Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the Article have Verifiability

Are you familiar with General notability guideline

Is the article written on a Neutral point of view

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

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

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

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

Courtesy ping: Gem2376

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

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

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

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

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

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

@CoconutOctopus: Should these also be tagged for deletion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I notice that the visual editor seems to also be automatically adding new content (going beyond just cleaning up unnecessary spaces and blank lines) in specific circumstances.

It seems to be because of how the visual editor interacts with Wikilinks. For example, I might be adding just a single comma to a sentence, but then I see that the edit has added something like 70 bytes to the article (while a comma is just 1 byte). When I inspect the details of the revision (which I already marked as a minor edit) after the fact, there seems to be an entire phrase that got added in to that Wikilink even though I did not intend to edit the link itself.

Here are some recent examples of this happening that I noticed:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_single_market&diff=prev&oldid=1356445462
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salakaar&diff=prev&oldid=1356167600
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salakaar&diff=prev&oldid=1356167315
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajit_Doval&diff=prev&oldid=1356166061
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajit_Doval&diff=prev&oldid=1355820783
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajit_Doval&diff=prev&oldid=1355817684

 Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you were using visual editor and accidentally editing inside of the links like this: [[Lorem ipsum,]] instead of like this: [[Lorem ipsum]],

So the visual editor automatically fixed the link so it goes to Lorem ipsum, not the nonexistent page Lorem ipsum,

You might use source editor in the future; it's easier to tell what you're editing. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 21:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I see. Is it better to avoid editing inside the links or does it not matter either way? Like is there a preference for [[Lorem ipsum,]] over [[Lorem ipsum]] or vice versa? I am guessing it could make the edit look a lot cleaner in terms of edit history and avoids adding redundant/unnecessary content to the article.

Personally, I find it much easier to navigate using the visual editor. Though sometimes I have tried to avoid this problem indirectly by adding the comma one space away, adding a space after, and then deleting the space before, in a 4 step process that looks something like this:

1. Lorem ipsum not
2. Lorem ipsum ,not (add comma)
3. Lorem ipsum , not (add space after)
4. Lorem ipsum, not (remove space before)

I am not sure if this actually solves the problem or not. Anyways, thanks for answering my question! Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll admit I don't know a lot about the visual editor, since I mostly use source editor, so I have no idea if your process works or not. Hopefully it does? You should avoid putting commas inside links if you can, so it looks like

Lorem ipsum, not

instead of

Lorem ipsum, not

I'm not sure if there's an official policy about it, but I don't think the comma should be part of the link. A tip for source editor, if you want to try it: you can use the find function (ctrl + f usually, it depends on your device) to find the sentence you want to edit if it gets lost in all the wikitext. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 21:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I just definitively tested my 4 step process and it seems to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaurya_Doval&diff=prev&oldid=1356783529

When I made this edit, I not only did the exact process that I described, but I also checked the edit summary to see if it worked, and observed that it only added the number of bytes that I had intended for it to add, so this can serve as an example.

Typically I do use the 4 steps. Recently, I was thinking "why don't I just trust the visual editor?", but then I realized after making this post that the visual editor does actually handle the issue very effectively but in a much more inefficient manner that creates more unnecessary bytes, so I will make sure to avoid making that same mistake again. It would be nice if the visual editor handled it automatically though and removed unnecessary bytes whenever possible, which would make editing a lot faster.

Anyways, thank you for the feedback! (and thanks to the other editors that chimed in too) It has been very useful. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You can’t change the link, you can change the text displayed. In Visual Editor, the easiest way is to click “change text”. Otherwise, you have to carefully ensure the cursor is actually editing the text displayed for link. To do it in source editor, put the text you want to display after the bar. eg [[Jimmy Connors|Jimbo]] Mme Maigret (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Anonymous Libertarian "Like is there a preference for Lorem ipsum, over Lorem ipsum or vice versa?" Well, the second one will give you the correct link, since there is not an article named "lorem ipsum comma".... David10244 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems that visual editor was correcting their links even if they put the comma in; that's why there were extra bytes and why they asked this question. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 17:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@JohnLaurens333 Ah, thanks. David10244 (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi User:SomeRandomGuy3523,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

I would appreciate feedback regarding a draft article I have prepared in my user sandbox:

• Draft: User:Maingottwalther/sandbox
• Draft talk page: User talk:Maingottwalther/sandbox
• My user page with COI disclosure: User:Maingottwalther

The draft is about Hendrix Genetics. I have disclosed a conflict of interest regarding this topic, as I work in media and communications, including public relations, and I have a professional connection to Hendrix Genetics.

I do not intend to move the draft to mainspace myself. I would like to follow the correct process and receive input from experienced, uninvolved editors before taking any further steps.

I would be grateful for feedback on the following points:

• Is my conflict of interest disclosure sufficient?
• Does the subject appear likely to meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements for companies and organizations?
• Do the sources in the draft appear sufficiently independent, reliable, and substantial?
• Does the draft appear neutral in tone?
• Is the article structure appropriate for an encyclopedia article?
• Is Articles for Creation the appropriate next step?

I welcome frank feedback on whether the draft appears ready for the review process or whether there are clear improvements I should make first.

