Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hello, I need help. It concerns the "Rivers of Germany" talk page (the template). I need someone to read through the entire discussion there and provide an objective opinion on it. Furthermore, that person should closely examine the template itself and the changes that have been made to it. I am being prevented from improving the template and drawn into discussions that seem designed to eventually lead to me being blocked. Si9mon (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Template talk:Rivers of Germany I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Si9mon, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a content dispute (the fact that it relates to a template rather than an article does not alter that). dispute resolution explains the steps to take if it cannot be resolved by discussion. ColinFine (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Talk-page discussion is ongoing; I would try to get a third opinion as well. Lectonar (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I have one more quick question: what do I need to type to alert a user that I’ve written something concerning them? The user's name is: FromCzech Si9mon (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Pinging-..there are multiple ways to do it...see Help:Notifications. Lectonar (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I have a major problem: I want to expand and improve the "Rivers of Germany" template. Apart from me, there is only one other user interested in the template, yet this user blocks any changes I make that don't suit him, citing "no consensus." It is impossible to work this way. The user only became aware of the template in the first place because I added it to a few pages for rivers that also flow through the Czech Republic. Since then, he has constantly interfered with my attempts to expand it, even though he has neither an interest in nor any knowledge of German rivers. How am I ever supposed to make changes when a single user can simply undo anything he dislikes, regardless of whether the changes were objectively good or bad? Si9mon (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned the 3rd opinion...not everyone around is river-savvy. Lectonar (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

And we actually have Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers...don't know how active they are, though. Lectonar (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. The instructions say: "and signing the edit using four tildes." Do I need to insert the four tildes again right after the highlighted username, or is it enough if the four tildes appear at the end of the message anyway? Si9mon (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

At the end is enough. Lectonar (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Si9mon I have read much of the disussion, including the previous Teahouse thread at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1303#river_templates. My view is that the extra information you wish to include would be best placed within List of rivers of Germany. Accordng to WP:NAV, navigation templates are intentionally relatively simple and, importantly, are not visible to users of the mobile version of Wikipedia. (There is a long-standing wish to make them so.) Note that it would be acceptable to include a link to the list article within the template. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It hasn't been about sorting the template by river length or including length figures—as I originally intended—for a long time now. By this point, the real issue is that it’s impossible for me to make *any* changes to the template (which is still full of gaps and errors) because there is only one other user besides me who takes an interest in it. And that user can block any and all changes simply by claiming there is no consensus. I have to discuss and get approval from this other user for every single minor tweak. But he has no desire to add new rivers to the template or change the format, so the template is forced to remain as poor as it currently is. Just look at the French template by comparison. The situation is ridiculous :-) Si9mon (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Si9mon Have you tried "Third Opinion" yet, as suggested above? David10244 (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I am creating an Article Draft: Kumardungi. DoubleGrazing, the reviewer has rejected my article for:

" Citypopulation.de is a self-published source, can you find something more reliable? ".

Why Self-published sources are not allowed? Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The content of self-published sources is often unreliable or incorrect. See WP:Self-published sources for the official policy on them. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 15:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Self-published sources are disallowed because it implies that the content did not go through rigourous fact-checking and editorial processes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:25, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Rajdhani Fan Person For a concrete example, people could self-publish a source or Web site saying they are the ruler of the world, and then write a Wikipedia article that uses the self-published source as a reference. David10244 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an inexperienced editor who just got my first article published. I have two photos in Wikicommons that I want to add to the article Ted Leland. I'm struggling to figure out that process. Thanks. Dougmcilhagga (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I looked at your account and I don't see any photos you've uploaded to Commons. If you haven't uploaded them there already, and they meet the Commons rules and guidelines, can you please do so? Once you have that done, add your file name to the image section of the infobox on the Ted Leland article, or put the text [[File:Your filename.png|thumb|Your caption]] where you want the picture in the article if you don't want it in an infobox. If you need more assistance, there's a guide available at Help:Pictures. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 19:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Interesting! I had the photos in the article twice in the early stages of development, and they disappeared. I'll attempt to upload again, thanks! Dougmcilhagga (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

If the images were deleted by a Commons admin, please don't reupload them without significant changes or without contacting the deleting admin. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 19:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The images are now here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

And they've gone again. Judging by what's in the Upload Log, they're not the OP's own images to upload, but come from the Stanford University Department of Athletics. Maybe try posting on Commons:Permission_requests? in solidarity Chuntuk (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Images for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 19:01, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dougmcilhagga. Even though Commons and Wikipedia are part of the same Wikimedia Foundation family and overlap a bit when it comes to some things, they're still separate project with their own policies and guidelines; so, if you're going to be uploading images to Commons, you will need to make sure they meet c:Commons:Licensing. The two files you uploaded c:File:Leland01 mug.jpg and c:File:Ted Leland Sears Cup.jpg were deleted by Commons administrators because there was no way to verify their licensing; in other words, there was no way for Commons to verify that the copyright holder had given their c:Commons:Consent for the files to be uploaded. Commons will only host content that can be verified to have been released by their copyright holders under a license that's free enough (i.e., subject to no or only very minimal copyright restrictions) for its purposes; anything else tends to be deleted when found. The names of the Commons' administrators who deleted the files can be found on the file pages of the deleted files; so, if you think an error was made, you can post a message on their user talk pages and explain why. You might, though, want to tak a look at c:Commons:Own work, c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images, and c:Commons:Uploading works by a third party first because it sounds like you might be misunderstanding some important things about Commons and image licensing, and making a mistake that many others have made in the past: assuming that uploading content created by others to Commons is automatically OK because the content somehow becomes the uploader's "own work" since they downloaded/scanned/photographed from the some publication/website. Finally, I don't suggest you try to reupload these files again (either to Commons or English Wikipedia) until you're able to straighten out their licensing issues. It's easy to make mistakes when it comes to image licensing; so, there kind of expected and won't be help against those ho do. If, however, the same person continues to make the same mistake and continues upload files (particularly the same files), then adminstrators (both on Commons and English Wikipedia) tend to be less understanding and are more likely to block the account in question to stop it from uploading any more files with problematic licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

On Tuesday, May 5, 2026, Zach Reynolds at Stanford sent the necessary documentation re: Licensing/Ownership to permissions at wikicommons.

(Redacted)

Doug McIlhagga Dougmcilhagga (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don't post emails on Wikipedia. Especially not with contact information. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if the comment from four months ago is a valid comment for a talk page. Talk:Opium in Iran. I don't believe it follows what a talk page is for. In my opinion, if there is sufficient evidence for the claims in the comment, it can become a new section examining the different point of view. The comment, however, is written by someone who is apparently unaware of how a Wikipedia article is written so I am compelled to doubt the claims made in the comment. What is the appropriate response here?  Aperture LENS (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Aperture LENS I suggest you just ignore it, based on WP:NOTFORUM. There would be more concern if the TA had made inappropriate changes to the actual article but they didn't. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Aperture LENS: The TA violated WP:NOTFORUM for ranting about the comparison between illicit substances and alcohol, WP:HOAX for using some Hollywood thriller as some sort of evidence of historical safety standards, and WP:SOAP for making a bizarre opinion about opium restriction's effects to Iran.

@Michael D. Turnbull: This is already kind of concerning in my opinion. Someone might remove this comment when they see something like that. Since the TA already expired, it seems like we can do nothing about it. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 11:02, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@SlapstickHumor360! Are you saying that because a TA has expired, no one can remove an inappropriate comment from a Talk page based on NOTFORUM? David10244 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We can still remove the comment, but we can't warn them because the account expired. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 05:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull@SlapstickHumor360! Thank you both! Much appreciated. Aperture LENS (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 23:40, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

for a while i wondered why NGC 4562 and IC 3571 did not have any english pages, so i made one for NGC 4562, the reason it got declined is that i need a lot of information and confirmation, the problem with that is that NGC 4562 really did not have any useful info and i did my best to not include any info that might be fake.

thank you for reading this, i hope you have a great day. AyanPluh (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @AyanPluh. Yes, that's exactly how Wikipedia works: we only allow topics to have an article if they are notable as we define that word, based on really good sources. That said, there are some sources at NGC 4565 which may be relevant to your draft, if you want to try to expand it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

okay but the problem is that NGC 4562 is very overshadowed by NGC 4565 in terms of information about it, if you want can you try to find sources and info that might be helpful for expanding the draft? i only got 8 days left of my free time so yeah... AyanPluh (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Being a sometime astronomer, I have had a quick skim of the interwebs, and it looks to me as if there is simply too little published about NGC 4562 to make anything more than a brief stub article about it.

Wikipedia is not a catalogue, and we do not need to have a separate article about every NGC entity. I think the best course for the moment is to include what facts there are within the article of its more prominent neighbor NGC 4565, where it is already mentioned: I suggest expanding the section Galaxy Groups, and adding what facts are available about both NGC 4562 and IC 3571 and perhaps also the others mentioned in that section.

Remember, there is no deadline as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You can do what you can now and come back to do more later; in the meantime others may also pitch in, and – who knows – perhaps in future more studies will be done and published about NGC 4562. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-43920-01 (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It is not clear to me how to add full bibliographical info for a publication when the article has all such info together at the end, rather than giving the full info in the note that follows a particular statement. I just get "template content" for that long list and after I click "edit" I am unable to arrive at a place where the new info could be added. I would be grateful if anyone could help me sort out my confusion, thank you in advance for that Buddhist Peter (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Buddhist Peter: Please link pages you want help with. I guess it's Mahākāśyapa#References. You use VisualEditor which has its own way of doing things and they don't work well with all types of code but here is a tip for that specific section:

1. After starting an edit, switch to the source editor on a pencil icon at the top right.
2. Remove {{refbegin |30em}} at the start of the references section (it gets in the way of VisualEditor).
3. Switch back to VisualEditor on the pencil icon.
4. Edit the citations as usual in VisualEditor.
5. Switch to the source editor again.
6. Restore {{refbegin |30em}}
7. Publish.

You can also just edit the citations in the source editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very helpful. I still have not fully resolved the issue, unfortunately, which must be due to my ignorance. When I followed your steps 1 to 7 the reference appeared in Mahākāśyapa#References but in the source editor it looked different from all the others. So I redid it by copypasting the formatting of other entries and adjusting accordingly. That looks ok now. Still, the problem remains that what is now note 62 has he author's name without linking it to the list of references, as is the style of all other notes. I have not been able to solve this additional step. Any advice would be much appreciated. Buddhist Peter (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Where are you clicking to try to edit the article? This article has a mix of reference formats, which can be confusing - some of them are included in the body and automatically generated in the Citations section, but there's also a References section after it with additional sources that are linked to sections of content via {{sfn}} templates (plus a Notes section before both of those). We usually discourage mixing reference types like this because it's messy and difficult to work with, as you've found. I would recommend just adding your sources inline as usual so they're automatically generated as numbered citations instead of dealing with sfn formatting, which is complicated in the first place and even more so in the visual editor. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 10:32, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

(The citations section is also duplicating the entire References section via reflist, to make matters more confusing.) ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 10:45, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to mention that I am only able to work during a short window daily at around this time. This is why I was able to thank PrimeHunter but not able to implement the suggestions right away, which I did now. But anyway thank you for the encouragement, and I think you are right the article is a bit of a mess. I just wanted to make sure that the one reference I added does not increase that :) Buddhist Peter (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I probably should have checked the page history. Your revision here is actually what I was referring to and looks fine to me, given the already mixed references on the page. It appears in the automated Citations section. The way you've done it now doesn't link to the full citation in References without forming it as a {{sfn}}.

