Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hello, I am looking for some help with inserting a boxed quote in the Blanche Lazzell article. I saw that there was already one near the end of the article, and thought to use the same format. I am clearly missing something in my formatting, which I copied from the existing box, changing just the placement from the right to the left margin (or close to the margin). When I insert this, using source mode:

it doesn't just format the quote in the box, but the list of references following it. When I placed it one paragraph earlier, it grabbed and formatted that last paragraph. Clearly, something is wrong with my coding, but I just can't figure out what.

I appreciate the help anyone can give me! TrudiJ (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

TrudiJ (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

You have to format it as {{blockquote|Example text|Author<ref>Reference</ref>}}, which generates:

Example text

For your quote, you have to format it as

{{blockquote|When we moderns paint a realistic object we get beneath the surface and give you the very spiritual substance of it.|Blanche Lazzell, 1927<ref>{{Cite book |last=Albany Institute of History & Art |title=Blanche Lazzell: Becoming an American Modernist |publisher=Albany Institute of History & Art |year=2026 |location=Albany, NY |pages=[4] |language=en}}</ref>}}

which generates:

When we moderns paint a realistic object we get beneath the surface and give you the very spiritual substance of it.

Cheers, Versions111 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Versions111 for this help. This style gives a different look to the quotes, but I worked on the context so that this approach works best.

TrudiJ (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I just made a new page on Interval Walking Training and would love to hear feedbacks and any suggestion. Thank you! Dang.hazel (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dang.hazel, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Half your sources are by Nose and Masuki (and others).

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 little from those sources belongs in the article.

I haven't looked to see whether the other sources are both independent of Nose and Masuki, and contain significant coverage of Interval Walking Training specifically: if they meet all the requirements in WP:42, that's probably fine; if they don't, you need better sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I updated the Wikipedia page by expanding history/background and adding citations. In the process, I used Grammarly to restate 2 sentences and now I can't publish. Please help. I am a new user and have put many hours into this and inadvertently used Grammarly not knowing it would knock out my submission. It was a very minor edit. What can I do?? Thank you in advance. Sparksperl (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think a +2,767 bytes edit can be considered as a minor edit. And about Grammarly, Don’t worry, this is a pretty common situation, especially for new editors.

If you ask me, You can use tools like Grammarly to correct spelling errors and minor grammar mistakes. But, It's better to avoid Grammarly to rewrite sentences. Because, even small rewordings can sometimes be flagged as AI generated. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sparksperl Grammarly incorporates AI functionality now. If you used Grammarly to restate 2 sentences, that means you had AI write two sentences for you; and AI-generated content is not allowed in Wikipedia articles nowadays. Athanelar (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Please advise what I can do to rectify. Here are the changes made by Grammarly: 1) first paragraph under BACKGROUND, second sentence, "She was inspired to become politically active and was deeply affected.....". The word "was" was removed. 2) second paragraph under BACKGROUND, second sentence, "In late 1969, she was picked to become one of the first women trainees at Saul Alinsky's School of Community Organizing in Chicago." The word "picked" was replaced by the word "selected" and the apostrophe "s" was removed from "Alinsky".

Please help me with this. Thank you. Sparksperl (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

What can I do to get this approved? I am sorry that I have trouble understanding what I must do to be published.

thank you in advance for your help on my behalf. Sparksperl (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to make the edits that you're trying to make in smaller chunks rather than all at once, that way if there's any further issues it's easier to remove small pieces at a time. Athanelar (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

So do I start from scratch by using the existing page and "edit"? Maybe just do the Background section first? How long do I wait until doing another chunk? Thank you! ~2026-22344-85 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is normally how editing articles works; you work from what's already there, adding missing information etc.

There's no hard limit on how long you should wait; provided you're making constructive edits and providing reliable sources for any factual information you add, you'll be fine. Athanelar (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to improve on John Trapp's heroic effort to write up islands in the Aleutian Chain. Some of these, as satellite islands named by drive-by cartographers, seem to stretch the bounds of notability (Examples [1][2][3]) and may be more valuable in tables or lists in other articles. For example, the islands I linked earlier could be included in a new (sub)section on satellites of Attu Island where they are currently unacknowledged. The AfD pages are intimidating for a newer editor, but I'm interested in exploring Wikipedia's architecture beyond MOS edits and sourcing; what's the best way to proceed? Gebble (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

You can merge the smaller articles into the main article. See WP:MERGE for more information. InfernoHues (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

How do I style the title of my userpage, like I've seen on some other userpages? User97104 (t•c•r) 00:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@User97104: see Wikipedia:Page name § Changing the displayed title; for example, see the first line of my userpage. — DVRTed (Talk) 00:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I was recently looking at the 2015 Mina stampede page and I noticed that the page includes a section about how it's potentially problematic to use the term 'stampede' to refer to this event (and other similar ones), yet the page title still includes it. I looked in the talk section and saw that people were discussing this matter briefly in 2022, which I replied to. I know that there was a 2015 vote to rename the page, which failed, but since this decision is 11 years old I do think it could be worth reconsidering among more experienced editors/people more qualified than I. If I want to spark a bigger discussion here, is there anything I should be doing beyond replying to the dormant talk page? Is there any forum or form or anything similar where people can present these types of issues? Also, out of curiosity, how does the process to 'declare a vote,' so to speak, work? (I promise I have no intention of doing this myself I am truly just curious here lol) Chammomileon (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

My novice opinion would be to open the topic, then advertise it in the discussion for of the WikiProjects that the article belongs to. Gebble (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested moves (aka "change the title of a page", like the one you're considering) would get listed in a public log (WP:RM#C) by a bot, which would attract attention eventually and bring in discussion and consensus from more experienced editors. Otherwise, do as usual, and put the requested moves template in the article's talk page. (See WP:RSPM) nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 02:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you! Do I put the requested moves template in a comment or in an edit of the talk page? Chammomileon (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

copy the subst code in WP:RSPM to the end of the talk page ^^ nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 03:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. tysm for your help! Chammomileon (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

HI.

I AM LOOKING FOR A COMPLETE ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ACTORS AND ACTRESSES AND ANOTHER COMPLETE ALPHABETICAL LIST OF TELEVISION SHOWS. ISABELLE1966 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

List of actors and List of television shows? nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 03:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

yes. television actors and actresses. i can only find lists for actresses but not for actors and television shows in the united states ISABELLE1966 (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@ISABELLE1966 you got linked both of those things in the above comment 🍅 fx (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ISABELLE1966, and welcome to the Teahouse.

nhals8 pointed you at a couple of lists that we have.

But note that it is rare for Wikipedia to have a complete list of anything, because Wikipedia is in most cases only interested in subjects that meet its own definition of notability. Many actors and many TV shows do not meet those criteria, and so should not be listed by Wikipedia.

So I doubt if you will find what you are looking for in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Try the database which we describe at IMDb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ISABELLE1966, and welcome to the Teahouse!

There's a lot of actors and actresses out there, and there's a lot of television shows out there. Only a small portion of each have Wikipedia articles.

Try the following link: for an alphabetically sorted list of (hopefully) every actor and actress who has a Wikipedia article.

That list is nearly 75,000 entries long, so I'll also provide these two links: , . It's the same list, but narrowed down to the articles which are classified as featured articles and good articles respectively, meaning they meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

For television shows, the same sort of thing: . Narrowed to featured articles and good articles: , .