Thank you very much for your help.

~~~~ Maingottwalther (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

First, I've moved your draft to Draft:Hendrix Genetics.

Second; your comment here appears to be AI generated. Please don't do that; we are volunteers spending our own time to help you, extend us the same courtesy by taking the effort to communicate with us in your own words.

Third: your draft also shows signs of being at least partially AI generated. This is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Fourth, your draft is currently entirely lacking the kind of coverage necessary to prove that the company meets our definition of notability

I would suggest you read WP:PRPEOPLE and heed its advice. Athanelar (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for moving the article. On your points: Yes, I did use help from AI for my questions, because it is not that easy to understand all the rules here on my own and to follow the correct processes. As for the article itself: from my point of view it now seems quite difficult to strike a neutral and factual tone that does not sound like AI. I tried to write as plainly as possible and to support statements with citations from independent sources or links to other Wiki articles. If there are particular passages that stand out to you, I would appreciate a specific pointer from an experienced editor. As for notability: I am aware that a company is not automatically notable just because it is large or active in a particular industry. However, I had the impression that the notability of Hendrix Genetics is reasonably supported by the inclusion of independent sources and by references to the company in other Wiki articles. Or do you feel that the article still needs more independent sources? Thx in advance Maingottwalther (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Whether or not a company is notable depends entirely on whether you have sources that are reliable and independent and discuss the company in-depth and are not simple routine reporting of everyday business activities (such as the company's founding, funding rounds, product releases etc) in other words, you need the golden rule and WP:CORPDEPTH and must avoid WP:CORPTRIV. Athanelar (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use LLM to communicate with us. It won't actually do a better job than you with rules (it can't actually understand them, only parrot them), and it may say things that are flatly untrue. In any case we want to talk to a human. M kuhner (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I understand that it’s become difficult to tell AI-generated content from human-written content these days, but I can assure you that you’re talking to a real person here ;-) Maingottwalther (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia,

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

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

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

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

I would be grateful for any feedback.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I recently submitted a page for a Notable company which happens to have the name of a person. The page was reviewed as a notable person instead of a company and I'm wondering if I am able to switch the category that the page is being reviewed within during the resubmission process? This is the page under review in question Draft:David Aaron (antiquities dealer) - Wikipedia Pennyjolene (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Pennyjolene, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A draft will be reviewed as what it appears to be about. If the draft is about a person, it will be reviewed as a biography. If the draft is about a business, it will be reveiwed as a business. The problem comes when the draft cannot appear to decide which of these it is about. ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

ColinFine, I quote the article as it was (other than for my removal of references) when the decline template was attached: The business was established in Iran in 1910 and expanded to a second location in Alexandria, Egypt in the 1920s under the leadership of Soleiman Haroon. In 1980, the gallery relocated to London under the name Aaron Gallery. In 1998, Haroon's youngest son, David Aaron, opened David Aaron Ltd in Berkeley Square in Mayfair, London. David Aaron is now located at 25A Berkeley Square, Mayfair. Thus one of: (A) the draft was (and is) about a business, yet was judged as about a person; (B) the reviewer realized that it was about a business but sleepily chose the wrong "decline" rationale and then didn't realize that they'd done so; and (C) the draft was (and is) indeed about a person, and my inability to perceive this is evidence for my insanity. -- Hoary (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [Pinging ArthurTheGardener. -- Hoary (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)]

It would probably help to append the company designation in the lead. e.g., "David Aaron llc is an antiquities dealer..." Athanelar (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you for your feedback and advice. It's ben really helpful and I'll make some changes to amend the page Pennyjolene (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @Themoderneditor and welcome!

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

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

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

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

Hello, Themoderneditor! Welcome to Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my talk page;one user asks for this: Tab no 36: ["Feminino" (Female) a masculine word and not a female one, im a native portuguese speaker from brazil and even i dont know why its a masculine word even though it means female.. ]

how to reply to him.. Spbvj (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You can just admit you don't know, or even ignore. Looking in wikt:feminino it is an adjective, and so not "masculine" -- instead it changes its ending to match the associated noun grammatical gender. So "feminino" would be with masculine nouns. "feminina" would go with feminine nouns. And the reason it is that way is that Latin had "femininus" with the same meaning and idea. I suspect you are being trolled by the question. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I dont know that language and its grammer ;thats why i asked here how to react to it. Mostly mentorS try to help newers or whomever asks for help ;cant ignore.Spbvj (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Spbvj (The word is "grammar", not "grammer".) David10244 (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@David10244 Replying three days later to lecture somebody on an extremely minor typo is completely pointless. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 06:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I need help to publish a page that is ready. We have asked for a company to write a text about SiPM readout solutions in order for it to be an independent vision from our company. We reviewd that text in order to make sure it was technicaly right. In fact, we are an innovative company in solutions for cancer detection that are quite new and we thought it would be interesting for people to have access to this information. The page is now ready but it was not accepted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PETsys_Electronics

Could someone help me on how to publish it?

Thanks a lot, Vasco

--- Vasco Varela www.petsyselectronics.com Vasco MCS Varela (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Submit it to Articles for Creation over at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Submitting ~2026-32075-07 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

If your draft was made for undisclosed payments, you need to disclose it on. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Disclose to disclose your paid edits. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Vasco MCS Varela, the account you hired, User:Coulounb, has been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing. You must disclose or you will be blocked too. Read WP:PAID for complete details. Cullen328 (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328, Vasco MCS Varela has not so far edited that draft (or anything else), so has not done any paid editing. I agree that if they were to edit that draft, they need to declare paid editing. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

ColinFine, they have edited right here, trying to get help to move draftified content back to the mainspace. In my opinion, WP:PAID applies. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Vasco MCS Varela, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that you have almost certainly been scammed: see WP:SCAM.

The article was created by use User:Coulounb who did not make the mandatory declaration of themselves as a paid editor - they have been blocked.

I haven't looked closely at the article (which has been moved back to a draft), but I suspect that it does not have the required independent reliable sources that are required (see WP:42), and would not be accepted in its present form.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

The fact is that most companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - there has not been enough independent material published about them - and no article about them is possible. I don't know whether your company meets the criteria or not, but I doubt it.

