Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1295

Archive 1290

←

Archive 1293

Archive 1294

Archive 1295

Southeast Asian BLP articles have lots and lots of unsourced "model" claims

I read this article, which mentions several Wikipedia pages: https://andasian.com/so-many-filipino-celebrities-are-described-as-models-on-wikipedia-why-is-that/
I've tried to remove the unsourced modelling claims from some of the pages but there are so many. Actually, the article talks about Filipino celebrities only, but I checked and Thai BLP pages have this problem as well. Almost all of them that I've seen claim that the celebrity is a "model" without a source, and usually the only "source" is that they've done product endorsements like phone or noodle adverts.
Southeast Asian editors generally seem to believe "model" means product endorser. How/where do I even ask for coordinated cleanup, if that's possible? I can try to remove some of them myself, but there are so many. For example, I saw it in Natachai Boonprasert's page, but on mobile, it led me to countless other Thai BLP pages with the same issue. Handsome Ellis (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered asking at the talk pages or noticeboards of relevant WikiProjects? They'd be in the best position to muster up editors to help. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 17:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll try it right now. Handsome Ellis (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I checked out the Thailand WikiProject and the Talk page seems like a ghost town. People ask but get no replies. Worried about that one. The Philippines one seems a bit more active. Handsome Ellis (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

*checks Thai BLP article aggressively*

...

Oh, ya-allah. That's a lot, and definitely not an issue a single person can do. As far as my mind can go, I think @Jéské Couriano's advice would apply.

I now have something to occupy my mind with if I got time... ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 17:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a lot. I've been trying to remove some of these unsourced modelling claims myself, but it's too much for one person to do. I'm gonna try but I'm worried because the messages on the Thailand WikiProject's Talk page are mostly unanswered. Handsome Ellis (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It's fine, at least you tried! Maybe try commenting on multiple WikiProjects at once? Hell, maybe on a noticeboard too? There's gotta be one for unsourced statements across multiple articles. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 18:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Eyeing your editings, glad to see your trying to remove more of them yourself! I've been trying, like seriously look at my contribs, haha. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 18:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! That's all we can do, try. It really does a disservice to actual Thai and Filipino models if every Thai/Filipino BLP page claims they're all models. Arguably it's not that serious but it's worth trying to fight misinformation anyway. I looked at your contribs and wow, you're working fast, thank you for real. Handsome Ellis (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Haha, your welcome, I'm a fast editor! For BLP articles, misinformation is not endorsed. I'll leave a reminder on my userpage so that I am trying to fight the misinfo on actors being models. :) ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 18:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If your struggling to find more articles, I think I just found a gold mine on Category:Thai_male_models. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 18:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again! I am going through the 21st-century Thai female actresses category right now, but I'll check that as well. Handsome Ellis (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Whew, I think I should stop. There are too many articles for me to do in a short timespan, so I'll pick up tomorrow.

On other news, the amount of editing I will do tomorrow will be more than 87! Yes, that's the amount of edits I did today. I counted. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 18:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Holy crap, thanks so much! You're a trooper! Go get some rest. Handsome Ellis (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Continuing right now, uh... I got extended-confirmed! That's how wide the misinfo has spread, so much so I reached over 500 edits trying to break the iceberg, lol. I'll be taking micro-breaks every batch of edits or so just so my hands don't fall off. >:/ ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh gosh. Congratulations, that's well-deserved but for real, take long breaks. Not just micro-breaks! Handsome Ellis (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Lol, thank yous! (I can edit more pages that have this issue :O) How about both micro-breaks and long breaks? Just for some diversity in my edits, cause I like multitasking at once. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N also seems like a good place to crosspost to. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NORN might be the best noticeboard here, but it's unfortunately not super active either. Athanelar (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll try that, thank you. Handsome Ellis (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

how to insert a reference to a section of a wikipedia article?

I am new to Wiki. I am wrting this article Lithium-ion battery section: Unique features of lithium-ion batteries and I am trying to insert a reference to a section of a wikipedia article (please find [electrolyte interphase] in the text), but it does not come out right.

Can someone fix it? ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't be citing Wikipedia full stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 00:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you perhaps mean "reference" as in "refer to", i.e. link to? If so, the way to link to a section of a Wikipedia article is [[Title#Section]]. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back. I figured out how to do it:

Lithium-ion battery#solid electrolyte interphase ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It's good that you found the solution, ArcturusNotTaurus ... but actually it's only a solution, one that won't work if you get the section head slightly wrong or (more likely) if somebody's later edit alters (or does away with) the section heading. With that in mind, I tend to use Template:Anchor. Of course, later editors may not understand {{Anchor|SEI}} (or whatever) and may delete it, but you can add a hidden comment like <!-- Please don't alter or remove the Anchor template: it's needed for a link from the article "Jabberwocky sentence" (and perhaps from elsewhere too). --> in order to dissuade them from doing so. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion. I would have not been able to find this solution myself. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

How can I learn to contribute content?

How can I learn to make contributive edits whose nature differs from repetitive work such as reverting vandalism? Or, in other words, how can I learn to write a Wikipedia article? -- Least Action (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to the good ol' Teahouse! ^{The tea ran out...}

One, you can read Help:Your_first_article. Then, search for resources on style, such as on WP:MOS, aka the Manual of Style. You can also expand stubs and starts using references, you can find out how to find WP:RS, WP:V, WP:INDEPENDENT, sources. You have to find out the difference between primary and secondary, no original sources!

Although, I would first work on expanding articles, and then drafting an article yourself via the button on WP:DRAFT.

There is also another discussion on the Teahouse on a similar, yet the same topic if you'd like to go through that as well. :D

Cheers. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 14:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Campssitie, you charactise "contributive edits whose nature differs from repetitive work" as "writ[ing] a Wikipedia article". This dismisses the huge majority of constructive contributive edits. Look at any well-established article – I'll use cat as an example. It's the result of about 20,000 edits, only one of them by the article's creator. Ok, many of the others will have been unconstructive, and many repetive; but that still leaves several thousand edits of types you could well be doing. Maproom (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for that, and thank you for bringing this to attention. I think the problem had risen from me reading the last part, Or, in other words, how can I learn to write a Wikipedia article?

In that sense, edits OP could do is expanding pre-existing articles or bring articles up to date, that also includes finding citations for articles that need citations. (that follows Wikipedia rules for sources) ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 12:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Trouble with Sources

Draft:The Battalion Drum and Bugle Corps

I'm having trouble getting reputable sources for my paige and i have come up with a few. Can anyone verify them and see if they meet guidelines Rickypriv (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It's wise to keep in mind that most people, groups, and businesses will not have Wikipedia pages. This may unfortunately be one of them. You need to show at least two sources that are independent, reliable, and substantial. Reviews of performances are perhaps your best chance here.

I will put a source analysis on the article's Talk page. M kuhner (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I edited some of the sources and posted it to the talk section. Rickypriv (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The source should be all set. Rickypriv (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rickypriv If you're having trouble finding sources for something you've already written, that means you're writing your draft WP:BACKWARDS.

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. This means you should start by finding sources, and then write your article as a summary of the available information in those sources; you should not start by jotting down what you know about the subject and then try to find sources to verify it; that's like trying to put up a tent by throwing the canvas on the ground, crawling into it and trying to put up the poles from the inside. Athanelar (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia Emails

I realized that it would probably be a good idea to add an email to my account. However, I do wish to maintain my anonymity, and iCloud has a "Hide My Email" feature. Is that acceptable for use on Wikipedia? EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be fine, yes Goetia [She/They] (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

As long as you actually read the mail. If you block mail sent to the the address then change or delete it in preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You could create a separate email address for Wikipedia. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Doing that now! EaglesFan37 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that nobody will see your email address, unless you mail them via Wikipedia. Users can see whether you have an email set up (it won't let them email you if you haven't) but cannot see the address you have set. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@EaglesFan37 Should be fine. I use a SimpleLogin email alias for Wikipedia and there are no issues. 🍅 fx (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this website a reliable source for Royalty and Nobility articles?

I am writing a biographical article draft for a historical royal. While I was searching for sources to cite regarding their lineage, I came across this website which details lineages of royalty and nobility from around the world. Is it a reliable source to cite? https://www.royalark.net/

Mintcookie810 (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mintcookie810 No, it is a deprecated source: see WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Self-published_peerage_websites Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

"Is this website a reliable source [...]?"

Nope ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

RfC for Christ-myth theory

Hello, I request help in crafting a reasonable RfC concerning the lede of Christ-myth theory. I've been suggesting that the present lede, with use the expression "historical Jesus", conflates two different types of "Christ-myth theory", (1) that Jesus of Nazereth never exited, the primary subject of the Christ-myth theory article, with (2) debate about whether or not the many things attributed to Jesus of Nazereth are myth or fact, the subject of different articles, such as Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus. I have suggested changes to the lede, but I've been met with resistance and overly simplistic assertions that the edits I've suggested are "fringe", when, in fact, I'm just trying to adjust the lede so that the subject of the article is clear.

Is it enough to post an RfC simply asking whether or not, in the context of the lede of Christ-myth theory, "historical Jesus" should be avoided? Otherwise, some draft material for an RfC would be appreciated.

Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:RFCBEFORE. Editor time is our most valuable resource, and RfCs are time-intensive operations. Ideally we shouldn't resort right to an RfC to solve generally mundane editing questions unless other avenues of discussion have been tried first and there proves to be too much controversy to resolve it that way. Athanelar (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

That theory really brings the worst out of the woodwork ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, will do. 22:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Link to category

I’m trying to recreate a categories bar (don’t ask) and I noticed that if I link to a category, the page is listed in that category, instead of providing, where the text is in, a link to the category. . Nathan14141 (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

This is by design. You need to force the link if you want it to properly render as one, by adding a colon before the rest of the link target (e.g. Category:NFL controversies). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Add ref number "[#]" in a footnote

At the end of the (only) footnote in The Opening of the Wallhalla, how do I add a citation with a bracketed number pointing to "Moordy". I have tried several ways but the {{sfn}} help page is extremely dense. Jp1008 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC).

@Jp1008: Is this the sort of thing you wanted? I agree, sfn is a bugger. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes thanks! I will put a "Don't try this at home" warning in the SFN help page. Way too confusing for editors like me with only 500 edits, a job, intelectual interests and a family! Jp1008 (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You have a family? And at least 500 edits? Are they encouraging your Wiki addiction? ;) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 04:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

LOL! No, the other way around. I had to wait until the youngest turned 20 (as old as my Wiki user registration) before I realized I could contribute. It had not even occurred to me before. But I have a published book for Lima (Peru) birdwatchers (the one before mine was published in the 50s) which was my "wiki-in-spirit" contribution. Jp1008 (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Create a footnote: error

What am I doing wrong here: User:Jp1008/sandbox/Named Reflist Error? Trying to create a footnote that appears in the "group=notes" section. Thanks!
Jp1008 (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Use <ref group=note> instead of <ref> and use {{reflist|group=note}}. I've edited your sandbox to show a working example. Alternatively you can use the {{efn}} and {{notelist}} templates. Also see H:EFN. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Citation bundling of named refs

A while back, I asked about bundling refs in this discussion. Seemed like it would work at the time, but I'm not seeing how it would for named refs created with templates like cite web. For example, have a look at the "Dueling Dragons" sentence here. I'd like to bundle the citations at the end of the sentence with explanations (similar to the example at WP:CITEBUNDLE) rather than have them scattered mid-sentence, which has a cluttered look. Is there a solution that allows you to do that for standard named refs like these?

BTW, if there's a better venue to ask this, please let me know. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Improperly closed RM

Hey there,

I am not sure how to deal with RMs that are not closed properly. Someone decided to move a page without closing the RM properly.

Relevant page: RIDE Tulare County and Talk:RIDE Tulare County. See the history of those pages for more information.

I am not sure where to report this so I came here. I would appreciate if I can be pointed to somewhere else in the future for similar cases. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 03:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I have undone the page-move and the (non-)closer's deletion of the discussion from the talkpage. So now the state of affairs is an open discussion for an action that some uninvolved and experienced editor could evaluate and handle properly. DMacks (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Shomoy Mahmud tagged for speedy deletion, G15 (AI content)

My draft Draft:Shomoy Mahmud has been tagged for speedy deletion under G15 (AI content). I am the subject and have verified all facts personally. The article is supported by 4 independent reliable sources including The Daily Star and The Business Standard. I have replied to the nominator with all sources. Can someone please review and advise? Eishomoyergaan (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Even if this were written by a human, Eishomoyergaan, it would be inappropriate. Sample: Shomoy Mahmud began his musical journey during his teenage years, developing a passion for both classical music and modern Bangla compositions. His classical training has remained a defining element of his artistic identity and approach to music. That's promotional slop. (It isn't referenced. The following paragraph cites a page that isn't at the specified URL.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Lad, isn't this your autobiography since you claimed you're the subject of the article, and this is your draft? That's discouraged, isn't it? Not trying to step into the grounds of WP:PA here. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Campssitie: Discouraged, but permitted. The main problem is that it was evidently written by an AI/LLM, which is not permitted. Autobiographies and other conflict-of-interest or paid drafts can be approved via Articles for Creation, where they'll be assessed and reviewed by an experienced editor (or a few of them) to make sure they conform to Wikipedia policy. Meadowlark (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes yes, my mistake. Did he disclose the COI before the draft got deleted? ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 06:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It's on his userpage, so that's excellent news! If only there was no LLM involved... Meadowlark (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Phew. But they could have at least make it human-written and they encouraged others to try and fix their mistakes, including copyediting SPaG errors... Arguably a better thing then ignoring WP:LLM. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 12:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've said similar things to editors who use LLMs on drafts - we can easily fix spelling, grammar, and awkward sentences, but LLM "help" has to be completely rewritten from nothing. It's especially insidious because LLMs like to cite statements to plausible sources, but the cited information doesn't actually appear in the source. You're going to end up reading the sources and summarising them yourself anyway, you might as well just write the draft! Meadowlark (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Any content about a musical performer, actor, painter, dancer, sculptor, poet or any other type of creative professional that uses the word "passion" is immediately subject to skepticism and intense scrutiny. "Passion" in this context is overtly promotional and non-neutral and should be removed 99% of the time. It is indicative of a promotional motivation that is incompatible with writing an encyclopedia, and this attitude usually affects the entire article or draft in a negative way. Cullen328 (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that I didn't know how to do it properly. I'll do what has been instructed here. I would like get in touch with someone who can help me with a proper guideline. Eishomoyergaan (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Eishomoyergaan, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'll give you some advice, though it probably won't be what you want to hear. My advice is: forget about Wikipedia and concentrate on promoting your career somewhere that permits you to do so.

Writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so monumentally difficult that very few people have ever managed to do it successfully: that is why we stongly discourage anybody from trying it.

In order to be successful, you would need to

• Find places where people who have no connection with you or your associates, and have not been given any information from you or on your behalf, have chosen to publish in depth about you, and been published in a reliable place. Nothing you have written or said, or that your friends, family, colleauges, agents, or associates have written or said about you, is relevant.
• If you have found several sources that meet those conditions, then the hard bit starts. You will need to effectively forget everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say. Even if they leave things out. Even if they are critical or nasty about you. Even if they slant things in a way that makes you go "But it wasn't like that!"

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) 16:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Greetings! That was a genuinely important piece of advice, one I hadn't received in quite some time, and perhaps the most valuable of all was the reminder to be clear about why I'm doing what I'm doing.

It's essential to go deeper before engaging with something as consequential as Wikipedia, because that's precisely where its authenticity, quality, and accuracy of information stem from. I was pleasantly surprised to see editors like yourself responding with such enthusiasm, it speaks volumes about the culture Wikipedia nurtures.

You're right that stepping out of your own shoes is no easy feat, but it's absolutely worth attempting. It offers a different lens through which to view both oneself and one's work, allowing one to move forward with greater momentum and purposeful direction. Since I have a genuine hunger for academically challenging pursuits, and a particular fondness for researching, I intend to embrace this challenge wholeheartedly. Difficult as it may be, it's far from impossible, and I believe it will contribute meaningfully to my own growth, on my own path, without measuring myself against anyone else. We're each running our own race, after all.

It's been a real pleasure meeting you all, and I'm honoured to have exchanged even these few words. I hope your remarkable work continues and flourishes even further. Eishomoyergaan (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

On a smaller note, my objective was to qualify for a Google Knowledge Panel, so that all my musical creations get a Google-endorsed window, much like any other popular artist has their own. Just to make the intention clear, so that no one confuses this with an "autobiography." Eishomoyergaan (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

So to summarize, your only goal is to use WP as a vehicle for advertising yourself. Got it. Yeah no, we don't need that sort of thing here. But thanks for your honesty. DMacks (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Uuuuh... What?

So, I always knew I couldn't edit S-400 missile system because it had a blue lock. But now, the edit button's come up. Why? AZenit3 [Chat?-stuff I've done] 01:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, how do I check how many mainspace edits I have? AZenit3 [Chat?-stuff I've done] 01:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Special:MyContributions. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@AZenit3 You're now extended-confirmed and can edit that article. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Oooh... I underestimated just how much time I spent doing recent changes patrol. AZenit3 [Chat?-stuff I've done] 01:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Haha, incredibly relatable. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

59 recent changes reverts. And that's only the ones I did with Ultraviolet (I did some with RedWarn and Twinkle too). AZenit3 [Chat?-stuff I've done] 02:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Damn, very relatable for me. I've also been hiding in recent changes to catch vandalism, which counted to a lot of edits... ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I just tested myself. Wikipediholic score is on 6328 on version 1355678510. AZenit3 [Chat?-stuff I've done] 01:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

What else does extended-confirmed let me do? AZenit3 [Chat?-stuff I've done] 05:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:User_groups#Extended_confirmed_users page...

The English Wikipedia also enables editors to use the Content Translation tool to create articles and the INDEX template on user pages.

★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

You also have the ability to vote for admins and stand as administrator candidates, which means you can be an admin or vote for someone to be an admin. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 05:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, you can also apply for the Wikipedia Library, per Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library, you need to be extended-confirmed and made 10 edits this month. :) ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 06:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia library also requires 6 months of activity, so they he would not qualify. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 07:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh. That's sad. 4 more months then... (he/him) AZenit3 [Chat?-stuff I've done] 22:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC).

It's ok though, you still get the other benefits. :) ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 07:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Squaring Wikipedia tenets with Medical Practice

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.

---

Wikipedia's official guidelines as well as some of the more popular essays (like the one positively celebrating bias towards academic sources) are a major source of frustration to me. I have been practicing in pharmacy for over a decade, and it is simply not ethical to strictly adhere to whatever pile of citations on various issues in the field are available for two main reasons which are dismissed by many entrenched Wikipedia editors. First, is that since primary sources on are not preferred, and what counts as original research is vague and unhelpful, when you see clearly incorrect information on here, you are often just SOL because decent verifiable secondary sources are hard to come by, or risk endless debates over tone or whatever other nebulous rule another editor invokes. Second, those sources are generally paywalled and already plagued by intense publication biases and (in the U.S. here) often simply unavailable or mostly incomprehensible to laypeople. To illustrate in microcosm just how untrustworthy publicly available info on pharmacy knowledge is, I have presented before in my career, in an academic / scholarly setting, an hour long presentation about an Alzheimer's drug which was so bad (it caused brain bleeds) that it was approved by the FDA despite the objections of all but one member of its neurological therapies advisory committee voting against it. So the "experts" said the drug was awful, but the authorities said otherwise, and Wikipedia would guide me to side with the FDA. Just one example among countless. So if I were to follow the Wikipedia way, I would have to cite dubious "secondary" literature from the drug manufacturer, since R&D are expensive and offloaded from private companies to the university system for basically business reasons. And make no mistake, I am no friend to anti-vax or other conspiracy nonsense, I am critical of Big Pharma from the left, for precisely the opposite reasons of the pseudo-science crowd.

So what is to be done when a topic is well known to clinicians in my field, but is not written down in some prestigious journal by a non-practicing "expert", and that is after passing through the many other filters that affect the scientific rigor of the theory and practice of my field. The revolving door between the regulator and regulated in American healthcare is hardly a secret, but who else is there then left to cite without what I write getting slapped with [citation needed] or accusations of being "non-neutral"? Common-sense is also a terrible representation of medical science as well, though that is not a Wikipedia guideline it still matters; e.g. "everybody knows" mental disorders are "imbalances" of serotonin or whatever, which is not only false, but actively promoted in advertising such as the old Zoloft commercials. I find the approved Wikipedia methods very unsatisfactory but haven't found a reliable way to provide quality evidence based verifiable content as references, or writing correct information I know very well, due to the sheer corruption of the American drug industry and beyond. Giving people accurate information on drugs is my life's work, but the rules here heavily side with whoever can collect the most quotes, as opposed the most recent scholarship and research, or else I risk being labelled as fringe or original research. I have read the medical related policy articles and found them not quite satisfying either. Frankly I think a proper encyclopedia should ideally be written BY experts in some areas, not simply edited by anyone who can decide who they feel counts as an expert despite not working in the field themselves. And even what is called "consensus" in here is a terrible guide to navigating what is factual when the consensus is generally between people subject to the very biases I am trying to combat. The monoamine hypothesis I mentioned above is just one of a plethora of misinformed ideas which is accepted by many simply because it is purported to be'neutral ' (whatever that means in pharmacy terms...); after all, the government and corporations wouldn't just LIE about stuff would they? (Spoiler: they lie all the time). Would love to hear from other allied health workers who edit articles. The "neutral" POV thing is also a huge barrier, as it sometimes incentivizes a sort of naive centrism on issues which simply do not have multiple roughly equally weighted perspectives to balance. I question the very idea of this "neutral" unbiased View From Nowhere, but that's the game here for now. I mean, it is not even rare for publishing "academic" folks to be extremely partisan or having a mercenary ethic due to how academia works, plus the obscene American medical system is so entrenched in politics, and the professional culture is far too complex to have to fight this same battle over and over with people who don't even know what what the evidence really says. An article on say, abortifacients or trans care or other hot button issues risk getting locked down, but any editor might have an expert, scholarly, academic publication by say, a physician associated with the Catholic Church eager to weigh in on why an article dealing with the intersection of bodily autonomy of women and medical practice should listen to their religious opinion just because they have a doctorate too. I reject the notion that really any field outside of pure math can ever truly be neutral or unbiased. That slant on Wikipedia towards faith in credentials over arguments is real, and also simply wrong on not just factual but also moral grounds. I reject the idea that my field and information about it should give much weight at all (besides the time taken to refute them) about many widespread yet flatly incorrect popular opinions about pharmacy science and clinical practice. Substance dependence and prisons are another highly problematic area here, with plenty of inappropriate deference to police and journalists, "reliable" stenographers of power, who at best lack an objective view of the issues. I have studied and worked in teaching hospitals and there is simply nothing special about academics, even your favorite Ivy League thought leader. Nothing. I have too much experience within academia, since I am a Pharm.D, to be at all comfortable with Wikipedia's slant towards piling on citations without a real culture of verification. The bias is often, ironically, soluble in a more static encyclopedia, when original research or first-hand expertise is actually sorely needed, not just linking to whatever pundit you can find to say what you want but not through your mouth. I honestly find the milquetoast, vaguely liberal-ish, but more accurately, *technocratic* bent of this project's culture deeply disturbing at times. It would be nearly impossible, despite it being demonstrably true, to avoid getting slapped with a bunch of baseless [xyz needed] or outright blocks, if I were to write articles about the reality of clinical practice during COVID, and how utterly shameful the medical system and the many self-appointed public intellectuals or PR professionals masquerading as scientists were on so many issues (and still are, thanks to RFK JR and worse...). ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I have not studied medicine, I do not claim to give medical advice, but I have no difficulty judging whether a source is compliant with WP:MEDRS. There are many medical claims that may be valid, but are not supported by sources compatible with WP:MEDRS. My role is not to judge from the perspective of a specialist in medical sciences, but to evaluate sources according to clear and objective parameters. And sources compliant with MEDRS are left to speak for themselves (I do not alter them with my personal opinions). Indeed, if there is a "wikipedic crime" it is to express personal opinions in articles.

"You seem to be assuming reliable sources are always correct" That may seem to you, but I am not. If a reliable source turns out to be incorrect in spite of all evidence agianst that, and Wikipedia has quoted that source, then Wikipedia will be wrong. We have to accept that risk. The alternative is to find another system that has a lower risk of articles being wrong. Can you suggest one? I don't think so.
— User:Hob Gadling

WP:RGW. WP:CITIZENDIUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

", but I have no difficulty judging whether a source is compliant with WP:MEDRS. There are many medical claims that may be valid, but are not supported by sources compatible with WP:MEDRS"

How do you know that you know enough to penetrate the multiple billion dollar drug advertising industry? Nobody is immune to propaganda including myself. I recently learned about changing medical consensus on fibromyalgia and CFS for instance. I challenge your claim that you can judge a quality medical source on contentious issues without some evidence of experience in the field. Note I say experience, not a degree or license. ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

"Personal experience" or "life experience" is not a criterion Wikipedia can use. See Essjay controversy.

