Eurovision Wiki:Teahouse

From Eurovision Wiki
Revision as of 07:04, 19 March 2026 by imported>Mikeycdiamond (→How do I decide which article to edit as a beginner?: Reply)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Skip to top and bottom Page Eurovision Wiki:Teahouse/styles.css has no content.

Eurovision Wiki:Teahouse/Header Template:Preview warning

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

[edit source]

Template:Pin message

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

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template.

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

Subst template in signatures

[edit source]

Hey! I have seen that it says transcluded templates are not allowed in signatures, but are substituted templates allowed?

eg {{-r|subst:User:Jacksonvil/Signature}

producing Jacksonvil (talk|contribs)

Thanks, Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 03:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. I don't think you should,, as users who choose to substitute their signature are required to be highly vigilant of their signature whenever they sign. Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 04:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't see much use in substituting a template as part of your signature instead of just modifying the signature itself, considering it is inserted in its entirety every time you type ~~~~ anyway. Athanelar (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I meant to put a subst inside of preferences>signature Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
The limit for signatures, even when substituted, is 255 characters though... but again you still gotta monitor the subst signature template a lot n.h.huit, 化けの花 06:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Seems like asking for trouble. Only you can alter your sig in your Preferences, but if you subst it from another page, anybody could edit that page. A bad actor could replace your sig with their own, someone else's, or with an altered version of your sig that violates policy. Mathglot (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah fair enough if the character limit doesn’t expand.. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 10:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Can I use this image in Wikipedia? + cropping existing pics Q

[edit source]

Referring to this one (with the gunshot)? It says "Photo credit: social media", so I'm not sure...

Also, if I find an image of several people on commons, can I crop it so that it only includes one individual (I want to add it to this individual's article)? If so, how do I do it (technically speaking...)?

Thank you! ScottyNolan (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The answer to your first questions is: No. For guidance on how and when we can use other people's images, see c:COM:THIRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@ScottyNolan Copyright is complicated, so I'm not going to speculate on your first question, which would be better asked at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. There is a good tool on Commons for cropping images: see c:Commons:CropTool. It automatically deals with the licensing. All Commons images allow so-called "derivatives", unlike some more restrictive licenses. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! ScottyNolan (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft review request: Abdul Hai Rahat

[edit source]
Questions about Bangla Wikipedia should be asked in Bangla Wikipedia, also please avoid using AI generated text when posting on Wikipedia per WP:HATGPT. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 13:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

@~2026-15395-27 Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. You should ask that at Bangla Wikipedia instead, as the vast majority of draft reviewers here at English Wikipedia (obviously) don't speak Bangla. Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 12:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
We cannot help you with processes on the Bangla Wikipedia, which is separate from the English Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we make Maple Syrup semi-protected?

[edit source]

I was wondering to make Maple syrup a Semi-Protected to prevent Vandalism since its a Featured Article (Zakk😎) 12:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

We don't protect articles preemptively, or to prevent changes to a featured article. Even FAs can still be improved. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Gotcha. (Zakk😎) 13:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
in addition to what 331dot said, I seriously doubt maple syrup of all articles is going to become a massive target for vandals mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Working the process...

[edit source]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Jim Carroll (futurist)

Hi folks, I'm an author.I've written 43 books - 34 of them in the 1990s that have sold over 1 million copies, all about the Internet; one was #1 in two major national newspapers in Canada. I have literally hundreds of press clippings related tom the books that came from my publisher's clipping service (Prentice Hall) that relate to the stories of the books, and which feature information on everything I was doing and saying the media through the 90s. From there, I segued into that into a new role from 2001 on, and I've spoken at hundreds of conferences all over the world, including some very high profile events. There have been TV interviews, magazine interviews, conference brochures, and all kinds of information online about these events, my observations on the world, interviews ... again, I have hundreds of items. I've hosted multiple national radio shows. I've been an expert witness in various litigations where the court record identifies me and my role within the case documents that are available online. I worked hard to create an article, and noted my conflict of interest in my ID. My first subvmission was declined and I have just reworked it to bring it down to bare minimums. I guess I am wondering - I am trying to go about this in a way that provides proof-of-work, but how can this be done when so much has disappeared into link-rot and is often only available with what I have. I can link much of it to a Proquest ID or a copy I've uploaded to the Internet archive, but I've been warned this could result in a copyright strike. I'm trying to work within the process, but am still very confused about the process. (There was an article with respect to my background up to 2015, but it was taken down for being too vague, link rot, promotional, etc) ~2026-15414-15 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

A lot of people come here and say the same thing. But as an author, you'll know you often have to meet the style for a particular publication. I've marked up your draft to show you what needs changing to achieve an encyclopedic tone and to remove puffery and promotional material. But you'll also need to convert your table of publications to a bullet pointed list, suggest Chicago ADA style biblio references with your names first etc. However, I didn't even look for SIG COV which is the only way the draft will qualify for a Wikipedia article. Refer WP:42. I'm happy to look after you've made the changes I suggest. It'll be a bit stilted so you can introduce wording to make it flow (but avoid superlatives). MmeMaigret (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
You are allowed to create your own article on Wikipedia, and you have successfully declared your CoI in the header. As editor MmmeMaigret has already done, this article has uncited statements such as "known for his early work on the Canadian internet". The article also contains a lot of signs of LLM writing, such as the repeated lists of publications that the author has been named in. We expressly forbid LLMs to write entire articles on Wikipedia.
Don't let this discourage you, though! Sometimes we all make mistakes and what's important is that you learn from them. It's okay, we're not mad. If you can shape up your draft it is likely it would be accepted. Ethan (Emholt1)  :) (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @~2026-15414-15.
One of the things that makes it so difficult to successfully write an autobiography in Wikipedia is this:
Template:HD/WINI
So the question is, which of your sources meet all the requirements in golden rule? That is, they are reliably published, produced with no involvement whatever from you or your associates, and contain significant coverage of you, not just of your work? ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
hi folks . thanks dor the insight. i have a substantial number of articles that would meet the significant coverage issue, including cover story magazine articles that were done on me. I'll spend some time accumulating a list of these some of which were referenced in my original draft and will post them here with a question as to how I can invest frame these in the draft and not run up against issues. There's also a national CBC TV interview with Peter Mansbridge, the host of the national news, that goes for an hour that is available in the CBC historical archives, as well as other references like that. Perhaps if I can provide a list here some of you might be able to provide me guidance on how to work from here I qualified for an 01 Visa dash person extra extraordinary ability with USCIS how much of this material was also included in that Visa application process. So I have lots of SIG I just don't know how to position it. Dibblethorpe (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@Dibblethorpe: So, the problem I foresee you running into is the question of what constitutes a reliable source, especially as it relates to notability. First of all, please note that "notability" is a Wikipedia term of art--it's not just "fame" or "known to the public". The basic notability guideline for people, following the general notability guideline, says that "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." It further says that Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. This is the subtlety in writing an autobiographical article that many new users miss. Interviews, in particular, are primary sources, since they're the subject talking about themself, and so don't contribute towards Wikipedia notability. Similarly, a "where are they now"-type article from a subject's alma mater, for example, is not independent of the subject and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. Please keep these in mind while evaluating notability. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I've got multiple things like this:
https://archive.org/details/profit-magazine-1995-jim-carroll
https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2002_link_colourcopy-lr
https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2006businessedge
https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2002feb_budapest_cover_colour
https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2003may_camag_meet_the_experts
https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-1997_vanc_sun_networks
https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-1999feb_tocomputes_cover
https://archive.org/details/pga-of-america-jim-carroll-keynote/page/n3/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibblethorpe (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Even a great little cover story from 1989 (I almost got fired for this one)
https://archive.org/details/oa-magazine-1989-jim-carroll
There are literally hundreds more. Independent sources, reliable publications, local and national newspapers, magazines.
There's this interview with the CBC Natiional's Peter Mansbridge:
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.3592701
Then I have literally hundreds of third party conference brochures where I'm the opening or closing keynote; some pretty high profile events. Relevant? Useless? Heck, I did an event with Jimmy Wales in St. Andrews in 2011....
So I guess my real question is - how do I package all this into a form that is acceptable to a Wikipedia article. I would love guidance as I continue to dig into this.
And I guess a key question - the draft won't disappear, correct? I have time to work with this?
I'm entirely open to working within the guidance offered here. ~2026-15414-15 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Drafts are only deleted after 6 months of inactivity, unless they are candidates for WP:Speedy deletion, which is unlikely in your case. I suggest you don't try to include "literally hundreds" of citations but submit the draft for review after creating it with just a handful of really good sources. See WP:BACKWARDS for the pitfalls of not doing it that way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
The Profit Magazine, Business Edge, and Office Automation articles seem to be your three best sources. MmeMaigret (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the guidance. ~2026-15414-15 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Did you actually read WP:Golden Rule as suggested? If you had, you wouldn't be mentioning interviews.
Also, explain why, exactly, do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Is it vanity? Pride? Publicity? Search engine optimization? None of those are valid reasons for an article to exist here.
If you are truly notable, someone will eventually come along and write about you. Whether that happens next week or 10 years from now or after you're long gone, shouldn't matter to you in the slightest. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

How to avoid AI-written style?

[edit source]

Hello,

I am working on a draft article about photographer Bojan Stojanović which is currently in Articles for Creation.

The topic already has an accepted article on Serbian Wikipedia based on independent sources (including Kurir, Pančevac newspaper and TV appearances such as TV Prva and TV Pančevo). I am trying to create the English version following Wikipedia style. However, reviewers mentioned that the draft reads too much like AI-generated text.

Could someone advise what typically causes this impression and how such drafts should be rewritten to better match encyclopedic tone?

Any feedback before the next review would be greatly appreciated.

Draft: Draft:Bojan Stojanović Serbian article: sr:Bojan Stojanović

-- Rade Brdjanin (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rade Brdjanin, and welcome to the Teahouse.
First, please note that the existence, and quite likely the content, of the article in Serbian Wikipedia, is irrelevant here. Each Wikipedia has its own policies and procedures, and English Wikipedia is said to have one of the strictest set of rules about sourcing, so the subject of an article in Serbian Wikipedia may or may not meet the requirements here.
A typical example of what LLMs love to say when they try to write a Wikipedia article is your section "Media coverage". This is the kind of promotional blather which you might find in a magazine article, but it is of zero interest to Wikipedia.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.
If some of those examples of "coverage" are examples of that, then you can summarise what they say, citing them. But the fact that five or fifty or five thousand magazines name-checked him or printed his photos, or printed interviews with him is of no relevance to Wikipedia - unless an independent commentator then wrote about that coverage. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Please do not post your question in multiple places. You asked, and it was answered on WP:AFCHELP. The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The WP:AISIGNS essay might be of interest. Some1 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Gaza city

[edit source]

this page has been edited using past tense when describing Gaza city. This needs rectifying ~2026-15433-29 (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Gaza has been evacuated and bombed per Amnesty International. It's now largely abandoned, and as can be seen on Abandoned village, these empty cities are referred to in the past tense. Also, all of the buildings are gone. Ethan (Emholt1)  :) (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
The article starts "Gaza City, often simply called Gaza, is a city in the Gaza Strip..." and continues using the present tense. If there is a specific edit or set of edits that concern you, please identify them explicitly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, is it not even in past tense? Oops. This can be closed then (but it should be in was, due to being largely abandoned) Ethan (Emholt1)  :) (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
After the Battle of Borodino, Napoleon entered Moscow only to find that it had been deliberately abandoned, and left so devastated that he could not winter his troops there. Nevertheless, Moscow did not remain abandoned for long. Wikipedia is not a news source, so it doesn't need to strain to keep abreast of momentary situations. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Help please with Edit Request for Bajuni people

[edit source]

Hi hello my apologies I'm a new and trying to update the Bajuni people page.kind Gurkubondinn suggested I ask for help here. I want to update the Origins section to show that the Bajuni are a unique synthesis, not just a Bantu subgroup The 2023 Nature study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05754-w) proves that the DNA in the Lamu archipelago (the Bajuni heartland) is a mix of local Khoisanoid/Hunter Gatherer, Persian, and Arab lineages already established by the 11th century.also,this document (https://www.photoawards.com/winner/zoom.php?eid=8-131764-16) confirms that the Bajuni trace their origins to these ancient local groups and later Cushitic,arab and Persian .Can someone please help me make a formal Edit Request so the page reflects that Lamu and the Bajuni Islands are the true heartland of this unique maritime identity? Once more my apologies if not and Thank you Saintusmojqy (talk) Saintusmojqy (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Saintusmojqy, and welcome to the Teahouse.
I'm sorry, but while the Nature study is no doubt reliable, all you can take from it is the sentence you state above, which is about genetic inheritance, and not about cultural or historical origins. You could probably add that information to the paragraphs starting "The population's members trace their origins", noting that DNA evidence partly supports their traditional claims.
The Photoawards is clearly not a reliable source, as the text about the Bajuni people has no named author and no references: it cannot be used to support anything in the article. ColinFine (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi hello, ColinFine good day and Thank you so much and yes I understand what you mean about the photoawards my apologies.but I’ll like to say by the way the Bajuni are primary historical of native population in Lamu,and the medieval DNA evidenced from Manda and Shanga as you stated reflect Bajuni ancestry.and okay will do could you please fix any mistakes and errors i make I’ll added “ The bajuni members trace their origins and DNA analysis of the medieval remains from the Lamu Archipelago supports traditional Bajuni accounts of ancestral roots among local hunter gatherer populations, alongside persian and arab ancestry established by the 11th century Brielle et al., 2023”
Please Thank you Saintusmojqy (talk) Saintusmojqy (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Userboxxxx

[edit source]

How do I add a user box to my user page and how do I make one Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! See WP:Userboxes#Using existing userboxes and WP:Userboxes#Creating a new userbox. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm trying to add userboxes to my user page but no matter how many times I try to publish the change it just never publishes Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello: If there are external links then try omitting them. If it still doesn't save then try placing the code inside <pre>...</pre> and come back here. The code will be deactivated but we will be able to see what you tried to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I did what you wanted me to do on my userpage please go see it Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
You put nowiki there which doesn't make it save properly. I don't think pre works. OK, here's an idea. Just go into the edit of this section so that you can see the code, and copy and paste Template:User wikipedia into your userpage. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Copy and paste the specific code, specifically {{User wikipedia}}. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I JUST REALISED THIS WHOLE TIME I WAS PASTING THE USERBOX CODE IN THE VISUAL EDITOR AND NOT THE SOURCE EDITOR!!!! THAT'S WHY IT WASNT APPEARING!!!! Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Glad it worked out! Nice userboxes by the way! Also, you can use {{Userbox top}} and {{Userbox bottom}} to organise the userboxes. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello: You said "I try to publish the change it just never publishes". That statement means you clicked "Publish" but the edit was not recorded for some reason. My reply was based on that. Another time, please don't use that word if you never clicked "Publish". You only previewed and the preview didn't look as you wanted. PrimeHunter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
No I literally clicked the publish button and it looked like was publishing but when it went back to my user page automatically it just...never changed no matter how much refreshed. Anyways its fixed so it doesn't matter Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleted talk page archive

[edit source]

I went into the talk page for Columbo, and then into the archives for the talk page via the name discussion header, but only archive 2 seems to exist. The first archive got deleted by Twinkle under G8, which seems wrong, from reading the policy. Am I missing something, or is this a mistake? I think it's also broken the talk page header, since it refuses to display the archives at all, despite archive 2 being completely fine.