Unfortunately, to my knowledge Wikipedia doesn't really have a better way to present this sort of data. It might be more helpful if you explained the purpose of having such lists. Regardless, I hope I was able to help. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 22:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@ISABELLE1966 The nearest Wikipedia will have to a full list should be in Wikidata. There is a property Q2259451 for "stage actor", for example, and someone with the correct search skills could find all the names of people listed in Wikidata who are linked to that property, as is Judi Dench. Wikidata includes many more people than have biographical articles in the main encyclopaedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I just published a new article but it's titled "User:Roamiepuffpuff/sandbox", how can I fix that? Roamiepuffpuff (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Aristolochia meridionalis

A reviewer got to it first, moved it to draft, and accepted it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I am connected to the contemporary visual arts scene in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, and have a background in cultural heritage and museum studies. With the recent passing of a relative, I've been forcibly re-connected and become responsible for documenting and cataloguing the life and works of the artist Douglas Patrick George (a close relation). He was actively practicing during a significant time in the history of the visual arts in BC, Canada, western Canada, and possibly Canada generally. I think the history of the visual arts in BC and western Canada is significant, but less well documented than that in Canada or countries like the United States and United Kingdom, despite it having an international impact (for example: Emily Carr, Myfanwy Pavelic, Western Front, the Limners).

I created the page for George, and acknowledge that I probably should have requested that someone else do this. Regardless, an AfD review was done and the result was speedy keep. I'm refraining from further direct edits and can use the talk page for this. I would like to focus on expanding the coverage of the contemporary visual arts scene in western Canada and specifically Victoria, working closely with the University of Victoria Legacy Galleries. I am not being compensated for this work.

I think it is a challenge getting sources in the arts and cultural sectors, particularly for artists outside well-known centers and whose careers were mostly pre-Internet/online. There is a potential secondary source cited, but it is from a print newspaper article.

I'd greatly appreciate a review of the page and current issues, and welcome any suggestions. Thank you, in advance. Tasfalen (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Tasfalen, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Sources from print are perfectly acceptable, as long as they meet the requirements in WP:42 of being reliably published, and (in most cases) independent of the subject and containing significant coverage of the subject.

Very much the most valuable thing you can do for that article now is to find more secondary sources, and make edit requests to add them to the article.

You might like to ask for collaborators in one of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the talk page - or indeed in WP:WikiProject Canada. ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I need some help with editing an article without a source. The article about Kontum Airfield describes an attack on the airfield that occurs on April 21, 1972.

"On 21 April PAVN artillery fire damaged an Air Vietnam plane, killing a flight attendant.[8]: 378 "

However, I know that the event actually took place on April 22, and the "flight attendant" that was killed was not a flight attendant, rather an employee of Air Vietnam. And I know this because she was my grandmother. I only recently heard the story for the first time from my father. I would really like to include her name in the article, Nguyen thi Ngan Thanh. I understand that personal anecdotes are not a legitimate source but it is important to me that her name is included. Is there any way to edit this article to include her name even though I don't have a source? Or does anyone know how I might find a source for something like this? Asianangler (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, all information in an article must be verifiable in something that is published and publicly accessible. We cannot use the personal knowledge of editors for article content.

You could track down the existing sources provided in the article to see if they would be willing and able to talk with you. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Have a read at WP:PRIMARY...it will be difficult to source this me thinks. Lectonar (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Remember that sources do not have to be online; nor in English. Perhaps you can find an old newspaper report in your local library? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Asianangler Your best bet is probably newspapers.com. I found The Huntsville Times Wed, May 17, 1972 ·Page 1 there with a large article about the airfield. It was referring to an attack that day but a bit more digging should find a report about the April attack. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

... yes, The Patriot-News Sun, Apr 23, 1972 ·Page 43 says "yesterday, wounding four civilians and damaging one airliner". That doesn't give the name of your grandmother nor state that a death occurred. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the newspaper.com suggestion. I appreciate the help! ~2026-21942-74 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

and defend ~2026-21596-17 (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're asking—how can we help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have 2 citations of 2 different webpages from the same website here: Siméon-Prosper Hardy. I'm trying to find examples of how to make those consecutive entries look prettier and more purposeful, because, at first glance, they look like a mistake (which I would like to avoid). Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 14:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

They look fine as they are, to me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Maybe I'm just overthinking this. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 19:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, its me again. Working on my table (User:Vicccqh7/sandbox), I wanted to ask if what I did with the notes and references is correct and understandable? For context: Note 1 is supported by source 1 since thats where I got the names from (source 2 doesnt add numbers to names and source 1 does). In row 6, the name Linda is taken from source 1 and the note points to source 2, I reversed the order because the note is not directly supported by source 1 but rather points to another source. In row 10, the death claim is taken from source 1, and the note points to source 1 and 2 having different data. From what I understand, adding a citation BEFORE the note means that the claim is supported by the source, and the note is an explanation of another source having different info (like note 2 and 3), and if its AFTER the note it directly supports what the note says (like note 1), is that right? I want to know if my logic is clear to a reader, I dont want to confuse people... Vicccqh7 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, There is an article on the topic. see Soviet space dogs. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I know there is. In fact thats where I want the table to go - Im updating the article and asking for feedback before I do any live changes Vicccqh7 (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

so I'm actually curious why are there so many person name bots here and I don't think LLMs are allows right? Yiotro1 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Yiotro1, can you clarify what users you're referring to? toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 15:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Yiotro1 Please see Wikipedia:Bots and Wikipedia:LLM. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Bots are automated scripts that perform repetitive and/or time-consuming tasks for humans (such as: delivering "message archived" notifications, fixing dead links, etc.) As far as I know, none of the currently running bots are powered by LLMs and only perform the tasks they're supposed to. The Bot policy and the Bot Approvals Group prevent any malicious/harmful bots from being created. Hi, I'm Max!|Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 18:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ve been working on a draft article for some time and have had trouble getting the style and references right. I think the latest draft is finally neutral in tone and bolstered with appropriate references but would truly appreciate input. Being new to the environment here, I don’t know how best to ask for input on the draft - if folks have access or do I need to paste here? Carvlin7 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Are you referring to Draft:Lauri Stallings, American Choreographer or something else? 331dot (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

You've also asked this at the AFC Help Desk, please only use one forum at a time to seek assistance, to avoid duplicating effort. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I was looking at Template:Service awards when I noticed that the template doesn't automatically calculate the number of edits that a user has, making it a bit tedious to keep up-to-date as edits are made. I also couldn't find a way of calculating this number in Help:Magic_words.

Does a bot exist to aid in this process? Or would it be best if I made a bot that works with mw:OAuth/Owner-only consumers to update the field for me? FocusedInsignia (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The answer regarding bots or templates which automatically update an edit count is usually that it doesn't exist because it's too computationally expensive while offering no benefit except for ego. You can imagine the implications of any large number of users using a bot or template which has to request their edit count from the server on any regular basis.

Also, this is something that really becomes a non-issue once you've got any significant number of edits. Sure, you're at 73 edits right now, so milestones like 10, 50, 100 and 250 fly by pretty quickly; but once you pass the 1000 mark, I promise you're not going to have any interest in checking anymore. Athanelar (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar, auto-updating edit count templates do exist, though they are dependent on page refresh. One can put {{Special:Impact/(username)}} to put their Special:Impact page on their userpage, which includes an edit counter. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Is the content (not the images) in Military Images Digital suitable to use for a citation in Wikipedia? I would never use it as the only source cited in a Wikipedia article. The article I am interested in using for a citation is located here. The citation style would be cite journal. TwoScars (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @TwoScars, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The article you link to has a named author, which is a good sign; and cites references, which is another good sign.

