Wikipedia:Teahouse

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)

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)

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)

 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:

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.

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)

I've resubmitted the draft. I did a complete rewrite to try to address the comments here. I have worked to provide Proquest, EBSO, Google Books or other direct reference items with the links to make it easy for reviewers to locate and verify. I appreciate additional comments. Dibblethorpe (talk) 12:48, 19 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)

A small little piece of advice. Think hard about weather you actually want an article about yourself. Remember, you will not be the only person to edit it and others may not be as kind in the information they add to the article. For example, if at any point you have done anything questionable that you would prefer not to be made public and it got published in something that's categorized as reliable, there is a very large chance that the information could be added and there would be nothing you could do. Even more so Wikipedia article often get grabbed by search engines for top results and auto generated summaries so if unwanted information is added then very one who so much as googles your name will see it. So triple check that you want to make that article about yourself. Have a wonderful day - Pyrrhic victor (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

And I just realized I pretty much just copied what WP:FAMOUS says but worse. Read that it'll make more sense than my incoherent ramblings. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

there's not much in my life that would cause me concern. I have been sober since 7/26/2016, bu I actually wear that as a badge of pride, not shame. I think that's about the only skeleton out there. Dibblethorpe (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like him to answer my question above. It wasn't rhetorical. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. There's the 'other' Jim Carroll (poet ; I have all his albums, met him once), and I get a lot of contact from people looking for me and come across him via Wikipedia (he died in 2011; he wrote the iconic punk song, "People Who Died) ... it's been a ball of confusion. Every Sept 11, the date of his death, contact picks up again. Heck, MTV linked to my website the day he died, and crashed it. I get email from people who have kicked heroin (he was a recovered junkie) wondering what to do; I still get other messages directed at him. So if it's anything, it's to put some clarity to clear up the confusion; and to resurrect t the article that was here previously (and deleted). That confusion did not exist at that time. I hope that helps. With that said, the information provided clearly shows notability (with the interviews stripped away) Dibblethorpe (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

And with all that said, should it actually matter, if it passes the notability test, and the conflict of interest has been made clear? Still trying to figure out the process, culture, respect the rules, etc. Dibblethorpe (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dibblethorpe The things you've mentioned above about others mixing you up with a different Jim Carroll won't nececessarily stop just because a Wikipedia article is written about you. In fact, it could possibly spillover into Wikipedia with others trying to mistakenly add content about the the other Carroll to such an article. Wikipedia tends to be more reactive than proactive in the sense that messes tend to be cleaned up after they happen (sometimes quite some time after they happen) than prevented before they happen. In principle, the subjects of articles don't WP:OWN the article or its content; in other words, the articles aren't "their articles" per se, and you won't have any real editorial control over the article's content. There are processes in place to help the subjects of articles when they have concerns, but for the most part they will be expected not to directly edit it at all. You mentioned above that there previously existed a Wikipedia article written about you. Is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Carroll (author) what you're referring to? If you are, then that article was previously deleted per a consensus established via WP:AFD because of a lack of Wikipedia notability, which means it's going to be quite hard (not impossible but pretty hard) for another article about you to be created without a major change in the assessment of your Wikipedia notability. I can't see the article that was deleted but a Wikipedia administrator can. Anachronist and Writ Keeper, both who commented above, are administrators, and either of them might be willing to do a rough comparison of your draft and the deleted one and see whether (in at least their opinion) there's any point in pursuing this. You could also ask the administrator who deleted the previous article, their name is Ritchie333, to take a look. You're not expressly prohibitted from trying to get a draft approved via WP:AFC, but you're not going to have much luck doing so if it's pretty much just a re-creation of what was deleted before. If, by chance, the assessment of your Wikipedia notability has changed dramatically since 2018 when the previous article was deleted, creating a new article might not even be necessary; it might be possible for the other one to be restored (even as a draft) and updated accordingly. Of course, if Jim Carroll (author) has nothing at all to do with you but is about yet another Jim Carroll, it would be a big help if you remembered the name of the previous article written about you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

That is the previously existing article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Carroll (author)), but it is not "just a re-creation of what was deleted before" that you noted. I have meticulously sourced details including Proquest references of independent 3rd party sources, from established newspapers and magazines, etc. I believe the previous article, which was created quite some time ago, did have deficiencies related to proof of notability, and eventually was stripped down to such a degree that, as you see in the deletion comments, did not meet the notability standards (it was judged promotional). In that vein, I have worked to try and provide sufficient information, and I guess am throwing this draft at the Wikipedia process so that they might judge the notability. I declared my conflict of interest in doing so, and so am working to be above board. Thank you for your comments. Dibblethorpe (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