My point: MEDRS stipulates clear and objective rules for determining which sources are reliable. You suggest replacing that with "this expert does not like it".

You want to replace the "arbitrary" of the scientific community with the arbitrary of two or three practicians. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

that is not my position and I am mystified how you arrived at the conclusion.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02927-7

Here linked above is a public facing article about the drug I mentioned in my initial post, hopefully Nature is "reputable" enough for you...it is discussing the complexity of some of these issues among neurologists who themselves have no published consensus to cite, which needs to be discussed in the public square, but cannot be done so adequately on here at least; the other commenter who highlighted the frustration I feel is worth reading. THAT is my main point.

In the linked article you can see the drug I criticized at the beginning of my career and before it was launched and later was revoked from market as I predicted. I hadn't followed up on my presentation in Savannah, GA in 2016 to about three dozen other professionals via the GPhA that I did to the chagrin of the Pharma rep paying for dinner, but I'm glad to see somebody pulled the plug on this exploitative, deadly drug Aduhelm given to real elderly people for no good reason but the profit margins of Biogen and whatever shenanigans were going on at the FDA. But long story short, I called this preventatable tragedy correctly before the drug was even released, and I stand vindicated.

It is very difficult to translate these discussions into Wikipedia -friendly formats for all to learn from, even with the oh so helpful community on display here from y'all, and that too even despite nominal involvement working on these essays urging the crabby editors to focus less on edit counts and more on the goals of this website. Welcoming newbies instead of casting aspersions right out the gate. You seem to believe I am some quack doctor trying to push an agenda, which is not at all what is happening.

Frankly I think the issue is just above your head, but do give this 2025 piece in Nature a read, and learn why pharmacists like me are and must be skeptical to a great degree (as in, 9 years ahead of the mainstream apparently) and have a wider diversity of tactics if you will, than the Experts who approved and prescribed and profited from this drug while patients paid with their lives.

I have Alzheimer's on both family sides, and went into this field to change things since seeing my grandfather suffer from neurodegeneration as a child was instructive, as is the VERY telling quote by a physician inside the article basically saying he will prescribe beta-amyloid drugs despite lack of evidence. The issue of communicating the profound decay in healthcare matters to me far more than you could understand.

This quote is a separate doctor who states:

• "Burke thinks it’s important to draw a line between statistically significant changes, such as cognitive decline slowing by a reported 27 percent with a drug compared with a placebo, and those that are clinically meaningful, such as whether patients can drive safely or care for themselves with minimal assistance. “It’s not obvious that people are even going to know the benefit is there,” he says, but “the harms are very substantial and almost certainly badly underestimated.*

Do you see the part where the distinction between STATISTICAL and CLINICAL significance comes in? Yeah, that's the part which must be interpreted case by case, with OR if you will, by someone like me, so that someone like you or your elders, understands that for instance these drugs are demonstrably harmful even though they are government-approved (or were) and are at the end of the day, nothing but false hope for relatives of Alzheimer's patients with a five figure pricing tag. People LIKE ME knew about it beforehand, and lectured on it to my peers in a seminar after another pharmacist gave a half-hearted talk on some new unneeded opioid (of course) back in 2016

Because the supposed Experts and Authorites dropped the ball and ignored the clinical experience and dissenting opinions which Wikipedians like you happily write off. This monoclonal antibody never should have been released, but it was and people died, because the FDA is corrupt, and that fact is just blithely neglected day after day. Even after the withdrawal of the drug from the market, little has been learned by the medical establishment, let alone anyone else in this country.

How to convey these issues without some poindexter saying, oh 'NPOV NPOV! Tone alert! Need more sources even though they don't and can't exist outside of the institutional knowledge of actual practitioners ( rather than professors who haven't seen a patient in years) who don't slap their names on white papers in the cesspool that is American academia. That is the challenge. Again, I want to talk to other allied health on here, not argue in the Teahouse with bad faith pedants ascribing nonsense to me in lieu of actually engaging with what I'm saying. Clearly y'all felt compelled to respond, but nothing of value was really communicated. Except incidentally, more confirmation of the rotten culture of semi-pro Wikipedia editors.

TLDR; I know more than you about this, and you're arguing past me because your ego is wounded by my criticism of the culture of editors here. I'll hopefully get a better reply from a clinician. ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You're disgruntled, to put it mildly. In itself, your expression of this (even with reasoning for it) isn't going to lead to any amelioration of anything. Interestingly, you do say I have read the medical related policy articles and found them not quite satisfying either, which suggests to me that they do almost satisfy you. My advice: Think hard about how they fall short. Think of a solution. Do your best to check that it doesn't contravene policies here that aren't specific to medicine. Write it down. Keep it concise. Read it again and make it more concise and persuasive. Then post it to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). (If on the other hand you're convinced that Wikipedia is hopeless, don't bother saying so to Wikipedia. Instead, write an opinion piece for a newspaper or magazine or "Medium" or whatever.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup, their discontent is with policies and guidelines, at a fundamental level. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, person behind this temporary account. The internet is vast and there are countless websites where you are perfectly welcome to propound your personal experiences, feelings and conclusions about the pharmaceutical industry. And maybe you have recognized some new insight in pharmacology that will be useful in years to come. But that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Quite consciously, we have decided to be a lagging indicator instead of a leading indicator. So, if you have read and understood WP:MEDRS, you would know that, in summary, it says Ideal sources for biomedical material include systematic and literature reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised, standard medical textbooks, or medical guidelines and position statements from reputable national or international expert bodies. If you can accept that, all is well and you can contribute productively to Wikipedia. If you cannot accept that perspective, then you would be better off contributing to another website. If you truly understood MEDRS, then you would not have written So if I were to follow the Wikipedia way, I would have to cite dubious "secondary" literature from the drug manufacturer, since R&D are expensive and offloaded from private companies to the university system for basically business reasons. Who says that this literature is dubious. You? Hint: neither you nor I are reliable sources. What would you substitute for systematic literature reviews in reputable medical journals? Anecdotes from random, anonymous people on the internet? That is the path to chaos and quackery. Do you have a truly better idea that you can propose concisely? If so, put it forward. But do not use 550 words when 50 are much more effective. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

You, Cullen328 are not a reliable source on medicine. But ~2026-31153-18 may well be one, in the real sense that if they believe something should be reflected on WP they may choose to include it in their next publication and effectively become a cited RS on WP.

The answer given here to OP is correct and the advice to them is sound, but I think it would help in cases like this to empathize a little more with people who are experts in their fields. Many experienced editors around here do not seem to realize just how frustrating it is to see WP repeat and amplify errors on a subject one is dedicating their life to. Personally I find myself quite often in that situation. In one case, an error got rectified because I explicitly mentioned it in a publication and another WP editor picked up on it. But in the great majority of cases, it's simply not possible (yet) to publish something on the topic, and you find yourself working on articles where you know half of it simply wrong, but you just go with the existing RS and faithfully repeat their errors.

Of course this is just how WP works, something every editor just has to accept. But it's much, much easier to accept for those who are never confronted with it, and since that is the great majority, there exists a certain blindness for this difficulty.

In particular, I think it's unhelpful to tell another editor that they are not a reliable source. How would one know? What if they are? What if they are a leading expert in the field? The point is that on Wikipedia (and only there!), it doesn't change anything either way. What they need to be told instead is that there is no reliable method to verify whether they are a reliable source, that we therefore need to assume unreliability in other WP editors, still work together in good faith on that basis, and rely on published sources. They need to be told that this is indeed far from ideal and often frustrating for experts, but nevertheless the only reason why a project with a radically open and anonymous nature such as Wikipedia can work at all.

There is a world out there, and WP editors sometimes seem to forget that what is true on WP is not necessarily true in the world at large. In fact, what would be heresy on WP is often precisely that what is considered best practice in the real world. OP is right to say that many of the best encyclopedias are written by experts who heavily rely on OR for their entries. They use a lot of primary sources, but often also simply their own unsourced expertise. Exclusively relying on published sources for every single statement would turn many encyclopedias into a disaster. And yes, an encyclopedia written by experts will for most academic subjects be significantly better than an an encyclopedia written by random anonymous people online. Of course the point holds both ways, and what works in the real world does not necessarily work on WP. Newcomers need to be explained why this is the case. But it would help if this were done with a little more awareness of why the way WP works should be unexpected for so many academic experts. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Apaugasma. Does WP:EXPERT help with this? ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Some recent medical encyclopedias, written by experts for experts, are routinely cited inside Wikipedia.

For the rest, see https://archive.org/details/mythofbritannica0000unse tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

that just makes Wikipedia redundant, or I suppose it makes extracts of the other encyclopedia more easily available, but tertiary sources aren't the preferred citation, no? ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you for this reply, you got me. ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

what a remarkably uncharitable and predictable response ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Who says that this literature is dubious. You?

Uh, yes, that is half the job of healthcare professionals, to find out technical information which is presented in jargon. Otherwise we would already be automated away. I didn't memorize every single drug in pharmacy school, I learned how to find out and interpret pharmacological knowledge. I am specialized in an area that laymen are not, so yes, I claim the literature is often dubious and it's laughable that my position is even controversial. I included the presentation I did as an example but you may have skipped that by accident.

The deep rot within scientific academic publishing are not my personal conspiracy, and my even mentioning a struggle to combat it annoys hardcore Wikipedians it seems, because that technocratic bent is embarassing when pointed out.

"Hint: neither you nor I are reliable sources. What would you substitute for systematic literature reviews in reputable medical journals? A

Why on Earth would I do these bad things? You are al"ready projecting all these claims on me after a single post. Thanks for proving my point about the culture on Wikipedia. ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The question is: why should Wikipedians trust that you are incorruptible, while, according to what you say, the best medical scientists have accepted bribes?

Why should anyone accept your own claim that you are part of the ethical remnant of medical scientists? Is the Holy Spirit voicing for you?

"I'm the moral knight who can free Wikipedia of all those corrupt scientists"—don't you realize how ridiculous that sounds? tgeorgescu (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

sure, or they can just look at the original research I did and which was correct. ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

love that you literally invented a quote (not sure why knights and the Holy Ghost are here but w/e) and then asked me how ridiculous it sounds. Yes, you do sound ridiculous, good job. Superb rhetorician 10/10 ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is. ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course I am disgruntled, you would be too in my shoes. The teahouse is hopefully able to gruntle folks. ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

"isn't going to lead to any amelioration of anything."

Says who? I have changed system wide policies irl before, why is asking for the input of other allied health as I did in my initial Teahouse post an issue? I think my critique of Wikipedia's insular super editor culture may have rubbed some people the wrong way. But AFAIK my tone is not policed on the Teahouse so the gruntling or lack thereof will continue ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I never said Wikipedia was hopeless; I wouldn't bother criticizing it if I did. If I do find it irredeemable then my mission would be to see it dismantled entirely since it is often the first result on web searches. In any case, my main interest is hearing from other allied health about editing well. Your dismissing me to write a blog on Medium is exactly the sort of snobbish mentality I find so often on here that keeps it from reaching its full potential after 25 years. Thanks for the more or less veiled personal slights, they are very helpful and constructive. ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Experts do not have special editing rights. They have to WP:CITE WP:MEDRS like every other editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't ask for special rights. You're very creative with the projections though. I shared my thoughts, and asked for the view of other allied health professionals basically. Move along if you think I'm some crank or troll. ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

G'day. I'm not trying to say anything, nor present a counterargument, but I think that this discussion will just get worse and worse and will clog up the Teahouse in return. I think it's better if we move on from this, since I don't see anything helpful coming out from these besides debates, which is probably not what the Teahouse is for. Should I close this?

Also @~2026-31153-18, please assume good faith. I see your stepping into WP:NPA territory via telling someone "[...] because your ego is wounded by my criticism of the culture of editors here. [...]". Never do that if you want to be respected here, seriously. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 07:24, 26 May 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 advise: article denied despite having added multiple published secondary sources

Link to article: https://w.wiki/PMQ5

Hi. My editor said article was denied because of not having included secondary sources. However, I've further cited sources from San Diego Union Tribune and Inc magazine that (1) provided significant coverage, (2) are reputable outlets with editorial oversight, and (3) are not connected to the subject. Margostl12 (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

A less circuitous link: Draft:TCWGlobal. -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The first SDUT piece is literally an interview with the company's founder. How could that possibly be not connected to the subject?

The other one (the one about massage chairs and champagne) goes to an error page.

The third one (ref 6) is a "List of the best companies to work for". How is a list entry significant coverage?

7 is yet another interview with the company's CEO. Athanelar (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Not all the links work. You really need to verify that before submitting.

The Union-Tribune article about "best companies to work for"? Here's a quote from that article: For the 2025 winners list, 3,951 organizations in San Diego County were asked to survey their employees, and 127 agreed to do so. Based on the survey feedback, 105 have earned recognition as Top Workplaces in San Diego County. So 105/127 of the companies that applied were "best". That's ... not actually impressive.

There's also a lot of press-release language. I'd look skeptically at every use of "help," for example. And the whole sentence on StaffingNation is promotional in tone. Why is this even being described? Can you find an independent source talking about it? Way too much of this is the business' own self-description and nothing more. M kuhner (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

On machine translation

Hello! Are you allowed to translate an article using Google Translate, and then check the translation using Wiktionary to ensure it’s accurate before publishing it on the related language Wikipedia even if you’re not fluent in one of the languages? Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 02:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using automated translation to write Wikipedia articles if you aren't already proficient in the language in the first place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Shadestar474,

It's not recommended as per Wikipedia:MACHINETRANSLATION. If you do speak the language and want to try your hand at a machine translation, do of course follow the guidelines at the page above. Also, a tip (from personal experience): DeepL Translate does significantly better than Google Translate at translating complex idioms and expressions.

Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

In addition to Jéské's and Paolo's advice: Google Translate apparently now uses AI by default, so in your case this would be forbidden per WP:LLMTRANSLATE (at least for publishing on the English Wikipedia). —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I thought maybe it’d be alright if I used Wiktionary to assist, but I wanted to check first. Thanks for the quick replies, all! Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 03:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Shadestar474.

In addition to what the others have said, please note that a dictionary (any dictionary) is not an adequate resource for checking a translation where you are not familiar with the languages concerned.

It's like trying to check prose using a spell-checker: the spell-checker will tell you if you've used a word that doesn't exist, but it won't tell you if you've used a word that does exist but isn't the right word.

In the same way, a dictionary will tell you whether a word in the translation is a possible counterpart to the original word, but not whether it is the the right counterpart, or a completely different meaning of the original word.

And that is leaving aside the whole question of idioms. ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

I recently came across this article Wikipedia:AAAAAAAAA! when I was patrolling recent changes. Is this allowed?

The article has only been edited by one user (User:Vitorperrut555), and is not flagged as a humorous article despite being filled with the letter A.

What should I do? Paolo Roland Self (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Paolo Roland Self This is the version of Uncyclopedia AAAAAAAAA! and this article is categorized as Wikipedia humor.

And I recreated it because this page was deleted in 2008 VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Vitorperrut555,

I appreciate the vision (and the humor), but at least please add a {{humor}} tag as per Wikipedia:HREQ to the page that consists of more than just the letter A.

Thanks! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Paolo Roland Self  Done VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 03:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Paolo Roland Self: The name starts with "Wikipedia:" so the page is in the Wikipedia:Project namespace like this page "Wikipedia:Teahouse". It's not an article and not part of the encyclopedia. For example, it's not included in searches by default and not linked from actual articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Should it be rated higher?

Should this article: 153rd Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment, be rated higher other than B-Class? SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

If you believe that the article meets the GA criteria, you can nominate it. The instructions for preparing, nominating, and getting an article reviewed can be found here. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey @SomeRandomGuy3523, welcome to the Teahouse.

Per WP:GRADE, the next tier is GA-class, which is good article status that is achieved through one or more impartial reviewers. If you think this article is eligible for good article status, go to WP:Good article nominations to nominate this article for review ^{(and possibly even feedback)}. Instructions found here.

For the next next tier, to put it simply, is A-class ^{(no GA required)}, the criteria is as follows:

• Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development.
• It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources.
• It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems.

For proposing an article to be A-class...

For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page. To be granted, the proposal should be supported by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes.

Hopefully this helps you, if not, that's fine. Cheers! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 11:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Assistance for notification(s)

I have been editing many pages from last 3 months, but I am not able to get the notifications from the watchlist articles. Suppose I edit a page and mark it for my watchlist. If another editor edits that page, so am I suppose to get a notification that this page is being edited by so and so editor? Can anyone please explain me regarding this notification process? Is there any setting options which I have to enable it manually? Please help. Thank you, Regards. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 05:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@VerdictByLogic: The Watchlist is a special page that shows you the pages you are watching and recent changes to them. You can find the watchlist at Special:Watchlist or (in the default Skin) from the icon that looks like a list of lines with a star – it's next to the bell and inbox icons. The watchlist does not send you alerts or notifications for every change (some of us have thousands of pages on our watchlist), but you can opt-in to getting an email whenever a watched page changes, in your preferences at Preferences → User profile → Email options → Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 06:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh:Thank you very much, It helped me a lot. I thought we might get some direct notification. But, as per your explaination, I understood maintaining thousands of pages is not a simple thing. Thank you. Regards, VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 06:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You do get Notifications (commonly called "pings") for higher-priority alerts like messages on your talk page or being mentioned in a discussion, and you can subscribe to talk pages or individual discussions, but yes, if there was a notification for every change on the watchlist it would get very noisy. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 06:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes exactly what I felt. Thanks for sharing it 😊. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 07:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

My watchlist has over 11k entries on it. It drives the majority of my editing on wikipedia and I review it daily. Dont fear a large watchlist - the noise that Claudine mentions above is not as great as you might think. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 10:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Ahha! he meant noise - getting the notifications again and again. I got it clearly that email is the best option though we don't have any special settings for notification on wikipedia itself. Thanks. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 11:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Quick question on contentious topics

When it comes to contentious topics here I am aware of the 1RR rule. But what about the 1000 word limit on talk threads? The rules say it applies to formal discussions like RfC and requested moves. Does it also apply to more generic back and forth discussion about issues on the article? I always assumed the rule is worded to have narrower restrictions as it doesn't say "all talk threads" but seems to refer specifically to "formal" threads. Tho I could be mistaken, which is why I wanted to ask for clarification. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

JaredMcKenzie, the description of the arbitration remedies is quite clear. These are bright line standards that will result in sanctions if they are disregarded. But that does not mean that verbosity is welcomed elsewhere. Concise language is wise in all circumstances, and meandering, repetitive, long winded input should be avoided. This is especially true of contentious topics where tolerance of disruption is very low. So, if you write 1100 words in a less formal discussion, that will not be a problem if they are 1100 words of clearly thoughtful insight. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Also note that, if overly wordy responses or rejoinders to everything are an issue in a given discussion, an administrator has every right to put a word count restriction in place for that discussion. (ATC2:2a) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 07:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328 What I don't understand is what's formal and what's an informal discussion? I know that discussion on RFC and RM are formal. What about discussions over due weight or over whether to include a lede pic or not? In contentious topics, do they count as the "formal" discussions too or less formal? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

JaredMcKenzie, when in doubt, consider it formal. Show self-restraint. Avoid wikilawyering. Why on earth would you even consider writing well over 1000 words about whether to include an image in the lead? Respect the time of your fellow volunteer editors. It is our most precious resource. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Consider me fully understanding of the guidance that you try to bestow. That regardless if it's a rule or not - I get it's bad practise to write a 1000+ word post. But it's not really what I am asking here tho. I just want to be certain. I am just asking if 1000 word limit applies strictly to all talk discussion on contentious topics threads with no exception? That's all I need to know. Especially the more regular discussion threads as the rule is not as clearly defined. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

JaredMcKenzie, if certainty is what you seek, then you will have to find it somewhere else than Wikipedia. I have done my best to explain the spirit of the rules, and an excessive focus on the "letter of the law" is wikilawyering, which is a bad thing to engage in. I can help you no further. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

"Wikilawyering"! Neat. I love Wikispeak and the ease with which senior editors cut to the chase using it. (I was going to say "cut the crap" but I haven't yet earned the stripes ;-) Jp1008 (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Frankly he could have just explained it like the other guy did, instead of being too cautious as if I might actually use this gained knowledge and abuse it via wiki lawyering. If anything, I am more concerned of others possibly using bad faith wiki lawyering to get rid of me. Realistically for non-senior editors - there is less tolerance given for violations and when you add facts that certain people hate like what's happening in Gaza - people can't go block you for telling sourced facts but they can find bureaucratic excuses to remove you, not by content, but by bad faith wikilawyering; like saying you went over the word limit by a few words. I don't need to be liked but I am not going to give anyone even the remote excuse to remove me for arbitrary reasons. And cheers for teaching me about wikilawyering. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It should be self-evident what a formal discussion is - Requested Moves, Requests for Comment, any [X] for Deletion/Discussion debate, and any Good/Featured Article review are all formal discussions and would be bound by the 1K word limit by default. Note how all of those have specific policy pages about how they should be conducted. (Discussion of edit requests do not by default count as formal.) Everything else is informal and would need to have the word limit applied by an administrator as a discretionary sanction, either against a specific editor or to all editors in a given discussion thread writ large. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 09:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano Thank you. I kinda figured as much but didn't want to assume. That's all I really came here to ask and am satisfied with this clarification. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Be BOLD -- Jimbo Wales ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Citation issues

I’m trying to help my friend resolve issues on her page Carole Maso. Angelabklyn1 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what is wrong or how to fix it Angelabklyn1 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The tag at the top of the article looks to have been resolved. I'll remove it. Is there anthing else you're trying to fix in the article? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Now there is a message about a problem with the external links. Is that something that should be corrected? Thanks for your help! Angelabklyn1 (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, on Wikipedia we try to avoid having links to other, non-Wikipedia websites within the main text of the article. We try to keep those in only the External Links section, and occasionally the infobox. It looks like there's a few in the main article text at the moment, so be sure to move/remove those. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Angelabklyn1 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, no problem! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft Rewrite Help

I have a draft about an Israeli physician (Draft:Moshe Hod) that has been declined four times. I have strong independent sources but struggle with writing in encyclopedic style. Would any experienced editor be willing to review and help rewrite the prose? Yotyot1 (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not a matter of rewriting the prose, Yotyot1; it's a matter of rethinking what needs to be said. Example: The primary results of the HAPO study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2008, established the relationship between maternal glucose levels below the diagnostic threshold for diabetes and adverse pregnancy outcomes, and informed subsequent global diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus. This comes with two references. One is to the study itself, which is hardly an impartial reference for its own success. The other is to a paper cowritten by Hod, which of course is not independent of Hod. What you need is a reference to a reliable source, independent of either HAPO or Hod, that recognizes the study for these achievements. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Yotyot1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Yotyot1 Your article has a number of issues. Honestly, the tone isn't too bad in the sense that it's fairly neutral. But the article is filled with puffery – unnecessary information that sounds like you're putting him forward a job. But the real issue is without sig cov your article isn't going to get accepted - you need at least 2 pieces of sig cov and I don't see even 1. Refer WP:42. Mme Maigret (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret Thank you for the clear guidance on WP:42.

I have been searching for significant coverage sources and believe I have now found two that qualify:

1. Forbes Israel, 4 May 2016 – A full-length feature article in the "Best Doctors in Israel" edition, covering a rare EXIT procedure led by Hod at Rabin Medical Center. The article names him as lead physician throughout, includes multiple direct quotes, and describes the case as one of only three ever recorded in Israel. Link:
2. Mako/N12, 23 November 2015 – National television news independently covering the same procedure. Link:

Both articles are in Hebrew. I have revised the draft substantially — the prose has been rewritten, all bullet lists removed, and every claim is tied to an independent source. Before I resubmit, could you confirm whether these two sources satisfy the significant coverage requirement under WP:42? I want to avoid a sixth decline.

Draft link: Draft:Moshe Hod

Thank you in advance! Yotyot1 (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Yotyot1.

As far as I can see (from Google Translate - my Hebrew is limited), the first one is largely the words of Hod and his colleagues, so most of it isn't independent, and the bits that are do not have significant coverage of him; while in the second one, the sum total of text about Hod reads (in Google translation) "Prof. Moshe Hod, who heads the Maternal and Fetal Medicine Unit at Beilinson Hospital" - this is again, not significant coverage. ColinFine (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Assistance in editing a page

Good morning,

Looking for assistance in getting a page approved. This was the first draft that was declined, was wondering if there are any ways to help improve the chances of the page being approved. Draft:Rolando Escalona. Alicearr (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You are likely to have a difficult time with this. A district representative, even of a large city, is well below the notability criteria given in WP:NPOL (international, national, or state-wide office). The only alternative is to find substantial, independent, non-routine coverage or commentary on the person. Articles that note he was elected aren't enough, nor articles that say how he voted. This coverage may well not exist, in which case it's not possible to have a Wikipedia article. (At least not yet: coverage might arise in future.) Most people, including most elected officials, won't have Wikipedia articles. You might find the advice in WP:BOSS helpful. M kuhner (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Quest ion 2

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.