But I can't see anything on the "About" page that mentions an editorial team, and that's not so good.

I am unclear whether the submissions published here are checked and edited by a robust editorial team, or whether it is effectively a shared blog site, where anybody (or maybe just members) can submit their thoughts.

If the author is a recognised, published, authority on the subject, then it might be acceptable, see the second paragraph of WP:BLOG

I suggest asking at WP:RSN. ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have now asked at WP:RSN. If it helps, I also found the article in the Wikipedia Library in JSTOR (here). Thanks again. TwoScars (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Can somebody please help me? As long-time anonymous user, refusing to register any accounts, there are tasks I cannot perform, but yet need to be done to make Wikimedia and Wikipedia better. I found an error that needs to be corrected. Can I please be lazy and copy-paste the short form I tried to fill into a form that got refused by a bot? Sure, I can write long form prose, but your eyes would be tired, before you find the problem I need your help with! ;-)

Latvian A12 is not motorway, but Wikimedia files correction attempt under abuse

• Road signs in Latvia
• File:Latvia road sign 741 (Motorway).svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Abuse_filter/Error_reporting&withJS=MediaWiki:ABFeasySubmit.js

Trying to add English caption "Latvian primary road number 12 - NOT motorway"

Trying to explain that A12 is Latvian primary road - File on Wikimedia Commons has wrong name – Confusingly, A-numbers are almost only motorways in many countries in western Europe, but not in Latvia - Please check definition of Motorway and errors in article Road signs in Latvia that are difficult to correct when underlying file has misleading name - Motorway has 2x2 lanes, hard shoulders, non-level-crossings with bridges and junctions, and so on - Latvian A12 does not match motorway standards at all! As far as I know European motorway sign is not (yet) in use in Latvia as they have just started to build dual carriageways below motorway standards.

Error while creating the report: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: LTA 257 ~2026-21323-31 (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-21323-31 You appear to have now corrected this. I suspect you may have experienced a problem because of the SHOUTY nature of your proposed caption. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I'm 19 and for many years I have been willing to start contributing to Wikipedia. I have always been scared to get shut down from writing here. I would like to know where I might find a good place to start and how to do things around here properly. I am interested in certain niche parts of history and I could honestly spend hours researching subjects.

Or is this something I am expected to learn on my own?

Much thanks, Sincerely, nonentities37 Nonentities37 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia!

First of all, you’re definitely not alone, many of us felt nervous when we started editing. The good news is that you’re absolutely not expected to learn everything on your own. The Teahouse exists exactly for this reason, to help new editors get comfortable.

A great place to start is by making small edits. You could fix typos, improve wording, or add reliable sources to articles you’re interested in. Since you enjoy niche history topics, you can edit on topics related to niche history. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Nonentities37 and welcome!

First of all, don't worry about being "shut down from writing". Wikipedia policy is to always assume good faith and let people learn. You don't have to memorize dozens of guideline pages just to get started—if you accidentally do something wrong, your edit will just get reverted or fixed and you'll be told about what you should've done. You will not get banned unless you repeatedly do the same thing over and over despite many warnings, which, if you're genuinely interested in contributing, you're probably not likely to do.

I agree with @TheGreatEditor024 that the best way to get started is to make small improvements to topics that you like. You should have a "beginner homepage" here, on which you can choose topics you're interested in and it will suggest you articles you can improve.

If you need help with the basics of editing, check out Introduction to Wikipedia. There's also a great interactive tutorial called The Wikipedia Adventure (note that it only works on desktop).

Lastly, since you're interested in history, you may want to join a WikiProject, which is a group of editors working on some topic. For example, consider WikiProject History or WikiProject Military History.

Good luck with editing! Feel free to ask any other questions if you have any! 🍅 fx (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Ricardo, a new editor based in Portugal. My background is in entrepreneurship, business, and technology. I've just joined WikiProject Business and WikiProject Companies and am looking to contribute to articles in those areas — improving citations, expanding stubs, and fixing unsourced claims. Looking forward to being part of this community :)

RicardoCosta Ed (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @RicardoCosta Ed! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions, get help, and learn how Wikipedia works. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

How do I begin a discussion about multiple pages at once? I see some pages about similar subjects (see the list of people on Template:Princesses of Savoy) but lack consistency with their titles and I want the opinion of other editors. Thank you, OliviaRigby (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@OliviaRigby WP:RMPM is what you're looking for. Twinkle can start RMs (both with single and multiple pages), it's hidden under the "XFD" module. HurricaneZeta^C 02:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Would it be in 'Preferences'? OliviaRigby (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I got it now, thank you so much. OliviaRigby (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, I've come across an edit that updates demographic numbers, but doesn't provide a (new) source. I did some cursory googling and didn't find anything. Could someone direct me to places I can find data on demographics and religion like this? Thanks.

Holzklöppel (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Holzklöppel I think that the Pew website, which was the original source, may have done an update. I found this 2025 report from them, for example. I haven't drilled down to find the figure that was updated in the edit you linked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The article Irene of Alania speculates about almost everything pertaining to the subject. From her royal titles to lineage. In my humble opinion, there is no place here for such an article that does not impart any useful definitive fact but only speculates what is likely to have happened or what could have been. I'm here to ask for opinions from more seasoned editors. Please provide your thoughts. Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The first port of call would be the talk-page of said article; just make your thoughts known there, and see if there's feedback. If you think the article should be deleted, we have the process at articles for deletion. Lectonar (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I just wanted to ask for a few opinions before I consider an AfD. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

There are only two speculative statements in the article, not in Wikipedia's voice, and both of them are cited to an apparently reliable source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Andy! Let me review the article again. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I was inactive for a long period of time, and I somehow think that my talk page archival has got messed up. Can anyone experienced in this matter look into it? My talk page header says that it has been archived for 2021 and 2022. Does that mean that the archives of 2023 aren't available? I can see that they are available, so why isn't it being recorded?

How do I actually make sure that whatever had been posted on my talk page is actually there in the archive? I hope it hasn't been non-functional for some time, because I don't find many months for a particular year, let's say 2023 or 2022. Can anyone look into this? Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 08:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Itcouldbepossible. FormalDude made some changes to your archives in December 2022. I don't know why. All months in 2022 and 2023 have a linked archive. The links to 2022 were not sorted chronologically. I fixed that but don't know whether the bot will overwrite it. You use monthly archives. The top of your talk page confusingly transcludes {{archived annually}}. I suggest you remove it. It looks for archives with only a year in the name and that's only 2021 and 2022, both made by FormalDude (2021 with a move ) and not the bot. They are also linked in the big archives box so you don't need the links made by {{archived annually}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I am actually quite confused, and it would be really kind of you, if you kindly make the required changes on my behalf. Thanks for devoting your time in helping me out. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 09:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible:: I have removed {{archived annually}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I am making my first article about The Palanquins of the Soul, and editing it in my sandbox. Should i switch to writing in a Draft article, or should i write the whole article in my sandbox and copy it over to the draft? Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 10:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Balintkaistryingediting It's better to create it in the Draft namespace; if you've already started it in your sandbox, you should be able to move it to a draft. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 11:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that gradually as you get more used to Wikipedia (specifically creating articles) and you get autoconfirmed, you can create straight in the mainspace. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 14:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I do know that, because when I moved my article from my sandbox I accidentally moved it to the mainspace, I just thought it would be appropriate to get it reviewed. Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 15:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Good thinking, @Balintkaistryingediting. While any autoconfirmed editor can technically create an article directly, it really does take a lot more than four days and ten edits to become familiar with Wikipedia's content policies, so submitting drafts for review is a good idea for your first couple of months here. Also note that Articles for creation isn't a queue; reviewers work on drafts according to our interests, expertise, and energy. The notice about a two-month wait is only a rough indication of how many drafts are waiting to be reviewed. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Balintkaistryingediting. While, yes, you can directly create an article right now, I would recommend starting off with copyediting and wikilinking. You can also try citations too. I'd recommend doing some easy tasks, some medium tasks, and a few hard tasks before making an article. Purple, the Maker (Your welcome to say something!) 03:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Peer support is required regarding the verifiability of the respective claim on a living persons biography:

