 N Executive Order 14396 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Executive Order 14396 Tag: Visual edit
• 07:2807:28, 11 April 2026 diff hist +2,644 N Executive Order 14400 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Tag: Visual edit
• 01:5201:52, 11 April 2026 diff hist +2,884 N Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government (Executive Order 14147) -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government (Executive Order 14147) Tag: Visual edit

5 April 2026

• 06:1106:11, 5 April 2026 diff hist +3,012 N Declaring a National Energy Emergency (Executive Order 14156) -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Declaring a National Energy Emergency (Executive Order 14156) Tag: Visual edit

4 April 2026

• 23:3423:34, 4 April 2026 diff hist +4,121 N Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Executive Order 14300) -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Executive Order 14300) Tags: possible AI-generated citations Visual edit

1 April 2026

• 06:0006:00, 1 April 2026 diff hist +3,679 N Unleashing American Drone Dominance (Executive Order 14307) -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Unleashing American Drone Dominance (Executive Order 14307) Tag: Visual edit

26 March 2026

• 13:5513:55, 26 March 2026 diff hist +3,845 N Launch Communications Act -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Launch Communications Act Tag: Visual edit

24 March 2026

• 19:3819:38, 24 March 2026 diff hist +2,573 N Executive Order 14369 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Ensuring American Space Superiority (Executive Order) Tag: Visual edit

6 March 2026

• 14:1214:12, 6 March 2026 diff hist +3,286 N Global Methane Pledge -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Global Methane Pledge Implementation Program Tag: Visual edit

3 March 2026

• 07:0907:09, 3 March 2026 diff hist +3,161 N Thaicom 1 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Thaicom 1 (satellite) Tag: Visual edit
• 06:2906:29, 3 March 2026 diff hist +2,674 N Magion 1 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Magion 1 Tag: Visual edit
• 06:2106:21, 3 March 2026 diff hist +3,127 N PearlAfricaSat-1 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- PearlAfricaSat-1 Tag: Visual edit

2 March 2026

• 09:2309:23, 2 March 2026 diff hist +4,001 N ZimSat-1 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- ZimSat-1 Tag: Visual edit
• 08:0008:00, 2 March 2026 diff hist +3,105 N BOTSAT‑1 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- BOTSAT‑1 Tag: Visual edit
• 05:4405:44, 2 March 2026 diff hist +3,419 N Tyche (satellite) -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard --Tyche (satellite) Tag: Visual edit

27 February 2026

• 01:5101:51, 27 February 2026 diff hist +26,001 N SEC cybersecurity incident disclosure requirements -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- SEC Cybersecurity Incident Disclosure Requirements Tags: possible prose issues Visual edit

26 February 2026

• 03:1503:15, 26 February 2026 diff hist +15,254 N Corporate Transparency Act reporting requirements -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Corporate Transparency Act reporting requirements Tag: Visual edit

25 February 2026

• 00:4600:46, 25 February 2026 diff hist +6,049 N Hiroshima AI Process -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Hiroshima AI Process Tag: Visual edit

24 February 2026

• 07:0807:08, 24 February 2026 diff hist +7,296 N Carbon Mapper -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Carbon Mapper Tag: Visual edit
• 06:5006:50, 24 February 2026 diff hist +7,334 N Tanager-2 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard --:Tanager-2 Tag: Visual edit
• 06:2006:20, 24 February 2026 diff hist +6,799 N Tanager-1 -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- TANAGER-1 Tag: Visual edit
• 02:3602:36, 24 February 2026 diff hist +3,612 N Global Biodiversity Framework Fund -- Draft creation using the WP:Article wizard -- Global Biodiversity Framework Fund Tag: Visual edit

The code: {{Special:Contributions/LionmerterTHE|namespace=0|tagfilter=|newOnly=1|start=|end=|limit=50}} OutsideNormality (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Timočani

This article Timočani is a falsification of history. Timoceni are a Romanian group, partially came from Romania, partially the Romanians who lived and still lived on both sides of Danube river and in vicinity of Timoc river. No connection with Slavs. There is a Cultural Genocide of Serbian administration against Romanians. The Romanian language is forbidden in schools, also a recent cyrillic alphabet was invented for Romanians in order to assimilate them. And the most chauvinistic action was the separation of Romanians in two groups: Romanians and the "Vlachs". The "Vlachs" are a part of Romanians who accepted the Serbian authority. In this way Serbs started an oppression against Romanians. The question of Romanians of Timoc was discussed in the European Parliament, mainly about the false division of Romanian minority by Serbs in Romanians and "Vlachs". The Timocani article is full of propaganda promoted by some Bulgarian editors! Dellhom (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dellhom, and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article is (or should be) a summary of what the major reliable sources say about a subject, and nothing else.

If you think that an article could be improved, please open up a discussion on the article's talk page. Be ready to support your position with reliable published sources.

And I strongly suggest that you drop the battleground approach: we are all here to build an encyclopaedia collaboratively. Sometimes people have strong views about what should and shouldn't go into an article: often other people have equally strong contrary views. Wikipedia does its best not to favour one view or the other, but to document the competing views without choosing between them. ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Topics surrounding the Balkans and Eastern Europe is among some of the most controversial in all of English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions, Wikipedia:Contentious topic. Toarin (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I would add that Bulgarians have as much a right to be here as Romanians or any group. If your strong views on this topic prevent you from working collaboratively with people regardless of who they are, you need to find another topic to edit about, one that strikes less passion in you. Eastern Europe is a formally designated contentious topic. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Luckily, you can improve, flesh-out, and add sources to any article on wikipedia. It will be better to have a less aggressive attitude when you do so, and make sure what you add is verifiable and rigorous, especially in a contentious topic like that. I'll add that Bulgarians on here have been nothing but wonderful to me to date as someone who edits Bulgarian articles. Just WP:be kind to people. Remember, they are all human-beings just like you :). Pietrus1 (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dellhom "The Timocani article is full of propaganda promoted by some Bulgarian editors!" How do you know that any of the content was created bt Bulgarian editors? Do you know which editors are Bulgarian? David10244 (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Multiple authors website citation

Hi all, on the (please forgive me if I use the incorrect terms) visual editor, when I press the 'cite' icon, I need to add another author to a citation (see here Tangier Exportation Free Zone) I just made. When you select Website after pressing Cite, it shows Last name, for example, with the guide reading: "The surname of the author; don't wikilink, use 'author-link'; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors". I have tried all manner of numerals (including Roman) after their names and I still couldn't get it to display correctly. Am I missing something incredibly obvious? Thank you so much! Itsaclarinet (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

If I understood your issue correctly, the number goes in the parameter name, not after the author’s name.

Example:

|last=Smith |first=John |last2=Jones |first2=Mary

So you add last2, first2, last3, etc. for additional authors LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

how can i insert an image into my sandbox page?

creating a new wiki pae abot 5th Commando Batalion Rekhamoni Duari (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

If you use this (source editor): [[File:Sparrow.jpg|thumb|Caption goes here]]

Caption goes here

Then you get this image on the right. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rekhamoni Duari, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please don't ask the same question in multiple places.

As somebody has said on the Help desk, User:Rekhamoni Duari/sandbox has no chance of being accepted as an article in its current form. Images play no part in the review process for new drafts, and you would be better to spend your time getting the draft in a suitable form for a Wikipedia article.

I have added a header to your sandbox so that when it is ready you can submit it for review.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion on declined satellite draft

My draft on Thaicom 1 was declined because most of the sources were seen as primary (& do not establish notability per WP:GNG. Since it’s the first Thai communications satellite, I’m just trying to figure out if it’s worth digging into it - so far, it was kind of frustrating to search for any better sources and to work on notability.

Would appreciate any feedback if worth trying or move on. LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@LionmerterTHE I think you might get better advice from the topic specialists at WikiProject Space. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

A relevant article from the New York Times (substantially about Shinawatra Satellite Co, but news-worthy because of the satellite launch):

Michael Richardson (December 17, 1993). "A Thai High-Flier Launches Satellite, Stirs Controversy". New York Times.

Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This is great help. Thank you so much LionmerterTHE (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

A user who is constantly reverting everything on a page they created?