---

How do i comment on someone draft article TBB (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Apply at WP:AFC/P to get permission to use the AfC helper script, then you can use that script to easily leave comments. Athanelar (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Quest ion 3, how do i make the signature like this

Example [[file: icon ] [talk|saying] [edit history|what have i done] TBB (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

and also colour TBB (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:CUSTOMSIG. Athanelar (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You may directly go to the talk page of draft creator, paste the link of the draft and comment whatever you want about that draft. I hope this may help you. Regards, VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 11:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Quest ion 4, why some user add script into their article TBB (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

They write so that it becomes a page. If you do not write anything, your name will be red(no page available). After writing something the name will turn blue (page available). VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 17:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I am saying wrong, but i meant this example

User:Ivebeenhacked/common.js TBB (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

What type of link is this! People may get hacked due to these kind of links. Beware of these items. @ToBeFree, please would you help us with this link shared by the user. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 18:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Nooo it's just a username, i was just saying that why few user add script like this.

Example/draftify logs TBB (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

As I clicked on the link it showed me "Code that you insert on this page could contain malicious content capable of compromising your account." Thus, I felt somethings fishy, lol. Its just the scripts as wikipedia uses Java scripts. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 18:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello VerdictByLogic, are you here at the Teahouse to ask questions or to provide assistance as a host? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry! it was just a misunderstanding by my side. I apologize for pinging you. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 18:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I know, VerdictByLogic, and it's okay, but my question remains open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah! first I came to ask question, then I saw another question below which was answerable by me. (I thought your question was a sarcasm.) VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 18:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Sarcasm, mh. Well, it was a rhetorical question. Don't be too keen to help please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Understood your point. VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 18:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thebaldball, I'm not sure if the Teahouse is the right place to ask why some users choose to configure their Wikipedia experience in a certain way. That's a very subjective/individual decision. I guess if you wonder about someone's script choices, you could ask them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Finally, thanks. TBB (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Quest ion 5 to be continued TBB (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't ask questions for the sole purpose of asking questions. You're dealing with human volunteers investing their free time into helping you, and after over a year and over 1800 edits, you might have acquired the skills to look things up yourself or to answer some questions yourself, such as why some users make some individual preferences. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 26 May 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.

I am looking for a help with a translated article

I translated an article about a movie from Ukrainian Wiki, but there are some formatting issues, that are beyond my expertise. Can someone fix them and post this draft for a review? Draft:OrANGELove. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

ArcturusNotTaurus: in the Synopsis section, is a "bloody jacket" bloodstained, or blood coloured? And what is a "huge cello case"? In my experience, all 'cello cases are pretty much the same size. The first two sentences are in the pressent tense, the third in a past case; I think the present would be better here too. In the Plot section, what is "the lens"? And the Plot secion has no need for "According to the plot". Maproom (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ArcturusNotTaurus, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First, I must point out that you have not, as far as I can see, given attribution to the original (the Ukrainian article) anywhere. This is a breach of the CC-BY-SA licence. (It also makes it harder for people who want to help you to find the original). I believe it is uk:Оранжлав, and you should say so explicitly. This is usually done in the edit summary for the first version that contains the translation, but failing that, on the talk page of the draft. See Translation.

The first problem with the references is that in the Ukrainian source there is a citation <ref name="OL_KT.ua">[https://web.archive.org/web/20160319031313/http://kino-teatr.ua/uk/film/orangelove-3710.phtml Оранжлав] на сайті kino-teatr.ua/uk</ref> (in the infobox), which defines the name "OL_KT.ua" for reuse, and is then reused using the short form <ref name="OL_KT.ua"/>.

But in your translation, presumably because you have not translated the infobox, that reference is never defined.

There is no requirement to have an infobox, but if you are going to translate an article that uses named references, you need to make sure that the definition of the reference is taken across.

The easiest thing would be to replace the first use of the "OL_KT.ua" reference by that full definition. ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

In fact, I have made that edit for you: see . ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you ! ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I cannot figure out how to state, that this article is a translation from another Wiki. Could you please place this label yourself, so that I know, how to do it next time? I plan to do many translations from all Slavic language wikis. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @ArcturusNotTaurus. Did you look at WP:Translation#Attribution requirements? ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I am still new and learning. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I actually stated in my comments on

16:59, 26 May 2026 ArcturusNotTaurus talk contribs 17,615 bytes +15,380

Translated from Ukrainian Wiki.

I do not know how to change this statement to

"Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at fr:Exact name of French article; see its history for attribution" ,

but it will use the proper phrasing next time. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, @ArcturusNotTaurus, but you didn't identify the Ukrainian article. It is not possible to change an edit summary afterwards. What I suggest you do is either make a dummy edit, or on your next edit if you are working on the draft anyway, you add the proper text. ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible grammar issue?

Hello! I hoping someone could help me understand a sentence in Trial of Socrates. It reads:

After that failed suggestion, Socrates then offered to pay a fine of 100 drachmae – one-fifth of his property – which largesse testified to his integrity and poverty as a philosopher.

I can't really understand the part after the endash? I'm not very familiar with the word "largesse", but is something wrong with this sentence? To me, it reads as if largesse is supposed to be a name, i.e. "largesse says"?

Thanks, JordyGrey _talk🧸 03:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a name, just a noun, Jordy. Meaning a generous gift or donation of money … in this case, referring to an entire 20%of Socrates’ property. Next time you come across a mysterious word, you might want to try this amazing new invention called a dictionary. 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

JordyGrey, you now know what "largesse" means. But that phrasing is awkward and difficult to parse. The linkage between integrity and poverty is strained and bizarre. It needs a rewrite in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Should it be "such largesse" then? As in, "such generosity testified to his integrity ..."

And I did check Merriam-Webster before asking... JordyGrey _talk🧸 04:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Though admittedly the sentence would need to be rearranged further for that to fit.

If you take out the endash part, I just don't think it's grammatically correct... Socrates then offered to pay a fine of 100 drachmae, which largesse testified to his integrity JordyGrey _talk🧸 04:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems perfectly correct to me. See wikt:which#Determiner, point 3. —Wasell^(T) 10:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

This is JordyGrey, I keep forgetting to log in on my phone.

Someone else has already explained the sentence structure, but thanks for letting me know :)

Either way, I've changed it. A few people here seemed okay with it being rearranged to remove the "which" that was confusing me. ~2026-12528-97 (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi JordyGrey,

I didn't know what "largesse" meant either until I looked it up. If you didn't know what it meant, and I didn't know what it meant, then there's a good chance the average reader wouldn't know what it means either. I might recommend swapping out "largesse" with a more common word. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 05:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

JordyGrey, perhaps largesse isn't so common. Replace it (with generosity?) if you wish. But it's not the problem. No, the problem comes with an entirely grammatical but even less common use -- perhaps now an old fashioned use -- of which. (Compare "Video evidence proved that he had driven through the city centre at speeds of up to 90 km/h, which recklessness brought a stern admonishment from the judge as she sentenced him to six months in prison." Within which, which recklessness could instead be a recklessness that.) This I would change, perhaps to: ...100 drachmae, a largesse/generosity that testified.... -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

A more substantial problem is that this opinion/analysis of his action is uncited. Well, the whole set of underlying factual statements is also uncited also. DMacks (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Well said, DMacks. When I wrote about "the problem", I should instead have written about "the comprehension problem". -- Hoary (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess I must've phrased my question and follow-up posts rather poorly, because I haven't said that I wanted to replace any words. In fact, from the start, I was asking about the sentence structure (grammar)... the unfamiliar word was a compounding issue, but by no means was that the reason I asked the question in the first place.

On a more positive note, thank you for explaining the grammar issue at play here. I can't recall ever seeing a sentence using "which" like in your example. Yeah, your suggestion is exactly what I was looking for. It just seems like a better way to fit that sentence together.

Also, uh, I don't want to get taken to ANI or something but I don't really like that original response... I thought the use of "but" in my question would make it clear my main issue was not with largesse... so was you might want to try this amazing new invention really necessary? Like why assume I haven't already looked it up? I'm probably reading too deeply into this, sorry JordyGrey _talk🧸 08:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

About that last bit; no worries, I was thinking the same thing but I wasn't sure if I wanted to bring it up. It seemed a bit condescending and not up to our host expectations (though Augnablik is not a host from what I can tell). But, far too small of a thing to warrant escalation to a user conduct board for anyone. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 09:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

This is JordyGrey, I keep forgetting to log in on my phone.

I'm glad that someone else felt the same way. But I'm not too worried about it; I'd prefer to believe that it was just a joke that didn't land :) ~2026-12528-97 (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Sincere apologies, Jordy. One of the last things I ever want to do is hurt someone in any way. Later after writing, I wondered if my reply had stretched humor a bit far and thought to remove it—but too late. Augnablik (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for apologising :) It's ok, don't worry about it, we sorted out the sentence so it's all in the past :) JordyGrey _talk🧸 12:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

JordyGrey, in "Relative constructions and unbounded dependencies" (chapter 12 of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 2002), Rodney Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Peter Peterson give two examples (on pages 1043–1044):

• I said that it might be more efficient to hold the meeting on Saturday morning, which suggestion they all enthusiastically endorsed.
• They refuse to support the UN's expenses of maintaining the UN Emergency Force in the Middle East as a buffer between Egypt and Israel, and the UN troops in the Congo, which expenses are not covered by the regular budget.

The authors comment that examples such as these "are quite rare and formal, verging on the archaic". -- Hoary (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Valid Sources from an Invalid Source

I've recently been working to update/create pages for albums for a singer I've followed for years. I wanted to expand the overall knowledge of his work and share it with others, and making sure that people finding his wikipedia page have all the best information out there is a great way to do that. A major problem is that getting my hands on the original sources to verify and cite is quite difficult in some cases. Liner notes for albums don't always survive, and production runs that are short enough/low enough mean that sometimes scans and pictures are the best you can hope for.

With that context added, my question is this: Is there a problem using scans of liner notes or album information from places that Wikipedia denies the use of otherwise?

For example, Discogs isn't allowed for finding out years, lists of songs, etc., but it's a pretty great resource (in some cases, the only resource) for finding the front and back of CD cases and LP sleeves, which could be cited independently and used.

In these cases, can I use these images without worry? Can I credit a Discogs upload appropriately as the source without it being removed simple because the scan came from there? Is there a particular method of citing a source within a source (memories of 'work from an anthology' come to mind, so I feel I should ask)? If this is permitted, is there a reference to this policy somewhere that I can add to the Talk page preemptively to make sure the work doesn't get reverted? ~2026-31399-32 (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The best sources are independent reliable secondary sources. Discogs isn't considered a reliable source for WP purposes. You know this but you seem to be asking if you can use it anyway as a primary source. The truth is you can use it as a source if you want to but if you're not using it as a secondary source and you're not using it as a reliable source, what are you hoping to achieve? Mme Maigret (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Non-controversial information like the song listing or production staff on an album that is listed on the liner notes should be fine to cite to those liner notes. I see it often, and you are unlikely to get that information if the album isn't on Apple Music or something where that information is usually found. Citing Discogs shouldn't be necessary since it's just the means you got the notes - it's like citing Amazon for information you read in a book you bought from there. My question is, if the work is that obscure, where are you putting this information? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Liner notes shouldn't be cited, on the grounds of obviousness. It's the same principle for why we don't bother citing that X actor played Y role (unless said actor went uncredited or took an Alan Smithee credit). Reading thru the credits/liner notes would instantly verify it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess it's obvious but I always appreciate someone stating where they got their info. Otherwise how would I know who made the music and took the photo on Drukqs? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Photo of the Year 2025

I am wondering why a photo taken in October 2023 was eligible to be included in the entries for Photo of the Year 2025? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Damage_in_Gaza_Strip_during_the_October_2023_-_29.jpg I also object to the photo in general. A photo like this needs to be put into its correct context, Israel's response to a horrific masacre perpetrated against Israeli citizens, only days before this photo was taken, with over 250 hostages, inlcuding elderly men and women, children and babies. Is there a better place for me to voice my complaints than a "Teahouse" which really should be reserved for friendlier questions? Thank you. DaringDonna (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DaringDonna. I suggest looking at C:Commons talk:Picture of the Year. Your questions may be answered there, and if not, you can ask there. ColinFine (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not editorialise or 'contextualise' these images in the way you would like it to. I'm not sure why your response to a horrific image of urban destruction is "this really needs a disclaimer so people know it's justified." Athanelar (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

No, my question was, why is a photo taken in 2023 eligible for a 2025 photo contest? DaringDonna (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m neutral on the matter, but I’d say the caption is neutral “The aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City on October 9, 2023, leaving widespread destruction in the Rimal area.” sounds neutral, it would be the same as “aftermath of British bombing of Dresden” that also would be a true and neutral caption The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

No one seems to have an answer to the question by @DaringDonna -- why is a picture from 2023 eligible to be called "picture of the year" for the year 2025? David10244 (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Valid point, I also thought that at the time The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@DaringDonna For a picture to be eligible for the first round of POTY 2025, it has to be selected as a featured picture in the same year. The image mentioned was nominated on 21 January 2025 and passed the assessment on 30 January, making it eligible for voting in POTY. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jolly1253 Thanks, that information helps. David10244 (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Delay in GA review of ISRO

Hello everyone! I am currently working on making ISRO (see this) a good article. However, the problem is that the reviewer keeps stalling, causing significant delays in the entire process—which is quite frustrating. Is there anything that can be done to ensure this process is completed within a reasonable timeframe? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 13:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the reviewer is busy in (shudder) real life. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The reviewer is quite active on Wikipedia. Doesn't sound busy to me. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 14:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's fair. Still, Wikipedia is run by volunteers. We can't force them to do anything. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I know that. So it seems like I've no other option than keep waiting for the reviewer to continue. Well, it's okay! No issues. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 14:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Akshadev, in late April, you wrote on the reviewer's talk page Can you tell how many days will it take to conclude the GA review? I am just asking out of curiosity, I'm in no hurry. You need to explain to them that you are now in a hurry, and why. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328: This is my first GA nomination. Perhaps that is why I am so excited and want this review to conclude as soon as possible. However, I have now also realized that I cannot force anyone. So waiting for the reviewer to continue is the only option for me. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 03:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

First of all, congrats on your dedication! Tackling such a large page is a big effort. Also, your edits are published right? Or are they in your sandbox?

Whatever the case may be, my suggestion is to use the European Space Agency article as a base model. With just a very rapid comparative scan of ISRO's vs EAS (assuming your edits are published), I notice for instance that the latter has a short list of missions/programs that have their own page. ISRO has extended subsections for each which makes it too long. There may be other such opportunities for improvement (facilities, etc).

From experience, I know it is very hard to edit (i.e cut out) polished text. Putting it somewhere else will create a stub, but it will improve the main article for most readers, who will prefer a (say) 3000-4000 word long article to a 10,000 word booklet.

If you need help, feed the links to your version and ESA's to AI to identify opportunities for improvement. AI LLMs know Wikipedia and its MOS.

Cheers and Be Bold!

JP

PS: Greetings from Peru! India (if that's where you're from) is still in my Places to Visit list. But I do follow its space program as I watch cosmology and space exploration in You Tube.
Jp1008 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. And yes, I am from India. Speaking of your suggestions, as far as I understand — perhaps you are suggesting that I bring ISRO up to par with the European Space Agency. Am I correct? If I am, then suggest me where to start from. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 05:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging Jp1008 for their attention. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 15:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Already did my friend. Do a high level 3 minute comparison with AI. Then drill down for details: better alignment with MOS, what sections to cut, which would merit separe article, etc. Again, on a VERY quick scan, of ESA I found it sectioned off topics on missions, etc. to keep the main article at a manageable readings size. If as a reader you want an overview of something you don’t want to skim 30 screenfuls to find something. At a certain point, length is bad. You can also ask AI (or Tea House in new post) to find you (point you) to long articles of international institutions.

The central idea here is to build on better practices from existing articles.

Finally, I love the motto: BE BOLD. There is such thing as writer (and editor!) fatigue. If you feel the page can be useful with the best of your efforts to date, publish and then improve gradually, especially taking into consideration the feedback of those who care a lot on the subject, in this case the tens of thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to ISRO projects. Jp1008 (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Akshadev But don't let AI write any new or added material. David10244 (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Re-submission

My long-published biography article was deleted in September 2023 for insufficient notability and redirected to another article. I am rewriting the article now have additional independent sources and want to resubmit through AfC. Can anyone advise the best way to do this? Captaintraceydaniels (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Captaintraceydaniels, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm guessing you are talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip R. Ford? (I've never understood why people asking questions so often avoid being specific).

The answer, as for any article, is:

• Make sure you have adequate sources (that each meet all the conditions of WP:42) to establish notability
• Create a draft with the article wizard
• Set aside everything that you know about the subject and write a neutral summary of what those indpendent sources say.
• Submit it for review.

ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I would add, given how the deleted Phillip R. Ford was entirely unreferenced, that you need to make sure pretty much every statement is clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. This is especially important in articles on living people (see WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Sanity check on resubmitted draft (Draft:Vishvaa Rajakumar) after WP:LLM decline

Hi all, I am a new editor and would appreciate a quick sanity check on a draft I have resubmitted after a WP:LLM decline.

The draft is Draft:Vishvaa Rajakumar, a biography of an Indian memory athlete who won the 2025 Memory League World Championship and was listed as first at the 2025 IAM World Memory Championship in Mumbai per the IAM statistics database.

The first version was declined by msk as appearing AI-generated. Since then I have done two passes of revision:

• Removed em-dashes and other stylistic markers commonly flagged as AI tells
• Cut the length by roughly 60 percent (shorter sentences, less subordinate-clause stacking)
• Stripped hedging phrases and {{As of}} templates
• Dropped two single-sourced claims that read as promotional
• Rewrote the lead in a more direct journalistic style
• Added one direct quote from the subject's WION interview

I have disclosed AI assistance in edit summaries and on my user page per WP:LLM.

I am NOT the subject of the article. The previous G11 deletion at this title in 2022 was an autobiography by the subject himself; my submission is independent of him.

What I would appreciate feedback on:

• Does the prose still read as AI-assisted, or does it pass as human-written now? If parts still look AI-style please point them out specifically.
• Are the primary sources (iam-stats.org, iam-memory.org official event pages) plus the Indian press coverage of the 2025 Memory League win sufficient for WP:GNG in a memory-sports biography context?
• Any other WP:BLP issues I should anticipate before a second reviewer picks it up?

Not asking for a queue jump, just feedback before the next reviewer sees it. Thanks. Technirmata (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The salient question is: did you or did you not use "AI assistance" to write your draft, and if so have you now fully removed and rewritten from scratch (not simply reworded) all of the text that was generated by AI.

We don't want you to Remove em-dashes and other stylistic markers commonly flagged as AI tells. We want you to write the article yourself. Athanelar (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

To explain why: in addition to generating stylistic tells (which, on their own, we could live with), LLMs introduce false statements, puffery, and invalid sources at a terrifyingly high rate. That we cannot live with, and recently LLM use was banned (WP:NEWLLM) because it was becoming an intractable problem. I've spent the last week struggling to fix LLM damage to articles that was probably generated in about 2 minutes.

(Just to address another question: primary sources are never enough for WP:GNG. Has to be secondary sources. Primary sources are acceptable for facts, like the score of a game, but not for notability.) M kuhner (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

In addition to what's already been said, you absolutely must go through every single source, without exception, to make sure that they verify every associated statement.

AI regularly hallucinates claims and sources, so there's a very good chance that it's given you some untrustworthy material.

You're honestly better off scrapping the draft and starting from scratch, considering how long it will take you to fix everything. Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 21:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Have to agree with the others. Fact is, there are still some pretty notorious LLM tells in there remaining. For example, writing about the reporting of the fact as the content rather than the actual fact itself.

Human: Lincoln's election as the first Republican president served as the main catalyst for Southern secession and the American Civil War.

No Human Ever: Media sources report that Lincoln's election as the first Republican president served as the main catalyst for Southern secession and the American Civil War.

Human: Yellow is a color between green and orange on the spectrum of light.

No Human Ever: According to reliable sources, yellow is a color between green and orange on the spectrum of light.

Trying to extract LLM from an LLM-written draft is a bit like trying to extract drain cleaner that you accidentally spilled in a bowl of soup you just made. You don't do that; you start over. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

How to?

Hello, i saw that the 54th Massachusetts had this to say on their talk page: A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. [show]. I was wondering on how can i do that with my new article, the 153rd Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment, Thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries#How_to_contribute_to_the_project. You can boldly add your article to a date most suitable, e.g. Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September 4; I hope your article is well sourced, free of copyright violations, and neutral, though, since that's expected for articles appearing on the main page. jolielover♥talk 08:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Off topic but, is it okay if i copy a quote from a book? Im currently editing the 153rd Pennsylvania's article, and im not sure if i can, Thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SomeRandomGuy3523, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Short, attributed, quotations are acceptable in articles. See MOS:QUOTE ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine Is it okay if the quote is quite long? Example from the 153rd Pennsylvania: " I am an old soldier, but never did I know soldiers, who, with greater alacrity and more good will, endeavored to fulfill their duties. In the battle of Chancellorsville you, like veterans, stood your ground against fearful odds, and, although surrounded on three sides, you did not retreat until by me commanded to do so. In the three days' battle at Gettysburg, your behavior put many an old soldier to the blush, and you are justly entitled to a great share of the glory which my brigade has won for itself, by repulsing the two dreaded Tiger Brigades of Jackson. In the name of your comrades of the First Brigade, and myself, I now bid you farewell," SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't answer that, @SomeRandomGuy3523. See the page I linked, and decide whether the quote is justified. Ask yourself what is your purpose for including the quote. Is it appropriate to an encyclopaedia article? ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue here, User:SomeRandomGuy3523, isn't copyright with a quote from that era but whether it helps readers understand the topic or just makes the article unbalanced. I would say the latter. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Finding the best sources

Hi, I just wanted to know how to know if a website is reliable enough for a source or not

ChimeBell (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

ChimeBell you can try to look through Wikipedia:Reliable sources to determine the reliability of a source. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChimeBell If you're concerned with the reliability of a specific website, WP:RSPS can be helpful, too. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ChimeBell, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's worth being as specific as you can with this sort of question: people can give you much better answers to a specific question.

Note that the reliablility of a source depends partly on what information you want to source from it: an article in a music magazine may be reliable for information about a musician, for example, but not for architecture or biology. ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you ChimeBell (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Review Move generation article

Hi guys! I hope everyone's fine. I recently created a new computer science article on move generation and no one has reviewed it. If anyone is a NPR, you can feel free to review it. Thanks! User:RightYiZheng[ talk ] 18:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It has been reviewed! (not by me) ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 11:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

McLennan Bridge (1870) in Clunes Vic Australia

The Bridge still in use Riveted Iron Named after My 3rd times Grannies and is one of only three of its kind still standing ~2026-31389-78 (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Do you have a question related to Wikipedia? jolielover♥talk 12:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-31389-78, and welcome to the Teahouse.

We don't appear to have an article about McLennan Bridge; we have one on Clunes, Victoria, but it doesn't mention the bridge.

It could be added to that article, provided there is a reliable published source which can be cited: information from your family history is not enough, I'm afraid.

If you have such a source, I suggest posting on the talk page Talk:Clunes, Victoria, citing the source, so that somebody could look at it and add the information there to the article. (Sources do not have to be online, but especially if it is not, you need to give full bibliographic information, such as author, title, publication date, page number etc.) ColinFine (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

this guy deleted my wiki

my userpage got suppressed, idk what that really means but how do i get my wiki back Monathephantom (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It means that your user page had too much personal information on it, so its contents were permanently removed from both the page and the edit history so nobody can see it; this is done to protect your privacy; Wikipedia is not a social media platform and you shouldn't share personal information here. You might want to read our guidance for younger editors. Athanelar (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

How do i get it back? Monathephantom (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You don't. Athanelar (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Reading the guidance for younger editors might give you some tips. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Getting my draft: pat finn-lee back for editing

Help! I fear my draft: pat finn-lee has been deleted. I have clicked the restore link but nothing happened. Two years of work gone it seems. Please help! Gem2376 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The message on your talk page notifying you of its deletion has a link for how to request it be undeleted. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 15:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It got deleted per WP:G13. You gotta go to WP:REFUND/G13 if you wish to retrieve it. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 16:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Requesting assistance with url updates for semi-protected music biography (David Franj)

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

---

Hello. I am a representative for the digital media infrastructure that operates entertainmenttoday.media and its music vertical, musicreviewer.media. Because the biographical entry for Australian singer-songwriter David Franj is currently semi-protected, I am unable to submit direct link modifications to the article text or its source citations. We have recently streamlined our backend web architecture and shifted our publications away from legacy web locations over to these active .media domains. Could an independent volunteer editor with appropriate editing permissions assist us in updating these external references and official destination URLs on his profile? Thank you. Musicreviewer.media (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Welcome! I have the permissions to edit semi-protected articles, can you describe your edits in the "X or Y" format so I can apply them to the article?

