Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1283

why does this tea house doesn't have any tea, and if I really think about it, where is the actual house Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for serious requests and questions only. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

ok 😢 Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello fellow history enjoyer 👋 I like your history themed userboxes, I probably should make some too 😅 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

yeah you should it get like pretty fun trying to hunt for other userbox Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I like some of your niche ones like “ This user wishes to own a VW Kübelwagen.” or “ This user great granpda was a admiral of the soviet navy.” I also noticed one on family history, a topic I enjoy greatly as well Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

yeah i used to have a whole paragraph about it BUT i delete this because it was kinda un necessary Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Well that’s a shame, but I see your reasoning, my relatives come from a lot of places, not so many military persons though, a couple, the highest being in the position of Captain (but that was a couple hundred years ago), more recently I have a great Granduncle who was a Sergeant, and then lower ranks for most of the others. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

yeah my ancestor tends to be in the navy Nerd-in-history (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Nice 👍 mine were more land folks Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Asking for tea seems to be an established tradition here. Welcome!

🫖

And it IS supposed to be FRIENDLY help for your questions, so don't pay any attention to the harsh reception from one person who hasn't been here lately. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

sorry dude i just didnt know it for serious stuff Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The rules here seem to not be as harsh as some other places. I'm used to stricter areas, and didn't quite understand that policy here is much less stringent. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you for telling me, also if you know a place where it un serious please tell me because, im more a unserious guy Nerd-in-history (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I would suppose your talk page would be the most unserious, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic site it’s not really like a forum like Reddit, although discussions are free on talk pages (as far as I am aware). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

There are a few joke articles clearly listed as humor that you can contribute to. One of my personal favorites is WP:NOTO, which lists some things that Wikipedia is obviously not for. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

k Nerd-in-history (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not super serious here, but it is just for questions about how to do things on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have a place that's for just hanging out and talking about stuff, and it doesn't want one. But kind of finding a friend who you get along with and sticking a message or two on their personal Talk page is OK. As long as you remember everybody can always see it and you have to ALWAYS follow Wikipedia rules, even there. (Extreme example: if you "privately" say very bad stuff about someone, you still get banned from Wikipedia even though it was only a talk page.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

ok thank you for clearing my minds about it Nerd-in-history (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Afraid of Monsters (video game)

I need to cite some credible sources, but the problem is the video game/mod is incredibly niche. I need someone to verify if these sources are sufficient for resubmission CosmicMan1125 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

If it is “incredibly niche” then it probably doesn’t qualify as an article (there are exceptions to that), the article isn’t really properly sourced and one source is YouTube (generally not used).

As a gamer myself most niche games and especially mods aren’t usually made into articles as they don’t have significant and in-depth coverage. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

As niche I ment in a general overview of famous game review sites, like IGN and PCGamer.

It is very well known as the predecessor for Cry of Fear (video game) in the indie horror genre. CosmicMan1125 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, well game review sites don’t need to be included if there are other reliable and in-depth sources, I would advise you to remake your sources as currently they aren’t formatted correctly and some of your sources might get picked up as being unreliable or not independent. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

well the reviewer for my article said review sites were where to start, but I guess I'll take your advice. Can you inform me on how to list my sources? It's really confusing. CosmicMan1125 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I would also say review sites are where to start, but if you can’t find any mainstream ones then I suggest finding other ones and other mentions which are in-depth and reliable.

the best way to make citations is by typing “ <ref> “ which automatically brings up the references box where you can place your URL, then if you want to add a comment about one of the sources you can add footnotes (which I can’t help with as I can’t really do them properly 😅), but someone else will be able to help with footnotes. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Would Richter Overtime be a reliable source? He was given early access to the mod by the creator in 2005 CosmicMan1125 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Well he wouldn’t be totally independent, so that source could only be used in limited amounts, not entirely sure where a source like that could be used, Wikipedia articles on video games aren’t my strong point, perhaps you’ll be able to find even more help at Wp:Wikiproject Video games Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@CosmicMan1125 Please see WP:42 for details on what makes a good source. Athanelar (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Should navboxes contain redlinks? I found a redlink in Template:Switchfoot and removed it, my edit was presently reverted. I'm wondering as to what the guidelines are on this topic. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 18:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Quickly reading over the policy, it seems that yes, redlinks are allowed. However, you are more than welcome to try your hand at creating an article to fix it. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

A red link means someone thought there should be an article about that. They may be right, so it's usually best to keep them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I found this page Karuthal (2026) and it’s about a film which is releasing tomorrow (or I guess a couple of hours for India considering they are in front of the Uk where I’m from), and I’m not sure whether I should just mark it as patrolled, or draftify it per too soon and the draftify rules, or to just leave it. Some if the grammar is a little weird, one humorous example is:

“Karuthal was released theatrically on 6 February 2026.” Despite the fact that the 6th Feb. 2026 hasn’t happened yet. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I would just leave it be. I just checked and the problem is fixed. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your insight Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm new to the Teahouse, but I am always willing to help a fellow editor. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I’m also always willing to help a fellow editor, in fact you have been an NPP reviewer just a couple more days than I have (I started on the 12th Jan., and according to your logs you started on the 9th Jan.) so around the same time, which is nice to see Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The backlog is horrid and more experienced editors seem to have taken notice and joined NPP to do something about it. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes hence why I joined, I also joined for both NPP and AFC too Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Jake Burton Carpenter - founder of Burton Snowboards April 29th ~2026-80597-4 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't have categories for births by months or days, only by year, and Carpenter is already in Category:1954 births Athanelar (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the OP means add that man's name to the WP article "April 29th" under the section Births. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, @~2026-80597-4 Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit; including you! I'm sure someone who sees this will end up doing it since it's a minor change, but I strongly encourage you to take the step of doing it yourself, the page doesn't seem to be under autoconfirmed protection or anything that would prevent you, only pending changes. Athanelar (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse folks! I’m hoping for some advice or help from a neutral editor.

I’m an author and the subject of a potential biography, so I know I shouldn’t write it myself. I’ve been learning the ropes by doing neutral edits and would love help drafting or reviewing an Articles for Creation submission, if anyone’s interested.

I believe I meet author notability guidelines and can share reliable, independent sources. Totally understand that AfC review is independent and outcomes aren’t guaranteed.

Thanks very much! BaileyOnWiki (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

For a start, please refrain from using AI to participate in discussions here on Wikipedia. If you want people to put in the effort to help you, it goes a long way to first make the effort to speak in your own words.

If you want to write a draft about yourself, first read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:PROUD, and if after that you still want to write the article, then read Help:Your first article and follow the WP:Articles for creation process.

Remember that when writing about yourself you must forget everything you know about yourself and only summarise information which is available in suitable sources about yourself. Athanelar (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

And it bears mentioning that the vast majority of people who set out to write articles about themselves are not successful, and you are highly unlikely to be the exception. Athanelar (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @athanelar. I really did not mean to be disingenuous. I am a little older and I admit to leaning on AI to help me learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia. I've been treading very slowly, trying to get the lay of the land without alienating myself. I may have already done so, and I apologize. I will continue to try to learn before posting again. BaileyOnWiki (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You certainly have not alienated yourself; and using AI is about the worst possible way to learn Wikipedia, not least because much of what it tells you will be complete nonsense. We are very welcoming to newcomers who make a good faith effort to learn and participate; being bold is one of our core principles.

It is however also true that trying to write an article about yourself is almost universally a bad idea and not a productive way to participate here. Athanelar (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm making a stats userpage for myself (for personal reference), where can I view a live edits # for myself (undeleted edits)? I feel like I've seen it somewhere, but I'm not sure where. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Try x-tools:

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ Pietrus1 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I was about to also ask for edits by namespace but that's on there as well. Again, thank you. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

what sort of edits if more than one edit where made to the following pages:

• Template:25 biggest cities of Norway
• Template:42 most populous cities of Norway
• Template:30 most populous cities of Norway
• Template:40 most populous cities of Norway

Logoshimpo (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Logoshimpo, could you clarify what you mean? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

did they all redirect to {{Most populous urban areas of Norway}} or were there more than 1 edit? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking? Your comment is unclear. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

how many edits were made to these templates or were they just redirects? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Logoshimpo.

I don't know what you mean by "What sort of edits"?

Also, none of those templates exist.