I'm going to WP:BOLDly rename the Citations and References sections, because I think they're causing additional confusion. Citations contains a list of references while References lists expanded {{citations}}. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 12:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I am afraid that I am still struggling and would appreciate some help. I have spend quite some time trying to figure out how to do an sfn citation but the maze of information on that is not entirely helpful in just getting to the basics. I finally settled down to simply copypasting an already existing citation in the source editor and updating the information. Now note 62 looks better, as the name has a link to it, but that link does not work, i.e., it does not lead to the full bibliographical information. Would it be possible to explain to me just how such an sfn reference should be done or direct me to somewhere on wiki where this is explained in a step-by-step manner? Apologies for my lack of understanding but as a newcomer it is not always easy to find out the very basic information needed for doing such simple things as citation :) Buddhist Peter (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, unless you're really set on making it appear in both References and Citations I would just return it to your version I linked to above. That's the format that's used on most articles and it's easier to work with, especially through Visual Editor. I think {{sfn}} is mostly deprecated at this point since we have better ways to accomplish the same thing. As you've seen it can cause quite the headache! ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 12:24, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

{{sfn}} and its sibling templates are certainly not deprecated, or even "mostly deprecated". There are some editors who dislike using shortened footnotes, but that is not the same thing at all. I find them particularly useful when I'm citing different pages in the same work (e.g. a book). User:SMcCandlish/How to use the sfnp family of templates is a handy primer on their use.

Sub-referencing is an alternative way to achieve the same goal of citing different parts one source many times without repeating the bibliographic information in full, but it is not yet deployed to English Wikipedia. There is also {{rp}}, but I have never used this in earnest. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

You can use page numbers with named refs. I've very rarely seen {{sfn}} utilized - mainly on older articles - and a quick glance at the template page confirms it's used on far fewer pages than most common reference styles. It seems to mostly be a holdover from senior editors who've continued using it since before there were more options (but they'll argue to the death before they give it up, even when it causes problems like this). With any luck subreferencing will eventually put it to bed. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 06:09, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Less use still doesn't mean that it's "mostly deprecated", and it's slightly disingenuous to say so. You can use page numbers with named refs: yes, of course, but how do you cite two different pages of the same source, without repeating the entire bibliographic information?

In any case, @Buddhist Peter, it is generally the case that, when adding content, one should try and follow the article's established citation style. That said, if you run into difficulties for whatever reason, add the content and the source as best you can (as you did), and another editor will generally quietly carry out the necessary reformatting for you. That is the beauty of a wiki, after all. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

{{r}} already supports the page attribute. I fixed an entire list of them that were all targeting the initial section page with a blurb instead of the individual entries, and it was a piece of cake (once I obtained access to the source). Unlike {{sfn}} it doesn't create new citations for every separate instance (which are causing part of the clutter in this case).
If I'm reading the page correctly {{r}} will also be inherently compatible with sub-references. With any luck that means existing citations with the page attribute defined with be transitioned seamlessly once subs are implemented here. {{rp}} appears to be a sightly clunkier way to achieve the same effect.

As mentioned above, the article in question already has a mess of different references styles, so it seemed simplest for them to just stick with what they're used to. If there was actually a consistent style I would have tried to fix the sfn for them, but I didn't see any point. Lack of compatibility with Visual Editor was one of the primary issues that prompted the creation of a global solution. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 08:50, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

the article in question already has a mess of different references styles. I think that is an inaccurate description of an article that is short footnotes throughout, bar three or four non-short footnotes that should be corrected. So I would say that its established citation style is short footnotes, with a full bibliography below that. You might not like the "clutter", but that is your personal preference and not something to be imposed on everyone. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

More on the progress of deployment of sub-referencing is available at phab:T414094. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The editor who created this request struggling to navigate the current reference structure has nothing to do with my personal preferences. I didn't attempt to count which references are in which format, and I generally try to avoid giving advice that boils down to "leave it for someone else to fix" unless the user isn't capable of doing it themselves, e.g. due to user rights. Many things don't ever get fixed, and if they're actively trying to learn how to handle it themselves we should empower them to do so as much as possible. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any viable way to do so when it comes to {{sfn}} in VE - hence my advice to leave the fully functional original citation instead of their somewhat broken attempt to follow a format that isn't compatible with their editing mode. Users who aren't code savvy attempting to shuffle it around almost always creates more problems than it solves. The more I read the more I'm convinced it should be officially deprecated once sub-references are fully implemented and the bugs have been worked out, to prevent situations like this. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 09:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

it should be officially deprecated Ha, that will be an interesting RFC! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

adding my comment on WT:WikiProject Military history to here

Thanks -- NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 19:03, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING in multiple places until you get the result you want isn't going to work. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

They crossposted here at the same time as the initial post, before any replies - it just reads as seeking additional input from a wider community, IMHO. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 10:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes -- that's still forum shopping. This is not the first time they've raised this issue -- it's been repeatedly explained to them why they cannot use unreliable and deprecated sources to push Russian state-media claims as a form of POV. And per their own admission, simply don't want to edit within policy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, and Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, wikiprojects, or editors are permitted. Forumshopping tends to involve seeking out specific opinions that will agree with them and often not linking to existing discussions where others have disagreed. It looks like it's just been them and one other person going back and forth on this, so a WP:3O is reasonable - and when they're blatantly trying to POV push from unreliable sources, seeking those opinions from broad discussion boards like this usually doesn't go their way, so I don't see a problem with it. They were up front in both locations about crossposting so others can view any comments in either place, and the relevant guidelines have been reaffirmed. Sometimes those additional opinions are what it takes to finally get someone to WP:DROPTHESTICK. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 01:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

A little over a year ago, a user created the page AJR Festival shows (2023), and it has subsequently been moved to AJR festival shows, List of AJR festival shows, and currently List of 2023 AJR festival shows. I learned of its existence a few days ago and began revising it, but noticed that the list has never been exclusively festivals and instead the whole year's concerts. In such, I am curious what would be a proper name for the article. It is currently in Category:Lists of concerts and performances of American artists, which primarily contains list pages that span an artist's entire career rather than one year. The only exceptions are the List of shows played by Fugazi (1987–1988) and the List of Santana live performances (1960s–1970s) and (1980s). I feel that List of AJR live performances (2023) would be a good destination, but I first wanted a second opinion to see if this was correct. Popturtle (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Popturtle. Probably the best place for you to discuss this would be at Talk:List of 2023 AJR festival shows; you can let others and WikiProjects know about the discussion per WP:APPNOTE. Given that the article has been moved several times already, a WP:BOLD page move yet again might not be the best course of action per WP:BOLDMOVE. Try seeing whether your concerns can be addressed through regular article talk page discussion first; if not, you may need to start a formal WP:RM request to establish a consensus either way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

where to post questions about? ~2026-49370-53 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-49370-53. If you're question has to do with something related to (English) Wikipedia, then you can post it here. If you're asking about something not related to Wikipedia, though, you could try Wikipedia:Reference desk or an Internet search because the Teahouse is really only just intended for questions related to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have question about how to improve the article P versus NP problem, you can use its talk page. However, Wikipedia would not be the place if you wanted to discuss the topic in general, as I see you have done with the talk page (edits which are subsequented deleted). LkL-70547 (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49370-53 If you want to talk about the subject of P versus NP, then Stackexchange has a Mathematics section that is pretty well attended, if I remember right. David10244 (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I added a song's main infobox art to the article of its B-side, but it was removed a few hours later, the explanation being the article didn't have non free use rationale for that image. Any idea how I could make that work? Dylanfan62 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

What is the filename of the image, Dylanfan62, and what's the title of the article to which you want to add it? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:34, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dylanfan62. Since you didn't specifically mention either the song or the file you're asking about, my response is going to be fairly general. Unless the cover art in question is specifically for the B-side itself, you probably shouldn't add it to the B-side's infobox for the reasons given here. If the bot that removed the file just did so because it didn't have a separate, specific non-free use rationale for that use as required by non-free content use criterion #10c, then providing the missing rationale should stop the bot from removing the file again. However, a rationale is only valid when it satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria, and providing the rationale is WP:JUSTONE (actually more like just part of one) of those criteria. Sometimes the cover art of a single specifically is for both sides and in such cases you might be able to make an argument in favor of an anditional non-free use of the file, but the cover art for the A-side of a single shouldn't really just being used in an article about its correponding B-side just because there's no cover art specific to the B-side itself.

Finally, a B-side of a single would still need to meet WP:NSONG in and of its own accord for a stand-alone article to be written about it; a B-side isn't automatically Wikipedia notable just because the A-side is Wikipedia notable. I imagine that in the case of many B-sides, simply mentioning it in the article about the Wikipedia notable A-side is going to be more appropriate than creating a stand-alone article about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, the name of the song is Forty Shades of Green by Johnny Cash. Its flipside is The Rebel – Johnny Yuma which I'm trying to add the picture to if you have any further tips. Dylanfan62 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello guys. I recently stubled upon an article about Grok AI. In that article it says grok-4.7 (a new model) was released (stable release) on 12th of September. This is straight up false. Elon Musk gave an estimate, not an actual release date. And according to his new tweet, that release is once again postponed. So I removed that. A user named @Ow0cast reverted my edit and brought back the false release date. I reverted that back. What should I do now? Thanks :) ~2026-49471-48 (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

add it back, didnt realize it was postponed. sorry <3 /usr/bin/owuh $ (💬 | she/they) 03:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a lesson in why descriptive edit summaries are important. Your initial edit didn't explain the basis for your change. Additionally, please avoid personal attacks as in your following reversion. Simply adding a source to confirm the information is sufficient. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 11:00, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat Stop telling me that I am wrong here. A company's CEO's estimate date does not mean exact release date. It could be, pretty easily, for creating hype. So you usually don't write release date when model is not even released. It was @Ow0cast responsibility to check every information and not adding that info before model was released and it was confirmed. You should also revise definition of personal "attack" in your dictionary, if wikipedians use special one, as that was smug or frustration-talk at most not "attack". ~2026-49617-64 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Calling someone "simpleminded" is absolutely an insult.

I never said you were wrong - I said you should explain your edits and provide a source, so that other editors understand why you made the change. You can't expect them to automatically know what you do. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 06:05, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Which taxonomic library system takes the highest priority? I'm working on expanding the article for the Schistocerca lineata (I know, not an important article, but I'm having fun with it), and have recently acquired the leading book with information on the species, which can be found under the pages "further reading" section. On the Wikipedia page, S. lineata is stated to be a species from the genus Schistocerca. However, according to this book, S. lineata is actually considered a subspecies of the species Schistocerca alutacea, which is in turn a species from the genus Schistocerca. But, no taxonomical library online shares this view. Should I change the article to reflect the book, or should I keep it as is agreed upon by most taxonomical libraries?

Schistocerca lineata LabraxPetasius (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

LabraxPetasius, I suggest that you post this question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Okie LabraxPetasius (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I have no knowledge on the specific situation, but generally speaking books take a long time to publish and may be out of date or rely on a non-standard opinion of a single author, whereas online taxonomical databases reflect a consensus among experts and may be updated as soon as there is agreement to do so based on available evidence (which may include recent generic sequencing). If multiple online libraries all concur on its status as a species that is most likely the appropriate one to reflect in our article. Other information from the book may still be used though. Taxonomical status is more prone to changes and subjective opinions than things such as description and habitat. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 11:09, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

LabraxPetasius, there are only two sentences of prose in the current version of the article. Since you have an entire book on the species, you can certainly add prose referenced to the book providing more encyclopedic content describing the species. As for the taxonomy, I think it is best to leave the database consensus in the infobox. But you can note in the text in the body of the article that a certain named author disagrees. The relevant policy is the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@LabraxPetasius How do you know for a fact that your book is "the" leading book on the species? The article could, maybe, say that "some sources say X, while another source says Y". David10244 (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It’s the book that’s mentioned under the “further reading” section, and I’ve yet to find a more up-to-date open source to look at. But yeah, I’m planning on mentioning the classification dispute at some point in the article LabraxPetasius (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

That supports my above point, as the book is from 1974. The online databases refer to sources from the 90s all the way through this year. BugGuide in particular says "Mostly S. alutacea is found in moister more heavily vegetated areas. Currently they are treated as distinct but closely related "sibling" species, though they have been treated as subspecies or synonyms in the past." So a separate article for that species may be justified as well.