For what it is worth, a 2014 version of the original article is here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141102010202/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Carroll_(author) Dibblethorpe (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

At least that deleted one was written by humans. The current version is clearly not. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how I can convince you otherwise. After the initial rejection, I read the posts above - particularly by MmeMaigret on what constituted notable content and reliable sources. I read up on what you provided with respect to interviews as not being acceptable. I browsed through the guidance that others offered up. I figured out how to get into Ebsco and Proqueset databases in order to get citations for the articles she identified, and a few others that seemed to fit the 'independent source' category. I had to enlist my daughter in law who has a research based EBSCO account to grab a few other citations I could not reach. I spent time reading about the idea of 'encylopedic' to-the-fact writing and tried to put it together in that vein - simple, to the point fact with verifiable references. I've tried to make it easy for a Wikipedia editor to use those Proquest cites and other links to easily determine the issue of notability.

I go to this comment from Ethan above: "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". I've spent the time to try to learn; I've got some time in my life to work on this type of project because teh current war has rather decimated the industry in which I work. I'm trying to do things as Wikipedia suggests they should be done.

I've written the current draft to be as neutral and encyclopedic as possible,, and checked and double checked my citations. I've stripped it down to take out the stuff you suggested don't fit notability ("Golden Rule"), so I don't know what else I can do. Dibblethorpe (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

What's interesting is that the item just below this post here - "How to avoid AI-written style?" has the fellow in the same type of situation.

He notes:

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.

---

I guess Id' like to ask the same question - how can I rewrite this again so it isn't flagged as AI?

I appreciate that Wikipedia editors are fighting a complex issue of trying to battle the AI slop.

Please let me know how I might rewrite it again. Dibblethorpe (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been reading Wikipedia:AI detection is not a content policy#Don't waste editors' time and I guess maybe I am caught in the trap of being flagged for AI by an AI detector? In any event, that article suggests that the draft is not running afoul of three key polices - It's not unencyclopedic; it does violates WP:NOT and I've tried to write in a a neutral point of view (NPOV). It also seems to suggest a focus on verifiability. The interesting thing is I ran it through an AI checker and it was flagged. It also suggests I remove the Proquest cites as a way of getting around that. But I'm leaving those in just to help with the process of verifiability.

I guess it goes to this point in that article: "But what happens when an editor uses an AI detector on a passage, the detector flags it as highly likely to be AI-generated, yet the text is perfectly neutral, accurately summarizes duly cited reliable sources, and contains no plagiarism?

It then answers that:"If you cannot actually name a policy-based issue with the content itself, wanting its removal or revision merely because an algorithm claims it is AI-generated is a misuse of editor time. It is not productive to rewrite an article that is already in an encyclopedic tone, and accurately describes reliable sources without plagiarizing them, just to ensure the phrasing is no longer flagged by Pangram. Chasing a "0% AI" score on external tools is not a valid editorial goal; building a well-sourced, neutral encyclopedia is.

I can share with you the actual Proquest and EBSCO files I downloaded which are all linked in there.

That article also suggests above that I should not rush off to try to de-AI what is a suspected AI article (!), and that in these circumstances, it's best to rely on the verifiability of what is presented.

So I'd ask you to look at that. All the links are there. I've worked hard to try to fit in within the definition of notability by providing a sufficient, not too extensive set of independent references that span over more than 35 years (going back to the Office Automation article of 1989) to the present day (Pivot Magazine, 2025)

I don't know what else to do. Dibblethorpe (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I marked up your article. You left it marked up for a week and didn't indicate that you had taken on board my feedback. After a week, I removed the mark up and accept the changes. Honestly, if you had added you're 3 extra sources, you probably would have gotten accepted. I have no idea why you then added all that additional info on the 18th. But if you get declined, it's because you're not taking on board feedback. MmeMaigret (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dibblethorpe: I've been following this discussion and it seems like you're having a rough time here, I'm sorry for that. First of all, I want to let you know that scammers tend to lurk here on the Teahouse, and if you have a public email address it's likely that you will hear from someone promising that they can get this article published for a fee. They are lying and just want your money, we're volunteers and any help you receive will be free.