Alternatively for later edits to articles, you can make an WP:EDITREQUEST at the talk page of the article you wish to edit. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 12:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Musicreviewer.media, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The very first thing you must do is to make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor on your user page (see the link for how to do this). This is mandatory.

Then, you should be aware of the restrictions consequent on this status. Even if you had the technical rights, you should not normally directly edit any article where you have a conflict of interest, but should instead make edit requests, as @Campssitie suggests. ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Musicreviewer.media: The talk page for the article explains how. cc:@331dot Mme Maigret (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Got beaten to blocking them. There is an extensive effort to attempt to edit about Mr. Franj. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 27 May 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.

trying to create page for the first state film office in the US

I am trying to document the first state film office in the US (est. 1968 in Oregon). I have what I think are independent secondary sources, but I've been rejected twice. I have rewritten it again. Can someone help me identify if I now have the specific 'depth of coverage' gaps or any other issues before I try to resubmit? Draft:Oregon Film Office Matt61schulte (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Last two paragaphs, including a statistical claim, are not sourced at all. There are visible error messages in the References that should be fixed. Beyond that, the sourcing is still very thin. For example source 2 never mentions Oregon Film Office (search "oregon film" or "film office" in it, no hits) and seems like an attempt to "borrow" significance for the organization from significance of films. (It might be easier to write an article on "Oregon film industry" from these sources, honestly, and briefly describe Oregon Film Office in that.) Finally, if you are personally associated with Oregon Film Office, please read and heed WP:Conflict of interest. M kuhner (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

From What I've read, most of the references that has been made doesn't directly talk or focus on the subject, it's more of a mention, which doesn't really fit the notability standards, as for the secondary sources, you need more widely-known, mainstream sources, these ones are too obsocure, agreeing with the editor fella above me, it doesn't explain the page entirely, and lastly, try to support the page with some visuals as well. Please see General notability guideline & Verifiability throughly. ✦ CatPencil ✦ (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I need help with renaming a draft article

I wrote a draft Draft:State Corporation, but the title of this article did not come out right (it actually duplicates a more general article State corporation (Russia). I want to rename Draft:State Corporation to Fund for Assistance to Housing and Communal Services Reform (Russia), but I do not have the rights to do, I cannot figure out where to place a request like [removed template]. Can someone more experienced move this text to a new article [Fund for Assistance to Housing and Communal Services Reform (Russia)]]? ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Your draft is nowhere near ready to be published as an article at present; there are not enough sources and the formatting is incorrect. However, if you do improve it, if it passes AfC it can be moved to the correct title. CoconutOctopus talk 11:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The renaming process is a part of improvement. I have no intention of posting this article now, but I want to the change the title of the current draft version, while keeping its history. Can you help me with it? ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

So moving the page to Draft:Fund for Assistance to Housing and Communal Services Reform (Russia)? ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 12:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello again @ArcturusNotTaurus. The name of the draft is of no relevance for review.

However, I have moved it for you, to Draft:Fund for Assistance to Housing and Communal Services Reform - without the "(Russia)", as we do not use qualifiers like that unless there is a need to dismbiguate from other articles. ColinFine (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I think it is important to specify in the title, that this is a Russian organization, since other countries have or may have in the future similar entities. Could you please restore my original title "Fund for Assistance to Housing and Communal Services Reform (Russia)"? ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Parentheses are usually reserved for the same names but different topics (disambiguating from other articles), like Job (role) or Job (professional wrestling) as they have the same name. This article's name however, doesn't right now. If another article arises with the same name, it'll be changed, but for now it's unnecessary. Cheerises. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 16:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

No, @ArcturusNotTaurus.

I followed the policy in WP:DABNAME when I moved it. We have hundreds - probably thousands - of articles which refer to something in a particular country or jurisdiction, (eg Department of Defense police, Trade Descriptions Act 1968, or Air Accident Investigation Unit), but there is no need to specify this in the name. ColinFine (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you for letting me know. I am still learning. ArcturusNotTaurus (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft page to article status

I am having trouble with moving my article from a draft to a full entry. I have an entry which has numerous sources from newspapers and websites. The subject Pat Finn-Lee is an actress from motion pictures. Please Google her name for proof of notoriety or type it in Wikipedia search. She is on other Wikipedia pages for her movies. I need help with editing my Inline citations so my draft gets approved and moved to the article space. Can anyone edit my draft? Thank you! Gem2376 (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, are you refering to Draft:Pat Finn-Lee article? It has been rejected as it doesn't fit the General notability guideline. The main problem is that article used the same source too many times and too less. For example 1-10 of references are from the same paper. Wikipedia wants a diverse amount of sources, and most of the other sources are simply mentions or side-talk, please see Verifiability throughly. If you're looking for someone to edit the article for you, that might take a while. I'd suggest you try improving it by than. ✦ CatPencil ✦ (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@CatPencil, I'm not sure where you got it being rejected for not meeting GNG from. The primary reason its been declined many times is because of a lack of citations.

Gem2376, per policy any contentious material about living people (whether positive, negative or neutral) needs to have an inline citation. If there isn't one, the content shouldn't be included. A new source isn't required each time for information (WP:REPEATCITE explains how to reuse citations), but a reliable source is needed. I would recommend against moving this to mainspace without fixing these issues. You may also want to review Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs My apologies, I replied while I was a bit sleepy lul. Happens, thanks for correcting me. :D ✦ CatPencil ✦ (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Question about if someone becomes notable and edits Wikipedia

A hypothetical question: If someone edits Wikipedia like mend they eventually become notable, what does it mean if they edit their own page? (sorry for the misplaced signature, I could not move my text further due to a glitch. I'm just Justis here.) For example, actress Holly Gauthier-Frankel has edited Wikipedia. But if someone who was a Wikipedia editor becomes notable, or is related to Wikipedia itself like Jimmy Wales, are they allowed to edit their own pages like Gauthier-Frankel did? If they do become notable, should they also adhere to the WP:Reliable sources and if they want information removed, respect them?? An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The subject of an article may propose edits on the talk page using the edit request process. They generally should not edit the article directly; circumstances where they may edit it directly are listed here. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

All guidelines for people who become notable for Wikipedia editing are the same as people who are notable for other things. Being an editor doesn't give them any special permissions to bypass guidelines. I fixed your signature, feel free to remove your note about it 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Question

Hello! Good day, can I cite YouTube videos, podcasts, or social media posts if they are from an official verified account? 7SecondSurgery _Roar! 18:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes. See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. Nasdn2 20:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Mass changing links

Is there a tool (other than AWB) that would allow me to mass change links of articles that have been moved? I tried Move+, but that only changed the direct link, not what is actually displayed – diff. Fortek67 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

In most cases (anything other than PTOPIC changes) it isn't necessary to change the links of the articles that have been moved. I find JWB to be a bit easier to use compared to AWB, though there isn't a tool explicitly made for changing link targets. msk 16:39, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess I'll apply for AWB perms as this will help me maintaining other articles, not just changing links. Fortek67 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The Chordettes

On my screen, the bar labels on the left of the timeline The_Chordettes#Timeline are not vetically aligned with the bars. Is it possible to fix this? Thanks Lexiconaut (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Mobile view refs

In my subpage User:ACarWP14/sandbox, the notes and citations are not visible in mobile view. They appear in editor preview mode just fine, but in read mode it's like they just don't exist. Why is this happening ACarWP14 (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Huh, the same happens to me in mobile view. I'm not sure why. If you're on a mobile device, you should be able to switch to desktop mode to avoid this problem (at least in Chrome). 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 21:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if it's because the notes and citations are within {{abr}}? The documentation for that template notes: "Readers on mobile devices typically do not have a mouse to hover with, and so generally cannot see tooltip contents." So maybe, given there's no onhover functionality, the content (including notes/cites therein) is simply discarded? That would be consistent with it working in desktop mode. DMacks (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the use-case, I think it's a mistake to use that template at all for the note/cite content, even if it were to work. Documentation notes "Only use {{abbr}} or <abbr> to mark up abbreviations (including acronyms and initialisms). Using it to generate tooltips elsewhere is a misuse of the underlying HTML and causes accessibility problems. For general-purpose tooltips, use {{tooltip}} instead." and you are inncluding additional detail beyond simply stating what (for example) the "B" and "P" stand for in "BP". Likewise, "As footnotes – Tooltips are not a substitute for footnotes. They are intended to be used for navigational and other secondary features where space is limited." and the annotations about (for example) pressure are fundamental content not navigational or secondary.

Better to put the notes outside the abr links (and also provide more information than simply what the letters stand for). See for example Template:List of chemical elements. DMacks (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Archiving sources for citations

I tend to use Wayback Machine when archiving urls for sources, but the snapshot url doesn't always work after archiving. I'm wondering if a url to an archived screenshot is an acceptable alternative for the '|archive-url=' parameter, or if it has to be a snapshot url.

(If the answer to this question is already somewhere else, I apologise - I did look and couldn't find anything, but I may have missed it.) Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 06:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Snapshots are always prefered. Could you explain how the snapshot doesn't work? Do you mean that the archive isn't displaying the archive correctly? If so, did you enter the URL status in the citation? Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! It's an issue with Internet Archive/Wayback Machine that I've run into before. In checking the archived urls [snapshots] after the archiving process is complete, sometimes they'll be caught in a loop of constantly refreshing but never loading, other times they won't load at all, and in one instance I just kept getting a 'device verification' thing that always failed. I don't know why this happens, and I always send error reports. I never add these to Wikipedia.

When they do archive properly at IA/WM, I add them to citations here only after double-checking that they work without issues.

I ran into the issue of a url not archiving properly earlier, but I was able to get a snapshot of it that worked just fine. I was wondering if a snapshot could be a workable alternative for citations here in the interest of preventing link rot, even if it's eventually replaced with a functioning archive url in future.

I'm also not quite sure if there are viable alternatives to IA/WM that are commonly used - that's the one I'm most familiar with and that seems most common. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 11:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Help:Archiving a source has instructions for using three different types of archivers. When the Wayback Machine temporarily stopped working for me 6 or so months ago, I used Ghost Archive. There is some information regarding using Ghost Archive on the help page I previously linked. The Wayback Machine has errors every now and again, but, from my experience, they usually resolve themselves eventually. Remember that archiving isn't required, and that they source won't rot immediately. If archiving isn't working currently, we have the time to afford to return to the problem in a day, week, or whenever it starts working. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, awesome, this is great! I'll check out Ghost Archive too. Thank you so much for all of your help! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 02:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination for speedy deletion

Hello editors! I want to nominate Talk:ISRO/GA4 for speedy deletion (to start fresh) because the reviewer has quit reviewing the article (ISRO). Can someone tell me how to nominate or you nominate it yourself. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 03:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, can someone please review ISRO? It would be helpful if someone does it. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 03:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to speedy-delete the GA review page; in fact it should be kept for reference. You just need to modify the templates on the talk page etc so that they no longer say it's currently being reviewed, and re-list it for review again the same way you nominated it for the first time; the instructions are at WP:GAN.

As a word of advice; I can see you were asking a lot of questions of your reviewer, and really actively pursuing your nomination. I would suggest not to do that. Once you've nominated the article, just forget about it and edit something else while you wait for someone to review it. If a reviewer picks it up and asks you questions, of course you should answer them, but it is unlikely you'll make the review process go any faster by constantly asking "Is it fixed now? What should I do next?" etc. Athanelar (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar: Thanks for the advice. The previous reviewer has already modified the templates on the talk page. This is my first experience with GAN, perhaps that's why I'm in a hurry (out of excitement). But now you told me, I'm going to wait for someone to review. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 04:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

In my anecdotal experience with my one GA nom, Sri Venkateswara (Balaji) Temple, it took weeks for a reviewer to pick it up in the first place and then that same reviewer took a good couple of weeks to review and approve it. It's best to just forget about it and let the process play out. Obviously if a reviewer picks it up and then doesn't touch it for a couple of months you can prod them a bit and maybe request another reviewer if they're totally AWOL, but as with most things here there's no deadline and no need to rush. Athanelar (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit The Accused page; trying to replace photo w newer one....help...!?

Hi, I am back again, and would love to get some tips on replacing our band photo on our page. It's a little confusing and I don't want to screw it up...any help I could get would be very much a boon to our cause. Cheers! Tommy Niemeyer The Accused Addiron (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at the WP:Edit request wizard and use it to submit an edit request in the format of "Change X to Y". You shouldn't edit the page directly since you have a conflict of interest. Athanelar (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

For details of how to supply an image, see WP:A picture of you. If the picture was taken by someone else, especially a pro photographer, see c:COM:THIRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

=

I NEED VISA

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'M STUDENTS INEED SCHOLERSHIP AND VISA SAMIR ISMACIIL (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we Wikipedia editors cannot help with this. Please contact your government directly. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

this is not the place that would be able to help you. maybe speak to someone at your school ot college. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:36, 28 May 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 do i make better articles?

as i stated before, i used the help of AI to help write my undertale concert articles. i cleaned tthem up afterwards and theyre well sourced, but i want to make things on my own. anyone got advice? Monathephantom (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

For a given subject, first look for Wikipedia:Reliable sources about it. These do not need to be online; they can be from printed newspapers, magazines and books which may have been archived online, but may be original copies in libraries and archives that you can personally visit (or even that you already own).

If you use AI to find sources (search engines like Google make it difficult not to), do not just copy the AI's source addresses, and do not just copy what the AI claims that the sources say about the subject – AI's frequently 'hallucinate' (make up or mis-represent) both. Instead check all the web addresses and read the sources thoroughly.

Next, make summaries of what the best sources say in your own words, and arrange them in an appropriate pattern or order so as to form an article (preferably as a Draft). Do not include anything not in a source, and do not make deductions of your own – if no source actually states something, don't include it.

Above all, do not use AI to write the text of the article itself, even if you then try to modify it – this is now forbidden on Wikipedia. Such AI-based texts are easy for experienced editors to spot, and will usually be deleted on sight.

As you write, every claimed fact must be be given a Citation to its source in or at the end of the sentence containing it, or at least at the end of the paragraph it's in, so as to Verify it. (This does not apply to the 'Lede' or introductory paragraph, which should only summarise what the rest of the article, with its citations, contains.)

Reliable sources (as Wikipedia defines them) should provide most of the article's information. A few uncontrovertial facts, like a person's full name and age, or the number of employees a company has, may be sourced to 'unreliable' sources such as anything written by the person or anyone associated directly with them, like a relative, employee, personal or company website, or a publicity agent.

Also, first read WP:Golden rule which discusses these and other matters more fully, and has links to even fuller, plus additional, requirements and advice. Happy editing, and I hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I wanted to know how can I nominate my List to Featured List. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I can't find the template. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@TheGreatEditor024 You should find all the relevant instructions at WP:Featured list candidates. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

deleted article

im kind of confused why my article got taken down, meowbahs becoming really famous and getting millions of views per video, of course she's controversial but most of what I said is backed by her website. what can I do to improve this because there's a lot of misinformation about her online and this could be the one thing that's not fake. ppl have put her birthday wrong, and a lot of information wrong and biased. Meowistchan (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Assuming this is about . Number of views doesn't matter, subjects own social media pages doesn't matter. Guidance at Help:Your first article. If there aren't any WP-good sources at this point, a WP-article will not be accepted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that stuff she (or her team) says about herself, except for outright obvious notes (e.g. name, birthplace, age, etc.) is generally considered unreliable. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 12:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Meowistchan, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

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) 16:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

(Untitled)

I’m removed San Luis, Arizona From Template: Yuma Radio by using collapse tool and now Yuma Radio Only serving city of Yuma and Somerton arizona TacoF5 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@TacoF5 And how can we help you about that ? nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 16:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Drafts that may be merged into existing articles

I have already received advice on this draft, and it has been suggested that it be merged into higher category theory. The orthographic variation of this draft, (n, k)-category, is a redirect to Weak n-category#History. Furthermore, there is a possibility that this draft will be merged with the (∞, n)-category. Due to these circumstances, discussion is necessary when merging drafts. According to WP:MERGE, the place to discuss merging articles is AfD. Since this is just a draft, do I need to submit it to WP:AfC before discussing merging it? It might satisfy WP:N as a standalone article. It feels strange, but do I need to nominate my own draft for the AfD? I'm worried that if I nominate my own draft for AfD, it will be considered a deletion request by the draft's author, and therefore the draft will be speedy deleted.--SilverMatsu (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Drafts cannot be listed at AfD; they go to MfD instead. But also, there's no need to host a discussion about merging a draft into an article. If you want to do that, you can just do it; since you're not really 'merging' anything but rather expanding the existing article. Athanelar (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. When merging a draft into an existing article, I believe it's necessary to merge (∞, n)-category and (n, k)-category. However, will merging (∞, n)-category and (n, k)-category still meet WP:BOLD?--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe the draft will be merged into the (n, k)-category, which is currently a redirect. After that, I think I'll propose merging it with (∞, n)-category. In this case, I think it will be a merge of articles, not a draft.--SilverMatsu (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

If I remove the redirect and create a new article, I think that article will be subject to review by Wikipedia:NPP. In that case, is it acceptable to start discussing the merger of (∞, n)-category and (n, k)-category before the (n, k)-category is reviewed?--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not technically true: you're moving content to a different article and redirecting the source article, so it counts as a WP:MERGE and editors should follow those instructions for carrying it out. FaviFake (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is my content rejected?

I have tried three times now to edit/ add content to wiki. It has been rejected "undone because they appeared to be promotional". These are NOT promotional additions.

What is wrong??? LMBFriend (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The editor who removed them, @Augmented Seventh:, judged them to be promotional according to Wikipedia's standards, and having looked I would agree that they are.

That said, your first step should be to discuss the matter with Augmented Seventh and try to come to an agreed consensus, per the standard Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Every Sunday at 10am EST, We sit together in silence to quiet our minds and connect to something greater than ourselves. There are no ministers or creeds, no set hymns or sermons. In the quiet, we open our hearts and lives to new insights and guidance. Sometimes we are moved to speak, to share what we have discovered. For more information see https://www.manhassetquakers.org/

You're sharing perceived benefits of your meeting in a non-encyclopedic tone, and even linking your website. That's exactly what promotion is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and everything needs to be written in a neutral point of view. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 15:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you this helps. Question - can I add the website? LMBFriend (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I've added it in the infobox for you. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 16:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

THANK YOU !!! LMBFriend (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @LMBFriend, and ewlcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and lead section question

Hello, I'm actively working on improving the Soviet space dogs article. In the lead section, it says "During this period, the Soviet Union launched missions with passenger slots for numerous dogs. Some dogs flew more than once. Most survived, but those that died were lost mostly through technical failures. Laika was an exception and was sent on a one-way orbital mission aboard Sputnik 2." I tweaked it a bit, but mostly left it unchanged, it's been like this for years as far as I know. My question is, is it okay to keep it as is? It summarizes the individual flights described (most of them were successful, the deaths were due to causes like parachute failure, cabin decompression, so technical failures), but sources do not make that grouping explicitly. The lead section just summarizes the flights mentioned in the article and labels them as "most survived", "death was mostly through technical failures". I'm really confused whether or not this counts as synthesis, or if it's okay to leave it because it accurately represents the flights that are mentioned below. To me it seems straightforward - multiple flights are mentioned, some dogs appear more than once on flights, most are successful, some technical failures, so write a summary of the flights below, but it's not explicitly stated that most survived etc. in sources I found. Does this count as a routine calculation? Should I rewrite it? I want the article to be good quality and not violate any rules, but maybe there is no rule that's being violated in the first place? I'm still relatively new to editing, so I don't know how things work in practice yet. Vicccqh7 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks alright to me, but if it's bugging you, you can try and rewrite it. Worst case scenario, it gets reverted. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, it looks alright to me too, but from a policy standpoint, this is generalising and grouping individual flights to draw a conclusion that "most survived, the ones that died were lost mostly through technical failures" when no source gives that comparison explicitly. For someone to have written that, they must've counted all the flights in the article, notice the proportion itself and make that conclusion, and that technically sounds like synthesis... right? I don't know honestly, sometimes it's complicated. I don't want to sound like the type of person that goes "umm, actually..." and I don't have an issue with the text personally, I'd like it to stay, but I'm worried it's not compliant with wiki policies, and even though I didn't add the text myself, I feel responsible for it because I've edited most of the article already... Maybe I'm taking it all too literally and there's no issue at all in this case.' Vicccqh7 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Vicccqh7, "most" is an objective term. It means a majority or more than 50%. "Technical failures" is also pretty clear. I will make up some numbers. If there were 20 dog flights and 12 dogs survived, then I see nothing wrong with "most". And if things like parachute failures or cabin decompression caused six of the eight deaths, then I see nothing wrong with "mostly". Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

So there is nothing wrong with counting the flights listed in the article and grouping them in a summary like that, even if sources themselves don't make that statistic? Isn't that statistical inference? Forgive me if I sound dense, I'm trying to understand what is and what isn't problematic synthesis, and english is also not my first language so I'm having trouble sometimes with this kind of thing. Vicccqh7 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if I was clear on that before, but I should mention the sources also don't give a total of flights, or any numbers, they just list them individually either in a table or list style flight log, or more detailed sections in prose. Vicccqh7 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Update: Still looking for feedback, but I ended up tweaking it a little to make it more neutral, I changed it to "During this period, the Soviet Union launched missions with passenger slots for numerous dogs. Some dogs flew more than once. Many survived, but some died due to technical failures. One of the dogs, Laika, was sent on a one-way orbital mission aboard Sputnik 2.". I think this version fits better as a general summary and does not introduce new facts, even though sources don't give the numbers themselves, but rather list individual flights. In my opinion, this should not be a problem, but I'd still like to hear your opinions. Vicccqh7 (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. . Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I ended up tweaking it a bit more than that, and now I'm happy with it. I think it fits well as a general summary.

There's still work to be done on that article, especially in general overview paragraphs (ones that don't describe individual flights), cause some claims require cross checking with sources, but I think I managed to expand and improve it a lot. I reviewed all flights listed and did my best to represent them accurately. I hope someone else can join in and help me make it even better! Vicccqh7 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello! DomiNTCS (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Do you need help with anything on Wikipedia? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 21:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

is it possible to block anyone

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've always wondered if I can uhhhh block people... And by that I mean like blocking on social media, where basically nobody can see my stuff, replies, etc UselessAccount20 (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

And if it were possible, that would make collaborating with other editors incredibly difficult if one of those users happened to be in a discussion you were in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 02:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

But what if... If the user who blocks someone cannot join the discussion for anything that the blocked user is in? Wouldn't that like, solve the issue? UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Look at it from the reverse position: If the blocked user enters a discussion that the user blocked them is in, who deserves the siteblock? The blocker for trying to screw over someone who has good-faith arguments, or the blocked for trying to contribute to a conversation they can't see the entirety of? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 05:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary How is it not possible exactly? Your answer is vague. UselessAccount20 (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

UselessAccount20, you have already got an explanation (from Gråbergs Gråa Sång). -- Hoary (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 I might have misunderstood what you are asking, but blocking people on social media does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. And yes, you can block people on social media. Wikipedia is still not related... David10244 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

if u don't understand what I'm trying to say, then perhaps you shouldn't reply to anything that you are unsure of..

Like I know you are tryna help, but this doesn't help me at all UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 Your reply is not very WP:CIVIL, and neither is your first reply in the question just before this one. We here are trying to help. Your question is not entirely clear, partly because most editors are not administrators, and only administrators can "block" editors from editing in Wikipedia. So you won't be able to block anyone. Wikipedia depends on collaboration, and being kind in discussions always helps that goal. David10244 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@David10244 how is it not civil? Like I said before, I know you were trying to help, but I felt your reply to my question wasn't even helping me at all, and you decided to think that this somehow wasn't very "Civil". If you can explain to me further how this was "not very civil", then I'll possibly understand and learn from this.

If you don't understand what I am trying to say, then maybe wait for other users to reply to me that way you can gather information on what I'm talking about... Therefore, you can actually help me UselessAccount20 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel it's only appropriate to face a Wikipedia page directly related to the process of blocking individuals in social media platforms and for the different devices assuming android or iPhone are current versions. They vary vastly. One of the most useful things I've ever done is block every fact checker account on Facebook, I don't get banned because all the fact checkers are blocked 😅 Laqueydevynne (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Laqueydevynne You don't like facts? David10244 (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Disliking fact checkers and being a Wikipedia editor seems a little Contradictory don’t you think? The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It's very odd especially since it was that users one edit Goetia [She/They] (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I highly doubt Meta hires reliable fact checkers for their service, if they're even real people and not bots. Ensuring misinformation and toxicity were stamped out is against Facebook's business model. ~2026-31153-18 (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 Everything you write on WP is public, there is no way for you to stop other people from reading it if they find it. Even if you delete a comment you've written, people can still read it in the page history. There is no "private space" on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't there a way to like remove page history to prevent anyone from seeing what someone edited? Would it be possible to use that tool to theoretically "block" people for preventing viewing the messages of a person? UselessAccount20 (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, UselessAccount20, if one editor adds libelous (or similarly problematic) material, then certain editors (called "administrators") can revert the offending edit(s) and hide the affected version(s) (other than from "administrators"). -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:OS exists, but I don't think that helps you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If you don't think that will help me, then I recommend you to not answer to my questions until you are certain that I will actually need this information.