I'm sorry. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vasco MCS Varela You said "we thought it would be interesting for people to have access to this information" but that's not really enough -- ColinFine's reply is very much on point. David10244 (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine@Graeme Bartlett Sir, thank you for your thoughtful advice. I completely agree that creating a Wikipedia article requires a solid understanding of Wikipedia's core policies and editing practices.

As a new editor, I appreciate your guidance and understand the importance of learning through improving existing articles before attempting to create a new one. I will take time to familiarize myself with policies such as notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, and the use of reliable independent sources.

at the same time, I would be grateful for any assistance or assignments, recommendations that could help me learn the process more effectively.

Thank you again for taking time to share your experience and guidance.

Riddhiborisagar Riddhiborisagar (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello again @Riddhiborisagar.

If you had troubled to write this reply yourself, rather than telling an LLM to write it, you would probably have noticed all the useful blue links in my reply.

Using AI to write articles is now forbidden (see WP:NEWLLM). Using AI to reply on talk and discussion pages is not forbidden, but many editors take the view that if you can't be bothered to write your own words to us, why should we bother to reply? ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once I have made changes to an article, how do I get a preview? Then, how to I publish? There used to be check-boxes for these two actions, but as of last night, I don't see them. Kdammers (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

This goes for editing talk pages as well. I just now tried to correct the typo (to/do) above, but I couldn't. Kdammers (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kdammers, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I haven't seen such a problem.

What platform are you working on? A browser, or a mobile app? If it's a browser, try clearing your browser cache. ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I am using Windows on a Dell laptop. I cleared my cache. The problem persists. (By the way, I don't have this issue on Simple English Wikipedia, which uses a different GUI.) Kdammers (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I've no idea, then, I'm afraid. I suggest asking at WP:VPT. ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The GUI shouldn't look different if you are using the same skin. Have you checked what skin you are using? Have you also insured that you aren't in mobile view? There should be a button at the bottom of the page to switch between mobile and desktop view. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Are you using the Visual Editor, or the Source Editor (which looks more code-like)? David10244 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi! I have pledged to significantly improve the Peter Mackler article after it was defended in the AfD. For now, I am still gathering thoughts and finding time. Before I do, can you help me understand why this page is a redirect to a New York school? And not the Mackler page himself? Also, the award itself falls short of Wikipedia:NAWARDS but would it be reasonable to make a short paragraph in two sentences about it on the page, listing the few notable recipients? There are at least 3 who received this award and had high-domain level coverage such as .edu. Thanks! MitYehor📘^^talk 23:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That redirect appears inappropriate, as it is not mentioned at the target. So you can retarget to Peter Mackler and add content about the award. Note there is content in the history of the redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow... It was purged because the editor copypasted press-release text without re-writing it? Still not good enough for notability though...

From the perspective of your experience, would you list those individual recipients who got coverage about them receiving the award, on Mackler's page? Example 1 and Example 2? MitYehor📘^^talk 15:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You could list award winners in the section about the award. But if the whole lot becomes too big, best to limit it. (WP:UNDUE) If there are many independent sources talking about the award or te winning of the award, then the award would deserve its own separate page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Moved from WT:TH

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi User:Akshadev,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See WP:RSPYT

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

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

Anyone interested in helping me create this draft? First time doing an article like this, so I'd really appreciate any help! Finnfrog99 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Help:Your first article is a good place to start; I see you've started by finding sources before actually writing anything, which is fantastic and a good sign. Athanelar (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

When I said that it's my first time writing an article on this, I actually meant writing an article on this topic. I've made a few wikipedia articles before this. my mistake lol

I have TWL, but I have some difficulty figuring out how to format the article, which stuff to include/search for and stuff like that. Finnfrog99 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Finnfrog99: That's an interesting topic for an article! If you haven't already, I'd advise reading WP:BACKWARDS. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 15:29, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I actually havent seen that before, thanks for showing it to me! Finnfrog99 (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

No problem. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 19:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Finnfrog99: Small point: In a list of sources, like the one you have under "Bibliography", it's customary to arrange them in alphabetical order by author's name. Deor (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

(or just use {{reflist}} and forget about it Athanelar (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Apart from checking the [[WP:NOTABILITY]] page and seeing if from your understanding of it if the intended subject meets notability, is there a way to ask if a subject meets notability before you start writing a Wikipedia article?

I don't want to spend hours and days creating a new article only for it to get AfDed and deleted. I could spend that time doing more useful/enjoyable things Renascitur (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Filling out a template:source assess table can be a good step. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you SomeoneDreaming for your reply, the template seems rather complicated but I am willing to give it a try. Should I fill out the template in a sandbox when I try it out? Or where would be the most appropriate place to fill it out? Renascitur (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

You can follow the directions at Wikipedia:Source assessment to create a subpage of that page, which will also generate a blank template for you. If you need help, let me know what the topic is and I can start it for you. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

See the golden rule. If you can find 3 sources that comply with the golden rule, that's a good indicator there's notability. Athanelar (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

There are also specific subsections that you might find helpful, such as Wikipedia:Notability (people) & Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Blue-Sonnet In solidarity 21:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I am trying to add the license column to the infobox for Infiniminer, but figuring out what license the game has was very difficult and explaining it for a citation even more so. Secondary sources appeared to not have cared much about the specific open-source license the game is under so I had to resort to the primary sources. The license the game is under is stated in the LICENSE file of the github repository for the game and the official status of the git repository is stated in a blog post by the game's developer. But frustratingly, the github repository is dead and the actual LICENSE file is not archived and neither is the commit that introduced it, so to figure out what the LICENSE file stated I had to track down a mirror of the git repository, which I finally found here. Because of the fact that git commit ids are SHA1 hashes, the fact that the commit has the hash proves that it is an exact mirror, aside from the infinitesimally unlikely chance of a Hash collision.