Hi, I've been adding a piece of info to a page and it got reverted by a user (who created the page, apparently). So I tried to revise it and make it better, but the same user just keeps reverting it (no big deal - but I thought it was a valid addition and I cited it). Anyway, then I looked at the user's contributions and noticed that ALL they ever do is revert and rollback edits on that page and lots of other pages on Wiki. Surely not all of these edits are bad and need to be reverted? It's like they won't let anyone else add anything new, ever? If you create a page, do you own it? I don't know if that's cool as I'm new here, but I thought old pages could still be added to. Or maybe we're only meant to update new pages? Anyway, I'm not looking to shake up anything - here's the user if you want to check it out? If it's okay, then sorry for bringing it up. DisneyFanatic25 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@DisneyFanatic25 This does not look seem okay, even just from reading your description. I'll check it out, but it sounds like they're violating WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@DisneyFanatic25 Having looked, it appears that the above stands, as well as WP:DRNE. It seems to me that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, they're here to build their encyclopedia. However, this is just my opinion. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 22:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out! I thought it must be a violation. What do we do? Is there a Wiki admin in the Teahouse who will read this post and handle it? DisneyFanatic25 (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've already messaged User:Bearcat, who is a well-known and active admin. Hopefully, he will respond soon. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 22:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, I appreciate it! DisneyFanatic25 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Happy 6th march my bro ~2026-14464-61 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing with Amaury? This is appears to be a content dispute, and the first step of those is to discuss on the talk page. A user mostly reverting also isn't that uncommon; they could just primarily be a counter vandalism patroller. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Amaury would be well advised to use edit summaries to communicate better about why they revert so much, but their edit history actually isn't as problematic as it might appear to a newbie — bad-faith editors often add unsourced or inappropriate material to our articles, which has to be removed, and by and large that's what Amaury has been doing. They're a long-established editor who's been around here for well over a decade, although they aren't typically around as much as they used to be.

The issue, it would seem, is that the content you were trying to add to articles was sourced to things like X/Twitter tweets and YouTube videos, which are not reliable sources for Wikipedia content. So, again, I'd suggest that Amaury might be better off communicating a bit more, but their basic behaviour isn't nearly as problematic as a newbie might think, because we have to be regularly on guard for the addition of improperly sourced and/or entirely inappropriate material to our articles. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for checking - I wasn't sure if it was okay as I didn't want to step on their toes as they created the page. I was using an Instagram post with a direct quote from the series creator, but maybe that is not reliable either on Wiki. No worries I won't add it again, just wasn't sure if it was allowed or not. Thanks all for answering me! DisneyFanatic25 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DisneyFanatic25. Just replying to your last point (I haven't looked at any of the content). It's not clear from what you said whether the quote is posted by the series creator themselves or by somebody else.

A social media post from somebody involved, on their own channel/account, would be a reliable but self-published source, and usable only within the limitations of such a source. A quote on a random social media account is not a reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Need sandbox help

Hey! I need some help clearing my sandbox so I can make another article. I made an article on my personal sandbox (User:Jacobthenerd/sandbox) but because it has been published to the main page it just redirects to the actual article now. How can I clear the sandbox so I can start on another article while still keeping my first published article up? Thank you! Jacobthenerd (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I cleared the redirect; this can be done yourself by, once you get to where the redirect takes you, to click the link to the original page(usually) in the upper left corner.

It's best to use the Article Wizard to create drafts, or otherwise create them under an actual title.(like [[User:331dot/Article title]]). 331dot (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Happy 6th march bro ~2026-14464-61 (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Album covers at L. Subramaniam

Could someone point me to guidance on album covers in BLPs, or have a look at this article themselves and see what they think? L. Subramaniam has recently had a lot of images of albums added, and a couple are very large. I have not talked to the editor who has added these about the images, partly because I wanted to check here what the policy is and partly because I have asked them about conflict of interest and not had a response yet; may be a can't hear us issue. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

They are all uploaded as "own work", which is clearly bogus. I'll tag them for deletion from Commons as copyright violations; and remove them from the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

All now deleted. Thank you for noticing this issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy Mabbett. Tacyarg (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments

Why have my comments on Talk:2026 Minab school airstrike been removed. Who if not the US and Zionist entity are responsible for the bombing? Aliens? Is this an encyclopaedia or zionist/fascist/pro-Trump propaganda? Piccionaia (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Because you wanted to have the content changed, but did not follow the modus operandi for edit requests; also see the comment in the edit summary when you were reverted. Lectonar (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It is not. Your 'edit request' was in no way helpful to make the article better, which is what the talk pages are for. I do agree with you about the fact that the US is at fault in this case, but no reliable sources are going to make such brazen claims. Since wikipedia articles are just summaries of what reliable, secondary sources say about the subject, I'm afraid you're out of luck. There is no propaganda or censorship here, your comment was simply not following proper talk page etiquette. See WP:TALKPURPOSE. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 15:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), who reverted your edit, left the following edit summary; that is not an edit request. read WP:EDITXY for how to write them. I.e, they reverted you because your comment was not a properly formatted edit request, not because of "zionist/fascist/pro-Trump propaganda." Athanelar (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar: Sean.hoyland could have been more helpful in their rejection. Notwithstanding the request not being in the right format, using the edit summary is not the right place to answer it. Placing the rejection in the discussion (with a {{not done}} for highlighting) would allow everyone to see what the request was originally, and why it has not been done. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but when reverted the appropriate course of action if in doubt would be to check if the reverting editor left an edit summary, not run to another forum to accuse them of being a zionist/fascist/pro-Trump propagandist. Athanelar (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Normally, for a registered account, I would leave the appropriate topic area welcome templates on their talk page, but I'm a bit busy updating things at the moment. I have posted the messages now. As for being more helpful, I'm afraid that would require some kind of personality transplant, and we just don't have that technology yet. Piccionaia, it's nothing personal. The answer to the question "Is this an encyclopaedia or zionist/fascist/pro-Trump propaganda?" is that it is a bit of both, or possibly a pro-Hamas/Iranian operation, it's hard to keep up with all the social media experts, but mostly it's a rules-based encyclopedia. So, if you follow the rules, it will be fine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Piccionaia (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

~2026-14464-61 (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

~2026-14464-61 (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Awwwww thanks! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

A live-updating user statistics tool?

I edit on another wiki which has a thing called {{#cscore}}, which doesn't exist here. Basically, it tracks your number of edits and how many different pages you've edited. Is there something similar on Wikipedia? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I wish. It would be great to have that as a userbox on my user page to not have to check contributions all the time. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. It would say something like 'This user has edited ____ times on ____ pages.' I wonder how hard the wikitext to make something like that would be. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DollarStoreBaal44.

The issue is not the technical capability: it's the potential load on the servers if lots of users tried to put such things on their user pages. English Wikipedia currently has nearly 52 million registered editors! ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

oof. dang. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44: It sounds like your wiki has installed mw:Extension:Contribution Scores. I suspect it would perform poorly here. mw:Help:Magic words#Statistics has some sitewide statistics we can display but not individual edit counts. We install a lot of extensions at Special:Version#mw-version-ext but not this one. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, all the system has to do is keep a database of every user simply by their username, which is usually not too long, and every time an edit is made (roughly 23 per second) add one to their entry on the database! Wait, I just realised how stupid that sounds. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The database of usernames should already exist, right? How else would MediaWiki be able to keep track of accounts? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That's true, and it should just be able to append a number to that. I don't think anyome has more than 10^32 edits. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44 and VidanaliK: There have been feature requests like phab:T213110 and phab:T113169 but it has been declined. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

DollarStoreBaal44, yes. Your stats are here. Mathglot (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Cover of a translated novel

Should the cover of a translated novel be the original language cover or the English cover?

Hello all, I've looked at MOS:Novel but the MOS:Novel#Infobox section doesn't specify, only stating that "The image displayed at the top of the article should be the most significant cover historically for that book; often this is the first edition cover, but occasionally it is not, if a later edition is better known". I was wondering what the general opinion is. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Presumably the "general opinion" is that Wikipedia articles should adhere to WP:MOS. If I am misunderstanding your question please clarify it. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Acinonyxjubatusrex, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Part of the non-free content criteria is Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Which would meet this criterion better?

If the book is well-known in English translation, I suggest that cover would be better; but if for some reason the fact that it is a translation is important, then perhaps the original cover. This is an editorial decision.