So: if this is a mistake, how could I fix it/notify an admin to fix it? If it's not a mistake, why would this be done? Thanks! Magicalus (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Magicalus. That does indeed look like an error - it was not a talk page of a deleted article, but an archive of a talk page. Perhaps @Isabelle Belato (who did the deletion: "Twinkle" was the tool she used) can comment? ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
It technically was the talk page of a deleted article. Somebody created Columbo/Archive 1. Isabelle Belato deleted it and routinely included its talk page Talk:Columbo/Archive 1, a simple mistake to make. I have restored it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Much obliged! For the future, is there a more proper way of reporting such oddities? Magicalus (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@Magicalus: Clicking the red link showed the deletion log with the administrator who deleted it (like Columbo/Archive 1). The recommendation is to contact them first but they haven't edited since 14 February 2026 so coming here was OK. This page is watched by several administrators with access to examine and handle it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Verifiable Source Question

[edit source]

Hello, I am drafting a wikipedia article page for an academic and they have at least 3 sources from news outlets that have significant coverage from independent reliable sources. But a contact of mine, who is more versed in writing wikipedia pages than I am, mentioned that the sources should not contain interview material of the academic themselves, since the articles contain too much of their own words? Is this true? I am finding it very hard to use any news article that does not contain interview material. Also, in terms of other citations can I use conference websites that establish this academic is a subject matter expert who did a panel talk on a particular academic topic, or use their peer-reviewed research papers? What about using a university commencement program to verify where they got their degree or a university directory webpage? I know web content is not a valid source but links to online research papers, university directories, and conference event panels seem more valid than general web content. They prove this person is a legitimate subject matter expert and demonstrates their credentials. Just want to have a clearer sense of what is approved for citations before submitting. Thanks! ~2026-90335-3 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-90335-3, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Yes, it is true.
Template:HD/WINI
Almost all of the sources used should be completely independent of the subject - anything based on an interview or press release is not independent. Almost anything from their university is going to be a primary source - usable for verifying uncontroversial factual information, but not helping to establish that they meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. "Web content", on the other hand is just the delivery method, and may or may not be reliable, depending on who published it.
See WP:golden rule for the criteria that the majority of the sources should meet.
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) 21:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
"for an academic" could mean "about an academic", or "on behalf of an academic". If it's the latter, please read WP:BOSS and share that with them, and read and abide by WP:COI and WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Temporary Accounts

[edit source]

It’s annoying when it changes because your edits don’t come with your new account and nobody knows you are the same person as your previous temporary account. Is there a way to turn temporary accounts off without making a real account? ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

No, that is not possible; if you want your edits to be associated with a single account, you need to create a permanent account. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, okay. However, I might be too young for a permanent account. How old do I have to be for an account? ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-57078-1: There is no age requirement but see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors for advice. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Won’t I be worse at editing compared to other editors because (redacted) ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors recommends to not reveal your age. Many young editors are better than many older editors. It varies. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
It's not a competition, edits are judged solely on their own merits. Going merely by your posts above, you you have a good command of English (better than many of our contributors, for whom English may be a second, third, or . . . etc. language), and you have asked intelligent and relevant questions. I'm sure many valuable contributions have been made to Wikipedia by people as young as or younger than you. Remember, "On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog". God luck and happy editing! ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
PrimeHunter beat me to it, but I would also suggest that you read that page with your parent/guardian/custodian. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, it’s annoying even for an editor with an account who finds themselves editing while signed out. But temporary accounts are rather new so they might add the ability soon. Having said that, lots of us have lost edits over the years. You’ll just have to let it go. After you’ve got 500 edits, you wont care about 10 you made without an account. MmeMaigret (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
They won't be turning temp accounts off, it was done to enhance privacy. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood my comment. The OP asked if edits can be carried over to an account once you set one up. This is a pretty common feature on other sites. I indicated that temp accounts are pretty new and they (the powers that be) may add the ability - that the OP is asking about - later. @Sam Wilson Do you know if this is something in the works? MmeMaigret (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The only way to move edits from one account to another is to rename the account, it is not possible to merge account edit histories or reassign them. Allowing TAs to do that would defeat the "temporary" nature of temporary accounts. A TA user is free to claim in writing that they made the edits from a particular TA. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how to address biased article

[edit source]

I stumbled onto abortion industry recently. It's an ideological term, but I can't think of a neutral alternative and it does theoretically exist, so I'm not sure if it qualifies for deletion. (Maybe for lack of reliable sources or as an attack page?) Would love any input on the appropriate way to proceed. NuanceQueen (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It's an article about the ideological term in question, so of course it's going to use the ideological term. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I read the article and it seems fine. It acknowledges the term’s partisan usage in two places. Was the page created for ideological reasons, possibly. But your objection to the name itself is unlikely to be enough for AfD and I can’t think what [does anyone say p.c. anymore?] term could replaced it. Honestly I think it’s a non-starter. MmeMaigret (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
@CoffeeCrumbs@Mmemaigret I guess I was thinking about it as being about the "abortion industry" itself, rather than the term. The other sections (besides terminology and usage) move away from discussing it as a term. I guess what it really needs is a good fleshing out. Thank you both for your input! NuanceQueen (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Any article about a controversial term is going to go into related areas, as is appropriate to treat the subject encyclopedically. The same situation can be found in, for example, the article about the term gay agenda. It isn't about the topic although it explores that topic as well as the term. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
That's a super helpful reference. Thank you! NuanceQueen (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Accidentally created a temporary account

[edit source]

Hi,

Today, while I was editing Clare S Spackman's page I found myself appearing as a temporary account (details below). I have know idea how it happened and I was able to continue and finish the editing.

Is it possible to delete this temporary account and assign the changes to me? If so, how do I do this? If not, it's fine. I am just pleased to have added more information about this pioneer.

Thanks, Irene

User contributions for ~2026-15486-15

[edit source]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

No, Irene, it's not possible. Don't worry about it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the history of the article, Irene, and don't know who wrote what; but as I view the "source" of the article (the article as editable with the "source editor"), I get the impression that somebody unfamiliar with Template:Rp was using the (X)HTML sup tag et cetera to do what Template:Rp does. This is not a good idea. If you want to achieve what can be achieved, and is standardly achieved, with Mediawiki markup (such as Template:Rp), then it's better to use Mediawiki markup for the job. -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

References and citations

[edit source]

Hi,

In Raymondville Independent School District, if I am just reading it, then the first citation appears to be citation number two, and if I go to the references section, it shows ten references. Then, if I go to edit it, because the first reference is not used, the first citation actually says one, and in references, there are only nine. I double checked this, and it was still there if I left the edit mode.

Can someone explain to me why this is, and if it is possible to make it look correct?

Thanks, Ferd310 Ferd310 (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

When that happens, it’s often that the “phantom”/hidden citation is in an infobox. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The first citation is linked three times in the infobox. SenshiSun (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Editing

[edit source]

How does one make editing changes? I keep getting messages about no ending </ref>. Detailed instructions requested due to my advanced age. Sanducci (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sanducci, welcome to the Teahouse! Those errors happened because you were adding <ref><ref></ref></ref> to the page, as you can see here. Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref has more detailed instructions on how to fix the error, and what causes it. I noticed you were using the source editor. While you are free to use the editor you want, the visual editor may be more helpful. It streamlines several processes related to editing. When editing an article, if you click the pen symbol in the top corner of the editing box, you can switch between the two modes. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
okay so basically you start one citation with <ref> and end it with </ref> n.h.huit, 化けの花 04:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Having problems editing. No ending <c/ref> Sanducci (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Does 45dogs' advice (above) help, Sanducci? -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Am I eligible to be added on Wikipedia?

[edit source]

I would like to understand whether this background meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements and how I can properly create or submit an article with reliable sources.

If there are experienced editors who can guide me or review a draft, I would greatly appreciate the help.

Thank you. ~2026-15685-02 (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @~2026-15685-02. I appreciate your curiosity and willingness to learn, but it is highly discouraged to write an article about yourself. The reason is because Wikipedia can only summarize what reliable sources say, meaning you need to essentially ignore everything you know about the subject of your article and just say what the sources say, in your own words. As you can imagine, this is especially difficult if you’re writing an article about yourself. In addition to that, people will tend to write quite highly of themselves, which conflicts with our policy on writing in a neutral point of view.
As for your question about whether your career meets notability requirements, let me just say that what people typically mean when they say ‘notable’ is very different from what we mean when we say ‘notable.’ It doesn’t matter how much money you have or how many famous people you know personally or how famous you are. What matters is how many reliable secondary sources have written about you in detail.
If you can find enough sources to support a full article, great! You have Wikipedia notability, and an article about yourself is justified (though you’re still not supposed to write it yourself). If you can’t, you’re not notable and can’t have an article. It’s as simple as that. (And it may be worth mentioning that an article about you is not always a good idea.)
Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
See WP:NATHLETE for the notability guidelines specific to athletes and sportspeople, and WP:NPERSON for broader notability standards for people. You must satisfy one of these to qualify for an article, though Shadestar474 provides excellent advice above which you should consider before deciding.SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Natural language processing task force

[edit source]

Hi! I had an inquiry regarding starting a new dedicated task force specifically for Category:Natural language processing and Category:Computational linguistics (which have significant overlap). I know that computational linguistics is currently covered by the Applied Linguistics Taskforce from WikiProject Linguistics, but I was thinking that a new task force under WikiProject Linguistics dedicated specifically to NLP in collaboration with WikiProject Computing (or another computationally oriented WikiProject) and potentially WikiProject Artificial Intelligence could benefit the area of computational linguistics and NLP.

I have given a quick look through many of the NLP articles (and made one or two edits) and they require a significant amount of updating due to how rapidly the field has evolved, even within the last few years (and sometimes months), especially with how interdisciplinary a field it is. I think that a new task force with editors familiar with the intersection of all these fields could really improve these articles during a time where these tools are becoming increasingly powerful and impactful.

I am a very new editor, so I may definitely be misunderstanding how new taskforces are created (I do know I need others to want to contribute), but leaving this as solely a linguistics project, especially when Applied Linguistics is already covering a wide variety of different subjects, doesn’t seem ideal. I would really love some guidance because this is a project I would love to get off the ground. Jacob Rampino (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Your best approach would be to make this same proposal over on the Wikiproject, where you would have a more focused audience than here at the Teahouse. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! Will do. Just wanted to get a general idea of whether it seemed implausible at face value. Jacob Rampino (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

draft for review - comedian myles morrison

[edit source]

I made this draft. Seeing if someone would like to review it? User:Mileymo/sandbox. This draft includes coverage from Global News, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, and the Winnipeg Free Press. Thanks. Mileymo (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Atop Draft:Myles Morrison: "Review waiting, please be patient. / This may take 7 weeks or more". So relax and wait. -- Hoary (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Just having a quick glance, I’d say it’s probably going to be declined. The source titles don’t suggest that any of those articles have SIG COV. I’m not sure why there’s so much information about Telemiracle as if it’s trying to explain how important the event is and by implication the subject and honestly it’s also giving a little AI. Refer WP:42. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Emma Thompson's Divorce Date

[edit source]

Hi,

I recently attempted to update the Wikipedia article for Emma Thompson regarding her divorce from Kenneth Branagh. The article currently lists 1995 as the year of their divorce, which I believe may be an error. While they did separate in 1995, Thompson mentioned in a anecdote written about in a 2025 CBS News article ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/emma-thompson-says-president-donald-trump-once-asked-her-out/ ) that her divorce was finalized during the 1997 filming of Primary Colors (released in 1998).

However, there are a couple of complications.

  1. The CBS article focuses mainly on a phone call Thompson received from Donald Trump and the divorce date is a sidenote, which I think makes it harder to cite this as a direct source for the divorce.
  2. While the CBS article doesn't directly mention Branagh, it's understood that he was Thompson's only husband at the time, and she has only been divorced once. Other articles about Thompson's 2025 anecdote state Branagh was her husband, but omit the 1997 date. IMDB and Variety support that Primary Colors was filmed in 1997, but I want to avoid any original research.
  3. There doesn't seem to be any online sources circa 1997 confirming their divorce date. It's likely Thompson and Branagh chose not to publicly announce that their divorce was finalized.

I'd appreciate any guidance on whether it's acceptable to cite the CBS article to support the 1997 divorce date in the Emma Thompson Wikipedia article, even though it is a sidenote in the CBS article. How should this situation be handled?

Thanks for any help! ~2026-14479-23 (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Bring up the matter on Talk:Emma Thompson. On Talk:Kenneth Branagh, link to the discussion on Talk:Emma Thompson and invite people to join it. (People frequenting one or other of those two talk pages are more likely to be familiar with the biographical complexities of one or both of those two actors than are people frequenting this page.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I've restored your edit, and changed the date on Branagh's article; in both cases, the 1995 date was uncited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixing duplicate citation error

[edit source]

When I noticed that someone accidentally removed this article from Battle for Dream Island, I readded it using the parameter <ref name="Burlingame October 2025"</ref>. The issue arose when this created a duplicate error since another article cited in the same page shares a publisher (Comics Beat) and an author. I combed through several MOS guides, but all the solutions I found did not fit my predicament; they only pertained to cases where two separate references shared a source. Giovanni Potage (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Now resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, can you clarify what you meant by "now resolved?" Giovanni Potage (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
It's a question: "is the issue now resolved?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. To answer your question: no. As of writing, no one besides me has attempted to fix the duplicate error. Giovanni Potage (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Giovanni Potage, and welcome to the Teahouse.
I haven't looked at the article, but as far as I know, that error means that there are two references defined with the same name (the bit after name=), and that is not allowed.
It doesn't object to, or even notice, if there are two references with the same publisher, or date, or in fact if two separate references are actually identical: it's just the duplicate definition for the name.
So, either the two references with that name are actually the same, in which case, delete one of them, and just use the short form <ref name="..."/> for the second citation; or else the two are not the same, in which case, change one of the names to be different. Reference names can be anything: it's a useful convenience to make them the title/author/publisher and date, but that's not a requirement. ColinFine (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The two articles are different, but they are written by the same author and share the same publisher. I used "Burlington 2025" for the ref names, and only distinguished them by sandwiching the month of publication between the author's name and year. I changed the second citation's ref name to "Comics Beat 2025" but according to this page, a lint error is still present. Giovanni Potage (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Giovanni Potage The lint error is most likely caused by the name ("Burlingame") being used multiple times (in this case, the cite news template) throughout the article; I think it can be safely ignored. Jolly1253 (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, can I explain the problem in more detail? Giovanni Potage (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
You don't need to ask! Someone will help, even if I'm (or any other named editor is) not around. BlueStaticHorse (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
[edit source]

Hello Wikipedians. I am new to editing here and currently editing an article in the hopes of getting it peer-reviewed.

I'm currently having problems with standardizing the citation style.

Province of Pennsylvania#CITEREFMiller2002 doesn't link directly to the citation in the Bibliography section of the article like i've seen it done on other articles. I set the citation ref as Miller2002 and it still wont work.


Can someone helo me fix this? Thanks in advance. ~2026-15418-59 (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-15418-59 Refer to the Template:Cite template, which helps with source formatting. If you add this from visual editor (type "{{", and then type "Cite" and press enter; alternatively, click on the big double apostrophe button on the top bar), there's a visual guide that helps you type in the fields. We also have a variety of citation templates, such as Template:Cite book, Template:Cite journal, and Template:Cite web. n.h.huit, 化けの花 11:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. ~2026-15418-59 (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-15418-59 Oh and the actual citation for Harvard style is Template: Harvard citation. 😞 n.h.huit, 化けの花 11:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-15418-59: I'm not quite sure what you're doing but I suspect the issue is consistency. When I go to source editor and search Miller, these are the results:
  • Miller 2002
  • Miller_2002
  • Miller2002
  • Miller|2002
Why don't you change them all to just "miller". MmeMaigret (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Those are the citations made automatically using the built in tool. I did try changing "Miller 2002" to "Miller 2002" because I thought that the issue was the space, to no luck.
I was going to convert the automatic citations of the book to one source but the Harvard ref template did not work. Thank you for the help ~2026-15418-59 (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I've fixed it now. The {{cite book}} has two editors and a year, so you don't need the |ref= parameter. It does mean that the in-text citation using {{sfn}} needs to mention both editors. --rchard2scout (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

COI and possible draft for Aldeniz Rashidov

[edit source]

Hello. I have a conflict of interest regarding this topic and do not want to create an article directly.

Could an independent editor please advise whether these sources seem sufficient for a draft or a requested article about Aldeniz Rashidov?

Main independent sources:

  • BTA, 16 February 2024 — IEEE Senior Member recognition
  • BTA, 20 June 2024 — comments on reforms in education
  • BTA, 9 February 2026 — public lecture on artificial intelligence
  • Gabrovo News, 13 April 2020
  • Digital Industry, 24 May 2023
  • Selected Engineer.bg articles on AI, education, and research, including:
    • 21 June 2023 — dialogue with ChatGPT and AI in science;
    • 18 July 2024 — AI algorithms and future generations;
    • 10 September 2024 — career orientation in the technical sector

Short neutral draft: Aldeniz Rashidov is a Bulgarian scholar, professor, university lecturer, and researcher associated with the Technical University of Gabrovo. His professional work is in the fields of artificial intelligence, information systems, and engineering education. In 2024, he received IEEE Senior Member status, and in 2026 BTA reported on his public lecture on artificial intelligence. His work and public positions have also been covered in specialized and regional media.