For this certain article, that actually helps me. So I thank you for that. UselessAccount20 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the salient question is why, after 14 edits, you're asking this question? Have you had a dispute with another editor? Athanelar (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it not possible for me to ask any questions?

Anyways, uh no I don't have anything against editors or nothing like that, just wondering that if Wikipedia somewhat has the same thing going on like other websites, and I don't seem to find a way to block anyone at all... UselessAccount20 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 When you say "block" on WP, people will probably hear that as WP:BLOCK, it's our jargon. We also have something called WP:PROTECTION. You can WP:MUTE people, and use WP:EMAIL. But you can't write "secret stuff" on WP, that's not what this website is for. Journalists (and of course redditors, instagrammers etc) can see what you write and write about it in their articles: WP:PRESS 26. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @UselessAccount20.

This question really is about whether Wikipedia is like social media (in that particular way).

The answer is no, Wikipedia is absolutely not social media: see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. We are here to build an encyclopaedia, and any editor who spends much of their editing time on anything else is at risk of finding themselves blocked (in the way we mean it here). ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It's understandable to want to avoid being contacted by some people, but since this is a project where we all must work together to build an encyclopedia, everyone's voice should be heard in a discussion. If you're worried about someone you dislike in real life/social media finding you, use a different username and do not share your personal information. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 22:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Also, I wonder how you got to the conclusion that asking a question was less important than my number of edits. UselessAccount20 (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It's an unusual question to ask after so few edits, and implied you might've gotten in some kind of editorial dispute you didn't know how to properlt reeolve yet. Athanelar (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more of an institution than a social site. Like you can't "block" someone at school or work, you can't block anyone here. Wikipedia is a community project so getting defensive when someone is trying to point you in the right direction won't lead to good contributions. Rethink if Wikipedia is the right thing for you. Because you'll have to read a ton of rules (and follow them), communicate and do a lot of compromises. (yes, even with people that might not be pleasant to talk with) Trust me, people mean well when they tell you about the rules. Without them Wikipedia would be a big unorganized mess. EvieJav (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

And I'm sorry that you got into a disagreement so early on. It might be discouraging for a newcomer but the rules need to be followed. EvieJav (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@EvieJav Who do I have a disagreement with exactly? Please enlighten me. UselessAccount20 (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 You seemed displeased with the answers that you got under your question about categories so I just assumed that you'd like to block those people. Saying things like "i think I'll do my own thing, thanks" or "I'd rather you not stop me from doing what I truly want to do" is not a good approach to have as a Wikipedia editor. "Just doing your thing" without respecting what others say can give other editors more work instead of helping. Just saying. EvieJav (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@EvieJav How is that not a good approach at all? People are trying to stop me from doing what I want to help contribute to Wikipedia. And I just don't think that's fair at all.

And I was only asking if it was possible to block people since I recently discovered Wikipedia, and thought that there would be an option to block anyone at all. I have nothing against anyone at all. UselessAccount20 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not a good approach because Wikipedia has its guidelines that can't be ignored. When someone tells you not to do something (or to do it differently), they're not trying to stop you from helping Wikipedia. It's quite the opposite. They're trying to help you get started so you won't make edits that would have to be reverted later. It's true that you have to start somewhere, that's why it's good to listen to advice from experienced editors. A good start would be editing articles on topics that you already know well or trying things out in your sandbox. You have to be able to work with sources and be a part of the team, not do things your own way. So if you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you surely can, but you have to do so with an open mind.

Here is a list of editing guidelines: Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines

Be aware of Overcategorization: Wikipedia:Overcategorization

Make sure to back everything with reliable sources: Wikipedia:Using sources

Anyway it is possible to mute notifications and e-mails from certain users. Here's an article on what to do when you don't want to interact with someone on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Muting difficult users. EvieJav (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia works very differently than social media. What we do here is that instead of fleeing from a conflict by seizing interaction with each other, we face the conflict directly and actually attempt to resolve it. "Blocking" on social media doesn't truly resolve the conflict because people don't attempt to agree on a consensus and stay disagreeing, creating echo chambers within social media. If an editor on Wikipedia is disruptive and wouldn't change, we usually "block" the editor from editing altogether, not just blocking interaction among editors. ("Blocking" here on Wikipedia is equivalent to "banning" on social media). We are also very good at spotting and blocking people who abuse multiple accounts (something that's unheard of in social media), so repeat offenders can be blocked from sitewide editing by admins instead of the victim only blocking interaction. HyperAnd [talk] 13:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

With this way of approaching conflict, unconstructive editors eventually leave Wikipedia entirely while constructive editors stay. Contrast that to social media where you have unconstructive and constructive users segregated into their own bubbles. HyperAnd [talk] 13:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Interaction Bans, which can "block", although not technically, interactions from another user. However it cannot be summarily imposed by yourself. -- Least Action (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel like that's exactly what I'm looking for, thank you for actually telling me this unlike certain editors who keeps thinking that there isn't a similar way to block someone.

I don't get why people are being unhelpful to me. They always say that there isn't a way, and then we get into an argument, it's always the same thing. Over and over again, and I had yet to be helped at all by anyone here.

Seems like they just don't care, I dunno 🤷🏼‍♂️.

I shall thank you for your message @Least Action. UselessAccount20 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 I'm not sure why you're blaming the users who answered your question. If someone offers an answer that isn't helpful to you, you don't need to say "That's not helpful. You shouldn't answer if you don't think it's helpful." In what way does more information inconvenience you? If you don't like the answer you're given, just ignore it. I'm not trying to be rude, but other users likely won't be eager to answer your questions if they're rebuked by you.🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

But what if the "other users" are hosts? If they ignore me, then they should honestly be demoted from being a host altogether. Their job is not to ignore anyone, but to help people. Clearly that isn't the case here since basically nobody is telling me anything that can actually help me. UselessAccount20 (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

When has anyone ignored you? Every reply I've seen on this thread was someone trying to help you. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 22:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You have not responded fully to my question. Instead you are focusing on anything minor about my reply.

How about you actually answer my question first. Then we'll focus on anything minor that you for some reason, decided to care about other than my actual question. UselessAccount20 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what exactly was your question? Hosts should be demoted for what? Were they not all trying to help you? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 23:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hosts should be demoted if they don't actually respond to any questions that other users give them. I don't know how I can make this clearer. UselessAccount20 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

...but they did respond to your question. So why should they be demoted? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 00:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that they should get demoted if they don't send out helpful answers. I should've been a bit more specific though. UselessAccount20 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@UselessAccount20 The simple and 'helpful' answer you're looking for is this; it is not possible to voluntarily hard-block other editors from interacting with you like you can on other websites. (nor, for that matter, is it possible for a teahouse host to be 'demoted' considering it's not a position one is 'granted' to begin with).

The reason why you got other answers from the community here is because we've been here longer than you, and so we pick up some experience in intuiting why people ask certain questions.

When a person with (at the time) 14 edits shows up asking how they can block other users from interacting with them, it raises a red flag because it implies that person has had some kind of conflict or dispute early on which has led to the question; or, it implies they have the wrong idea about how Wikipedia works, and those are the more important things for us to address in trying to make that new editor part of our community.

At no point early in my Wikipedia career did I find myself asking if I could block people, and I'm sure the same goes for most. It's an unusual question to ask, especially so early, and so finding out the reason for the question is somewhat more important than simply giving the simple answer that it isn't possible. Athanelar (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

People ask many questions all of the time, it would be better if you guys stopped assuming the worst about people if they ask an unusual question. UselessAccount20 (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like to point out that you still can't invoke an interaction ban yourself, so if an interaction ban is what your looking for, it exists, you just might not always be able to get it Goetia [She/They] (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe the closest thing to an actual "block" as it works on social media sites, on wikipedia is WP:MUTE, which I've linked there. Irindu10 (User)
14:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Going back to my original reply, I feel like we should have a way to basically block anyone exactly like it is in social media. UselessAccount20 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't, because we aren't social media and we operate according to an entirely different fundamental ethos. Collaboration witb other editors is not optional, it is mandatory. Athanelar (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Even when collaborating with a disruptive editor? That doesn't seem to be good at all, instead, we should have the option to block anyone. I stand by my position.

Collaboration with disruptive editors is not mandatory, it's optional. UselessAccount20 (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

If need be, disruptive editors are blocked, just not in the sense you're thinking of. Why would we need a different system for blocking editors? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 22:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

There's a whole article describing what to do in such cases. Please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Nobody will implement blocking into Wikipedia just because someone thinks that it's better than trying to resolve conflict. EvieJav (talk) 22:55, 28 May 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.

Proper use of tracklist template on album article page

I have been converting Golden Earring's album article pages to use the tracklist template instead of a simple numbered list for each album side, including using the extra_column parameter for Lead vocals. User Caro7200 has reverted my edits and suggests I reach out to the Teahouse for my edits on this page: No Promises...No Debts. I don't understand the issue, as I'm endeavoring to make the pages better, more unified, and easier to read via the ubiquitous tracklist template. Please provide guidance. Thanks! Mdeloia (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I don't actually understand this user's issue either. I would recommend reaching out to them on their talk page about it, as templates tend to look better and be more understandable. Feel free to cite popular albums which use the template like Red (Taylor Swift album) as this is the more standard way to list tracks. Good luck! From End (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

why isn't there a page about the third state?

you know that popular "third state of life" thing where a creature called a biobot forms on a deceased creature with still-living cells (also referred to as biogenesis i think)? why isn't there a page for that? you'd really expect there to be one too, there's a page for literally everything Hey guys my username is this (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If you think that the topic is notable enough to have its own intrest BOLDly make the article (although I would suggest familiarizing yourself more with wikipedia and then creating your first article) Goetia [She/They] (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

that's the thing, even if i familiarize myself, i'm not even good at writing all that stuff Hey guys my username is this (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I urge you even then to push yourself out of your comfort zone and try it, if its not good others can improve it.

However if you want you can also just submit it to Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation and somebody else will take it and make it, however that request forum has incredible backlog with 4,328 pending articles so it may take months for it to even be picked up Goetia [She/They] (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not how AfC works. You're getting it mixed up with WP:Requested articles. AfC is a system where a person can write a draft article which a reviewer then checks and either approves and publishes it or declines it with feedback. Athanelar (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

And @The Ars Goetia, just because you request an article on that page, it doesn't mean that the article will get made. There are many factors, including simply a lack of interest from the people who happens to see it, that could stop it. Requested articles is a basically a place where editors who wish can go and look for inspiration on what to create. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah thats exactly why I tend to just wait to make it myself Goetia [She/They] (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes john already corrected me, sorry for the mixup. Goetia [She/They] (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

One approach is to find just 2-3 solid sources on the topic and write a good, neutral summary based on those sources. That will give you a stub article, and it can be expanded from there. Given the topic you will have to pick sources carefully: a lot of what I see on a quick survey is really sensationalistic. M kuhner (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Articles for Creation is actually where completed drafts are submitted for publication to the mainspace. You could submit it to WP:Requested articles, but there's no guarantee it will be created. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 04:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't believe I mixed up those two up thank you for correcting me Goetia [She/They] (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I've mixed them up before as well. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 04:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey guys my username is this, an article about a concept like this that makes a truly extraordinary claim ought to be based on what the highest quality academic sources say about the topic. So, I went to Google Scholar but could not find any coverage of the "third state of life" in peer reviewed scientific journals. Unless I am somehow missing something, that is a red flag. If as I suspect, this is a pseudoscientific concept, then WP:Fringe theories is the applicable guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

When I search "biobot" I get a range of different meanings for this word, but this paper might be of interest:

No "third state of life" but it does describe turning human cells into autonomous agents, which is pretty cool. M kuhner (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure for the best result you should search up "third state between life and death" as this is a real case of alive cells on deceased creatures fusing into biobots, xenobots, etc. Hey guys my username is this (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hey guys my username is this You say "for the best result..." but you are the one who wants the article. Possibly no one else is interested in drafting it... David10244 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I may need help

Hi, i was looking for help and i stumpled on this teahouse thing, is it fine if i review a article for ga even tho im new? Monathephantom (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

article is titled tomodachi life series , its being nominated for GA Monathephantom (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

if anyone can help i would appreciate it Monathephantom (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest against reviewing GA nominations until you have considerably more experience with editing and the content creation process. This is one of the more difficult tasks on the project, and requires quite a bit of experience. You might want to review the task centre, which has more beginner friendly tasks needing performed. CoconutOctopus talk 13:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

ah i see, thank you very much friend Monathephantom (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend, as the person forwarded, check out Task Centre

If you really really want to, make sure you get these questions right:

Does the Article have Verifiability

Are you familiar with General notability guideline

Is the article written on a Neutral point of view

Have fun editing. ✦ CatPencil ✦ (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Monathephantom Noting that you have indicated that you are an editor on fandom on your userpage, the policies and guidelines here can be vastly different from what you have experienced on fandom. It would be prudent to start from scratch here and get used to editing on Wikipedia first. The links above by CatPencil are good starting points to learn about some of the basic policies/guidelines that we have. – robertsky (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@CatPencil It is a bit confusing to color those links like you did. There is a standard for links to Wikipedia guidelines, as in WP:V. That blue, underlined text is recognizable. Your blue-background, green, and red links do not follow the usual convention and are confusing. I didn't even realize that they were clickable links, because they don't look like clickable links. I would suggest that you don't format links that way... Thanks. David10244 (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Citation fix

Hello, ive just made an article about the 186th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment, and while i was citing the sources from several books, i saw it had some errors, and im not sure on how to fix it, i need some help on fixing them, thanks! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:SomeRandomGuy3523,

The error is explicit: Unknown parameter |part= ignored. Let's look at the ref:

{{cite book |url=https://collections.library.cornell.edu/moa_new/moa_root.html |title=The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies |publisher=Government Printing Office |year=1893 |series=Series I |volume=XLVI |location=Washington, D.C. |page=1119 |part=3}}

When you looked at that URL, are there several parts of the actual reference, or is the actual reference just broken into segments to make it easier to load on the web interface? If it's just for web convenience, you can omit it (someone looking at the site can pick the correct sublink to the part). Are the pages numbered consecutively through the parts? If so, you can omit it (readers can figure out which part based on the page-number). DMacks (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@SomeRandomGuy3523: I don't understand that reference at all. The URL in it leads me to a "Page Not Found" page, and the Cornell page for The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies says that collection was moved to the Hathi Trust website in 2018. And if I go to the Hathi Trust's page for Series I, Volume XLVI, Part III, I find the military order you're referencing on page 1122, not page 1119. I think you'll need to go over all the War of the Rebellion references carefully to ensure that they point where you want them to. Deor (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@SomeRandomGuy3523 As DMacks says, and the error message says, the parameter "part=" doesn't mean anything to the Cite Book template. Where did you get that syntax? David10244 (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Citation box access date

Do access dates need to be updated when updating an article or is an access date only when the citation has been added on the current date? Miamiwin (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Miamiwin: Access-date is for when you accessed the source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 02:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

So I need does it mean I don't need to update the date or do I still have to update the date. Miamiwin (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

If you access the source and it's working, you should update the date. That's the idea behind the access date; it's the last time somebody was able to access and view that source. Athanelar (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it's the time someone was able to confirm that the source supported the statement which it cites. There is no need to change it every time someone checks the source. On the other hand, if the source has apparently changed and no longer supports the statement (or perhaps that occurs because the statement has been re-written), then it should be tagged as such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Like for example there's a source for the episode table. Do I need to update the access date once I update the episode table? Miamiwin (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Miamiwin Once you have verified that the source still verifies what is stated in the article, then yes, please update the access date. David10244 (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

For what can/ cannot we use AI on Wikipedia??

I am a new user and I have done the mistake of using AI on Wikipedia ,because I was oblivious wikipedia's rule, so can someone please help me to where to use or not use AI? Bøttle-x (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bøttle-x: Take a read of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. So no to writing content. Yes to minor fixing or translation, but checking is required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

When in doubt, don't. The only acceptable use cases are very minor copyediting (like checking for missing punctuation) and translation in two languages you are already fluent in.

Any AI generated text is not allowed in articles, that includes using AI to 'reword,' 'clean up grammar' etc. If the AI is inserting entirely new words, then it's against the rules. Athanelar (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Need help in creating a Wikipedia Page

Need help in creating wikipedia page for well known brand in USA. I am new to the community (have not contributed to edits and creating the page). Need help here. Themoderneditor (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Themoderneditor and welcome!

It's typically recommended to start with small, constructive edits to help you learn the main policies. If you haven't yet, I'd also suggest trying the Wikipedia Adventure which will teach you to edit (and you get some great badges as a bonus!)

Now, if you do absolutely want to create that article, make sure to read these: New policy on AI, Don't write an article backwards, Creating your first article. Ensure your topic is notable as per this policy: Notability

Also, please search (using the search bar available here as well as on all other pages) to ensure no one has created an article on the same subject.

Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Themoderneditor! Welcome to Wikipedia.

"A Wikipedia page for [a subject]" is colloquial language often used, but it may indicate a misunderstanding on your part about what Wikipedia is and does.

Articles (pages can also be other things) on Wikipedia are, strictly, for the benefit of readers to inform them about a particular subject. They are not primarily intended to be for the benefit of the subject (though that is a possible side outcome), they must maintain a strictly neutral point of view (describing anything 'bad' as well as anything 'good' about it), and they must not in any way promote it. Moreover, the subject itself (if a person) and anyone connected to it will be allowed no control over the contents of the article once accepted, and should not even directly edit it, except for trivial data like, for example, the number of employees it has.

Anyone with a connection to the subject needs to be aware of the strict requirements of Wikipedia:COI and Wikipedia:PAID

You might like to read, in detail, Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Policies.

Commercial subjects like brands often try to circumvent these policies; this never ends well.

If in fact you are independent of this "well known brand" and just think it merits an article, I apologise for misconstruing your intentions; and if you are connected to the brand, you can still create a Draft of the proposed article for submission and assessment, provided you abide by the parameters of the Project pages I linked above. Good luck and Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

My Page is a semi-copy of another, what do I do

Hello, I have made the page Draft Draft:List of Infantes of Spain by effectively making a copy of List of Infantas of Spain, and changing the obvious things like names, etc. This is also similar to List of princes of Sweden. While I understand all the requirements, it seams these pages are also both quite bear. I don't know what to do to add more links and information to my pages, any advice? CloudWrench (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Each item in your list needs to be referenced, your draft was declined because currently there is no referencing in the list; where are you getting this list of infantes from? Athanelar (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I notice that List of Infantas of Spain itself has only one reference for a particular issue, but presumably the rest are by implication in the linked articles of (most of) the subjects entered. I am not experienced with the policy for referencing pure list articles: is this perhaps permitted? Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people seems to imply that it is. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete my own article created by mistake

Made a mistake in my Sandbox and ommited by user rootname so the page was created outide. It has been marked for rapid deletion. Is there a wayto do it myself and save the trouble for an admin? Is there a way? Cannot find it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Will blanking the page accomplish this?
Jp1008 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, an admin will be along shortly to delete it now that you’ve blanked it, via G7. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (they/he) 23:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This particularly admin was along shortly; but at the sight of this list, he walked away. "RL" beckons, so I shan't return any time soon; but to help another admin, please specify the name of the page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Why did you back away if I may ask?
Jp1008 (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Because you have multiple pages that might have been the page in question, so Hoary didn't know which it was and didn't have the time to check each of them for a deletion tag. Meadowlark (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I've just noticed "omitted my user rootname" (above), and also noticed the created, then blanked, then (by Epicgenius) deleted Constable Battle of Trafalgar. So all now seems OK. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Tagging it with {{Db-g7}} (or {{Db-u1}} if it's in user space) will also be helpful. Twinkle can be used to tag pages with this (using the CSD option). RandomPerson238 05:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft article - GB Swimming Olympic Coach & administrator - with declared conflict of interest

Hello Wikipedia,

I am drafting a biography article at User:Jonverrier/JohnWilliamVerrier about British swimming coach and Olympic team manager John William Verrier.

I have declared a conflict of interest as he was my father, and I am trying to follow Wikipedia policy.

Before formally submitting through Articles for Creation, I would appreciate advice on whether the current sourcing is likely sufficient to establish notability.

The draft currently includes: independent newspaper coverage from The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and regional newspapers, references confirming his role as Great Britain swimming team manager at the 1972 Munich Olympics, ASA leadership and education roles, later FINA development work, several published swimming books, British Swimming Coaches Association Hall of Fame listing, and an obituary published in Swimming magazine.

I would be grateful for any feedback.

Thank you. Jonverrier (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

wouldnt you know when your father was born? why is the birthdate empty Monathephantom (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi - I obviously do - was not sure if that level of detail is important, no problem to update it. Thank you for your help. Jonverrier (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Monathephantom We cannot add biographical information based on what we 'know,' only based on what is verifiable from reliable sources. Athanelar (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Monathephantom Your answer was not helpful. Facts in an article need to have references; facts in articles are not placed there based on personal knowledge, as mentioned just above. Please don't give incorrect answers here. David10244 (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The picture, according to the given information, was made by you on the 23th of August 2025. This seems implausible, is it scanned and who made the original picture? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are you replying to me I didn’t make the picture Monathephantom (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, misclick! Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a family original - scanned by me. Back in the day it was physical media, hence the scanning. Jonverrier (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Jonverrier you are quite right to include only information from sources available to the public - it is perfectly correct to leave out information that you know personally (such as his exact birthday) if you can't give a source. Yes, if the photograph is scanned from some publication, you need to be careful, as the copyright probably belongs to someone else, and Wikipedia is super-careful about copyright. You would do better to use a photo that you took yourself, if you have one. If that photo was originally taken by you, and subsequently scanned, it's fine. The article looks good to me; you have kept it neutral and factual. The fact your father wrote books also improves his notability, especially if those books were well-received and reviewed (see WP:NAUTHOR). AfC can be a bit of a lottery - some reviewers will be naturally suspicious of CoI writing - but I think you've done a good job. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What a kind reply. Thank you taking the time. Jonverrier (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I will note that the page was moved to mainspace by Monathephantom. I have reversed the move, as articles in which the creator has a COI should go through the AFC process, per WP:COIEDIT. I have added the relevant template to the page, so it can be submitted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 15:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jonverrier I can't help but notice this comment has some telltale signs of being generated by an AI chatbot, or at least assisted by an AI-powered writing assistant like Grammarly.

Have you used any of those same kinds of tools in creating your draft? AI generated text is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, so if you have, you'll need to scrap any of that kind of text and write new text in your own words. Athanelar (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Absolutely not though. I am trying to use a neutral tone. I will happily reword any specific bits you think are robotic though. Jonverrier (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't given the draft a read yet, so I have no specific comments there, I just wanted to let you know in advance just in case. Athanelar (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I will try to tone down my robotic tendencies. Jonverrier (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

About self image

Just a question: are Wikipedia editors allowed to upload and use their own photographs on articles, provided they are the original creator and release them under a free license? WhiteKettle (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@WhiteKettle: That is possible and encouraged. If the image is educational and could be used on an article, then it is a good idea to use Wikimedia commons, so it can be used on other languages and projects. For pages that already have images, it would be a good idea to discuss whether your image is more suitable. A selfie could be used on an article about you (if there is one). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

how to alter a particular sentence

there is a sentence in a certain page which uses data from an extremely partial source. this data is presented as fact without mentioning additional partial sources of data which contractict the presented data. since this is a subject for which no impartial source exists, both partial source should be presented. Shirel.avraham (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Shirel.avraham: You could have something like "X states yyyyy, however y says zzzzzz" with referencing to the two sources. You could generalise the parties, eg "left wing sources say", or the "conservative viewpoint is ....". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding citations

Hey! I just recieved a message saying that my image needs citation and has currently been removed, but where can I add it? Horce (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you need to prove your image is of the subject? For the Lau (surname) page you added the Chinese character, and it does appear to be correct. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at your other contributions, at Liu you stated the the meaning is "a type of axe or halberd (archaic) (Chinese)". I assume that 10mmsocket wanted to see a citation for that. Where did you get that fact from? Looking at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%8A%89#Chinese wikt:劉 the surname appears to be independent of the battle axe in origin. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Colonoscopy Bag......