Do you mean Template:Largest cities of Norway or Template:25 largest municipalities of Norway? These are different templates; and I can't find the other three at all. ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

They were all previously deleted, so I suppose they're asking what the edit history of those templates were prior to their deletion. Athanelar (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

that's correct. what is the edit history of the 4 templates i listed? did they all redirect to {{Most populous urban areas of Norway}}? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Since the templates are all deleted, only admins can view the edit history. And of course they don't redirect to {{Most populous urban areas of Norway}} now because they are deleted completely instead of being made into a redirect. If you want the templates get undeleted, see WP:RFU. ~2026-79950-2 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

See the log for deletion and move records. For example, ~2026-79950-2 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

which 3 are you referring to? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

They seem to have had some connection to block-evading "Amss125". Why do you ask? -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

i'm interested to see if the templates had been moved from one template to another. Logoshimpo (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Number of edits for that list of deleted templates: 4, 1, 3, 2, respectively. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

edit war at Jimmy Knowles(footballer) I've never dealt with an edit war before, what to do? Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 01:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You can report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if that anonymous editor reverts again. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The anonymous edit-warrior has been blocked for 31 hours. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Would anyone more familiar with the back-end of templates be able to figure out why, for example, the "Yearbox US | 1950" template on 1950 in the United States is linking to Timeline of the history of the United States (1950-1970), rather than the correct article, Timeline of the history of the United States (1950–1969). This issue is present from 1900 in the United States through to 1989 in the United States. I have not been able to find where it's getting these red links from, with the years off by one and lacking an en dash. Thank you. Staryu★ 07:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

My guess would be because of this series of edits to {{Year in the United States}}. I've fixed it, I believe. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 08:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

transferring a sandbox article into a "real" published wikipedia article. Pippola3 (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have moved your sandbox to Draft:Alexander Liebreich. You should go via our WP:AFC process now. If you have used part of the german language article to write yours, you will need to attribute it, see Wikipedia:TFOLWP. Lectonar (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added the AfC submission template. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you, will now ensure the short excerpt based on part of the German language article is attributed.k

Pippola3 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I added 5 public domain photos to this wikipedia page using "multiple image" template, the issue's that all photos are in different dimensions (from square to very rectangular), so they get resized differently (making it hard to see some of them unless you click to enlarge), the captions are also varying lengths, so it just looks bad imo (at least, on desktop view).

The "width" parameters are confusing to me, I'm not sure what's wikipedia page's max width, if I put nothing the template goes over the main article barriers, so I put width settings as "total_width = 900" right now. Is there perhaps a way to align all these photos in two rows instead of a single long one? Or is there a better template for this? Occisors (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

For that, it would be best to use <gallery>. There are many options, it auto-wraps into as many rows that are needed, handles captions, etc. See my user page User:Anachronist#Images I created for an example where the captions appear when you hover a mouse over them, which isn't the default behavior. See Help:Gallery tag for instructions. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow, your gallery looks amazing (both the layout and photos)! And thank you so much for editing the Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn page - it looks so much better. I played around to make it a bit more concise, Gallery Tag is so much easier to use than Multiple Image template - I spend sooo long on trying to figure it out. :| Though, I was wondering if there was a way to arrange images "percolumn"? As in, have different amount of images per column like here (i.e. 1st column has 1 image, 2d column has 2 images)? I looked through Help:Gallery tag instructions, and it only has "perrow" attribute. Occisors (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe that's possible unless you fake it by having each image set to a constant width. The width= parameter might do that. Even so, if the heights are different, there would be gaps in the columns because the gallery is still arranged by rows. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I converted it to a gallery, which now wraps to two rows on my laptop, probably more rows on a mobile device. You can fiddle with the parameters until you get it how you want. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yesterday Weezer announced 1192, which is going to be their 3rd demo tape but re released for Record Store Day on April 18, I was wondering if I should make an article on it. If I do end up writing it, what sources could I use? -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 20:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

If the release is covered by independent journalism, it might be notable enough for an article. You could search for news sources that cover music? 🐟sea cat :3 (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My generic suggestion is to add to an existing article like Weezer, Weezer discography, or List of songs recorded by Weezer. Then, if the sourcing shows "1192" meets the criteria for a standlone article, it can be split from the existing article. What sources can be used depends—for examples of how to evaluate sources, you can consult the examples at WP:RSPS and WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 I'll check it out, thanks!! -Weez3forever (ttm!)-(contribs) (check them out! Weezer) 16:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Could someone please update this page? It's very out of date and I'm not good enough to edit the whole thign. List of New York Rangers players Kivi36 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You could slowly edit the whole thing, one edit at a time as opposed to all at once. Not all Wikipedia editors have the time to fulfill requests, many recommend people to be bold, even if just small edits working up to a fixed page at the end of it Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kivi36 The other alternative is that you post a simple message on the 'talk page' of that article, outlining your concerns over any errors and ommissions. Someone who already watches that page might find it a useful prompt to fix or update things. It'd really help if you explained there exactly what's wrong with it, what needs fixing, link to any good quality sources that you've found that contains any relevant information they might be able to use.

To be honest, it looks an extremely complicated page, so I fully appreciate why you might feel relectant to try editing any of those tables. I probably would be too! Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking of uploading an image to Wikipedia under WP:F. As WP:IMAGERES states, uploaded non-free images must have a low resolution. I used this tool to calculate the size, however the problem is that this image is way too small for commentary and mostly useless. If I uploaded it with a higher resolution, the bot would simply decrease it to a resolution I know is too small. How can I handle this exception? What should I do? Lekritz (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Lekritz! The policy states that the resolution should be the lowest where it can still be understood. You can keep the image at a small resolution that is larger than the tool's resolution, and you can include this template: {{non-free no reduce}} to indicate that it purposely exceeds the recommended resolution. Hope this helps! ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 17:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

How should lists of species be organized? I'm looking at the List of amphibians of Florida and the order seems random. Should it be alphabetized, and if so, by common name or scientific name? Neon coyote (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

If you alphabetize any list, it should be by whichever kind of term is visually obvious for that list. So if this list was alphabetized, it would have to be by common name - unless you first reformat the list to put scientific names first. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

i have no clue what to write a wikipedia page about AshlynnForest (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new Wikipedia article is not the only or even best way someone can contribute to Wikipedia. Many people are significant contributors to Wikipedia without creating a single new article. We have millions of articles, most of which are in need of improvement in some way. I suggest you look at some articles about topics that interest you and see if any of them need fixes or changes. Once you build up a good amount of experience and knowledge about Wikipedia, you can then attempt the difficult task of writing a new article via the Article Wizard.

I'd also suggest using the new user tutorial before editing. Good luck. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, AshlynnForest! You don't have to start editing by writing an article; in fact, we often encourage newcomers not to. Writing an article requires being familiar with a lot of Wikipedia article policies, and it's easier to learn those first by editing existing articles. You can find some suggested edits to begin with at your homepage, if you like. If you do still want to try an article, you can see some suggestions at Requested articles, but I highly reccommend reading the Your First Article help page first, as it can be challenging as a newcomer. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't even have to edit anything! If you're only here to read, that doesn't make you a freeloader, just a normal user of Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Creating ridiculous content like Draft:Bananas are the best fruit is likely to lead to a block per WP:NOTHERE. Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I have been on Wikipedia for 30 days and have made 500+ edits since I created my account! Please explain why I was not given the "Extended Verified Users" status? Can you please explain? (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC))

You do in fact have extended confirmed privilege.

If you go to WP:XC you'll see the box says Your account is extended confirmed. Athanelar (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar. Thanks! {{Infinitywiki2 (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)}}

to be a little unfair, judging by their logs, that seems to have happened 17 minutes after this question was made. this isn't all that relevant, since it only really means the automatic addition of the perm might not be immediate consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Consarn. Oh yeah, the "Enhanced verified users" status was automatically added to my Wikipedia account! Thank you! (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC))

@Infinitywiki2: You appeared to have gamed your extended confirmed permission by making pointless edits in your sandbox. This is not allowed, and your permission may be revoked by any administrator. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen. Sorry, I was practicing editing there! {{Infinitywiki2 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)}}

It grants when you try to make your 501st edit HurricaneZeta^C 18:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Understand! {{Infinitywiki2 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)}}

Hi, is there some tool that shows statistics of my contributions? I'm mostly interested in seeing how many of my edits are "actual" article edits vs vandalism reversions or talk page messages. 🍅 fx (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Xtools is a great place to see your total edit count, edits by namespace, and much, much more. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This does exactly what I want, thank you so much! 🍅 fx (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You are far from the only person who wants those statistics. I use it somewhat routinely to take a peek at my edits myself. I'm glad I could help you! CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Flexagoon At the bottom of your contributions page you will find a link called "Edit statistics" which is a direct link to a very detailed summary of all your contributions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

That is not my contributions page that you linked, it's a different user 😄 But yes, I see the link now, thanks, that's very convenient! 🍅 fx (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having some trouble with references while using the VisualEditor. While copying some buildings from List of tallest buildings in Vancouver, Burnaby, etc. to the page List of tallest buildings in British Columbia, I was devastated to find out that the references weren't copied properly. All of the copied references now redirect to the same specific website. I have just been copying rows from one page to another. Everything else is preserved. What's going on? I'll have to manually re-do each reference now. LivinAWestLife (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

When copying content from one page to another, it's better to use the source editor, since then you know you're copying the exact source.