You might get some further ideas from Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images. ColinFine (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Signatures

I have a signature with a very small image in it, is this allowed or will i have to remove the image? Thanks! FrostbornSage - The "Barnstar Awarder" (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

No, sorry. WP:CUSTOMSIG/P states "Do not use images, transcluded templates, Lua modules, parser functions, TemplateStyles or external links in your signature." --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 15:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I have removed it now. Have a wonderful rest of your day! FrostbornSage (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@FrostbornSage: Unicode characters like ★ ✭ ✮ ✯ ☆ ⭐ are allowed and can be enlarged and colored like ★. It's not quite a barnstar but maybe good enough at low resolution. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe make it smaller so it doesn't interfere with line spacing. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 16:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Or set line-height:0 on the star like ★. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all! I’ll have a look into this :) FrostbornSage (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Template parameters

I am trying to create a template which is turning out to be a lot more complex than I thought. What I want to have happen is, in the info section, have a yes/no parameter which, when enabled, replaces the normal text with "This user edits at [[school]], and is most active between {{{School start time}}} and {{{School end time}}}." I want {{{School start time}}} and {{{School end time}}} to display in the viewer's local time so they don't have to convert to UTC/GMT. Can I get some help with this wikitext if what I'm trying to achieve is even possible? Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The default would be "This user edits at [[school]]" --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DollarStoreBaal44, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Note that Guidance for younger editors advises Never give out any personal information (e.g., name, age, location, school...) on the Internet, even to people that you think you know in real life.

That is an essay, not Wikipedia policy, but I think it is good advice. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks, I'll remove that parameter. But I'm still curious about how to do the whole 'yes/no parameter to replace text with something else that also includes parameters' thing. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44: Wikitext cannot produce local time for users. There are performance reasons for that. Wiki pages are cached after processing the wikitext on saving so the same content can be displayed to everybody without reprocessing on each page view. Other things like page histories and user contributions are generated on each page view anyway so local time can be displayed there without significant cost. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

DANGIT! Sigh. I'll just make sure that users put in UTC and NOT local time. Anybody have any advice about the whole 'yes/no parameter which itself contains parameters'? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 19:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Is your question about {{yesno}}, and if so, what is your question? Mathglot (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I...don't know? Some templates have an option in the visual editor where, instead of a normal text box, it's a drop-down menu with specific options. I think it's yesno, but not sure. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

To clarify: I think it is. I'll mess around with it a bit. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Another thing to note, @DollarStoreBaal44, is that there is a gadget Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time, which allows users to choose whether they see times in signatures etc in local time or UTC. While this would not apply to what you are doing, as PrimeHunter explained, it would seem odd for you to make your time displayed in their local time ignoring what they'd chosen in the gadget. ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Reliable, in-depth secondary coverage sidelined

In the following AfDs , both were closed as keep on the basis of WP:NACTOR. However as per , individuals must still meet GNG and WP:NBIO. Both of the first two discussions mentioned are in regards to people with two lead roles while the third link is about a person with three lead roles. Regardless, none of them have significant secondary coverage. The AfD discussions confused me into thinking that WP:NACTOR was enough without GNG and BIO, which it clearly isn't (I initiated the recreation of the third article due to the false WP:NACTOR thinking, but @CNMall41: cleared my confusion). DareshMohan (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Where did the plushie go?

In january, I checked the store to see the 25th B-day merch, and there was this adorable plushie. I checked a couple weeks ago and I can't find it anywhere. It's like it never existed. Can anyone help? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DollarStoreBaal44. The Teahouse is for questions about editing and contributing to Wikipedia. Your question seems to be about store merchandise, so you may want to contact the store directly for help. Thanks! TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Aight. Sorry, thought this would be a good place to ask. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 15:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s totally fine. Many contributors post things in the wrong place at first. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Sold out perhaps? The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You may be talking about the Baby Globe plushie! The bottom of this page mentions it. Unfortunately, pre-orders are not available anymore, but it tells us to "check back for more updates in March". LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 15:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Aw man ): ~2026-13584-47 (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Side menu collapse state bug

After the introduction of temporary accounts, I now see two extra menus on the sides of the page: "Main menu" and "Tools". Every time I see them, I collapse them with the "hide" buttons, since leaving them visible causes the more useful menus below them to disappear off the bottom of the screen. I've heard that people with permanent accounts don't have to do this, as the website normally persists the visible/collapsed state of these menus between page visits. Is there a way I can file a bug about this, without having to register an account (which would defeat the point of reporting it)? ~2026-13668-13 (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This has been answered above at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Remembering the status of menus in sidebars. I don't think you'll get any better answer than you did there. MediaKyle (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The question of "Is there a way I can file a bug" was not answered above. The response I received above was "I don't think it necessarily counts as a bug.", which was an opinion that I was not convinced by. Fortunately you were wrong about me not "get[ting] any better answer", and Andy Mabbett below managed to give me some helpful information. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments though. ~2026-13668-13 (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Generally, you may file bugs using WP:Phabricator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you! The guide says "The first thing you should do is search for an existing report" so I've just done that and found T366999. It seems that this bug is coming up to two years old, so it pre-dates the recent change of creating temporary accounts for everyone who makes an edit to this wiki. That means the bug is now affecting many (thousands? millions?) more people, and causes them to "brick" their interface as soon as they make their first edit to Wikipedia. I guess the only ways for the user to unbrick their UI are creating a permanent account or deleting their cookies? Either way, that doesn't sound like a great first impression to give a new contributor. I would leave this feedback in the Phabricator bug report myself, but as your link informs me, "The next step is to create an account in Phabricator", which I'm not interested in doing. I'm grateful for your assistance in confirming that this bug is real, though. ~2026-13668-13 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Trying to make a article for Bomellida but it keeps getting deleted falsely

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.

---

I keep trying to make an article for the holiday Bomellida, if you do not know what that is, you can search on Google and easily find it, but I'm starting to think I'm getting stalked by this same moderator, every time I make an article, even if it fully complies in the Wikipedia guidelines, oops, your article just got deleted by the same moderator! Anyways, I think I'm getting stalked, and since they're a moderator, you can't do anything because they're a "trusted" user. Not trying to be on purpose rude, but do better, Wikipedia, I know you can. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you create the article using AI? (Like ChatGPT, Gemini, Meta AI, Claude, etc.) If you did, the admin could have deleted it under G15 speedy deletion criteria; if not you could post it to drafftspace and work on it until posting it for revieew via AfC. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No, i didn't. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: DoubleGrazing. FYI, instead of moderators/mods we have administrators. It seems they deleted three pages you created, those being Draft:Media Posts Official, Bomellida, and your userpage. Bomellida was deleted for three reasons combined: A7 (no indication of importance), G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion), and G15 (LLM/AI generated page). I can't speak for how the page looked as I am not an administrator, but G11-able pages tend to have not only promotional language, but their only sourcing tends to only be non-independent sources e.g. for an article on a company being G11ed the only source would be the company's website. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks (I think) for the ping. I won't waste my time on such nonsense, except to say that this user seems to be working hard on convincing us they're not here to help us build an encyclopaedia, and eventually they'll no doubt succeed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not even AI, I don't get why you labeled it that. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cooliglazeddonutzer The screeds on your userpage and at Draft:Moderatrolling will not do you any favours. Athanelar (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask for a suggestion of Wikipedia here, add a report button for these types of comments. Just the fact that there isn't one is genuinely insulting. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Cooliglazeddonutzer, If you think there is genuinely an issue, you are free to bring it up at the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents. I would advise against doing so, but you can do it if you wish. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 14:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Advise against? It's rightful, there's no reason to say you shouldn't. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see it as rightful. Athanelar was giving quite good advice, though not necessarily in most kind way. Frankly, your editing history reflects poorly on your ability to contribute constructively. For instance, why exactly were you trying to redirect Naval Act of 1938 to Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles? Why redirect Montana-class battleship to Battleship? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That was sadly my little brother finding out I have a Wikipedia account, and you only now brought that to my attention, so thank you slightly. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, Draft:Moderatrolling is clearly AI generated as well and cites an unreliable source. If you actually want to help Wikipedia by making a page on Bomedilla you can go through AfC and please don't try to create new pages from scratch using AI. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Just because it cites an "unreliable" source does not mean it is AI, and that is a very unreliable factor to "detect" if it is AI, and won't hold up, talking about the general topic. Also, I seen that grammatical error at "Bomedilla". Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

First of all, please don't use scare quotes. Also, I didn't use that as a factor to detect that it is AI, but that it's a bad article in general. I did suspect AI in the pattern of the writing in general and an AI detector returned 100% AI. Yes, AI detectors are not great, but several blatant Manual of Style and policy violations for someone who has already made several draft articles without AfC suggests AI writing. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Please remember to WP: be nice and please replace the information that is on your userpage now. I would recommend going through the WP:AfC process for this article to make sure all bases are covered. Pietrus1 (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This is silly. The Medium articles purport to be Made by Media Posts Official. A reliable and widely trusted news source! https://www.youtube.com/@MPOfficialReal is the only other current official account. That YouTube account has a whopping 15 subscribers. One Bomellida "video" is a static caption that refers to it as a "hidden holiday". Another makes it clear that even if it existed in any sense, it was something made up by a family that never went anywhere. It claims that now the holiday is associated with colors of "the flag". It doesn't say which flag, but the colors shown are, as far as I can tell, not the colors of any pre-existing flag. In addition, another Medium post by the same account is about The Language Nobody Spoke on Any Map: Inside the Discovery of Tavreni and the Country Called Tavrenar. It's plain pure nonsense.