Additional sources you may or may not have already found yourself that might prove useful:

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4V94S

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/35730#page/494/mode/1up

For very close cousins like this it's easy enough to create articles that follow each other closely and only change the necessary details, as with Agaricus buckmacadooi and Agaricus deardorffensis (though I still need to expand the latter a bit). ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 19:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a new editor and I'm learning how to properly cite reliable sources and maintain a neutral point of view. I am also interested in eventually creating a surname article. What are the best practices for determining whether a surname is notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Tonyphoenic (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much as the best practices are for determining whether anything else is notable enough for an article, Tonyphoenic. I strongly suggest that you get more practice in improving existing articles before you create a draft for a new article. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:03, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

You should use the "suggested edits" feature to gain more practice and experience in going on the adventure of editing here on Wikipedia. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 07:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:GNG can help you understand the principles of notability. However, as mentioned, it is strongly recommended that you make plenty of smaller edits to gain experience before attempting to create a new article, which is very challenging. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 11:11, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

images of articles with these arrows: https://ibb.co/nqxwGRSt ("Later success" and "Evolution" sections)

https://ibb.co/DgPQhxxJ ("The Laud Troy Book")

https://ibb.co/TM1BMkgg (marked with blue lines and that tone suggestion)

There are many more articles with these arrows just randomly coming up. I understand the Troilus one, but what about the others? Can this be considered minor vandalism? What is the purpose of all these arrows? Please help! Forgive me if I'm being dumb, I'm new here.

Thanks!

Lxnnio (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

That is the character for a hard return. You won't see it once you save the edit (it will just make a new line). In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

This is not the first report of this issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:14, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

KuGompo redirects to the article for East London, South Africa. The city's name was official changed to KuGompo in February this year and from what I can gather it still isn't used that much. There is already a suburb in the city called Gompo, and I want to do the disambiguation header on each page but I'm not sure what the standard wording for such a case is. East London is still the common name, so I'm not even sure if a header is needed for either(yet). Appreciate any thoughts. Cheers! WillTheWonderfulWordWatcher (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to here by "each page" or "either", WillTheWonderfulWordWatcher, but are Template:About/doc and Template:For/doc helpful? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you, that's exactly what I'm looking for! Cheers! WillTheWonderfulWordWatcher (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I just filed a move request to KuGompo. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 07:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that is appropriate as from what I can gather, the city's new name isn't its common name at this point in time. But that's a discussion for talk page and/or RfC. WillTheWonderfulWordWatcher (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It's the new name, isn't it? SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 08:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is to use the most commonly recognisable name, so I don't think KuGompo is applicable at this point in time. Per WP:COMMONNAME. WillTheWonderfulWordWatcher (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

You have a point. I didn't know that the city changed its name at all. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 09:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I need to get 1000+ edits to get rollback permission? (Just I need to confirm a bit) Itsjuenyin (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no strict numerical requirement to get rollback, it is granted upon request to users demonstrating a history of countervandalism and a general understanding of relevant policies and guidelines. CMD (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

okay I know, but they asked me for that on my talk page Itsjuenyin (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The statement on your talkpage is that 1000 edits is required for Interceptor. I am unsure if that is correct, but the general advice to start with WP:TWINKLE is probably good. CMD (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

if not sure, I will try to get 1000+ edits and see if I got the rollback perms. Thanks Itsjuenyin (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Itsjuenyin. I looked at your user talk page, and it looks like another user is telling you that a thousand edits are required to use a particular type of WP:TOOL call WP:Interceptor, not to obtain WP:ROLLBACK rights. Generally, user rights like "rollback" are granted by administrators to those who have demonstrated sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as well as sufficient compentacy when it comes to making edits; in other words, the administrator feels the person requesting the user right is experienced enough to use it correctly and won't go bonkers with it creating all kinds of problems that others are going to have to sort out. FWIW, you don't need any special user rights to make productive edits; so, maybe just focus on doing that for the time being. Many people (not all but many) who focus too much on certain getting certain user rights often mistakenly think having more of them somehow makes one a better editor in the eyes of others when it's really the quality of their edits (not how fast they can make them) that matters the most. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Itsjuenyin: on the whole, trying to reach some arbitrary edit count figure is not a good idea, because you'd be focusing on the wrong thing. Besides, if it then turns out that you reached that count by gaming the system, you're unlikely to obtain whatever right you were going for anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

i see... Thank for that information. @Marchjuly and @DoubleGrazing Itsjuenyin (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis@DoubleGrazing@Itsjuenyin@Marchjuly Sorry for the confusion, I was mentioning CVPI requirments in passing to tell @Itsjuenyinthat they should use twinkle as it will be some time before they can use CVPI. To be honest I can't see where I saw this now.

I would second the comment about not WP:Gaming the system.

Cheers. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Where is this 1000 edit requirement stated? Wikipedia:Interceptor#Requirements only states that the rollback right is needed. It seems to strange to me to require 1000 edits and not state it anywhere. Rollback itself does not have any hard requirements, though it is stated that it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs I think you're absolutely right... Itsjuenyin (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs As stated before I cannot remember this and it may be a mistake to be honest. I also never mentioned edit count originally and my original message said "you probably won't get rollback for now as you don't consistently inform editors when you have undone their edits." as advice to use twinkle as the user wasn't warning.

Anyway, sorry about the CVPI confusion.

Cheers. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

i will not probably to try gaming the system Itsjuenyin (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I can't remember where I saw this now... Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello! The draft/article Nirmalagiri College, Kuthuparamba is currently in an Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion due to poor/unreliable original references.

I have cleaned up the page and replaced the old links with reliable, third-party sources (including government NIRF ranking data and news coverage). However, I am facing a disagreement with the nominator regarding sourcing standards and conflict of interest accusations.

Could an experienced editor please take a quick look at the updated sources on Nirmalagiri College, Kuthuparamba and advise me on whether the independent references now meet WP:RS and WP:NCOLLEGE standards? Thank you! Fab Feb (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

NIRF ranking data is just routine coverage (See WP:ROUTINE for more info), and while I agree that you have added independent sources, they are focused on the alumni, not about the college itself. I have found some coverage about this college but that it just a biodiversity event that took place in the college, so the Article for deletion is justified and next time, you must write it on your own as GPTZero shows that the entire text is LLM generated, just like the article. BengalMC ^talk 12:32, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The text of the article and what else is LLM generated? The source or this talk?

If talk, then the LLM text should be collapsed with a template, and a warning for the offense this time would be appropriate.

Because GPTZero is an unreliable AI tool, just like so many things, a high rating from it does not mean it's time to mention your suspicions unless you have additional reasons.

Unless I am mistaken, when you want to attract more contributors to an Articles for Deletion discussion, you do not advertise it at the Teahouse. If you put it on any noticeboard, the notice placed does nothing more than neutrally attract contributors and does not include any claims such as what you have or have not accomplished and how the other editor's accusations are formed. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a small edit to a sentence. The part where Dumbledore gets accused and incriminated, I thought a better sentence would be this.

"Dumbledore takes the blame to protect Harry and escapes when Fudge orders his arrest." Is someone going to delete it if I try?

Also, I noticed another user was trying to add the part about the Weasley twins dropping out and causing chaos to Umbridge. Someone keeps deleting that. I see no harm in including that. Is it really such a bad idea? Beetle Prince (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Beetle Prince, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Generally, there is no point in asking for people's opinion about the content of a particular article on a general page like this. The place where people with knowledge and interest in an article are likely to be is on the article's Talk page.

If you think you can make an improvement to an article, you are encouraged to be BOLD and make it: unless it's obviously vandalism, the worst that can happen is that somebody reverts your edit. If that happens, and you want to pursue it, the next step is to start a discussion on the talk page, pinging the other editor, and try to reach a consensus about what if any change should be made. (If you are unable to get to that point, dispute resolution tells you how to proceed).

If you think your change is likely to be controversial, then it's worth going straight to the discussion on the talk page before trying to make the edit.

In general, every piece of information in an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source. For a plot summary, the film itself is acceptable as a source, but you need to be careful not to add your own interpretation (that would be original research) and editors may disagree about how much detail should be included (which is what your second point is about. In that case, they should not be edit warring, but discussing it to reach agreement.) ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve been working on Draft:Bobby Smith Jr. and made a number of changes based on earlier feedback. I left a note on the draft talk page about ten days ago asking if someone could take another look, but no one has responded. I’m just trying to figure out if there’s anything obvious I should fix before I submit it again. If anyone has a chance to look at it, I’d really appreciate it. BSMITHSCREENWRITER (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @BSMITHSCREENWRITER, and welcome to the Teahouse.

What you are asking for on the talk page is a pre-review. We don't do those. If you want somebody to review your revised draft, submit it for review, and in time somebody will get to it.

Have you read WP:autobiography, which explains why writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so insanely difficult and so extremely unlikely to be successful that it is unlikely to be worth your time trying it? ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello TH, I'm aware that there is an unprecedented level of liberty a user can exercise while editing a sandbox. I recently recall seeing some reprehensible antisemitic rhetoric over there while I was "recent changes" patrolling and I did not know if I could revert that edit and it bothers me now that I did not simply undo their edit and warn them. Aside from that grievance, I do wonder, technically, am I allowed to revert vile edits made to the sandbox, perhaps even on the Tea House itself? Thanks. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

You are definitely allowed to revert vandalism to the Sandbox and the Teahouse. Anti-semitic rhetoric is obviously not put there in good faith, so feel free to revert it. Same goes for the Teahouse. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 16:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kvinnen. Although sandboxes are less restricted than other areas of Wikipedia. they are not areas of unfettered liberty. Sandboxes are for testing and development for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Overt hate speech should be reverted on sight wherever it occurs and repeat offenders should be reported to an active administrator, or to WP:ANI, the administrators noticeboard for incidents requiring prompt action. They must be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, there are a few articles which I have expanded from their previous conditions with new sections and references and are thus not the same as they were when they were initially assessed and given a grade on the content assessment scale (stub, start, A, B, C, etc...). What I am asking is this: where can I request a reassessment of these articles so that they can receive a new grade? I don't want to assess them myself for fear of bias towards an article that I expanded. Thanks in advance for the help. Zach1055 (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Zach1055. If you have significantly expanded a stub or start grade article, you should have no hesitation in upgrading it yourself. I do so quite often myself. The only grades that have stringent criteria are Good articles and Featured articles. The intermediate grades are of little significance and very few editors (or readers) care much about them. Cullen328 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice. Zach1055 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Many WikiProjects have a subpage or section for "requested assessments". Though as with everything else here, it depends on there being someone interested enough to actually do the work, and WikiProjects have varying levels of activity. Just taking a quick look at your recent changes it looks like you've been working on railroad-related articles, so for instance for those you could look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment which has a "Requesting an assessment" section. But do be bold and feel free to bump up your own article to Start or C class, or even B, if you think it meets the criteria for those, even if you're also wanting someone else to take a look. Someone who disagrees can always change it again; that's The Wiki Way. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help; I already went ahead and re-graded the articles which I wanted to get reviewed. But I will take a look at the assessment page, perhaps it will be useful in the future. Zach1055 (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to ask what decides what Pokémon species get pages and which ones stay redirects? Especially because there are plenty of popular Pokémon that have loads of good information floating around the web and, well, good reliable sources, too, but seriously, if Victini can get a page, why can't Darkrai get one, too? Or, y'know, any other well-known and well-appreciated Pokémon that doesn't particularly have to be Mythical, like, say, Sylveon.