Thank you. Georgiev1972 (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Just from these, I'd have to say no.
There are like 40,000 IEE Senior Members, so while that may be useful in an article, it doesn't really establish notability. Neither do comments or a lecture made by Rashidov. Nor do articles by Rashidov. That leaves the Gabrovo News and Digital Industry, but I can't find the content you're referring to, so I have no idea if these constitute significant cover of Rashidov.
Now, Rashidov might be notable for other reasons; that would require more research. But I think you're kind of getting notability in the Wikipedia sense not quite right. The idea isn't trying to simply find things Rashidov did or said, the goal is to find reliable sources, independent of Rashidov, that are covering, discussing, describing, or analyzing Rashidov, and not just passing mentions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. That is helpful.
I understand that the current set of sources may not be enough to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. I will look for stronger independent sources that discuss Rashidov in more substantial detail, rather than simply quoting him or reporting events. Georgiev1972 (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft: George Butler Sutton

[edit source]

Hi, I'm trying to write an article about George Butler Sutton, who was World Billiards Champion in the early 20th century. Is there anyone who can help me? Cedricmarkus (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:George Butler Sutton
What sort of help are you looking for? Athanelar (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The resources I've found are somewhat insufficient. There are very few written sources. Currently, only 3-4. Cedricmarkus (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
{{find sources}} is a very helpful template. In this case it outputs
Template:Find sources Athanelar (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
See also WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Your second source is good; your first not so. You need more sources, of good quality. See WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Criteria for creating a new Wikipedia page

[edit source]

Hi, I work with a brand that is interested in creating a Wikipedia page as they don't currently have one. I know that in order to create one, the brand needs to have significant coverage by an external source, that is not PR related. But how many external articles like this are needed? And what counts as non-PR? ~2026-15605-30 (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. See WP:42 and our policies on the notability of organizations and companies, but you should also learn how to make your first Wikipedia article too, as that's a helpful guide. Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 12:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Firstly please read and follow WP:PAID—it's mandatory in your circumstances.
Then read WP:42 (which addresses your question) and WP:PROMO.
If you then wish to proceed, see WP:Your first article and follow this process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Ah right I almost forgot. When you're working with a company to get an article about them on Wikipedia, or have been paid by them to do an edit/write an article, that means that you have a conflict of interest, or COI, with us. It sounds scary, but generally speaking, as long as you disclose your COI (guide: WP:DCOI, like, you have to do this) and stick with our content policies and practices (as you're seeking to write information in our site, pretty much), especially regarding neutrality and other stuff I and Pigsonthewing have linked above, you're good.
You should also note that no one on Wikipedia controls or owns articles. If Wikipedia hosts an article about you or your organization, others may add information that would otherwise remain little known.
For more details, see WP:COI. Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 12:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
A simpler explanation is over at WP:PANDSCOI n.h.huit, 化けの花 12:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @~2026-15605-30. It's worth asking, Why do you want Wikipedia to have an article about your brand? (It won't be "your page", by the way, as others have said). If it's "to tell people about our brand", or "to enhance our online presence", then that is promotion, and forbidden on Wikipedia.
The only meaningful answer is "to collect in one (very visible) place what people have said about our brand"; but you do not control what people might say about you. If what they have said is not entirely favourable, then the article will not be entirely favourable to you. Is that what you want? ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Providing sources

[edit source]

I own some material which I believe may be useful for improving the family section of Henry Ives Cobb, as well as expanding Augusta Adams under List of Brigham Young's wives. I do not believe they are available anywhere on the internet, and would like to know how I can cite them. Thank you! Buv16 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Buv16. Sources don't need to be available online to be acceptable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), but they do need to have been published in some form. Could you give some more detail on the nature of the source material you have in mind here? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I'll have to check when I get home, but if I'm remembering correctly it's mostly obituaries. I'm a descendant of Henry Ives Cobb, and it was all collected as part of tracing back my family tree. And yes, I know it's a COI, but I doubt anyone outside of my family is going to have all of these obituaries in one place. Buv16 (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
If you mean obituaries published in a newspaper or a magazine, those should be acceptable as sources. You can cite them using the cite news template that BlueStaticHorse mentions below. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Buv16 You can also consider uploading them to the Internet Archive, that way the information will be verifiable by everyone 🍅 fx (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! You can cite a book by inserting the {{cite book}} template, and then filling in the information. If you would like to cite a newspaper, use the {{cite news}} template. An example of how to do this is on the template page. Information does not have to be online to be cited.
BlueStaticHorse (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Name of county wrongly input by a letter

[edit source]

Now I would like to provide real truth information about those incorections , at least I know very well on what I have been activist and worked on. There is many Dedic crops renamed and cut off. Becouse I was getting it by deserve on my intelectual property. They just change surname into similiar but thez came out of this family. If you ask chatgpt the surname became from Slavenic called Grandfather in association. ~2026-15793-55 (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This is word salad and incomprehensible. I will note the TA has been edit-warring at Ledići, replacing the name with "Dedići". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Another note: There is an article for a village called Dedići, which appears to have a different set of coordinates and is in Srebrenik, not Trnovo. SenshiSun (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! On Wikipedia, ChatGPT is not a reliable source. If you ask ChatGPT for what sources it used, you can use those sources though, if they are reliable sources and meet Wikipedia's policies for sources. BlueStaticHorse (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Seeking guidance on the best approach to avoid getting flagged / blocked for IP Address

[edit source]

Hello, Teahouse community!

I am a Conflict of Interest editor. I'm an employee at Dell Technologies and here on Wikipedia to make requests to update information related to the company.

I have been collaborating with English Domain editors on Wikipedia for about six months, and I've experienced challenges with IP Address blocking while on my company’s office Wi-Fi. I am able to make edit requests while on my home Wi-Fi or hotspot on my mobile device while connected to my company’s VPN, but when I try to make edit requests on my company Wi-Fi, I’m blocked. I submitted an IP block exemption ticket last week and have not been notified of any changes to the status of my account.

Now that I have global team members who will start contributing edit requests to their respective Language Domains, I want to help them out. Are there proactive steps that my global team members can take, so they don’t experience the same issues with IP address flags from Wikipedia that block me from posting requests on article Talk Pages?

Any insights or direction you have would be appreciated! TL with Dell Technologies (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If you don't get any useful advice here, try asking at WP:Village pump (technical). Athanelar (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for this insight. TL with Dell Technologies (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Do you know why your IP address is blocked? ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
It's difficult to look into this without knowing the IP involved. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello @331dot and @~2026-57078-1. I cannot attach an image here to show you the notification I received when I became blocked, but this is the IP information:
The IP address or range 165.85.160.0/19 has been globally blocked by ‪Elton‬ for the following reason(s):
Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected:
This block will expire on 14:58, 24 February 2027. Your current IP address is 165.85.160.14. TL with Dell Technologies (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
You say you're on your company WiFi; companies often use proxies as a security measure- which I'm assuming a large computer manufacturer does. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Copying statements from one article to another

[edit source]

When one article says something with sources, can you just copy that together with the sources, without checking them yourself? (The article about Jimmie Noone says, he inspired Ravel's composition Boléro, or that Ravel the Composer based it on Noone's improvisation. But Boléro does not mention it.) Lamadama (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I would recommend checking the sources before including them in an article, but you can use other articles to find sources. BlueStaticHorse (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
@Lamadama Well, clearly you can (with attribution, see WP:copying within Wikipedia) but as you have discovered, that is unwise in many cases. It can be especially bad if you copy from a foreign-language article or one where a chatbot has been used, owing to hallucinated references. Best to be careful! Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Lamadama, and welcome to the Teahouse.
No, you should not copy a citation without looking at the source yourself. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. ColinFine (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Can someone help me edit this new page I made..., talk in the talk page.

[edit source]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2012_Sargento_200#Can_someone_edit_the_rest_of_the_things,_I'm_tired,_just_qualifying,_race_summary,_and_race_results?

Btw, this was my very first article I've created! TexasOutlawsSoccerFan (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I informed you of the same on your talk page, but unfortunately at this time I have draftified your article to Draft:2012 Sargento 200. The references currently in your article do not demonstrate that it is notable as we define that word on Wikipedia. Please find some references that show the event is notable (references like those described at the golden rule) and then submit the draft for review via Articles for Creation. I'll place a template on the draft that will allow you to do so when you're ready. Athanelar (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft article submitted but I am not autoconfirmed and cannot move the page

[edit source]
Hi Shahrohkhanizadeh, and welcome to the Teahouse! There's no need to worry about moving it yourself; reviewers take care of moving articles when they approve them, and it looks like your draft was submitted successfully to the queue, so nothing for you to do on that count. (I've replaced the {{error}} template in your comment with quotation marks and left just the error message text to fix page errors.) Hope this helps, and happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Help me

[edit source]

I need help. I am fixing the section called Causes and effects on "Violence against Christians in India" because it has a notice for neutrality. Neutrality rules are saying things such as using wikivoice and I am finding many sentences that are redundant or not per the wikivoice Neutrality rules. I want to make sure I am following the rules properly before I make more improvements. Can someone help me. NicoR8 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy article: Violence against Christians in India
See WP:NPOV and WP:VOICE, which are our policies on neutral voice and toning, and the latter in particular being about "Wikivoice". Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 00:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi I found that and read the rules.I feel I am doing the cleanup correctly after reading the two policies you gave WP:NPOV and WP:VOICE. However, I saw that on Violence against Christians in India lots of words and sentences sounded incorrect. Would you be able to help me and check if I have done the changes correctly there? NicoR8 (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I want to ask another question. If sentences do not have reference given, am I allowed to remove the sentence? NicoR8 (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@NicoR8 That article has > 100 page watchers, so there are plenty of other editors who will notice what you are doing. Hence, if you make changes with good edit summaries you should be fine. While you can be WP:BOLD and remove unreferenced sentences, it might be better to mark then as {{cn}} for "citation needed": there may well be a source mentioned elsewhere in the article, even as close as at the end of the same paragraph, which actually does back up the part you are concerned about. Note that the WP:LEAD doesn't require references unless someone has placed information there that isn't in the body of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

RefToolbar is broken

[edit source]

The cite template feature in the default toolbar of the source editor is currently broken. It's reported at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar#RefToolbar is broken with a notification at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#RefToolbar is broken. There is no need for further reports. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It's fixed already. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Rejected BLP Article

[edit source]

Hi! I'm very new to wikipedia and I've been working on my first article. I keep trying to incorporate the feedback on the page I'm working on Draft:Emilia Fart. Some feedback said I didn't have enough sources so I went and found more but now they're saying they're unreliable but they are reputable magazines like PAPER and BUST from interviews that the subject has done. At first it said that the subject met notability but there weren't enough sources so I added more sources and now I'm being told that actually she's not notable enough. I feel like I'm in this cycle and I don't know how to get past it to be able to publish the article. Especially the PAPER source provides significant, reliable and independent coverage. What more can I do to get this page to meet the guidelines. Thanks in advance!! Juliannaesmith (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:42 and WP:Notability (people). Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 00:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Interviews don’t count towards SIG COV. Refer WP:42. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
SIGCOV means WP: Significant coverage by the way. ^^ n.h.huit, 化けの花 04:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Also, please be aware that Notability on living people on English Wikipedia is rather strict. An example is Kyle Hill (YouTuber), as an article about him were deleted after this discussion. Toarin (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi there, @Juliannaesmith! Unfortunately you have launched yourself into the most difficult task on Wikipedia: writing a new article. Writing about a living person is the hardest kind of new article to write. And since you have properly declared a COI (thank you!), you have a further problem to deal with because you need to forget everything you know about your subject and write only what is in reliable sources. There are many policies you need to know and follow when creating articles, so we always recommend spending at least a few weeks editing existing articles before trying to write something new. It's probably also a good idea to read through WP:ABOUTME and decide whether Emilia would still be okay with a Wikipedia article if there was some kind of controversy - because that would almost certainly end up in the article.
But let's assume you decide to continue working on your draft. You are looking for sources that meet all three criteria in WP:42. Interviews with or things written/created by your subject or her friends, family, colleagues, etc are not independent. Usually we need three or more WP:42-compliant sources to show that someone or something qualifies for a Wikipedia article. PAPER is not as independent as we'd like because it involves an interview - as indeed do most of your sources. Is there anything out there that was written without any input from your subject?
Make sure, as well, that everything in your draft is cited to a source and that that information is definitely present in the source - we have to be super careful with biographies of living people, and I see the draft is tagged for AI/LLM-generated text. Possibly the biggest problem with LLMs is that they will blithely cite something to a source that sounds plausible but doesn't actually contain that information. For example, in your 2017-2019 section, there's only one source given so the assumption is that all that info is in that source - but I spot-checked and the words 'mukbang' and 'story' aren't in the source. Go through your draft with a fine-tooth comb and make sure you haven't been sabotaged by the LLM!
Finally, if you want to take a break and come back to the draft later - if you want to get more editing experience first - it will remain where it is for six months after the last edit, so you can keep editing it for basically forever and the timer will keep resetting for another six months every time. If you forget and it gets deleted, that's very normal and you can get it back with no problem via the WP:REFUND process.
I know that's a lot to take in. Feel free to ask more questions or for clarification here on on my talk page. I hope some of this has been helpful, and wish you happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Juliannaesmith: "Some feedback said I didn't have enough sources". I find that unlikely. In assessing notability, assuming you have at least three sources, they'll be judged on quality rather than quantity. Maybe the feedback said "not enough good sources". Maproom (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Images

[edit source]

Hi all, I stumbled across and have been working on Bickelhaupt Arboretum. I think the article would benefit from a picture(s). I don't live there and I understand that we cannot just take any image and plop it in. Is it acceptable to contact the Foundation running the arboretum and ask them to upload an image that they release into the public domain? I also read something a few days ago about requesting images on Wikipedia but now I can't find it. Is there a policy that I can read on what the go is. Also, how do I mechanically add images into an article? As always, thank you for all your help. Itsaclarinet (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

You can, but you'd have to make it clear to them what we require in terms of copyright (namely: anyone can use the image, not just Wikipedia; for any purpose, including commercial; free; forever; without asking permission; as long as credit is given).
As for how to include an image in an article: simply add "[[File:example.jpg]]" into the article's source. DS (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Well, DragonflySixtyseven . . . no. The article Arboretum, for example, starts with [[File:arboretum.westonbirt.750pix.jpg|thumb|upright=1.4|Autumn colours at [[Westonbirt Arboretum]], [[Gloucestershire]], England]]. If one were to simplify that to [[File:arboretum.westonbirt.750pix.jpg]] the result would not be good at all. Itsaclarinet, for an explanation (actually a parallel pair of explanations), please see Help:Introduction. -- Hoary (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Itsaclarinet, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:requesting copyright permission. ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Help:Images may be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Most informal welcome templates

[edit source]

Bot archiving

[edit source]

Hello! Could someone please explain to me why the archive bot on this page has not archived the first thread on the talk page, GA Reassessment? It archived other threads recently but not that one. Thanks in advance. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @OrdinaryOtter. I believe the bot works by looking at the datestamp on each section. In this case, the section was transcluded from the GA reassessment subpage, so it didn't actually have a datestamp the bot could 'see' on the talk page.
I've manually archived that section so it should be all good now:) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

need help

[edit source]

Considering the current 2026 Iran war and a renewed internet blackout almost everything is unreachable here in iran. Except wikipedia (only the main site is reachable. cdns are not) Is there someone here with access and capability to setup a vpn server which can be resolved from wiki name itself? It can provide internet access here for regular people. Atleast until the islamic goverment finds this... 3nd13ssn3ss (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep safe man. I'm also in a crap situation because of this but no blackout yet. jolielover♥talk 10:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
U got access ?!
Bruh which domains can you resolve ?
Can you reach any dnses ? 3nd13ssn3ss (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Nah I'm in a GCC country, not Iran, sorry for confusing you. jolielover♥talk 10:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Its fine bro
Atleast your goverment tries to keep you safe
My goverment is only protecting itself not its people 3nd13ssn3ss (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @3nd13ssn3ss. The techie people hang out more on WP:VPT: I suggest asking there (if you can access here, I think you'll be able to reach that). ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Promotional content

[edit source]

Hello all

I saw a user promoting a business/company in their user page. Does it violate any policy here? What is the extent of the autonomy a user can have over their talk page?

Thanks aa always! signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Promotion of a business is not OK. (See Wikipedia:User pages#Excessive_unrelated_content.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Welcome to the teahouse! If you see a user promoting a business on their user page, that is promotional content, and it is not allowed. If you see promotional content on a user page, please let them know that they need to remove it. BlueStaticHorse (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not remember their user page anymore. But if I come across anyone doing so, I will let them know of this policy that restricts their promotion. Thanks @Hoaryand @BlueStaticHorse! signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

draft: Aitana Álvarez

[edit source]

Hi! I submitted a draft article about a professional MMA fighter. Could someone help review it or provide feedback before the formal review?