Also, make sure you attribute the copied text in your edit; ("Copied from [source article]") Athanelar (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, although the text in Vancouver, Burnaby, etc. is also primarily created by me, would I still have to credit it in that case?

Will use the source editor in these cases, but does this explain why copying references sometimes goes faulty? LivinAWestLife (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you still have to attribute the copied text - precisely so that we can all know you wrote it.

I can't guarantee that using the source editor will fix your reference issues, but if it doesn't then the problem will be easier to diagnose. Athanelar (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar @LivinAWestLife Strictly speaking, not all copying has to be attributed. The guidance on that is at WP:NOATT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with @Athanelar .. would try to use source editor. LionmerterTHE (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

If I'm taking a university course and there is information in my (undergraduate) textbook that is not on Wikipedia but could be relevant to an existing article, is it allowed to add that information and cite my textbook as a source?

It seems like textbooks are generally considered reliable sources, but maybe there's some other policy I'm not aware of and this would be considered original research or something.

(I am aware of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and I'd obviously summarize the information in a proper encyclopedic style) 🍅 fx (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not original research, that would count as a book for a source. You should be fine. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

When I was last at university, Flexagoon, a substantial minority of courses used as their textbooks PDFs of what the respective authors intended as drafts of books to be submitted, after debugging and rephrasing, for conventional publication by university presses and the like. I don't remember how these were distributed to us but it would have somehow involved the university LAN and not the web. A notice at the top of the file asked us not to distribute it further (and perhaps also invited suggestions). Are the "textbooks" you have in mind like this? If so, then no, you wouldn't be able to cite them. But if they're conventionally (and not vanity-) published, they should be fine. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I accidentally visited French Wikipedia and was surprised by how nice everything looks. Almost every single template or WP: namespaced page looks more modern and pleasant than the English counterpart (This is not to say English Wikipedia is ugly, it still looks pretty good, especially with 2022 Vector. The French version is just even nicer).

I've seen Wikipedia:Perennial proposals and I understand the issue with redesigning the main page. But compare for example Wikipedia:Graphics Lab with fr:Wikipédia:Atelier graphique. The English version looks much more dated in comparison. (I like the English Teahouse design more than fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux though, but the colored status bars on top of every questions on the French version are very nice).

How did they achieve that? Is there some place where template design is discussed by the community, or is it a systematic overhaul that needs an RFC and admin action?

And slightly unrelated: their talk pages have a different design (some messages have a blue background), despite both wikis using the same Vector 2022 skin. How is that possible? And where is stuff like that discussed as well? 🍅 fx (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am an infrequent editor with a disclosed COI. I am following the rules by only using Talk page requests, but I am struggling with another account that appears to be an undisclosed Single Purpose Account (SPA).

The Issue: An established article, Cerebral organoid, was unilaterally moved to a generic name, Neural organoid, without any discussion. While "Neural Organoid" is a broad umbrella term, the original page specifically covers a distinct, historical protocol. Moving it conflates a specific discovery with a general category. I have a draft ready for a separate "umbrella" page to fix this, but I'm being blocked by the current situation.

The Behavior:

The move was done by User:Onioiu, whose only edits are to one specific researcher's biography and their associated lab's work.

This user seems to have taken over from a previous account, User:Assembloid, which explicitly uploaded images credited to that same lab.

As a disclosed editor trying to play by the rules, how do I get a neutral review of this page move and the historical inaccuracies being enforced by these accounts? It feels like the COI process is being "gamed" by an undisclosed party. I also don't want to feel like I'm attacking the other account but they seem to be acting in bad faith.

Any advice would be greatly appeciated.

Relevant Links:

• Unilteral page move: Diff by User:Onioiu

• Updated page lead: Diff by User:Assembloid

• COI ring:
  • User1 (Assembloid): Claimed "Own Work" for Pașca Lab image
  • User 2(Onioiu): Exclusive edit history matching User 1's topics.
  • Assembloid page edit history

• My COI request:

Talk:Assembloid#requestedit

• My requested move:

Talk:Neural_organoid#Requested_move_27_January_2026

TMinch (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You should try to communicate with this user via their talk page. jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 16:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Jiraijohnny, @TMinch; but please don't use AI to communicate with us here or with other editors. We want to talk to a person, not a machine. ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to reach out through their talk pages. @ColinFine yes sorry I was struggling to structure all the points I wanted to make so I did use AI for that. I won't do it again in the future. TMinch (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TMinch, I was not aware where or how to discuss renaming the Cerebral organoid page to Neural organoid, but I am happy to do it. My reason for doing it was to update it to the current nomenclature from this Nature paper. The term 'cerebral' refers exclusively to the cerebral cortex, while the term 'neural' includes organoids from other brain regions such as striatum or spinal cord. If you have already a better solution to address this issue, I am happy to assist, just let me know what you need from me.

Regarding the @Assembloid account I do not own it, nor do I know who the owner of it is.

Regarding COI, I did work in the past as a Data Scientist in the Pasca Lab at Stanford University that is how I know the researcher and the topic. Currently I am not employed there anymore. As for my edits I strive to give references and links such that all statements are verifiable. Onioiu (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Welcome To My Wikipedia Room logo.png

Hello friends.. I created some digital artwork specifically for Wikipedia and related use. I would like to know whether this kind of work is acceptable or useful here. If it is not appropriate, I will stop creating or uploading it..Any feedback would be appreciated. Thank you. ButterflyCat (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

What is the Room's purpose? ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 18:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

By “Room” I mean a user’s personal space or user profile on Wikipedia. I used the word informally to describe my own user page area, not an official Wikipedia feature. ButterflyCat (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, you know that file looks awesome. I think I might use it on my user page. ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 19:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any problem with it in the Policies and Guidelines. Looks really cool too. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@ArthurPlummer@VidanaliK Thank you for the feedback... I’m glad the artwork is considered acceptable and useful. I appreciate everyone taking the time to review it. ButterflyCat (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

So can I use it? ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 00:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Obviously.. i made for everyone's ButterflyCat (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It shall be my last edit before sleep then. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 05:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes..😊 you’re welcome to use it. ButterflyCat (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi folks. I created an article recently on an, in my view, notable Bengali poet, singer and composer, called Roopchand Pakshi, which as far as I'm aware, is still in the New Pages Feed and remains unreviewed. After some feedback, I made certain changes to the article as well (incl. addition of verifiable sources). I obviously understand that reviews are random and can take upto weeks or months, and that I can't or shouldn't request/rush reviews. Keeping all that in mind, is there an approximate duration that I could wait before the article got reviewed, or is there a way to speed up the review process without disrupting the system? Would love some insight! Dissoxciate (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I’ve taken a look at the article, and the overall structure are good. However, some of the sources may still not fully satisfy Wikipedia’s reliability and notability requirements, especially for independent secondary coverage. That could be one reason the review is taking time. New Page reviews are handled by volunteers and can take weeks or longer depending on backlog. At this stage, the best option is to keep improving source quality and clarity and wait for a reviewer to pick it up naturally. ButterflyCat (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a backlog of over 15,700 articles at WP:NPP.

In any case, there's no rush for your article to get patrolled. It will be indexed on web searches if it's not patrolled within 90 days anyway. Athanelar (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Albert Cashier's RFC conclusion was to completely avoid gendered pronouns. Additionally, his birthname is at the top of the page, rather than the early life section. However, this conclusion is from 2018 and conflicts with MOS:GENDERID. He lived as a man for 53 years up until his death, and other wikipedia pages on men like James Barry use he/him pronouns in accordance with that persons's wishes while alive.