"As an academic, Dr. Valeri earned a Bachelor of Arts in Applied psychology, a Master of Arts in Clinical-Community Psychology, and a PhD in Critical Psychology at Point Park University.^{[citation needed]}"

What we have: The claim exists. The subject is real and verifiable in the public sphere through athletic and professional channels. The university is an accredited institution with verifiable psychology programs.

What we do not yet have: A reliable, published source to directly confirm all three degrees. The institution itself has confirmed it cannot provide a linkable webpage — what are some examples of other reliable citations to verify the claim? RealRobRossi (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Where does the information come from, if not from university websites? 331dot (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @RealRobRossi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

While text from an LLM is not forbidden in talk and discussion pages (as it is in articles), it is not what we want to see here. We want to hear from you, not your robot.

That somebody has a particular degree usually falls within the range of information that a primary source can be used to verify, so in this case a source from the respective universities, for example, would be acceptable. ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am seeking assistance with Draft:Lean Back. A reviewer (Gryllida) suggested that the first paragraph should explicitly state the notability criteria (WP:GNG) and highlight independent sources.

I have updated the first paragraph accordingly, providing specific printed sources with ISBN and ISSN numbers to prove in-depth coverage. Could someone please take a look and see if it is now ready for publication? I have already messaged the reviewer on their talk page but would appreciate any further guidance to avoid further delays.

Thank you!  JonekX (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

JonekX Hello. You have resubmitted the draft, Draft:Lean Back (band) and it is pending; asking for a review does not speed this entirely volunteer driven process. It will be reviewed in due course. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@JonekX These appear to be the same sources you were relying on the previous times the article was declined. If you don't have any new sources compared to what reviewers have seen before, what different outcome do you expect? AfC is not a slot machine where you pull the lever hoping you eventually get a favourable reviewer. Athanelar (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I just did what user Gryllida told me to do.

ISBN and ISSN numbers I provided refer to independent, printed encyclopedia and professional press. According to WP:GNG, these are the gold standard for reliable secondary sources.

The fact that the same sources were sufficient for the German and Czech versions suggests they meet general reliability standards. Could you please clarify why specifically these indexed, printed sources are being questioned? If these are not enough for a historical band, what other type of verification is expected for an inactive group from that period? JonekX (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The German and Czech Wikipedias are separate projects with their own policies as to what they deem acceptable; what is acceptable there is not neccesarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I can't speak to that as I don't have the time to review the sources properly myself at the minute, but the fact the draft has been declined five times by five separate reviewers (plus theroadislong's comment from just now) indicates that the sources you have are obviously not satisfying the reviewers, and if you don't have any additional sources then it might just be time to drop the stick and move on. Athanelar (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @JonekX.

ISBN and ISSN numbers are completely irrelevant. Anybody who publishes a book can buy an ISBN, so an ISBN is no guarantee of reliability.

In any case, reliability of sources is only one criterion. Nearly as important is independence. If the most reliable source you can think of publishes an article by the subject or the subject's associate, or based on an interview by one of these, or based on a press release (all of which they may reasonably do), that is not an independent source, and does nothing to establish that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Might be a wierd question, but i am creating the draft article Draft:Palanquins of the Soul, and i dont know how to use references.

Could someone please explain it to me? Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 12:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Help:Referencing for beginners. Athanelar (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

So, this guy named Spaceshuttle88 kept changing Earth to show The Blue Marble instead of the higher-quality Meteosat-12 image (which the people had wanted) and we got into a war reverting each other's edits. We both got a warning. Last night, I had tried to select a new photo for Earth because Hello, World was being debated at the time, and it was probably because I really wanted to change something. I'll regret this in a few years 🤦 Epicazowski (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Added consensus disclaimer next to the image field in Earth's infobox regarding the consensus of the image (i mean tbf you got a warning anyway so rip dude) nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 15:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am attempting to turn the list of books in the Railway Series page into a table to clean up fancruft and eventually get it to FL. How do I make it like the James Bond one, where only some are sortable? 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 13:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@ThatTrainGuy1945 yeah so you basically just add class="unsortable" next to the scope thingy to the table's code. the table code in the james bond article thingy for reference:

{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable" style="margin-right: 0;"
:|-
:! scope="col" | Title
:! scope="col" | Author
:! scope="col" | Publisher
:! scope="col" | Date
:! scope="col" | Length (first edition)
:! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Plot <!-- sort disabled -->
:! scope="col" class="unsortable" | {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}} <!-- sort disabled -->
:|-
:

nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 14:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright. So, I did that, and now it looks like this. What am I doing wrong?

(If there's an easier way to do it visually, which I usually use, let me know). 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 14:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@ThatTrainGuy1945 okay so um here's the fixed one. idk how but maybe an automation script in the visual reply tool that auto added : thingy. :urm:

{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable" style="margin-right: 0;"
|-
! scope="col" | Title
! scope="col" | Stories <!-- sort disabled -->
! scope="col" | Author
! scope="col" | Publisher
! scope="col" | Date
! scope="col" | Length (first edition)
! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Plot <!-- sort disabled -->
! scope="col" class="unsortable" | {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}} <!-- sort disabled -->
|-
! scope="row" | ''The Three Railway Engines''
|
* "Edward's Day Out"
* "Edward and Gordon"
* "The Sad Story of Henry"
* "Edward, Gordon, and Henry"
|[[Wilbert Awdry]]
|William Middleton (1945)
[[C. Reginald Dalby]] (1949)
|12 May 1945
|put ur length here
|Edward, an older engine, is let out of the sheds and later helps Gordon up a hill. Henry is shut up in a tunnel after refusing to come out in the rain, but is later let out after helping Edward pull Gordon's train.
|your ref
|}

outputs

nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 15:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks nhals8. (why are there rats?) 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 15:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

rats in the house of the dead nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 15:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I try to edit a page, but every time I try to publish my changes, it doesn't do anything, for a couple minutes, and finally, after a good long while there's a red error message saying: There was an error while loading the form. To continue, you will need to reload the page."

This happens with the source editor only, if I switch to the visual editor, I can publish normally.

It happens on both my heavily modded Firefox, and pristine clean install chrome.

There's no sign of my account being blocked in "Contributions", only the fact that there are so few of them, the last one being 3 years ago. Nor of the page being edited by someone else in the history of the page (last change yesterday at 3am.