The problem I am having is that I have no idea how to explain all this in a citation. Typing something to the effect of <ref>Stated in git repository (mirror link). Archived from the original (Archive link). Evidence that the original github repository was controller by Zachtronics here (blog post link) </ref> feels wrong, because it does not look the way most citations do, but I am having a hard time figuring what to write instead. Chaos Amber 19:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ChaosAmber, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you are having such a difficult time tracking down the licence, let alone a source for it, I wonder whether it should be in the article at all? ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. My thought was that since this is just a license stated in a git repo and the difficulty comes from its age it is a rather normal source for that sort of thing. Do you suggest it would be better if I did not add it? Chaos Amber 21:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

It is still possible to use a dead web site as a reference. Using the mirror with a explanatory note should be OK, in order to prove it is not just original research. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just realized that the license field does not even exist for the video game infobox so all this is irrelevant. Chaos Amber 09:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Someone is manually inserting the parameter "image_upright = 0.8" into every tennis player's infobox, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fyunck(click)#Image_sizes

The pictures now show very small for me

Should he be doing this? ~2026-29785-65 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Fyunck(click) 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 20:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

They've been there for years and I told you why on your talk page and my talk page. Standard infobox size is .8 to .9. Wikipedia Policy says no larger than .9 ever. Why do you think the image_upright is there for infoboxes? Two things I told this person were as follows: Wikipedia recently changed all image default sizes to 250px rather than 220px... which many complained about. No matter as it could easily be managed in the infobox with the standard image_upright command. But in the past few weeks Wikipedia changed something else that has affected most users. Anytime Wikipedia sees an image that is .9 or smaller it now automatically changes it to 145px (upright=.6). That is a Wikipedia problem not an image size problem It can be overridden in your preferences which many of us (including me) had to add to fix the tiny images. But Tennis Project has followed standard sizing for decades. What we did do was remove image_size=200 from the infoboxes since the size parameter is pretty much deprecated in favor of image upright. And the equivalent size for image upright is .8. We cant help it if Wikipedia has made a new rule of downsizing all images. Basically if you don't change your preferences, if Wikipedia sees an image that is smaller than 250px it downsizes it to 145px. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly help me plead …I added accurate information …he just doesn’t have a life . ~2026-32333-06 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You added "papa" to the Years active section. That is obviously not "accurate information". You did then add "5", and that wasn't reverted. And please be civil. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 22:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Although in Years active, you usually do the years (e.g. 2021-present), not the number of years. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 22:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32333-06 Saying someone "doesn't have a life" is against the rules of civil discussion on Wikipedia. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You need to talk about content, not other editors. David10244 (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Nabongo (2nd nomination), but I may not have completed the AfD tagging/listing process correctly. Could someone help complete the nomination?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Nabongo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donniecann (talk • contribs) 01:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Donniecann That page has multiple pieces of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and has survived a previous AfD, refer WP:42, so I don't see what the basis for your AfD would be. You seem to be wikilawyering about a fact in the article. AfD nominations are a paragraph at most. Even if your claim was true, it should only result in the statements on the page being revised but I don't fancy your chances of success since you haven't quoted any sources for your contentions and Wikipedia works on sources. (I'm also concerned that you're a single purpose account, refer WP:SPA that is now autoconfirmed.) Mme Maigret (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I remember being told that Wikipedia is not about truth or facts but just sensationalism and coverage. That being said, I looked at the rules and nominated the page based on the reasons I listed. The page should be corrected and her book needs to be removed. If the other woman can't post her bibliography and anthropological journals why should Nabongo post a book link based on false pretenses? Donniecann (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Really? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 01:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The page was created Celestinesucess in 2019. When did the subject (Nabongo) edit the page? Mme Maigret (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Single purpose? This is my first project. Donniecann (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

In progress Next time please follow the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO.

Note: this is not an endorsement of the nomination, merely an attempt to correct the formatting and process mistakes. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Closed Nominating editor blocked and AFD closed. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Also... did you use AI to generate the AFD nomination? It's formatted very differently from how they normally are. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Given the overemphasis on policy, research-essay-like format, apparent failure to read the actual article, and what appears to be an unwitting 500/30 breach (anything involving the Golan Heights territorial claims is unambiguously in the PIA area) it's pretty obvious that even if this weren't written via LLM - and I'm almost certain that it was - whoever wrote it clearly wasn't paying any sort of attention. Neither scenario reflects well on Donniecann. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm drafting an article about songwriter and recording artist Rebecca Anne Tello (x.o.anne) and would appreciate feedback on whether the available sources appear sufficient to establish notability before I submit through Articles for Creation. Key sources: Official Charts feature article: https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/fake-friends-ps1s-summer-smash-in-waiting-gets-all-too-real-music-video-premiere__30017/ Official Charts chart page (#19 UK peak): https://www.officialcharts.com/songs/ps1-ft-alex-hosking-fake-friends/ Wicked Local career profile: https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/wellesley-townsman/2024/03/06/wellesley-ma-native-anne-tello-seeks-followup-hit-single-fake-friends-uk-music-scene/72843120007/ Wicked Local chart success profile: https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/entertainment/2024/09/20/wellesley-ma-native-new-dance-song-free-climbs-billboard-chart/75290234007/ America's Dance 30 interview: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-americas-dance-30-w-brian-117379490/episode/xoanne-216612595/ ASCAP SXSW Songs article: https://www.ascap.com/news-events/articles/2023/03/sxsw-2023-recap BBC Radio 1 Future Pop: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001x373 Headline Planet: https://headlineplanet.com/home/2024/09/08/telykast-x-o-annes-free-officially-rises-to-1-on-dance-radio-chart/ EDM.com: https://edm.com/news/fan-voting-open-nominees-revealed-2025-edmas-electronic-dance-music-awards/ Do these sources appear likely to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a songwriter and recording artist? RebeccaT88 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@RebeccaT88: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/fake-friends-ps1s-summer-smash-in-waiting-gets-all-too-real-music-video-premiere__30017/ is a non-sequitur. Unless the outlet is listed as unusable, deprecated, or blacklisted at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial we are not going to approve a source sight-unseen by using a completely irrelevant other article at that outlet as a proxy. (I will also note thst if x.o.anne acted as backstage personnel for the song she's effectively screwed out of coverage for it. "They say the lead singer's hot, but the group is not.")
• We can't use https://www.officialcharts.com/songs/ps1-ft-alex-hosking-fake-friends/ (too sparse).
• https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/wellesley-townsman/2024/03/06/wellesley-ma-native-anne-tello-seeks-followup-hit-single-fake-friends-uk-music-scene/72843120007/ looks fine.
• https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/entertainment/2024/09/20/wellesley-ma-native-new-dance-song-free-climbs-billboard-chart/75290234007/ is fine. (Incidentally, per WP:CHARTS you can link to the relevant Billboard chart and it will help for notability; charting is one of the ways a musical act can establish notability on Wikipedia.)
• https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-americas-dance-30-w-brian-117379490/episode/xoanne-216612595/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Interviews are useless for eligibility regardless of outlet (New York Times or some random dogwalker's blog) or interviewer (Larry King or Borat Sagdiyev).
