Wikipedia:Teahouse

I am curious why this article was ambushed and deleted? It went through AFC and is the definition of notable since it is at the biggest tourist attraction in LA, is 100 years old and has been in several movies. Plenty of press as well.

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lobster (restaurant)

Can someone tell me how this article was ambushed and then deleted within 3 days in WP:AfC? The comments made in the discussion to justify the deletion, just are not true at all. Seems like this group has a problem with the restaurant that sits at the front of the Santa Monica Pier for 100 years.. Also, the one participant Mer-C was already suspended for being a sock, suspicious deletions and editing...

Does this look odd to you? Most deletion discussion must go at least a week and most go 2-3 weeks.. I hate to accuse people but this seems to be some sort of paid attack on an article that was submitted through afc. Just because someone who was accused of paid editing 3-4 years ago made a version which you have no idea if he was paid to do?

The World Cup, Women's World Cup and the Olympics are coming to the area and we are trying to clean up the Wikipedia for the city for these events. Is there a problem with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I would not say that the article was 'ambushed'. I think it was rightfully deleted after either a self-promotion to article status or a false approval by the AfC reviewer. Do you have any proof at all that this was a "paid attack"?

I will also say that, if you are trying to clean up the city's Wikipedia pages for the Olympics, creating new articles would not be a good idea. It would be wiser to clean up any tagged articles relating to the city. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lobster (restaurant)

Here is an article stating its one of the top 10 most instagrammed places in the world

https://smmirror.com/2012/12/santa-monica-pier-makes-top-10-most-instagrammed-places-in-world-in-2012/

~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Would you mind telling us what the article is? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I apologize, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lobster (restaurant). ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/most-instagrammed-places_n_5679aee6e4b014efe0d720d3 ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@MER-C @Star Mississippi Might want to take a look at this temp account. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Aesurias

They also came to my Talk. GIven the concerns here and at my Talk about using this article for promotion and the multiple deletions and paid promotion and sock puppetry as well as bad faith assumptions that we have an issue with the restaurant itself, I decline to restore this article @~2026-66804-1. You're welcome to file a Deletion Review if you believe my close was incorrect, but I would not recommend that based on the case you've made here. WP:NOTTHEM is also helpful reading. Star Mississippi 02:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I will discuss it with a few others in the office and consider the options. I feel the press the restaurant has over 75 years in more than enough to be included. The article went through AFC and independent review, it has plenty of coverage. The photos were already on Wikipedia from different users over quite a long period.

We've submitted a request to Grokopedia for an article as well. Hopefully that will go better! ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

We have been going through a tough time in the downtown area and working to improve the areas image has been a goal for the current city administration.

https://www.smdp.com/city-manager-outlines-brazen-plan-to-reshape-santa-monicas-culture-economy-government-and-landscape-as-he-says-the-city-stands-at-a-crossroads-between-ruin-and-revitalization/ ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There are outlets for this @~2026-66804-1, but neither Wikipedia nor Grokipedia are the best options. I tink you have a misunderstanding of AfC which does not guarantee retention, just that it has a chance of being kept if someone files for deletion. If you're going to pursue this, which I don't recommend as a new editor as it's one of the hardest things to do, please gain an understanding of how the policies apply. WP:SIRS WP:CORP are helpful. Star Mississippi 13:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"The World Cup, Women's World Cup and the Olympics are coming to the area and we are trying to clean up the Wikipedia for the city for these events. Is there a problem with that?" Several problems, actually. You say "we", is this account used by anyone other than yourself? Or are you saying that there are multiple people editing in coordination? Also, you seem to be saying that you are editing articles here to drive up business for this restaurant. That is at least an admission that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. It also makes me think that you are somehow connected to this restaurant, creating a conflict of interest. You say it is at a large tourist attraction, but there are many things at or near tourist attractions that are completely unknown to the world. There was a local restaurant in my own home town that was open for 75 years, but I would not expect it to have an article here. What makes your 100 year old restaurant any different? "It has been in several movies". Really? To what extent? Lots of things can be seen in the background of movies. That doesn't make them notable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean the employees of the city of Santa Monica... nothing specific to this restaurant except this is one of the properties deemed to be worthy because of the reasons stated..There was plenty of press from the LA Times to the NY Times and many more. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are a city employee? And that you are doing this to increase business to things in your city? That still sounds like a conflict of interest to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

PS -- that "most instagrammed places" list is 14 years old. Instagram itself was only a couple years old at the time. Is this really as impressive as you think it is?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It is in the top 10 every year.. according to this and the other articles it was top 10 in the world for 2012, 2015, and 2016 so far.. I've heard its there every year but, with a quick search thats what I came up with. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.timeout.com/los-angeles/blog/2016s-most-instagrammed-places-in-l-a-120716 ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That link you just posted is for most Instagrammed places in LA. That is not the same thing as most Instagrammed places in the world. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The Santa Monica Pier was ranked in the top 10 most Instagrammed places in the world in 2012 (#10), 2015 (#8), and 2016 (#8). Ask the AI's, like Grok or ChatGPT. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That's the pier. Not the restaurant. And why would I ask the AIs? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the point of arguing the validity of the instrgram lists as opposed to something like notability? There is plenty of press, you can use the AI's to ask them for a detailed history on The Lobster restaurant in Santa Monica and to cite each source after each sentence. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, why would we ask AI? Also, is that press all from the local media? There were articles about the local restaurant I mentioned, too. Doesn't mean it was notable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The LA Times is a reputable internationally recognized press source with editorial oversight. The restaurant is in Santa Monica, CA. Claiming the LA Times is local is like claiming the NY Times is local coverage to NY. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

When the location is that close by, it is local coverage no matter what paper it is in. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

No place in any of the notability requirements that i have reviewed is local coverage not acceptable. WP:SIRS. Virtually every article about subjects in Los Angeles use the LA Times. I am not sure why you are trying to bring the articles validation to an inconsequential article? ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Does any source outside the LA region say anything sbout this restaurant? No. I'm surecthere are hundreds of restsurants in Paris, London, Tokyo, NY, etc that get lots of reviews from local media. To the world at large those restaurants are of no more notability than the lost dog coveres on the local 6 o'clock news.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You state that they aren't here to help build an encyclopedia, but ripping an article of a historic restaurant out of said encyclopedia isn't helping build one. A restaurant that is very important to the Santa Monica Pier, and a part of Historic U.S Route 66. Purdy4prez (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The historicity of something has no bearing on its encyclopedic value; because we are an encyclopedia and not a registry of historical places. We include things because they have been written about in secondary sources, not because they are of historical value (or any other subjective measure of value). Athanelar (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I will keep that in mind as I continue on Wikipedia! Purdy4prez (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Why would anyone be using AI to prove that a topic is notable ? AI hallucination existsToarin (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

People use AI for the weirdest things. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That is why you ask them to cite each source.. It can source relevant articles faster than going through google. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It can also source relevant articles much less reliably than going through google, or any search engine for that matter. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I know the person requesting help is also under scrutiny but i was under the impression that the business only needed 2 in depth articles to meet the notability requirements. This place has articles I could find going back to the 50's if i remember.. https://latimes.newspapers.com/search/results/?_gl=1*qr48o9*_up*MQ..*_gs*MQ..&gbraid=0AAAAADtl_1DhEExDb3cEDxRIDCnpOeeYN&gclid=CjwKCAiAh5XNBhAAEiwA_Bu8FbNGK9X_cNsiTYHKFayBDxtMm5N6uyV0JDQQ3I3T2EyW_jFrD-Xf0RoCuKAQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&keyword=1602+lobster ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The notability requirements for corporations and organisations can be found at WP:NCORP if you wish to read it. Athanelar (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Attempts to create an article about this restaurant have been highly disruptive for years. Advertising is contrary to policy. Undisclosed paid editing is contrary to policy. Sockpuppetry is contrary to policy. Those who have attempted to create an article about this restaurant have resorted to all of those dishonest tactics. I am certainly not opposed to articles about tourist oriented seafood restaurants. I am, after all, the #1 contributor to both Joe's Stone Crab and Nick's Cove, California. I have no connection to either restaurant other than eating at each one once. It is all about the quality of the in-depth significant coverage of the restaurant (not the pier) in reliable independent sources, and neutrally summarizing those sources. The same is true of this Santa Monica restaurant. I express no opinion about its notability but I can say that coming in hot and heavy with promotional language and dark accusations of some sort of conspiracy against this restaurant is exactly the wrong way to go about it. "Ambushed"? "Some sort of paid attack"? Give me a break. Calm, competent editing in compliance with policies and guidelines is the correct course of action. That is what gets results. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Barely any of this is true.. Looks like someone tried to create a page 3 years ago and then it was created again 5 days later.. There is no ongoing conspiracy to create a page for this restaurant that i can see but closing a deletion discussion within 3 days is out of policy unless it was listed as speedy deletion. The article also went through AFC and was approved.. Isn't that the policy for submitting articles that had issues previously? ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The Lobster (restaurant) was:

• Draftified on 4 September 2023 for being 'covert advertising'
• Deleted on 9 September 2023 under WP:CSD#G5 (created in violation of a ban/block)
• Deleted on 23 February 2026 after an AfD

Draft:The Lobster (restaurant) was:

• Deleted on 5 September 2023 under CSD G5
• This means that it was deleted a day after it was draftified per above, and then seemingly recreated directly in mainspace to be deleted again on September 9.

Draft:The Lobster (Santa Monica) was:

• Moved to mainspace on 8 September 2025; the different name was almost certainly a (successful) attempt to evade scrutiny over the previous history of the draft.