It's not that big a change tbh, I'm just sad I couldn't do it. :S Alefith (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

you may refer to this phabricator bug report. check if you're blocking *hcaptcha.wikimedia.org. :3 nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 14:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Since It'd tied to the type editor, I don't think that's it. But if it can still be the case, tell me how I cann test if I block the capcha thing. In fact I'd be interested in any case. Alefith (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems I can reproduce the bug on the test server.

But, switching to it, I discovered the bug only happens with the source editor, not the visual editor. Alefith (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I can confirm that I worked around the issue one the true server by switching to the visual editor before publishing.

I'll know this for the future, but I don't know if/where I should report this happened. Alefith (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

more technical bug reports go to phabricator ^^ nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 15:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. 🍅 fx (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. I am requesting a second opinion on Draft:Lean Back (band), which was rejected as "cannot be resubmitted" by reviewer Thilio. I believe this decision is an error based on a failure to evaluate physical, printed sources. The draft provides: Marek Jakubowski; Mariusz Szalbierz (1997). Encyklopedia Muzyki Popularnej. Blues w Polsce (in Polish). p. 130. ISBN 83-85414-92-4. Barbara Kołodziej (1999). "10 lat z Lean Back". Wiadomości Rudzkie (in Polish). No. 48(380). p. 4. ISSN 1232-0560. "Historia ODK Jowisz" (in Polish). RSM. Archived from the original on 2009-08-16. Retrieved 2026-01-09. Krzysztof Nowakowski. "Uniwersytet dzieci" (in Polish). Retrieved 2010-03-25. "25 Głogowskie Spotkania Jazzowe". Archived from the original on 2010-06-01. Retrieved 2026-01-23. "33 studencki festiwal piosenki - uczestnicy". Archived from the original on 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2026-01-23. "Editorial Board – Tomasz Tomi Kupka". Journal of Dentistry. Retrieved 2026-02-10. These sources meet WP:GNG and WP:NBAND (Criterion 1 and 12). I would like to ask why these indexed, printed publications are being treated as unreliable while similar articles, such as [[Tie Break (jazz ensemble)]], are accepted with comparable evidence. This feels like a disproportionate barrier for historical art documentation from the pre-digital era. I request a review from a different set of eyes. JonekX (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

See other stuff exists for that argument and as for a different set of eyes you have had 5 declines before the final rejection. Theroadislong (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC). Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Why have you ("you") bolded parts of your text randomly? 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 15:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Olson Aluminum Castings

I thought I followed all the protocols when submitting my draft for my family business. I received that message that it was denied. Where in the submission process do I disclose I am involved with this company/ conflict of interest? Cmolson96 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

You need more sources to prove the notabiltiy of your company. Also the language is promotional. See here for notability. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 15:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Cmolson96 Hello. Please see WP:PAID for how to disclose your connection to your business.

Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about itself and what it views as its own history; you need to summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about your company, showing how it is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, @Cmolson96

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. Athanelar (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Cmolson96, I see you've disclosed your COI on your user page now – thank you. Before you think about submitting this draft a third time, you really need to carefully read all the advice and feedback you have been given in this thread and in the pink decline notices on your draft. It is extremely difficult (if not impossible) for someone to write a well-sourced, neutral-point-of-view article about their own company, which is why we discourage this practice. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory or free advertising platform. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, i need to know what's the page in commons for unregistered users requesting free images to get uploaded (kinda like WP:FFU) if there's no one, can you request free images in the aforementioned page? ~2026-16179-68 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16179-68: Here at the English Wikipedia an account must be autoconfirmed (four days and ten edits) to upload files. Commons doesn't require that so anyone can create an account and upload right away. They have no process like WP:FFU. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

yea, but i'm an unrigestered user that as of now, doesn't want to make an account ~2026-16179-68 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16179-68: I guess Commons has deliberately chosen to not allow this. It's easy to create an account and they have 138 million files. The same account will work at other Wikimedia wikis like Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

ok so they allow rquesting free images in WP:FFU, sorry for interrupting you ~2026-16179-68 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16179-68: I think they only allow it if you specify an English Wikipedia article for the image and they think the image would be suitable there, and they cannot find a suitable alternative image which is already uploaded. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Is it allowed like, a new logo (if the article has an outdated logo)? ~2026-16179-68 (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16179-68: A logo would probably be allowed at WP:FFU but often with an upload at the English Wikipedia with a fair use claim for the article. Logos are generally non-free and disallowed at Commons unless they are very simple. See more at Wikipedia:Logos. I suggest you stop asking questions and just make a request. If you had posted a link to the logo and article here then somebody might already have uploaded it with no need to go to WP:FFU. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi - I've tried to create a wiki article about a band named Calling All Captains but have been rejected a few times before due to lack of references. However - I believe they now have enough credible sources that warrant creating a wiki page.

I created the the article in my sandbox and now I am unsure how to submit it for review to be public. I believe I havent made enough edits to other articles to allow me to move the page to Wiki.

Any insight on how I can get this done would be greatly appreciated!

Link to page is HERE Cambirchill (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I have moved your draft to Draft:Calling All Captains and added a template at the top of the page which will allow you to submit it for review when you're ready.

However, I doubt at this time that it will be accepted. Your references seem to have a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. All of your sources are based on interviews, which cannot be used to establish notability. The only one which isn't is a very brief review of one of their albums.

Please take a look at WP:NBAND and familiarise yourself with our notability requirement for bands. Athanelar (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I’m currently working on editing the article about the Churchill Club, a Danish resistance group active during World War II. I noticed that the article is labelled as "low importance" under the Denmark tag. What can I do while editing this article to potentially change this and move it up in importance? Looking for any helpful suggestions as to what I can do.  Giorgiachristiansen (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can change the importance (and anyone can undo changes to importance, in that case discuss). The userscript RATER helps with this. msk 19:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

"Low importance" isn't a judgement on the quality of the topic, just a priority rating when it comes to selecting articles: "What are the most important articles about Denmark, that someone who is learning about the country should read first?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I recently submitted a draft for review (Draft:DOZA MC). I would appreciate any feedback on whether the sources and notability are sufficient, and if there’s anything I can improve while waiting for review. Thank you! Riomazado (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Like many people who first set out to create a Wikipedia article, you have fundamentally misunderstood what the purpose of a Wikipedia article is.

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.

Well over half of your references are links to this artist's music. It would seem that the purpose of your draft is to promote the artist, which is WP:NOPROMO not allowed.

Indeed, if you are affiliated with this artist personally or professionally in any way, please also be sure to disclose as much on your userpage; see WP:COI. Athanelar (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I understand the concern regarding primary sources. I will work on adding more independent reliable sources and improving the draft accordingly. Riomazado (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

im really new to wikipedia and 3 of my articles have been rejected and only 1 accepted. i feel really discouraged since if i try to write about a more common thing, the article already exists. if i try to write about something obscure, theres almost no info anywhere. is this common or is wikipedia not for me. ive spent days researching things and still found only a few things to cite. BabyJerryISking (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

There are numerous ways to contribute to Wikipedia except creating articles. Athanelar (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

other than Polygnotus (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Please don't get discouraged.

I think you've fallen into the same mindset that I did when I started twenty years ago: "I've got to make new articles! That's how to make my mark!"

But now, I realise that creating new articles is not the only way, or necessarily the best way, to made Wikipedia better. I have only ever created about a dozen articles.

We have seven million articles: how many of those do you think cannot be improved? Ten? A hundred? Maybe even a thousand, but I doubt it.