That being said, if you really want to see an article about yourself on Wikipedia, I think I might be able to throw something together. It would be much shorter -- a few paragraphs at most, likely losing much of the detail. After it's published, you would no longer be able to edit it directly and would have to make suggestions on the talk page. If you're comfortable with that let me know and I'll give it a shot. MediaKyle (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@MediaKyle (talk This is the version he should have submitted with his 3 SIG COV. MmeMaigret (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You're right, that version is much better. It might be best to restore that revision and go from there, but ideally the article would be rewritten in my opinion. I don't think this has anything to do with notability, the draft is more-or-less just hitting the LLM firewall, and the fact that most of the sources are offline isn't helping (even though it's not really supposed to matter) ... MediaKyle (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kyle, sent you an email. What I tried to do in the revised draft is make sure that every single link is live, not stale, verifiable, with Proquest references so that they could hit the original article that way as well.

And so for that one referenced by MmeMaigrant - an example of a stale link is the first one, but the actual verifiable link I worked into my redraft is here: Powell, Chris. "The Accidental Oracle." Pivot Magazine (CPA Canada), Spring 2025. ---> goes to https://archive.org/details/pivot-magazine-spring-2025-jim-carroll

Similarly, for that article, Wilson, Peter. "Canadian Internet Guru, Eh?" Vancouver Sun, May 1997. has a dead link. But in my revised draft, it points to https://archive.org/details/vancouver-sun-may-1997-jim-carroll for the actual article.

I've also included Proquest where possible, i.e. "National Bestsellers". Toronto Star. June 4, 1994. p. L11. ProQuest 1355165078 – via ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Toronto Star.

I can go off and find additional ProQuest document IDs as might be necessary.

I could work with whomever to help fix whichever dead links might be there and provide actual links and Proquest/EBSCO links. I use to have a Factiva account which sourced a lot of this stuff as well and could resurrect that.

I guess I'm eager to see if there might be a way through this complexity. Interesting process! Dibblethorpe (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The revised draft I put up has actual links to those '3 SIG COV's' you mention - I can resummarize those here if need be. Thanks for hanging in with me. I'm learning lots! Dibblethorpe (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dibblethorpe I do not know how to say this anymore clearly. You should have inserted the sources as inline citations and nothing else. With your additional content, you re-introduced all of the issues that I removed. The reason why we advise people not to write about themselves is because you're attached to material that you think sounds good but is puffery/promotional/sounds like a resume. MmeMaigret (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I will take @MediaKyle up on his offer (above) to have a go at it, I'm clearly out of my depth here. Perhaps you could work with him to help out. I appreciate your effort and honesty. And ya, I'm probably a little too close to the topic. (-; Dibblethorpe (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@MediaKyle -> "I think I might be able to throw something together. It would be much shorter -- a few paragraphs at most, likely losing much of the detail. After it's published, you would no longer be able to edit it directly and would have to make suggestions on the talk page. If you're comfortable with that let me know and I'll give it a shot." All in, if you can still help. Again, I can help you with the links or citations or whatever. Dibblethorpe (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm a bit back-and-forth from my computer today but I'll see what I can do tonight or tomorrow. I received your email but haven't had a chance to go over the sources you sent just yet, I'll leave a message on your talk page prior to publishing so you can read it over. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

should I or do I do something to withdraw the draft from the submission process? Is there some code I take out or put in? Dibblethorpe (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed the submission template saying it's waiting for review. The last decline banner has a "resubmit" button at the bottom for when you are ready to resubmit it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you. Dibblethorpe (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

This user is a Wikipedian.

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)

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)

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 on my home Wi-Fi while connected to my company’s VPN and on my mobile device hotspot, 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)

Thank you for your response. I will look into this with my company and see what I can do. TL with Dell Technologies (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Checking your talkpage, it seems you had IP block exemption at one point, so just re-requesting for a longer timeframe would be a good stopgap solution. In the long run, Dell might want to set up a secondary proxy for your wp editors with an IP that isn't blocked.   Metal Breaks And Bends   (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

• "Template:RMassist must be used on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests." Shahrohkhanizadeh (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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. 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.

[]

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 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. 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 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)

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)

@David10244 No, Shafiqul Islam spoke to him, as that first citation makes clear. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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'al^Converse 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)

Why does an encyclopedia for kids have a page about a casino? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 12:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

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'al^Converse 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)

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 "P_FR - 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 "P_IR". 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)

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)