Thanks,
☯︎Lucy LostWord, the official creator of Wonderful Video Game and Makyuu Project (Touhou Project and Pokémon fan. Let's talk.) 16:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Lucy LostWord. Wikipedia editors can ignore loads of good information floating around the web and focus instead on good reliable sources. All topics eligible for a Wikipedia article must be notable as Wikipedia defines that concept. They must be the subject of significant, in-depth coverage in published reliable sources that are entirely independent of the Pokémon franchise. In the early years of Wikipedia, there was a flood of poorly referenced Pokémon content that caused criticism and ridicule of Wikipedia. That led to a widespread cleanup and consolidation of many individual Pokémon articles into list articles. So, new content needs to comply with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and if any such content is challenged, the decision is made through consensus of editors interested in the matter. Worth reading is Wikipedia:Pokémon test, although you should be aware that it is out of date. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I remember reading about the Pokémon test a while back but I went and gave it a good re-read. To be honest, the main reason I brought this up is because I myself wondered, "I feel like Darkrai should have an article", after all it is pretty popular and I don't see why promoting it from redirect to full article wouldn't hurt, yet I don't think we should also jump to working on even more articles for other Pokémon and keep it at a low like it is at the moment. All 1025 Pokémon don't need articles, only a good amount of the well-known ones. Compared to Victini, Darkrai is probably around its popularity level, they're both well-beloved Mythical Pokémon (they're also my two favorite Mythicals, but that's very irrelevant) and make their occasional appearances in the media, whether it's things like PokéPark 2: Wonders Beyond or full-on movies dedicated to them (Pokémon the Movie: Black—Victini and Reshiram and White—Victini and Zekrom and Pokémon: The Rise of Darkrai), even so it's been years since these two were known (Darkrai making its debut in 2007, Victini in, what, 2010/2011?), and that's given them both enough time to gain popularity and media-based attention (such as Mega Darkrai in Pokémon Legends: Z-A, I admit it hasn't even been a year since, but still). Forgive me for writing a whole unnecessary comment comparing two Pokémon for seemingly no reason, but really it's kind of to prove a point. I am biased, but any other highly popular Pokémon, Mythical or not, that has lots of media coverage can get a page, but as I mentioned earlier, not all of them need pages, and if this is reply really is an eyesore, then I'll just delete it. I had no means of writing this, it's just an autistic impulse of mine.

☯︎Lucy LostWord, the official creator of Wonderful Video Game and Makyuu Project (Touhou Project and Pokémon fan. Let's talk.) 18:52, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Please make you signature shorter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Why are you asking me to make my signature shorter? That has nothing to do with this.

☯︎Lucy LostWord, the official creator of Wonderful Video Game and Makyuu Project (Touhou Project and Pokémon fan. Let's talk.) 20:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lucy LostWord. Users are allowed to customize their signatures, but your signature seems to be really pushing the envelope of the guidance given in WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Moreover, your sigature could be seen by some as violating Wikipedia's username policy on WP:Promotional usernames, even though it's technically your signature. A signature should make it easier for others to interact with you and identify you when discussing things; it shouldn't really be a potential cause for confusion or distraction. The extra information on your signature seems like it might be better on your user page as long as you do so in way that complies with WP:UPYES

As for your questions regarding Pokemon articles and Wikipedia, you might try asking them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon since that where you're more likely to find other Wikipedian interested in articles about Pokémon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

A specific Pokémon being featured in some Pokémon franchise production does not contribute to notability in any way, Lucy LostWord. Truly independent coverage is required, and the coverage must be in depth. I agree with the concerns about your signature. It appears that you are promoting something and that is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I did not mean to promote myself in my signature. Usually when a website has an option to enter a bio or signature, I'll mention my status as creator of WVG/Makyuu/LWP. I make it straight due to an incident that happened back in 2024 when someone tried claiming ownership over my series, so I've been cautious ever since. If it really bothers you, then I'll change it, but just so you know, I never meant for it to be promotional.

☯︎Lucy LostWord, the official creator of Wonderful Video Game and Makyuu Project (Touhou Project and Pokémon fan. Let's talk.) 01:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You can't be promoting anything - it doesn't matter if it's not yourself or not for your benefit, you still can't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

All right. I'll go and change it. I hate how this conversation got off-topic, though. This was unpleasing. I wasn't even trying to promote myself!

☯︎Lucy LostWord, the official creator of Wonderful Video Game and Makyuu Project (Touhou Project and Pokémon fan. Let's talk.) 14:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

How's this?

☯︎Lucy LostWord (Really big Darkrai fan. Message wall.) 14:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Lucy LostWord: Darkrai was introduced in 2006 and had an article which was redirected in 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkrai. Things may have changed since then. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Wow, that's a rather intriguing AFD discussion. I read that Darkrai was announced in 2007 but people found it in the game data in 2006, but whatever. In my opinion I do still think Darkrai's a good contendor, even without my bias towards it, I'd still think the same.

☯︎Lucy LostWord (Really big Darkrai fan. Message wall.) 23:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

hi im very new to this. i wanted to link the word 'exoteric' on Perennial philosophy, but there only exists a wiktionary page for it not wikipedia. is it possible? StillHeart (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @StillHeart, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It is possible, though it is not clear whether or not it will be helpful to a reader.

You can use a direct interwiki link:

[[wikt:exoteric]]

which displays as wikt:exoteric.

(You could suppress the "wikt:" from the display by

[[wikt:exoteric|exoteric]]

which displays as exoteric, but without giving the reader any indication that they will be leaving Wikipedia, which may not be ideal: see WP:SURPRISE).

Another approach is not to attempt to link to the word in the text, but in the "External Links" section add the template {{Wiktionary|exoteric}}, which will display as

Look up exoteric in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

See WP:MOSSIS for more information about these suggestions. ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

If you mark it up as a red link, that signals to other editors that there is a need to write an article on the topic.

You can also suggest it as a topic at WT:WikiProject Mysticism or WT:WikiProject Philosophy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:33, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

But is there some advantage you see in linking the word, @StillHeart, when you could simply define the word yourself next to where it appears in the article? Augnablik (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am a new editor and I am learning Wikipedia's guidelines before creating a draft article. I am researching the surname of any, I would like to understand how Wikipedia determines whether a surname is notable enough for its own article.

I have found sources including independent news reporting, official institutional records, scholarly publications, and municipal records concerning people who bear the surname. I understand that reliable, independent sources are important, and I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia's notability, sourcing, and neutral-point-of-view guidelines before proceeding.

What types of sources would be considered sufficient to establish notability for a surname article? ~2026-49536-43 (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-49536-43, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This appears to be the same as the question asked and answered a few hours ago, above, at #Surname for a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you ~2026-49536-43 (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Teahouse Nation:

I came across a person on Flickr who uploads high-quality photos of athletes. I was hoping to use some of their photos for athletes who don’t have photos on their wikiboxes (in this instance, utilizing a photo for Bryan Woo). However, their photos fall under all rights reserved.

From what I understand, without their consent, you can’t use their images. Is it valid to send the photo-taker a message asking them for permission, or is that out of the question? WooHooYeeHawYeahBaby (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @WooHooYeeHawYeahBaby. You can ask, but expect the reply to be no. Many photographers wouldn't want to release their photos under a compatible license. qcne (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I've had several successes doing this. You can include a link to WP:Images from social media. or cut'n'paste the relevant section(s) from there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 19:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi WooHooYeeHawYeahBaby. Try also taking a look at Wikipedia:Permission, c:Commons:Flickr files and c:Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change for some general information on this kind of thing. I agree with Andy Mabbett in that this approach can work depending on how you ask. What you need to be careful of though is making sure that the Flickr account holder is actually the copyright holder of the image in question. Some Flickr accounts upload copyright protected images created by others and their WP:CONSENT is meaningless to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Uploading new flags and symbols to Wikimedia Commons for my very long draft article

hello, i am currently working on a draft article titled List of armed factions during the Myanmar Civil War. if you are familiar with this subject/country/conflict, then you will know that i need a lot of flags, symbols, patches etc etc. it is very complicated, and while i have requested hands from the Heraldry and vexillology wikiproject(and basically every related wikiproject/taskforce) i got little to no help. im fine with making the draft article on my own(at least for a while 🥀), but what i want to ask here is how i can upload images, patches and symbols at Wikimedia Commons, so i can use them for the article? How do I avoid copyright? (for the record, other news media outlets use many symbols without any problems, and they can be found on forums) What kind of images are best?(png, svg etc) How can i offer said images the highest resolution, when most sources are blurry? the conflict is a treasure of flags, so i would like for other people to see the images, if i can know these abilities to upload. this will be one of the biggest lists in wikipedia, due to the subject, and may surpass even former civil wars in lebanon and syria.

slight note, if someone could point me out to other taskforces, wikiprojects/help centers, or at least wiki editors with similar interests to what i currently do, please tell me. for an idea of what i am doing and what wikiprojects/similar articles are currently tagged to my draft page, simply access my profile to see the link. thank you and have a blessed day. 🧶Demeseriecroitor🧶 19:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Demeseriecroitor. Commons only accepts content that is licensed according to c:Commons:Licensing; it doesn't accept content that is c:Commons:Fair use of any type. This means anything you uploaded to Commons should either be something considered to be within the Wikipedia:Public domain for some reason or be something that has been released under a copyright license that is free enough for Commons purposes. If you're not sure about whether something you want to upload is OK for Commons, you should ask about it first either at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright or c:Commons:Help desk.

If the content you want to upload isn't OK for Commons, then it's probably not OK to upload locally to English Wikipedia for the same reasons, except perhaps as non-free content. Each use of non-free content, though, needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and this policy is very restrictive by design. Based on what you mentioned above in your post, there's probably going to be no way of justifying any non-free flags, symbols, patches or anything similar in a list article you're working on. First of all, non-free content can't be used in drafts; so, adding non-free content to your draft will just lead to its removal (and maybe even its deletion). Even in list articles themselves, non-free content is pretty much never allowed to illustrate individual entries per WP:NFLISTS because such content is almost always seen as WP:DECORATIVE and capable of being replaced by free equivalents (including just text or no image at all). A non-free flag, for example, is pretty much never going to be used as an MOS:ICON of some kind as explained in MOS:ICON#Non-free flags and MOS:ICON#Logos_2 because of the aforementioned restrictions of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

how do you submit a article N3ptuneLOL0w0 (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

If there's not already a template on your draft, add {{AfC submission|T}}. Then click Submit. Keep in mind you have to write the article first. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 00:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi folks. In an attempt to execute the first of many merges agreed upon at Talk:World Athletics Championships, I encountered a serious issue attempting to copy paste heavily preformatted tables from one of the articles on Afghanistan at the World Athletics Championships. Since I imagine I'm going to encounter this frequently as I go about this process, I'd like to request some assistance in diagnosing and determining how to fix the problem in the future.

Any help is appreciated,

Thanks, CSGinger14 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You said there was a problem, but you didn't say what it was, so nobody can help you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14: Your edit is tagged "Visual edit". I wouldn't use VisualEditor when copying table code, especially when some of the table is generated by a template like {{n/a}}. It outputs a pipe which is part of the table syntax but VisualEditor doesn't know how to deal with that. It's probably why |colspan=6 {{n/a|Did not advance}} doesn't start on a new line as it should, and as it correctly does in Afghanistan at the 2007 World Championships in Athletics#Results. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd say that "extreme table mechanics" probably means "time to learn Source Editor." It seems intimidating at first but you have much more control over what you're doing. One approach is to copy a table into your Sandbox and then fiddle around with it, trying to predict what it will look like with various changes. Probably start with a less heavy-weight table than that one, though. M kuhner (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

If you use the source editor to copy a whole table from one article to another like in the discussed merges then it works right away in most cases. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: British Pharmacological Society

I was trying some simple editing and may have messed up a a page. I was trying to remove two deceased persons from a list of living Fellows on the page of British Journal of Pharmacology. The page now shows my description of edits and most of the text below that point has disappeared. Help!