Draft: Aitana Alvarez SuperiorChallenge (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Aitana Alvarez
Hello and welcome. You are asking for a pre-review review; you have submitted it, please allow the process to play out. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi SuperiorChallenge, welcome to the Teahouse. If it's declined then the review will give the reason and usually say you can try to improve and resubmit. But I can tell you to see Help:Referencing for beginners#Inline citations: "They are generally added either immediately following the fact that they support, or at the end of the sentence that they support." If you have trouble moving existing references in VisualEditor then try the source editor. See Help:VisualEditor#Opening VisualEditor for how to switch. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

[edit source]

How do I add an image when editing a Wikipedia article? Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zahrazamedahmedi: Start by reading Help:Images. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Zahrazamedahmedi Also, Images must come from Commons, if you didn't already know that Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 15:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
This is not true, non-free images must be uploaded directly to Wikipedia. Commons only hosts free images. Athanelar (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

[edit source]

Hi, so I saw some vandalism on the article Ewa Braun by the user ~2026-14994-22. He changed the bit saying Not to be confused with Eva Braun, Adolf Hitler's wife. to Not to be confused with Eva Braun, Adolf Hitler's perma-foid. So i reverted it. When I went to warn him for this vandalism I saw that he didnt have a talk page, so what do I do? Kattachira (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kattachira You can create a talk page by clicking on the red link to that page. Shantavira|feed me 14:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! Everyone has a talk page, even if it's a red link. Just send them a message. BlueStaticHorse (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
oh okk Kattachira (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
You may find the tool WP:Twinkle, which semi-automates such actions for you, useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Declined Draft Submission: Further help

[edit source]

Hi! I have an article draft that was recently declined due to "draft references not meeting Wikipedia's criteria..." without any particular pointing at what's wrong. I did my best to make it compliant and use sources that met all criteria, but could anyone who is more experience point me out the errors and provide guidance on how to correct them? I want to get better at this : ) The article page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Scarbo_Vintage

Thank you in advance! ~2026-15456-56 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

"'draft references not meeting Wikipedia's criteria...' without any particular pointing at what's wrong"
No, that's not what was said. At the top of the draft is panel beginning:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

and which goes on to explain (with links to further explanatory pages) exactly what is needed, and is lacking in your draft.
That said, the reviewer has since been blocked as a sock-puppet, so you might reasonably ask for a second review at WP:AFCHELP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi @~2026-15456-56, although the reviewer has been blocked, I would not advise asking for a second review just yet. The Product section in particular sounds exactly like the company trying to sell its products, complete with prices - this needs to be majorly toned down or removed entirely, see WP:NOTPROMO for more. Skimming through your sources I didn't see any that focused solely on Scarbo Vintage as a company; most focus on their products, which would be fine for an article about one of those products, but if the article is to be about the company then we need sources that discuss the company itself. Those sources also need to meet all three criteria of WP:42 as well as WP:NCORP, and you must avoid WP:CORPTRIV - this is very difficult because most companies are fantastic at producing endless trivial material to keep themselves in the news.
Just so you are aware, writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, especially if you're a new editor and haven't had to grapple with the many, many policies we have. It can also be extremely frustrating! Usually it's a good idea to edit other articles for a while first, so you can get an idea of how Wikipedia articles come into existence and grow. If you decide to do this, your draft will be perfectly safe for six months after the last edit made to it - so you could keep making a tiny edit every five and a half months if you liked. Even if it gets deleted for inactivity you can get it back easily at WP:REFUND. I hope this helps, and wish you happy editing. Meadowlark (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
@Meadowlark Thank you immensely; that feedback and content references are very useful! I'll review diligently and make edits. Do you mind if I re-tag you on this post or leave a comment on your talk page after edits to get your opinion before requesting a formal review on the page? I can tell you really know this very well.
Have a good day! ~2026-15456-56 (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Intellectual diversity

[edit source]

I think it would be a great idea to organize a WikiProject Intellectual Diversity, which supports very broad diversity in terms of ideology, religion, national/ethnic affinities, philosophy, intellectual (e.g., language-based, national academic) traditions, media culture, etc. But I think Wikipedia's policies have been gradually changed to be hostile to intellectual diversity in this sense, and many Wikipedians can be hostile as well, whether they mean to be or not. Without actually litigating the (admittedly highly interesting!) substantive question whether Wikipedia should support intellectual diversity, can you give me insight into how I might organize such a WikiProject without essentially painting a target on the back of participants? Larry Sanger (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Larry Sanger. Instructions on how to create a WikiProject are at WP:PROJGUIDE. I'm not knowledgeable on the functions of this kind of stuff, but I believe you will need to concoct a group of editors who are willing to collaborate and create this project with you. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 16:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I can read basic instructions; I know all that. The question is much more specialized. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean by not wanting to essentially [paint] a target on the back of participants? toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 17:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Sure, I will give it a try, although it’s a little tricky. In order to advocate for intellectual diversity, this would mean, among other things, pushing back hard on policies and decisions relating to “fringe theories,” NPOV, and RS. The problem is that these tend to be incendiary topics by their very nature, and partisans will often hunt for ammunition to use against the other side. If a partisan can point to a WikiProject membership that can be colored as showing bias, that “paints a target” for such editors. Worries along these lines might disincentivize people from joining such a WikiProject. Does this make sense? Larry Sanger (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I would assume that the best way to avoid such target painting and risk would be to make it clear that the WikiProject does not advocate for the breaking of any such policies. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 20:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Except he explicitly advocates for the destruction of those policies, and has consistently for years mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
It feels a little silly for me to be giving any advice on Wikipedia procedure to its cofounder, but you asked; and welcome back, Larry. It's generally inappropriate to use WikiProjects as advocacy groups/voting blocs/pressure orgs in this way, since that sort of thing is a form of WP:CANVAS. and I don't see what else this WikiProject would be doing except, as you state, 'pushing back hard on policies and decisions.' WP:WikiProject tells us the main function of a WikiProject should be to improve a particular topic area [by] develop[ing] ideas, discuss[ing] sources, maintain[ing] various collaborative processes, and keep[ing] track of work that needs to be done. If what you're doing is essentially trying to widen the scope of what Wikipedia considers acceptable sourcing, that seems like something best done/discussed by avenues like WP:WikiProject Reliability and the WP:Village pump (policy). What I think you're likely to find, however, is that the general consensus of Wikipedia editors have no interest in broadening the scope of reliability to include what we currently consider to be fringe. The social values of Wikipedia in terms of its respect for academia and intellectualism are very well-entrenched, and I do not see any immediate future where people will be willing to accept the words of, for lack of better terms, cranks, quacks and conspiracy theorists as encyclopedic sources. Athanelar (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Wanted to point out for this discussion the currently-inactive Alternative views WikiProject. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 00:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
@Athanelar Well said! We certainly don't want to weaken NPOV, or RS. Or even FRINGE. There can be "intellectual diversity" without being FRINGE. David10244 (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
My last sentence meant, intellectual diversity is not achieved by weakening those policies. Unless we want speculation and random opinions in articles, and if we don't, then weakening those policies is not the way to go. @Larry Sanger, do you have any different way of expressing what you meant, or do you really want fringe theories and unreliable sources such as random blogs and YouTube videos to be used as sources for articles? Along with articles that "prove" that the earth is flat? David10244 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
You should read Sanger's nine theses (or at least his overview thereof) at User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses for the answer to this question. They include such items as 2. Enable competing articles and 3. Abolish source blacklists.
You can read it in the man's own words, but his stance really does seem to be that Wikipedia should be completely impartial as to determinations of what is 'true' or 'reliable' or even 'sensible', and that no viewpoint should be excluded from summary based on considerations such as WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. Athanelar (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE need to be greatly weakened if not abolished. Larry Sanger (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't think you're going to get much support for dismantling basic policies & guidelines, especially when advocating for a wikiproject to promote fringe theories. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
These aren't "basic policies." They are a radical transformation of Wikipedia's original and most basic policy—turning NPOV on its head. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Then Wikipedia becomes a Web-host and not an academic encyclopaedia. Fringe theories can be mentioned but only from a point of view to show they aren’t confirmed or an article on them if the fringe theory is large enough (take Moon landing conspiracy theories for example). The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
The version of NPOV you cited in your thesis states that not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. The problem with this is there are facts. The Holocaust happened, men have landed on the moon, and vaccines don't cause autism. These are all facts that have been proven time and time again. We would be doing an active disservice to our readers by giving these false statements and fringe theories the same platform we give 100% proven correct facts. Our current version of NPOV reflects this reality, which is why we have made it the way it currently is. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
That is an absolutely terrible idea and question why you're even allowed back here mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
This is obviously abusive, and I will report you if you persist. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Athanelar I read the theses a while back, and I still don't see how it would help intellectual rigor and honesty, and indeed reality, to allow fringe theories here. The earth is not flat. @Larry Sanger, I understand your viewpoint, but I disagree with it. David10244 (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
If you compare nine completely commonsensical reforms to flat earth theory, you aren't taking me seriously; and neither can I take you seriously. Over and out. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Larry Sanger Weakening Fringe, RS, and NPOV are not commonsensical. My point was that weakening, for example, FRINGE and RS, could lead to articles saying that the earth is flat... referenced to fringe websites. RS seeks to avoid that. David10244 (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Given your history, a proposal like this should be met with a target on your back. You've consistently defamed us and made claims about supposed "bias" without evidence and seem to believe that all views should have the same weight instead of being judged by their sources reliability. I highly doubt this project of yours is being done altruistically, especially in todays political climate and the current targeting of wikipedia.
Respectfully, get lost and have the day you deserve mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
@Mghackerlady, I don't understand why you would want to say this other than to hurt someone's feelings. Until Larry says he's some Wikipedia villain, we should consider his ideas and proposals like any other editor with respect. Ironically, you're proving his point: But I think Wikipedia's policies have been gradually changed to be hostile to intellectual diversity in this sense, and many Wikipedians can be hostile. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 21:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Do you know who larry is? He doesn't get to subvert consensus because he's a cofounder, if anything his ideas should be treated with more harshness since he should know better and know they aren't going to do anything other than stir up drama mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Telling him to "get lost" does not do anything to address problems with his ideas. That being said, I agree that at some level we should be suspicious of Larry's aims in this current political climate -- his request reads like a trial balloon for an endeavor to circumvent policy. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
I admit my choice of wording was heated but and only inflames things but hugboxing him will only make him worse. I apologize for taking the Torvalds approach mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I did not say he should subvert consensus because he's a cofounder. Read what I said! We're not achieving anything by telling him to get lost. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 22:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
That's correct; that does not achieve anything. But the fact is that a lot of people agree with me. Many of them are still active on this site. Many more were driven off the site, or never tried to edit.
The very fact that the co-founder is here saying there are significant problems with the current set of policies, and that many people agree with me, suggests that this is an imposed and temporary decision, not a consensus. Indeed, one of the serious problems with the current constitution of Wikipedia is the fantasy that imposed decisions represent a "consensus." A consensus was always supposed to be a position that everybody could agree to because it represents an inclusive statement that takes into account the views of many. That is simply not how consensus works now.
Anyway, I would still welcome advice on how to start up a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
As I have said above, setting up a WikiProject for the express purpose of being a pressure org advocating for the repeal/modification of certain policies isn't going to work out; that's a form of WP:CANVASsing. Athanelar (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Or maybe instead of imagining a grand conspiracy of silent editors pushed off the site over a forced consensus you can maybe take a hint that the pushback is because we get enough of this crap already, with 99% of it being in bad faith. If you don't like the policies we have, get lost. Seriously. We're under a free license, fork us and make your own. See how well that went for the other dozen people who've tried mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
he already did that... Athanelar (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Well then, larry, move on. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The unpopularity of your project only reinforces that our policies make a better running and more accurate encyclopedia mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
May I ask what turned Larry against Wikipedia, and for his radical theses? In my opinion you can never truly be neutral and take in the ideas of all sides, because frankly, some of those ideas are stupid. Wikipedia can’t just met fringe whack theories be allowed to have articles which portray them as true, then we just become a intellectual battle ground and web-host which is not to be trusted. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Merge

[edit source]

HI :)

I got into the merging project, which is a lot of fun and contributes to WP in my opinion, but i have a question and im trying to understand the main differance between AFD and merge decisions, they seem to get tangled up in some cases, especially when an article is settled for merge instead of deletion... How can I learn more about this? Happypenguins82 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Happypenguins82. It's the proposer who chooses whether to propose deleting or merging and that decides the venue for the discussion. All participants are free to make any suggestion and the discussion may close with any result. Merging can be complicated and require knowledge of the field to do well. If a discussion ends with a decision to merge then there may not be anyone willing to do it for a long time. Nobody is assigned to specific work so it waits for a volunteer. Anyone can carry out a merge unless they aren't allowed to edit the target page. Deletions require less work and happen quickly. Does that answer your question? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes it does, thank you :)
And if i noticed that the AFD/Merge conclusion/discussion template has a wrong destination on it, or a better one, is it ok to change the name of the article that appears on the final notice? (with proper edit summary of course). Happypenguins82 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Happypenguins82: I'm not sure what you mean by the final notice but if it's a section heading of a discussion then don't change it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I'll give you an example, this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Williams (Tekken) this should be redirected to a different article, I want to change the only the name of the destination in this from "Tekken" which is disambiguation, to Characters of the Tekken series.
what would you advise (these articles came from the open tasks on the merging page, because the destination is off. Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Happypenguins82: The editors who voted merge should have said instead merge with Characters of the Tekken series, it is a better merge for the article. Catfurball (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, its exactly my point, and therefor i'm intrested in correcting only the correct destination: the name of the right article, and will of course be very clear when I'll write the edit summary. Happypenguins82 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Happypenguins82: Tekken is an article. It's not a disambiguation page just because it's about a whole franchise. Anna Williams (Tekken) was redirected to List of Tekken characters#Anna Williams at the time.[1] The AfD has a signed and dated post from 2023 saying "The result was merge to Tekken". Don't change that and in general, don't change posts by others. You can add a signed note saying it was actually merged to List of Tekken characters#Anna Williams, or you can contact the editor and ask whether they will change it. Anna Williams (Tekken) became an article again in 2025 when a new draft was accepted.[2] The 2023 discussion is too old to force a new merge now without a discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Ok will do as you advised. thanks again Happypenguins82 (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain but im trying to figure this out, these are the instructions from open task on the project:
== Redirected ==
The following table lists pages referred to by {{afd-merge from}} are redirects to some page other than that with the {{afd-merge from}}. Please correct the {{afd-merge from}}, either by removing it (if the page was correctly merged elsewhere), undoing the incorrect redirection, or pointing it to the correct page. This table will be updated automatically.
[[3]]
would you still advise to leave it be? Happypenguins82 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Happypenguins82: Yes. "referred to by {{afd-merge from}}" means that template is actually used. It's not used on AfD pages. Anna Williams (Tekken) ended up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge#Open tasks because {{Afd-merge from|Anna Williams (Tekken)|Anna Williams (Tekken)|5 May 2023}} was placed on Talk:Tekken when the AfD closed [4] but Anna Williams (Tekken) was redirected to another page. Editing the AfD page later would not change the code on Talk:Tekken. The code has since been removed.[5] This was appropriate since no content was apparently merged to Tekken. Anna Williams (Tekken) can be removed from the "Deleted" part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge#Open tasks which says it is not updated automatically (additions are automatic but not removals). It appears from the page history [6] that nobody actually ever removes pages so the "Deleted" list just keeps growing. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks again for the good explanation 🙏 Happypenguins82 (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

article deletion

[edit source]

An acquaintance of mine who knows that I sometimes edit Wikipedia told me that a friend of his wants to get his recently written bio deleted. Could someone give me general guidance on how to handle this? Proposing article deletion might or might not be the right solution. I don’t know yet if the subject of the new bio thinks that the bio doxxes him, or is inaccurate, or is accurate but biased, or what. Thiesen (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Thiesen, and welcome to the Teahouse.
We do not delete articles just because the subject wishes us to. Articles are deleted if they do not meet our standards, specifically about notability. If the notability of a subject is borderline, we sometimes allow the subject's wish for deletion to have weight. But if the person clearly meets our criteria for notability, then the article will not usually be deleted.
I suggest you show your friend WP:about you; but that doesn't specifically cover deletion. See Deletion policy for information about that. ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello. Generally articles are not deleted merely because the subject wishes it. If the subject wants to argue that they actually are not a notable person as Wikipedia defines one, that's something we can work with, and some consideration is given to the wishes of the subject(WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE).
If there is incorrect information in the article, we want to know what it is per policy(WP:BLP) articles about living people need to accurately summarize the provided sources. Being biased does not in and of itself prevent information from appearing on Wikipedia, as all sources of information have biases, but if the bias is so great that the source is making things up out of whole cloth, we want to know that, too. See the edit request process for subjects or their representatives to propose changes. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Which article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft submitted to AfC waiting for review

[edit source]

Hello, I submitted my article Draft:Sumit Saha through Articles for Creation several weeks ago and it is still awaiting review.

Could someone please guide me if there is anything I should improve, or take a look if possible?

Thank you.