That leaves millions and millions of articles which aren't as good as they might be if somebody chose to spend some time and effort improving them. There are probably also millions of articles that are really really bad - usually because they are inadquately sourced. Some of those should certainly be deleted, because satisfactory sources don't exist; others could be improved and turned into decent articles. ColinFine (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Writing an article is the hardest job on Wikipedia, and nearly impossible for a new editor to do successfully until becoming intimately familiar with all of the linked policies and guidelines found in WP:Golden rule. You get that knowledge by improving existing articles and engaging with the community on talk pages. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

thank you so much.

i guess i got caught up in trying to be immediately great at everything that i thought i could make a bunch of articles.

ill just sdit and help till i get better. :D BabyJerryISking (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I've discovered that the pages of Chapter 3 of British Journalism by Richard Long on the National Council for the Training of Journalists published by Bibliotex in 2022 are identical to the sections of National Council for the Training of Journalists most of whose text is from earlier than 2022.

Similarly with the its pages on the BBC Academy and BBC Academy, the Birmingham School of Media and Birmingham School of Media, the Broadcast Journalism Training Council and Broadcast Journalism Training Council. The same is probably true for other pages relating to articles listed at Category:Journalism schools in the United Kingdom. Mcljlm (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Mcljlm, if you're asking a question, what's the question? And if you're appealing for help, what help? -- Hoary (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this casts doubt on Bibliotex's reliability as a reliable source and use of WP without acknowledgment. Mcljlm (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I can't tell what it even is. Sesquilinear (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Mcljlm, if you doubt the reliability of a publisher whose products are often cited in Wikipedia, or if you wonder about the reliability of a particular publication and wonder if you should cite it for a particular purpose, the best place to ask is WP:RSN. (As for unacknowledged recycling of material from Wikipedia, I hope that somebody else can address this.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The page on Shannon Denton has existed since 2005 and is completely unsourced - would this be grounds for removal? If so, how would one begin that process? MissRedwood (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reason you want to have the article deleted? We would usually rather see it improved. I did a quick search and turned up several good sources, I think it would be kept in a deletion discussion personally. MediaKyle (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Nope! Just seemed like an issue that it's been up so long without sourcing. Was also just curious for future reference. Thanks! MissRedwood (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

MediaKyle, could you share those sources? I stubified the page and adding some more sources would be good. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of an overreaction... Would have been better to just prod it than have an article that insults the subject through brevity. Yet another victim of the Teahouse I suppose. I have no interest in the subject matter personally. MediaKyle (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I was planning on expanding it a bit further, and was asking for those sources for the purpose of expanding it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

After putting in so much effort I later saw that someone removed my edit Please help me🥲 Mexico's Claudia (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which edit you mean? DS (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to an edit where I added a link to another related article (it appeared in the suggestions as well). After I added it the edit was later undone ould you please check if there was any issue with that link? Mexico's Claudia (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Your list of edits, Mexico's Claudia. Which edits among these? -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mexico's Claudia I presume you are referring to your edit at Late antiquity which @Discospinster reverted.

While Disco didn't explain their revert with an edit summary, my assumption is that it's because you created a piped link from the word "throughout" to the page Victorialand, which is a link to an album that has nothing to do with the context.

Also, I notice that you responded to this by going and reverting one of Discospinster's recent edits with the edit summaries "Why my edit revert" and "I will also revert" Please don't engage in this kind of petty retaliation. Athanelar (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In addition, in the same edit, you also:

• Wikilinked the verb "grew" to the surname Grew
• Wikilinked "late antiquity" as a reference to the same article it was in
• Wikilinked the word "suggests"

It's totally understandable why this edit was reverted rather than the mistakes being edited out. Your edit was very sloppy work, and I would have reverted it too. The piped link to that Cocteau Twins album was utterly bizarre. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Your other edits are incredibly sloppy too.

• I'm definitely not a fan of linking a song to the redirect for the song to the same article you started on .
• You linked a Belanova tour to an album by Jo Stafford .
• You also added an award for Belanova which butchered the table, you added "not sure" as the category the award was in, and it was an award that according to the article for the award, that Belanova doesn't appear to have won anyway .
• Bizarrely linked words like "included" and "authority" in List of Byzantine emperors
• Linked "shot Jackson" in a sentence describing the murder of Jimmie Lee Jackson with a link to country guitarist Shot Jackson.
• Linked phrases in a prose to unrelated articles that make no sense. For example, in a description of a plot that involves someone hiding in a bedroom, you linked to a film titled In the Bedroom, which has nothing to do with anything oin the article.

You need to start focusing on why your edits are being reverted and fix the underlying problems with your editing, not focusing on the fact that there are edits being reverted. Pretty much every edit you have made has at least one significant problem. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs, since almost all of the edits this user has made have been links, I'm going to go out on a whim and assume that they are using the Newcomer tasks, specifically the linking feature.

@Mexico's Claudia, please note that when doing these tasks, the link suggestions are just that: suggestions. They can often be wrong, as they are machine-generated. When doing this task in the future, please check before you link!

Best, PolarClimates (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I’m fairly sure that you can use public domain images on Wikipedia, but I just wanted to check since some images I need aren’t in the Wikimedia Commons database yet. I-like-Arm64 (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Generally, public-domain images are uploaded to Commons first. If an image link pointing to a file that exists on Commons but doesn't exist locally, the software automagically defaults to the file on Commons. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I-like-Arm64, do we agree on the meaning of "public domain"? For many people, "This photo of the then-Prince is in the public domain" would mean that the photo is easy to find on the web, or that its existence is public knowledge, or both (or similar). That is not what it means here. Here, an image that's in the public domain in [territory] is one that is not copyright in [territory]. -- Hoary (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@I-like-Arm64 More detail at Public domain and Creative Commons (the licenses that Wikimedia Commons uses). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Article: American Musical Supply

Hi there!

I was suggested to revise the tone of this article by my dashboard. However, it seems the whole article is promotional (see the sections, it really reads like an ad) and it looks LLM generated, especially with the writing style and section titles. What should I do now? TheAuroraBorealis (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, TheAuroraBorealis. I agree that this article is basically an advertisement for the company. Please read WP:DELETION for the various options for getting rid of it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It's now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Musical Supply. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Checking the page history, the TA ~2026-17050-06 was the one who made it so promotional here. I've reverted it to the last good version. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe it's a good idea to let them know to not do this again? TheAuroraBorealis (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Its probably not needed, due to it being fairly old at this point. Most accounts edit once and then never again, and I doubt this one will be different. If they return and do more promo then a warning can be given. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

....Betelgeuse. When will this star blow up, and can anything found on this star be used in the article about this star? I have seen all manner of rumors on this all over the place, and I have heard that IF one of its poles is facing Earth, Earth will be destroyed by a Gamma Ray Burst when it blows up. ~2026-16963-29 (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I assume you read Betelgeuse#2019–2020_fading. If you want to suggest sources and content for the article. go to Talk:Betelgeuse. If you want to ask "When will this star blow up", you can try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16963-29 It may already have blown up. As it is over 400 light-years away, we wouldn't know until the "burst" arrives here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I've seen various discussions on whether Betelgeuse will destroy Earth and what it will do.

From what I've seen, most scientists appear to agree that it is not close enough to destroy Earth (it's about 450 light years away, as Mike mentioned above), but it is close enough to be very bright. Estimates range from the explosion's brightness to be greater than that of Sirius (the current brightest star in the sky) at the low end and that of the sun during the day at the high end.