I'm not sure how to go about updating the guidelines for Albert Cashier's page. It's something that many wikipedia users are interested in, but not a lot of progress has been made. What's the first step I should take in updating his article? Kiwiisabirdok (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

If you're saying there's been an RfC, please provide a link to it if possible. Thanks. ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 01:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

ArthurPlummer, The RFC (linked conspicuously from the top of the talk page). A very quick look shows up some sensible writing and some utter silliness; but this decorous web page isn't the place for me to say which is which. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You're very generous to avoid saying the obvious; that the RfC's conclusion was evidently poisoned by a lot of transphobic nonsense. he referred to himself as a man for almost the entirety of his life. But the issue was, that no matter what we say, we cannot know for certain how Albert identified has to be the funniest bit of erasure I've ever heard. Athanelar (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

He adopted a male identity and lived as a man until he was forced to do otherwise. I see no reason to treat him as anything other than that which he wished to be treated. Athanelar (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:2026 Chios migrant boat shipwreck

Hello! I just moved a work-in-progress article to draftspace and have a couple of questions about drafts:

1. When moved to draftspace, does the draft get "advertised" somewhere? Or should I post it to the relevant Wiki projects in case anyone is interested to expand/review before submission? In other words, is someone going to contribute to my draft before I officially submit it for review? Does it have any visiblity besides search results?
2. What is the threshold for submitting a draft for review? Right now, my draft is just three paragraphs, essentially just the lead, but it is about an event currently in the news so it might make sense to submit it for review early and continue expanding it while it is pending review.

Thank you! AntinatalistLiberationFront (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

No, your draft does not get advertised. I'll provide a more detailed explanation later when I am able. ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 19:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

1. I know what you mean by "advertised", and the answer is no, drafts are intentionally kept isolated, hidden from the public. People who know exactly where to go and search for them inside of Wikipedia are able to find them, but drafts don't "count". They are blocked from Google and other searches, and have no connections to normal articles. They get immediately deleted if they contain advertising or anything else Wikipedia doesn't allow, and they eventually get deleted if they sit around for a long time.

2. One important piece of information is at WP:42. Your draft must score 100% on that test. If it does, the rest usually falls into place. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:42 doesn't mention a set number of sources, but I personally use 3 or 4; I collect at least that amount of sources before writing the article. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just going to say that not every source needs to meet WP:42, and by "scoring 100%" I only meant that a draft must perfectly meet what's stated at WP:42 - "almost" isn't enough.

It says "several", which means not just 1 or 2, so yes. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have put a template at the top of your draft. Use the button it contains to submit it for review, per WP:AFC, when you are ready. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, I looked at the draft, and even if it isn't fully ready for publication right now, it definitely merits an article given your sources. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I am able to provide a more detailed explanation now:

• 1: Your draft does not get advertised, as that goes directly against What Wikipedia is not.
• 2: You can post your draft to the relevant Wiki projects if you'd like, but you can also post it here at the Teahouse and ask for someone to review (not an AfC review) it (We've done this before).

ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 00:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

This has been very helpful. Thank you to all who replied. I just got my first article accepted AntinatalistLiberationFront (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone 👋

I placed an extended-confirmed-protected edit request on the Dadvan Yousuf article talk page (03 February 2026), supported by official government sources.

As I’m not extended-confirmed yet, I’d be grateful if an eligible editor could review and, if appropriate, implement the request.

Thanks, Vienerrko (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Bud! I just made another edit request at Talk page: Dadvan Yousuf. Would be glad if you can check the new one too. I included all reliable sources. Vienerrko (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

? ~2026-83974-1 (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Google Translate suggests that this is Ukrainian for "Why do innocent people suffer and die?" -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

всі страждають і вмирають. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I have just now submitted a draft for Draft:Quiet Mark. I had used their website before and came across something on Wikipedia suggesting the page is created, so thought I'd give it a go. I am quite new to this. It would really benefit from having the logo on it, but after looking for this within Wiki resources, I had no luck. Info boxes are also beyond me. If anyone could advise or contribute or provide any other feedback it would be greatly appreciated! Comment added: 7 February 2026 having learnt more about this company adding their logo is probably not advisable. LateFatherKarma (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Among the references you have, how many can you say fit ALL of these?

• directly on the topic of Quiet Mark (not on associated concepts)
• tell a reasonably long and full story of what Quiet Mark is
• independent (not associated with Quiet Mark itself and not an industry publication - we want a conventional reporter writing on their own for the general public, with no interview and no press release involved)

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

In answer to the first two points, the vast majority. In regards to the last point, I would say the majority, but a few include interviews with people associated with the company and editorial. I have tried to be careful with this, but also the article includes a quote from the founder. I was hoping to find them in some academic resources, but unfortunately couldn't. I also found some content, like you've described wanting, albeit behind paywalls, such as on the Financial Times. I think I've done my best in finding what there is and with publications like the BBC, Economist, Good Housekeeping, Ideal Home and The Standard writing about their work, I felt it may be notable and will see if the reviewer and community agrees. Did you feel this is not the case? LateFatherKarma (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I knew those points are likely to turn out to be important to a reviewer, but I also knew that you know your sources better than I do, so I just asked you rather than checking them myself.

Content behind a paywall is accepted as a legitimate reference on Wikipedia. If you didn't include such things only because you aren't a subscriber yourself and therefore couldn't see them, the resource exchange might be able to help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@LateFatherKarma Among your first fifteen references, NOT ONE comes even CLOSE to meeting the three points I gave in my first response. Industry publications, publications on the broad general topic of noise, short marketing blurbs, publications by associates of the company, corporate blogs ...

Why would you claim that these rubbish sources were long, independently-written stories on the topic of Quiet Mark? Why? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The first is companies house, commonly used on many UK business pages, on Wikipedia. The page linked to is 100% about Quiet Mark. The second is a page also only discussing Quiet Mark and is a UK charity, which is legally unrelated to Quiet Mark but associated with it. Many sources are to pages that only discuss the company and are entirely independent of the company. There are no references on the broad topic of noise that do not also discuss Quiet Mark and from memory there is one like that. A few come from people who have had products certified by the company. I do not agree with your comments. There are 23 references and none are the brands own websites. If someone reviews and feels it is not suitable I am ok with that, have no intention of using a stick and am going to focus on other editing activities now. LateFatherKarma (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@LateFatherKarma The Companies House reference is just a filing. It certainly does not "tell a reasonably long and full story of what Quiet Mark is" in any way. David10244 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

That is only used to support when the company was established. I found one reference that was also only used to explain how decibels typical measure appliance sound which was not relevant to them, which I removed. Good Housekeeping, Ideal Home, ACR Journal, Vice, FX Design, BBC and RIBA are more in-depth about what they do. Good Housekeeping do seem to partner with them in some way, but I don't feel that means it should not be used at all. Having now seen the declared paid editor draft referred to in this thread (which is not the one I created and I have zero association to this company and was certainly not paid to create this new draft), it could be that a few of those could be used, but I am feeling a little aggrieved by the understandable feelings that raised with the community about this draft and am therefore very reticent to use any of those or commit much more time to this. LateFatherKarma (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I've incorporated refs from the draft I did not create, where I feel this criteria is met, but have been careful not to use the ones from that which just appear to have minimal blurb before a big product push as I believe those may be too promotional. Also with Good Housekeeping I was careful to only use content that is specifically about the health impact of excessive/irritating noise or put another ref where they are used as a source due to what I've highlighted previously. LateFatherKarma (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with Quiet Mark in any way, or being paid by them to create this draft? Considering about two weeks ago a paid editor attempted to create a draft about the same company at Draft:Quiet Mark (certification) I struggle to believe you are merely some interested passerby who felt compelled to write an article about this niche organisation. Athanelar (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I have absolutely no association with them at all, I am not being paid by them and I do not know anyone who works for this company. I had no awareness of that previous draft and I currently receive no payments from any company or organisation in fact. My reason for creating this draft, is because I became aware of them when looking for a quiet appliance but more so, because when asking to be unblocked I said I wanted to attempt writing an article and given that, I tried to stay committed to that. When looking for inspiration for that, a few weeks ago, I found that someone had suggested this as an article subject and thought I would try and respond to that. I mostly tried this because I thought there was a need for it, some reasonable sources and it was notable. I appreciate you reviewing my draft, tried to take on your feedback and all I was hoping to do was to contribute to building Wikipedia LateFatherKarma (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand, and I apologise for my skepticism but hope it's understandable. You should read Help:Your first article if article creation is something you want to pursue. Athanelar (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there anyway of me viewing the draft you mention that was submitted a few weeks ago, that you say came from a paid editor? LateFatherKarma (talk)< LateFatherKarma (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You could request for it to be undeleted at WP:REFUND

The page is Draft:Quiet Mark (certification) Athanelar (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. On a totally separate note, since about three weeks ago, I have barely been able to edit without it freezing when I attempt to preview and me having to refresh my browser which is quite often resulting in my work not being recovered and me having to re-do it. This is impacting me as I frequently have to repeat edits I have already started and I think the frustration from this is leading to mistakes. This has happened on practically every page I have edited for weeks. On this draft, prior to moving it to the draft space, there were a couple of sentences where I had to repeat my edit in excess of 5 or 6 times, which is why eventually I moved it to draft space after only a minimal amount of copy being added. Would you know what could be causing this? It was happening when using both the visual and source editing methods. Is there anything I could do to stop this? LateFatherKarma (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Bug reports are best directed to WP:Village pump (technical) Athanelar (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Im Roshini Marian,

I am assisting Lt Gen Ramesh Halagali (Retd.) with his Wikipedia biography and I am declaring a conflict of interest.