IamSumitSaha (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You submitted your draft (Draft:Sumit Saha) a bit over 2 weeks ago. There is currently an 8 week backlog, which is shown on the pending review template. Please wait for a reviewer to get to your draft. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
First thing that comes to mind from the first sentence is WP:ENTREPRENEUR.
Why, exactly, do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Is it for vanity? Publicity? Search engine optimization? None of those reasons are valid. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the guidance.
My intention is not vanity, publicity, or SEO. I understand Wikipedia's policies regarding conflict of interest and promotional content.
I created the draft because there has been independent media coverage about my work and contributions in the technology and developer education space in Bangladesh. My goal was to document those publicly reported facts in a neutral encyclopedic format.
If the article currently does not meet Wikipedia's notability or sourcing standards, I would really appreciate any suggestions on how it could be improved.
Thank you for your time. IamSumitSaha (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Why do you want to write an article about yourself? Why does it matter to you? If you are truly notable, someone will eventually write an article about you. Whether that happens a week from now, in 5 years, or long after you are no longer on this earth, shouldn't matter to you in the least.
If you want to document reports about you, you can always do so on your official website. That's actually the best place for an autobiography. Why on Wikipedia?
About improvements: If the awards you mention are notable, do they have their own articles? If so, link them. If they are not notable awards, then you aren't helping yourself by mentioning them, because doing so comes across as publicity puffery, and using Wikipedia for publicity purposes is prohibited. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand the concern about autobiography and conflict of interest. My intention is not vanity, publicity, or SEO.
I created the draft because there has been independent media coverage of my work in technology and developer education, and I tried to summarize that coverage in a neutral encyclopedic way. I understand that writing about oneself is discouraged, and I'm happy for independent editors to review, trim, or rewrite the draft as they see fit.
On the sourcing point, the draft currently includes independent coverage from outlets such as The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, and The Daily Ittefaq. If those sources are still not sufficient to establish notability, I would genuinely appreciate guidance on whether the issue is source quality, the amount of significant coverage about me personally, or the way the draft is currently framed.
I'm not trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. I'm trying to understand whether the topic can meet Wikipedia's biography standards, and if not, I'm willing to leave that judgment to independent editors. Thank you for your time. IamSumitSaha (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
@IamSumitSaha I looked at your Draft:Sumit Saha and the very first reference says I spoke with Sumit.... This tells me that the source is not independent of you as it is based on an interview. To illustrate notability as defined by Wikipedia you need about three sources which meet our golden rules of being simultaneously independent, reliable and with significant coverage. Most people who try to write autobiographies fail because they don't realise there is a tendency to write backwards: see the links I have provided for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your valuable insights. Really appreciated. IamSumitSaha (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
@IamSumitSaha You spoke with yourself? David10244 (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Can I post my video's ?

[edit source]

I want to post my video's so can you help me Beautifully dd (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Depends on the video. Can you be more specific?
Wikipedia isn't a streaming service. You can use YouTube for that. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
What does this mean?
Sentimental Dork (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
99% the answer is a no, however if it’s something specific to an article (like a Timelapse of a plant horsing on the article of the respective plant) then that would be allowed or the first that comes to mind is the video of the assassination of the King of Yugoslavia in the 30s, which has a video. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Help with declined draft — Ilex Press

[edit source]

Hello! I recently submitted a draft for Draft:Ilex Press which was declined for insufficient secondary sources. I have since updated the draft with two new independent citations — Publishers Weekly and Insider Media. I have also disclosed my conflict of interest as the subject is my publisher. My account was created on 14 March and I have 11 edits. Could someone review my updated draft or advise if there is anything else I should improve before resubmitting on 18 March when my account reaches autoconfirmed status? Thank you. Babybirthday (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please make sure that the subject follows our 'golden rule', specifically regarding significant coverage, reliable sources, and independence of sources from the subject matter, then work on it again. Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 11:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the guidance. I believe my updated citations meet these criteria. Publishers Weekly ran a full independent feature on Ilex Press entering the US market (2012), and Insider Media covered the acquisition by Octopus Publishing Group (2014). Both are established independent trade publications with editorial oversight. I plan to resubmit on 18 March when my account reaches autoconfirmed status. Would you be willing to take a look at Draft:Ilex Press before then? Babybirthday (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Babybirthday Those are routine business activities that does not establish notability, see WP:ORGDEPTH.
You have already resubmitted the draft.
You disclosed a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
They published your book, is that it? 331dot (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, Ilex Press published three of my photography books (2015, 2017, and 2022). I am the subject Demetrius Fordham and I have disclosed this on my user page and on the Talk page of the article about me.
Regarding notability — I understand the concern about routine business activities. I would like to ask: would coverage of Ilex Press's publishing output and reputation as a specialist photography publisher be more appropriate? Publishers Weekly described them as a specialist publisher with a bestselling title selling 400,000 copies worldwide. They also have translated books into 22+ languages and co-published with major houses including Chronicle Books and Abrams. Would that angle strengthen the notability case sufficiently, or would you recommend a different approach entirely? Babybirthday (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Not just a description, but as part of a significant coverage of the publisher. Also note that trade publications have to be sourced with care, since part of the mission of trade publications is advocacy for companies in their industry.
I think you're writing the whole article WP:BACKWARD. Start with independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Ilex Press, and work from the sources. What would you say your three strongest sources are that fulfill all the requirements of the previous sentence? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear guidance. My three strongest independent sources that provide significant coverage of Ilex Press specifically are:

  1. Publishers Weekly (2012) — A full feature article dedicated entirely to Ilex Press entering the US market, covering their history, publishing focus, bestselling titles, and business strategy: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/53335-ilex-press-enters-u-s-publishing-market.html
  1. The Bookseller (2014) — Independent coverage of the Octopus Publishing Group acquisition of Ilex Press: https://www.thebookseller.com/news/octopus-buys-ilex
  1. Insider Media (2014) — Independent regional business press covering the acquisition with direct quotes from both parties: https://www.insidermedia.com/news/south-east/129441-ilex-press-wrapped-octopus

Would these three sources be sufficient to establish notability if the article were rebuilt around them rather than the other way around? I am happy to rewrite the draft entirely based on your guidance.

Babybirthday (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Hate to add to the burden but to guarantee notability for events, routine news reporting (i.e. stuff that gets largely exempted from newsworthiness discussions) can't be sufficient basis for an article. nhals8 04:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Essentially, stuff like proper analyses, indepth profiles, an coverage on Ilex Press *itself* instead of just announcements would get you out of that WP:ROUTINE reporting. nhals8 04:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I have to agree with nhals8. Even being as generous as possible to the trade publication, the other two sources are very poor for these reasons. If two of the three best sources are what we call trivial coverage, I don't believe an article is possible for this company at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I now understand that the sources provide only routine coverage rather than the significant independent coverage required. I will keep the draft in userspace and will not resubmit it until I can locate in-depth independent sources specifically about Ilex Press. I appreciate the community's guidance. Babybirthday (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Biography

[edit source]

I’m the subject of a potential biography (Professor Chris Hopkins, healthcare scientist and President of the Academy for Healthcare Science). I understand conflict-of-interest rules and would like advice or help from a neutral editor creating the article. ~2026-16476-42 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-16476-42, and welcome to the Teahouse.
The general advice is: Don't. Please see WP:autobiography for why not. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Biographies have a life of their own. Sometimes it's better not to have a Wikipedia article about yourself because hostile editors can quickly turn it to an attack piece and you will be outnumbered and cannot fight it. If someone defends you, both of you could be banned (Wikipedia lingo is "blocked"), falsely accused of sockpuppetry. I would not want a Wikipedia bio unless I was exceptionally well known, like an award winning actor. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello again, @~2026-16476-42. I think @Vanguard10's reply is rather overstating the case, and painting Wikipedia as a lawless domain. While it's true that editors do sometimes edit articles to attack the subject, this is not acceptable behaviour, and it is usually caught pretty quickly and the perpetrator warned, and blocked if they persist.
Having said that, if it happened that reliable sources published material critical of you, then it would be appropriate for editors to summarise that material in a Wikipedia article about you, and you would not necessarily be able to challenge that. ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-16476-42 Have you been featured in two articles in reliable sources (eg. national newspapers or Sunday magazines)? Are there any references to you already in Wikipedia articles? Have you gotten any national honours (eg MBE etc)? MmeMaigret (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Professor Hopkins, I notice in passing that the article on the Academy for Healthcare Science (United Kingdom) itself is rather paltry, and has not been edited (hence updated or improved) in any way for about 21 months. It also lacks an infobox, in which you could validly be entered as President. It would be useful if sourced information could be added to its Talk page, for evaluation and possible addition by disinterested editors (see WP:Conflict of interest). Specific Wikipedia:Edit requests could also be made by parties connected with the Academy, who should not, however, edit the article itself except for the most minor, uncontroversial matters, or to remove inaccurate and unsourced statements. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
[edit source]

Avantgardey is a new article in English Wikipedia. However, there is a more detailed and older article in Japanese Wikipedia. In the English article, near the top right, there are links to other languages. How does one add the Japanese article to that?

ja:アバンギャルディ

Vanguard10 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

They are linked through the corresponding Wikidata item, in this case d:Q120000080. I have now done this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! Vanguard10 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

What did I do? Strange edit

[edit source]

I edited the article on Frederick the Great to replace three en-dashes with em-dashes and correct the spelling of one word, but the version history says I added like 600 characters?? I'm confused because I looked at the article and I don't understand what was done...

Sentimental Dork (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Sentimental Dork, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Looking at the diff, I see that something has inserted a lot of spaces into the citations - before every time pipe ("|"), by the look of it.
I'm sure you didn't intend that - I guess it's something the Visual editor has decided to do. But it doesn't do any harm. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for letting me know. Do I need to go in and try to fix it, or is it fine as-is?
Sentimental Dork (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
It's fine as is, Sentimental Dork. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Article

[edit source]

My article got declined why ?? Yousef Alzaabi (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yousef Alzaabi the declining reviewer left a comment at Draft:Yousef Alzaabi on why the draft was declined. Do you have any questions about the comment? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
@Yousef Alzaabi Because you haven't cited a single source. See WP:GNG and WP:42. MmeMaigret (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Yousef Alzaabi, 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.
This means that to successfully write an article about yourself you would first have to find places where people wholly unconnected with you have published material about you, and then effectively forget everything that you know about yourself and write a summary of what those people have said about you. Do you see why this is so amazingly difficult to achieve that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged? ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

How to add a "non-neutral point of view banner"

[edit source]

I do not believe Siam in World War I to be complaint with Wikipedia's Neutral point of view guideline. How do I add a banner to warn of this? DYC TY (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

DYC TY, various contenders for such a banner, or a banner saying something similar, are listed in WP:Template index/Disputes. But on the article's talk page, neither you nor anybody else has yet questioned the article's neutrality. (Indeed, nobody has uttered anything there for over ten years.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
@DYC TY I don't see anything wrong with the tone, which seems fairly matter of fact. (The article does seem to lack sources - although it looks like it had end of paragraph sourcing and over time that has changed a bit.) What exactly do you think is wrong with the article? MmeMaigret (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Editing anatomy stubs, what next?

[edit source]

I am systematically editing anatomy articles rated as stubs. My hope is the work can move them to start class or higher. Do I need to take an action to signal I think these articles are ready to be assessed? You can see from my recent contributions all of the nerve stubs I have edited. Thank you! MikePascoe (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome! There is nothing stopping you from rating an article as a stub, start, C, or B class. The only exceptions are Good, A, and Featured articles which have a review process. If you think an article is no longer a stub, WP:BE BOLD and change the templates to what you see fit! GGOTCC 04:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
You can use the tool Rater to make and/ or apply assessments to articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Putting "Don't Just Stand There!", the 1968 Universal comedy, in the proper place

[edit source]

The Wikipedia write-up says the 1968 Universal comedy DON'T JUST STAND THERE! was released 'May 1, 1968'. I deleted the part of the 'List of Universal Pictures films (1960-1969)' where the movie was listed as having been released in September '68 . . . then I realized I don't know how to ADD BACK to the list the proper release date of 'May 1'. Oops. Can someone either help me figure out how to do it /or/ add it back without my 'help' (I use the term loosely!). Kind regards, CARTER GORMAN ~2026-16472-70 (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-16472-70,
Looking through the edit history I don't notice the edit you're speaking about, at least if the article in question is Don't Just Stand There!.
You can always undo mistaken edits easily via the "View History" page and clicking "undo" on the corresponding edit. It happens to all of us sometimes!
If you are referring to the Trivia edits which have been done and undone multiple times, this might qualify as edit warring and should be avoided at all costs as per WP:EDITWAR. Conflicts should be resolved on the article's talk page through discussion with other editors. You could also leave a friendly message on the other editor's talk page.
Also, a friendly recommendation: sign up for an account. That way you won't be editing under a perpetually-changing IP address, and other editors can contact you.
All the best and happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Greetings, temporary user Gorman. I've done what you asked and added the film to List of Universal Pictures films (1960-1969) in the chronological position for May 1. I think, however, that some further investigation may be needed to confirm this date. The sources seem to indicate that what occurred on May 1 was a premiere in Providence, Rhode Island, and that the film didn't go into wide release until September 4. (And the archived TCM page inexplicably gives a "release date" of "Jan. 1968" while noting that the premiere was the May 1 showing in Providence.) Too confusing for my poor brain without sufficient morning coffee. Deor (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Some softwares automatically display "January 1968", "January 01 1968", "01-00-1968", etc., if only the year is entered (and "01 January . . ." etc. if the month but not day is entered). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m trying to fix a problem.

[edit source]

I am attempting to correct some very simple and easily verifiable (via links already provided on the wiki page) information on Richard Benyon (gymnast) as his name is both spelled wrong and his names appear in the wrong order. It’s Beynon not Benyon and his middle name is Carl not Richard. Why are these changes being labelled ‘not constructive’? I’d like a response specific to mobile view if possible, thank you. ~2026-15861-40 (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Currently the only reference on the page links to a site which does indeed refer to him as 'Carl Richard Benyon'. Your changes are being reverted because you are not providing a reliable source which supports your change. Athanelar (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
I see now that the Olympedia page refers to him as "Carl Richard Beynon" instead.
Frankly, the subject seems non-notable anyway, I'm pretty sure this article needs to be deleted; I think it's a holdover from when NATHLETE was much less strict. Athanelar (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
I would say he was just about notable in terms of athletic achievement (two national-level gold medals – see WP:NGYMNASTICS).
I was drawn into this discussion over the name confusion, being aware that the writer John Wyndham's full name was John Wyndham Parkes Lucas Beynon Harris, which is often mis-spelled. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Struggling to incorporate different perspective

[edit source]

Hi, I was trying to flesh out the article for The Yellow Scale with some info from a book by a scholar whose area of expertise is Comparative Literature and German. However, the book treats the picture as if it were a portrait of Charles Baudelaire, rather than what's stated on the article (what seems to be the prevailing view among art historians, which is that it's a self-portrait). It doesn't directly contradict this view because it doesn't even acknowledge it. I found some info on an art history blog saying there's a faction of scholars who believe it to be a portrait of Baudelaire, but no primary evidence of this. What do you do when a single accredited source is on a totally different wavelength from the existing text but doesn't properly engage with it? Kaspar Hauser (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Mafarkafut (Kaspar Hauser), "the book treats the picture as if it were a portrait of Charles Baudelaire" is curiously indirect. Does the book treat the picture as a portrait of Baudelaire? If it does, and if the book gives some reasoning for this interpretation, then I'd mention it (but I'd skip talk of the "faction of scholars"); if the author fails to assert this directly or asserts it but provides no reasoning for it, then I wouldn't mention it. I can't cite any guideline to back me up here, and so may well be contradicted. -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Mafarkafut,
You could mention the possibility of The Yellow Scale being a portrait of Baudelaire within the article and note that it's not the consensus, a method opted for in a number of articles. As an example you could refer to this article, section "Conspiracy Theories", which demonstrates this way of acknowledging perspectives that don't agree with the consensus. For more information you can also refer to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE which provide guidelines to treat this kind of information.
Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Translation into English of Baluga (YouTuber)

[edit source]

Background

[edit source]

Hello everyone. I am trying to understand why the English translation I created for the Wikipedia entry “Baluga (YouTuber)”—which I translated from the Hebrew Wikipedia—was rejected. I spent many hours working carefully on the translation and adapting the article to fit the English Wikipedia, so I was surprised to see that the submission was declined.

Work on the Article

[edit source]

My goal was mainly to translate and adapt the content from the Hebrew entry into English so that readers of the English Wikipedia could access similar information. While doing so, I tried to follow the usual guidelines for formatting and structure. However, there were certain details and sources from the Hebrew Wikipedia that I was not able to include in the English version.

Possible Reasons for the Rejection

[edit source]

Because of this, I am wondering whether the rejection may have been related to one of several possible issues. For example:

  • Some information that appears in the Hebrew article might not meet the sourcing or notability requirements of the English Wikipedia.
  • The image I included may not have been suitable for use on English Wikipedia (for licensing or copyright reasons).
  • There may have been other formatting, sourcing, or policy issues that I did not fully notice while preparing the translation.

My Question

[edit source]

I would really appreciate it if someone could help clarify the specific reason why the article was rejected. Understanding the exact issue would help me improve the article and avoid making the same mistake in future translations or submissions.

Thank you in advance for any guidance or feedback. VikepediaYuser (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Beluga nil nz 09:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi @VikepediaYuser, please note that your draft was declined, not rejected. This means you're welcome to continue working on it and resubmit it when it's ready.
Per the reviewer's feedback, the draft does not meet our notability criteria. We need to see multiple sources that meet WP:GOLDEN RULE; the subject's own YouTube channel is not independent, and the other sources don't show significant coverage of Beluga. nil nz 09:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
@VikepediaYuser Your sources don't meet the criteria for English Wikipedia. Refer WP:42 and WP:GNG MmeMaigret (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
ps. your draft and this post are also giving AI. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @VikepediaYuser, and welcome to the Teahouse.
To add to what others have said: every different-language Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own policies and procedures. Many of them have less strict requirements for sources than English Wikipedia.
This means that translating an article from another Wikipedia into English is usually a waste of time, unless you verify first that the original article has adequate sources, most of which meet the requirements of being independent, reliable, secondary, and having significant coverage of the subject: see WP:42. (It's OK for them not to be in English as long as they meet those requirements). ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that this is our second draft on this subject, the older of which is Draft:Beluga (YouTuber). -- MediaKyle (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I need help.