• https://www.ascap.com/news-events/articles/2023/03/sxsw-2023-recap is a non-sequitur. (x.o.anne is only mentioned in an image caption and not in the article proper.)
• I can't assess https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001x373 (geoblocked). The Beeb is notorious for blocking access to its programmes outside of the UK. (We aren't exactly free to use open proxies to bypass this.)
• https://headlineplanet.com/home/2024/09/08/telykast-x-o-annes-free-officially-rises-to-1-on-dance-radio-chart/ doesn't help for eligibility, at least that I can tell. I dunno if Mediabase charts are acceptable; treat this as a "nyess" rather than a hard no.
• https://edm.com/news/fan-voting-open-nominees-revealed-2025-edmas-electronic-dance-music-awards/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Nominations by themselves don't generally matter for notability unless there's a critical mass of them.

Does this help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@RebeccaT88 Judging by the titles alone, I would expect that only the first Wicked Local article might have significant coverage and, if it did, I'd also wonder if it's a reliable source. Refer WP:42. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

As far as depth goes, both Wicked Local pieces are actually pretty good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 03:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok to use this article as a source when it has the disclaimer "This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story."? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Allthemilescombined1 and welcome to the Teahouse!

This is not a copyright issue.

We refer to archived forms of sources all the time. Yes, a reader who goes there will see the disclaimer from the station and that's okay.

Your job as an editor is to assess whether this is the best source for the fact you are trying to support. Sometimes an archived article is the best that we can find. Sometimes the best source isn't even accessible online, but as long as you give enough information for an interested reader to find it with the help of a good library, it should be good.

To reiterate: referring to a copyrighted source is not in any way a copyright violation. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Bear in mind, Allthemilescombined1, that we do not (usually) just requote the text of a source in an article, we instead summarise its factual content in our own words. This does not breach the copyright of any source, because anyone who wants to verify the facts from a cited source will go back to read the source itself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Some reliable sources (per WP:NPPSG#India) cannot be converted into citations. For example Alt News, Business Line, Business Standard, The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Financial Express etc. When I try to make a citation out of them, it says, "This site is blocked." Can someone (an administrator) fix it as soon as possible? – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 03:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Akshadev and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm going to refer you first to the page WP:Blocked external links where there is more advice about dealing with the blacklist. Also see the tool mentioned at the bottom to more specifically find what rule is blocking your attempt at adding an external link.

Blacklist addition and removal requests have their own proper place at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. I looked but don't see those sites explicitly called out on the blacklist, so there may be something else you are doing that triggers the blacklist. Using a link shortener, for instance.

Hope this helps a bit. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Thanks dear editor. The problem has been resolved. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ ^{𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔} 06:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

At what point does one create a new page for something. For example, I've seen several mentions, for example here of the Rockford Grays military drill team but no specific page for them. Dascorvid (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

See if you can find at least three sources that completely fulfill all the requirements described in WP:Golden rule. If you can, the subject is notable.

There are other criteria for assessing whether a particular type of subject is a priori assumed to be notable (see WP:Notability for a long read on the topic), but for the specific subject you mention, they are probably not relevant. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-27434-43 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Dascorvid and welcome to the Teahouse!

A page can be created for a subject when you have sufficient sources to establish their notability. Being mentioned is not part of that. There needs to be some significant independent coverage. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm writing a Wiki page over a game on Roblox. I don't know what to list as sources though due to the fact that all of the Info came from the game itself. Any tips or is it doomes to fail? Thank you

PS: I would of linked the page but it's still in the editing phase. Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to click "publish changes" for others to see it, even if it's a draft.

If the only sources you have are the game itself, the subject does not merit an article. I would be very surprised if a game created within a game receives the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support an article about it. Primary sources do not establish notability. We would need something like reviews published by professional critics. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to see if there is a Roblox wiki out there, where you could write about this game and which would probably have less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jlittlebigbeard Unlikely to succeed. There are very few stand-alone articles in Category:Roblox games, e.g Adopt Me! which has extensive independent coverage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I have a draft at Draft:Don Mock that has been declined twice under WP:NMUSIC. Don Mock (1950–2025) was one of three founding guitar instructors at the Guitar Institute of Technology (now Musicians Institute), authored instructional books for REH/Alfred Music, and directed hundreds of instructional videos. His students included Scott Henderson, Frank Gambale, and Paul Gilbert. The draft has been substantially revised. Independent sources now include: A four-page signed profile/obituary in Earshot Jazz (June 2025) A 19-page biographical feature in Just Jazz Guitar (2013) An editorial book review in Jazzwise (2010) Coverage in Premier Guitar (2016), Guitar Interactive Magazine (2020), Vintage Guitar (2022), Ultimate Guitar (2024, where Zakk Wylde named him among top underrated guitarists), and Guitar Player (2025) For a separate hydroplane racing section: signed articles in Kent Reporter (2009, 2010), Auburn Reporter (2014), and H1 Unlimited (2018) Would these sources be considered adequate for WP:GNG? Any feedback before I resubmit would be much appreciated. Thank you! Bluesengineer (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Blues engineer Hello and welcome. You are essentially asking for a pre-review review; the reviewer will examine your sources to see if they are appropriate as part of the review process. If you feel that your sources meet the criteria described at WP:42, you should resubmit the draft for feedback. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I have completed a full English translation of the French Wikipedia biography for composer and orchestrator Xavier Berthelot, which is currently sitting at Draft:Xavier Berthelot.

The draft translates the original French article (fr:Xavier Berthelot) into English. I have completely cleaned up the broken translation tool code, properly formatted the filmography, added the necessary references from Le Télégramme, and integrated the external links.

Could a reviewer please take a quick look to see if it is ready to be moved into the main encyclopedia space? Any feedback or assistance in fast-tracking the review would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --Ludo5312 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ludo5312 You need to fix the problem with the sources that caused the draft to be declined earlier today. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Ludo5312, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The French article has been tagged since April 2025 with fr:Modèle:Sources secondaires. English Wikipedia tends to be stricter about sources than most others, so if a French article has that tag, it is almost certainly not adequately sourced for English Wikipedia.

You need several sources (normally, at least three), each of which meets all the criteria in golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Some person added a caste name of Periyar who is an anti caste activist recently. He fought against caste all his life.