None of this belongs on Wikipedia. WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Largoplazo (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

If you personally think that's nonsense, then I also personally think you should read more. You clearly just don't. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I just Googled "Bomedilla". I get two hits, one from GitHub Pages (so likely user-generated), and another one from Urban Dictionary (which is not reliable, nor does it provide any information beyond a single sentence). The rest are about Bromeliad plants. It's clearly not notable. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:12, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

To try and be calm here, it's not "Bomedilla". It is "Bomellida". I am going to go back and read my completely unrelated page, without having 13 notifications that are incorrectly calling me out for every single wrong reason. And I will point out that you are correct on that it's not notable, but it's also unreliable to just completely say it's false or a hoax. Not notable also means "Ordinary", there are plenty of ordinary things on Wikipedia, so I am genuinely interested on what your point is here. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Right, but if it's not notable it shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. DoubleGrazing was completely correct in deleting that article specifically. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

There are a bunch of not notable, or regular Wikipedia articles, based on purely that logic then.

If you want something just notable, or not regular, about Bomellida, is quite a lot. I could mention them, and I will mention some:

1. It had a 1964 blizzard, January 10 is mainly contributed to that blizzard. Apparently, not 100%, the blizzard had tornadoes or mesocyclones.
2. It was forgotten around 1966-1969, brought back in 2026

And a lot more, so much to even mention in that one list. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

You are correct, Wikipedia has tons of non notable articles. We don't need more, and we should get rid of the articles that don't meet our notability standards. Also, Wikipedia's definition of notability is likely different from what you understand as notable. We assess notability by the appearance of the subject in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. Articles need those things to be considered notable for Wikipedia, otherwise they shouldn't be articles. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Then that's not notability, that's reliability, wrong terms. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Reliability is quite different, and is part of how we assess notability, so the term isn't reliability. A source can be reliable and not contribute to notability for a subject if the source fails one of the other criteria.. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

You would probably do well to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's special definition of a 'notable event' and why it's significant (namely, proving something is notable is literally the main criterion for whether something gets a Wikipedia article) before you go arguing with people about it.

The fact there was a blizzard during one occurrence of an event 60 years ago does not make that event notable for Wikipedia's purposes. When people tell you that the event is not 'notable,' they are not asking you to provide examples of random trivia associated with the event, they're asking you to demonstrate it meets our criteria for inclusion.

In short, you need to meet the golden rule; demonstrate that Bomellida has been written about in some depth by reliable, independent publications. Athanelar (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks like a hoax. They or someone else appear to have created all the sources. I found an old Reddit thread where they or someone else tried to claim that AI was censoring Bomellida (it was marked with a satirical tag and later deleted by the moderators of the subreddit). Some of the sources mention the "Manitoba Bakery Association", which has never existed. There is also a ton of Reddit threads all from the same week on various subreddits with titles like "my friend didn't want to celebrate Bomellida with me" and "best ways to enjoy Bomellida holiday". No need to give this discussion any more attention. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Also noting that the user on Urban Dictionary who created the "Bomellida holiday" definition only creates their own neologisms. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

They don't, because Taleube is a legitimate term, but supposing it isn't, that's extremely unreliable because almost everyone on there has made their own terms up, but also has put real terms on there. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay guys, don't listen to this guy. No Reddit threads were made, and there's no satirical tags marked to anything, so all of the above is fake. He or she's making up sources to make people think it is a hoax, it's not. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

??? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I never said no Reddit threads were made in general, I was specifically talking about the Reddit threads you mentioned, there is no satirical tags. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

> There is also a ton of Reddit threads all from the same week on various subreddits with titles like "my friend didn't want to celebrate Bomellida with me" and "best ways to enjoy Bomellida holiday".

>> No Reddit threads were made...all of the above is fake...He or she's making up sources...

> sends image of multiple incredibly suspiciously-timed Reddit threads

>> I never said no Reddit threads were made

@45dogs Clearly WP:NOTHERE, no further time should be wasted on this aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Should I HAT it? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

"There is also a ton of Reddit threads all from the same week on various subreddits with titles like "my friend didn't want to celebrate Bomellida with me" and "best ways to enjoy Bomellida holiday"."

I'm going to say that "best ways to enjoy Bomellida holiday" doesn't exist, but "my friend didn't want to celebrate Bomellida with me" does. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I do get what you're saying, but the problem is a loop that will never change unless some news publisher sees this discussion and goes on that it is real, which it is:

1. Wikipedia will reject articles because there's no news publishers making an article about it
2. News publishers likely won't make an article because there's no Wikipedia or anything else article

And that will loop on and on forever unless some news publisher finally realizes it's real.

I saw a Reddit post from a person who supposedly worked at a news publisher that they do not want to publicly disclose so more people don't do it, that people are spam emailing their business so people don't keep spam emailing. It got deleted, it might be just a scare, not sure, but I'm just going to say that out. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 01:06, 7 March 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.

Notifications

Hello! Could someone explain to me why I don't get notifications when there is new activity in an AfD discussion I am part of? I looked at my notifications preferences and I don't think my preferences are the issue. Thanks in advance. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Because it's not on your watchlist and the new activity hasn't included a comment that both pinged you and was signed? -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi OrdinaryOtter You are not supposed to get notifications unless a signed post makes a link to your user page. I wonder whether you have enabled "Automatically subscribe to topics" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and that's why you expect notifications. The feature only works for level 2 headings == ... ==. AfD discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation) use level 3 headings === ... ===. The AfD format is much older than the topic subscription feature. Maybe a different format would have been chosen today. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Interview with a longtime Wikipedian

Hi there, I'm a senior writer with CBC News in Canada and I'm interested in chatting with a longtime Wikipedian about the future of Wikipedia alongside the rise in AI. Ideally, you'd also be Canadian. If this sounds interesting, please send me an email via Wikipedia and we can connect! Lauralein215 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lauralein215 You may want to talk to User:Bearcat, who is an active admin currently living in Toronto. He is one of the better people to interview (don't even consider me, I'm fairly new). --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 23:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I second this -- Bearcat is the guy you want, if you can get ahold of him. I noticed you already reached out to Moxy who would've been the ideal choice but I suppose he hasn't gotten back to you... Don't forget to mention WikiProject Canada while you're at it! We need more contributors. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'm hoping to still hear from Moxy, but I'd love to connect with BearCat. I'll get in touch now. Thanks again. Lauralein215 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Lauralein215, You could also post your request at WT:LLM. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

If you're particularly looking to talk about Wikipedia's relation to AI, any of us over at the AI cleanup WikiProject would work, too. I might personally suggest User:Gurkubondinn. Not Canadian, but very experienced, and active in the subject of AI. Athanelar (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! ~2026-14632-45 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• I get that I've been around here since God was in short pants, but I really have to wonder how I developed a reputation as any kind of expert on AI-related topics? Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Gaza genocide removed off ongoing

Could someone provide me the discussion to the removal of the Gaza genocide on the Ongoing tab? I can't find it, thanks RoyalSilver 19:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you referring to Talk:Gaza genocide#Moratorium over genocide in Wikivoice? That is a small and already-concluded discussion from mid-February, it seems. Athanelar (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