So the chronology seems to be;

1. First created as The Lobster (restaurant) some time prior to 4 Sep 23, whereafter it was draftified.
2. First deleted at Draft:The Lobster (restaurant) a day later.
3. Created for the second time as TL (r) in mainspace some time between 5 and 9 September 2023
4. Deleted for the second time at TL (r)
5. Created for the third time at Draft:TL (SM) some time before 8 September 2025
6. Deleted for the third time at TL (r) on the 23 Feb 26

I wouldn't say it's a 'conspiracy,' but the page is certainly a target of persistent recreation. Athanelar (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Why haven't we just salted it already? mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-66804-1 I'm not sure why you keep repeating three days, the discussion was opened on 16 February and closed on 23 February. The community has decided The Lobster is not notable. You're welcome to pursue a draft and AfC, but I think promotion of your city manager's goals is probably best achieved elsewhere. Star Mississippi 01:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-66804-1 Do you have a conflict of interest with the topic of this article?Toarin (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that the accusation "Mer-C was already suspended for being a sock, suspicious deletions and editing..." is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't notice that they accused an Admin of English Wikipedia. Toarin (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Me neither, there goes the last shred of good faith. Star Mississippi 17:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Noting there is a block impacting 2026-66804-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~2026-66804-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per their Talk. For that and myriad reasons, we're likely done here. Star Mississippi 17:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  "No matching items in log"; talk page link is red. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  apologies, it's ~2026-66804-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Star Mississippi 18:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Aside from the talk page of this temp account, I couldn't actually see whether or not the account is blocked. Is it meant to be hidden from public view? Toarin (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Using technical data, the underlying IP has been blocked, so it's unnecessary to block the TA as well. IP addresses are never usually connected publicly to TAs. nil ^nz 05:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Nil NZ Thank you very much for your answer. Toarin (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I am working on a draft article and would appreciate feedback before submitting it for Articles for Creation review.

Draft:Adrian Rocca

I would especially appreciate feedback on neutrality, sourcing, and structure. Thank you! Wikieditor2020abc (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Wikieditor2020abc, I think your draft is good but i think it needs improvement before submission. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Any suggestions on improvement? Wikieditor2020abc (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor2020abc You don't seem to have two or more pieces of SIG COV. Refer WP:42. The Toronto Star article might be one but I can't access it. The draft needs more about his career and his early life and education. (Also, unless he has a national honour, don't put the award(s) back in the lead.) MmeMaigret (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not think your draft currently demonstrates your subject is notable. I also suspect the draft is at least partially AI-generated. Athanelar (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This page is of a similar subject and has been published - tried following the same structure: Moez Kassam Wikieditor2020abc (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There are a great many articles on Wikipedia that would not meet our standards if they were placed under scrutiny; but for various reasons they simply haven't been as of yet. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for why your stuff should exist; it needs to meet our standards in itself. Athanelar (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and for taking the time to review the draft. I understand that other existing articles are not a justification on their own. I will review the draft to ensure it clearly demonstrates notability and make adjustments as needed. If there are any specific areas where the notability appears insufficient I would appreciate any guidance on what could be strengthened. Wikieditor2020abc (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, I noticed that Strings (rapper) was nominated for deletion and reached consensus to delete in 2018. Is there a reason why it still hasn't been deleted? The source that's been added since then doesn't appear notable. Mikankiwis (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The deletion log shows that Strings (rapper) was in fact deleted on 2 January 2018. The current Strings (rapper) article was then created directly into mainspace on 20 April 2018 by now-blocked sockpuppet User:Bann123, likely in circumvention of the deletion. Most of the edits since have been stuff like category modifications and copyedits, so I've tagged the article for speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted article, but it may be declined due to the time passed and edits performed since the recreation. If need be we might have to rehash the AfD. Athanelar (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow that was unexpected but makes sense! Thank you! Mikankiwis (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: Speedy deletion declined, as notability may have changed since 2018. Thx56 | Talk to me! 20:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

hi! am i allowed to copy-paste text from other sources. in my case, "Text was copied from LGBTQIA+ Wiki, which is released under a Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC-BY-SA 4.0) license." was added in my reference list automatically by wikipedia. still my draft is declined for copyright. can someone help me explain why? or in another way, tell me what i should do instead. someone added a comment "inform author" on my draft but i am not sure how to prove that if i did that.

any help? BluBeare (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@BluBeare The issue here may be that other Wikis are USERGENERATED sources which shouldn't be used at all here for the reasons explained at that link. I haven't looked at your draft but ideally you need to put things n your own words as a summary, even if the source is freely available, as many academic papers now are. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Your 'references' section is currently empty, because you haven't actually formatted your references as footnotes but rather as external links directly in the text, which is not proper. Please read through Help:Referencing for beginners and try again. Athanelar (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes; if the other venue has a compatible licence, and you correctly give attribution, you can copy from it, but you must still meet Wikipedia's usual standards for article content, not least for verifiability though citing reliable sources.

Also, note that most other wikis, such as the one you mention, are not Wikimedia projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Where is the best place to discuss Twinkle? Would it be at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle? I would like to discuss whether or not it is possible to expand twinkle to RMs. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 21:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin Twinkle already works on RMs, it's under the XfD module (misleading, I know). HurricaneZeta^C 23:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! If I were going to talk about moving that... where would I discuss that? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Twinkle is fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

All reference is hebrew

how can i deal with this issue Danoola2002 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

references in other languages are allowed, though english is preferred if its available. But you can use the hebrew refs no problem /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Danoola2002, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Tioseafj is right. However, you need to be aware that most other Wikipedias have less strict rules about sourcing articles than English Wikipedia does, so you need to make sure that enough of the Hebrew sources meet WP:42 to establish that the subject meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

They may meet these criteria - some articles in other Wikipedias do - but if they don't you will need at best to find more and better sources, and at worst to give up, as the subject of the article may not be notable by English Wikipedia's criteria.

Please see Translation for more, and for important information about licensing. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Having looked at User:Danoola2002/sandbox and he:חנה אבנור, I see that the Hebrew article has plenty of references; but I notice that quite a lot of them seem to written by Evenor: these will not contribute in any way to establishing notability. I also see that one is a blog - blogs are rarely regarded as reliable sources. Your newspaper citations may be fine - as long as they are independent (not based on interviews or press releases) and contain significant coverage of Evenor (not just passing mentions).

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. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

thank u

i may need a more experienced editor, most of her verdicts are from law system in Israel Danoola2002 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Danoola2002, you're probably right - writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and a biography is even harder because there are more policies that apply. It would be a good idea to wait until you're more experienced. The best way to start out is to just make little edits to articles that already exist, until you start to know how Wikipedia works. After a while you'll be able to work out whether your subject is notable by Wikipedia standards and you'll know how to find good sources, which is what you must be able to do if you want to write an article. Meadowlark (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I've used Wikipedia for at least 20 years now. The admin and editor community here seems very tight knit. I, along with millions, maybe billions, of users appreciate your efforts over the decades. I've made minor edits to articles over the years concerning my alma mater Howard University and other Black American pioneers and icons to maintain accuracy and journalistic integrity. Today I created an account to get serious about helping the Wikipedia community ensure/ maintain accuracy and journalistic integrity. However, I've always noticed inaccurate and biased information on Black American people, Black American history and wider Black American issues/affairs. What does this administrative body plan to do to correct this longstanding issue? Are the editors or admin of Black American articles actual American people (Ethnic Americans)? This is important to accurately represent nuances in U.S. history and affairs. Do you see inaccurate depictions of the Black American community and their history and sociopolitical dynamics as a problem? Have you considered implementing a team of Black Americans to provide accurate information about the community, their history, and their affairs? For clarity, Black American refers specifically to ADOS/FBA also known as Ethnic Black Americans. Not to be confused with melanated immigrant populations of the U.S. also known as recent arrivals post the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. Having arbitrary people depict a community they aren't part of, would be like having Australian Aboriginal people explain the Boston Tea Party. It will lack important nuance and context. Sunshine7887 (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sunshine7887: We very pointedly do not ask about a person's nationality or race for several reasons, so the issue would be trying to figure out who is and isn't a Black American just from the information we can use on-wiki, and that information generally isn't going to be anything resembling conclusive evidence. After all, no nationality edits as a bloc (despite what the ethno-political hellholes suggest) and assuming they do is inherently problematic from a systemic bias standpoint. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Not always but you sometimes have people of a specific culture editing regarding that culture, more out of interest than simply because they come from that race, I usually edit or make articles regarding the history of Grenada where I have family from, but I also have made an article on an ancient Nubian state I have no connection to, I think most edit what interests them whether or not it is their culture (or the few who like to edit war over contentions cultural topics) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The point remains that one can and should not try and determine someone's nationality and race from how they edit, because each person edits primarily about what interests them. They do not by default edit about their own culture if they aren't already inclined to. Assuming they do is in itself a form of systemic bias. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Having Australian Aboriginal people who have digested reliable sources on the Boston Tea Party describe and explain the Boston Tea Party by summarizing those sources -- what an excellent idea, Sunshine7887. Ditto for having Howard U alumni who have digested reliable sources on the Australian frontier wars describe and explain the frontier wars by summarizing those sources. Though, as Jéské Couriano suggests, we normally wouldn't know which authors were which. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, the best thing you can do to address this issue is edit the pages yourself and correct them. Remove the inaccurate and biased information. Be bold! --Sentimental Dork (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Sunshine7887. I see the point you're making, and agree with you that not only for this topic, but for many others, there needs to be a means by which experts can play a far greater role in maintaining the factual accuracy of pages, especially when they pertain to sensitive issues. This, however, is a longstanding issue that is not easily solved. If you'll bear with me, I'll try to provide a somewhat thorough explanation. I do apologize, as its going to be quite long. If other editors think I've improperly explained something, or have pertinent pages or resources that aren't pointed to in this explanation, they're welcome to add them below, or link them in the relevant part of the source code of this reply.

'

To start with, it should be noted that there are no particular page admins or managing editors. This is in line with WP:OWN, which seeks to prevent any one person from taking a position of ownership over what's intended to be freely editable, freely available, and unconditionally gifted informational transfer. Placing a person in charge of any one article would challenge the operability of that guideline, relying on them to supervise a much larger number of articles (which is done far more loosely in many cases by a broader body of editors (see WP:Watchlist)) would become an impossible task, given the fact that the number of main-space articles up on the website is 7,000,000 and rising. Beyond the points raised by other editors on making identity a scrutinized aspect of editing in particular domains, there's the broader policy that anyone can edit any article, so long as they do so in good faith.