[edit source]

I'm having a particularly severe episode of mental distress, and I'm incredibly compiled to leave Wikipedia and remove my work at this point because of this very overwhelming sense of guilt.

I am a Teahouse host, so help from WP:RETENTION would be greatly appreciated. I currently don't have the ability to make independent judgements. nhals8 16:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @.nhals8. I'm sorry to read that you are in distress.
I don't know what help I can be, except to say that there is nothing that you need to do or not do. If it fits for you to leave WP for a while - do it! That doesn't mean that your contribution is not valued, but your own well-being is more important than Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Echoing Colin, a WP:WIKIBREAK is a perfectly valid (and advisable) way to handle this. There's no need to remove your work; just step away from Wikipedia as long as you need and come back when you're ready. Even if you want to request a courtesy vanishing and come back on a completely different account under a fresh start when you're ready, that's also fine. Do whatever you need. Athanelar (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Baby globe

[edit source]

HELP ME FIND BABY GLOBE ;) I NEED SOME CUTE MODE ON I HAV BDAY MODE ON I NOT WANT JUST SETTINGS HELP PLEASES ~2026-16655-31 (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16655-31 I believe that mode was supposed to be removed today, but I may be wrong. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Per the RFC, it is disabled. It seems that people with accounts can still access (judging by the fact I still have the option to enable it in preferences), but per Special:CommunityConfiguration the feature will be gone on April 6th. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Species and extinct species

[edit source]

Courtesy link: Hypoponera

just wondering if the diveristy should be 156 (total species) or 154 (total living species) with an additional statement addressing the 2 extinct species FranticSpud (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I would be inclined to have the infobox read "Diversity: 154 (living), 2 (extinct). It might also be mentioned in the text that, (as the linked reference says) there are also 22 recognised subspecies.
By my count the actual list in the article runs to only 149 species (including 2 marked as extinct). Good luck with identifying and adding the missing 7. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
ill find a way, thanks FranticSpud (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

[edit source]

I was adding a citation to the page for Robert Michael Franklin jr Robert Michael Franklin Jr.#President of Morehouse College and found that the bulk of the page closely resembles this kid's encyclopedia page: https://kids.kiddle.co/Robert_Michael_Franklin_Jr.

Do I leave it alone? Choose to rewrite the page and find new sources? PlantPoet (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

From the bottom of the kid's encyclopedia page: "Kiddle encyclopedia: Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Kiddle encyclopedia articles are based on selected content and facts from Wikipedia, rewritten for children." This implies to me the kid's encyclopedia is copied from the Wikipedia article, rather than the other way around. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! I apologize that I didn't do due diligence to see where the kiddie encyclopedia came from! PlantPoet (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I really hate that site. I've come across it many times when doing research for articles, and it's just copy-pasted. Not once have I seen any differences between it and Wikipedia. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 19:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Some of them do seem to be different from Wikipedia, like Knight (chess) and Foxwoods Resort Casino. OutsideNormality (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Is this image a CopyVio, and if so how do I start deletion?

[edit source]

I've found [7] which I believe might be a copyright violation? I couldn't find a license to use it anywhere on the source (though I admit I'm not 100% sure what I'm looking for). Should it be removed, and if so how would it be done? Realtent (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The image is on Commons, so not something Wikipedia has any direct control over. That said, the supposed source is a 404, so I have tagged it and if no appropriate source is found in a week it'll be deleted. Thanks! CoconutOctopus talk 21:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Source is archived as [8]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Good find. Nothing at all on that about the license, though, so still one for deletion. CoconutOctopus talk 21:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

My Draft got rejected because of references

[edit source]

my draft on coffee by supersister got rejected twice because the sources were not independent since its my first time writing a wikipedia article could someone cross check all the references whether they are ok to be there or should be removed Draft:Coffee (SuperSister Song) Narventer (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

What we are looking for is explained at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Policies, Building Trust, and Community Health

[edit source]

Wikipedia is often at a crossroads. They have to maintain the wiki health for one, but also not make it hostile to new editors. Even experienced editors may feel unwelcome if other editors unilaterally reprimand them without any empathy. Furthermore, many Wikipedia policies are tucked away in policy articles and TL:DR issues also persist (Some editors assume that everyone had the time to read the policy, but that's not often the case. Or they look at a long-term editor and use the excuse of "You should know the rules by now." to be rude and blunt to them.). The other issue is zero-tolerance policies that have left many individuals with bad memories, causing them to be cautious and skeptical of further disciplinary action they feel is unjust, including potential Wikipedia editors reprimanding them for things they didn't realize (or threatening disciplinary action) because of the things I mentioned above, which may even cause experienced editors to leave out of fear.

I've been rambling on for a while now. How do I ensure I and many others with anxiety still feel welcome here long-term. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TheEternalOutsider!
First, good on you for bringing up these issues. I think this is a great place to talk about it.
To make yourself feel welcome, I'd advise you make sure to take breaks when things aren't working out and stand up for yourself when you are not being treated well.
To make sure others feel welcome, I guess try to make sure to assume good faith -- assume that people have good intentions and work from there to make things work better for them and the encyclopedia. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
It's hard for me to stand up for myself, because I still remember authorities who abused their power to leave me unable to talk and feeling hopeless, none of which had any empathy. A moderator could threaten to drag me to the Arbitration Committee, get me blocked through a biased testimony of me, and get no repercussions for it. Furthermore, on my end, it's hard for me to assume good faith since my anxiety perceives any slight as a threat to my peace of mind. Other people may have similar problems in anxiety. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
I almost forgot. I've heard stories of POV pushers, conflict of interest editors, tendentious LTAs, and those who game the system, including extremists who slyly game the policy and maliciously cherry-pick or misinterpret passages in NPOV to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox. I remember many who promised to protect me in the past chose not to protect me, were blindsided by tendentious abusers, were played by Machiavellian deception, or had higher ups who hurt me. I've been rambling on again, haven't I? I care about Wikipedia's long-term health and don't want anyone to get led astray by bad faith actors. While consensus is the main policy here, Machiavellian behavior to twist opinions is still something I am wary of. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, and admins absolutely do not have the power to unilaterally block you based only on their own testimony, nor is anybody going to 'threaten to drag you' to arbcom. All of the other things you've listed do indeed exist, but they simply aren't a problem for most editors on a day-to-day basis. If you're minding your business and editing in whatever area interests you, you're generally not going to run into issues with POV pushing or COI or LTAs or what have you. Participating with all of that sort of 'drama' is entirely optional, and you're fully welcome to (and encouraged to) just stay in your lane making edits to whatever articles interest you and never getting bogged down in inter-editor relations. Athanelar (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for listening to me. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Victims name

[edit source]
The supreme Court of India specifically told the victims name should not be reported but it's still there

2024 Kolkata rape and murder. Stanjik (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of India has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
But this RfC does. I've reverted the article back to a clean state. I do not believe a revdel is necessary. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Maybe irrelevant, but I'd personally have voted to keep the name if I was around for that RfC, for the following reasons:
1: Trump Today's world leaders should not get the idea that with a single order or court mandate, they can influence the contents of Wikipedia to their whim. If we allow leaders, especially Authoritarians, to influence Wikipedia, you have a very steep slide which has been coated in a thick layer of butter.
2: Adding to this, while India has ruled that the name be excluded, the US has not. Wikipedia, being run by the Wikimedia Foundation (based in America), should have no reason to exclude the name. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 19:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I totally get where you're coming from. While I voted to exclude in that RFC, I disagreed strongly with the close, specifically the third factor named in that close (I feel the arguments about local cultural norms shouldn't have been taken into consideration in the formation of any consensus). But at the end of the day, that was the result of the RFC, which is a robust expression of consensus on a particular subject, and I don't see an objective basis for saying that the consensus has changed. I'd bet that the vast majority of editors with experience have been on the wrong ends of many consensuses they strongly feel are wrong. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Help me out

[edit source]

I how can you people help me out ~2026-16732-86 (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

What help do you need? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

New article for "Phytochrome" (English language)

[edit source]

The current EN article "Phytochrome" is almost useless, so I have written a completely new one to replace it (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Photochrom/sandbox#%22Phytochrome%22). However, although I have a good understanding of the field, this is my first attempt at writing a Wikipeia article, so I would like an experienced person to take a look and suggest appropriate changes. Thanks for any help! Best Jon, aka Photochrom Photochrom (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

When I click on that link to your completely new version, Photochrom, I arrive at just a single paragraph saying that you "have written a completely new version". But I don't see any version, old or new. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
 Courtesy link: User:Photochrom/sandbox – NJD-DE (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
o, sorry - I thought you'd be able to switch to and from the article and its talk section. the article itself is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Photochrom/sandbox - at least when I view it....Photochrom (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Nice work so far.
Formatting issues: get rid of the citations in headings, add a "References" section at the bottom and put a {{references}} tag there.
Content issues: There's a lot of editorializing in the "Historical apsects" section. Try to remove things sounding like subjective opinion ("Perhaps the most...", "had of course continued", and so on), and try for more brevity in the wall-of-text paragraphs.
You may want to propose your new version at Talk:Phytochrome. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Certainly an ambitious draft! It makes a welcome change from -- but no, I mustn't offend other editors (a group certainly including myself). In this minor edit, I corrected date formatting, as the format you'd used brings syntax errors; there remain a number of analogous corrections to be made. We avoid attaching references to headings, subheadings, subsubheadings, etc; instead usually attaching the reference to the end of the paragraph(s) that it supports. Beyond that, I don't want to comment, primarily because of my profound ignorance of the subject and of background matters. I hope that other editors here, better educated than I am, take a look and add comments and suggestions. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Photochrom One of the problems with a wholescale re-write like you propose is that you are not crediting the work of > 100 editors who have contributed to that article, many of whom will not agree it is currently "almost useless". Incremental changes are almost always better than re-writes. Your expert views are welcome but may overwhelm Wikipedia's target audience with over-detailed and jargon-laden writing. (I could give examples from your sandbox but that's better done elsewhere.) Full disclosure: I have made one edit to Phytochrome, on 27 January this year, its latest update. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Sorry Mike, but I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to present humanity with useful, informative, current, reliable information. The current "Phytochrome" article fails this miserably except in a few places. I can't help it if well-meaning people have made contributions that are unimportant and/or confusing and/or, out-of-date and/or simply wrong! Please bear with me while I explain the situation in some detail.
- The first figure shows a crystal structure of a (mutant!) fragment of PaBphP, a "bathy"-type bacteriophytochrome (that is, one of the very unusual phytochromes that whose dark state in Pfr, not Pr as in almost all other phytochromes). In the meantime, near-complete structures even of plant phytochromes are known! In any case, it's clear that this is NOT an appropriate introductory illustration for a Wikipedia article! How many normal people have any idea about 3D protein structures?!
- In the second paragraph: phytochromes DO NOT regulate chlorophyll biosynthesis. The limiting factors are the protochlorophyllide reductases.
- The "Structure" section is confused, failing to describe the domains in bacterial and plant phytochromes accurately. It does not reference the PaBphP illustration (see above). It also says blandly "the PAS domain serves as a signal sensor and the GAF domain is responsible for binding to cGMP" - both statements are wrong or at the very least misrepresent the consensus opinion in the field.
- As phytochrome is a photoreceptor, its light absorption properties are centrally important. So what do we see in the second figure? An exceedingly bad sketch of two overlaid absorption spectra by someone and credited to "Devlin 1969" without any reference given! Furthermore, one of the curves is labelled "Pfr" (well, actually "PFR - which would be ok if the typography were to be correct), but unfortunately it isn't a Pfr spectrum (I can explain why if you like, but you can believe me!).
- In the third figure, a paper from 1968 is cited and used to illustrate the chromophore and its behaviour during photoconversion from Pr to "PIR". It's completely wrong!
- The section "Isoforms and states" is ok, but (understandably!) it references neither of the two relevant [sic] figures.
- There follows a long, long section "Phytochromes' effect on phototropism" describing a trivial and largely irrelevant piece of physiological work published in 1977. Please note that there are THOUSANDS of papers at this level in the phytochrome field and that there is NO justification for including this one in particular.
- The next section "Phytochrome effect on root growth" has the same problem, except that in this case, nothing is cited at all.
- The "Biochemistry" section seems to have been written by one of the experts in the bilin biosynthesis field and is, in that respect, ok. It goes on to discuss gene regulation, though - and hardly does justice to the that exceedingly important aspect of phytochrome biology (I think the author would agree!)
- The "Discovery" section is ok as far as it goes, but it fails to credit some very important studies that contributed hugely to the "discovery" of phytochrome (and were the reason that Borthwick's group started to work on it). The Kehoe & Grossman section places emphasis on their 1996 Science paper describing the RcaE gene - but it was not shown to be a photoreceptor until Hirose et al. (2013) corrected the sequence - and anyhow, it's a CBCR, not a canonical phytochrome. The section then goes on to describe the 3D structures known, but only up to 2014 - this field is boiling!
- The final "Genetic engineering" section is ok, although perhaps a little naïve.
- Various reputable studies are referenced, but I would argue that the list gives a poor representation of the broad field and certainly misses several VERY important papers. For example, no one would question the central role of Peter Quail's lab in phytochrome research from 1980 - 2020, yet the only paper of his in the list is the artificial phy-PIF expression system for yeast.
I apologise for the length of the above text, but how else can I make the enormity of the problem clear?! I hope you can now see a bit more exactly why I wrote my article from scratch. Incidentally, I had begun with the intention of (extensively) editing the current text, but soon realised that it would be pointless and almost impossible.
Now, by describing the huge problem with the current "Phytochrome" article, I am not implying that my new version is perfect. I asked the community for input here exactly because it needs editing. I generally write primary research papers and reviews, neither of which follows the Wikipedia style. There a probably some technical terms that need (better) explanation - that's hard for me to judge. Also, whereas on the one hand, I might have missed a few topics, on the other, the "History" section is very long (maybe an initial summary would be helpful for users who only want a brief overview).
Ok, time for bed!
Best, jon Photochrom (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
OK, I'll offer some additional advice, although you haven't followed the earlier advice I gave above.
The community's preference is to make incremental changes, but if the article needs a wholesale rewrite, you can propose that too on the talk page. You made a case that there is enough wrong with the original that a wholesale replacement may be justified.
Remember, articles need to be written for a layman to understand, as much as possible, although this is understandably not possible for some subject areas such as higher mathematics. The lead section of the original article is understandable. On the other hand, your lead section quickly dives deep into jargon-filled descriptions that are opaque to a general reader.
The lead section should not introduce any information that isn't in the body text. Think of the lead section as an abstract. It should summarize the main points of the body text. Neither version does a good job of this.
Also, you're changing the variety of English. On Wikipedia, the guideline is to preserve English spelling being used, and not replace it with another English variety. The original article uses US spelling, your replacement uses British. Perhaps Oxford spelling would be a happy medium (it's still British). ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Please, please do it bit-wise, and discuss with other editors on the talk page. I've looked at your version as well as the original. You clearly have a lot of factual information to add, but I think your expertise makes it hard for you to see how your writing appears to a non-expert. Parts of it assume knowledge beyond what should be assumed in a tertiary sources such as an encyclopedia. There is a difference between writing a review article for a journal, and writing a wikipedia article that must make sense to a vaguely-biologically-aware member of the public. Your changes will be much, much better if you allow other editors to collaborate with you on this. You have the potential to improve the article substantially, but be careful about throwing out the pre-existing article completely - it has some good aspects too. Elemimele (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi Elemimele,
I'm fine with suggestions as to improving the accessibility of my text, but I am NOT going to edit the current version (if that's what you mean by doing it "bit-wise").
(1) I had tried to explain that the great majority of the current text is useless, and the same is true for most of the illustrations. It's obvious for anyone who knows the field. I could suggest a few colleagues who could provide their opinions.
(2) What aspects of the current version do you think are good? If you could be more specific, I'd be happy to comment on them.
(3) In my criticisms of the current version, I noted a couple of sections that are ok, but it would hardly be worthwhile to somehow "fit them in" when everything else has to be written from scratch. It would be much, much better if the people who wrote the "ok" sections were to comment on the new version. My initial request here was for people to help to improve my version of the "Phytochrome" article (see also my reply to Anachronist), so I'd be delighted if editors of the current version ("other editors"?) were to collaborate in this way.
best, jon Photochrom (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi Anachronist,
My request was that people make suggestions as to how to improve my "Phytochrome" article, so thanks for your earlier suggestions - which I will of course implement once a few other, more fundamental "issues" are clarified.
Up to now in this discussion I have outlined why the current article is useless except in a couple of sections and should therefore be deleted and (hopefully!) replaced.
My lead section was intended to say what phytochromes are; that is, to define the term. The current version does a rather poor job of this, even if you find it understandable. It appears to me to have been written on the fly and without much deliberation. If my version has too many "opaque" terms, those can be replaced by more generalised text. I can also generate an abstract, if that's what you want. Note that the current lead section does not represent an abstract by any stretch of the imagination!
It really makes no difference to me what English "variety" is used.
best, jon Photochrom (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Feedback for my first Wikipedia Page!