...I have seen on Google repeatedly that these things can be mistaken for guns, drugs, both. Can anything found there be used in any articles? I have seen one incident long ago that mentioned that someone who had one got beaten, tased, pepper sprayed because the police thought he had a gun and/ or dope -- and the cops thought that his bag was all BS and would not listen to anyone and arrested the guy for drug possession and/ or carrying a concealed weapon, resisting arrest. I also heard that a lawsuit was initiated because of this. Is there a separate article on "Colonoscopy bag" as well? Also encountered a glitch that repeated this question ~2026-31797-76 (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I have deleted the duplicate question. ¶ I wonder if you mean "colostomy bag". If you do, these are covered in the article "Ostomy system" (but if you don't, I have no idea).-- Hoary (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@ Hoary...I have seen matter on Google in which police, security, a idiot mistook one of these bags for dope and/ or a gun....and the person who had this thing got beaten, tased, pepper sprayed by police who thought it was all BS and would NOT listen at all and arrested that person for drugs and/or having a gun, resisting arrest, and that person later sued the police and the idiot that caused the whole mess. ~2026-31923-94 (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

~2026-31923-94, you're writing on a page for people looking for help in using or editing Wikipedia. Do you have such a request or question? -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@ Hoary -- Both. I have seen the matter on Google and on websites that show these legal concerns and figured that what is there would be interesting material for the appropriate articles.🥰🫡 ~2026-31923-94 (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You will need to be much more specific regarding your sources. Seeing "the matter on Google and on websites" is too vague. You will need first to find specific reliable secondary sources that discuss these matters in detail, and cite those specific sources when you add that information to the appropriate articles. Alternatively raise the matter on the talk pages of the appropriate articles, again citing specific sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Bear in mind about 99% of general search results and 95% of Google News hits are completely unusable as sources on Wikipedia for one reason or another. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 16:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone

Please may somebody explain to me how this article's tone or style does not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Why not ask the user who placed the tag? User:Taking Out The Trash. Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 07:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Cullen328 (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

How to deal with uncivil talk page comments?

Hello! I have been seeing a few uncivil comments on others talk page and I don't know what to do. Should I revert the edits if the user who posted them keeps doing it or try and talk with the user? Cheers! Rooney^chatter! 16:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

RooneyKandi, assuming it's not just something small or one-off that can be ignored, then yes, reaching out to the user with a non-confrontational message is the first step. I don't recommend reverting their edits unless it's something truly grotesque. If it gets out of hand and talking to them doesn't work, then the issue is reported to the administrator's noticeboard, but this is something that's best handled by more experienced editors because you often have to jump through some hoops there. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL is the relevant policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! Rooney^chatter! 17:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Audien hearing aids

Do yhou rate these? I've got three types and simply cannot seem to contact anyone to let me know which is the latest and best? ~2026-32088-39 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Not the place for these questions. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 16:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-32088-39. This page is for help with using and editing Wikipedia: nothing else. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Question about the various "Humorous Wikipedia namespace articles"

I noticed WP:AfD occasionally has humorous deletion pages sometimes, and the Wikipedia namespace has some humorous writing. What are the rules for both? An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The deletion pages are specific to April Fools' Day events. Wikipedia namespace writings are generally fine for editors to create them so long as it doesn't get excessive or tasteless. You can also write things in your userspace at User:An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR/(page name) A lot of it is collected at Category:Wikipedia humor. The key is to be funny. 😉 Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, so what can I make subpages about on my userpage? And as I am learning a foreign language, can a User:An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR/Italian be where I have English phrases and I translate them into Italian using a dictionary, using the grammars and courses I use to learn (I'm not sure about using DeepL within an userspace. It's not an article.) An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia humor is still generally expected to be about Wikipedia. Things unrelated to Wikipedia are best hosted on a different website or somewhere offline (see WP:NOTWEBHOST). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

oh, sorry. I would look for a webhost then or something. Apologies. An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Copy vio?

Hi, I've been around Wikipedia for quite a while now, but I'm not very familiar with image uploading and copyright rules. I came across an image that was uploaded as "Own work", but I found the same photo on Imdb, and there it says it was taken by Tony Gulliver (). How should I approach this?

Courtesy ping: Gem2376

🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 18:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Good catch, that's definite copyvio. I have tagged it for deletion over at Commons. CoconutOctopus talk 19:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

There's also and this one, the latter of which was deleted and later reuploaded by the same user who originally uploaded it. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 19:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This image is owned by Pat Finn-Lee in a headshot session with no credit required. It is in the Creative Commons since 2012. Gem2376 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You uploaded it as your own work though, didn't you? That implies that you took the photo. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 19:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You will need to provide proof of this for it to be accepted. CoconutOctopus talk 19:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@CoconutOctopus: Should these also be tagged for deletion?

c:File:The Legendary Panama Red AKA Danny Finley.jpg

c:File:Finley Danny L The Legendary Panama Red 1945-2021 Vietnam.jpg

Thanks for your help. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 21:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see c:COM:THIRD. HyperAnd [talk] 20:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gem2376 As hinted at, "own work" means that you, the uploader, own the copyright, which usually means that you took the picture. Telling us who owns the image, as you did above, makes it clear that you cannot claim it as your own work when you upload it. And "no credit required" is completely wrong at Wikipedia. David10244 (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

This is about c:File:Pat Finn-lee Headshot.jpg (hosted at Commons). The meaning of "owning" an image is unclear: if what's meant is owning its copyright, better say so. (But it's pointless to use the teahouse to argue for its deletion or retention.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Lethoto

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.

---

Why the heck does Lethoto exist? Kurjection (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the Teahouse, a place where editors can ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have such a question? 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to know why Lethoto exists. Kurjection (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The article has a detailed "History" section telling you the process by which this country came to exist. That's why it exists: because people decided to do that. The mis-spelled redirect is because some people can't spell correctly sometimes (this specific mis-spelling seems to occur with some regularity), or maybe it's an alt semi-phonetic spelling, dunno. Doesn't matter here or now. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 29 May 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.

Wikipedia edits by personalities and misc.: Is there a namespace page for that?

Question: When someone notable has edited Wikipedia, what page do they belong? Several Wikipedia: namespaces do cite Wikipedia because it talks about Wikipedia itself. It's different than when Colbert of The Colbert Report told people to edit Wikipedia. But I'm talking about when media personalities have edited Wikipedia, those not listed on Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media because they didn't get off-site references but are available on Wikipedia. For example, no website talked about the time when Holly Gauthier-Frankel had edited her Wikipedia article, or other cases I don't know of. I'm not sure if Wikipedia even has an administrative Wikipedia-namespaced article on when that happens. But, where would you detail Wikipedia-related matters available on Wikipedia but not reported by the press? Some articles are like that, like the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse article, but I'm wondering if there are other Wikipedia namespace articles on things that happened on Wikipedia notably or reported by Wikipedia namespace. An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR: There is no special namespace. Instead we rely on editors detecting COI changes. Some editors disclose their connection to the topic, and others fail to do so. Look out for spam and puffery. We could hope that connected contributors make requests on the talk pages instead. You already found Wikipedia:Editing of Wikipedia by the media. Interesting stories can be reported on Wikipedia:Signpost. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not confident that I understand your question, but is it answered by Wikipedia:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia? ~2026-32005-40 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Teatro Sans Souci

Moved from WT:TH

 – Sdkb ^talk 23:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am the author of Draft:Teatro Sans Souci, a historical article about the former Sans Souci theater and entertainment venue located at 955 Avenida Corrientes, Buenos Aires, Argentina. I believe the draft is ready. The draft now includes references, historical information, and an original photograph uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I would be grateful if an experienced editor could review the article and advise whether it is ready to be moved from Draft space into the main encyclopedia. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. — Giorgio Oliper Giorgio oliper (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Giorgio oliper — I have submitted the draft for review on your behalf. Thanks for writing it! Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 23:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much ! ~2026-32133-14 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Help with COI edit — Neil Barsky

Hoping to get some eyes on this article about Marshall Project founder and journalist Neil Barsky. I've made a number of suggested edits on the Talk page to remedy errors and update the article as it's missing information from the last decade or so. However as a COI editor I can't make the changes directly. Would love if someone has a second to review & approve (or make suggestions for changes) to the draft. Thanks very much! Abraham Kenmore — Paid Editor Romanova Censor 17:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Romanova Censor, "has a second"? Make that "has an hour or more". ¶ Here's one tip: In order to reduce the bulk and the time needed, you might read, digest, and implement Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. But I expect (and hope) that others here in the teahouse will have additional, more valuable tips for you. -- Hoary (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thanks for the link, will check it out and adjust accordingly. Abraham Kenmore — Paid Editor Romanova Censor 02:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Romanova Censor I'll be straight with you. The article is full of fluff and needs a proper edit. Then when you look at the talk page suggestions, it's messy, off-putting and there are more than 60 sources to wade through. You're expecting someone to have as much interest in you do in the subject or to stop what they want to work on to make your changes but you're not making it easy. Mme Maigret (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Article Rating Needed

Can someone please rate my article? It doesn't have a rating yet, and I think it isn't fair to rate my article on my own. Welovecontributors! [talk] 22:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Welovecontributors!, MBTA safety crisis appears within Category:Unassessed Boston articles; but ratings other than FA, FL, GA, and arguably A and B, matter little. (Oh, and there's also Stub, which usually means "should never have been created", or "lazy", or both.) IMHO. -- Hoary (talk)

Hi Welovecontributors! It looks like someone got it, but for future reference you're actually encouraged to rate articles if you've created or improved them, as it's more about letting people know what stage the article is at rather than any sort of commendation. Descriptions are at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but really you'll just get a feel for them as you keep editing. Even then, it's pretty subjective and doesn't matter too much which you choose unless it's "good", "A", or "featured" classifications (which require an independent review). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Welovecontributors! I've changed the rating from C to Start because that is in no way a C class article. However, I think you need to concern yourself more with the copyvio issue. I also seem to recall that someone recently in the Teahouse suggested you fix the color contrast of your signature, which you don't seem to have taken on board. Mme Maigret (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Rewrote the background page and also edited some errors that I didn't catch.

changed my signature(tada) Welovecontributors! [talk] 04:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Assistance for promoting an article to GA for submitting a DYK

Hi! One of the main reasons I joined WP was to add info about a fashion show hosted by LASALLE into the Cantonment MRT station article (see where citation [16][17] is located or where”LASALLE” is mentioned) and submit a corresponding DYK based on that newly added info:

“Did you know… that a fashion show took place in a then-unopened MRT station in Singapore?”

As I am also aware from past DYK submissions that alternatives are offered, I also have the following:

“Did you know… that the design of Cantonment MRT station’s platform is based on the Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station which the station is connected to?”

However, I realised that the article needs to be a new GA (7 days from nomination) in order to be eligible for DYK nominations, according to WP:DYKG (among other ways like expanding fivefold)

So, how do I get the station’s article (and its adjacent stations: Keppel, PER) to GA, thus being able to nominate for DYK? Is it possible to just ignore all rules instead?

Thanks! Hason-LEK-SIN (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Helo, @Hason-LEK-SIN, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Why are you so bothered about getting an article in DYK that you're suggesting IAR? ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Might be easier to expand it fivefold. See what you can find out about its history in local sources. DS (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm will check that out in the local library archives. The station details are also lacking, as are the artworks, when compared to something like Bright Hill MRT station or Marina Bay MRT station, though I’d believe that information is not available until the station opens.

But counting an article expansion as being expanded 5 times is from the number of bytes? And honestly, looking at the page info, how do I turn 16,333 bytes into 81,665? If I still want to do GAN, should I ask another editor to nominate the GA and DYK?

Thanks Hason-LEK-SIN (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What? Aside from the IAR part, I found a fashion show in an (unopened) station interesting and I have not found any other station where such things have happened, which I believe could make a good DYK. Hason-LEK-SIN (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Essentially: there are lot of interesting details in articles that don't get noticed in time to qualify for DYK entries. Sad but true. Over the past year I've written two articles which I realized too late had great hooks in them. If you want to qualify the article for a DYK entry, either expand it fivefold or get it through GA. DS (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! As an editor for Singapore's rail system, here are some of my thoughts after reading this thread:

• Your best option would be to promote Cantontment to GA. An article is considered to be a GA if it meets all six GA criteria. For first-time nominators, it is recommended to see a mentor. To nominate an article for GAN, see WP:GAI.

Even then, I would recommend nominating it for GAN after CCL6 opens, as new information regarding the station/CCL6 tends to be revealed closer to the opening date... a nomination made just before the station opens may be seen as "premature" and subject to a speedy close.

• It is worth exploring NewspaperSG and going to the library to access locked clippings that may be of use for the article, though I will say that the history section is already pretty fleshed out. As you said, the station design section needs to be worked on.
• The five times expansion for DYK is for characters.
• IAR is... controversial. Essentially, IAR is really only invoked in dire situations, so I would not recommend using IAR as a justification (see this essay)

I really wish the best for your future endeavours on Cantontment. Coverage of Singapore's transportation always needs improvement, especially for buses, and more people are better! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 16:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

By the way, may I clarify that doing the edits at my own sandbox, then copying into the mainspace (which is what I did for the fashion show info), is allowed, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia? Hason-LEK-SIN (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Need help to remove copyvios

Hello everyone! I need your urgent help to remove copyvios from Skyroot Aerospace. Please help! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 06:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

P.S. = I'm unable to do it on my own. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 06:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:Akshadev,

I'm an admin and saw the rev-del (RD1) tags. Each of them specifies an "end" revision-number, but no "start" revision-number. Therefore, I do not know what specific range of revivions need to be deleted. Please update to let us know when the copyvio material was first added to the article. DMacks (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@DMacks: The reviewer has/have removed the RD1 tags, as they (and I too) don't know when the copyvio material was first added. Is there any other way to get rid of the copyvios from the article (Skyroot Aerospace)? Please help! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 10:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, I'm confused. I see two recent edits whose edit-summaries mention WP:CV, but they only remove references rather than content. I also see a note "WP:CV also for the previous review". What does that mean? The now-removed rev-del tags do give the URLs you suspect of being copied, so it won't be hard to track down when that happened...once we understand the full extent of what you are seeing or trying to do. DMacks (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

With "WP:CV also for the previous review", I meant "also for the previous edit" for edit summary, but I accidentally wrote 'review.' Well that's that. So, should I reinstate the RD1 tags? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 10:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit added some content that matches the thehindu link. User:Cvskiran who made that edit seems to have added a lot of content in a small number of edits, so that could a place to check for the first offending revision. DMacks (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

So are you now gonna check for the first offending revision? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 10:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You have a better grasp of the problems on this article, so I'm hoping you will look prior to that edit to see if there was already any problem. If you say "the article was ok up until then", then that's the first revision that will need to be deleted. If you say "it already had copyvio", then please state either a key sentence that demonstrates copyvio or give the URL of the source. There still at this time appears to be copyvio in the article (still matching the thehindu), so the process is "step 1: remove the bad content; step 2: RD1 the revisions that contain the bad content." It's a waste of time to rev-del in a way that leaves bad content still present. DMacks (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm completely clueless in this case. That's why I asked for help in the first place. I'm hoping for you to help me dealing with this. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 10:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@DMacks: I really want this article to be listed as a good article. I beg you to help me. Please! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 11:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm offering admin assistance in the rev-del, not the leg-work of bringing this up to GA status or other editorial services. DMacks (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@DMacks: I'm just asking for your help with regards to copyvio removal. That's all. I will handle the rest. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 11:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, please stop ChristieBot from spamming on my talk page – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 10:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Akshadev See User:ChristieBot#Opting_out_of_notifications for how to do that but read the instructions first because there are some consequences if you work on GA regularly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

YouTube video

Can we used YouTube video for citation if it from authentic source.

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s6JKdSo_jQ Itsaliraza (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:RSPYT

Essentially, youtube videos can be used as sources provided they are verifiably associated with a source that would otherwise be considered reliable. So in this case, yes, this video could be used as it's from the verified channel of the Scottish Parliament, which is a reliable source; but it depends, of course, what you want to use this source for. Athanelar (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Probably, especially in this case (an official Parliamentary YT channel), but it depends on exactly what fact the video is being used to verify. If it is something out of the expertise of the Channel or of the person stating it, then the channel may not be a Reliable source for that fact. Hope this helps {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

how do i fix the userboxes on my page

the colors are all screwed up what the heck how do I fix them -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 20:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Which ones specifically are messed up? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Weez3rforever! For the userboxes that use the {{Userbox}} template, the colours are defined by parameters of said template.

Therefore, by changing these specific parameters (a list of which can be found on this page), the colours can be changed.

For userboxes transcluded from another page, that page will have to be edited. Although, don't edit another user's userbox. If you really want to change the colour of another user's userbox, perhaps make a userbox derived from their original one.

WalnutBloom (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you :) -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 18:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Add information about RP Patel

Welcome, This is Riddi Borisagar while I was searching for RP Patel on wikipedia - im not able to find anything so would like someone to add or let me know if we can add them - it they notable or not Request for guidance - below is ref. links

• Official website of R. P. Patel
• Vishv Umiya Foundation official website
• Vishv Umiya Foundation — Wikipedia
• Vishv Umiyadham — Wikipedia

Riddhiborisagar (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Riddhiborisagar: if you want to write about a person, it would be best to find independent sources first. Wikipedia counts as user generated content and is not counted as reliable for references. Someone's official website is a primary source and not independent. for "Vishv Umiya Foundation" what is the connection to the topic? See if you can find newspaper stories on the person. Then you can start a draft at Draft:RP Patel. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Please note that "adding" somebody to Wikipedia is more accurately described as "writing a well-sourced and neutral encyclopaedia article about" somebody. You are perfectly entitled to try that: but it is a much more challenging task than people unfamiliar with editing Wikipedia usually realise.

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) 17:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine@Graeme Bartlett Sir, thank you for your thoughtful advice. I completely agree that creating a Wikipedia article requires a solid understanding of Wikipedia's core policies and editing practices.

As a new editor, I appreciate your guidance and understand the importance of learning through improving existing articles before attempting to create a new one. I will take time to familiarize myself with policies such as notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, and the use of reliable independent sources.

at the same time, I would be grateful for any assistance or assignments, recommendations that could help me learn the process more effectively.

Thank you again for taking time to share your experience and guidance.

Riddhiborisagar Riddhiborisagar (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello again @Riddhiborisagar.

If you had troubled to write this reply yourself, rather than telling an LLM to write it, you would probably have noticed all the useful blue links in my reply.

Using AI to write articles is now forbidden (see WP:NEWLLM). Using AI to reply on talk and discussion pages is not forbidden, but many editors take the view that if you can't be bothered to write your own words to us, why should we bother to reply? ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Image sizes

Someone is manually inserting the parameter "image_upright = 0.8" into every tennis player's infobox, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fyunck(click)#Image_sizes

The pictures now show very small for me

Should he be doing this? ~2026-29785-65 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Fyunck(click) 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

They've been there for years and I told you why on your talk page and my talk page. Standard infobox size is .8 to .9. Wikipedia Policy says no larger than .9 ever. Why do you think the image_upright is there for infoboxes? Two things I told this person were as follows: Wikipedia recently changed all image default sizes to 250px rather than 220px... which many complained about. No matter as it could easily be managed in the infobox with the standard image_upright command. But in the past few weeks Wikipedia changed something else that has affected most users. Anytime Wikipedia sees an image that is .9 or smaller it now automatically changes it to 145px (upright=.6). That is a Wikipedia problem not an image size problem It can be overridden in your preferences which many of us (including me) had to add to fix the tiny images. But Tennis Project has followed standard sizing for decades. What we did do was remove image_size=200 from the infoboxes since the size parameter is pretty much deprecated in favor of image upright. And the equivalent size for image upright is .8. We cant help it if Wikipedia has made a new rule of downsizing all images. Basically if you don't change your preferences, if Wikipedia sees an image that is smaller than 250px it downsizes it to 145px. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

(Deletion Request)

I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Nabongo (2nd nomination), but I may not have completed the AfD tagging/listing process correctly. Could someone help complete the nomination?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Nabongo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donniecann (talk • contribs) 01:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Donniecann That page has multiple pieces of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and has survived a previous AfD, refer WP:42, so I don't see what the basis for your AfD would be. You seem to be wikilawyering about a fact in the article. AfD nominations are a paragraph at most. Even if your claim was true, it should only result in the statements on the page being revised but I don't fancy your chances of success since you haven't quoted any sources for your contentions and Wikipedia works on sources. (I'm also concerned that you're a single purpose account, refer WP:SPA that is now autoconfirmed.) Mme Maigret (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I remember being told that Wikipedia is not about truth or facts but just sensationalism and coverage. That being said, I looked at the rules and nominated the page based on the reasons I listed. The page should be corrected and her book needs to be removed. If the other woman can't post her bibliography and anthropological journals why should Nabongo post a book link based on false pretenses? Donniecann (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Really? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 01:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The page was created Celestinesucess in 2019. When did the subject (Nabongo) edit the page? Mme Maigret (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Single purpose? This is my first project. Donniecann (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

In progress Next time please follow the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO.

Note: this is not an endorsement of the nomination, merely an attempt to correct the formatting and process mistakes. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Closed Nominating editor blocked and AFD closed. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Also... did you use AI to generate the AFD nomination? It's formatted very differently from how they normally are. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Given the overemphasis on policy, research-essay-like format, apparent failure to read the actual article, and what appears to be an unwitting 500/30 breach (anything involving the Golan Heights territorial claims is unambiguously in the PIA area) it's pretty obvious that even if this weren't written via LLM - and I'm almost certain that it was - whoever wrote it clearly wasn't paying any sort of attention. Neither scenario reflects well on Donniecann. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Do these sources establish musician notability?

I'm drafting an article about songwriter and recording artist Rebecca Anne Tello (x.o.anne) and would appreciate feedback on whether the available sources appear sufficient to establish notability before I submit through Articles for Creation. Key sources: Official Charts feature article: https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/fake-friends-ps1s-summer-smash-in-waiting-gets-all-too-real-music-video-premiere__30017/ Official Charts chart page (#19 UK peak): https://www.officialcharts.com/songs/ps1-ft-alex-hosking-fake-friends/ Wicked Local career profile: https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/wellesley-townsman/2024/03/06/wellesley-ma-native-anne-tello-seeks-followup-hit-single-fake-friends-uk-music-scene/72843120007/ Wicked Local chart success profile: https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/entertainment/2024/09/20/wellesley-ma-native-new-dance-song-free-climbs-billboard-chart/75290234007/ America's Dance 30 interview: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-americas-dance-30-w-brian-117379490/episode/xoanne-216612595/ ASCAP SXSW Songs article: https://www.ascap.com/news-events/articles/2023/03/sxsw-2023-recap BBC Radio 1 Future Pop: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001x373 Headline Planet: https://headlineplanet.com/home/2024/09/08/telykast-x-o-annes-free-officially-rises-to-1-on-dance-radio-chart/ EDM.com: https://edm.com/news/fan-voting-open-nominees-revealed-2025-edmas-electronic-dance-music-awards/ Do these sources appear likely to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a songwriter and recording artist? RebeccaT88 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@RebeccaT88: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/fake-friends-ps1s-summer-smash-in-waiting-gets-all-too-real-music-video-premiere__30017/ is a non-sequitur. Unless the outlet is listed as unusable, deprecated, or blacklisted at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial we are not going to approve a source sight-unseen by using a completely irrelevant other article at that outlet as a proxy. (I will also note thst if x.o.anne acted as backstage personnel for the song she's effectively screwed out of coverage for it. "They say the lead singer's hot, but the group is not.")
• We can't use https://www.officialcharts.com/songs/ps1-ft-alex-hosking-fake-friends/ (too sparse).
• https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/wellesley-townsman/2024/03/06/wellesley-ma-native-anne-tello-seeks-followup-hit-single-fake-friends-uk-music-scene/72843120007/ looks fine.
• https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/entertainment/2024/09/20/wellesley-ma-native-new-dance-song-free-climbs-billboard-chart/75290234007/ is fine. (Incidentally, per WP:CHARTS you can link to the relevant Billboard chart and it will help for notability; charting is one of the ways a musical act can establish notability on Wikipedia.)
• https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-americas-dance-30-w-brian-117379490/episode/xoanne-216612595/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interviews are useless for eligibility regardless of outlet (New York Times or some random dogwalker's blog) or interviewer (Larry King or Borat Sagdiyev).
• https://www.ascap.com/news-events/articles/2023/03/sxsw-2023-recap is a non-sequitur. (x.o.anne is only mentioned in an image caption and not in the article proper.)
• I can't assess https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001x373 (geoblocked). The Beeb is notorious for blocking access to its programmes outside of the UK. (We aren't exactly free to use open proxies to bypass this.)
• https://headlineplanet.com/home/2024/09/08/telykast-x-o-annes-free-officially-rises-to-1-on-dance-radio-chart/ doesn't help for eligibility, at least that I can tell. I dunno if Mediabase charts are acceptable; treat this as a "nyess" rather than a hard no.
• https://edm.com/news/fan-voting-open-nominees-revealed-2025-edmas-electronic-dance-music-awards/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Nominations by themselves don't generally matter for notability unless there's a critical mass of them.

Does this help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@RebeccaT88 Judging by the titles alone, I would expect that only the first Wicked Local article might have significant coverage and, if it did, I'd also wonder if it's a reliable source. Refer WP:42. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

As far as depth goes, both Wicked Local pieces are actually pretty good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources (India) doesn't work

Hello everyone! Some reliable sources (per WP:NPPSG#India) cannot be converted into citations. For example Alt News, Business Line, Business Standard, The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Financial Express etc. When I try to make a citation out of them, it says, "This site is blocked." Can someone (an administrator) fix it as soon as possible? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 03:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Akshadev and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm going to refer you first to the page WP:Blocked external links where there is more advice about dealing with the blacklist. Also see the tool mentioned at the bottom to more specifically find what rule is blocking your attempt at adding an external link.