'

I think a good example from my own experience of the issue you're describing is the article on the Fur people (though its obviously of a separate subject matter), which I feel is severely lacking in many regards, but which I myself have not had the time nor resources to properly overhaul on my own. Though the page received a great deal of attention on account of the horrors witnessed across Darfur and amid the El Fasher last year, there was very little in the way of substantial improvement made to the article in spite of my best efforts to raise concerns on the page for potential editors that came across it. In any event, the number of page views doesn't necessarily have a direct impact on the number of editors supporting the page. Ultimately, it was less a question of whether or not experts were available to assist, but whether or not those experts, or anyone else for that matter, had the time, energy, or breadth of sourcing available to them necessary to edit in line with Wikipedia's core policies.

'

Not only do experts need to know the truth of the situation, but they must be able to explain it in a manner that's consistent with this project's expectations of limiting bias, undue weight, and neutrality. This limits their capacity to provide summarization of key facts in articles without spending significant time finding a particular source for every statement they make. Though it may be true, information can't remain standing on an article unless there's a relevant source (typically, but not necessarily always secondary sources). What unfortunately results, much of the time, is that experts become dissuaded from engaging with the project, meaning that information added by editors who don't have access to a broad swath of relevant sourcing (as an expert presumably would), which should be granted far more weight, is limited or overshadowed on account of other editors misunderstanding that NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. You might check out WP:EXPERT to see more commentary on this.

'

Part of this relates back to the fact that the community of active Wikipedians is relatively small. You can see on the main page, if you track it closely, that it vacillates between about 200,000 and 300,000 people over the course of the year (we've only recently gotten a clearly picture of that on account of the switch to temporary accounts, as prior to that point one could only see the number of registered editors who were active in the past 30 days; in that regard, making a single edit qualifies you as an active editor, meaning that the number making substantial revisions is significantly smaller, and smaller still if you consider the number of editors that make substantive edits to pages. This Signpost article does a good job of explaining that issue (alongside many others discussed above). Many editors have defined interests that they stick to, and the community of editors engaged with WP:WikiProject African Diaspora is relatively small in comparison to say WP:WikiProject Military History, which is one of the most established and systematized projects on the website.

'

Ultimately, I'd say that it's more valuable to encourage more users to engage with the project than to solely ask that experts be present on account of the points I've raised above, though I agree with you that there should absolutely be a far greater expert presence on the site. Skill in deliberating any topic necessarily builds over time and with experience working with the relevant subject matter, though one's judgement can certainly be clouded by experience as well, which speaks to the need to maximize the democratic character of the editing process, a result of broadening the overall body of editors, or increasing their engagement, and diversifying the interests and backgrounds of the editors engaged in such conversations. I think this collaborative page was recently edited to further deliberate on that exact issue of experts and educators, or the lack thereof, on the site.

'

Considering the question of the need for a greater presence of black editors, I think you're absolutely right. The same is true for women, as well as transgender/non-binary persons, and numerous other historically disenfranchised groups. These pages provide a broader discussion of that, and WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias seeks to find a solution to that exact issue. Ultimately, the only way that any of this improves is if we all work to realize the improvements we wish to see.

'

I hope you find this information helpful, and I'd love to assist you with any larger efforts to realize the goals you've deliberated, or others these resources might inspire you to take on. I hope you're well, and greatly look forward to seeing what you can do. Don't hesitate to reach out to me on my talk page if you think there's something I might be able to help you with.

All the best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Experts may understand a topic better but they're still subject to bias, and there can be make infighting and POV pushing within academia. It could even constitute a COI on the subject in some cases, so I think granting additional authority would be a mistake. Adding better sources should support their position, and could even include their own material if it's reputably published - I assume things like peer reviewed studies aren't considered OR in the Wikipedia sense as long as they stick to the source material. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi all. Having helped translate a few pages earlier on various topics from French Wikipedia, I'm wondering where to go to join the discussion on how archiving will proceed on Wikipedia in light of recent events. Wikipedia.fr appears to make use of wikiwix, a method that I'm not entirely familiar with, but I'd like to know if there is already a specific discussion taking place on the possibility of establishing an automatic archival process (through the Web Archive, or otherwise) when introducing new references, or for existing references that don't already have them. If not, I'm planning to set up a discussion at the Village Pump soon, but would appreciate any thoughts or assistance in advance of that. Hope everyone is well, and will look forward to a response. Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CSGinger14, Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance is where I've seen most of the discussion and planning taking place. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I've found and fixed an incorrect description of data publisher in a citation template: Special:Diff/1342494025. Then I found much more cases of it:

• |first=US Census|last=Bureau
• |last=Bureau|first=US Census
• |first=US Census Bureau

The search query:

• Special:Search/insource:"first=US Census"
• Special:Search/insource:/first\=US Census/

What's the best way to deal with this? I have not checked how many of them there are, so can't tell if fixing them should be done manually or rather by some bot. --CiaPan (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Added the regex search link. --CiaPan (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Much of those are come from the automatic citation create feature, and this happens when the bot accessing the site mistakes the name of the publisher or owner of the site as the citation's author. n.h.huit, 化けの花 13:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

the feature comes from Citoid on mediawiki. n.h.huit, 化けの花 13:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

If those aren't already causing a citation error message, report them at Help talk:Citation Style 1 so that they can be included in the error-trapping code.

Once that's done they will be added to relevant tracking categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. As you know from the title, if I were to propose a change to everything on Wikipedia, where do I go? I can't seem to find if it fits the seven criteria listed here: , so I'm planning to email them. Any ideas? Bruhmoemnr (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Bruhmoemnr, what exactly is it that you're attempting to propose a change to? Everything is rather broad, so it might help if you narrowed down what exactly it is that you wish to change, if you're comfortable doing so.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 I'm trying to propose that to lock a page, you must have some experience on the page to lock the page, and also that if "vandalism" happens, you must need at least 3 vandalism edits to lock the page. So, where do I submit this?

Thanks. Bruhmoemnr (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You can propose ideas at the Village Pump proposals area. However, only administrators can protect("lock") a page, and usually pages/articles are only protected after repeated vandalism or disruption anyway- so I'm not sure what your proposal is attempting to remedy. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

While your good intention is appreciated, there is a snowball's chance in hell of that being adopted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, can someone please explain why this undisclosed disclaimer was added (eg which edits triggered it?) and if there's a way to lift it? Thank you

Helix Sleep. Guitemilechie29 (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Guitemilechie29. It was added in this edit by Jay8g, who thought that some editors of the page were undisclosed paid editors. I see you have disclosed your paid editing, which means you're good, but if someone else was the person making edits in Special:History/Helix Sleep, they will also have to disclose paid editing if they were doing it. HurricaneZeta^C 15:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Would it work to "undo" those changes and flag to Jay8g? Or do I need to somehow find that editor and get them to disclose?

I had another question - it looks like someone removed a bunch of information as "promotional cruft" but I see other similar pages with similar information that was removed (eg Casper Sleep's awards and recognition). What's the difference? Guitemilechie29 (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In a crownsourced wiki with over 7 million articles, articles inevitably vary in quality, many are subject to repeated, and disputable, editing by parties with conflicts of interest, many editors sincerely disagree over content (which is fine, see WP:BRD) and/or make different judgement calls, and no article is ever considered "finished". Maybe the article you cite should be further edited (and maybe your mentioning it here will prompt somebody to do that). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Would it be justifiable to upload a non-free image of Donald Sterling for his page? The current image is so blurry that I would say it doesn't fulfill its encyclopedic purpose of illustrating what he looks like. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @OrdinaryOtter. Unfortunately, we generally can't upload fair use images of living people, as that would violate WP:FREER (a free image could be created, and the WP:NFCCP covers all works that have and could exist). So, we have to use the free alternative whenever possible. HurricaneZeta^C 15:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes displaying no image at all is better than displaying the only image that we have available... This may be one of those cases. I occasionally reach out to article subjects with a link to WP:PICYOU but writers tend to be easier to get ahold of than businesspeople. MediaKyle (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I've removed the image; it's hilariously bad, looking at it feels like I'm a hitman being given a dossier of my target. Athanelar (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I need someone to close an RfC on the talk page for Albert Cashier and I don't know how to go about finding someone to do that or if I'm even the one who's supposed to be asking since I didn't open the discussion. I think we've reached a consensus though. I'm fairly new to editing and I'm still a bit confused but I'm trying to be as helpful as possible. Thank you! Sentimental Dork (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sentimental Dork You can list it WP:CR for an uninvolved closure (make sure that what you write is neutrally worded there though). And welcome to Wikipedia! HurricaneZeta^C 17:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Sentimental Dork (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait, I just checked there and it says not to post something in that area if there is already a clear consensus. On this topic, 8 out of 9 people (or 7 out of 8, I can't remember exactly) are in agreement. Is this a clear consensus? If so, should I just close it myself? How would I do that? Sorry for all the questions. Sentimental Dork (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this one would need an uninvolved closer e.g. someone who hasn't voted or participated in the discussion, so it should be fine to list it. HurricaneZeta^C 17:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

All right, I listed it. Thanks again. Sentimental Dork (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion was closed and the article was updated! Thanks to everyone who helped me! ♥ Sentimental Dork (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello

I recently nominated two of my articles for Good Article review, but they have not received a reviewer yet. ? Is there any reiewer here who could take a look at them?

Wonsan Kalma Coastal Tourist Area

India at the Deaflympics

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@TheGreatEditor024 GA reviews take time and effort, and there are over 700 nominations awaiting review, so it will take some time. If you'd like a quicker review WP:GARC is helpful. Youcan also review other nominations in the same topic area, making sure that review is detailed and thorough. HurricaneZeta^C 16:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

How can I review. I am not a reviewer. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can review, there's no special role for it. Make sure to read WP:RGA and the other guides linked from there. HurricaneZeta^C 17:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Which leads to the obvious reply, how many of the people doing reviews are reviewers? Do you have to pass a test? - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 17:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You nominated India at the Deaflympics previously, it was declined on 27th February you would be well advised to make more substantial improvements before submitting again so soon. Theroadislong (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I did a lot of edits after it was declined, so much that another editor rated it B-class. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@TheGreatEditor024 Your focus on article ratings and GA noms raises a couple of alarm bells for me -- not to accuse you of anything, of course, but I would encourage you to be mindful of WP:HATCOLLECTING/WP:NOREWARD. The point of things like the Good Article system is to recognise articles that are... well, good. It's not always productive to set out with the goal of making something into a Good Article™. Focus on making articles the best that they can be - then before you submit them for GA review, first check them against the criteria yourself. If you think they meet the criteria, then sure, submit them for review -- and then forget about them. As others have said, the good article review process is heavily backlogged and it's difficult and thankless work, so don't expect anybody to get to it quickly. Instead of sitting around chewing your nails waiting for someone to review it, just move on and edit something else in the meantime. Becoming a 'good article' offers no benefit to you or to the article except that it gets a little badge in the corner and on the talk page. The only purpose of that is to recognise articles that are of exceptional encyclopedic value. It's not a goal in and of itself, it's just recognition of a job well done. Athanelar (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I nominated the articles because when I checked them, I felt that they deserve to be GA-rated. Then I searched if I can find more sources to add more info.but I couldnt find any more. So, I concluded as I added all the known information related to the topic.