No, they probably mean from the In the news section of the main page, where there's a line that reads: Ongoing: Russo-Ukrainian war (timeline) Sudanese civil war (timeline) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

RoyalSilver I don't have a link to the specific discussion, but Ongoing is meant for articles that receive daily(or more frequent) updates, so if it was removed the ITN community must have determined that was no longer the case. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@331dot, so why isn't the Russian-Ukrainian war on there anymore? RoyalSilver 02:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@RoyalSilver: If you refer to "Ongoing" under "In the news" on Main Page then "Russo-Ukrainian war (timeline)" is still there. The Gaza war was removed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2025#(Removed) Remove Gaza war from ongoing. If you refer to something else then please link it. Always provide a link to a page you're asking about. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

My bad @PrimeHunter, I meant why is the Russian Ukrainian war still on the Main Page ITN, not why it isn't.. RoyalSilver 03:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@RoyalSilver: The "timeline" link currently goes to Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian war (1 January 2026 – present). It has a section with updates for every day except 25 January and 19 February. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

{{sfn}} vs {{harvnb}} vs <ref>s

Hello all. Having observed that the more decent articles on Wikipedia eschew regular ref tags in favor of specialized formats, I am trying to make sure my additions align with higher bibliographic standards. I have noted a discrepancy between the use of {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} templates. Could the community please clarify which references style is considered Best Practice? Tobias Schäfer 87 (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

None of the various citation schemes described in Citing sources is preferred over the others. What is preferred, however, is that once an article is created with a scheme, subsequent edits maintain that scheme.

So if your additions are new articles, you're welcome to choose one of those schemes, but if you are editing an existing article, you should use whichever scheme the article uses. ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Colin, and thanks for all your great work at the Teahouse from a 1+ year lurker! The original question, and your answer here, put me in mind of something that's occurred to me as I've started contributing more in earnest: if an article uses multiple styles of citation (presumably from the aggregate of different users adding in the formats they're most comfortable with), is it desirable to unify those to a single scheme, as per the preference you describe above? I sometimes do full cleanups from GOCE tags and I'm wondering if normalizing to the majority scheme for that article when I see a few outlying citation schemes would be a good idea or not. Thanks and cheers! Sophiatries (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Sophiatries, desirable? Yes, but with a low level of importance. Far more important, for example, is that the citation (in whatever format) points to an identifiable, unique, real source (whether online or in print) and that the source actually does verify the Wikipedia article content that it is associated with. And in the case of online sources, that an archive copy of it exists. But if you are a fan of gnoming edits and would like to unify citations under a single format, yes, that would constitute an improvement to the article, and therefore would be desirable. Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, @Tobias Schäfer 87: I forgot to welcome you to the Teahouse! ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Question 3

can i make a redirect of the philippine national police called PNP? Dommer simpson (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you, Dommer simpson, asking "Can I convert what is now the disambiguation page PNP into a redirect to the page Philippine National Police?"? If so, then no you cannot. (Must I explain why? I think the explanation is pretty obvious.) But have I misunderstood your question? Incidentally, how is "Question 3" a helpful title? -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry i didnt know that the disambiguation page existed Dommer simpson (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

A glitch with a map in an article

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.

---

Hi everyone, another editor (@Wikieditor662) has encountered issues where the map on this article 2026 Iran war continues to randomly be deleted due to unrelated edits, but the key remains on the article, it appears to be some kind of glitch and I thought I might as well bring it up here as it’s a current issue of which the original question at the Help Desk seems to be somewhat stagnating and diverged from the original issue, I’ll also bring up the issue on the individual talk page, so if anyone has any technical knowledge of why this glitch might be happening then that will be great.

Wikipedia:Help desk#Map keeps on getting accidentally removed for some reason Here is the original discussion with the new map at the bottom. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:30, 6 March 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.

Please review my article.

Hello

I’ve been improving the article "India at the Deaflympics" and added more information and citations. The article is currently rated C-class. Could someone please take a look and advise whether it might qualify for B-class, or suggest improvements so that I can reach that level? TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

My goal is to make this article my first Good Article. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It relies largely on primary sources namely Deaflympics and also The Times of India is not a reliable source so it would not meet the criteria of C class yet, let alone B. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Now, i have added more secondary reliable information. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you recheck my article. I am adding more citations. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Theroadislong, I have replaced some of the primary sources with reliable secondary sources that provides significant coverage to the subject. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There are still 41 uses of deaflympics.com, which is a primary source, a press release (not independent), and a number of Times of India sources (Not reliable). Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Times of India is not a reliable source.???? TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:TIMESOFINDIA. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

But all the times of india sources i used are vaild.and there are other sources along with the times of india source.

Btw, I can't remove all deaflympics.com citations as the Deaflympics was not a popular multi-sport event in India and it started to become popular after the 2021 edition. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Now, I have used the deaflympics.com link only 10 times. Now can the article become a c class article. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

We have zero interest in what their own website says, if there are no independent sources for that content, then remove the content. Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

So, I cant use primary sources. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought we can use a little primary source.Sorry. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I am slowly removing the deaflympics.com links by finding other citations. btw should i remove all. because the only source of some editions is the official website. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

btw, i reduced 41( idk) to 14. please check. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The press release was used to prove India's best ever performance was 2025. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Press releases are not independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay but, now can you review my article. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed it TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

For 'Good Article' reviews, please follow the process at WP:Good article instructions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I have done a significant amount of edits. I removed a lot of primary sources that only 7 out of the 55 sources are primary. So, can my article be graded a C or a B class TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Request for feedback on edits from a noob

Hi :0 I am new to editing Wikipedia and I'm looking for someone to review the changes I just made to Andres Roca Rey. How does it look for a living person article? Also, I've got a few questions:

1. Why are my website citations red? I cannot figure out for the life of me how they're supposed to be formatted
2. Am I expected to archive my citations? Seems like something a bot could do lol
3. How do I avoid a fawning, biased article when all the sources and reportage on a subject are fawning and biased? any advice appreciated! yay :)

Corporate prophet (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

For question one, it should be formatted like 2026-03-07 on access-date Versions111 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

For 2., there is a bot: User:InternetArchiveBot, which you can trigger manually if you wish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

And for 3, if all of the reporting about a subject is 'fawning and biased' then the coverage may not be reliable depending on what information you're using it for. Athanelar (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Need help writing an article

I want to write an article on a famous creator who is also a comedian, entrepreneur, author and actor, but my article got rejected the first time. Can someone please guide me on how I can write it so I can get it published. Yoyo writes (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The good news is that is was only declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

The reviewer left a message as to their reason for the decline, it seems that you generated the article with an AI. Did you use one on it at all?

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. Diving right into is is not recommended for newer users. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Harshita Gupta. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:REFBOMBING and reliable sources, then remove all IMDb, YouTube, blog, Instagram, Facebook and Times of India references. Theroadislong (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hatnotes and ambugation of the title.

Why is my page getting declined again and again? After fixing the previous issues, there is a new issue regarding hatnotes or ambiguation of the title? Any help with this? ~2026-14609-13 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

We can't help you unless you tell us exactly which page you consider to be your page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @~2026-14609-13,

It depends on what was the issue, and if there are more issues, if you could be more specific with which draft your talking about, we can help you Gfroi (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I cannot see the draft that you are referring to. Please post a link. Pietrus1 (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Article request

Hello! I'm officially going on an indefinite wikibreak but I would really appreciate if someone could finish creating this article that I've been working which is List of songs recorded by Keyshia Cole (the unfinished version is in my sandbox). The article lists all of the songs that were recorded and released by American singer Keyshia Cole and I really don't want it to go unfinished as it's taken me a long time to work on it so I would really love if one of the other wiki editors can step in and finish it for me. All of Keyshia Cole's songs are listed here: Genius (change the sort from Popularity to A-Z) so use that as the main way to complete the list along with her discography page. You can find the information to add for the rest of them on their respective articles, album articles and other sources. Again, I would greatly appreciate it. Indigault (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Indigault! There are two related WikiProjects listed on Talk:Keyshia Cole discography. Posting to the talk pages of those projects might help you find editors interested in the topic area who might want to help. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 23:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Error

Attempted to submit a userbox to WikiProject Userboxes/New Userboxes, got me this error.