In conclusion, Betelgeuse probably won't destroy Earth, but it might destroy our sleep schedules. Remember that this is all speculative, and that we won't know what will happen until it happens, but it's fun to think about.--DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 13:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

What will the explosion of Betelgeuse look like from Earth, and if it blew up now, can that and any illustrations be used in any articles? This is all over the place like YouTube. ~2026-16963-29 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps these sources have something you find interesting:

If you find a WP:RS, like, say, NASA, that says the star just blew up, that can probably be used on WP somewhere. The rule of thumb is that any random pic/vid you find online is under copyright and can't be used on WP or Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

IF one of its poles is facing Earth, will it destroy the planet in some kind of "Gamma Ray Burst, as shown on YouTube, TikTok, other places?~2026-16963-29 (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Or, you know, google. See if you find answers you think plausible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

what happened to my editor i was visiting wikipedia a few days ago and it changed into the source editor MOBMAN61 (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You have to click the pencil icon to change source to visual. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi MOBMAN61, welcome to the Teahouse. Check that "Enable the visual editor" is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and see the "Editing mode" options below it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I asked about the Article Heading. Kesavaraja M (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Kesavaraja M Please see Teahouse. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kesavaraja M, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you're asking what the Wikipedia Teahouse is, please see the text at the top of this page. ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi!I wanted to known why some of my article such as Vajra,Vijaya bank layout and Udupi International Airport is not revived even if it has taken longer time and what is this point system for article? Shaymmm (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Shaymmm, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I don't understand what you are asking. What do you mean by "revived"? What are you expecting?

All three articles are there, though Vajra does not seem to have been edited by you, so it may be a different article from the one you're talking about.

Vijaya bank layout is there still, and Udupi International Airport as well, though the latter has been tagged as possibly not meeting the notability requirements. ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Vajra Bus,BMTC is edited by me.I meant by Reviews.It means if a person Reviews the article is visble in google as a wikipedia article Shaymmm (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol is a volunteer process. The draft will be marked as reviewed after 90 days if it is not manually reviewed sooner. Do you have a particular need for these articles to appear in search results quickly? 331dot (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In general, when adding a reference to an article, am I supposed to use the current date in my local timezone or UTC? I am on mobile right now, but I can see the clock when I’m on my laptop editing, and I was wondering if that’s what I should’ve been going by this whole time. Xx rapunzel xx (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

If the access-date parameter is off by a day, it doesn't really matter. I tend to use whatever date is my time zone. Or I omit the parameter entirely. The point of that parameter is mostly just to show readers when was the last time somebody recorded the fact that the citation was accessed. If the access-date was many years ago, then the citation may be subject to link rot and it should be checked again, and fixed with a link to archive.org if necessary and possible. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi how do I submit a draft for review? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

If you're referring to Draft:Kyunki Rishton Ke Bhi Roop Badalte Hain, I have added a template that will allow you to submit it for review when you're ready. Athanelar (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay thank you ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar side note, what's the proper way to add the AfC draft template? I recently had to do it and I just did it manually, but then that doesn't fill in all the parameters that yours has. 🍅 fx (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

{{subst:AfC draft}} Athanelar (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I noticed another editor make edits to existing references, and they removed the language parameter on a couple of them, stating that it’s not necessary to use if the source is in English (implying that it’s unnecessary if the source and article language is the same). Is this true? What if the article is being read in a different language? Wouldn’t it be easier for transcribers to use the same reference, knowing it’s already in English?

The second language question I have is American vs. British English. I’m in American currently editing an article about a band from London. Should I be using the British spelling of certain words as well as the date format? Should editors come to some sort of agreement on which English to use? Or is there a specific rule regarding this?

This is the article I’m referring to with both questions: Even in Arcadia

 Xx rapunzel xx (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Xx rapunzel xx. lang=en is ignored by citation templates here at the English Wikipedia but Template:Citation#csdoc language says:

Because cs1|2 templates are often copied from en.wiki to other wikis, the use of language codes is preferred so that language names render in the correct language and form, e.g. espagnol at a French-language wiki instead of the English word "Spanish".

This is also an argument for including lang=en but I don't know a more official recommendation. See MOS:TIES and MOS:DATETIES for your second question. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

At the top of an article's wikitext, there should be a templete about which you should use ("Use British English" or "Use American English"). However, MOS:TIES says that you should use british english for this article/topic. BSH (talk) - (they/them) 13:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I made a small edit/update to a page, but it was quickly "reverted" by another user. The user who reverted sent a friendly and helpful note (referred me to the sandbox and other resources) but I don't understand why the edit was reverted. It's no big deal (in fact it's a very small revision) but I'm confident the edit is correct. Any advice? Pinarello–Q36.5 Pro Cycling Team. Wyopinotfan (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Wyopinotfan, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume your edit was reverted due to a lack of sourcing. Since you provided no sources and changed it on a whim, one patrolling edits would (and did) assume that it could be vandalism and reverted. I have redone your edit with sourcing, make sure to source next time. Cheers :), kline / talk / contribs 14:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Wyopinotfan (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Wyopinotfan. Verifiability is a core content policy on Wikipedia. Any factual claim in an article that could potentially be challenged should be cited to a reliable source. Athanelar (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Wyopinotfan (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Create2share has an article as their user page, which is not allowed (WP:FAKEARTICLE). I'd normally delete the content or move it into their userspace (can't draftify, because they already made a draft). However, in this case, the user page is transcluded from MetaWiki, so I have no idea how to deal with this. Could someone please help here? 🍅 fx (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Flexagoon. I have nominated meta:User:Create2share for speedy deletion per meta:Meta:Deletion policy#G7. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! @Shoot for the Stars seems to have a habit of uploading very low quality images of celebrities to replace reasonably high-quality infobox pictures, and then edit warring to make sure that their version stays on the page. See:

• Talk:Trippie_Redd#Photo
• Eric Trump
• Cardi B
• Talk:Jason Bateman

Their favorite technique seems to be to upload a new, low quality image, and then force other people to "start an RFC" if they want to change it back. I am not familiar with every nook and cranny of Wikipedia's consensus policy, but I don't think this is how things work.

They also make unnecessarily threatening comments to random people who bring up that the pictures are bad ("If you change the photo one more time without a consensus then I will report you for starting an edit war."), and also have a history of extreme incivility/edit warring on other topics (for example Talk:Elliot_Rodger/Archive_1#Images).

What is the best move here? I am not clear on whether WP:ANI is appropriate here, but it would be nice for someone to gently tell this person that this is not how things work. Thanks! ~2026-16034-49 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I have to second what @~2026-16034-49 says, and incur my chat with a noted admin (User talk:Black Kite#Appealing to you for advice). Also, @Shoot for the Stars is attempting to delete the other (which is unlikely to succeed for reasons provided on the previously cited chat also), better, Trippie Redd photo in order to upload their low-quality one. Scientelensia (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to add this has been a problem on more pages, including Karen Fukuhara. Scientelensia (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

How bizzare. I would say this is appropriate for WP:ANI since it's happening over many pages and wont get resolved on any one article's talk page. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 19:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I was looking at the Twinkle options on the teahouse out of curiosity and I managed to submit a deletion request for the Teahouse. Could someone close that request? I'm not sure how to do that..