[edit source]

Hello all! I have just created a Wikipedia page for the first time. I would appreciate all feedback for my new page, Home Base Program, as any and all feedback will help my Wikipedia experience! Donohue55 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The "Mission" section has some issues with unencyclopedic tone; the first two sentences are puffery that read like they were copied directly from the organisation's mission statement, and don't really tell us anything useful about the organisation's actual operations. Home Base aims to support those who served their countries, no matter their discharge status. The organization works with veterans, active service members, and their families to face the invisible wounds that remain after their service.
"Support" how? What "invisible wounds?" This kind of prose is appropriate for a charity's website trying to drum up sympathy and support, but not for an encyclopedia which should be neutrally summarising the details of this organisation. "Home Base provides medical and psychiatric care to veterans" or something to that effect would be more than suitable.
The program's care is offered across the country, Template:Strike Same thing here. You can just get rid of that whole second part, it serves no additional informational purpose.
The organization is expanding their clinical worker further, as Home Base Arizona is in the works. It's generally inappropriate for Wikipedia to report on future events. As that page says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." An expansion of an organisation's scope is routine operations and therefore is not 'notable' enough to warrant mentioning. We wouldn't expect the article for McDonalds to report that a new store is opening in Podunk. Athanelar (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I added a Tone cleanup template to the Mission section as per @Athanelar's advice. Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
You really should have submitted it for review via WP:AFC. This isn't ready for mainspace. You can move it to Draft:Home Base Program if you want and add {{subst:AFC draft}} at the top, which provides a button for you to submit it when you're ready. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I am not a reviewer, rather passing by user.
In my humble opinion Home Base Program associates with New York City and not with Boston.
Plenty of cities might have a home base program. Matjung (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on article about kpop and parasocial relationships

[edit source]

Hi everyone! I'm currently working on improving a Wikipedia article related to kpop and parasocial relationships. User:Meiqi Jiao/Parasocial interaction

I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so any advice would mean a lot to me! Thanks! Meiqi Jiao (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You should use reliable sources and you should write in a neutral tone. Learn more at WP:NPOV Phong062474 (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Can someone help update an institutional article?

[edit source]

Hello, we are from the Cebu school administration. We would like to add a new entry for our school. Our school only opened to the public in 2021. LC2026Ma (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to add an entry to your school, you should refer to our "golden rule" regarding notability, significant coverage, and independent sources. Once you're confident enough, you can view our guide on writing your first Wikipedia article. Cheers! nhals8 06:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Please also see WP:BOSSToarin (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @LC2026Ma, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Please note that most schools do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - I advise you to not write so much as a single word about your school before you have found the required independent reliable sources - particularly for a new school, it is likely that these sources do not exist. (Note in particular that any newspaper coverage of the new school is likely to be based on press releases, and so not independent).
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. And that is even without the editor having a conflict of interest (which it sounds as if you may have). ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

How do I find reliable Citations?

[edit source]

When I am editing on Wikipedia, how do I know that the source I am using is reliable? Are there anyways to find out that the citation is not deprecated or unreliable? I already know how to cite, but I am not quite sure how to check the quality of the sources. Phong062474 (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Phong062474 One possibility is to check the perennial sources list and its archives. As to deprecated sources, there's a good script you can set up at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
That's a good advice. I will go and visit the pages later. Phong062474 (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Phong062474, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Please read WP:Reliable sources for guidance.
Note that reliability is not absolute, but depends on what information it is being used to support. A fishing magazine might be reliable for information about fishing, less so for international relations. ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
A good way to check on whether a magazine is reliable is whether it has a named editorial staff. This isn't the only way, and it's not foolproof, but it's useful. DS (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
That's a good way to know if a source is reliable. I also know that pages that can be edited frequently (or if it has no authors listed) may be unreliable. Is this correct? Phong062474 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Wall Street Error

[edit source]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm trying to publish an article about Over Spa, an Italian company that is a spin-off from Sapienza University of Rome with a 13-year history. I get the error "Wall Street" when I try to publish — can you help me understand the reason why this is happening? I also tried publishing a very simplified version of the article but with no success getting the same error. ErazzorOnWiki (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

That seems very unusual. Are you using any translation plugins on your browser that could be modifying the error statement? Are there any sources in the draft named "Wall Street"? signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
There are no translation plugins on my browser (Safari). There are no sources named "Wall Street" into the page I'm trying to create.
The error I got is the following (in Italian since I'm trying to publish on it.wikipedia.org): "Questa azione è stata ritenuta pericolosa e quindi impedita in base a una verifica automatica. Se si ritiene che l'azione in questione sia costruttiva, contattare un amministratore e informarlo su ciò che si stava tentando di fare. Questa è una breve descrizione della regola che è stata violata: Wall Street" ErazzorOnWiki (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
See below then. In general, different language Wikipedias are autonomous from each other, so editors here on en.wiki are unlikely to be familiar with practices on it.wiki. signed, Rosguill talk 17:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
ok thanks, just wrote the question about it on the Italian Wikipedia. ErazzorOnWiki (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@ErazzorOnWiki: You are receiving this as a result of an edit filter on Italian Wikipedia. I believe the issue might be that they don't like new users publishing new articles about companies. You will need to inquire on Italian Wikipedia how to resolve the issue. Perhaps start at it:Aiuto:Sportello_informazioni. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Seeking second opinion: Notability of Sri Lankan medical professional (Draft: Dileepa Wickramasekara)

[edit source]

Hello. I am seeking a second opinion on Draft:Dileepa Wickramasekara. It has been declined by two reviewers for notability and tone. I have provided three full-page health features in national newspapers (Lake House Publications) and two appearances on the state TV broadcaster (SLRC). The reviewers seem to view these as interviews or routine, but in Sri Lanka, these are significant editorial features. I have simplified the text to be completely factual. Could a volunteer please check the newspaper scans in my Google Drive link and let me know if I am truly not meeting GNG standards, or if the reviewers are being too strict on a South Asian medical professional? Hansi Weeragammana (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't speak Sinhala, but I machine translated the photos and it seems like the newspaper scans are medical articles written by the person, not articles about him, which are required to establish notability. Is that not the case? TV appearances are not suitable for the same reason, unless maybe they're documentaries about the person. 🍅 fx (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
User is now blocked as an undisclosed paid editor. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Anachronist the draft seems to contain a COI disclosure, no? 🍅 fx (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
The editor failed to answer the paid editing question, which included an instruction not to edit until answering it. The question was ignored and the editor proceeded anyway. A COI disclosure is fine, but if there is compensation, paid editing disclosure is mandatory per the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of service. An editor isn't free to simply ignore the question when it is asked, and it was asked a couple of days ago with many edits since then. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse hosting

[edit source]

What does being a Teahouse host entail? It seems like hosts answer questions here just like everyone else, so what is the purpose of signing up as a host? 🍅 fx (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a relevant discussion at WT:Teahouse/Archive_28#Should we get rid of the featured hosts on the top right of the header and mark them as historical?. There is certainly no obligation to sign up but many regulars here have done so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
As far as I know, being a Teahouse host simply means you have established a history of answering questions here. There is a list of Teahouse hosts, the existence of which I was unaware until someone added me to that list, so I went and updated the image on it. I think that list exists solely for the purpose of the rotation of hosts in the banner at the top of this page. According to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured I appeared once, in December. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, half of the articles are stubs - so what?

[edit source]

Yes, half of the articles are stubs - so what? Recently I tried adding an article - to find out, that its content quality is not yet in line with Wikipedia expectation. If half of the articles are considered to be Stub - maybe that is good enough for the audience? Is it possible to add a Draft to the Stub collection? Wikipedia:Stub.

Anyway, one of the Stub articles is: Investor Relations Society.

The rejected draft article is: Draft:Global Investor Relations Network.

I agree, it is stub or incomplete. Unless you find enough people with motivation to do it better - half of the articles will remain stub, and new content may not find its way into the platform. Anyway, I asked the Stub if they have volunteers to look into that. Matjung (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It can take years for a stub to be updated. I created a stub perineum sunning a few years ago, and only recently fleshed it out into a larger article based on news events that happened after I created the stub.
An even older stub I made (15 years ago!), Sayyid Baraka, is still a stub in spite of having many different editors make edits to it. It's likely to remain that way unless I or someone revisits it, because it already supplies sufficient information about the subject. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, and a stub is fine if it provides adequate sourcing. You basically need two or three sources that meet all the WP:Golden Rule criteria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

abdul aziz gaharwal khan death newspaper cutting proof

[edit source]

we have cutting of newspaper Bilalkhan019 (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Proof that he's dead? According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, he was recovered safely almost a year ago, if this is the person you're talking about. [1]🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 19:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Looking at your contribution history it seems that is NOT the person you mean, sorry about that, ignore me.🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 19:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Bilalkhan019, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Fine that you have a newspaper cutting, but what use is that to a reader who wants to check that the information in your draft is reliable?
You need to cite (see referencing for beginners) reliable independent sources for the information in a draft.
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) 22:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Question on draft

[edit source]

Hi! I would like to know how I could improve my draft because it was declined for lacking criteria for inclusion. I had used 18 references which included independent articles, research papers, recognised newspapers, and one official government notice. Out of these, I had used only 3 dependent sources to explain the organisation's founding date and internal structure because:

  1. Members know their organisation better.
  2. I could not find any exclusive coverage on the matter.

Other than these 3 particular sources, I had tried my best to find the most reliable sources. I would be extremely grateful if someone could identify the faults in my draft. Thank you. Unbreakablerodent (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Unbreakablerodent You’re right, members often do know their organization better, but you know what they also know as a consequence? What said organization wants the public to know about them. That’s why you can’t use dependent sources. See WP:INDEPENDENT for more info. Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I know the consequences very well. But there are no disputes on founding date and internal structure either. It was the only source. I cannot leave an article bare because it lacks a date, can I? Also, I did not use any dependent source to articulate the organisation's contribution, which should be the primary subject of the topic.
Non-independent sources are allowed under certain circumstances but it seems to me that the reviewer only looked into the first few lines of the draft. WP:INDEPENDENT itself says:
However, uncontroversial statements for which the information logically comes from the subject, such as "Big Company has 15,000 employees", does not require WP:INTEXT attribution; in fact, in-text attribution in such cases could improperly cast undue doubt on the statement. Unbreakablerodent (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Unbreakablerodent, you are right that it is fine that to use the organization as a reference for facts. However, to have an article the organization must be already well-known as shown by having several references that are, at the some time, reliably published, in-depth, and completely independent of the organization. The message explaining the decline is not saying that all references must be independent, only those you are using to show that the organization is well-known enough to have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Temporary account

[edit source]

Where do I find the page to set up a temporary page? ~2026-16868-10 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You're already using a temporary account. (Usernames in the "~YYYY-#####-##" format are temporary accounts.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @~2026-16868-10, and welcome to the Teahouse.
I'm not sure what you mean by "to set up a temporary page".
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but I've noticed that editors who ask about "setting up a page" often have a wrong idea about Wikipedia, and think that it is like social media, where you can "set up a page" for yourself or your organisation. It is not. This is an encyclopaedia, and what we do here is write encyclopaedia articles about notable subjects. The article does not belong to the subject, and is not controlled by them.
If you (or your organisation) meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there could be an article about you/it; but you are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself. ColinFine (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

cancelled my edits

[edit source]

Can you please tell me why my edits were cancelled to the page I edited?? The wiki person told me it was biased but that makes not sense. I edited an organizations mission statement section to appropriately reflect their work. This is bizarre. ~2026-16926-11 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

We don't want organisation mission statements in the first place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Your edit was reverted because it added a bunch of WP:PUFFERY, and unsourced puffery at that. Athanelar (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @~2026-16926-11, 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) 00:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

help with article

[edit source]

hi there, would anyone mind helping me with my draft article? it's draft:bx5 Aboyinabasement (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Bx5
Hello. Your draft has no content. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Aboyinabasement: Unfortunately, our mind-reading technology only seems capable of reading the thoughts of fictional characters such as Dunkelzahn, Drizzt Do'Urden, and Mary Whitehouse. You're going to need to actually write the draft first before we can help. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Your draft is presently completely blank, and based on the short description "A bus route in the Bronx", it is doubtful that the topic you're aiming to cover is notable. Athanelar (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
yeah but i can't even edit it Aboyinabasement (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Aboyinabasement, and welcome to the Teahouse.
There is no point in editing the draft until you have found the multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the route (see WP:42) that are an essential foundation for an article.
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) 00:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
You say you "can't even edit it". What happens when you try? Do you get an error message?
Which editor (Visual or source) are you using? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
[edit source]

so i'm on Discord alot and I've seen that there are different like groups of Discord. i'm particularly in mock government type groups. i know there are other guild groups, (ex. friend guilds, hangout guilds), etc etc but idk if I should make an article about it because it's not widely talked about in the media, only maybe 1 article or less Thatonepoliticalcoverageguy123 (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Thatonepoliticalcoverageguy123. If these Discord groups are not talked about in the media enough to be notable per Wikipedia:Notability as you've said, then you've already answered your own question. These should not have articles. toby (t)(c)(rw)(omo) 02:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

New editor on Wikipedia

[edit source]

Hello all, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, and I've been attempting to make a few small changes to articles on topics that interest me, but I'm a little confused about the proper way to go about referencing my information and avoiding my changes being reverted. Could someone please let me know the best way to go about finding proper references and how to format them correctly, as well as any information on how I might make constructive changes that are less likely to be reverted by another user? ClickOrWrite (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

On an article there should be a little triangle with an exclamation mark when editing, if you press son that it brings up a little box with helpful resources, such as Google Scholar, JSTOR and some other ones too, that is usually the best place to start finding good references.
For help on referencing see WP:REFB which may help you.
These two should help you not have accurate information reverted by another user, of course you can never truly be sure but good edits with good sources are usually not reverted. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Number of essays

[edit source]

How many essays are there on Wikipedia? Be on the leader (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The total appears to be more than 2,000 as of today. See Wikipedia:Essay directory#Wikipedia and User essays by category. randomdude121    07:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Question regarding if people who has an article about themselves

[edit source]

i know that they can't for some reason edit their own page, although it can actually bring some good information. But what if there was like whitelisted users who can edit their own page about themselves? ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It usually is frowned upon, I could (if I were notable) have an article about myself saying “KeyolTranslator is the descendant of Qin Shi Huang, as stated by himself” I could claim things like that and say that I know it because I know myself, or I could edit facts about my life, doesn’t mean it is true.
I think the rule is that no one should edit articles about themselves (technically you can but it’s highly discouraged as you have possibly the biggest COI). People can freely edit their own articles if they still abide by the neutral summary rules and have multiple sources to back up their claims, and of course they can’t try and make the claims look bigger (not inflating how much money you have or who you have done business with). The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @~2026-51002-1, and welcome to the Teahouse.
There are two separate but related problems.
One is that, even with somebody who is scrupulously honest, it's very difficult for anybody to be objective about themselves. Suppose several sources are very critical of you, and you think they are not being fair: a Wikipedia article about you should summarise what those sources say.
The other problem is about verifiability: when writing about yourself, there is likely to be a temptation to put in information which is not verifiable from published sources (i.e. original research). ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
While there is no absolute prohibition on someone editing an article about themself or a close relative or contact (see User:Pigsonthewing/About self for the limited circumstances where this is acceptable]), we generally advise such people make suggestions on the talk page of the article, so that they can be review by an interdependent editor.
WP:About you has more about this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

picture

[edit source]

I have a question. I made a page about an academic. I then saw that there is a good quality photo published and uploaded it with attribution. File:Svlevine.jpg. The author allows usage of image for non commercial purposes, and press releases. I added the original like and url. It is okay under Creative Commons' Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International ? Jarvis635 (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

No, that is not allowed. The copyright holder, who in this case appears to be photographer Noah Berger, would have to explicitly release the image under the CC-BY-4.0 license. The usage terms limiting its distribution are not compatible with a free license. I have accordingly tagged the image for speedy deletion as a copyright violation.
I suggest asking Dr. Levine to release or upload a picture under a free license that he does own the copyright to. Wikipedia:A picture of you provides some ways for him to do so. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I suggest adding the picture you took. If you are the photographer, then you hold the copyright, and you can release it directly under the correct license when you upload it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
@Helpful Raccoon @Anachronist Thank you! Jarvis635 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Titles when updating archived URLs

[edit source]

Hi everyone! I am trying to update archive links in citations and found that archived URLs do not always provide the correct title by default. What is the best practice when adding titles using archive services like the Wayback Machine? Do I add the title manually to match the original title, or are there templates or tools that can help me with this?