(Lua error: expandTemplate: invalid title "<div class="wikipediauserbox" style="border-color:#000000;border-width:1px;border-style:solid"><table role="presentation" style="background:#863030;color:inherit"><tr><td class="userbox-id" style="background:#e4ccb6;font-size:14pt;color:#000000"></td><td class="userbox-info" style="font-size:8pt;color:#ffffff">This user is a WikiVulture</td></tr></table></div>".)

Someone help? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 01:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Starlet147 I don't know what you did but this should work if it's about User:Starlet147/Userboxes/WikiVulture:

{{yytop}}
{{yy|User:Starlet147/Userboxes/WikiVulture}}
{{yyend}}
—~~~~

PrimeHunter (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunterTHANKS. That was bugging me for a while Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 03:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

COI question

I'm planning to make an article of an elementary and middle school I used to go to. Is it a conflict of interest to write about it? Rager7 (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

First things first, Rager7. WP:Schools points out: In addition to the general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG) and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) (WP:NGEO) also apply to school articles. Is this school demonstrably notable? -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hoary Somewhat, there is enough sources to write about it. Rager7 (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Rager7, is this school of great historic or architectural significance? What distinguishes it from hundreds of thousands of other schools worldwide? Is the coverage in reliable, independent sources truly in depth, or just commonplace, run of the mill coverage similar to that received by many thousands of other schools? Cullen328 (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rager7,

You would do well to make sure the school is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, as Cullen and Hoary have pointed out. If you believe that it is, you should check out WP:AFC.

A conflict of interest is when you have an interest that might conflict with your desire to contribute to Wikipedia. As long as you don't have any strong feelings about the school one way or the other, I don't think there would be a conflict of interest. If you want to be extra sure, though, you can disclose that you were a former student at the school when you create the article's draft by mentioning it on the draft's talk page. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 08:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Want to know how to get more engeged in the wiki community

as i edit on a electronic device that is a kindle, i find it really hard to make substantial edits. I was wondering how i could get more engaged, Thanks , Also for my contributions i contributed to adding steal a brainrot to this. TheWarriorsfan (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@TheWarriorsfan If you scroll to the bottom of a WP-page, you should see a link for "desktop view". Have you tried that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of relatively minor (in terms of time, or volume) changes that are still important - adding images to articles (or even taking images, if you have a camera or camera-phone), for example.

Or you can find and add citations, to articles where they are missing.

Wikipedia:Task Center has other suggestions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Issues with another editor

Hello all! I sometimes edit the Alan Becker page because I enjoy his content. However, there is someone who has taken to editing his page who is rather difficult to work with, and I'm not really sure what to do about it because I'm still fairly unversed in how Wikipedia editors interact.

1. They constantly perform large edits one at a time, such that if you go through the history there are dozens upon dozens of edits by them, most in clusters of days. This is mostly a nitpick but it makes going through revision history extremely difficult.
2. They seem intent on using the "extra notes" section in the filmography as a video summary even though it seems to have been created to showcase awards, history, and the like. When I first started editing Alan's page, he had already started doing this but several boxes were left blank and it looked bad. Due to this I went through and wrote short summaries for each video, even though it feels like these should be their own section. But this leads into a third problem:
3. They lack basic fundamental grammar skills, but are intent on pushing what hey have written anyway. They went through and unnecessarily edited several summaries I had written, and their only change seemed to be making the grammar worse. I did not revert the edit because 1) I don't know how, 2) based on their previous actions it would most likely start an edit war, so I just left it. (This was about a month ago, and the filmography has continued to deteriorate in grammar and content quality since then, which is the main reason I'm only talking about this now.)

When I tried to talk to them about one of their edits they said "maybe, maybe not, only time will tell", though they did wind up reversing that particular edit (and then changing it back in a couple weeks lol).

To add further confusion I'm almost certain they are a child based on their name (which is literally "Alan Becker watcher 69"), the aforementioned lack of grammar skills, and their somewhat childish response when I talked to them.

Any help with this situation would be much appreciated because I really feel like I have no idea what I'm doing and as such would like the input of someone more experienced.

Thanks! Randomtheguy (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Randomtheguy,

Big thanks for your contributions to the Alan Becker page,

I think that there isn't much you can do rather than ask to make the page possibly autoconfirmed or manually undo edits, ask someone else to undo them (I will take it in my hands to undo some of his edits).

in regard to how to undo his edits, when entering "View History" when in the article you can see undo| thanks next to his edit, the undo button resets it, but I will look into the edits and undo the ones who are grammatically false.

Have a good day Gfroi (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You have already started to follow our dispute resolution procedure by talking to the other editor; that page has advice on the next steps to take if the problem persists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

CDI

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.

---

about cdi, how would it be spread, assuming that doctors wear gloves? ~2026-14824-22 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Not a question about the use of Wikipedia; out of scope. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The Teahouse (this page) is for asking about how to edit Wikipedia.

For more general questions, on topics that might be in Wikipedia articles, you can ask at our reference desk, but please note that we do not give medical advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 8 March 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.

How can I properly add reliable sources?

Hi everyone! I’ve been willing to start improving an article related to a topic I’m interested in. I want to add a few sources to support some statements, but I’m not completely sure what counts as a reliable source or how to format the citations correctly.

Could someone explain:

1. What kinds of sources are considered reliable on Wikipedia?
2. Is it okay to use news websites or blogs?
3. What’s the easiest way to add citations while editing (especially using the visual editor)?

Thanks in advance for any guidance! TableFighter22 (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The answer to 1 and 2 is "it depends." Certain types of sources are reliable for confirming certain types of information and others are reliable for others. The full guidance is at WP:Reliable sources.

As for 3, the visual editor has a button (it looks like a quotation mark) which will let you either paste a web URL to get an automatically formatted citation, or guides you through filling out a citation form manually. I strongly advise, though, that you learn the source editor sooner rather than later, as it's far more robust. Help:Referencing for beginners has guidance about making citations. Athanelar (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @TableFighter22, and welcome to the Teahouse.

See WP:reliable sources for the first. Blogs are not regarded as reliable except when the writer is recognised as an authority in the relevant field (so if for example somebody who had published several well-thought-of books about the Second World War wrote a blog about WWII, you could cite it, but if they said something about architecture or animal husbandry in the blog, you could not cite those bits).

As for "news websites", it is the origin (publisher etc) that matters, not the medium. Many news sources are reliable, but local newspapers and websites tend to be less so, and a few high-profile organs are not regarded as reliable (see eg WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:TIMESOFINDIA). But if you have a reliable pubisher, it doesn't make any difference whether the material in question was published as a physical newspaper, a website, or even social media, as long as it was the publisher's official page or channel. Indeed, it is the source which is being cited (so your citation should include information such as title, author, publisher (or title of magazine or website), date: a URL is usually a convenience for the reader, and not an essential part of the citations. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Making test edits as a temporary account

Hi! If I’m editing with a temporary account, where is the best place to make test edits without affecting actual articles? Thanks! ~2026-14806-50 (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You can use the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 Other places? ~2026-14806-50 (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

For what reason do you want to experiment somewhere else? There isn't really another option with a TA. A permanent account has a personal sandbox(though it is not private). 331dot (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-14806-50: What's wrong with that sandbox? You can open it, copy some existing part of an article into it, make a test edit, WP:PREVIEW the result, change your test, preview again, and continue doing that until your happy with the preview. After that, copy your test into an actual article. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Service Ribbons within Signature?