Secondly, I mainly edit Wikipedia because it helps me to learn new things. It also help me in state-level quiz competitions.

Thirdly, I don't chew my nails. It's gross

I appreciate the remainder about focusing on creating articles and improving existing ones. I am currently working on other topics while waiting for the review such as Draft:Frankfurt Fairy Tale Fountain, etc. Thanks again for the guidance. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse,

My article has been rejected for the second time and I don't understand why. The advice that keeps being given is that I have insufficient references when I don't agree and meet 5 of the WP:PROF criteria.

Please can you hep?

My article is: Draft:Radhakanta Rana

Many thanks Researcher Science Communications (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of the sources only give him a passing mention. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

hello and welcome to teahouse. i'd rather you look at the decline reason(s). also your article lowkey built like a resume or CV, which is not accepted on Wikipedia, and your draft should also abide to our policies on significant coverage (which is linked to WP: Notability) if you want to increase the chances of it being accepted. n.h.huit, 化けの花 04:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, you have too many references, refer WP:REFBOMB but the entire Early life and education and Career sections are unreferenced. Note: every statement in a biography must be referenced. But before you go finding more references, the page (particularly the existing references) needs cleaning up. (I haven't even begun to determine if you have SIG COV.) Refer WP:42 MmeMaigret (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Researcher Science Communications Also, reads like a resume. MmeMaigret (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I recently submitted a draft article for review and was hoping someone could take a look and let me know if it meets notability guidelines.

Draft: Aaron Moore (basketball player)

The subject played Division I basketball at Portland State and later played professionally overseas. The article also cites the book "Play Their Hearts Out" by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist George Dohrmann.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Wikiexpert89 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Declined for lack of demonstrated notability, please see the links in the decline notice for more information. Athanelar (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikiexpert89 I've had a quick glance at your sources. Only one seems to be about him in particular and it's not long enough but also would be considered routine or transfer coverage. @ColinFine has suggested you have a read at WP:42. You need to find sources where he's the focus of the article or chapter, eg a feature article. Your early life section is also filled with too much extraneous info. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I've been around for a bit, but I took a long break and this is a bit of a newbie question so I wanted to ask here if that's okay.

I've been expanding Stewie (cat) and I think I got it to a point where it's not a stub. However, I'm not exactly sure what makes a stub, and if I have done enough to un-stub it and remove the template.

Thank you! PolarClimates (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a bit subjective -- see WP:STUBLENGTH. Personally, I usually say an article isn't a stub somewhere around 300-500 words. Your article is over 300 words, and I would say it's no longer a stub. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! PolarClimates (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

PolarClimates, very short articles are certainly more likely to be stubs than longer articles. But the most relevant criterion is that a stub is too short and incomplete to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject. Not all topics need lengthy articles. In my opinion, this article about an individual domestic cat who was notable for being the largest gives the reader most if not all of the encyclopedic information. Therefore, I upgraded the article from "stub" to "start". Good work. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am pinging my friend DrewieStewie, just for the fun of it. Cullen328 (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

😃 DrewieStewie (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! PolarClimates (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

On a related note, when would it be considered beneficial to add a stub vs waiting until you can flesh out the article a bit more? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

ChompyTheGogoat, that is a philosophical question. I have never set out to write a stub but many editors create large numbers of them. I would rather write one informative article than ten uninformative articles. If a topic is notable, then there should be enough coverage to write a more informative article. But stubs are not contrary to policy. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@PolarClimates The next rating up from stub is start. You can find descriptions at WP:Content assessment. (You can change the rating on the article's talk page.) MmeMaigret (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I attended a fascinating talk by centenarian Joe Peterburs who was a fighter pilot in WWII. I started to capture a BLP and am looking for editors who share an interest User:SageGreenRider/Joe Peterburs; https://joepeterburs.com/bio ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 23:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

SageGreenRider, a biographee needs to be notable, as defined by and for Wikipedia. Will you be able to demonstrate that this man is notable? -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@SageGreenRider You are presently writing this article WP:BACKWARDS. You're going to run into the issue, as Hoary has mentioned, of demonstrating that there is reliable, independent secondary coverage of the man. There is no point in writing an article before you have found sources that show that. Athanelar (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Billmckern Are you able to advise Sage? Maybe a suitable Wikiproject where it can be added as a requested article? It looks like sig cov could be found:

• BBC article
• Mobile Register
• Google Search/News

MmeMaigret (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You could ask at WT:MILHIST. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@SageGreenRider: My quick search indicated that there are enough sources for you to establish Peterburs' notability and prepare a complete biographical article. Service in three wars, multiple awards, and so on should be sufficient. In addition to several Internet articles, I found references to him on Google Books in works going back several years, so you should have plenty to work with.Billmckern (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Found 3 editors that are obviously socks. Problem is they are all blocked. Should I still bring them to SPI? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 00:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Starlet147, if the accounts are blocked indefinitely, especially for sockpuppetry, then there is no need. If the blocks are for a limited time and for something else, then an SPI report with solid evidence may be helpful. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

One isn't actually blocked, one is temp blocked for 31 hours, I don't remember the 3rd one. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 01:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Temp blocked guy is unblocked Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 20:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I tried to start a discussion about a topic that has been disagreed upon in the past. I didn't do the bold thing and edit it, because it had previously reached consensus, but based on some new RfCs and decisions about similar things, I think the consensus will probably be different this time. However, nobody has responded to my proposal on the talk page. Should I start an RfC to get some opinions from the community? Sentimental Dork (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. RfCs are time-consuming, but you can go bold, get it reverted (maybe yes, maybe not), and discuss about it if it apparently goes against consensus. Also, per WP:RFCBEFORE, If you are considering an RfC to resolve a dispute between editors, you should try first to resolve your issues other ways. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC. n.h.huit, 化けの花 02:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I decided to be bold and edit the article. Sentimental Dork (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there any bot that can be used to archive specific talk page discussions based on a filter rather than just date? Specifically, I'm hoping to automate archival of KiranBOT notifications regarding threads here being archived. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. I think you can ask about this at WP:Village pump (technical). n.h.huit, 化けの花 10:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

After looking over a number of the other articles on Amendments of the Constitution they all seem to have a section providing the full text of the Amendment. This article is protected, which is very reasonable but I think the addition of the full text of the 14th Amendment would make the article provide more clarity and increase traffic. I think it omission detracts from the value of the article, as splitting the sections apart into subtopics means that the typical user will only come away with the understanding from the introduction instead of engaging directly with the source material. I've posted this on the talk page as well, but idk if that will be helpful, given the fact it's a protected article. and has seen only small engagement on the talk page. I think some oversight from folks with the correct privileges makes sense. I appreciate any time and attention to this matter and I apologize if this the incorrect avenue to express this concern. Spicygarbage (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Spicygarbage, you have, as you say, already requested this at Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That's probably the one best place to discuss the matter. Anyway, as simultaneous discussions sow confusion, please avoid discussing it on more than one page at any one time. Incidentally, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is only semi-protected: it may be edited only by registered users who are confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old and with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia). That's a very large group of accounts; no search or appeal for "folks with the correct privileges" should be necessary. -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

sorry for double posting both here and on the talk page. I just saw how little traction was on that talk page so I figured this would be the correct venue for understanding the requirements necessary for the change. Given your explanation of the semi-protection status I probably qualify and assumed I didn't. I apologize for taking up your time and attention, I just was nervous about adding a topic to something as significant as the 14th amendment article. Spicygarbage (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The text of the amendment is there just split up under the headings for sections 1-5. MmeMaigret (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue is the legibility of the plain text of the amendment, while it's important to have sections covering each section, not providing the full text reduces the legibility of the article. I don't think the specific text for each section should be removed but if someone is trying to read the 14th amendment in its entirety, they should not have to browse over the majority of the article. also I apologize, I have sidetracked the Teahouse conversation and I think if we want to continue this conversation we should move to the talk page in question for further discussion. I don't want to clog the works Spicygarbage (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Spicygarbage, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment is the longest and most complex of any of the amendments to the US Constitution. The framers of the amendment structured it into five sections. I understand that you think that the text ought to be presented in full for readability. But I think that a logical case can be made that presenting it in five chunks, with commentary and analysis following each section, actually enhances readability rather than detracting from it. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I did go ahead and make the edit, I understand if it doesn't stand. I did not remove the quote blocks from the additional commentary on each section. I think both a full text block and a specific quote block for each section are reasonable given the complexity of the 14th amendment. I understand that is repetitive, but I think the improved legibility for general use case is worth the change. for context I looked through all of the other amendments, and the only other one to split it's full text apart from it's analysis and explanation is the 25th, and in that article the majority of the text is visible on one page given the size of the explanations. Spicygarbage (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, colleagues! Perhaps this question is not entirely appropriate for this place, but I’ll ask it here anyway because I don’t know where else to turn.

I recently received a “Welcome” message from a language section that I am not familiar with. When I checked my global account information page, I discovered 12 new language sections that I do not recognize, which appeared between March 6 and March 9.

As far as I know, these usually appear when a user visits those sections, but I have only visited the Russian, Ukrainian, and English Wikipedias.

I would simply like to understand whether this is normal behavior or if there is a possibility that my account has been compromised.