Thank you in advance! FantasyLivingSide1 (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

You can manually update the title; see also User:InternetArchiveBot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Neutral Articles

[edit source]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Toluwalope Joseph Obasa

Hi everyone, how neutral is the article supposed to be when it's just highlighting the achievements of an athlete? Toluwalope Joseph Obasa (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to "highlight achievements"; it is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable person. That said, there is a difference between saying "John Doe won a gold medal at the Olympics" to "John Doe, the greatest athlete in history, brilliantly won a gold medal at the Olympics, capping off his incredible career". Just write in a neutral point of view without embellishment or talking up the subject. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. How do I go about in-line citations? Toluwalope Joseph Obasa (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Are you the subject of the article? If so, see WP:COI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Concise infobox

[edit source]

What should I do for concise (or minimal) infoboxes that requires due or undue weight, or WP:PROPORTION should be in place for the article's subject in context. Absolutiva 11:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

On which article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Most of biographical infoboxes (but some), including composers like Beethoven, political leaders, scientists, writers, and other personnel which they appeared concisely, based on this template documentation and manual of style. Absolutiva 12:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
The answer will vary, depending on the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Make it GA.

[edit source]

What, in your opinion, should be done about this article to make it GA? Dead astrologer (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dead astrologer: good article improvement recommendations can sometimes be found in previous nominations. This one has been previously nominated before. You can find them on the talk page for the article, but as a courtesy, this nomination was in 2013, and this one was in 2020. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 14:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Good articles for an overview of the criteria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

UPDATING MY OWN DETAILS

[edit source]

The updates were not allowed. My professional details are necessary to my work. ~2026-17147-45 (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia is necessary for your work.
You didn't mention which article you're talking about, but if it's an article about you, then you cannot make substantive changes to it yourself, you must propose changes on the talk page. You can use WP:Edit Request Wizard to guide you. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Which article?
See also the advice at WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
 Courtesy link: Iain Sutherland (conductor). I've stubbified the article and WP:BLPPRODed it. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I've restored the two sources that were previously in the article, and declined your good-faith PROD.
The subject is clearly notable, and perhaps he is able to provide us with more reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
What work are you referring to? The article says Mr Sutherland is 90 years old this year and retired. Shantavira|feed me 16:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
"retired" was unsourced. Sutherland had an album out in 2025. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Correcting an article of which I am the subject

[edit source]

 Courtesy link: Joseph Heathcott

Dear editors,

I am relatively new to the 'backstage' of wikipedia, though I use the front stage frequently. I discovered a year or so ago that there is actually an article about me.

I would prefer not to have an article about myself on wikipedia. However, if it is not possible to take it down, I would at least like it to be accurate. There is currently a heading over the article that reads "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use."

I neither asked nor paid for a wikipedia article about myself. Perhaps someone in a marketing division of one of my publishers did this, though I have no way of knowing. I do not know how to trace anything back, as I have never engaged in editing / back stage activities.

Please help me with any information about what I can do.

Best, Joseph Heathcott ~2026-17099-67 (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the undisclosed paid editor tag was due to the article being drafted by User:Infoways9, who is a sockpuppet of a spam/UPE account. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I've removed the tag, as the article was published after review by an independent editor, via AfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Please see the advice at WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
This news might mean that File:Joseph Heathcott.jpg is eligible for deletion, since it cannot be an 'own work'. I only have IPBE on ~enwiki and am at school right now, could someone have the honor of speedy deleting it? Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 17:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
No, but nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Nice, thank you :) Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 19:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hiding search result image thumbnails

[edit source]

Lately, I've been helping User:Raouf4 to hide certain images, and we've run into some difficulty when hiding the preview images as they appear in the search bar. We've found that the advice given on Help:Options to hide an image#Disable images in search widget for certain skins is either outdated or just plain wrong, as it does not work for both of our CSS pages. Are we doing this wrong, or is there another way to hide these images? Thanks! --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 17:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Our conversation is on his talk page. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 17:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

[edit source]
Special:Diff/774288877

is their anywhere i can report vandaalism. i was just reading I Never Promised You a Rose Garden (novel) and saw their was no plot page, but the talk page talked extensivly about one. i went to history and saw that @80.108.47.40 took off the entire plot page. it was a long time ago but am pretty sure its vandalism bec ause thats their only edit

Ducklan (Quack Back) 18:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ducklan  Done. I restored the plot summary as no edit summary or talk page consensus supported its removal. Also there is no need to report this since it was their only edit and it occurred years ago from a legacy IP. In the future, if you come across vandalism please report it at WP:AIV. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Second look to remove tag?

[edit source]

Hello wonderfully helpful people!

I have reviewed and worked on this article Esse (cigarette) and removed what was improperly sourced or promotional material. Can I get someone to take a peek at it to confirm that I am clear to remove the promotional tag from the article? USnoozieULoozie (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@USnoozieULoozie feel free to remove the {{Advert}} tag article is neutral now but still has sourcing issues tho, you should improve it by expending or adding more reliable sources. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll see what I can do. USnoozieULoozie (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Fresh Starts

[edit source]

Some editors from Wikipedia come from other wikis which may have disowned them for their actions there. About the etiquette here when it comes to past infractions. Some people have accounts on multiple wikis and old grudges or habits may still be remembered. Would they come back to haunt me or not? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @TheEternalOutsider.
As far as I know, blocks and similar measures are used by admins on English Wikipedia to prevent disruption, not as punishment, and it is an editor's behaviour on English Wikipedia that matters. What may have happened in other wikis is not relevant.
If you're talking about how other editors who may have interacted with you on other wikis may treat you, that is between you and them (though disruptive behaviour on either side could occasion a block). We have the fundamental guideline of assume good faith. ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
The term "disruption" is nebulous and doesn't really have a codified consensus. But once again, ignore all rules is a policy here. Also, if someone tries to sternly tell me to "do as you are told", that's a severe breach of trust. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:DISRUPTION exists and admins place blocks based on it. IAR is policy, but there are other policies, like BLP, CIVIL, V etc. I note that since you made this account in 2024, you have never edited a WP-article with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I always feel like in order to even edit an article, I am required to provide a source no matter what. So there's that too. And also because I worry all my edits would be in vain due to them being reverted. While this policy exists, some editors struggle to not bite newcomers (or veterans too). TheEternalOutsider (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Well, yes, verifiability is a core policy; if you want to add content you need to have sources to go with it. That doesn't prevent you from copyediting, reverting vandalism etc. Athanelar (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Being reverted is part of life on WP, and even reverted edits are not necessarily in vain, they can lead to productive conversation, collateral improvement etc. And while I have no idea what article-edits you'd make, why not hope that other editors will agree that your edits are improvements?
There are plenty of edits that can be made without providing a source, obviously. Adding to that, sometimes the source is already in the article, and is easy to use it again. But yes, being able to add good refs correctly is essential if you want to make any "major" edits that can "stick". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Consider this approach:
"She had a Wikipedia page already, but it was sparse. I clicked edit, added the information that Bonwick attended school in London’s Maida Vale, and cited the Hackney Society book. And there it was. It was thrilling, more thrilling than I had expected it to be. “It’s really satisfying,” said Isidora as we beamed at my laptop screen." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
We have no way of predicting if someone from a past wiki will follow you here and harrass you. What we can say is that first of all it's unlikely, and secondly anyone who did so would swiftly be blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. Athanelar (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
About those who edit mostly if not solely on talk pages instead of directly. I am also nervous that these two policies may be nebulously used to prune away non-editing accounts or accounts that only appear on talk pages. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are far too nervous about potential ways in which hypothetical bad actors might weaponise Wikipedia policies and guidelines against you.
Nobody here is out to get you, we're all, as one of those you linked says, here to build an encyclopedia. There is no mustache-twirling villain waiting in the shadows for you to slip up so that they can report you; and even if there is, the rest of us are not going to descend on you like a pack of wild dogs just because somebody reports you.
One of the things Wikipedia encourages most is for people to be bold and get involved. Mistakes are generally very easily fixable on Wikipedia. We want you (and everybody else) to participate, not to spend your time tilting at windmills. Athanelar (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Self-portrait.
Hey, I've worked very hard to be regarded as a mustache-twirling villain! But my efforts keep failing, because I keep helping people too.
Seriously though, because there is no notification capability when a past bad actor makes an edit, I do have about a dozen tabs open for weeks at a time to monitor the contributions of some UPE suspects. If there is no activity for a month or so, I close the tab. It clutters the browser, but a "user watchlist" for admins was discussed in the past and rejected due to potential for misuse. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
As for how many people there are online at any time watching Recent Changes like a hawk. Because I don't want to feel like I have a weight on my back. Thanks again all things considered. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Wishing you a successful fresh start, @TheEternalOutsider.
As for @Anachronist and @Athanelar, I think you two should also consider a fresh start … paired up together to do comedy routines. It has taken me a long time to recover from all that mustache-twirling! Augnablik (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

internal linking

[edit source]

is internal linking between articles is encouraged? Cmajorftw (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Cmajorftw, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Yes, indeed, wikilinking is encouraged. But don't go over the top: it's not necessary to link every word, or to link common words. (See MOS:BUILD). ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
got it, thanks Cmajorftw (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Drafting Articles

[edit source]

An experienced wikipedian created a username subpage for me to work on an article I had drafted in text file offline per the recommendation of other wikipedians. I am making major changes to the article because I am condensing it significantly, among other things. But, because I wrote the entire article, it seems inappropriate to label any of the changes "major", yet the wiki definition when publishing to save any change requires it. I didn't use my sandbox because this article is to turn an existing few sentence stub article into a full article, and there was some concern about maintaining the history of that stub article even though it is only a few sentences with a redirect link. So far, I haven't gotten a message from an administrator about my characterization of the changes but all of them are going to show up eventually when the draft is moved from my userpage subpage to the namespace of the subject. Any suggestions about what is essentially a lot of worthless history and continuing drafting this way? Thanks. Emanresu0 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Emanresu0 and welcome to the Teahouse. Do not label the changes you are making as "minor". See Help:minor edit. There is a very specific meaning in Wikipedia rather than the usual meaning of not a major change: Any edit that alters the meaning of an article, even slightly, is not minor. That means any addition to an article is not minor. Leave the "minor" tag for correcting typos, etc. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

AI generated images

[edit source]

Hi all,

I've come across an AI generated image of an internet speed test being used in the Wikipedia article for Internet in Australia. You can tell it's AI because there is a Google Gemini watermark in the bottom right corner. Underneath the image, it claims it's a "2025 latency benchmark comparing 5G fixed-wireless against LEO satellite in regional Australia". Is this allowed? Link to image: File:Mobile Network Latency_Test Result 2025.jpg. 98uwd (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:AIIMG, Most images wholly generated by AI should not be used in mainspace. This is especially true here where if this image is indeed AI generated then it serves no real informational purpose. Athanelar (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Is it eligible for speedy deletion as AI content without review? --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 20:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
WP's G15 applies to text, not to files, and in any case the file is hosted on Commons which has no equivalent of G15. (see c:COM:CSD)
I'm also not confident this screenshot is AI generated wholesale. I'm not sure what the gemini watermark is doing there, but it seems like a strange thing to just generate from scratch and present as a real test. Athanelar (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I would suggest however that we ask @Aditreaper to provide some explanation/context so we can determine whether the image should stay up on the articles it's currently on. Athanelar (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
The file's metadata says that it was edited with Google AI/generated AI, so at least part of it is AI content. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 02:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
I've nominated the image for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Roll call table error for dark mode

[edit source]

Hello! Before I report this as a dark mode error, I wanted to post here to ask if the source code simply is typed wrong. I am currently working on adding the roll call vote to 1998 South Carolina Amendment 4. When the following source code is entered, if you click "show" next to "Roll Call Vote," and you are in light mode, the linked name will show. However, if you are in dark mode, it won't.

Senate vote on the Amendment 4
February 1998 Party Party Total votes
Template:Party shading/Democratic| Democratic Template:Party shading/Republican| Republican
Yea Not yet calculated Not yet calculated 99
Nay Not yet calculated Not yet calculated 4
Absent Not yet calculated Not yet calculated Not yet calculated
Result: Passed
Roll call vote
Senator Party District Vote
Harry R. Askins D 61st Yes

Delcoan (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I am now seeing, very interestingly, that the name seems to show up fine in dark mode on this page, but not in the 1998 South Carolina article. Delcoan (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
In this section, the table contents are legible in either dark or light mode, although the headings "Democratic" and "Republican" seem to have less contrast in dark mode, but that may be an illusion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
@Anachronist: Yes, but when you put this source code into an article, and click show, the politician’s name doesn’t show in dark mode. Delcoan (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Centimeters to Inches

[edit source]

The page for Monchhichis does not have like a conversion for inches I was wondering if a could add one, or if that would be against the rules or smth? ~2026-17199-06 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Normally I'd say go ahead, but in this case there are 5 in a row in one sentence, so adding the conversion template five times would make the sentence difficult to read. In that article it's unnecessary. Any reader should be aware of what a centimeter is. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh ok, tysm for the help ~2026-17199-06 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Article not appearing in search results

[edit source]

(I probably ask questions here too often as a non-new editor, but whatever.) I recently created an article (Trinity Santos), and the article is not appearing when I search on Google, even when the keywords "Wikipedia" and "article" are used. The first results were the actor who plays the character and the media from which the character originates.

Eventually, I found a result for it, but... it was the direct translation of the article in Italian, which baffled me. I'm mostly just worried that this means that fewer people will see the article, and I just want to know why, really. Thanks to all of y'all. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 23:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Organhaver. It has noindex as a new article. See Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). The Italian Wikipedia probably has other rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 00:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

AfD

[edit source]

How does one search for a past AfD? I believe an article that was the result of a delete (or soft delete) years ago is now notable due to current RS / notability criteria. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Maineartists: If you go to WP:Articles for deletion and scroll down to the section "Search current and archived AfD discussions by topic", there's a search box. Alternatively, if you remember the exact title, just search for that title in Wikipedia space. Deor (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Hey, thanks, Deor! Headed there now. Maineartists (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Should I self-revert for edit warring?

[edit source]

At Jon Gordon, I've reverted for a 4th time a copy-paste of the bibliography that I would consider spam/G11 and not fall under edit-warring, but now I'm not so sure. Could someone review this and tell me what to do/revert me if I'm in the wrong? Thanks Realtent (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Since you've warned them multiple times on both the article talk page and their own talk page, I'd report the account that keeps adding the content to WP:AIV. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 00:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Somewhat related question, but what counts as "won significant critical attention" according to WP:AUTHOR? Gordon has a handful of books that have made best-seller lists but is that significant enough? If not I will try to find more sources, but failing that I may try an AFD, and I'd like more advice before I try that. Realtent (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @JohnLaurens333. Appearing in a list - even a best-seller list - does not, of itself, meet that criterion. Having said that, a book which has appeared in such a list is probably more likely to have received some in-depth reviews (which would contribute to the book being notable, but not necessarily the author).
(Note that meeting the special criteria for notability, such as WP:NAUTHOR do not say that the subject is necessarily notable, rather that it is likely that the basic criteria are satisfied for them - you still need to find those sources which meet WP:42) ColinFine (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Archive.today

[edit source]

HI:)

I'm in the middle of a merging process, and after I pressed publish I got an error message that said that this action was blocked since "archive.today" was malicious. should I delete the original archive links in the original article and only then copy and paste it to merge? Happypenguins82 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Probably. Archive.today has been deprecated as an archive tool after a lengthy RfC since it has been proven to tamper with archives and has performed multiple DDoS attacks. See WP:ARCHIVETODAY.
You could also replace the archive links with other archive websites (archive.org, ghostarchive, etc). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you :)
I'll start working on it, will correct the links and then will move on to the actual merge 🙏 Happypenguins82 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable, that's a fact

[edit source]

Hi,

I was editing articles on the wikilink edit tag list, and I found this one: West Midlands Bus route 21. I cleaned up a number of grammatical and syntactical issues, but I think the quote from an anyonymous social media discussion is probably not destined to belong in a Wikipedia article. What's more, besides the criterion for this not being included (as per Wikipedia:UGC), a large part of this article seems to be built on shaky sources like this one https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/coventry-residents-furious-over-unreliable-27775130.

I came to the Teahouse because I honestly don't know what to do with this article. Maybe someone with some more editing experience can enlighten me on the path to follow! Thanks! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I've done some initial cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Page rejection

[edit source]
Please don't ask the same question at multiple venues. Your question will be answered on your post at the AFC Helpdesk. nil nz 05:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

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 my draft was rejected Anisha at Increff (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

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

How do I decide which article to edit as a beginner?

[edit source]

Hi! There are so many articles on Wikipedia, and I’m unsure which ones are appropriate for someone just starting out. Should I focus on small edits like grammar and formatting, or try adding information? How do I know if my contributions are actually helpful, and are there certain types of pages that are better for beginners? ForkAndShore21Day (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

You may want to try Special:Randompage (this is also a sidebar item called "Random article" in desktop version of the website). sapphaline (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
What are you interested in? Things you find interesting are usually the best candidates to edit. To figure out what is "helpful," you can see what other editors are doing, and try to replicate it. Try something new; be bold, get reverted, and then talk it out. Wikipedia is a lot of trial and error. No harm, no foul. As long as you act in good faith, there will always be someone to help you get on the right track. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://eurovision.jobogamer.xyz/index.php?title=Eurovision_Wiki:Teahouse&oldid=3832"