We are looking for help from an experienced Wikipedia editor to:

• Add a properly licensed photograph (the subject himself has released the image under a free license and can provide permission if required) and his own biodata which is correct
• Submit factual, well-sourced updates via the article Talk page in compliance with BLP guidelines

Could an experienced editor please advise or assist with handling the image permission and requested edits? ~2026-83254-3 (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

People describing themselves as experienced Wikipedia editors are likely to respond to this, offering to help (for a price). Ignore these offers: these people are likely to defraud you or to be incompetent. Talk:Ramesh Halagali currently has no conflict of interest declaration. Add it. Then you should add discrete, well-referenced requests to that talk page. (The photograph is a minor matter; it can wait a little.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest declaration

I am associated with the subject of this article and am assisting him. I am therefore declaring a conflict of interest and will not make direct changes to the article. I am requesting that any suggested edits be reviewed and implemented by independent editors if appropriate. ~2026-83254-3 (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested edits: biographical details

I would like to request the addition or clarification of the following factual, non-promotional biographical details, supported by reliable sources:

• Senior Indian Army appointments held by Lt Gen Ramesh Halagali (Retd.)

I request independent editors to review and add these if they meet Wikipedia’s sourcing and neutrality standards. ~2026-83254-3 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ~2026-83254-3. You can make requests by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-83254-3/Roshini Marian. In addition to the advise you've received so far, you might also want to consider registering for an WP:ACCOUNT if you're planning to make COI-related edit requests on behalf of Ramesh Halagali. A registered account could help avoid confusion and make it easier for others to feel comfortable in assuming they're interacting with the same person each time an edit request is made. The identifiers for unregistered accounts, I believe, can change due to a variety of reasons even when it's the same person posting. You're not required to register for an account, but it could make things go smoother. You might also consider asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India since those are the two WikiProjects most likely associated with articles about Indian generals.-- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Richard Yeend

Please help me with... Hello,

if you can help me it would be much appreciated. I am 80 years old and have registered with Wikipedia. I understand the criteria, that individuals are discouraged from submitting personal pages, and you are recommended for guidance. I have prepared an outline (sandbox) with information and relevant references, but need able advice. I hope to hear from you, many thanks in advance

Richard Yeend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Yeend (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't type like an 80 year old. Also, didn't a TA also claim they were 80 yesterday? ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 14:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Please avoid posting such ageist nonsense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

[I am unclear why this was moved here, in the middle of me replying to Richard on his talk page.]

Your question is the only edit you have made using your new account. Where is the sandbox you have prepared?

I have left some useful introductory links, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The Lars Knudsen redirect currently points to Danish researcher Lars Ramkilde Knudsen, but there is also Lars Knudsen (producer). Should this be converted into a disambiguation page? I don't see a primary topic. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia procedures, so I don't know where and how to raise this. ~2026-84735-8 (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes it should be; Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, I am looking for a second opinion about a revert to this page.

Yesterday Hipal editor reverted all of the edits I made stating in the revert summary that my edit summaries were deceptive and that the content was promotional. However, I do not agree with this assessment, and it appears to have been a rushed decision without a careful review of the edits. I provided edit summaries for every change I made, and I do not see how they were deceptive. The revert summary did not specify which summaries were deceptive or which parts of the content were considered promotional.

I made a conscious effort to remain neutral and relied on secondary sources throughout. One of my changes included merging a duplicate Bibliography section that appeared under References with another Bibliography section under Criticism, to avoid redundancy. Despite this being a structural cleanup, all of my edits were reverted.

Since Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative, I am wondering if concerns about particular parts of my edits could be handled more narrowly (e.g. by rephrasing, copy editing, or tagging specific issues), instead of reverting all edits at once.

I have put the content and changes in my sandbox and would appreciate any feedback on whether anything I added might violate policy, or how it could be improved.

Thanks in advance. Skyler Quinn2 (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Try going to the user's talk page and resolve it with them there. jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 14:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You've made a number of edits that seem to have been accepted just fine. The ones that were lately reverted show an obvious difference on the surface: they were large, and they added significant amounts of new information to the biography of a living person. When someone suddenly introduces a lot of material into such a biography, anyone who happens to see that kind of change is likely to wonder why - and when the subject is this well known, someone is bound to see it fairly soon. It stands out.

Of course there are good reasons to add a lot of material - when a significant amount of news has been published recently and no one has added it yet. But there are also several bad reasons to be adding a large amount to an article: those include conflict of interest (where a supporter or opponent is adding badly biased information), vandalism (adding something useless), and AI writing (AI produces a lot of bad material very quickly). I'm NOT accusing you of ANY of these - but they exist.

I think there's a justifiable tendency among Wikipedia editors to assume that any sudden large addition is likely to have some problem like the ones I listed, especially considering the proliferation of AI. They might be inclined to revert large edits almost on the basis of TL;DR. I don't think that's a good thing, it shouldn't really be done, but at the same time I can understand it.

Doing much smaller edits, one by one, gives other editors a better chance at understanding what you've done. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Skyler Quinn2, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I want to add something to what the others have said. Wikipedia works by consensus.

When another editor disagrees with your edits, it's very tempting to look for some authority who can give you a ruling: Yes that's OK, or No it's not.

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. When there is a disagreement, the first step should always be to engage with that other editor. Ask them why they reversed your edit, and see if you can come to an agreement: maybe once they've explained, you'll see their point and let it go; or maybe once you've heard their argument and you've explained yours, they'll accept your edit as is; or maybe together you'll agree some intermediate edit. But appealing elsewhere comes after trying that discussion: see WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

In regards to self created Historical Maps (depicting a time period of a region), the standard across Wikipedia (from what I've seen) is that it's generally allowed as long as it's strongly supported by WP:RS Sources to affirm it and avoid WP:OR. I'm asking here to affirm that/garner opinion.

i.e I create a map of (x) based on WP:RS text-based books/sources. This would be appropriate, no? Noorullah (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, of course. As long as you don't add any information in the map that isn't supported by RS, you should be fine. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

VidanaliK The image is here. Above user says that this self made map was created through texts from several sources that are listed here. This puts the map's factual accuracy and verification in question. GA reviewer also believes that such self made map should be referenced by a map created by historians. Some of this discussion is taking place here if anyone would like to take a stab at it. RangersRus (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn't about GA review, it's asking in general. The discussion has also since concluded.

"GA reviewer also believes that such self made map should be referenced by a map created by historians." - Not what he said at all. He asked for an example of a similar map since I didn't affirm to him this was text-based. This comes after you erroneously suggested all maps on Wikipedia need to be referenced off other maps, which would make most maps on Wikipedia unviable. Noorullah (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This comes after you erroneously suggested all maps on Wikipedia need to be referenced off other maps. I was only talking about your self made map and I provided link to the discussion for anyone to follow if they would like to. There is nothing erroneously suggested. RangersRus (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Quoting directly from you...: "If a map is not in the reference, its just heresy."

"Self made map shouldn't be used at all unless strongly referenced by map in reliable sources."