(Special:CentralAuth/RiiffTower) RiiffTower (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @RiiffTower, and welcome to the Teahouse.

No, it is normal: some Wikipedias send out welcome messages to anybody who visits them (and we can visit them without realising it in various ways). ColinFine (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for your answer, you've put my mind at ease, @ColinFine. RiiffTower (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Most times I open wikipedia I log in and go to my watchlist to see what changes have been made to the watched pages. I will then look at those changes. If there have been a lot of changes to a page I might look at a few and leave the rest til later. Until recently the watchlist would still show that page with a black dot to show there were changes I hadn't seen. Recently the list has shown a white (unfilled) dot and I haven't found a way to alter it. Is there anything I can do? Is this a universal change, or have I made a change to "preferences" or something inadvertantly? Spinney Hill (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like you may have inadvertently clicked the "mark all pages as read" button. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That button has gone grey. Spinney Hill (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Its happened multiple times . I cannot have made that mistake on each and every occasion Spinney Hill (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I am a new editor from India and I have just submitted my first draft for filmmaker Sagi Sree Hari Varma (located in my sandbox at User:Hv2567/sandbox). I have included multiple independent sources from The Hindu(renowned indian Daily), Yahoo News, and FilmInk. Could an experienced editor please take a look to see if it meets the notability and formatting requirements? Any advice to help it through the review process would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

User:Hv2567/sandbox

Thankyou SO much! So happy to be here in this community of contributors! Wikipedia means so much to be and its nice being here! Hv2567 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Hv2567, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You have submitted your draft, and in time it will be reviewed. Please be patient.

(Note that you don't need to use an external link - and certainly not a shortened one - you can just put the whole name of the page between double square brackets, as User:Hv2567/sandbox. (You did that above, but put it within <nowiki>....</nowiki> tags, so that it didn't link. I don't know why you did that). --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Calling all pop music fans!

I need help to edit this draft: Draft:Save Me Tonight (Jennifer Lopez Song)

Thanks, Juan ~2026-15351-42 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am currently attempting to help this user on IRC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

They left the channel. The issue is mostly a language barrier (en vs. es); I couldn't get a straight answer out of them as to which music publications they were referring to in the Critical Response section partly because they couldn't grok what I was saying. When I used automated translation to rephrase my question, they left the channel. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I recently submitted Draft Hemani for Articles for Creation review and was wondering if a reviewer might be able to take a look when convenient. Thank you very much for supporting new editors. ~2026-15235-96 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-15235-96 Please link the draft. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-15235-96, did you mean Draft:Shumaila Hemani? CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 16:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-15235-96, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you @Shumailahemani2026? Please remember to log in.

You submitted Draft:Shumaila Hemani for review on 4th February, and it will get reviewed in time: please be patient. Asking for a review achieves nothing except possibly irritating reviewers.

Are you aware that writing about yourself in Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged? This is because hardly anybody has ever been able to do so successfully.

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

This means that in order to do so successfully, you would first have to find the reliable secondary sources, where people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to write about you, without any input from you or your associates; and then you would have to put aside everything you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources said. Do you see why that is extremely difficult?

Maybe when a reviewer gets to the draft, they will accept it. But I'm doubtful. Many of your sources look to be primary or not independent. And a section listing organs which have published interviews or profiles is useless in an encyclopaedia article (and is something that LLMs love to do - did you use one)?

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but it looks to me as if you have come here for the sole purpose of promoting yourself, and not spent any time learning how Wikipedia works. (And if User:Shumailahemani was you as well, this is the second time you have done so). ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

How and where do you all find your references, especially for discreet and obscure topics? ACDC2326 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

We use google news ,google scholar, JSTOR, Google books, Internet Archive and sometimes The Wikipedia Library. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Another trick you can use is reference mining. For example, suppose you are writing an article about an Olympic athlete. Sometimes it is hard to find sources directly about that person. However, the athlete may be mentioned in an article about their country's participation in that Olympic Games.

Example, if you are trying to find sources about Neeraj Chopra, you can use the references in the India at the Olympics article that gives a significant coverage on him. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

https://scholar.google.com and https://books.google.com are your friends to begin with. When you're eligible for it, The Wikipedia Library is a fantastic resource. Athanelar (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@ACDC2326 Most topics are "discreet and obscure" until you study them and put in the effort to learn. It would help answer your question if you were specific about the topic(s) that you want to write about. Note that there is a template {{find sources}} which is very useful (see linked page for instructions). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

After a WP:HEY effort invalidated my AfD nomination for Meadows, North Carolina, I withdrew the nomination and put a notice on the talk page. It still won't let me remove the AfD notice from the Meadows, North Carolina page. Did I miss a step in the non-admin closure process? SenshiSun (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@SenshiSun I removed it for you, it's an edit filter blocking "new users" (users who are not extended confirmed) from removing AfD templates. Once you reach 500 edits it shouldn't be a problem, but if you hit any more false positives before then report at WP:EFFPR. HurricaneZeta^C 17:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! SenshiSun (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft: Replika Software

Hello, I’m a new editor and I would appreciate some guidance. I created Draft Software and disclosed that I am the founder of the company. The draft was declined due to concerns about promotional tone and possible AI-generated text. I would appreciate advice on how to revise the article to comply with Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing policies, or whether a neutral editor could review the draft and suggest improvements. The draft relies on independent coverage including Business of Fashion, Vogue, and reporting about L’Oréal’s investment. Thank you very much for your help. Kareen Mallet (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Kareen Mallet, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

If a draft is - or looks like - what the subject wants people to know about it, then it is promotional.

The steps to a successful articles are easy to describe, though not necessarily easy to carry out.

1. Find several sources which are reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. "Wholly independent" means that the subject and the subject's associates had no input whatever into the source, whether directly, or in an interview or press release. Note that reporting of routine corporate activities like capitalisation, acquisitions, and notable customers, is almost always from press releases, and so not independent. Almost every source used should meet all the requirements of WP:42.
2. If you can't find at least three sources which meet all those requirements, give up and do something else.
3. If you have found several sources, effectively put aside everything that you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say.

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) 18:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Kareen Mallet (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I recently ran across an article with content which heavily involves a person with a hyphenated double-barrelled name. After the first mention, this person is always referred to solely by the second half of their surname. Is this method correct? I would have thought that with double-barrelled names, you are supposed to mention the full surname each time. If you are supposed to drop part of the surname, what is the rule determining which part of the surname should be repeated? Martin IIIa (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Martin IIIa. I don't know if there is any general guidance. Mostly we should be guided by how the reliable independent sources (on which almost all of the article should be based) refer to the person. It may also make a difference what culture or country the person comes from.

As usual on these pages, it would be much easier to answer if you told us the specific article. General questions are much less answerable and less useful. ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

An annoying video has appeared in the right margin of the Cocos Island page. I think it is inappropriate and would like to edit it out. How would I go about removing it or having it removed? Kudie924 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You can disable birthday mode on the sidebar of the article - this will remove the Baby Globe gif. CoconutOctopus talk 19:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kudie924. The mentioned sidebar may be hidden on a glasses icon at top of the page. It's a user setting and you cannot prevent users with the setting from seeing the animation. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering also has the setting. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you much.  Kudie924 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I recently submitted a draft article for review but it is still pending. Could someone please review my draft and suggest? here the draft link Draft:Mukesh Mishra. Thank you. Yogiin (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

As the review box at the top says, you just have to be patient. There's a long backlog of drafts for review, so it can take a while. 🍅 fx (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your respond Yogiin (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been asked before, but:

Am I allowed to remove other users' topics on my talk page if they get too old? I am worried that with time it will become cluttered and menacing for anyone who would want to post something there. I figured it was allowed, since it is my page, but can't hurt to ask. Emholt1 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely - the only thing someone cannot remove on their own talk page is a declined unblock request. You may want to look into WP:ARCHIVING your talk page - this isn't required, but it is recommended. CoconutOctopus talk 19:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to set up automated archiving for you, if you wish. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That would be nice. Although, where do I go to change the settings? I’d like to know where I can turn it off if I need to. :) (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

See this diff. The parameter names and values should be self-explanatory.

A bot will do the archiving.

Nothing will be archived until there are 5 discussions; at least 4 will always remain (unless you change the settings). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This looks good to me, thanks for the help! Ethan (Emholt1)  :) (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Please don't think I am dumb. The thing is, is it safe to write an article on a underground nuclear or missile-related facility in North Korea. Well, I do have sources, i mean secondary sources that provide a significant coverage on the topic TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

"Safe" how? Athanelar (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I meant “safe” in the sense of whether writing about such a topic could cause issues like the incident involving the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station article. I know that article became controversial after authorities asked for it to be removed, so I was wondering if writing about a nuclear missile facility in North Korea could lead to similar problems.

TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not foresee the government of North Korea getting involved in a legal battle with the Wikimedia Foundation. Athanelar (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay then. I guess it's okay. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I would note that the Pierre-sur-Haute incident was based on publicly available sources in the first place, but if it comes from classified military intelligence or if said intelligence was not made public in the first place, I sort of(?) think that would increase legal risks, but again, I'm agreeing with Athanelar here. n.h.huit, 化けの花 00:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/07/french-secret-service-wikipedia-page TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

So long as you are not in North Korea... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh Okay TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@TheGreatEditor024 Presumably the editors who wrote the now-large article North Korea and weapons of mass destruction didn't run into any problems. You might like to see if your secondary sources would be useful for adding content there or in linked articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a really odd one, but basically there is an IP editor who keeps changing the page Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Rescue Team DX under the Gameplay topic, to change the number of pokemon stated to be available to play as from 16 to 37, as can be seen in these two edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Mystery_Dungeon:_Rescue_Team_DX&diff=prev&oldid=1342703751 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Mystery_Dungeon:_Rescue_Team_DX&diff=next&oldid=1342703751

This is not right, there are only 16. I have reverted it multiple times and even added sources which list the pokemon available. I have posted a welcome message on their page and so on.