I realized that I have achieved Burba Level 2, and it came across my mind that it would be nice if I could append the ribbon to the end of my signature. Is there a way that I can do this? Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

. {{flagicon image|Editorrib02-2.svg}} is the first thing I can think of. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DollarStoreBaal44, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please don't do this. WP:CUSTOMSIG/P says Do not use images, transcluded templates, Lua modules, parser functions, TemplateStyles or external links in your signature. ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not an image: It's a template using that image. I'm not sure though: I only have ever added colors and fonts to my signature. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess this would still be a transcluded template, though. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44:, per signature guidelines, you can't use an image. You could put an emoji or unicode symbol wikilinked to a section of your userpage, though. Fractal-Dreamz ✯ 17:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I have enough characters left to do that. Currently, I only have ~40 left before I hit the character limit. It's alright though. Thanks everybody for the advice! Also, anybody know what happened with the read-only thing earlier? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh my. Fractal-Dreamz ✯ 17:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh my indeed. This is a perfect example of the phrase 'loose lips sink ships'. That script should never have been archived. That being said, I don't blame the person who archived it. Clearly, they didn't expect anybody to deliberately use it agian. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Basically, some Russian-Wikipedia vandals hacked into a sysop's account and released malicious code, prompting another admin to frantically shut down the wiki. I don't know what the script did but it was bad enough to shut down editing for an hour. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me from the thread that it was a simple vandalbot, but it worked by compromising thousands of accounts to do so. Probably most of the read-only time was finding and removing all instances of the script. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

And, from what I remember from another thread, the script nuked people’s contribs with the edit summary of something in Russian that translates to “closing the project” Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 14:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Demoralized due to edits being reverted

Ok so like i am not an expert editor and i have been on haitus for while but a few of my edits have been reverted what should i do i feel a bit demoralized like there is not point to edit and contribute here any advise ? Friendlyhistorian (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Friendlyhistorian, it looks like you had a bunch of edits reverted in June and July last year. Do you understand why they were reverted? And are you interested in coming back to work on similar topics (lists of national leaders)? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe part me want to actually learn to do more complex edits to be honest i can not for the life of me link sources what do you think should i try to learn on my spare time Friendlyhistorian (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Having sources is pretty much required for every single thing that needs verification (which is like, 99.99% of Wikipedia), in line of Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policies. If you want to learn how to edit Wikipedia, you can try WP:TUTORIAL, and if you want to learn how to cite sources, you can look at Help:Referencing for beginners (if you're on Source Editor) or Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 (if you're on Visual Editor). Finding and citing sources doesn't really take that long once you get used to it, frankly, and it gets easier over time. --- n.h.huit 11:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Any advice and sorry if i am bothering btw Friendlyhistorian (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

" i can not for the life of me link sources" If you want to make substantive edits around here, you have to learn how to do that, there is no alternative. You can try WP:TUTORIAL and Become a Wikipedian in 30 minutes if you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

To clarify i have never made large edits just minor stuff but you are right thanks for the info Friendlyhistorian (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you to for the info Friendlyhistorian (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Information about science

Where can I find more information about science through articles? ~2026-14806-50 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-14806-50 The best place to start is Portal:Science, from there you can browse science articles by category and explore related topics. Happy hunting :) CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 15:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Factual error on Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The use of tariff is incorrect. A tariff is a list of duties, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tariff, that are imposed according to the processes defined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of our Constitution. No income is derived from the list, it all comes from the individual duties contained in that list. I am pointing out a factual error, but have no intention to edit the article itself. ~2026-14735-06 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-14735-06, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you have an improvement to suggest to an article, the best place to raise it is the talk page of that article, where people knowledgeable and interested in the subject of the article are more likely to see it. + ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You have misused the reference that you have linked. In full it reads:

Synonyms of tariff

1 a: a schedule of duties imposed by a government on imported or in some countries exported goods

.. b: a duty or rate of duty imposed in such a schedule

2  : a schedule of rates or charges of a business or a public utility

3  : [links to] price, charge.

You have quoted meaning 1 a: the article uses meaning 1 b, which is very commonly used in political and economic discourse. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Ok to add this entry Christopher S. Wren to Christopher Wren (disambiguation)? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

That should be fine. There's no need, in general, to ask permission before making a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Be bold, and if someone disagrees with you they can always revert and discuss. Athanelar (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I've had some...interesting experiences. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Question about reliable sources

Hello. I am learning how to edit Wikipedia and I would like to understand more about reliable sources. How do editors decide whether a source is reliable enough to use in an article, especially when writing about cultural or social topics? Thank you. The Ghost Orchid (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @The Ghost Orchid, and welcome to the Teahouse! There are usually different standards for reliability. I would reccomend you look at WP:RS which can provide more accurate guidance than I ever could in a Teahouse reply. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance @VidanaliK The Ghost Orchid (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Of course! Come back to the Teahouse any time if you have more questions. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Using the Kokuyo Website as a source

Hello! I wanted to see if the Japanese stationery company Kokuyo had the notability for an article. I found lots of reviews on its products, from Yahoo, WIRED, and Forbes. I also found a book on the Japanese Economy, and it mentioned Kokuyo once about how it was the leading producer of stationery in Japan. Would these be good sources? But for the history of the company, all I could find was Kokuyo's website. The other stationery articles (Pentel and Zebra) both use the company's website as a source, so would it be fine to use a primary source for the article? Bulbatian (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Bulbatian, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid the answer is No.

Unless there are multiple sources which meet all of the requirements of WP:golden rule (independent, secondary, reliably published, and significant coverage) then no article is possible. See WP:CORPDEPTH.

As for the other articles: Wikipedia unfortunately has tens of thousands of articles which if they were submitted for review today would not be accepted; but not many editors are willing to do the substantial work of finding suitable sources for them or else deleting them. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Bulbatian (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Help publishing a translated article (new editor)

Hi, I'm a new editor and I've translated an article about Water Park Čabárna from Czech Wikipedia to English. I've saved it as a draft but I don't have enough experience to publish it myself. Could someone please review it and help me publish it? Here is the link: User:Didinga Omodi/Water park Čabárna

Thank you! Didinga Omodi (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Didinga Omodi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, translating articles from other Wikipedias is often much harder than it looks - in fact, it is often really the same task as writing a new article from scratch.

The problem is that English Wikipedia is one of the strictest about citing sources.

Your translation cites no sources at all - therefore it is absolutely not acceptable as a new article in English Wikipedia.

Somebody has already tagged your draft for its lack of sources. But if you now were to find sources and add them, you would find that the draft has effectively been written backwards - because it ought to be based almost entirely on reliable published sources, completely unconnected with the managers, developers, funders, and staff of the park. (see golden rule). What people associated with the park say or want to say is almost irrelevant to a Wikipedia article about it. ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Seasons (American Authors album)

I created a draft for Seasons (American Authors album) but the title already exists as a redirect. Could someone help move my draft into the article namespace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kale79306 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kale79306, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have added a header to your sandbox, which will allow you to submit it for review when it is ready (it is not at present - see below). Don't worry about the name clash: when a reviewer accepts your draft, they will sort that out.

The reason I say it is not ready is that the majority of the sources you cite are either not reliable or not independent of American Authors.

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.

On a quick look, it appears to me that the only sources which even might be useful in this regard are the reviews - and whether they are or not will depend on the depth of the review, and where they were published. (I haven't looked at them).

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

A question

So I started a RfD nomination 11 days ago and there are disagreements with my rationale. Can i close that one and create a new discussion, considering that it has not yet been opposed or supported by anyone? zglph^•talk• 19:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Zglph

I would advise against closing a discussion you're involved with. If you want to withdraw from the discussion, then maybe that's okay. But if you only want to withdraw so you can re-nominate with a stronger rationale, then the new RfD is likely to be closed as procedural keep.

Instead, if you want to provide a stronger argument, you should do it as a new comment on the discussion. The closer can relist the discussion to get further input. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 19:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Zglph: I agree with the response above. If you do close the current discussion and start a new one, you should expect contributors to the new discussion to mention and link to the closed one. Maproom (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

on login attempts

okay, this one's gonna be really funny, and i could probably out someone as especially gullible with it

does wikipedia (or would it be meta wiki?) actually log any specifics of failed login attempts aside from that they were made? if so, where would that be? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 21:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

It's local, as opposed to meta, and logged about as much as any other private data. Checkusers can sometimes[*] see what's going on (it's complicated). Sysadmins (and similar) can investigate more fully. I don't recommend putting any password on your userpage unless you enjoy the notifications and something somewhere being eventually hacked. I also don't recommend trying a found password, as it's a bad look which has gotten people in trouble in the past. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

d*ng

it's moderately funny, then, that someone seems to have tried logging in with the password in my userpage, since it is correct... it's just for a folder that comes with wadanohara and the great blue sea. a game i'm surprised i found any sources for for this joke (lackluster as they may be), and not my account consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 22:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Citations for plot?

Do plot summaries have to have citations? The only citations would just be the book itself, and it's already verifialble by reading the book; so are refs needed or no? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly as you said, yes. See MOS:PLOT.

In a Wikipedia article on a work of fiction, the work itself serves as a primary source for a written description of the plot. Thus, a basic plot summary, without interpretation or explanation, does not normally require a reference to any outside source. Athanelar (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Would The Central be a ambiguous article title?