Ianjcmcgrath (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Oops it was the page of British Pharmacological Society that I messed up. Ianjcmcgrath (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have messed things up (it happens to everyone) the easiest thing is to click into "View history" and find your edit, then click "undo". I have done this for you; please check my work. M kuhner (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ianjcmcgrath: Welcome to The Teahouse. It looks like what you added in your edit should have gone to the article's talk page in a new discussion. Whether or not you want to remove those two names in the article is up to you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

According to a website, which could be used as a source, which is called Class action.org: Vizio is facing a possible lawsuit due to some kind of mandatory program update that has basically turned the Vizio TV into a HUGE paperweight. Details are:

Alert: Anyone who has had problems with their TVs following a mandatory update

What is going on: Consumers have reported all manner of malfunctions/ problems with the Vizio TVs.

What kind of problems: All kinds of problems since the updates, including the TVs not even working,aka "bricking".

How could a lawsuit help: A refund and FORCE Vizio to fix the problems for free.

Investigation Status: Completed

There is a SEARCH icon on this website that should prove useful.

This could prove interesting for article generation since Vizio has had to settle other lawsuits, and since Walmart has bought the Vizio company, the potential lawsuit could involve Walmart as well, thus generating even more articles on here in the appropriate articles on here.

The ClassAction.org website could generate its own set of articles.

I had found the website via a GOOGLE Question asking that, since Walmart bought the Vizio company, will Walmart be involved in the expected lawsuit?

As a newbie, this is one hell of a potential article, so....HELP! ~2026-49677-70 (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Searching for the term insource:"classaction.org", it seems this website is already being used as a source in several articles. However, these articles are about current or previous lawsuits, not potential future lawsuits. You may want to read the essay WP:TOOSOON; future events are usually much less notable than past events. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Their article said that they investigated what has been going on, so that a lawsuit could be launched anytime real soon. Appreciate the help on this. It is like watching a birth taking place. ~2026-48990-99 (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-48990-99, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is an encyclopaedia, not a news source or social media.

We have articles when about subjects which have already been written about in some depth by different independent writers in different reliable sources.

We don't have articles because "This is IMPORTANT" or "EVERYBODY should know this" or "This is going to be the case of the century", and if you head into creating an article with that kind of intention, you are very unlikely to succeed.

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) 08:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

All sorts of lawsuits could be launched anytime real soon, especially in the seemingly litigation-loving USA. If it is launched, and if reliable and secondary and independent accounts are published, and if these accounts are sufficiently informative, then you can start the draft for an article and appeal for help with it. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It should also be noted that class action suits like this are extremely common and websites like this may be reliable but only confirm that they exist, not that they're notable. Unless they're covered by major media outlets it's often best to just mention them on the existing pages for the relevant companies. Unless it sets a significant legal precedent it probably won't need more than a paragraph or so. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 10:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but also add that the part about setting a significant legal precedent is generally only valid after all possible appeals are already completed and the ultimate final results of the case are well known. Something that would set a precedent if the ruling went that way is usually not worthy of inclusion, other than perhaps one single-sentence comment. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Rajahmundry changed to Rajamahendravaram

What is the correct procedure to move associated categories - c:Category:Transport in Rajahmundry. Iamcarbonmatter ♥ xoxo ✦ 07:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Commons is a different website that sometimes has different rules from en-Wiki, so generally speaking you should ask questions related to it on the boards over there instead. c:Commons:Rename a category can help you get started in this situation. It's often a good idea to starts a discussion on the talk page of the category first in case anyone objects. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 09:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok Iamcarbonmatter ♥ xoxo ✦ 09:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I am a newer editor and the great-grandson of the subject of the Thomas Yenser article, which is currently scheduled to appear on the Main Page under "Did you know" on September 17.

Because of my conflict of interest, I cannot edit the mainspace directly. I have uploaded the only known historical photograph of him to Wikimedia Commons and opened a formal edit request on the article talk page, but the backlog there is currently over 850 requests.

Would a neutral volunteer be willing to help add the image to his main article infobox before the article hits the Main Page?

• ‘’’File Name:’’’ File:The Yenser family in New York, circa 1913.jpg
• ‘’’Suggested Caption:’’’ The Yenser family in New York, circa 1913. Back row, far right: publisher Thomas Yenser.

Thank you so much for any assistance! Genes100 (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

email address please ~2026-49828-83 (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

We can't help with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

We have articles on five different living people named (with spelling variations) Andrei Kolesnikov, which suggests there are many more people also with the same name, so we can't even tell who you're asking about. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-43920-01 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

On Tetun people#Origin I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle the link to the German article for Lulik. I couldn't get the previous {{See also}} template to register a namespace outside of en-Wiki (it was throwing an error), but using {{ill}} instead results in a local dab link that's totally unrelated. What's the best approach in this situation? Should I add the de-Wiki link on our dab so this subject is at least mentioned? I really don't like linking to dabs unless it's warranted, but I also don't want to drop a foreign language crosslink without advising readers that it is indeed in another language. Maybe I could pipe it to read something like (in German) instead? ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 09:03, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, can anyone figure out where on earth the link to Tetum in the infobox header is coming from? I'm trying to correct the spelling based on previous discussions, but it's not anywhere in the source code. I popped over to visual which claims it's defined by the template, but it's not in any of the parameters. It does redirect to the correct page but I'd still like to change the displayed spelling for consistency. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 09:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Curiously, {{See also}} on id:Suku Tetun (where I believe the current article was translated from) seems to handle the de link just fine. Am I missing something? ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 09:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You can disambiguate in ill-> {{ill|Lulik (concept)|lt=Lulik|de|Lulik}}. CMD (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Any idea why the identical coding works on the other wiki? ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 09:26, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat No idea. Honestly, I avoid putting redlinks into hatnotes. Re your question on Tetum, that's coming out of Template:Lang, which uses the iana registry. tet is Tetum there, although tdt is Tetun Dili. I assume it can be overridden locally, but you'll have to ask at the template. CMD (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that.

The hatnote doesn't use the redlink - it just directs straight to de:Wiki via
{{See also|:de:Lulik}}. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 11:05, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I want to make an article, can you make what should I do and what shouldn't I do Hello9875234 (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I believe WP:YFA should be of use. Please do not rush into article creation, it is the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia, we always recommend making improvements to existing articles first. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Hello9875234 (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Hello9875234. In addition to reading and rereading the article linked in Spiderone’s reply I suggest you start reading Wikipedia articles on topics similar to what you want to write about. My first Wiki article was on the children’s book series Meg Duncan so I read Wikipedia articles on every children's book series I could think of, to see what was typically included in such articles.

Also, don’t rely on your memory regarding details you are pretty sure you once read about your topic. If you write something be sure to include a reference right after the info that came from your reference. Some beginners list their references at the end of the article, but that doesn't tell readers what info came from what source.

Don’t cut and paste the exact words from the reference source, rewrite it using your own words. Copying other's words (with the exception of a referenced short quotation that is in quotation marks) is called plagiarism, and is not allowed.

Writing a new article is hard work, so take your time and be willing to put the required work into it. Best wishes on all future projects. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TH I often see articles been classified based on their "importance". How does one determine how important an article is? Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content assessment. Lectonar (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I was going to write the article on Nada Holdings, but I can't seems to find resources about the company. Using Google wasn't enough for doing the resource searches since most of the reports were not in English. VernardoLau (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, I must tell you that if you cannot find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Nada Holdings, there can be no Wikipedia article about them, as there is nothing to summarize and show that the company is a notable company. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I would just add that the sources don't necessarily need to be in English, VernardoLau. See WP:NONENG. If significant coverage exists in other languages, that's enough to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am a college student and for a class I need to create a Wikipedia article. I would like to write about ComIntern policy in latin america. There is already an article on the ComIntern, and most of the articles on individual parties have some small amount of information on ComIntern interaction with them. However,there is no article on general activites in latin america. I believe this is a content gap. Is this topic good to write about? Stealthexplosi (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I have collected a multitude of sources, but I'm concerned it may be interpreted as irrelevant Stealthexplosi (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Stealthexplosi The first thing you need to do is go back to whoever gave you this assignment and tell them it's not going to work; seriously, tell them "someone at Wikipedia" told you that if need be, but it's not going to work. Writing a Wikipedia article is not like any other writing assignment; it's not a test of your subject matter expertise (which I assume is what your professor is trying to determine) but rather a test of your knowledge of our many, many policies, guidelines and standards. There is very little chance that you as someone with no Wikipedia experience will be able to succeed in writing an article on your own. Your professor should not be issuing you an assignment to go off and create an article on your own. If they do want to create an article as part of their project, it needs to be a collaborative effort.

I can see from your userpage that this is being done in collaboration with Wiki Ed. @Brianda (Wiki Ed) @Helaine (Wiki Ed) could you maybe speak with the instructor on this assignment? If they're indeed sending off student editors to go and write articles by themselves that would seem to be a problem. Athanelar (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Instructor here. I welcome you to come to the class page and you can read our assignment guidelines. I've asked students to identify a content gap, and to add four new sources - whether to an existing article (which is the route most of my students take) or they can talk with me and we'll investigate together if their idea warrants a new article. Katherine.Holt (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I would be interested, @Athanelar if you think that my student has identified a content gap. Thanks Katherine.Holt (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Katherine.Holt Thanks for coming by and clarifying.

It's a bit of a flawed premise for a question; Wikipedia doesn't work by identifying "content gaps" and finding sources to fill them; we call that editing WP:BACKWARDS. Instead, we find sources first and then summarise them. So the question isn't "is this a content gap?" the question should be "are there sources available about the topic elsewhere which have not already been included in a Wikipedia article?" If @Stealthexplosi wants to write about Comintern in Latin America, they first need to find sources discussing that topic in some depth, and then either include that information in an existing article or, if appropriate and there's enough to go off of, then indeed they can investigate writing a new article. Either way, on Wikipedia the sources come first, not the 'gap'. Athanelar (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm pleased to report that @Stealthexplosi has worked identified a good set of new, quailty sources, so that is great. In terms of the Content Gap question, we're drawing on Wiki Ed's framing in their trainings for how to improve representation of under-covered topics on Wikipedia. Katherine.Holt (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The kind of content gaps that training is talking about seems to be more in the sense of the "blind spots" that arise as a result of Wikipedia's various systemic biases rather than being in the sense of "knowledge gaps" that one might talk about in academic literature, for example. In that sense, your student's probably heading in the right direction; as an English-language encyclopedia, we naturally have a bias towards sources written in English, and so topics that are primarily covered in languages other than English are one of those sorts of "content gaps". I wouldn't be surprised if there's some great sources about COMINTERN's activity in Latin America that are in Spanish and have never been translated to English; maybe that's a good hunt to put this student on if that's the sort of thing you're going for? If they can find a Spanish-language source which gives some new information, that'd be a great example of the sort of thing that causes these blindspots on Wikipedia. They could even then reach out to a Spanish-speaking editor at the WP:EMBASSY and work together to translate the source and add its information to an article. Athanelar (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective and guidance here @Athanelar. @Katherine.Holt perhaps we can discuss this further via email if there are follow up questions. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia doesn't work by identifying 'content gaps' and finding sources to fill them" - speak for yourself; I regularly do that and so do many other editors I know. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I think Athanelar had a good point but obscured it, either by mis-wording it or by taking it too far. Some editors, when they find this kind of gaps, fill the gap first - and only later maybe see if they can maybe find reliable sources to support what they've already written. That's a problem, but finding a gap and going on a hunt for sources (on the understanding that insufficient or unreliable sources means no article) is clearly good. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I could've stood to explain myself better. What I mean is that, finding a "gap" often means "I've decided that this information should be on Wikipedia, and I'm going to find a way to make that happen" rather than "I've found information in a good source which isn't on Wikipedia, now I'm going to find somewhere to put it."