What is weird about it is there is a Talk entry under Player Pokémon from 5 years ago which says the exact same thing; that there was a user changing the number of pokemon to 37 asking for advice. The user that posted that talk page message was banned for some reason I guess: Special:Contributions/108.6.20.61

I feel like I've walked into a years long pokemon dispute XD

Any advice or intervention would be very much appreciated. Chattenoir (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You might want to mention this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I recently opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Simner which was quickly and obviously shut down. It's pretty obvious to me 1) I need to read up on my stuff and 2) close it ASAP. Where/how do I do these things? Not that I'll be going back to AfD anytime soon because I'm dumb but just for future reference. Realtent (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

See Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). 🍅 fx (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Realtent I notice nobody directed you towards what you should read up on before future deletions; check out Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process for a primer on how the deletion process works and when it's appropriate. Once you've read that, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion has a bit more detail, as does WP:Deletion process. Athanelar (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer, I'll read it and keep it in the back of my head! Though after that absolute blunder, I think I will keep away from AfD for the forseeable future informed or no Realtent (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a blunder, and it doesn't need to scare you off from getting involved. We encourage editors to be bold and do what they think is the right thing here; and they're not always correct, but that's fine. Your AfD had all of two comments before you withdrew your nom and it was closed; what harm was done? You wasted a couple of editor-minutes of work that could've been spent elsewhere, big whoop. There are editors out there right now shamelessly performing vandalism or inserting AI slop into articles that will take dozens or hundreds of editor-hours to clean up. Nobody cares that you got overeager and bungled an AfD, I promise.

Read up on the process, maybe read through some already-closed AfD discussions to get an idea for how the process works and what kind of arguments are made and policies/guidelines get quoted, maybe vote in a few open AfDs once you think you've got an idea for how it works, and jump right back in to make a nomination when you see an article that you think needs it.

Editors who are willing to boldly try, learn from their mistakes, and boldly try again are exactly the kind of people we want on Wikipedia. So long as you learn from your mistakes nobody cares about you making them; we've all done it, and we'll all do it again. Athanelar (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I hate to tell you but that was a pretty tame AfD. Just people telling you (frankly) that she does in fact meet notability criteria. The issues you highlighted are suitable for tagging the article. But no harm, no foul; I wouldn't think too much of it. MmeMaigret (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I was wondering where I can find the information on WP policy for sources that are non-English. I've noticed some stubs that have a decent chunk of content in other language wikis. Ecoutez moi (talk | contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ecoutez moi. This is explained in WP:NONENG. Basically, the same policy/guideline (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) applies to sources cited in English Wikipedia articles regardless of their source language. If, however, you're going to cite a non-English source, you should be competent in the source language so that you can properly do so. You probably should also not assume that any sources you might find cited in articles on any of the non-English Wikipedias are automatically OK for English Wikipedia. Not all of the other language Wikipedias are as vigorous when it comes to assessing the reliability of sources being cited; so, you'll find lots of citations to sources that would, at best, be considered questionable for English Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

What Marchjuly says, Ecoutez moi. Also, you're likely to find plenty of citations of "sources" that merely talk about this or that -- or, worse, that merely mention it -- and that fail to provide the propositional content that backs up what the article says. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, it's not mandatory, but it is useful to use the |quote= parameter in your chosen citation template to provide a relevant quote from the non-English source which English-speaking readers can run through a machine translator if they want to quickly verify the information. It can be understandably tough for an English-speaking reader to try to parse an entire foreign-language source in search of the part which verifies the information which is referenced to it. Athanelar (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Ecoutez moi, even better, since you speak the language of the source, also add the |trans-quote= param, providing an idiomatic English translation so other users can see the translation in the citation itself. Je t'ai écouté. Mathglot (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Non-English sources are allowed but they can be unhelpful. They're particularly problematic when you're reviewing an AfC and I never cease to be amazed by the people who come to the Teahouse wanting to know why their review is taking so long but they've only inserted foreign language sources with no translations. (Bare references are another bug bear but I digress.) Now that you've noticed the issue, maybe be part of the solution and start inserting translated titles and quotes. You don't have to know the language; Google translated titles and quotes are better than nothing. MmeMaigret (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Automated translation works for most of them, though. The only ones I know of where the translation really stumbles are Arabic (the output is incredibly hagiographical), Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (too context-dependent for automated translation). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not a scientist, however I'm intelligent and have a good command of the English language. In spite of this, SO many Wikipedia articles are unintelligible to any but a tiny percentage of experts. I had thought that Wikipedia was for the general public. Why can't articles be written in a way that is scientifically accurate, but also comprehensible? ~2026-15360-73 (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

We actually do aim for exactly that; there's guidelines like WP:Make technical articles understandable and MOS:JARGON for exactly this reason.

If you've found a particular article which you find to be overly technical or full of jargon, please tell us so that somebody can improve it, or you can simply tag it with the template {{technical}} at the top of the page yourself. Athanelar (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There are also some topics which cannot be made easily understandable to the lay person, such as advanced mathematics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

~2026-15360-73, thanks; can you link three examples here? Mathglot (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

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

eg subst:User:Jacksonvil/Signature

producing Jacksonvil (talk|contribs)

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

Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. I don't think you should,, as users who choose to substitute their signature are required to be highly vigilant of their signature whenever they sign. Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 04:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see much use in substituting a template as part of your signature instead of just modifying the signature itself, considering it is inserted in its entirety every time you type ~~~~ anyway. Athanelar (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I meant to put a subst inside of preferences>signature Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The limit for signatures, even when substituted, is 255 characters though... but again you still gotta monitor the subst signature template a lot n.h.huit, 化けの花 06:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems like asking for trouble. Only you can alter your sig in your Preferences, but if you subst it from another page, anybody could edit that page. A bad actor could replace your sig with their own, someone else's, or with an altered version of your sig that violates policy. Mathglot (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough if the character limit doesn’t expand.. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 10:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

The answer to your first questions is: No. For guidance on how and when we can use other people's images, see c:COM:THIRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@ScottyNolan Copyright is complicated, so I'm not going to speculate on your first question, which would be better asked at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. There is a good tool on Commons for cropping images: see c:Commons:CropTool. It automatically deals with the licensing. All Commons images allow so-called "derivatives", unlike some more restrictive licenses. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! ScottyNolan (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

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

We don't protect articles preemptively, or to prevent changes to a featured article. Even FAs can still be improved. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. (Zakk😎) 13:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Jim Carroll (futurist)

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

A lot of people come here and say the same thing. But as an author, you'll know you often have to meet the style for a particular publication. I've marked up your draft to show you what needs changing to achieve an encyclopedic tone and to remove puffery and promotional material. But you'll also need to convert your table of publications to a bullet pointed list, suggest Chicago ADA style biblio references with your names first etc. However, I didn't even look for SIG COV which is the only way the draft will qualify for a Wikipedia article. Refer WP:42. I'm happy to look after you've made the changes I suggest. It'll be a bit stilted so you can introduce wording to make it flow (but avoid superlatives). MmeMaigret (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

You are allowed to create your own article on Wikipedia, and you have successfully declared your CoI in the header. As editor MmmeMaigret has already done, this article has uncited statements such as "known for his early work on the Canadian internet". The article also contains a lot of signs of LLM writing, such as the repeated lists of publications that the author has been named in. We expressly forbid LLMs to write entire articles on Wikipedia.

Don't let this discourage you, though! Sometimes we all make mistakes and what's important is that you learn from them. It's okay, we're not mad. If you can shape up your draft it is likely it would be accepted. Ethan (Emholt1)  :) (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-15414-15.

One of the things that makes it so difficult to successfully write an autobiography in Wikipedia is this:

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

So the question is, which of your sources meet all the requirements in golden rule? That is, they are reliably published, produced with no involvement whatever from you or your associates, and contain significant coverage of you, not just of your work? ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

hi folks . thanks dor the insight. i have a substantial number of articles that would meet the significant coverage issue, including cover story magazine articles that were done on me. I'll spend some time accumulating a list of these some of which were referenced in my original draft and will post them here with a question as to how I can invest frame these in the draft and not run up against issues. There's also a national CBC TV interview with Peter Mansbridge, the host of the national news, that goes for an hour that is available in the CBC historical archives, as well as other references like that. Perhaps if I can provide a list here some of you might be able to provide me guidance on how to work from here I qualified for an 01 Visa dash person extra extraordinary ability with USCIS how much of this material was also included in that Visa application process. So I have lots of SIG I just don't know how to position it. Dibblethorpe (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dibblethorpe: So, the problem I foresee you running into is the question of what constitutes a reliable source, especially as it relates to notability. First of all, please note that "notability" is a Wikipedia term of art--it's not just "fame" or "known to the public". The basic notability guideline for people, following the general notability guideline, says that "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." It further says that Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. This is the subtlety in writing an autobiographical article that many new users miss. Interviews, in particular, are primary sources, since they're the subject talking about themself, and so don't contribute towards Wikipedia notability. Similarly, a "where are they now"-type article from a subject's alma mater, for example, is not independent of the subject and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. Please keep these in mind while evaluating notability. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I've got multiple things like this:

https://archive.org/details/profit-magazine-1995-jim-carroll

https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2002_link_colourcopy-lr

https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2006businessedge

https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2002feb_budapest_cover_colour

https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-2003may_camag_meet_the_experts

https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-1997_vanc_sun_networks

https://archive.org/details/carroll-archive-1999feb_tocomputes_cover

https://archive.org/details/pga-of-america-jim-carroll-keynote/page/n3/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibblethorpe (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Even a great little cover story from 1989 (I almost got fired for this one)

https://archive.org/details/oa-magazine-1989-jim-carroll

There are literally hundreds more. Independent sources, reliable publications, local and national newspapers, magazines.

There's this interview with the CBC Natiional's Peter Mansbridge:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.3592701

Then I have literally hundreds of third party conference brochures where I'm the opening or closing keynote; some pretty high profile events. Relevant? Useless? Heck, I did an event with Jimmy Wales in St. Andrews in 2011....

So I guess my real question is - how do I package all this into a form that is acceptable to a Wikipedia article. I would love guidance as I continue to dig into this.

And I guess a key question - the draft won't disappear, correct? I have time to work with this?