Blacklist addition and removal requests have their own proper place at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. I looked but don't see those sites explicitly called out on the blacklist, so there may be something else you are doing that triggers the blacklist. Using a link shortener, for instance.

Hope this helps a bit. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Thanks dear editor. The problem has been resolved. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 06:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Peter Mackler and related question

Hi! I have pledged to significantly improve the Peter Mackler article after it was defended in the AfD. For now, I am still gathering thoughts and finding time. Before I do, can you help me understand why this page is a redirect to a New York school? And not the Mackler page himself? Also, the award itself falls short of Wikipedia:NAWARDS but would it be reasonable to make a short paragraph in two sentences about it on the page, listing the few notable recipients? There are at least 3 who received this award and had high-domain level coverage such as .edu. Thanks! MitYehor📘^^talk 23:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That redirect appears inappropriate, as it is not mentioned at the target. So you can retarget to Peter Mackler and add content about the award. Note there is content in the history of the redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow... It was purged because the editor copypasted press-release text without re-writing it? Still not good enough for notability though...

From the perspective of your experience, would you list those individual recipients who got coverage about them receiving the award, on Mackler's page? Example 1 and Example 2? MitYehor📘^^talk 15:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You could list award winners in the section about the award. But if the whole lot becomes too big, best to limit it. (WP:UNDUE) If there are many independent sources talking about the award or te winning of the award, then the award would deserve its own separate page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding pages

At what point does one create a new page for something. For example, I've seen several mentions, for example here of the Rockford Grays military drill team but no specific page for them. Dascorvid (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

See if you can find at least three sources that completely fulfill all the requirements described in WP:Golden rule. If you can, the subject is notable.

There are other criteria for assessing whether a particular type of subject is a priori assumed to be notable (see WP:Notability for a long read on the topic), but for the specific subject you mention, they are probably not relevant. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Dascorvid and welcome to the Teahouse!

A page can be created for a subject when you have sufficient sources to establish their notability. Being mentioned is not part of that. There needs to be some significant independent coverage. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I have a sourceing problem

I'm writing a Wiki page over a game on Roblox. I don't know what to list as sources though due to the fact that all of the Info came from the game itself. Any tips or is it doomes to fail? Thank you

PS: I would of linked the page but it's still in the editing phase. Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to click "publish changes" for others to see it, even if it's a draft.

If the only sources you have are the game itself, the subject does not merit an article. I would be very surprised if a game created within a game receives the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support an article about it. Primary sources do not establish notability. We would need something like reviews published by professional critics. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to see if there is a Roblox wiki out there, where you could write about this game and which would probably have less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jlittlebigbeard Unlikely to succeed. There are very few stand-alone articles in Category:Roblox games, e.g Adopt Me! which has extensive independent coverage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing check before resubmitting Draft:Don Mock

Hello! I have a draft at Draft:Don Mock that has been declined twice under WP:NMUSIC. Don Mock (1950–2025) was one of three founding guitar instructors at the Guitar Institute of Technology (now Musicians Institute), authored instructional books for REH/Alfred Music, and directed hundreds of instructional videos. His students included Scott Henderson, Frank Gambale, and Paul Gilbert. The draft has been substantially revised. Independent sources now include: A four-page signed profile/obituary in Earshot Jazz (June 2025) A 19-page biographical feature in Just Jazz Guitar (2013) An editorial book review in Jazzwise (2010) Coverage in Premier Guitar (2016), Guitar Interactive Magazine (2020), Vintage Guitar (2022), Ultimate Guitar (2024, where Zakk Wylde named him among top underrated guitarists), and Guitar Player (2025) For a separate hydroplane racing section: signed articles in Kent Reporter (2009, 2010), Auburn Reporter (2014), and H1 Unlimited (2018) Would these sources be considered adequate for WP:GNG? Any feedback before I resubmit would be much appreciated. Thank you! Bluesengineer (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Blues engineer Hello and welcome. You are essentially asking for a pre-review review; the reviewer will examine your sources to see if they are appropriate as part of the review process. If you feel that your sources meet the criteria described at WP:42, you should resubmit the draft for feedback. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Citing an almost dead ABOUTSELF source?

I am trying to add the license column to the infobox for Infiniminer, but figuring out what license the game has was very difficult and explaining it for a citation even more so. Secondary sources appeared to not have cared much about the specific open-source license the game is under so I had to resort to the primary sources. The license the game is under is stated in the LICENSE file of the github repository for the game and the official status of the git repository is stated in a blog post by the game's developer. But frustratingly, the github repository is dead and the actual LICENSE file is not archived and neither is the commit that introduced it, so to figure out what the LICENSE file stated I had to track down a mirror of the git repository, which I finally found here. Because of the fact that git commit ids are SHA1 hashes, the fact that the commit has the hash proves that it is an exact mirror, aside from the infinitesimally unlikely chance of a Hash collision.

The problem I am having is that I have no idea how to explain all this in a citation. Typing something to the effect of <ref>Stated in git repository (mirror link). Archived from the original (Archive link). Evidence that the original github repository was controller by Zachtronics here (blog post link) </ref> feels wrong, because it does not look the way most citations do, but I am having a hard time figuring what to write instead. Chaos Amber 19:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ChaosAmber, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you are having such a difficult time tracking down the licence, let alone a source for it, I wonder whether it should be in the article at all? ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. My thought was that since this is just a license stated in a git repo and the difficulty comes from its age it is a rather normal source for that sort of thing. Do you suggest it would be better if I did not add it? Chaos Amber 21:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

It is still possible to use a dead web site as a reference. Using the mirror with a explanatory note should be OK, in order to prove it is not just original research. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just realized that the license field does not even exist for the video game infobox so all this is irrelevant. Chaos Amber 09:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

any copyright issue?

Ok to use this article as a source when it has the disclaimer "This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story."? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Allthemilescombined1 and welcome to the Teahouse!

This is not a copyright issue.

We refer to archived forms of sources all the time. Yes, a reader who goes there will see the disclaimer from the station and that's okay.

Your job as an editor is to assess whether this is the best source for the fact you are trying to support. Sometimes an archived article is the best that we can find. Sometimes the best source isn't even accessible online, but as long as you give enough information for an interested reader to find it with the help of a good library, it should be good.

To reiterate: referring to a copyrighted source is not in any way a copyright violation. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Bear in mind, Allthemilescombined1, that we do not (usually) just requote the text of a source in an article, we instead summarise its factual content in our own words. This does not breach the copyright of any source, because anyone who wants to verify the facts from a cited source will go back to read the source itself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Knowing if a subject meets notability before writing an article

Apart from checking the [[WP:NOTABILITY]] page and seeing if from your understanding of it if the intended subject meets notability, is there a way to ask if a subject meets notability before you start writing a Wikipedia article?

I don't want to spend hours and days creating a new article only for it to get AfDed and deleted. I could spend that time doing more useful/enjoyable things Renascitur (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Filling out a template:source assess table can be a good step. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you SomeoneDreaming for your reply, the template seems rather complicated but I am willing to give it a try. Should I fill out the template in a sandbox when I try it out? Or where would be the most appropriate place to fill it out? Renascitur (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

You can follow the directions at Wikipedia:Source assessment to create a subpage of that page, which will also generate a blank template for you. If you need help, let me know what the topic is and I can start it for you. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

See the golden rule. If you can find 3 sources that comply with the golden rule, that's a good indicator there's notability. Athanelar (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

There are also specific subsections that you might find helpful, such as Wikipedia:Notability (people) & Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 21:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Bogslide

Anyone interested in helping me create this draft? First time doing an article like this, so I'd really appreciate any help! Finnfrog99 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Help:Your first article is a good place to start; I see you've started by finding sources before actually writing anything, which is fantastic and a good sign. Athanelar (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

When I said that it's my first time writing an article on this, I actually meant writing an article on this topic. I've made a few wikipedia articles before this. my mistake lol

I have TWL, but I have some difficulty figuring out how to format the article, which stuff to include/search for and stuff like that. Finnfrog99 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Finnfrog99: That's an interesting topic for an article! If you haven't already, I'd advise reading WP:BACKWARDS. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 15:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I actually havent seen that before, thanks for showing it to me! Finnfrog99 (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

No problem. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 19:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Finnfrog99: Small point: In a list of sources, like the one you have under "Bibliography", it's customary to arrange them in alphabetical order by author's name. Deor (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

(or just use {{reflist}} and forget about it Athanelar (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Review request for translated biography: Draft:Xavier Berthelot

Hello! I have completed a full English translation of the French Wikipedia biography for composer and orchestrator Xavier Berthelot, which is currently sitting at Draft:Xavier Berthelot.

The draft translates the original French article (fr:Xavier Berthelot) into English. I have completely cleaned up the broken translation tool code, properly formatted the filmography, added the necessary references from Le Télégramme, and integrated the external links.

Could a reviewer please take a quick look to see if it is ready to be moved into the main encyclopedia space? Any feedback or assistance in fast-tracking the review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --Ludo5312 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ludo5312 You need to fix the problem with the sources that caused the draft to be declined earlier today. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Ludo5312, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The French article has been tagged since April 2025 with fr:Modèle:Sources secondaires. English Wikipedia tends to be stricter about sources than most others, so if a French article has that tag, it is almost certainly not adequately sourced for English Wikipedia.

You need several sources (normally, at least three), each of which meets all the criteria in golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Magazine image copyright?

I am confused by this copyright claim for this image: Robin Givens. The uploader claims that it is in the Public Domain because: "It can be seen in page 2 that the copyright notice in the magazine is not valid because it does not include a copyright statement or symbol which was required." They then go on to state as a reason: "Although this issue was cover dated March 1989 it was published earlier as it states that the next issue (May 1989) would be on sale on February 14, 1989." ??? Since when does every image in a magazine (or any publication for that matter) need the disclaimer: COPYRIGHT BY accompanying every image? I'm quite sure the publication of a magazine (in this case: 1989 March Boxing Magazine) itself is protected by a "whole package" copyright of everything that is published within it. I've never seen this before and it seems to be trying to skirt around policy to get this image accepted at WP. Am I wrong? Plus, it's a terrible crop job. Maineartists (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Maineartists,

There are two aspects here. First, the image is hosted on commons, so it doesn't matter what the English Wikipedia thinks about it as long as commons is willing to host it. If there is a copyright infringement or other problem, that needs to be addressed there not here.

Second, US copyright law is complicated by multiple changes over the years. It's true that the copyright of a magazine issue would by default be assumed to cover everything within that issue. However, in certain timeframes, a publication was only protected if it had an explicit copyright notice in it, which would have to contain certain prescribed details or key symbols/terms. March 1, 1989 is a significant date in that regard. Earlier in 1989, if it neither had the technically correct notice nor was formally registered within 5 years, it is not protected. That's what the "...is not valid..." note is about (though the linked scan is blurry and there's a chance the correct key phrase could be elsewhere) and why the actual publication date (not its cover-date) could be significant. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The copyright policy of the image is governed by Wikimedia Commons, not English Wikipedia. I recommend asking your question on c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright instead of here on the Teahouse, as the people there have more experience with copyright than here. HyperAnd [talk] 18:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, DMacks and HyperAnd. Very informative, even if I did bring it to the wrong place. I'll try my luck where you suggest. If for nothing else, to learn something new. Cheers! Maineartists (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

A person added caste name to anti-caste activist recently. Does wikipedia allows this?

Some person added a caste name of Periyar who is an anti caste activist recently. He fought against caste all his life.

How Does wikipedia allows this? ~2026-32436-12 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You are not permitted to make inquiries in this topic area, please see the message on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia permits, indeed encourages, the addition of well-referenced and relevant information about the subects of its articles. Maproom (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, that may be helpful in the article, since it shows what his starting point is and potential reasons for him being opposed to the system. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up to I thought I made a simple edit but it seems there were other changes made as well

I notice that the visual editor seems to also be automatically adding new content (going beyond just cleaning up unnecessary spaces and blank lines) in specific circumstances.

It seems to be because of how the visual editor interacts with Wikilinks. For example, I might be adding just a single comma to a sentence, but then I see that the edit has added something like 70 bytes to the article (while a comma is just 1 byte). When I inspect the details of the revision (which I already marked as a minor edit) after the fact, there seems to be an entire phrase that got added in to that Wikilink even though I did not intend to edit the link itself.

Here are some recent examples of this happening that I noticed:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_single_market&diff=prev&oldid=1356445462
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salakaar&diff=prev&oldid=1356167600
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salakaar&diff=prev&oldid=1356167315
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajit_Doval&diff=prev&oldid=1356166061
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajit_Doval&diff=prev&oldid=1355820783
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajit_Doval&diff=prev&oldid=1355817684

 Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you were using visual editor and accidentally editing inside of the links like this: [[Lorem ipsum,]] instead of like this: [[Lorem ipsum]],

So the visual editor automatically fixed the link so it goes to Lorem ipsum, not the nonexistent page Lorem ipsum,

You might use source editor in the future; it's easier to tell what you're editing. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 21:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I see. Is it better to avoid editing inside the links or does it not matter either way? Like is there a preference for [[Lorem ipsum,]] over [[Lorem ipsum]] or vice versa? I am guessing it could make the edit look a lot cleaner in terms of edit history and avoids adding redundant/unnecessary content to the article.

Personally, I find it much easier to navigate using the visual editor. Though sometimes I have tried to avoid this problem indirectly by adding the comma one space away, adding a space after, and then deleting the space before, in a 4 step process that looks something like this:

1. Lorem ipsum not
2. Lorem ipsum ,not (add comma)
3. Lorem ipsum , not (add space after)
4. Lorem ipsum, not (remove space before)

I am not sure if this actually solves the problem or not. Anyways, thanks for answering my question! Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll admit I don't know a lot about the visual editor, since I mostly use source editor, so I have no idea if your process works or not. Hopefully it does? You should avoid putting commas inside links if you can, so it looks like

Lorem ipsum, not

instead of

Lorem ipsum, not

I'm not sure if there's an official policy about it, but I don't think the comma should be part of the link. A tip for source editor, if you want to try it: you can use the find function (ctrl + f usually, it depends on your device) to find the sentence you want to edit if it gets lost in all the wikitext. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 21:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I just definitively tested my 4 step process and it seems to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaurya_Doval&diff=prev&oldid=1356783529

When I made this edit, I not only did the exact process that I described, but I also checked the edit summary to see if it worked, and observed that it only added the number of bytes that I had intended for it to add, so this can serve as an example.

Typically I do use the 4 steps. Recently, I was thinking "why don't I just trust the visual editor?", but then I realized after making this post that the visual editor does actually handle the issue very effectively but in a much more inefficient manner that creates more unnecessary bytes, so I will make sure to avoid making that same mistake again. It would be nice if the visual editor handled it automatically though and removed unnecessary bytes whenever possible, which would make editing a lot faster.

Anyways, thank you for the feedback! (and thanks to the other editors that chimed in too) It has been very useful. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You can’t change the link, you can change the text displayed. In Visual Editor, the easiest way is to click “change text”. Otherwise, you have to carefully ensure the cursor is actually editing the text displayed for link. To do it in source editor, put the text you want to display after the bar. eg [[Jimmy Connors|Jimbo]] Mme Maigret (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Anonymous Libertarian "Like is there a preference for Lorem ipsum, over Lorem ipsum or vice versa?" Well, the second one will give you the correct link, since there is not an article named "lorem ipsum comma".... David10244 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems that visual editor was correcting their links even if they put the comma in; that's why there were extra bytes and why they asked this question. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 17:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@JohnLaurens333 Ah, thanks. David10244 (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

How to publish a page that is ready ?

I need help to publish a page that is ready. We have asked for a company to write a text about SiPM readout solutions in order for it to be an independent vision from our company. We reviewd that text in order to make sure it was technicaly right. In fact, we are an innovative company in solutions for cancer detection that are quite new and we thought it would be interesting for people to have access to this information. The page is now ready but it was not accepted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PETsys_Electronics

Could someone help me on how to publish it?

Thanks a lot, Vasco

--- Vasco Varela www.petsyselectronics.com Vasco MCS Varela (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Submit it to Articles for Creation over at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Submitting ~2026-32075-07 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

If your draft was made for undisclosed payments, you need to disclose it on. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Disclose to disclose your paid edits. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Vasco MCS Varela, the account you hired, User:Coulounb, has been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing. You must disclose or you will be blocked too. Read WP:PAID for complete details. Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328, Vasco MCS Varela has not so far edited that draft (or anything else), so has not done any paid editing. I agree that if they were to edit that draft, they need to declare paid editing. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

ColinFine, they have edited right here, trying to get help to move draftified content back to the mainspace. In my opinion, WP:PAID applies. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Vasco MCS Varela, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that you have almost certainly been scammed: see WP:SCAM.

The article was created by use User:Coulounb who did not make the mandatory declaration of themselves as a paid editor - they have been blocked.

I haven't looked closely at the article (which has been moved back to a draft), but I suspect that it does not have the required independent reliable sources that are required (see WP:42), and would not be accepted in its present form.

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.

The fact is that most companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - there has not been enough independent material published about them - and no article about them is possible. I don't know whether your company meets the criteria or not, but I doubt it.

I'm sorry. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vasco MCS Varela You said "we thought it would be interesting for people to have access to this information" but that's not really enough -- ColinFine's reply is very much on point. David10244 (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Mechanics of editing

Once I have made changes to an article, how do I get a preview? Then, how to I publish? There used to be check-boxes for these two actions, but as of last night, I don't see them. Kdammers (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

This goes for editing talk pages as well. I just now tried to correct the typo (to/do) above, but I couldn't. Kdammers (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kdammers, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I haven't seen such a problem.

What platform are you working on? A browser, or a mobile app? If it's a browser, try clearing your browser cache. ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I am using Windows on a Dell laptop. I cleared my cache. The problem persists. (By the way, I don't have this issue on Simple English Wikipedia, which uses a different GUI.) Kdammers (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I've no idea, then, I'm afraid. I suggest asking at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The GUI shouldn't look different if you are using the same skin. Have you checked what skin you are using? Have you also insured that you aren't in mobile view? There should be a button at the bottom of the page to switch between mobile and desktop view. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Are you using the Visual Editor, or the Source Editor (which looks more code-like)? David10244 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Khobe Clark has been active for 5 years acting ! It got removed by that dweeb Lunzuni or whatever that guys name is .

Honestly help me plead …I added accurate information …he just doesn’t have a life . ~2026-32333-06 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You added "papa" to the Years active section. That is obviously not "accurate information". You did then add "5", and that wasn't reverted. And please be civil. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 22:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Although in Years active, you usually do the years (e.g. 2021-present), not the number of years. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 22:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32333-06 Saying someone "doesn't have a life" is against the rules of civil discussion on Wikipedia. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You need to talk about content, not other editors. David10244 (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Submission reviewed as notable person instead of the intended notable company

Hello, I recently submitted a page for a Notable company which happens to have the name of a person. The page was reviewed as a notable person instead of a company and I'm wondering if I am able to switch the category that the page is being reviewed within during the resubmission process? This is the page under review in question Draft:David Aaron (antiquities dealer) - Wikipedia Pennyjolene (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Pennyjolene, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A draft will be reviewed as what it appears to be about. If the draft is about a person, it will be reviewed as a biography. If the draft is about a business, it will be reveiwed as a business. The problem comes when the draft cannot appear to decide which of these it is about. ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

ColinFine, I quote the article as it was (other than for my removal of references) when the decline template was attached: The business was established in Iran in 1910 and expanded to a second location in Alexandria, Egypt in the 1920s under the leadership of Soleiman Haroon. In 1980, the gallery relocated to London under the name Aaron Gallery. In 1998, Haroon's youngest son, David Aaron, opened David Aaron Ltd in Berkeley Square in Mayfair, London. David Aaron is now located at 25A Berkeley Square, Mayfair. Thus one of: (A) the draft was (and is) about a business, yet was judged as about a person; (B) the reviewer realized that it was about a business but sleepily chose the wrong "decline" rationale and then didn't realize that they'd done so; and (C) the draft was (and is) indeed about a person, and my inability to perceive this is evidence for my insanity. -- Hoary (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [Pinging ArthurTheGardener. -- Hoary (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)]

It would probably help to append the company designation in the lead. e.g., "David Aaron llc is an antiquities dealer..." Athanelar (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you for your feedback and advice. It's ben really helpful and I'll make some changes to amend the page Pennyjolene (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request for draft article about Hendrix Genetics

Hello,

I would appreciate feedback regarding a draft article I have prepared in my user sandbox:

• Draft: User:Maingottwalther/sandbox
• Draft talk page: User talk:Maingottwalther/sandbox
• My user page with COI disclosure: User:Maingottwalther

The draft is about Hendrix Genetics. I have disclosed a conflict of interest regarding this topic, as I work in media and communications, including public relations, and I have a professional connection to Hendrix Genetics.

I do not intend to move the draft to mainspace myself. I would like to follow the correct process and receive input from experienced, uninvolved editors before taking any further steps.

I would be grateful for feedback on the following points:

• Is my conflict of interest disclosure sufficient?
• Does the subject appear likely to meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements for companies and organizations?
• Do the sources in the draft appear sufficiently independent, reliable, and substantial?
• Does the draft appear neutral in tone?
• Is the article structure appropriate for an encyclopedia article?
• Is Articles for Creation the appropriate next step?

I welcome frank feedback on whether the draft appears ready for the review process or whether there are clear improvements I should make first.