How Does wikipedia allows this? ~2026-32436-12 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You are not permitted to make inquiries in this topic area, please see the message on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia permits, indeed encourages, the addition of well-referenced and relevant information about the subects of its articles. Maproom (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, that may be helpful in the article, since it shows what his starting point is and potential reasons for him being opposed to the system. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I am confused by this copyright claim for this image: Robin Givens. The uploader claims that it is in the Public Domain because: "It can be seen in page 2 that the copyright notice in the magazine is not valid because it does not include a copyright statement or symbol which was required." They then go on to state as a reason: "Although this issue was cover dated March 1989 it was published earlier as it states that the next issue (May 1989) would be on sale on February 14, 1989." ??? Since when does every image in a magazine (or any publication for that matter) need the disclaimer: COPYRIGHT BY accompanying every image? I'm quite sure the publication of a magazine (in this case: 1989 March Boxing Magazine) itself is protected by a "whole package" copyright of everything that is published within it. I've never seen this before and it seems to be trying to skirt around policy to get this image accepted at WP. Am I wrong? Plus, it's a terrible crop job. Maineartists (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Maineartists,

There are two aspects here. First, the image is hosted on commons, so it doesn't matter what the English Wikipedia thinks about it as long as commons is willing to host it. If there is a copyright infringement or other problem, that needs to be addressed there not here.

Second, US copyright law is complicated by multiple changes over the years. It's true that the copyright of a magazine issue would by default be assumed to cover everything within that issue. However, in certain timeframes, a publication was only protected if it had an explicit copyright notice in it, which would have to contain certain prescribed details or key symbols/terms. March 1, 1989 is a significant date in that regard. Earlier in 1989, if it neither had the technically correct notice nor was formally registered within 5 years, it is not protected. That's what the "...is not valid..." note is about (though the linked scan is blurry and there's a chance the correct key phrase could be elsewhere) and why the actual publication date (not its cover-date) could be significant. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The copyright policy of the image is governed by Wikimedia Commons, not English Wikipedia. I recommend asking your question on c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright instead of here on the Teahouse, as the people there have more experience with copyright than here. HyperAnd [talk] 18:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, DMacks and HyperAnd. Very informative, even if I did bring it to the wrong place. I'll try my luck where you suggest. If for nothing else, to learn something new. Cheers! Maineartists (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:RFC sends me here. It's been two months I'm trying to clarify some (in my opinion, relatively minor) issues about the WP:SAL page, and I'm hitting a wall of stones each time. The last question is about the limit size of stand-alone lists.

Am I wasting our time coming here? Selbstporträt (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell us what the issues are? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

There was a reference to the old "32KB" limit; it got deleted; editors asked it back unless some "list size limits" are being established. I don't think we need any. Certainly not to remove incorrect information. Since that "32KB" comes from WP:AS, I suggested to go with what we got there, with the same principles. This is better than 32KB, but is far from being ideal.

That old limit comes from a sentence that comments on an example. If this guideline is so critical that we need to preserve incorrect information, then we should create a section for it, with more details. This question seems important and should be open to more editors than the 3-4 that opined so far. The discussion seems to have run its course.

It's the first time I feel the need to take things upstairs, and so need guidance. First step seems to be to come here. I also asked the Wiki Project on lists, which is the second step. Still waiting. How to proceed from there? Selbstporträt (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Selbstporträt and welcome to the Teahouse.

I think the Teahouse is not a good venue for your question, since you seem to be engaged in a somewhat esoteric discussion or even dispute about list policy. Reading your various contributions, I am not sure I understand what your goals are, although I glimpse that you have some proposals for the policies around stand alone lists and particularly want to say something about the efforts to limit the size of lists. I suppose if you wrote up your proposed RfC it would give you a chance to clarify things so that other editors - those who might be concerned with the issue - could agree or disagree with you, and perhaps join in refining the proposal before making the actual RfC.

As a postscript: WP policies are not always entirely coherent since they are arrived at by a consensus process, piecemeal, and there is no automatic way to ensure overall consistency. Making a proposal to make things more consistent should, you would think, be welcomed, but it doesn't always work out that way. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. No idea what an RfC looks like, and so will look over there. Where do I write the proposal before sending it, if not here: on the Talk page? Everything has already been said there. Not sure that'll help, but if that's the norm, I can do it. As for my goals: I simply want to edit the WP:SAL so that it doesn't read like it's still 2010. It recently has been used to destroy information on a page. I don't want that to happen again. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Selbstporträt; if you’d like to work on your RFC before publishing it, the best place to do so is your sandbox. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 06:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Splendid @Electricmemory. I started to think about what I need to say in the most axiomatic way possible: On selection criteria. Thanks for the petition! Selbstporträt (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I have a conflict of interest, so I am not asking anyone to create an article. I am only asking which topic, if any, has sourcing strong enough to support a Wikipedia article: Stephen M. Miller, The Bible: A History, or The Complete Guide to the Bible.

The Bible: A History (Lion Publishing, 2004)

• Independent reviews in Publishers Weekly (May 2004), Reform (June 2003), Anvil (August 2004), and the Church of England Newspaper (May 2003).

• Won the Gold award (top prize) in Non-Fiction at the Fred Grossmith Christian Writers' Awards (part of the Christian Broadcasting Council Media Awards 2005), presented 10 November 2005 in Stoke-on-Trent. Documented via Lion Publishing press release; co-winners included Colin Chapman (Bronze, Whose Holy City?) and Liz Babbs (Silver, Into God's Presence).

• Held by 543 libraries in WorldCat across 14 editions.

• Translated into more than a dozen languages.

The Complete Guide to the Bible (Barbour Publishing, 2007)

• Listed by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association as a Platinum Milestone Sales Award title (ECPA definition: 1 million+ copies sold).

• Appeared on the ECPA Nonfiction–Paperback bestseller list in May 2026 at no. 38, nineteen years after publication.

• Appeared on CBA/Christian Marketplace category top-seller lists in March 2005 and May 2005.

• Held by 309+ libraries in WorldCat across English, Spanish, and Korean editions.

My question: Which of these (if any) meets WP:NBOOK or WP:AUTHOR? Is The Bible: A History the stronger candidate given the reviews and Gold award, or do the commercial-success sources for The Complete Guide to the Bible also suffice?

Thank you. StephenMM3 (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, StephenMM3. All that counts is whether or not a specific book is the subject of significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources (plural) that are fully independent of the book, its author, its publisher and its PR campaign. In-depth book reviews written by subject matter experts are usually the best sources for establishing the notability of a book. Winning non-notable prizes cited to publisher press releases are irrelevant. Library holdings are irrelevant. Translations are irrelevant. Appearances on best seller lists are irrelevant. See WP:NBOOK. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. Setting aside everything else, then, the question is whether the four reviews of ''The Bible: A History'' are sufficient:

• ''Publishers Weekly'' (May 31, 2004)
• ''Church of England Newspaper'', "Good News Without End" (May 8, 2003)
• ''Reform'' (June 2003)
• ''Anvil'' (August 2004)

I have copies of these reviews. They are full reviews, not brief mentions, written by religion/book reviewers in each publication.

Two questions:

1. Are these four publications generally accepted as reliable independent sources for book notability under WP:NBOOK?

2. If yes, what is the best way to make the review content available for editor verification — would scanned copies on a draft talk page be appropriate, or is there a preferred process?

Thank you.