I'm entirely open to working within the guidance offered here. ~2026-15414-15 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Drafts are only deleted after 6 months of inactivity, unless they are candidates for WP:Speedy deletion, which is unlikely in your case. I suggest you don't try to include "literally hundreds" of citations but submit the draft for review after creating it with just a handful of really good sources. See WP:BACKWARDS for the pitfalls of not doing it that way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The Profit Magazine, Business Edge, and Office Automation articles seem to be your three best sources. MmeMaigret (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. ~2026-15414-15 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:Golden Rule as suggested? If you had, you wouldn't be mentioning interviews.

Also, explain why, exactly, do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Is it vanity? Pride? Publicity? Search engine optimization? None of those are valid reasons for an article to exist here.

If you are truly notable, someone will eventually come along and write about you. Whether that happens next week or 10 years from now or after you're long gone, shouldn't matter to you in the slightest. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

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

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

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

Any feedback before the next review would be greatly appreciated.

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

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

Hello, @Rade Brdjanin, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First, please note that the existence, and quite likely the content, of the article in Serbian Wikipedia, is irrelevant here. Each Wikipedia has its own policies and procedures, and English Wikipedia is said to have one of the strictest set of rules about sourcing, so the subject of an article in Serbian Wikipedia may or may not meet the requirements here.

A typical example of what LLMs love to say when they try to write a Wikipedia article is your section "Media coverage". This is the kind of promotional blather which you might find in a magazine article, but it is of zero interest to Wikipedia.

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

If some of those examples of "coverage" are examples of that, then you can summarise what they say, citing them. But the fact that five or fifty or five thousand magazines name-checked him or printed his photos, or printed interviews with him is of no relevance to Wikipedia - unless an independent commentator then wrote about that coverage. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not post your question in multiple places. You asked, and it was answered on WP:AFCHELP. The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Gaza has been evacuated and bombed per Amnesty International. It's now largely abandoned, and as can be seen on Abandoned village, these empty cities are referred to in the past tense. Also, all of the buildings are gone. Ethan (Emholt1)  :) (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The article starts "Gaza City, often simply called Gaza, is a city in the Gaza Strip..." and continues using the present tense. If there is a specific edit or set of edits that concern you, please identify them explicitly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, is it not even in past tense? Oops. This can be closed then (but it should be in was, due to being largely abandoned) Ethan (Emholt1)  :) (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

After the Battle of Borodino, Napoleon entered Moscow only to find that it had been deliberately abandoned, and left so devastated that he could not winter his troops there. Nevertheless, Moscow did not remain abandoned for long. Wikipedia is not a news source, so it doesn't need to strain to keep abreast of momentary situations. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Hello, @Saintusmojqy, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm sorry, but while the Nature study is no doubt reliable, all you can take from it is the sentence you state above, which is about genetic inheritance, and not about cultural or historical origins. You could probably add that information to the paragraphs starting "The population's members trace their origins", noting that DNA evidence partly supports their traditional claims.

The Photoawards is clearly not a reliable source, as the text about the Bajuni people has no named author and no references: it cannot be used to support anything in the article. ColinFine (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi hello, ColinFine good day and Thank you so much and yes I understand what you mean about the photoawards my apologies.but I’ll like to say by the way the Bajuni are primary historical of native population in Lamu,and the medieval DNA evidenced from Manda and Shanga as you stated reflect Bajuni ancestry.and okay will do could you please fix any mistakes and errors i make I’ll added “ The bajuni members trace their origins and DNA analysis of the medieval remains from the Lamu Archipelago supports traditional Bajuni accounts of ancestral roots among local hunter gatherer populations, alongside persian and arab ancestry established by the 11th century Brielle et al., 2023”

Please Thank you Saintusmojqy (talk) Saintusmojqy (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! See WP:Userboxes#Using existing userboxes and WP:Userboxes#Creating a new userbox. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to add userboxes to my user page but no matter how many times I try to publish the change it just never publishes Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello: If there are external links then try omitting them. If it still doesn't save then try placing the code inside <pre>...</pre> and come back here. The code will be deactivated but we will be able to see what you tried to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I did what you wanted me to do on my userpage please go see it Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

You put nowiki there which doesn't make it save properly. I don't think pre works. OK, here's an idea. Just go into the edit of this section so that you can see the code, and copy and paste

This user is a Wikipedian.

into your userpage. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Copy and paste the specific code, specifically {{User wikipedia}}. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I JUST REALISED THIS WHOLE TIME I WAS PASTING THE USERBOX CODE IN THE VISUAL EDITOR AND NOT THE SOURCE EDITOR!!!! THAT'S WHY IT WASNT APPEARING!!!! Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Glad it worked out! Nice userboxes by the way! Also, you can use {{Userbox top}} and {{Userbox bottom}} to organise the userboxes. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello: You said "I try to publish the change it just never publishes". That statement means you clicked "Publish" but the edit was not recorded for some reason. My reply was based on that. Another time, please don't use that word if you never clicked "Publish". You only previewed and the preview didn't look as you wanted. PrimeHunter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

No I literally clicked the publish button and it looked like was publishing but when it went back to my user page automatically it just...never changed no matter how much refreshed. Anyways its fixed so it doesn't matter Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Hello, @Magicalus. That does indeed look like an error - it was not a talk page of a deleted article, but an archive of a talk page. Perhaps @Isabelle Belato (who did the deletion: "Twinkle" was the tool she used) can comment? ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It technically was the talk page of a deleted article. Somebody created Columbo/Archive 1. Isabelle Belato deleted it and routinely included its talk page Talk:Columbo/Archive 1, a simple mistake to make. I have restored it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Much obliged! For the future, is there a more proper way of reporting such oddities? Magicalus (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Magicalus: Clicking the red link showed the deletion log with the administrator who deleted it (like Columbo/Archive 1). The recommendation is to contact them first but they haven't edited since 14 February 2026 so coming here was OK. This page is watched by several administrators with access to examine and handle it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Hello, @~2026-90335-3, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, it is true.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Almost all of the sources used should be completely independent of the subject - anything based on an interview or press release is not independent. Almost anything from their university is going to be a primary source - usable for verifying uncontroversial factual information, but not helping to establish that they meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. "Web content", on the other hand is just the delivery method, and may or may not be reliable, depending on who published it.

See WP:golden rule for the criteria that the majority of the sources should meet.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

"for an academic" could mean "about an academic", or "on behalf of an academic". If it's the latter, please read WP:BOSS and share that with them, and read and abide by WP:COI and WP:PAID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

No, that is not possible; if you want your edits to be associated with a single account, you need to create a permanent account. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, okay. However, I might be too young for a permanent account. How old do I have to be for an account? ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57078-1: There is no age requirement but see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors for advice. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Won’t I be worse at editing compared to other editors because (redacted) ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors recommends to not reveal your age. Many young editors are better than many older editors. It varies. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not a competition, edits are judged solely on their own merits. Going merely by your posts above, you you have a good command of English (better than many of our contributors, for whom English may be a second, third, or . . . etc. language), and you have asked intelligent and relevant questions. I'm sure many valuable contributions have been made to Wikipedia by people as young as or younger than you. Remember, "On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog". God luck and happy editing! ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

PrimeHunter beat me to it, but I would also suggest that you read that page with your parent/guardian/custodian. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it’s annoying even for an editor with an account who finds themselves editing while signed out. But temporary accounts are rather new so they might add the ability soon. Having said that, lots of us have lost edits over the years. You’ll just have to let it go. After you’ve got 500 edits, you wont care about 10 you made without an account. MmeMaigret (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

They won't be turning temp accounts off, it was done to enhance privacy. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood my comment. The OP asked if edits can be carried over to an account once you set one up. This is a pretty common feature on other sites. I indicated that temp accounts are pretty new and they (the powers that be) may add the ability - that the OP is asking about - later. @Sam Wilson Do you know if this is something in the works? MmeMaigret (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The only way to move edits from one account to another is to rename the account, it is not possible to merge account edit histories or reassign them. Allowing TAs to do that would defeat the "temporary" nature of temporary accounts. A TA user is free to claim in writing that they made the edits from a particular TA. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

It's an article about the ideological term in question, so of course it's going to use the ideological term. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I read the article and it seems fine. It acknowledges the term’s partisan usage in two places. Was the page created for ideological reasons, possibly. But your objection to the name itself is unlikely to be enough for AfD and I can’t think what [does anyone say p.c. anymore?] term could replaced it. Honestly I think it’s a non-starter. MmeMaigret (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs@Mmemaigret I guess I was thinking about it as being about the "abortion industry" itself, rather than the term. The other sections (besides terminology and usage) move away from discussing it as a term. I guess what it really needs is a good fleshing out. Thank you both for your input! NuanceQueen (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Any article about a controversial term is going to go into related areas, as is appropriate to treat the subject encyclopedically. The same situation can be found in, for example, the article about the term gay agenda. It isn't about the topic although it explores that topic as well as the term. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a super helpful reference. Thank you! NuanceQueen (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

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

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

Thanks, Irene

Hi,

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

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

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

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

The first citation is linked three times in the infobox. SenshiSun (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

okay so basically you start one citation with <ref> and end it with </ref> n.h.huit, 化けの花 04:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, @~2026-15685-02. I appreciate your curiosity and willingness to learn, but it is highly discouraged to write an article about yourself. The reason is because Wikipedia can only summarize what reliable sources say, meaning you need to essentially ignore everything you know about the subject of your article and just say what the sources say, in your own words. As you can imagine, this is especially difficult if you’re writing an article about yourself. In addition to that, people will tend to write quite highly of themselves, which conflicts with our policy on writing in a neutral point of view.

As for your question about whether your career meets notability requirements, let me just say that what people typically mean when they say ‘notable’ is very different from what we mean when we say ‘notable.’ It doesn’t matter how much money you have or how many famous people you know personally or how famous you are. What matters is how many reliable secondary sources have written about you in detail.

If you can find enough sources to support a full article, great! You have Wikipedia notability, and an article about yourself is justified (though you’re still not supposed to write it yourself). If you can’t, you’re not notable and can’t have an article. It’s as simple as that. (And it may be worth mentioning that an article about you is not always a good idea.)

Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 02:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NATHLETE for the notability guidelines specific to athletes and sportspeople, and WP:NPERSON for broader notability standards for people. You must satisfy one of these to qualify for an article, though Shadestar474 provides excellent advice above which you should consider before deciding.SnowyRiver28 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Your best approach would be to make this same proposal over on the Wikiproject, where you would have a more focused audience than here at the Teahouse. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. Just wanted to get a general idea of whether it seemed implausible at face value. Jacob Rampino (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Atop Draft:Myles Morrison: "Review waiting, please be patient. / This may take 7 weeks or more". So relax and wait. -- Hoary (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Just having a quick glance, I’d say it’s probably going to be declined. The source titles don’t suggest that any of those articles have SIG COV. I’m not sure why there’s so much information about Telemiracle as if it’s trying to explain how important the event is and by implication the subject and honestly it’s also giving a little AI. Refer WP:42. MmeMaigret (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

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

However, there are a couple of complications.

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

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

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

Bring up the matter on Talk:Emma Thompson. On Talk:Kenneth Branagh, link to the discussion on Talk:Emma Thompson and invite people to join it. (People frequenting one or other of those two talk pages are more likely to be familiar with the biographical complexities of one or both of those two actors than are people frequenting this page.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I've restored your edit, and changed the date on Branagh's article; in both cases, the 1995 date was uncited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

When I noticed that someone accidentally removed this article from Battle for Dream Island, I readded it using the parameter ^[1]. The issue arose when this created a duplicate error since another article cited in the same page shares a publisher (Comics Beat) and an author. I combed through several MOS guides, but all the solutions I found did not fit my predicament; they only pertained to cases where two separate references shared a source. Giovanni Potage (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Now resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, can you clarify what you meant by "now resolved?" Giovanni Potage (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a question: "is the issue now resolved?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. To answer your question: no. As of writing, no one besides me has attempted to fix the duplicate error. Giovanni Potage (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Giovanni Potage, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I haven't looked at the article, but as far as I know, that error means that there are two references defined with the same name (the bit after name=), and that is not allowed.

It doesn't object to, or even notice, if there are two references with the same publisher, or date, or in fact if two separate references are actually identical: it's just the duplicate definition for the name.

So, either the two references with that name are actually the same, in which case, delete one of them, and just use the short form <ref name="..."/> for the second citation; or else the two are not the same, in which case, change one of the names to be different. Reference names can be anything: it's a useful convenience to make them the title/author/publisher and date, but that's not a requirement. ColinFine (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The two articles are different, but they are written by the same author and share the same publisher. I used "Burlington 2025" for the ref names, and only distinguished them by sandwiching the month of publication between the author's name and year. I changed the second citation's ref name to "Comics Beat 2025" but according to this page, a lint error is still present. Giovanni Potage (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Potage The lint error is most likely caused by the name ("Burlingame") being used multiple times (in this case, the cite news template) throughout the article; I think it can be safely ignored. Jolly1253 (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, can I explain the problem in more detail? Giovanni Potage (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to ask! Someone will help, even if I'm (or any other named editor is) not around. BlueStaticHorse (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@~2026-15418-59 Refer to the Template:Cite template, which helps with source formatting. If you add this from visual editor (type "{{", and then type "Cite" and press enter; alternatively, click on the big double apostrophe button on the top bar), there's a visual guide that helps you type in the fields. We also have a variety of citation templates, such as Template:Cite book, Template:Cite journal, and Template:Cite web. n.h.huit, 化けの花 11:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. ~2026-15418-59 (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-15418-59 Oh and the actual citation for Harvard style is Template: Harvard citation. 😞 n.h.huit, 化けの花 11:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-15418-59: I'm not quite sure what you're doing but I suspect the issue is consistency. When I go to source editor and search Miller, these are the results:

• Miller 2002
• Miller_2002
• Miller2002
• Miller|2002

Why don't you change them all to just "miller". MmeMaigret (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Those are the citations made automatically using the built in tool. I did try changing "Miller 2002" to "Miller 2002" because I thought that the issue was the space, to no luck.

I was going to convert the automatic citations of the book to one source but the Harvard ref template did not work. Thank you for the help ~2026-15418-59 (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Main independent sources:

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

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

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

Just from these, I'd have to say no.

There are like 40,000 IEE Senior Members, so while that may be useful in an article, it doesn't really establish notability. Neither do comments or a lecture made by Rashidov. Nor do articles by Rashidov. That leaves the Gabrovo News and Digital Industry, but I can't find the content you're referring to, so I have no idea if these constitute significant cover of Rashidov.

Now, Rashidov might be notable for other reasons; that would require more research. But I think you're kind of getting notability in the Wikipedia sense not quite right. The idea isn't trying to simply find things Rashidov did or said, the goal is to find reliable sources, independent of Rashidov, that are covering, discussing, describing, or analyzing Rashidov, and not just passing mentions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That is helpful.

I understand that the current set of sources may not be enough to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. I will look for stronger independent sources that discuss Rashidov in more substantial detail, rather than simply quoting him or reporting events. Georgiev1972 (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

 Courtesy link: Draft:George Butler Sutton

What sort of help are you looking for? Athanelar (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The resources I've found are somewhat insufficient. There are very few written sources. Currently, only 3-4. Cedricmarkus (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

{{find sources}} is a very helpful template. In this case it outputs

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Athanelar (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Your second source is good; your first not so. You need more sources, of good quality. See WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. See WP:42 and our policies on the notability of organizations and companies, but you should also learn how to make your first Wikipedia article too, as that's a helpful guide. Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 12:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly please read and follow WP:PAID—it's mandatory in your circumstances.

Then read WP:42 (which addresses your question) and WP:PROMO.

If you then wish to proceed, see WP:Your first article and follow this process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah right I almost forgot. When you're working with a company to get an article about them on Wikipedia, or have been paid by them to do an edit/write an article, that means that you have a conflict of interest, or COI, with us. It sounds scary, but generally speaking, as long as you disclose your COI (guide: WP:DCOI, like, you have to do this) and stick with our content policies and practices (as you're seeking to write information in our site, pretty much), especially regarding neutrality and other stuff I and Pigsonthewing have linked above, you're good.

You should also note that no one on Wikipedia controls or owns articles. If Wikipedia hosts an article about you or your organization, others may add information that would otherwise remain little known.

For more details, see WP:COI. Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 12:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

A simpler explanation is over at WP:PANDSCOI n.h.huit, 化けの花 12:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-15605-30. It's worth asking, Why do you want Wikipedia to have an article about your brand? (It won't be "your page", by the way, as others have said). If it's "to tell people about our brand", or "to enhance our online presence", then that is promotion, and forbidden on Wikipedia.

The only meaningful answer is "to collect in one (very visible) place what people have said about our brand"; but you do not control what people might say about you. If what they have said is not entirely favourable, then the article will not be entirely favourable to you. Is that what you want? ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Welcome to the Teahouse, Buv16. Sources don't need to be available online to be acceptable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), but they do need to have been published in some form. Could you give some more detail on the nature of the source material you have in mind here? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll have to check when I get home, but if I'm remembering correctly it's mostly obituaries. I'm a descendant of Henry Ives Cobb, and it was all collected as part of tracing back my family tree. And yes, I know it's a COI, but I doubt anyone outside of my family is going to have all of these obituaries in one place. Buv16 (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If you mean obituaries published in a newspaper or a magazine, those should be acceptable as sources. You can cite them using the cite news template that BlueStaticHorse mentions below. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! You can cite a book by inserting the {{cite book}} template, and then filling in the information. If you would like to cite a newspaper, use the {{cite news}} template. An example of how to do this is on the template page. Information does not have to be online to be cited.

BlueStaticHorse (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

This is word salad and incomprehensible. I will note the TA has been edit-warring at Ledići, replacing the name with "Dedići". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Another note: There is an article for a village called Dedići, which appears to have a different set of coordinates and is in Srebrenik, not Trnovo. SenshiSun (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! On Wikipedia, ChatGPT is not a reliable source. If you ask ChatGPT for what sources it used, you can use those sources though, if they are reliable sources and meet Wikipedia's policies for sources. BlueStaticHorse (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Teahouse community!

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

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

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

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

If you don't get any useful advice here, try asking at WP:Village pump (technical). Athanelar (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you know why your IP address is blocked? ~2026-57078-1 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It's difficult to look into this without knowing the IP involved. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Welcome to the Teahouse! I would recommend checking the sources before including them in an article, but you can use other articles to find sources. BlueStaticHorse (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lamadama Well, clearly you can (with attribution, see WP:copying within Wikipedia) but as you have discovered, that is unwise in many cases. It can be especially bad if you copy from a foreign-language article or one where a chatbot has been used, owing to hallucinated references. Best to be careful! Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy article: Violence against Christians in India

See WP:NPOV and WP:VOICE, which are our policies on neutral voice and toning, and the latter in particular being about "Wikivoice". Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 00:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

See WP:42 and WP:Notability (people). Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 00:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Interviews don’t count towards SIG COV. Refer WP:42. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

SIGCOV means WP: Significant coverage by the way. ^^ n.h.huit, 化けの花 04:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

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

You can, but you'd have to make it clear to them what we require in terms of copyright (namely: anyone can use the image, not just Wikipedia; for any purpose, including commercial; free; forever; without asking permission; as long as credit is given).

As for how to include an image in an article: simply add "[[File:example.jpg]]" into the article's source. DS (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, DragonflySixtyseven . . . no. The article Arboretum, for example, starts with [[File:arboretum.westonbirt.750pix.jpg|thumb|upright=1.4|Autumn colours at [[Westonbirt Arboretum]], [[Gloucestershire]], England]]. If one were to simplify that to [[File:arboretum.westonbirt.750pix.jpg]] the result would not be good at all. Itsaclarinet, for an explanation (actually a parallel pair of explanations), please see Help:Introduction. -- Hoary (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

What are the most informal welcome templates? ~2026-15797-57 (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-15797-57, you can find the welcoming templates at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates or WP:WT on your search bar.

There is an informal one called {{subst:W-informal}} RoyalSilver 03:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-15797-57Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Almost every welcome template is informal in some ways, and it's probably Template:W-informal, but you can also reference other Welcome templates are WP:Welcome templates. Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 03:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

at* n.h.huit, 化けの花 03:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)