Per your edit summary: "self made map not reliable"

You very clearly said any map not using other maps as references is "heresy". Noorullah (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

any self made map without reference of a map created by historians is unreliable. This is what I meant. RangersRus (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

And I'm saying that's not appropriate nor accurate to say. Maps are widely depicted on Wikipedia with text-based sources. Maps do not need to rely on other maps to be made. Noorullah (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@RangersRus maps can be made by users or it’s simply stating what a source has said and placing it visually, that isn’t original research. If it’s a made up map of what the individual thinks, then that’s OR. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

it is better to get WP:RS involved before or after creating a map and before adding it into the articles. Many questions rise such as are the sources reliable? Are the locations shown of town, accurate? Are the borders accurate? Are all towns and area factually depicted in sources? Every mention of town/areas/locations/borders/leadership on the map should be properly sourced by secondary independent reliable source by listing each towns on the side of the source to make it easier to verify if the map is factually accurate or not. Otherwise it is you who becomes the source of the map and not the sources listed. RangersRus (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, although some borders can be vague and so should be shown as vague (especially ancient kingdoms which are allowed to be shown as rough approximations if there are the sources to back up those approximations). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

some borders can be vague and so should be shown as vague. If a map in a reliable source shows as such, why not but cases as such should still go through wp:rs to garner stronger opinions if its not your own personal interpretation, synthesis and blatant original research like the map that is subject of this topic. It will be sad to put all work into it to not then be accepted. RangersRus (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I’m planning on making a map for an ancient kingdom (which currently has a map which doesn’t actually show where he kingdom was, it just shows the geographical area) and I will only use the reliable sources given (on the possible locations), I’ll probably make that when my computer is back in action. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I also need to create a map for an ancient kingdom, the original map on the page doesn’t do it justice and the image on the page list of Iron Age states and list of Bronze Age states are both outdated and show inaccurate information. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater As suggested above (in the first reply), and as is standard across wikipedia, as long as the WP:RS sources you're using for your map fully support what you're depicting, it is perfectly okay to create. Noorullah (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, will do (When I have the time 😂 and I’ll probably rather do it on my PC which still needs to be fixed so probably I’ll make those maps with the reliable sources soon enough) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

All good, best of luck. Noorullah (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, best of luck to you too for any projects you are doing. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I am having difficulty understanding responses I get to questions on the talk page because they are often cryptic or use wiki jargon without a simple explanation or link, so it is not helpful to anyone attempting to expand a stub article into a full article without great familiarity with wiki protocol and technical operation. Is there a way to connect with a person in my hometown that knows the technicalities so I can work directly with them, and if so, how do I make contact with them? I realize the answer is likely to be "no" given the nature and purpose of wikipedia. Emanresu0 (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Social for details of how to find meetups. Also WP:MENTOR - you may find a mentor willing to work with you over video conferencing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the questions you've asked before, you seem to have been given relatively straightforward answers.

If you want to expand C.W. Kim without publishing your changes to the article itself, the easiest thing to do is to copy the entire article and paste it in your sandbox at User:Emanresu0/sandbox where you can take as long as you like to work on it bit by bit. When you're done, simply copy the new article from your sandbox and paste it back over to the main page at C.W. Kim. Athanelar (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be a sob story but I could have sworn there was a guideline about how to challenge edits contructively-- i.e. to be specific and not blanket revert. Obviously this is frustrating for any editor and I appreciate that we work off of consensus, but I just wanted to check that I'm handling it correctly.

Upon realising that the article had serious problems pertaining to WP:V and WP:NPOV, I began rewriting Thuggee three weeks ago, leaving a notice on the talk page in a discussion with two other editors, linking to my sandbox, and leaving extensive notes on my rationale for other editors. I received two 'thanks' for my rewrite. However, an editor is now uncomfortable with the scale of edits and apparent lack of discussion and wants to revert everything back to the original, pending a discussion. I appreciate that this should be discussed at length in the talk page but I don't know what the appropriate procedure is regarding the extant content. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I think it was an essay I was remembering. Joko2468 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of Bold, Revert, Discuss. Athanelar (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah thank you very much, that does counsel some restraint in reverting. I think the essay might have been Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi again :) Apperantly there is a task center with a lot of great ways to help out and improve articles (which is great), but is there a way to check the task as done?✔️ Or should i just write in the talk pages of the articles i corrected that i did so? Many thanks in advance, and a happy weekend to all wikipedians 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

If you are talking about newcomer tasks, just remove the tag—the orange box that states the problem with the article/section—if you fixed the problem completely. If the problem that the tag refers to is still in the article, leave the tag for someone else to find and finish fixing the article. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response ill make sure to do that 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Btw... when i remove the tag, should i mark it as a minor edit? Happypenguins82 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't, but that is your decision. The definition of a minor edit is ambiguous. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again 🙏 Happypenguins82 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Please don't however remove the orphan tag as you did here when the article was still an orphan. See WP:ORPHAN. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm definitely going to pay extra attention to better learn the definitions and avoid future mistakes✔️ Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

After reading as you suggested, i added content to other related articles, also added links to that related article group in order to unorphan the article, it would be great if you could tell me if i did it the right way, if it's not much to ask... 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Happypenguins82 If in doubt, don't mark something as minor. Putting "minor", when it really wasn't, can in certain cases make you look dishonest. Forgetting to put "minor" is far less likely to be serious.

I'm pretty sure the basic standard is that minor edits are ones that don't change the meaning; the problem is that two people can look at the same edit and disagree about whether it changes the meaning or not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, and i guess removing a tag is actually quit meaningful, ill avoid minor edits in general.

thanks for all the guidance!

😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:MLCad

The following sources discuss it beyond just passing mentions:

1. Clague, Kevin (2002). Lego Software Power Tools With LDraw, MLCad, and LPub. Rockland, Mass: Syngress. ISBN 978-1-931836-76-0.
2. Wilcher, Don (2004). Lego Mindstorms Mechatronics. New York London: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-141745-7.
3. Sato, Jin (2002). Jin Sato's Lego Mindstorms: The Master's Technique. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press. ISBN 978-1-886411-56-2.
4. Mendes, Daniel; Lopes, Pedro; Ferreira, Alfredo (2011-11-08). "Hands-on interactive tabletop LEGO application". Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACE '11. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery: 1–8. doi:10.1145/2071423.2071447. ISBN 978-1-4503-0827-4.

I think it passes notability no doubt. Shall I move it into mainspace? NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 16:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Considering there is even a doubt about notability, you should probably submit it for review. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I read the most accessible of those four sources, that being #4, and this is the entirety of what it has to say about MLCad:

MLCad is a Computer Aided-Design (CAD) system for building virtual LEGO models.It utilizes four viewports, each providing a di↵erent view ofthe 3D model, as depicted in Figure 2. Both perspective(non-editable, only for visualisation) and orthogonal views(for editing purposes) are supported. As expected, beingCAD-based, it does not suit all users, in particular thosethat are not acquainted with the paradigms of typical CADsoftware. Thus, as our tests will show, it hardens learningcurve for building virtual LEGO models. It integrates theLDraw3 open-source parts library, which is widely used bythe community of LEGO aficionados. Bricks are displayedin two browsable panels, a list of brick names (textual) andanother with their previews (graphical). Unlike most LEGOapplications, the environment of MLCad does not provide anauxiliary grid, and there is no restriction for the position ofthe bricks. Regarding manipulation of bricks, translationoccurs in a plane parallel to the selected orthogonal view;while rotation can be executed in any of the three objectaxes (roll, pitch and yaw).

I wouldn't exactly call a paragraph's worth of discussion in the context of comparing it to a different piece of software significant coverage; if the other three are much the same then notability here is quite shaky. Athanelar (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

In the case of the first source, it is one of the subjects of the book. The other two appear to discuss it a lot, both mentioning it over twenty times. There are a few more sources I didn't list that aren't as significant but still have sections on it. I'd say the source which you quote is probably the least significant of the ones listed here in terms of coverage. NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is there no pages for the individual characters from One Piece themselves? Well technically yes, there is pages for all of the Straw Hats (Excluding Jinbei), but I thought there would be more pages dedicated to One Piece characters specifically. Is it a copy-right issue, or is it possible but people just haven't attempted to do it? Rocksdteach (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We have very strict Notability guidelines that spell out what can be included here. We wouldn't create a separate article for every single character listed at List of One Piece characters unless they met the notability guidelines on their own merit. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Individual characters I get wouldn't make the notability guidelines, but would specific events from One Piece constitute needing their own page, like War of the Best or the Raid on Onagishima? Rocksdteach (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Raid on Onigashima* Rocksdteach (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Would a specific event from One Piece merit its own article? Well, is the event notable? And even if it is notable, does it not fit within an article of broader scope? (Today's FA is Master Juba. This includes a section on Juba's tour of England in 1848. The section clearly demonstrates the notability required for a standalone article. But it has no need of a standalone article, as the description fits comfortably within the article Master Juba.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you please review the revised proof at User:0x48fe75df30/drafts? The first paragraph is the original proof and the second is my adaptation. Please check whether my wording is natural for English speakers and point out any unclear or imprecise parts. Thank you for your time; I look forward to your feedback.

English is not my first language; my proficiency may only be at level 3 (as per Wikipedia's Babel user classifications). Should there be any errors --- be they lexical, grammatical, collocational, related to sentence construction, or otherwise --- please do not hesitate to point them out, and I shall endeavour to correct them.

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand none of that math but the English seems ok. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 04:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

An additional question is whether the revised proof is clearer, whether its notation conveys meaning effectively, and whether its logic is coherent.

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The quality of the proof is immaterial, as Wikipedia is not the place to post it; unless there is a particular article you intend to include it in? Athanelar (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar:These proof are part of the arcticle Heine theorem

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@0x48fe75df30 Hi there!