~~~~ StephenMM3 (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are Mr. Miller, just tell us that you are him, instead of saying you have a COI, which comes off as equivocating. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

:Yes — I am Stephen M. Miller, the author. Apologies for the indirect phrasing. My user page now reflects this. I have no intention of editing any related article directly; I'm here only to ask whether the sourcing supports an article and, if so, which topic is the best candidate. ~~~~ StephenMM3 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing to establish Notability depends as much as the content as the publishing venue. We exclude author interviews, for example. So it is not really possible to answer your first question definitively without access to the sources. I will say that the more 'niche' the publication,the less weight it tends to carry.

You should not scan and post copies of these reviews, that would be a violation of the copyright held by those publications. Posting links to copyright violating content is prohibited on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both — that's helpful guidance. Let me revise based on what I can actually document.

Independent reviews of The Bible: A History (Lion Publishing, 2004), with content rather than venue:

• Publishers Weekly Annex Review (29 November 2004) — full ~300-word professional review. Mixed/critical: praises the ecumenical Protestant/Catholic approach and topical layout, but criticizes a "faith-based understanding" of Bible history and Protestant bias. Substantive editorial content, not a blurb.
• Reform (June 2003) — full review headlined "Lucid and lively history." Describes content, scope, and presentation; concludes "Any serious student of the Bible will want this on their bookshelves."
• Anvil (August 2004) — full review by John Parr (Bury St Edmunds). Substantive scholarly critique covering content choices, archaeology, translation history, and methodology; balanced with both praise and criticism.

I should correct one prior claim: the Church of England Newspaper piece (May 8, 2003) titled "Good News Without End" was authored by my co-author Robert V. Huber, not an independent reviewer, so I am withdrawing it from the sourcing.

For The Complete Guide to the Bible (Barbour, 2007), I can also document one substantive review:

• CBA Retailers+Resources (December 2007) — full editorial review by Lynn Wookies. Discusses the book's accessibility, illustrations, treatment of theological topics including hell and original sin, and concludes it "is a stellar introduction to the Bible for general readers."