Thank you very much for your help.

~~~~ Maingottwalther (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

First, I've moved your draft to Draft:Hendrix Genetics.

Second; your comment here appears to be AI generated. Please don't do that; we are volunteers spending our own time to help you, extend us the same courtesy by taking the effort to communicate with us in your own words.

Third: your draft also shows signs of being at least partially AI generated. This is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Fourth, your draft is currently entirely lacking the kind of coverage necessary to prove that the company meets our definition of notability

I would suggest you read WP:PRPEOPLE and heed its advice. Athanelar (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for moving the article. On your points: Yes, I did use help from AI for my questions, because it is not that easy to understand all the rules here on my own and to follow the correct processes. As for the article itself: from my point of view it now seems quite difficult to strike a neutral and factual tone that does not sound like AI. I tried to write as plainly as possible and to support statements with citations from independent sources or links to other Wiki articles. If there are particular passages that stand out to you, I would appreciate a specific pointer from an experienced editor. As for notability: I am aware that a company is not automatically notable just because it is large or active in a particular industry. However, I had the impression that the notability of Hendrix Genetics is reasonably supported by the inclusion of independent sources and by references to the company in other Wiki articles. Or do you feel that the article still needs more independent sources? Thx in advance Maingottwalther (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not a company is notable depends entirely on whether you have sources that are reliable and independent and discuss the company in-depth and are not simple routine reporting of everyday business activities (such as the company's founding, funding rounds, product releases etc) in other words, you need the golden rule and WP:CORPDEPTH and must avoid WP:CORPTRIV. Athanelar (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use LLM to communicate with us. It won't actually do a better job than you with rules (it can't actually understand them, only parrot them), and it may say things that are flatly untrue. In any case we want to talk to a human. M kuhner (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I understand that it’s become difficult to tell AI-generated content from human-written content these days, but I can assure you that you’re talking to a real person here ;-) Maingottwalther (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

First step before an RfC

Hello,

WP:RFC sends me here. It's been two months I'm trying to clarify some (in my opinion, relatively minor) issues about the WP:SAL page, and I'm hitting a wall of stones each time. The last question is about the limit size of stand-alone lists.

Am I wasting our time coming here? Selbstporträt (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell us what the issues are? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

There was a reference to the old "32KB" limit; it got deleted; editors asked it back unless some "list size limits" are being established. I don't think we need any. Certainly not to remove incorrect information. Since that "32KB" comes from WP:AS, I suggested to go with what we got there, with the same principles. This is better than 32KB, but is far from being ideal.

That old limit comes from a sentence that comments on an example. If this guideline is so critical that we need to preserve incorrect information, then we should create a section for it, with more details. This question seems important and should be open to more editors than the 3-4 that opined so far. The discussion seems to have run its course.

It's the first time I feel the need to take things upstairs, and so need guidance. First step seems to be to come here. I also asked the Wiki Project on lists, which is the second step. Still waiting. How to proceed from there? Selbstporträt (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Selbstporträt and welcome to the Teahouse.

I think the Teahouse is not a good venue for your question, since you seem to be engaged in a somewhat esoteric discussion or even dispute about list policy. Reading your various contributions, I am not sure I understand what your goals are, although I glimpse that you have some proposals for the policies around stand alone lists and particularly want to say something about the efforts to limit the size of lists. I suppose if you wrote up your proposed RfC it would give you a chance to clarify things so that other editors - those who might be concerned with the issue - could agree or disagree with you, and perhaps join in refining the proposal before making the actual RfC.

As a postscript: WP policies are not always entirely coherent since they are arrived at by a consensus process, piecemeal, and there is no automatic way to ensure overall consistency. Making a proposal to make things more consistent should, you would think, be welcomed, but it doesn't always work out that way. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. No idea what an RfC looks like, and so will look over there. Where do I write the proposal before sending it, if not here: on the Talk page? Everything has already been said there. Not sure that'll help, but if that's the norm, I can do it. As for my goals: I simply want to edit the WP:SAL so that it doesn't read like it's still 2010. It recently has been used to destroy information on a page. I don't want that to happen again. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Selbstporträt; if you’d like to work on your RFC before publishing it, the best place to do so is your sandbox. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 06:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Splendid @Electricmemory. I started to think about what I need to say in the most axiomatic way possible: On selection criteria. Thanks for the petition! Selbstporträt (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Editing

How do I add citations when editing ? I mean , is this a bit like HTML Code ? EmmanuelK314159 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Help:Referencing for beginners might help you. Athanelar (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

thanks a lot EmmanuelK314159 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

can schools be requsted

can schools be requsted ~2026-32494-48 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you asking "Can people ask other people to create an article about a school about which there currently is no article?", or something else? -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the TA meant if schools can request other editors or people to create an article on them. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You can request an article about a school at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Education. If you do request an article, please note that not many people work on requested articles, and it is unlikely that someone will make it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-32494-48, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In addition to what Mikeycdiamond has said, I want to point out the unless the school meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, (most schools do not) then there cannot be an article on it.

This means that if you post a request for an article on the school, you are asking somebody to do the time-consuming and sometimes challenging job of looking for suitable sources. If they find enough sources you are asking them to go ahead and write an article - frankly, that is the easier part of the job. If they cannot find enough sources, because appropriate sources do not exist, then they will have done the research for nothing.

So, I would suggest that posting a request for an article is a waste of time unless you have already found sufficient sources to establish notability.

Unfortunately, finding and recognising suitable sources is not an easy task for an inexperienced editor.

Therefore, I would advise you either to give up completely the idea of an article for this school; or else put it aside while you spend time actively improving existing articles and learning about important ideas like verifiability, reliable sources, promotion, neutral point of view, and citing sources. When you are confident you understand these you could consider coming back to the question.

If you are in any way connected with the school, you should also read about conflict of interest and paid editing. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Advanced editor help beyond the basics?

Two concerns, which have most likely been raised before (but how to find the discussion?! see concern [2])

1) Is there a help section for more technical editing issues? I mean the meta tasks that go beyond article content, like use of categories, references vs notes. Also, be able to ask (and discuss, suggest changes to) best practices, where to find help on issues that go beyong the basics, etc. Usually, I feel my Tea House questions are too technical for entry-level editors, which I understand is the target Tea House user. When appropriate, I (now) use the Talk page of the specific Help page of course.

I've visited "The Village Pump" which is for discussing technical issues with an "improvements" purpose, but I would not feel that is the place to get more advanced help as an editor.

Against the creation of a second more advanced Q&A place, I would understand the argument that having a single place of 'community answers' is better than two IF it was easy to find past answers that would resolve your doubt, but that would require an AI indexing on the responses.

2) So a related question is why there is no AI-generated indexing for Tea House (or Wikimedia Help for that matter). Finding stuff requires exact terms, which used to be the problem with using Google up until a couple of years ago.

Another way to solve this? An alternative path would be to start creating an editor-friendly index that (somehow) helps a 2.0 level editor that wants to do things the right way. When you first decide to start editing, there are "newbie guides" for basic editing. But once you go beyong the basics, you enter in a huge and very scary place with thousands of function-specific help pages, abbreviations, templates, parameters and red errors.

So (very naively of course) I was wondering if there could be something similar than there is for newbies but aimed at 2.0 editors? This would be a HUGE help to save time dedicated to researching documentation (between 50 to 70% of my time).

Apologies such a long post and which is NOT a request for help. Recursively, THIS question does not feel (to me) appropriate for the Tea House. Is it time for a Coffee House? ;-)
Jp1008 (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Jp1008, and welcome to the Teahouse.

For more advanced editing help, try the help desk.

It sounds as if you've tried the technical section of the Village Pump, but there are other sections, such as Proposals and the Idea Lab ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Strange article

I came across an article on National Science Fiction Day that places a lot of emphasis on which films and books to watch and read on that day. Isn't that a violation of encyclopedic standards? RiiffTower (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@RiiffTower; please provide links, we aren’t psychic. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 12:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Electricmemory: the OP linked to the article in their question. What more link do you need? AndyJones (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@AndyJones I just woke up, I completely missed that somehow. I haven’t had my coffee… Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 12:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Here ya go. Herostratus (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section, as unencyclopedic and unsourced. Maproom (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Maproom Thank you for sorting out this situation. RiiffTower (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

For future reference, you are allowed to make edits like that yourself if you want. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I know that I need to be bolder on Wikipedia, but I still decided to consult the community about this. RiiffTower (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Which was the right thing to do! If you aren’t sure, always ask. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 20:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

.... which reduced it to a sad stub.

Maybe you can at least add simple content and links to the article, like, I don't know:

• History
• Organizations that are active on this day
• Awareness actions by them, including events that are organized that day
• "See Also" section with links to awards like Nebula Award and other broad view articles.
  

I love Scyfy but I am focused on improving other subjects now.

Cheers and good editing!
Jp1008 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jp1008: Yes, the article clearly needs improvement. I would gladly work on it, but right now I'm focused on other articles. In any case, I've written down the title in my notebook to come back to it later. However, that might not happen for several years. RiiffTower (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Short film article rejected - need tips

Hello,

I submitted a short film article that was backed up by numerous primary and secondary sources with proof that the film exists - including the BBC, The Guardian, and The UK Screen Alliance, as well as links in the article to actors and actresses who already have their own Wikipedia pages and are starring in the film.

The article was rejected due to lack of notoriety and/or sources crediting the film.

Any advice here? There were at least 15th citations from a mixture of sources, as I say above, including the films website and credible news sources.

Thanks in advance. FactNotFiction74 (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:RENO (Short Film) 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 18:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not about count of sources. We are happy to believe the film exists. But you need at least three sources that are independent (not from people involved with the film, not tracing back to film press releases), reliable (not blog posts, youtube videos etc.), and substantial (not just mentioning that it exists).

It won't be easy, because short films are underappreciated. But that's what you need. M kuhner (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much - very insightful FactNotFiction74 (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Existence is not our inclusion criterion, and nor is association with other notable entities. I'll go over your sources:

• https://www.lavfx.com/blog/https/wwwlavfxcom/blog/renoposters - and anything else on that domain - doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Post from the VFX studio working with the film.
• https://web.archive.org/web/20260519215840/https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2026/april/lights-camera-reaction-first-film-put-to-the-test.html doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject, connexion to subject). Press release from a university using the film for a study.
• https://immersivefutures.io/ifl24/projects/lux-aeterna/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). This is about the firm, not the film.
• https://www.ukscreenalliance.co.uk/news/spotlight-on-lux-aeterna-history-and-innovation/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interview with a principal of the VFX firm.
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2v3pv9rqpo doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of RENO.
• https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/apr/23/brain-activity-tracked-secret-immersive-films doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). One-sentence description, nothing beyond that.

Nothing you have is really independent coverage that is about RENO. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Very helpful - thank you FactNotFiction74 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @FactNotFiction74, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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) 18:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Style manuals aimed at speakers of specific languages addressing common errors

Hi!

Does the Wikipedia community have style guides aimed at speakers of certain languages. I'm a natively bilingual Finnish and English speaker and I notice when reading articles written about Finnish subjects that the same unnatural calques of Finnish turns-of-phrase end up cropping up. I recognise this is a natural byproduct of the internationalist nature of the Wikipedia project, but an encyclopaedia should aim towards objective correct (insofar as that is possible, this is of course English we're talking about:D). I wonder if a resource where common mistakes like these are addressed is something which exists and whether anyone thinks there's any need for such a thing.

Thank you for your time, Dzasterr (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. I don't know that we need one for every language necessarily, but if you're seeing it in Finnish articles, maybe something to bring up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finland? They might get use out of a subpage with the common mistakes you're seeing. And if you're interested in cross-language collaboration, you might take a look at Wikipedia:Local Embassy.

But also, you don't need to have a page like that in order to start boldly correcting those unnatural phrases. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

User changing categories

hello! today as i've been perusing recent changes i've come across who i'm sure is a single user who is changing article categories for sitcoms to the same category, but with the distinction of "single" or "multi-camera" sitcom included. the edit summary is invariably "I fixed the category". the first temp account was possibly put off of this by cluebot (talk page and contribs), but there is now a new temp account doing the same. to be honest, i'm not really here to raise an issue, more so to ask if this is to be left alone or not and why. i'm assuming good faith -- especially given that no other editors have intervened -- but im simply curious about this! any advice appreciated, happy editing -- InRRainbows Lets chat! 21:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@InRRainbows there is a chance that they're doing this out of good faith, but you can ask them first if you want. splicing categories (and their associated articles) into smaller categories/« subcategories » is somewhat of a common practice on wikipedia to prevent parent categories from getting way too big (e.g. Category:British centenarians) nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 02:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

How long should I wait for edit requests to be answered?

I am a COI editor trying to follow the proper process. I have made several edit requests on the Strunz & Farah article. A few were answered, but others have been pending since March. I made an edit request recently on the Strunz & Farah page, which got flagged for AI assistance. (I am pretty new to Wikipedia, so I don't always know how to write things.) So I made another edit request in my own writing stating that I was requesting that "flamenco" be removed from the genres box, given that in the Wikipedia page for their album Americas (Américas (album)), Jorge Strunz disputes the term "flamenco" when referring to their music: "Although often referred to as a flamenco duo, Jorge Strunz felt that the designation did not account for the Latin American influences." I see that the article has fewer than 30 watchers and low traffic, so I am wondering how long it might take for someone to approve this and if there are any other options. ~~~~ OndineNotes (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It can take months for a COI edit request to be approved, but don't worry about the page having low traffic. Your edit request will show up in a backlog and be seen by other editors, even if no one reads the actual article and just happens to see the request. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 02:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Items only appear in the queue when they have unresolved an {{request edit}} tag. Assuming we're talking about Talk:Strunz & Farah, the only requests have no tag or have a tag that indicates the request is resolved. DMacks (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Got it, thank you. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 03:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem. I re-opened the last request and tagged the prior one with {{Edit COI}}, which seems more relevant to the situation. That alternate tag notes "The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 491 requests waiting for review." so now we know the scale of the situation. I see you have several other sections on that talk-page. Could you tag them if they still need to be handled?

Grammer clarification

In my talk page;one user asks for this: Tab no 36: ["Feminino" (Female) a masculine word and not a female one, im a native portuguese speaker from brazil and even i dont know why its a masculine word even though it means female.. ]

how to reply to him.. Spbvj (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You can just admit you don't know, or even ignore. Looking in wikt:feminino it is an adjective, and so not "masculine" -- instead it changes its ending to match the associated noun grammatical gender. So "feminino" would be with masculine nouns. "feminina" would go with feminine nouns. And the reason it is that way is that Latin had "femininus" with the same meaning and idea. I suspect you are being trolled by the question. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I dont know that language and its grammer ;thats why i asked here how to react to it. Mostly mentorS try to help newers or whomever asks for help ;cant ignore.Spbvj (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Spbvj (The word is "grammar", not "grammer".) David10244 (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@David10244 Replying three days later to lecture somebody on an extremely minor typo is completely pointless. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 06:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Electricmemory Sometimes people read answers a few days after they ask a question; not everyone checks Wikipedia every day. When people ask about grammar, it's a subject closely related to spelling. And I even used "small", which is the accepted method here to indicate that the comment is perhaps "of lesser importance". And your point is noted. David10244 (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

sorry! won't happen again. Spbvj (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Create an article for the first time

I want to write an article about Tourvest Destination Management. I've already been rejected with it being too promotional and I used grammerly so that isnt allowed. I have many articles from Tourismupdate.com an independent online publication - many articles are topic based but are quoted under the brands Tourvest Destination Management owns. what would be the best way to approach it? MICHKA69! (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you associated in any way with Tourvest Destination Management? If so, don't write the article. It doesn't look to me like Tourvest Destination Management is notable enough for article, at first blush. You have to understand we are, naturally, very leery of articles about businesses, especially ones that don't look to be very notable. It's not a matter or promotional language in the article, it's a matter that the article even existing can be promotional. If you're not associated with Tourvest Destination Management (or even if you are), you might want to start with a less fraught subject. One place to look for ideas is here: Wikipedia:Requested articles. The city of Calabar has few articles and there are many things in this largish city to document, you could google for some ideas there. Herostratus (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank yuo for your assistance, this is very helpful. MICHKA69! (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@MICHKA69!: the best approach is to read and understand our notability guideline for companies, WP:NCORP, research adequate sources that satisfy that, then follow the approach outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE, while making sure to avoid promotional language and content. And write the draft yourself, without using LLM or any other AI-based tool, incl. Grammarly.

I think that's about the extent of hand-holding you can expect as a paid editor from us volunteers. Given that you've accepted this commission from your client, the implication in that is you know how to edit Wikipedia. Or if you don't, then perhaps you need to let your client know that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, much appreciated. I'm not doing this for compensation. I said upfront I didn't know how to, but would research it. Already I have learnt so much. MICHKA69! (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I see. You said you're doing this for a client, so I assumed that means you're being paid or otherwise rewarded. But even if it's pro bono we've obviously no way of knowing that, so in our books you're still considered a paid editor. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This essay may help to give you some useful context on what you're currently trying to do. Article creation is one of the hardest tasks at Wikipedia, since it requires knowledge of a vast majority of our policies and guidelines.

If you're trying to do this with any form of conflict of interest then the task becomes infinitely harder - if this is a client of yours or your employer, you have a financial interest in the outcome. This is why employees are considered paid editors on Wikipedia, since this is the group of editors who are least likely to be able to edit neutrally.

Be prepared for your draft to be rejected if your client doesn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requirement and have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.

This may sound harsh, but it's because I want to be honest with you and don't want you to waste your time.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or place for your client to tell the world about their business. I'm sure they have their own website for that. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

references showing inline instead of at the end

I am editing a draft article and my cite templates are rendering as inline text rather than footnote numbers. My account is new. Is this a permissions issue, and how do I fix it? Avggtmn (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Make sure to wrap your citation templates in <ref></ref> tags (and include {{reflist}} in a references section at the end of the article) Athanelar (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure my wiki-syntax is correct, but sure would appreciate a second set of eyes on it. its placed here: Draft:Uri Shraga Gutman 2 - Wikipedia Avggtmn (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

thank you!! Avggtmn (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean Draft:Uri Shraga Gutman? They're displaying fine for me. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 06:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean my re-submission - with corrections and improvements, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Uri_Shraga_Gutman_2 Avggtmn (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Avggtmn: the {{cite}} template needs to be wrapped inside <ref> ... </ref> tags.

Please don't create a new draft with each submission. When your first draft was declined, the idea is that you develop that further by addressing the reasons for the decline, and then resubmit the draft for a new review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing.

Indeed I knew that. After I addressed all the reasons for the decline I tried to update the original draft, but was unable to. It was then suggested to me (by a Wiki editor) , that there might be a technical issue, and I should try to open a new draft. Which I did. And then ... I saw that something wasn't working with the references. BUT - you have now helped me! So I fixed it. Avggtmn (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Does this seem promotional?

I was surprised by some of the wording in the Almaty article. It didn't have the dispassionate tone I expect from Wikipedia. Phrases which seem unusual to me include:

• "Almaty stands as a pivotal center of culture, commerce, finance and innovation"
• "Almaty is renowned for its cultural contributions"
• "underscoring its economic and regional significance"
• "Almaty is celebrated for its green spaces, with numerous urban parks, tree-lined streets, and fountains, contributing to its reputation as one of the greenest cities in the region"
• "symbolizing its ongoing economic development and evolving identity"

Please, can Wikipedia editors tell me their opinion about this? ~2026-32321-28 (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

That definitely sounds promotional to me. You can remove/reword it if you'd like. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 04:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Not only is it promotional, all those lines reek of being AI generated. Athanelar (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds promotional, WP:AIPUFFERY perhaps? I'll go ahead and try to see the article if there are other signs. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 06:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed most of the puffy wording, so the quotes above are all gone from the article now. Even if it's not LLM, it's still unnecessary puffery. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 06:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Campssitie, puffy cliché remains, e.g. Almaty is considered to be the heart and soul of Kazakhstan's classical and popular cultures. This comes with a reference to a pretty feeble source (as scraped by the Wayback Machine in 2020), one that doesn't say that anyone considers it the heart or the soul, but does say that it's "truly Kazakhstan’s cultural capital"; so our article would say more truthfully "Almaty was in 2020 called 'Kazakhstan's cultural capital'". -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

YYoinked that (with misc.). I'll try and skim through with a comb in hand for these puffy remains. :) ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

One, that is definitely promotional language.

Two, I have a feeling that this is made by an LLM.

I agree with @Athanelar. Powerplay11 (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32321-28, JohnLaurens333, Campssitie, and Athanelar: I think the continuing unsystematic amelioration of the article may have its downside. Let's continue this discussion in the article's talk page: "Better not to improve obviously poor writing?". (Of course, other editors are welcome too.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

bot suggested deleting a page--we need to talk

Hi

A bot suggested moving this page, but the academics are on summer break. Is there any way to contest this removal and wait for more than a week? Educational resources for electronic literature - Wikipedia

How can we wait until the human academics in the field return to work?

Thanks!

LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It was not a bot that suggested deleting the page, but rather the human editor @Викидим. Anyone can contest a proposed deletion by removing the template. However, I think the concerns that the editor had are valid--it's not clear to me why we'd want to have a separate page that's just a list of syllabi about electronic literature. Unless someone can make clear improvements to show notability, I find it very likely that the page will end up deleted at WP:Articles for deletion eventually. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@LoveElectronicLiterature Who are "the academics"? Do they have their own Wikipedia accounts, or do they use the same one as you?

You should know that these "academics" have no unique ownership or influence over this article, nor any other within their subject matter expertise. See WP:OWN. Athanelar (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, my short hand for the academics are the people who teach electronic literature--and they are involved in editing wikipedia, mostly from our Wikipedia Project page. They are the subject matter experts who put this list together. LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A few strange questions

• Are there any successful appeals against WMF bans, community global bans, or sanctions as severe as these?
• Are there any veteran editors who got banned by the foundation?

-- Least Action (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

1. Not our circus, not our performers. You'd have better luck asking about this on Meta.
2. I invite you to read WP:FRAMGATE. But outside of that particular Streisanding I can think of User:Russavia and User:Icewhiz off the top of my head.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 16:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Name change

I think Frankfurt Airport should be changed to "Frankfurt International Airport (FRA)". After all, there are 2 Frankfurt Airports, Frankfurt Hahn and Frankfurt International. I didn't want to change it myself cause I thought that I might be banned, and I don't want that... also, I'm creating drafts for its (the FRA airport) terminals (Frankfurt International Airport Terminal 1; Draft:Frankfurt International Airport Terminal 2; Draft:Frankfurt International Airport Terminal 3) and it would help them be categorized to the FRA airport, not Hahn. Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like something that should be brought up at Talk:Frankfurt Airport, since it sounds like at the bare minimum a move is being requested. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 16:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

How to un-redirect a sandbox?

Hello, I once used my sandbox to write a draft for an article that ended up getting rejected. The link to my sandbox is now a redirect to the draft submission. I am currently in need of using my sandbox again, so how do I change the page back to a regular sandbox and get rid of the redirect? Iamnotflour (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Go to your sandbox, after it redirects you'll see a popup saying "Redirected from (your sandbox)" click the link in that popup and it'll take you back to your sandbox without redirecting you, whereupon you can then blank the page to remove the redirect. Athanelar (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Iamnotflour. "Redirected from ..." is a popup in the mobile version but you use the desktop version where it's just text at top of the page. You can also make multiple sandboxes like User:Iamnotflour/sandbox2. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not know that you could have multiple sandboxes!Iamnotflour (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A "sandbox" is just a subpage of your userpage, of which you can have basically as many as you like. User:Iamnotflour/Notasandbox is just as valid of a subpage name as User:Iamnotflour/Sandbox. A lot of people use them to host personal essays, for example; like mine at User:Athanelar/Identifying AI-generated text. Athanelar (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I need some help

Some guy named Anonymsiy doesn't want me to crop the image on the article Earth. I don't want to start an edit war, so what should I do?

The image I want cropped.

The crop I made.

— epicazowski (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:Dispute resolution has some advice for routine content disputes like this. Athanelar (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Epicazowski: You should always strive to be civil in your communication with other editors, and while Anonymsiy's reply was a bit blunt, you probably shouldn't have responded with Says the guy with bad grammar. LOL. If you pursue dispute resolution, make sure you focus on the actual task at hand, acknowledge other editors' opinions, and don't make personal attacks. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 15:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

No need for rudeness and the uncropped version matches other space images. the cropped image is too suffocating and unnecesary. - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was rude. I just thought the crop was better. — epicazowski (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't quite support the cropping, reasoning per Anonymsiy. For dispute resolutions, see WP:DISPUTE -- Least Action (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect but correctly cited statement

The pages for both Alice Munro and James Hogg state that Munro is a direct descendant of Hogg, and cite the same Daily Telegraph article as the only source. The Telegraph article says the same thing, but this appears to be a minor mistake on the writer's part: according to the family history detailed in her book The View from Castle Rock, Munro is a descendant of James Hogg's cousin, also named James.

I assume The View from Castle Rock could not be used as a source as it is a work of historical fiction, albeit one which (as far as I know) accurately describes Munro's family tree. Would another source supporting the statement that Munro is descended from James Laidlaw rather than James Hogg be enough to change this? Would it need to specifically say that she is not descended from James Hogg? What is usually done with sources which are cited correctly but are themselves inaccurate? TuesdayShibboleth (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @TuesdayShibboleth, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This can be a challenge (just yesterday I found a statement in an article which I believe to be wrong, but is cited to a source. I've not yet explored what to do about this).

Unfortunately, if you cannot find a reliable source that challenges the information there's nothing to be done. If you can, then often the best thing to do is to include both: say "Source A says that X, but Source B says that Y" and leave it to readers to make up their own minds. (What you must not do is to try and adjudicate between those sources - that would be original research, which is not allowed. If you can find a third source which does discuss the discrepancy, of course you can report that source's conclusions). ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I've edited Munro's article to refer to Hogg less specifically as a "relative", as the Telegraph article and Munro's book agree on that, and added a footnote explaining the details. If that looks good then I will make a similar edit to Hogg's page. TuesdayShibboleth (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I had a similar situation where sources disagreed on the history of a newspaper. What I found really hard was writing the "Source A says that X, but Source B says that Y" bit in a neutral way--it is easy to end up implying that you support one view or the other. I suggest bland wording, and roughly equal words for both options. If you say "While Source A says X, Source B explains that Y, for reasons P, Q, R and S" you're making it rather too clear which one you believe, which is not our job. (Not saying you're doing this! It's just a problem to be aware of.) Thanks for tackling this sticky issue! Same-named people in genealogies are incredibly confusing. M kuhner (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

See

• Stephen Bernstein (2014), "Alice Munro's Scottish Birthright", ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews, doi:10.1080/0895769X.2014.990955, Munro shares a common ancestor with James Hogg
• Adrian Hunter (2010), "Taking Possession: Alice Munro's 'A Wilderness Station' and James Hogg's Justified Sinner", Studies in Canadian Literature, 35 (2), ...Munro's collateral ancestor James Hogg.
• Heliane Ventura (2016), D. Staines (ed.), "The female bard: Retrieving Greek myths, Celtic ballads, Norse sagas, and popular songs", The Cambridge Companion to Alice Munro. Cambridge Companions to Literature, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154–177, doi:10.1017/CBO9781316144831.011, Munro is a collateral descendent of James Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd

Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, those are great sources. What should be done with the Telegraph article currently included in the page, since all of these articles contradict it? Can a source be "outnumbered" or is it necessary to include a footnote explaining that one source says something different from the others? TuesdayShibboleth (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I really like this essay: WP:SOURCEWRONG. My personal opinion is that Approach 3 (Get it right and add a footnote) might apply here, but I can see why other editors might think that's not sufficiently neutral, so Approach 4 (Explain the conflict in prose) might be more universally palatable. Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Based on reading through that essay, it seems like option 1 is the best choice here. The article claiming she's a direct descendant is a news article rather than an academic source, it makes no claim to be revealing something that other sources are wrong about, it mentions Hogg only briefly in an otherwise unrelated article, multiple other sources contradict it, and the distinction between direct and collateral descendant is pretty minor and easy to make a mistake about.

The only problem is that the Telegraph article is already cited as a source, so presumably there's a higher bar for removing a source (or ignoring a claim made by a source while keeping it as a citation for other parts of the article) than for just not including it in the first place. TuesdayShibboleth (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)