Sorry! PolarClimates (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@PolarClimates I nominated it for deletion with {{Db-error}} HurricaneZeta^C 17:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! PolarClimates (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Recently, an editor has been adding animated illustrations, possibly self-drawn, to the infoboxes of articles on historical figures from WP:MYANMAR (for example, this, this, and this). Although MOS:LEADIMAGE says that lead images should be natural, I also believe this may go against MOS:IMAGEREL, which says that images should be encyclopedic in nature. First, I would like to know whether my understanding is correct that these animated illustrations should be removed from infoboxes. Second, if this editor’s actions do go against the guidelines, where should I ask for help to prevent further additions of this kind, given that they have already added them to more than ten articles? TIA. Htanaungg (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Those don't look animated to me, they just look hand-drawn. They are jpg files, which don't support animation (if they did, they'd have an extension ajpg or mjpg).

If no other illustration is available under an acceptable free license, then it's fair game to use a user-generated portrait of the article subject. We show user-created artwork as lead images in many other articles, particularly ones about sexual practices. Whether these particular drawings are appropriate is something to be determined on the talk page. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I have a distinguished background of over 45 years as an Electrical Engineer and Computer Scientist with 9 patents and 100s of innovations. ~2026-22163-87 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTABILITY. However many patents you have is irrelevant if there is no significant coverage of you (and a cursory Google search didn't find any). In addition, if you are considering writing an article about yourself, you should know that is strongly discouraged: please see WP:ABOUTME. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (Ping me!) 17:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, please be mindful of scams offering to create an article about you in exchange for payment. Athanelar (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The specific notability guideline for people is WP:PERSON. Richard Hooker, there are countless people with long, successful careers who are not eligible for a Wikipedia biography. To summarize briefly, an acceptable Wikipedia biography summarizes the significant, in depth coverage that multiple, independent reliable sources have published about that person. If that coverage does not exist, it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Demographics of Sudan - Wikipedia

I am bringing this awareness to this page because as a Sudanese, I found something wrong. Check the page because it showed that the sections of Migration and Emigration are empty which is not good for Wikipedia pages.

I wanted to bring this to Teahouse for awareness. Talk:Demographics of Sudan - Wikipedia

Sudanese Diaspora Populations Around the World - The Sudanist ~2026-81618-8 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-81618-8 Thanks for finding a reliable source on migration. There are only 44 editors who watch that article, so it may be some time before anyone works to put the numbers into the article. I would encourage you to be bold and update the article yourself, as it is open for editing by everyone. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

...failing that, you might want to lave a note at WT:WikiProject Sudan or WT:WikiProject Africa. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I received a request on my talkpage here to replace the image on the Leading Company article with a higher resolution one found on internet archive. I don't think this is permitted but double-checking, please advise, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Atlantic306,

Since the cover art is a copyrighted work of art, its inclusion in the article would be subject to point 3b of WP:NFCCP. So, no, the higher resolution picture should not be uploaded. I would explain this to the user by saying that lower resolution images are often preferred so as to comply with copyright law. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 02:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

In this case, is it correct to remove the redirect and create a document, or is it correct to keep it by adding (horse racing)?

The document I want to create is Korean Derby. This is a document related to Korean horse racing, but it overlaps with the redirect. Usually, when we say Korean derby in Korea, we mean a match between Korean soccer players (like Son Heung-min vs. Kim Min-jae) and not South Korea vs. North Korea (in Korea, we call it the North-South Korean Derby, not the Korean Derby), so it's surprising that it was redirected. Coperacchio (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It's likely that some people (especially non-Koreans) will still search on "Korean Derby" looking for the football topic, and some will search on it for the horse race. You could turn the redirect into a WP:Disambiguation page, though that's not usual for only 2 alternatives, when a WP:Hatnote on each article is preferred.

If you create your proposed new article as a WP:Draft, and submit it for review, it will be the job of the reviewer, if they accept it as an article, to choose the most suitable name, WP:Move the draft to that, and also resolve any other naming conflicts (which you can alert them to on the Draft's Talk page). Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

On this page, you will notice that I've bundled many citations using an "efn" template. However, on this page that system will not work, because "efn" notes end up in an existing note list under a table, instead of at the end of the article. If you look at my last few edits on that page, you'll see that I tried another system, but I couldn't figure out how to put named references into that type of bundle. If someone could show me the best way to bundle citations on the second page, that would be very helpful. Thanks. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@OrdinaryOtter I think that you can achieve what you want by using the grouping feature described at {{efn}}. You could create a new group with {{efn|group=lower-roman|Footnote 1}} and then {{notelist|group=lower-roman}} where you want your new notes to appear. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Realised I now have two registrations, under 2 email accounts, plus an email account for donations. Perhaps I should combine them? If so how?

Can I change the user name as it appears publicly? Norrette (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse!

Unfortunately, you cannot combine accounts, nor can you change your username. However you can make one of those accounts the main, and make the other one your alternate account, you can do this by publicly displaying it on your user page. If you really want to change your username consider creating a new account for it. Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 09:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Norrette. Balintkaistryingediting is correct that you can't combine the accounts, but wrong about changing your username, which can be done by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. For transparency purposes, I suggest picking one of your accounts, abandoning the other, and placing a note on the user page of the account you'll continue to use, telling people what your other account was. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that, I didn't search deeply, since another official Wikipedia page said that i couldn't (maybe I just understood it wrong🤔) Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 09:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll add that the donation process is completely separate from Wikipedia accounts and editing; the donation process is conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and donation records are not linked to accounts for privacy reasons(it's also not required to have a Wikipedia account to donate to the Foundation). The only way we know that a Wikipedia editor/user has donated is if they say so, there's no way by third parties to confirm or deny it. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Balintkaistryingediting Perhaps you read WP:SOCK, which deals with the incorrect use of alternate accounts, not WP:VALIDALT, which deals with the correct use of alternate accounts. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly! The Username violations part made me think that i needed a new account to change my username. Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 10:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@Norrette You have only made two edits globally with your "Norette" account. That means it would be a waste of time to change its name. Just abandon it and use your other account from now on, unless, of course, that other account has even fewer edits, or for some reason you prefer to be known as "Norette". Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Guangzhou

I think we might need to explain to the new editor, Kbaiko, here about the consensus-forming process, OR and WP:RS, and probably peer review / 3rd opinion / etc.., and just in general how to collaborate with the others, along with some welcoming to new this new user and recognition / gratitude of their dedication, but I'm too tired_lazy to do so. So here are the links. Thanks, fellas.

Article history | Guangzhou_{Note that the editor's not being agreed with by multiple editors.} Article talk. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} posted 12:48, edited 14:01 utc. 12:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Please follow the dispute resolution process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*? Tamanpreet Kaur (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, you can't trust anything but Wikipedia is checked constantly by editors. Balintkaistryingediting (Balint's Info, Talk, Balint's Edits) 13:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You follow the references and see if they support what the article is saying and then decide if the publisher of said reference is reliable. Wikipedia doesn't guarantee its reader with absolute truth, it just makes the offer of the best volunteered effort to aggregate all the trusted sources. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Tamanpreet Kaur You don't, see WP:TRUTH. You need to examine the sources provided in an article and decide for yourself. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, SomeRandomGuy3523 here, i need some advice and possibly some assistance regarding the article I've made about the 1st Missouri State Militia Cavalry, to see what i got wrong, would be of great help, Thanks. (i use Visual editor btw) SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)