I can certainly speak to finding gaps to fill; I researched and wrote Hindu theology because I was shocked to find that it was a redirect rather than an article, and I thought there must be enough sources to make an article about it (and there was), but I think when it comes to introducing new editors to Wikipedia (or issuing a Wiki Ed assignment), encouraging people to go looking for "content gaps" to fill isn't a very good philosophy to instill; especially since it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of a Wiki Ed training which is talking about a very different kind of 'content gap.' We should be encouraging people to look for gaps in sources, not content. Athanelar (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

"when it comes to introducing new editors to Wikipedia ... encouraging people to go looking for "content gaps" to fill isn't a very good philosophy to instill"—again, that is exactly the approach I I have taught hundreds of novices to take when editing Wikipedia.

We even have a massive category tree highlighting a few such gaps, to encourage people who see them to then find sources and fill them.

I have no idea what "look for gaps in sources" means. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:47, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not explaining myself well. The point is that what this student (and instructor) originally asked was "have we identified a 'content gap' worth writing about?" and the answer I was trying to give to that is that it's not up to them or me or anybody else to say whether that gap "should" be filled or not; if there are good sources available which provide information which is nowhere to be found on Wikipedia currently, then yes that's a "gap" that can be corrected. If there are no sources, then there is no "gap," whether or not we think that such a topic might be sensible to write about.

Basically I'm saying that the decision tree shouldn't be "There seems to be something missing -> Does it 'belong' here? -> I'll go look for sources" , it should be "There seems to be something missing -> I'll go look for sources." The question of whether there is a "content gap" is irrelevant, because that implies an editorial decision about whether we think certain information "should" be on Wikipedia. The relevant question is only "is there well sourced information available on this topic which isn't currently represented on Wikipedia," which is a question that can only be determined in the course of looking for sources; as opposed to asking "is there a 'content gap' here that I should look for sources to fill?"

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to get across. Athanelar (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The question of whether there is a "content gap" is irrelevant, because that implies an editorial decision about whether we think certain information "should" be on Wikipedia. But don't we make that editorial decision every time we decide to make a Wikipedia:Redlink? The nutshell for that guideline says quite specifically "Red links are for topics that should have articles but do not" (my bold). Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but in that case it means "I think this topic probably meets the criteria for inclusion, I just don't want to go looking for it and write about it myself right now" not "I subjectively believe there should be an article about this thing on Wikipedia." The decision there about whether something 'should' be on Wikipedia is in all cases made by the presence or absence of sources, not by our subjective assessments of whether there's a "gap" in our content. Athanelar (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

"I welcome you to come to the class page..." - link, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/The_College_of_Wooster/Latin_American_Revolutions_(Fall_2026) or the corresponding Wiki Edu dashboard. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

A good way to think about Wikipedia articles is that they should be like literature reviews. Only use the content you find in other sources. Write about that content, summarize it in your own words, but don't provide new ideas. DS (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

On the literature topic, for a task like "add four new sources", a clarifying intermediate step might be to find four new sources that would fit in a WP:Further reading section. That would put the 'identify reliable sources' component into a standalone task that may be productive on its own. Subsequent work can use those already identified sources for the 'figure out how to write on Wikipedia' task. CMD (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi - when I use Rater, for some reason it breaks the source code and puts the class=start like this:

WikiProject banner shell

|class=start

Have I done something to the code? I've tried fixing it but to no avail (i'm not great with coding) Thanks, RossEvans19 (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@RossEvans19 You could leave notes on Evad37's rater talks. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, after discovering Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr I have found some pinball photos that have a suitable licence for the photo itself, but still need to be uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free images due to the assumption that the artwork is copyrighted. First one I've selected is Williams pin*bot 1987 | el-toro | Flickr. To upload it I've first downloaded it to my PC - is it an issue that the metadata doesn't get saved as part of the photo?

An example of one I took myself and uploaded last year; if I upload this in the same way then what do I need to do differently, and where do I put the CC BY 2.0 bit? and I think on that one specifically I need to name el-toro?

Think I'm OK using "other three-dimensional work of art" for a pinball machine - didn't spot anything that looked more suitable at the time. Wilbers (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

So Williams pin*bot 1987 el-toro has a layer of the photographer's rights and a layer of the pinball designer's rights. The photographer felt comfortable creating a photo that would not survive in the Wikimedia Commons ecosystem. A photo that will not be expeditiously taken down but could be if the pinball designer changed their level of aggression one day. We would not place an external link to this photo because it would be a link to copyright violation. Please correct if wrong, that is the core of the discussion. We have to link to the original on Flickr to satisfy the photographer's rights. We cannot. The fair use image should be sourced from an official picture or from a new picture by editor. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

does this bit apply? "or the website uses the work in a way compliant with fair use." Specifically in this case its a series of photos of them restoring that pinball machine. Wilbers (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Dgavel123/sandbox

Hello all. I have been working on a draft biography of Harvard environmental economist Robert N. Stavins. The draft was previously declined through Articles for Creation with the message that 'This biographical article is written like a résumé. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic.' Before resubmitting it, I would appreciate an experienced editor's assessment of whether my subsequent edits, including additional citations meets Wikipedia's standards for academics and whether there are other issues that should be addressed. I am more than happy to provide the draft link and the previous reviewer's comments. Dgavel123 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dgavel123 You never submitted the draft to AfC; the notice at the top of the page is not an AfC decline, it's a maintenance tag. Please don't ask AI for help with Wikipedia or to write questions for you; because this is precisely the kind of silly mistakes that AI makes. If you aren't sure about something, just ask other editors! That's precisely what the Teahouse here is for!

That aside, I really strongly suggest you read WP:PAIDADVICE and heed what it has to say. The chance for someone in your position to actually succeed at publishing an article about the person paying them is infinitesimally small. Athanelar (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Dgavel123. Wikipedia does not publish "profiles". Instead, you want to present what you have written as a draft biographical article about a notable professor, and avoid use of the word "profile". Be aware that the notability guideline for academics is quite different from the much more commonly used General notability guideline. Robert N. Stavins holds a named chair at Harvard, probably the most prestigious university in the United States, and therefore meets criteria #5 of the guideline. A note at the top of the draft to that effect would be a good idea. I disagree with the pessimistic assessment above. One of the main reason that the Articles for Creation process exists is to allow declared paid editors to submit drafts for review. I suggest that you read and implement WP:REFNAME to consolidate duplicate references. Then, you need to actually submit your draft formally to AfC. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Cullen328 -- thank you for the kind and helpful reply. I will heed your advice and revise accordingly. Once I save my edits, how do I actually formally submit my draft? Dgavel123 (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dgavel123 I've added the unsubmitted banner with the submission button. Be careful not to remove the code at the top which puts it there. qcne (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Qcne -- I very much appreciate your support. I now have renewed hope that the article will be published when I revise following the advice provided above. Thank you! Dgavel123 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Yet again there is a need to point out that a profile is defined as "a summary or collection of information, especially about a person", and that Wikipedia very much does publish these. Millions of them.

There is no prohibition on the use of the word "profile" in Wikipedia discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

No one has said it is "prohibited". Most people seeking to edit about themselves do not have the dictionary definition of "profile" in mind. Correcting this helps provide the right mindset to write an article that summarizes independent sources, not a social media style profile that is just telling about the person. I agree with Cullen328. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

What was said was "you want to ... avoid use of the word 'profile'". There is neither a need nor a requirement to do so.

Nothing was said about "people seeking to edit about themselves", nor about "a social media style profile", and the correction was false and unnecessary.

My point stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

My mistake about "themselves". But being im the right mindset is eminently helpful towards avoiding social media style "profiles", as Wikipedia articles are not just collections of information. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Again: nothing was said about "social media style profiles" - the phrase used was "Wikipedia profile".

A Wikipedia article is nothing but a collection of information, albeit ideally a well-curated and cited one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:08, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Gosh you're irritating and anal. qcne (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any independent sources cited in the draft, except maybe the final one, which I don't have access to. Also, I see nothing about his findings, or opinions, in economics. Has he ever said anything that independent people (not his employers, not his interviewers) have agreed with, or disagreed with? (I have failed to find any independent discussion of his work, despite his unusual surname making it easy to search. It's as if no-one has ever read his books and papers. This seems weird.) Maproom (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Clearly, the word "profile" has many, many meanings, among them a short biographical sketch. But in the context of a person's online presence, I think a better definition of profile is this one from ScienceDirect: An online profile is defined as a digital representation of oneself on the internet, typically created using web tools like Google Profile. It allows individuals to control their online presence by sharing web content, links to blogs, photos, and other social media profiles in one central location. That is the sense that I was using the term, and I believe that is the concept that most editors who are new to Wikipedia editing have in mind. Here at the Teahouse, hosts need to correct that notion. A Wikipedia biography does not allow an individual to control their online presence. So, Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett), I should have been a bit more precise in my wording, and you should consider studying the definition and social impact of "pedantry" accompanied by an argumentative tone. Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

"I believe that is the concept that most editors who are new to Wikipedia editing have in mind. Here at the Teahouse, hosts need to correct that notion." Absent of "clear evidence" that that particular definition is the one that enquirers here have in mind (and there was certainly no such evidence in this case), Teahouse hosts "need" to assume good faith (that has the weight of a community-adopted "behavioral guideline"), and not leap to negative conclusions.

This isn't the first time I've pointed this out here.

A wise elder once said to me "Pedant is what people call you when they are wrong". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:31, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I was generally encouraging, believe that Stavins is probably notable, and the editor thanked me. On the other hand, the editor declares on their user page I serve as a paid consultant to Robert Stavins and created the Robert Stavins Wikipedia page with his consent. The phrase "with his consent" indicates the strong possibility of the social media profile misconception in the editor's initial approach. The consent of the subject is irrelevant and unnecessary when writing a biography of a notable person. The MediaWiki software tagged seven of their early edits as "Possible self promotion in userspace". It took the editor three years to disclose their paid status. So, there was evidence of potential problems with this editor's approach, Pigsonthewing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed there was, and I didn't say otherwise.

I referred explicitly to the fact that there is no evidence that the OP used the word "profile" in the sense in which you chose to interpret it.

The phrase "with his consent" indicates nothing of the kind. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 07:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You do not interpret it that way, but I think it very much indicates a social media profile attitude toward Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new editor, Carbon2123. I want to add the removed content from the Need for Speed Carbon game to the sandbox section. Could I add the content I wrote in my sandbox under a separate heading?my sandbox Carbon2123 (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Carbon2123, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking.