There is a shopping mall under construction in Bangkok, Thailand named The Central, although The Central is the only official name, many news outlet refer to it as The Central Phaholyothin, a less ambiguous name. I took the photo of the place and uploaded them onto Wikimedia Commons under category commons:category:The Central Phaholyothin and none there opposed the naming scheme. Problem is that I raised a requested move on Thai Wikipedia to have the article moved from Thai transliteration of The Central to that of The Central Phaholyothin and their consensus is not to move. My question is if I translate said article from Thai Wikipedia to English, would The Central be a ambiguous article title?

Link to Thai Wikipedia article: th:เดอะ เซ็นทรัล

Link to Wikidata entry: d:Q137706875 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 11:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

With a quick search, I don't see other notable things called "The Central". So I think you can use that title. Don't disambiguate the title if it is not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jothefiredragon: "The Central" must be a name used for many things although often unofficially. The Central has previously redirected to Central (shopping mall) in Slovakia. Central#Other uses has a red link on The Central for "a commercial and residential building on Eu Tong Sen Street, Singapore". The linked article calls it "The Central". I don't think it would be good to reserve this title for a shopping mall under construction. Maybe if it becomes famous outside Thailand but I doubt that. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett @PrimeHunter Thank you for your answers. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 18:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: article created as The Central Phaholyothin 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 06:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Van Halen 3

I would like it to be given a once over by somebody more qualified than I. I just want to make sure there is information on how big of a bomb that record was for Van Halen in 1998 I believe. They hired ex Extreme vocalist Gary Cherone, a very peculiar pick by the brothers Halen for a lead singer. Probably it was due to how much he sounded by ousted vocalist/guitarist Sammy Hagar. That's all I have to say for now. This is my first time trying anything other than reading articles on Wikipedia. So, I thought I might interject a comment instead of trying to actually edit anything by myself. I'm going to need some serious help in the editing department of things as I don't have a ton of knowledge about things like showing where I got information from and stuff like that. I excel in rock n roll history and overall trivial knowledge about a great many rock and grunge bands. The 70s and 80s are my forte for sure. That's all. I hope this accomplished something for me. If anything I would love some form of a critique on what I've tried to convey here tonight. Thank you and have a great night or day wherever you may be. I'm in Wisconsin, USA. North American Central time zone. It is currently 4:11 in the morning as I am writing this little experiment in possible futility. Sorry ahead of time if I am totally off base with how this works. Again the Album is Van Halen 3 and I would like to know if it needs more information on how much of a flop the album was for Van Halen and what direction it led them afterwards. The End or Fin. Mulder1013cgb (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You may propose edits on the relevant article talk page(such as Talk:Van Halen) but perhaps the one for whichever album you are referencing). If you have a source that says an album was a "bomb", you can offer it there, don't worry about how to write a reference yet. I might suggest you use the new user tutorial if you are interested in contributing. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe they're referring to Van_Halen_III. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Are user pages pre-emptively protected by request?

As above. n.h.huit, 化けの花 13:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @.nhals8 and welcome to the Teahouse.

The answer is No. We don't do pre-emptive protection. See WP:Protection policy. ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

But base-user pages are indeed automagically semi-protected...see WP:UPROT. Lectonar (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Lectonar: I didn't know that. ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Question I originally asked my mentor (User:A09)

I have just learned that my mentor was last active two days ago. The question that I asked him was:

"Where is the best place to explain edits that you have already published? I assume it is the talk page for that article, but do any better spots exist that serve this purpose? I would like to clarify an accidental damaging change I made to Chi Limited in revision 1342537273. Given the mundane and frankly shameful reason this occurred (hastily clicking the first article that appeared in search in Visual Editor), I want to make it clear that I have acknowledged this mistake."

I hope to be more transparent concerning both prior and future edits. 3x3x9377x63527 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, answered on my talk page. 3x3x9377x63527 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

A small question

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1342487636

In the legend for "American spelling" in the image situated in the upper right of the introduction, the example word is crystalize. There is only one "l" in the word. However, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, this spelling is a "less common" usage; the entry word is still "crystallize".

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Is the question "which one should be used"? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias: I mean, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the spelling of the word crystalize contains two 'l's. But I'm not sure whether Americans are actually using this form at present. (It's obvious that I am not a native speaker :D) That's why I asked this question.

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

We have 65 uses of crystalize, against 947 of crystallize, by insource search. There are 192 of the English crystallise but only 3 of crystalise. On that basis, I'd say that the double l is best. My trusty Chambers Dictionary agrees. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thank you so much, I have fixed the typo on the top of American and British English spelling differences.

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Review draft

Could someone please review my draft and check if it complies with the publication guidelines?

Draft:Behring Foundation. Bruna JV (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Bruna JV.

We don't do reviews on demand. Please pick the button labelled "Resubmit".

I see that you have removed some of the text, but haven't attended to the citations. Please make sure that the majority of the sources you cite each meets all of the requirments in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Question about my own Wiki page

My wikipedia entry needs both edits and additions. I am wondering if this is something I do or someone else and

who that someone would be. Thanks so much, Alice Aliceattie (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, Alice.

I assume that you are referring to a Wikipedia article about you rather than an article you have made; perhaps Alice Attie?

First, you should know that now that you have expressed an interest in the article about yourself, you may be contacted by scammers offering you various 'editing services.' You should report these offers if they come; see the details at WP:SCAM.

Secondly, it is generally improper to edit articles about yourself. If you have changes that you wish to be made, you can request them with the Edit request wizard and a volunteer will review and perform them eventually.

Third, now that you have brought this article to attention it is likely that it will be freshly scrutinised to determine whether you, as the subject, meet Wikipedia's special definition of a 'notable person' and therefore qualify for a Wikipedia article. If that scrutiny leads to a discussion about deleting your article, do not be alarmed; this is a normal part of Wikipedia's process, and the vast majority of people do not qualify for a Wikipedia article about themselves, even those people who have had successful creative careers. There are a great many old articles such as yours that may have been created when Wikipedia's standards were more lax, or are simply low-profile enough to have heretofore evaded detailed scrutiny. Athanelar (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

We have some advice for article subjects at WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Editing advice

My own Wikipedia page needs updating.

How shall I go about it?

Thank you,

Alice Aliceattie (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aliceattie, you asked this twice on Saturday (once here, and once at the Help desk), and you were answered above at #Question about my own Wiki page. Please read the answers there, and come back if you have further questions. ColinFine (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay - yes, I just wanted to be sure I went through Teahouse. Sorry. Will read through and only ask if I need further clarification. ~2026-15063-37 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

How do I propose a change on Wikipedia?

Hello, everyone. As you know from the title, if I were to propose a change to everything on Wikipedia, where do I go? I can't seem to find if it fits the seven criteria listed here: , so I'm planning to email them. Any ideas? Bruhmoemnr (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Bruhmoemnr, what exactly is it that you're attempting to propose a change to? Everything is rather broad, so it might help if you narrowed down what exactly it is that you wish to change, if you're comfortable doing so.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 I'm trying to propose that to lock a page, you must have some experience on the page to lock the page, and also that if "vandalism" happens, you must need at least 3 vandalism edits to lock the page. So, where do I submit this?

Thanks. Bruhmoemnr (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You can propose ideas at the Village Pump proposals area. However, only administrators can protect("lock") a page, and usually pages/articles are only protected after repeated vandalism or disruption anyway- so I'm not sure what your proposal is attempting to remedy. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

While your good intention is appreciated, there is a snowball's chance in hell of that being adopted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Donald Sterling

Hello! Would it be justifiable to upload a non-free image of Donald Sterling for his page? The current image is so blurry that I would say it doesn't fulfill its encyclopedic purpose of illustrating what he looks like. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @OrdinaryOtter. Unfortunately, we generally can't upload fair use images of living people, as that would violate WP:FREER (a free image could be created, and the WP:NFCCP covers all works that have and could exist). So, we have to use the free alternative whenever possible. HurricaneZeta^C 15:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes displaying no image at all is better than displaying the only image that we have available... This may be one of those cases. I occasionally reach out to article subjects with a link to WP:PICYOU but writers tend to be easier to get ahold of than businesspeople. MediaKyle (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I've removed the image; it's hilariously bad, looking at it feels like I'm a hitman being given a dossier of my target. Athanelar (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)