Wikiproject Mathematics may be able to help you out, but before you go there: is the original proof from an existing article, and are you wishing to replace it? I just want to confirm the purpose here is to help build an encyclopedia before I scrutinize the logic of the proof, which is something I can help you with. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 09:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@MEN KISSING:Yes. The original proof appears in the article Heine theorem and I seek to clarify its details and replace it.

Thank you for your attention.

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@0x48fe75df30

So, some of your modifications to the proof are good things, I like that you're splitting it up between a sufficiency part and a necessity part. Some of the changes are not as good, though, like you could probably incorporate the part about ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$ more smoothly. You also shouldn't have a bit that says something like "Noted by editor", since that's a self-reference, see WP:SELF.

There's some problems with both the existing proof and your modified version, like the heavy use of ${\displaystyle \exists }$, ${\displaystyle \forall }$, and ${\displaystyle \implies }$ symbols. It's better to use plain text for those concepts.

You would want to say

For all ${\displaystyle \varepsilon >0}$, there exists ${\displaystyle \delta >0}$

instead of

${\displaystyle \forall \varepsilon >0,\exists \delta >0}$

There's probably some more fixing up to be done, but even though I'm studying mathematics, I'm not quite up to speed on the best practices for including proofs in Wikipedia articles. I'd recommend that you check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Proofs for some detailed guidance on including proofs in articles. You should also make a thread over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Proofs, where you can get attention from some more experienced users in writing proofs for Wikipedia.

I hope I've been able to help. Have a lovely day! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 01:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

However, if a ---note by editor cannot be used, how should one word a note to clarify that ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$ denotes the positive integers (as per WP:SELF)?

--0x48fe75df30 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You could say something like:

"For ${\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} }$ (defined as the set of integers greater than zero) ..."

or perhaps:

"For nonzero ${\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} }$ ..."

or, you could avoid bringing up the symbol ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$ entirely by just saying something like:

"For positive integers ${\displaystyle n}$ ...".

Also, this section of MOS:MATH may be of interest: MOS:MATH#Natural_numbers. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I often nominate AfDs but lots of the time there are lots of sources for them that I couldn't find (example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Sulaymaniyah).I do what seems to be an acceptable search according to WP:BEFORE. Any suggestions? FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 19:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, FantasticWikiUser. WP:DILIGENCE says The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, and a Google News search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. When searching for sources on a university, it is typical that the first few pages of search results will be dominated by non-independent sources published by the university itself. You need to take the time to scroll past those and drill down into the search results until you find independent sources. That goes very quickly if all you look for is a domain name that is not the university's. Adding other words to your search terms can also help. For a university, adding words like "rating" or "ranking" or "history" or "criticism" may yield more independent, reliable sources. In this case, you could ask the editor who found the sources that you didn't for search tips. Like all human skills, your proficiency in searching for sources will get better with practice and with feedback from more experienced editors. If you take the task seriously and keep trying to improve, you will get better at it. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Part of the purpose of AfD is to allow the opportunity for other users to present sources that you weren't able to find. BEFORE is about doing due diligence and making a good faith attempt to find sources before making a nomination. From there, the week long AfD process is an opportunity for others to do the same. If people are able to find sources you couldn't, that's the system working as intended. Athanelar (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar, that is all true, but poorly performed BEFORE searches at AfD have been a frequent source of friction between editors for many years. Trying to do better is admirable. Cullen328 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328, thanks for the advice! FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 06:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @FantasticWikiUser, have you set up access for The Wikipedia Library? It's proven invaluable to me for finding sources, especially through ProQuest, JSTOR, and newspapers.com (which requires a second, further application). ScalarFactor (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I have TWL and occasionally use it. Newspapers.com has been something I wanted for a while. I’ll apply for it soon. FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 06:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I recently removed 2 dead links from Obizzo III d'Este, because there was no article for them in English wikipedia.I do not have an account, is this okay for me to do or is my edit going to be reverted? Does it have to be reverted? ~2026-85528-0 (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A red link on Wikipedia is a link to an article which does not exist yet. If the article does exist, it appears blue. For instance: Blue and Blueeeee. A dead link is a weblink which no longer works. For instance, a link to a YouTube video which has been deleted. GGOTCC 01:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

it still didn't answer my question if it's acceptable for me to remove them without having my edit reverted ~2026-85528-0 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

also, they were for articles that were deleted but no longer exist in the English wiki. That's why I removed them ~2026-85528-0 (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the article Rinaldo I d'Este [probably a mistaken title, see below] or Niccolò I d'Este ever existed in en:Wikipedia? (I quickly looked for evidence for either, but found none.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You removed redlinks, as they are called, with the extraordinary edit summary Removed dead links, theze articles do not exist on tge English wiki. Please do not revert my edits, what I am doing is contributing, this isn't vandalism. So please, I beg you, do not revert my edit. You changed "Rinaldo and Niccolò" to "Rinaldo and Niccolò". Redlinks are common in en:Wikipedia. Do you find them unsightly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoary (talk • contribs)

@Hoary: Please sign your comments. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the greatly needed reminder, Mikeycdiamond! -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Rinaldo I d'Este" is a mistake for "Rinaldo II d'Este". How about changing the pair to "Rinaldo II d'Este [it] and Nicolò I d'Este [it]" (and possibly adding other languages if the respective articles exist)? -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

And the direct answer to the question is "no, red-links are usually acceptable and even encouraged unless the target article actually existed and then was deleted via WP:AFD." See WP:REDLINK. But Hoary's suggestion about adding a {{ill}} pointing to a page that exists in another language is often even better. DMacks (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-85528-0. In addition to what's been posted above about WP:REDLINKs being OK under certain conditions, the same also applies to WP:DEADLINKs; in other words, links shouldn't be removed just because they're red or dead but should looked at more closely to see whether they can be saved in some way. If you're not sure how to do this, just leave the link as else for someone else to sort out. I also strongly suggest that you refrain from leaving edit summaries like "Please do not revert my edits, what I am doing is contributing, this isn't vandalism. So please, I beg you, do not revert my edit." because such edit summaries are pretty much always never viewed postively by most members of the Wikipedia community. You don't need to beg for your edits not to be reverted; just do you best to edit in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Having an edit reverted by another user isn't the end of the world and often provides an opportunity to learn something new. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi all 👋

Quick question on Suggested Edits / Revise Tone: if I come across clearly promotional content, is it okay to remove it directly (even if it’s substantial), or is it better to start a talk-page discussion first? LionmerterTHE (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to link to where the promotional content is, just to confirm? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias Example Jô LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's flagrantly promotional (throwing around words such as "legendary"), I remove it; if not, I err on the side of caution. The promotional junk will disappear fairly quickly, one way or another, and a dispute over whether or not I was too hasty in deleting it would risk wasting more time. (WMF Growth team and WP:Growth Team features are new to me and I haven't read either.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Usually it is pretty much "legendary" etc. LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

With this edit, we learn that A very curious fact that demonstrates Jô's huge change of conduct was seen after the confirmation of Corinthians 2017 league title when he literally refused a cup of beer on the pitch celebration. Who says that it is a "curious fact"? Do reliable sources call this beer incident a "huge change of conduct"? Literally? How would he have figuratively refused a cup of beer? This is bad writing for many reasons. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Lol LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If I swear major/locked page I can't make changes but someone else can after I point it out in the talk page how do I do it Stanjik (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Any locked page in general but i wanna know how a person can directly edit it not just ask permission in the talk page Stanjik (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

By having the permissions necessary to edit those pages. For example, extended-confirmed permissions allow a person to edit pages that are extended-confirmed protected. Athanelar (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Nice thanks man Stanjik (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Edit requests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Given the CTops alerts, I'm a bit concerned they're looking at the Russo-Ukrainian war, castes, or Indian milhist. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

How do I report the inaccuracy? The page is sadly protected. ~2026-86103-6 (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You usually should be able to use the corresponding talk page of that article in order to request other editors to execute such edits on your behalf. Toarin (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Please use the edit request wizard to propose a change. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If an editor, claiming to be a scientist (using real name), adds references in which he/she is a co-author to a WP article relevant to his/her work, then is this a violation of WP:PROMO? Are there any exceptions? If there are no exceptions then what is the correct course of action? Thank you in advance. A.Cython(talk) 00:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE is the policy, but self-citing is allowed if the citation itself is beneficial (just like any other citation). This usually falls into COI noticeboard territory if the person uses their work to usurp otherwise reliable sources or is trying to focus on themselves, not the source. GGOTCC 01:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this makes sense. A.Cython(talk) 01:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A.Cython, I have been editing for almost 17 years, have written over 100 new articles and expanded thousands. I have made 118,610 edits. In all that time, I have cited my own published work just once and mentioned myself in an article just once. Self restraint is best. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This is how it should be. The question that I had was what happens when I spot someone else. How do I judge this? Andy Mabbett provided some good sources for me to start reading. A.Cython(talk) 13:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cythonn It must be assessed on a case by case basis. What is being achieved by adding the source: promoting self, promoting the thing written about, verifying a fact in a neutral manner.