But what I do notice, looking at your contributions, is that yesterday you made an edit to the Wikipedia:Sandbox. This is a shared space for experimentation, and gets cleared regularly. Your edit has already been obliterated (though it is still there in the history of the Sandbox)

I suspect you intended to work in your own sandbox, which is User:Carbon2123/sandbox, but you have not yet created that. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @ColinFine:! I realize I accidentally edited the public sandbox earlier. I have now created my personal sandbox at User:Carbon2123/sandbox and added the full cut content draft there with TCRF sources. Could you please review it when you have time? Carbon2123 (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Carbon2123: Welcome to The Teahouse. At a cursory glance, TCRF is a wiki that hosts user-generated content; because of that, it can't be considered a reliable source for what you want to put into the article. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:42, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Tenryuu: for the clarification! I understand that TCRF is considered user-generated content under Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. I will look for secondary coverage from reliable gaming news outlets before making any edits to the main article. Carbon2123 (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:! I understand the rule about TCRF now. Since I can't find reliable sources for those specific files, I'll drop the Carbon draft. Instead, I will focus on the Blur article using official sources like Eurogamer and IGN for its cancelled sequel. Thanks for your help! Carbon2123 (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Do you have time to take another look at my sandbox? I have some newly edited Blur software; could you check it to see if there are any shortcomings? If you do, could I post it on the Blur homepage? Carbon2123 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

At a glance, the sources appear to be generally reliable, so you can be bold and add it to the article. If someone has an issue with it, they will let you know. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Carbon2123 (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm a fairly frequent user of Wikipedia, as well as a (small) donor. I am not interested in creating a Wikipedia page, but I do have a rather broad background and interest in a number of subjects. Would it make sense to volunteer as an editor, or do I need to be a demonstrated expert in a particular field? RHNYuser (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@RHNYuser: no, you do not need to be an expert in any particular subject, because Wikipedia articles are not based on what the author knows, but rather on summaries of what reliable sources have previously published. Granted, many of our articles have been written by editors with interests and/or expertise in a subject, but that is by no means a requirement... and may even be a handicap in some ways. I for one am not an expert in anything (!), and yet I've managed to somehow accumulate a considerable number of edits over the years. So welcome onboard, and happy editing! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt and useful response! RHNYuser (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@RHNYuser Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit. You're anybody, and by asking this question, you're already editing - so welcome to Wikipedia! I see that Peaceray has left some useful links on your user talk page, check those out and get started. My personal advice would be to start reading some articles about those topics which interest you, and get started by fixing any typos, grammatical errors etc that you come across; it's a great low-effort way to get started. Athanelar (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt and helpful response! RHNYuser (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Being an expert is a handicap if it makes you habitually add original research or makes you stubborn. Being an expert is a boon if it helps you quickly reach and appraise sources for things, gives you connections you will not misuse, etc

The articles are entirely composed of publicly accessible information. It might be not digitized, not English, or paywalled, but it's published. It's not from private conversations, letters, personal knowledge, or secret information. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia RHNYuser. Many people have very successful Wikipedia careers without ever creating a single new article. Creating a new article is not the only or even best way one can contribute. There are millions of existing articles, most of which need help in some way. Thanks for being here. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

In article "Brooklynne Mosley" appears in references "campagin" (campaign, ?). The references are arranged in a way that i cannot follow and cannot locate where it is to be found to verify or edit.~2026-49706-83 (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49706-83: Thanks for pointing that out. In fact the reference was formatted wrongly altogether and that word shouldn't have been there at all, so I've fixed it now. If you want you can look at this edit to see how I did it. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:24, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look but honestly my level of investment in learning the peculiarities of WP coding are very basic. I come across these things when i apply my spelling formula test to a word, get the hits then check. I know how to approach some templates being within articles but the arrangement of references is far too complicated for me to bother and leave it to others to, as in this situation, find what is there is the culprit. There are occasions that i find an example of what is correct and any adjustment is small fry but ....... So if you ever come across a misspelling shot it over to me so i can work from the right spelling dropping a character then transposing a character. A little tedious but if you guys with the eyes for this stuff have missed it then more unlikely it will be noticed, especially on starred articles. I think I found 1 today.~2026-49706-83 (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Can someone who has a moment to spare please cast an eye over this TA: ~2026-44206-81

I cannot for the life of me work out what it is doing, I don't know if this is normal activity. To me it looks like a mess, some kind of subtle vandalism, but for all I know there's a perfectly common explanation. Oddness includes blanking AfC notices on its own drafts, for example. But it stretches over months and hasn't really been challenged. If this doesn't belong here, please let me know the right place (if any). SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a time traveler to me... Fengrímur (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked the TA from draftspace for the time being, and asked for an explanation. We shall see what we shall see. Lectonar (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I did check the contributions after my last comment. They replaced the 2030s film-list redirect with a table giving the release year as "399999999999999910000000000", though they reverted themselves a minute later. On Draft:2028 in anime they also added very odd unsourced entries including "The Simpsons: The Anime" and "Xong Jake Long", then removed them two minutes later.

The AfC removals include an actual rejection and decline, rather than just generic submission templates. Another odd one is this move request, submitted by the TA but using Yukimusha's signature and naming Yukimusha as the requester. The reason given is a spelling correction, but the requested destination would also move the draft into mainspace. Worth asking them about! They also seem pretty focused on the future?

There are useful corrections mixed in, I wouldn't call the whole history vandalism. Some of it looks like treating the lists as a sandbox/plaything...? I can't really tell how much is confusion and how much is ... deliberate? Fengrímur (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I can't really tell how much is confusion and how much is ... deliberate?

Yes, welcome to my world. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the part about time-travelling :)...I saw much more disruption in draftspace, that's why I used the block there to elicit some kind of response. The block can easily be lifted if we get half a useful explanation. If it is really just tests...there's always the sandbox anyway. Lectonar (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Where can I find the explanations for changing options in the editing mode. What I had before is no longer there when i click to edit. It now has a page with numbers running down the left side and colors beside just black text and red or blue lines. Can you give me a link?~2026-49808-98 (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49808-98: Welcome to The Teahouse. Are you asking about switching editors? Right now it sounds like you're using the source editor; if you want to switch back to the visual editor, click on the button on the right-hand side of the editing toolbar and then on Visual editing in the dropdown menu that appears. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

When i do that it asks if I want to insert a paragraph?~2026-49808-98 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not able to replicate that. To confirm, do you see buttons like and Preview directly to the left of when you're trying to edit? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49808-98: Click "Syntax" in the toolbar above the edit area to remove the line numbers and syntax highlighting. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Previously when editing and changes were made they would remain. Now i have to set the syntax thing so its just becoming ever more disruptive and more aggravating than what I care to experience. All the best.~2026-49808-98 (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

I reverted the addition of an external link in the body of Cyberpunk: Edgerunners earlier today, because external links aren't permitted in article bodies, and the website didn't seem like it added much to the article (it is a guide on how to dress like the main character of the series).

Later, the user who added the link responded to my warning on their talk page, and I can't help but notice that it reads as if it were generated through the use of artificial intelligence. It is written very formally and neatly, and just generally looks similar to text I've seen collapsed by other editors on talk pages.

What should I do in this situation, and where can I read about what to do in similar situations in the future? _{(also, was I correct in my judgement that the external link was inappropriate? I am great at doubting myself)}

Thank you, Wikipedia Teahouse. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 10:40, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you were in the right for reverting a violation of WP:ELBODY. When dealing with AI on a talk page, the advice of Wikipedia:AITALK is helpful. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think collapsing a new user's comment on their own talk page would be the most constructive course of action, though. I'd gently advise them on AITALK and at the same time answer their question by pointing at WP:ELBODY. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:22, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice. I've replied to the reply, and am curious to see whether I'll receive a reply in response. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 11:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Your instinct was good, and if you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in WP:AITALKSIGNS (especially WP:AIUNSURE in this case). —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 12:47, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

See: Template:Did you know nominations/The Bent-Neck Lady, how do I nominate this for SOHA? Thanks! 1timeuse75 (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@1timeuse75 See instructions at WP:DYKSO. You have started by making a standard nomination, which is fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! 1timeuse75 (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

There are about 16 hits on "Finlaist" that should be Finalist that someone with the capability of mass changing might want to do. Having difficulty with the editing function so will not attempt it.~2026-49808-98 (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think 16 hits requires any sort of automatic mass changing, but can just be reviewed individually to make sure that the right word with the right spelling is being used. And while reviewing them, one might find other issues that could be easily corrected at the same time. It looks from your history that you've already managed to update some of them. (And thank you for that!) If you describe in more details what difficulty you're having in editing perhaps someone will be able to assist you with that problem specifically. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I always attempt to avoid the string "I don't think" especially in writing as the spontaneity to revise is not as quick as face to face. I will have to address individual edits for the same word later should i ever return to editing at WP with this latest occurrence in maneuvering through the options. In previous spelling postings others have been more encouraging in use of their skill set with WP. I tended to be a one issue editor as that is the limit I wish to get involved rather than review an entire article. It may not fit other's view about this activity but then this is supposedly simple enough for all to do although the ins and outs have been shown to be rather complicated. Remember we all are not as invested to the same level so need to be appreciative of what is done.~2026-49808-98 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, it's perfectly fine to not review everything in an article and focus on just fixing obvious typos (and such work is very needed and appreciated). I may not have been clear, but I was mainly trying to say that it can be helpful to check each case directly rather than doing a straight find-and-replace in case of seeing something else. Like, maybe the word isn't supposed to be "finalist" at all, or you happen to see another typo right next to it that you decided was just as easy to also fix. And 16 isn't so many that checking them individually is overly time-consuming compared to the work in trying to automate the process and confirm that it didn't make something worse afterward. I have fixed a couple of "Finlaist"s myself. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I am Trying, dude. RGarvieWorld (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

This seems to relate to User talk:RGarvieWorld#September 2026; did you mean to reply here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, that message specifically says one can get assistance here. Though it's not clear to me exactly what assistance is being sought.

@RGarvieWorld: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your change to the Netflix article (Special:Diff/1374051961) changed a "2023–present" to "2023–2056" without citing a source that it will be continuing through that date, and added a section for "2056-present" that added an unclear sentence "In 2056, He Continued Expanding for every day." Because these updates were unclear and didn't appear to improve the article, Loriendrew reverted it and sent you that message. Is there some constructive update to the Netflix article that you're trying to accomplish, and if so can you provide more details on what exactly that is? — PeterCooperJr (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey I feel like the page Mze should be changed from a redirect to a disambiguation page, as there are more uses for it in my opinion

currently it redirects to Mže but there is also Mze TV and Manatee Airport (IATA)

There might be more uses I haven't found yet but I wanted to ask this ~2026-48026-60 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be better to create Mze (disambiguation), and put a link to that at the top of Mže. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

good idea ~2026-48026-60 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

it was created ~2026-48026-60 (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Good work! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I found a couple more:

mze Is the ISO 639-3 code for the morawa language.