Given the venue-vs-content guidance, does the Publishers Weekly + Reform + Anvil combination meet WP:NBOOK for The Bible: A History? And separately, is the single CBA review sufficient for The Complete Guide to the Bible, or would more be needed? StephenMM3 (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Miller. Reading this discussion has me concerned you may be considering soliciting somebody to create an article. If so, please see our scam warning. You should not pay for Wikipedia article creation. If you'd like, you may try to create an article yourself as a draft and submit it for review, but it's a tall order without first spending some time editing and learning how Wikipedia works. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you — I appreciate the warning, and I am aware of the paid-editing scam problem. I have not hired anyone and will not. I am here on my own, asking only for sourcing guidance.

To be clear about my intent: I am not asking anyone here to create an article, and I do not plan to create one myself in mainspace given my COI. If editors conclude the sourcing supports an article on ''The Bible: A History'', my preferred path would be to leave creation entirely to uninvolved editors, or — if that's not feasible — to prepare a properly sourced draft at WP:AfC for independent review.

My question remains narrow: based on the reviews I've now described (''Publishers Weekly'', ''Reform'', ''Anvil''), does the sourcing support notability under WP:NBOOK? StephenMM3 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

can schools be requsted ~2026-32494-48 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you asking "Can people ask other people to create an article about a school about which there currently is no article?", or something else? -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the TA meant if schools can request other editors or people to create an article on them. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

You can request an article about a school at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Education. If you do request an article, please note that not many people work on requested articles, and it is unlikely that someone will make it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I was surprised by some of the wording in the Almaty article. It didn't have the dispassionate tone I expect from Wikipedia. Phrases which seem unusual to me include:

• "Almaty stands as a pivotal center of culture, commerce, finance and innovation"
• "Almaty is renowned for its cultural contributions"
• "underscoring its economic and regional significance"
• "Almaty is celebrated for its green spaces, with numerous urban parks, tree-lined streets, and fountains, contributing to its reputation as one of the greenest cities in the region"
• "symbolizing its ongoing economic development and evolving identity"

Please, can Wikipedia editors tell me their opinion about this? ~2026-32321-28 (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

That definitely sounds promotional to me. You can remove/reword it if you'd like. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Ping me!) 04:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Not only is it promotional, all those lines reek of being AI generated. Athanelar (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds promotional, WP:AIPUFFERY perhaps? I'll go ahead and try to see the article if there are other signs. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 06:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed most of the puffy wording, so the quotes above are all gone from the article now. Even if it's not LLM, it's still unnecessary puffery. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 06:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Campssitie, puffy cliché remains, e.g. Almaty is considered to be the heart and soul of Kazakhstan's classical and popular cultures. This comes with a reference to a pretty feeble source (as scraped by the Wayback Machine in 2020), one that doesn't say that anyone considers it the heart or the soul, but does say that it's "truly Kazakhstan’s cultural capital"; so our article would say more truthfully "Almaty was in 2020 called 'Kazakhstan's cultural capital'". -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

YYoinked that (with misc.). I'll try and skim through with a comb in hand for these puffy remains. :) ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 09:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I came across an article on National Science Fiction Day that places a lot of emphasis on which films and books to watch and read on that day. Isn't that a violation of encyclopedic standards? RiiffTower (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@RiiffTower; please provide links, we aren’t psychic. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 12:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Electricmemory: the OP linked to the article in their question. What more link do you need? AndyJones (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@AndyJones I just woke up, I completely missed that somehow. I haven’t had my coffee… Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 12:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Here ya go. Herostratus (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section, as unencyclopedic and unsourced. Maproom (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Maproom Thank you for sorting out this situation. RiiffTower (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I want to write an article about Tourvest Destination Management. I've already been rejected with it being too promotional and I used grammerly so that isnt allowed. I have many articles from Tourismupdate.com an independent online publication - many articles are topic based but are quoted under the brands Tourvest Destination Management owns. what would be the best way to approach it? MICHKA69! (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you associated in any way with Tourvest Destination Management? If so, don't write the article. It doesn't look to me like Tourvest Destination Management is notable enough for article, at first blush. You have to understand we are, naturally, very leery of articles about businesses, especially ones that don't look to be very notable. It's not a matter or promotional language in the article, it's a matter that the article even existing can be promotional. If you're not associated with Tourvest Destination Management (or even if you are), you might want to start with a less fraught subject. One place to look for ideas is here: Wikipedia:Requested articles. The city of Calabar has few articles and there are many things in this largish city to document, you could google for some ideas there. Herostratus (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank yuo for your assistance, this is very helpful. MICHKA69! (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@MICHKA69!: the best approach is to read and understand our notability guideline for companies, WP:NCORP, research adequate sources that satisfy that, then follow the approach outlined at WP:GOLDENRULE, while making sure to avoid promotional language and content. And write the draft yourself, without using LLM or any other AI-based tool, incl. Grammarly.

I think that's about the extent of hand-holding you can expect as a paid editor from us volunteers. Given that you've accepted this commission from your client, the implication in that is you know how to edit Wikipedia. Or if you don't, then perhaps you need to let your client know that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, much appreciated. I'm not doing this for compensation. I said upfront I didn't know how to, but would research it. Already I have learnt so much. MICHKA69! (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I see. You said you're doing this for a client, so I assumed that means you're being paid or otherwise rewarded. But even if it's pro bono we've obviously no way of knowing that, so in our books you're still considered a paid editor. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

How do I add citations when editing ? I mean , is this a bit like HTML Code ? EmmanuelK314159 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Help:Referencing for beginners might help you. Athanelar (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

thanks a lot EmmanuelK314159 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)