It is also the ISO 4217 Currency code for the Mozambican Escudo. SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 16:22, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spearmint&diff=1374956166&oldid=1374945268

My edit got reverted citing WP:MEDDATE as its an old book, but I believe my edits were not biomedical claims but folk‑use/historical statements, can/should I revert it back? (I will also rephrase "the plant decoction is a very popular folk remedy" as "the plant decoction was historically used as a folk remedy") Eduardo7z (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this with the person who reverted it, not here - and don't put it back unless they agree. But if you and that person do agree that it should be put back in, I think it would only belong as a little sentence added to "History" with the other similar information, and should not be made a special subtopic of "Oil" as you first did (not a special subtopic of anything else either). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't a new subtopic, the page already had "Traditional medicine: Spearmint has been used in traditional medicine". I only added Morton's account of its tradicional medicine usage, so should I create the talk by clicking the talk button besides Zefr name or create a talk page on the article itself (and mention the user so he gets notified?) Eduardo7z (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's a rule about this. I suggest you click the "talk" beside the name, and provide the same link to the edit that you've provided here. About the heading thing, you're right and I misunderstood, but I still think this non-current mention might be better under History with other similar mentions. But talk with Zefr and you two can work out what's best in this case. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I came across this article that is supposed to be describing a certain teams games for that season but it looks like it just copied this article's points table. The second article is the one linked in the team's seasons section. I don't get the point of the first article since all the information could just be found in the second one. Eh-st-h☆r^{Did that}_{Talk to me} 19:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to copy tables like that since the underlying data is the same. The page could definitely use expansion though and may not be justified as a standalone article. You're welcome to nominate it at WP:AfD. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 01:51, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It appears the team has a few of these kind of pages:

2016 (June) Patna Pirates season

2017 Patna Pirates season

2015 Patna Pirates season

2014 Patna Pirates season

But the other teams don't seem to have these kind of pages which I found weird considering some of the teams have performed better than Patna Pirates. Not to mention all of these articles are orphaned. Eh-st-h☆r^{Did that}_{Talk to me} 04:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

All created by the same user. Not unusual to see such mass article creations from fans. Sometimes they can be improved if there's enough info to support notability, but group deletion noms are appropriate when that isn't the case. They can also sometimes be redirected to primary articles instead. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 04:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

What are the requirements for group deletion noms? Eh-st-h☆r^{Did that}_{Talk to me} 04:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

See WP:BUNDLE ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 04:54, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look into it later. Eh-st-h☆r^{Did that}_{Talk to me} 04:56, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

What do I do if I feel a user is WP:STONEWALLING but I can't bring it up because that might be read as a WP:PA? إيان (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

One possible approach is to ask what it would take to make them change their mind about it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

By the way, it's preferred on English Wikipedia that you add another part to your signature using the same alphabet as English. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:39, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Assume good faith, ask questions, make sure you've read the relevant article talk page comments. Follow WP:DR. --Hipal (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You dealt with the stonewalling correctly إيان: patiently answered questions with sources and sought guidance from the BLP noticeboard. Basically the other editor has shown they are never going to agree with you whatever evidence you provide and so further interaction with them is unproductive. The solution to this disagreement is other editors looking at the sources and hopefully clearer consensus will emerge. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and I need someone to review my draft before I resubmit it. I have already edited with the correct source. Nkhan95 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

You have no sources about Akhter; they're all about something else (or someone else). Also, many of your sources are announcements, and announcements tell almost nothing useful about a person. So no, you do not have the correct sources. You need several sources with titles like "Life and career of Saeed Akhter" that were all written with no help from him - NOT things like "New clinic to open soon", and NOT things where he is only listed or mentioned. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Nkhan95, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please read WP:PAIDADVICE. As a new editor who has spent no time learning the skills and knowledge required to create a Wikipedia article, your chances of success are remote, even if you did not have a conflict of interest.

Unless you put Draft:Saeed Akhter aside for a few months, while you learn these skills and constraints by editing existing articles, it is likely that your work will be wasted. (It is also possible that, like most people in the world, Akhter does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and so no article about him will be possible - the ability to determine whether he is notable or not is one of the skills that beginners generally have no clue about).

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) 21:06, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I am a new Wikipedia editor and was invited to the Teahouse after my removal of disputed biographical material was reverted. I would appreciate assistance with the following situation.

A biography attributes educational qualifications, honours, attendance at training programmes, professional experience, and organisational relationships to a living person. I opened and reviewed every link associated with the assertions I removed. The linked pages were general university, corporate, governmental, and organisational portals. They did not document the specific qualifications, activities, or relationships attributed to the individual.

A university’s general webpage does not establish that someone studied there, obtained a particular degree, or attended a particular course. Likewise, an organisation’s general webpage does not establish employment, membership, an appointment, an advisory role, or a contractual relationship. Internal links to Wikipedia articles describing those institutions do not substantiate those biographical assertions either.

The issue is therefore not the mere absence of links. Links were present, but their content did not support the assertions.

I also encountered material concerning namesakes who share the same profession. The references did not establish that the separate biographical details concerned one individual, raising a concern about the possible conflation of different people’s histories.

I removed the assertions for which the linked material provided no support. The removals were reverted, and I received notices about extensive deletions and a possible conflict of interest. I subsequently explained my sourcing concerns on the relevant discussion pages. An editor suggested an Articles for Deletion discussion.

My request is based on the following policies:

WP requires a reliable source that directly supports challenged material and places responsibility for demonstrating verifiability on the editor adding or restoring it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations

WP requires reliable published sources for challenged biographical material and specifies that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately, whether positive, neutral, or negative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged

WP also covers contentious material based on unsupported interpretation or synthesis, or on sources that otherwise fail to meet verifiability requirements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced

I am seeking practical assistance in applying these provisions when removals are disputed. Specifically, I would appreciate help obtaining an independent review of the challenged assertions and the actual content of their references, followed by removal of material that fails the applicable sourcing requirements.

I understand that an AfD discussion concerns whether an article should be retained. My immediate concern is the treatment of unsupported biographical assertions while that separate issue is considered.

For this initial request, I am describing the situation without identifying the article or the individuals involved. I understand that a case-specific assessment would require reviewers to examine the relevant article, references, and changes. Please direct me to the appropriate process for that assessment, including the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard if applicable.

Thank you for your assistance.

Librarytoday Librarytoday (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@Librarytoday I am almost certain you generated the above wall of text with an AI chatbot. Please don't do that. It is incredibly disrespectful to human editors. qcne (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The exact same wall of text was posted a minute earlier on their talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:38, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Tenryuu,

I repeated the message because it concerns the same unresolved issue, and I wanted the people I contacted to have the context.

Librarytoday Librarytoday (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

No, all you've done is spam the same AI generated slop five times. Can you, like, not? qcne (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I used assistance to express my concerns in English
I will gently point out that WP:AITALK is a guideline where obviously-AI generated content can be dismissed.

I repeated the message because it concerns the same unresolved issue, and I wanted the people I contacted to have the context.
You responded to a templated message sent by one editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:21, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry I gave the wrong impression. I checked all the cited links myself, one by one. None directly supports the claims it is cited for. That is why I removed those claims. Could you please explain where I should document these findings so editors can review them and assess whether the article meets Wikipedia’s sourcing and notability requirements? Librarytoday (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, please use the BLP noticeboard to bring this up. And please do so in your own words without the use of an AI/LLM. We want to converse with you directly. We do not expect perfect grammar and spelling. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Qcne and 331dot,

I personally reviewed the links and take this matter seriously. I used assistance to express my concerns in English, but the observations are my own. I regret that the presentation distracted from the sourcing issue. My concern is that the linked pages do not support the biographical claims, as required by Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy.

I understand your request and will explain the issue briefly in my own words at the BLP noticeboard.

Librarytoday Librarytoday (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I came here because I was invited to ask for help as a new editor. Most replies have focused on how my message was written or where I posted it. I understand the suggestion to use the BLP noticeboard, but the sourcing issue itself remains unresolved. Could someone explain how to get the disputed claims and their sources reviewed there?

Librarytoday Librarytoday (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I suppose that this is about Ali Lenin Aguilera, which is now at AfD. (As I don't even know how -- or whether? -- a "Strategic Business Development Consultant" differs from a "business consultant", I don't plan to contribute.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I recommend "Music for an Awful Lot of Winds and Percussion" played by the Turtle Mountain Naval Base Tactical Wind Ensemble - not mainly for the music, but just to observe that the whole thing is a suitable accompaniment for business consultants, whether of its strategic development, its haphazard decline, or other combinations. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:21, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

What's up with the new edit interface? It started appearing today. I used to go to edit something and it'd give me the raw source as in ? "abcde wxyz<ref>{{cite web.....}}</ref>" Now it gives me something that looks like the regular article. While this is a bit easier to edit text, it's harder to edit the refs. I haven't even figured out how. I like the old way. How can I switch it back? BlueRockThrush (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2026 (UTC) BlueRockThrush (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

That's the visual editor. You can change the default editor or disable the visual editor completely in your preferences, under "editing". ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Switch to the source editor instead of the visual editor. EzYop (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

That worked. Thanks for the quick response from both of you. BlueRockThrush (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@BlueRockThrush: Welcome to The Teahouse. As Maddy from Celeste says, you can go to Preferences → Editing → Editor → Enable the visual editor and make sure that checkbox is unchecked.

If you just want to switch quickly once, you can click on the button on the righthand side of the toolbar and click Source editing in the dropdown menu that appears. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:55, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

In footnote 2 of Jon Fosse, the double quotation marks around "take it or leave it" should be single, because it is an internal quote. I see that error often in Wikipedia articles, because editors forget that the template will automatically add outer double quotation marks, so they make the internal quotation marks double. It's usually easy to fix, but in this case, I can't figure out how to do so, because the quotation is abbreviated as < ref name= Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Y Fixed. The news cited by the ref actually uses Guillemets rather than quotes, so this is a fairly clear-cut case. Though I would argue if the title were actually Jon Fosse – "take it or leave it" we should keep the quotes, as the quotation marks are a part of the news article's title, and only cover a part of it.

Not sure why you had trouble doing it, you can check out my edit if you wish . LkL-70547 (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Whatever you put in, they are not single quotation marks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

As stated above, they are guillemets, in accordance with what's on the web page that this is citing. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:36, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Since, according to Guillemet, "Guillemets are not conventionally used in English," I doubt that I will be the only reader who will be puzzled by them. Can they be replaced by ordinary single quotation marks? Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they can. Done. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:50, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Hold on, we quite frequently have the title field that's entirely in a foreign language, and I doubt Japanese or Cyrillic alphabets are "conventionally used in English". If the source is French, what's wrong with having the title field in French? LkL-70547 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, a French title is often used (see e.g. Template:Hector Berlioz). I'd expect that most west Europeans (and of course francophones from wherever) would, in a context for quotation marks, recognize guillemets as quotation marks. But (i) "most" isn't "all", and (ii) not all our readers are west Europeans or francophones, and (iii) as far as I know guillemets don't have any nuances that plain old "   " or '   ' lack, and (iv) Maurice Magnus asked for '   '. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:41, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I tried to PROD Michael Brescia based on the following criterion:

"Failed to meet WP:CRIME. The subject is known only in connection with a criminal event. Under this guideline, subjects who fall into this category should not normally have a separate Wikipedia article if an existing article could incorporate the available encyclopedic material about that person."

However, according to the person who removed the PROD tag, this is not a bio1e case.

I just wanted some clarification. Does the subject's attempt to create a white supremacist group on campus while he was still a student count as one event?

It would be helpful to hear other editors' POV on this. Thank you. WikiTributor2026 (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Which of his 22 bank robberies is the singular event to which you refer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 07:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

How i can add the external source link the reference list in number wise? At951380 (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:Referencing for beginners. Ask here again if that doesn't help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:33, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi I'm trying to reference my subjects birth date which I found on Family Search which references the US census. Is that an acceptable reference? If not, have you got any suggestions. I've tried looking at the Pennsylvania records, which took me to FamilySearch, and the 1900 Census looks as if you have to download the whole thing - it doesn't look searchable. If it is, how do I reference it? It does not fit the template provided.This is the citation proposed on the website. "United States, Census, 1900", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M3Q4-X6D : Tue Jun 10 18:47:12 UTC 2025), Entry for Alexander Dean and Emma E Dean, 1900. I have put something in, but it doesn't look right. Many thanks Ashdown Ashdown Seedling (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:FAMILYSEARCH is listed as "Generally unreliable" on our perennial sources list, so please don't use it as a reference. If you manage to find it in the census, you can fill the reference manually; see Help:Referencing for beginners. Athanelar (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Since I see that you're trying to write an article, please also heed the advice that writing an article is the most difficult task on Wikipedia and is highly ill advised for someone with no Wikipedia editing experience. If you don't know how to format a reference yet, that's a good indication you haven't yet acquired the skills you need to write an article here. Please take a look at Help:Your first article. Athanelar (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2026 (UTC)