The keyword is promoting. Adding any material to any article by any editor for the purpose of promoting things is never appropriate. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:EXPERT and (in some cases) WP:CURATOR are also relevant, as are WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. The key thing to ask is: does the edit help Wikipedia, or harm it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, these sources are very useful. A.Cython(talk) 14:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The National Test House is a premier scientific organization established in 1912 under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. Government of India. The main function of the organization is testing, evaluation and quality assurance NTH User (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @NTH User, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You don't ask a question above, but I guess this is about your draft User:NTH User/sandbox, which has been declined for lack of references, and likely used of an LLM.

Please note the following:

• 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 you cite no sources (and in particular, no sources that meet the criteria in WP:42) then your draft has no chance of being accepted
• Judging from your user name, you have a conflict of interest in writing about this, and may further be what Wikipedia regards as a paid editor. Please read those links carefully to see how to proceed.
• 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) 14:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why todays dyk is entirely about william and mary’s college? FranticSpud (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @FranticSpud. Please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 211#A William & Mary spectacular . See also WT:DYK#A William & Mary spectacular is ready to roll

. ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi I'm new to Wikipedia and learning how actor stub articles should be structured. I was looking at a few examples and noticed Wesley River's page has a pretty bare infobox compared to other actor articles. Is this formatted correctly for a stub? Or is there anything else that should typically be included?

Thanks! Someideasco (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The infobox used there is {{infobox person}}. An infobox can have as much of as little info as there is available, and it seems like there just isn't that much to say about River. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! That makes sense. I appreciate the help. Someideasco (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no difference between infoboxes for stub articles and non-stub articles, just put as much information as is cited. It looks bare since the image is quite long, and there's no date of birth or place of birth. If that's public information, you can add it (making sure it is cited). Can't figure out what else this kid could possibly have in his infobox lol. Note that infoboxes are a contentious topic so just be careful and don't fall into edit warring territory. jolielover♥talk 15:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

lol true. Thank you for the quick reply and guidance :) Someideasco (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I have been trying to submit an article for a video game release in the past couple months, and have been rejected multiple times. My draft article is here: Draft:Yakuza Kiwami 3 & Dark Ties

Per the latest comment, my article apparently does not meet the criteria for notability, which I fail to see how it applies. My understanding is the reviewer may be assuming the article falls into the Remake/Port category, which is only half correct, as this is a dual release containing a remake AND a new spin-off title, the latter of which I believe should fall into the Sequel category, and thus warrants a distinct article.

There is also the matter of my article being deemed "too soon", even though this title comes out in less than a week, and there are numerous video game articles about titles that don't come out for months from now, or years even. I fail to see how my article is being singled out for this. From my perspective, it seems unfair. The boss 1904 (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @The boss 1904! The draft reviewer declined your draft because it needs better sources. Sources need to be reliable, meaning we can trust them to tell the truth because they have a history of doing so, independent, meaning they have no connection to whatever the article is about and do not care about it (for example, an interview cannot be used as a source because the interviewer is directly talking to the subject of the article or the subject’s creator), and in depth, meaning they spend a lot of time and attention talking about what your draft is about, and don’t just mention them in passing.

Often, what happens is that little to no sources that meet all requirements can be found or do exist. This means that it is WP:TOOSOON for whatever the thing is to have an article of its own. It’s not a matter of ‘how long is it until the game comes out,’ it’s a matter of ‘is this subject important enough to the world at large that we can find enough sources to write an article on’. There’s no set time limit for it being too soon; it is about the sources and the sources only.

As for why WP:NOTABILITY applies, notability applies to everything in Wikipedia draftspace and mainspace. Granted, there are different types of notability such as the categories you were talking about, and as to which of those this should be placed in, I don’t know. But notability of some sort still applies, no matter what.

I hope this helps! Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 02:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused: how are interviews not eligible as a source when virtually most video game information come from the developers themselves doing interviews with the press? I have worked on a lot of video game articles in the past and this is the first time I have heard of this being an issue.

The sources I used are all video game news sites, and I do not find them to have any issues with conveying the truth. Granted, this is my own anecdote so it may not apply as well, but the sites I use do not seem to have any bad history. And all of the articles I used feature the game in question as the primary subject, so I believe I should not have any problems here.

I do see that there is a potential problem with some of my sources simply listing press release information. So if I can find better sources that convey the same information from these press releases without using the actual text, then it should be good? The boss 1904 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Interviews aren’t eligible as a source because you’re hearing what the developer wants you to hear about the game: ‘This is the greatest game we’ve ever made,’ ‘it’s awesome, you guys are gonna love it,’ ‘it’s the leading video game in its genre,’ et cetera, a bunch of promotional stuff. What we care about is what people who don’t care about the game have to say about it. If you want, you can read WP:INDEPENDENT for more info.

Me personally, I don’t tend to work with sources that much because I find them to be a lot of work (which is why I haven’t created an article and most likely never will), so I don’t have first-hand experience with exactly what does constitute a source as reliable and trustworthy, though WP:RELIABLE goes into depth about it if you want to check it out.

I don’t think you have any issues with WP:INDEPTH, I agree. However, what does listing press release information mean? (Sorry if I sound obtuse asking, I’ve just never heard that phrase before. Do you mean just what various publications have said about the subject, or dates of release?)

Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 03:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

When it comes to video games, a lot of information about the development process is done via interviews, so I find it hard to avoid this source entirely. I get your reasoning, but I also try to make sure none of my articles veer toward that direction; at most I include the developers' explanation in their own words as to why they approach certain design decisions and/or how certain aspects of the game works. Which, I don't believe would be as accurate if you hear it from third parties.

Regarding the "press release information" bit, I did do another read on WP:INDEPENDENT, and it mentioned that press releases (or news articles that simply contain press releases) cannot be used as an independent source, which admittedly I did use a couple of for the purpose of supplying basic information about the game and its content (e.g. new features, story premise, cast members, etc.) I was wondering if that might have been a reason my article didn't get the approval. The boss 1904 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. That definitely might be one of the issues. And, yeah, if you can find a better source with that information, I think you can use it. As for how you’ve been using interviews as a source, I’m fairly certain that’s okay, but I don’t know for sure; you’d probably have to ask an editor with more experience with creating articles than me or read any policies we have regarding interviews (if they exist that specifically, I don’t know where.) Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 03:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If you find a publication that gives all the same information as the press release, then it IS from the press release. Some publishers just disguise it better than others.

But if you find a much bigger story with a ton of other information that obviously never came from that press release, and it just happens to have some of the same stuff, that's different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The boss 1904, your draft has not been rejected. It has been declined which is a very different thing. Rejected means that the draft will never be considered again. Declined means you are invited to improve and resubmit the draft. What is required are references to multiple reliable sources entirely independent of the upcoming game and its developers that devote significant, in-depth coverage to the game. This is mandatory, and notability guidelines are, well, just guidelines. That degree of coverage is much more likely after release of the game than before release. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a breaking news site and striving to be up-to-the-minute with topics of borderline notability is not a Wikipedia goal. Including poor quality sources is not a good idea since quality is far better than quantity. Five excellent sources are much better than 20 mediocre sources. Poor quality sources waste the time of reviewers and may confuse them. Cullen328 (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the distinction; English is not my first language so I could not tell what the difference here. I guess I could see the reviewer's reasoning, but I was more confused due to a lack of clarity as to which sources were deemed poor-quality. That and the constant stress on the article being "too soon" due to the games not being out at the time of writing, even though from my understanding WP:TOOSOON is a wholly different topic. The boss 1904 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure that they really did mean WP:TOOSOON - that there wasn't enough independent material published. And in this case, WP:TOOSOON might be partly because they weren't out yet.

For quality of sources, there's a useful summary at WP:42. The best sources are not just good in one way; they're good in several ways at the same time, and that may cause some confusion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 09:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The boss 1904, you cannot expect overworked volunteer reviewers to give you an individualized point by point analysis of each one of the 14 references in your draft. You have been informed that your references do not demonstrate notability. It is up to you to evaluate them one by one, remove the weak ones, and find more high quality ones. If problems with your English skills interfere with your ability to write acceptable articles, please consider writing for the Wikipedia version for the language that you speak best. Cullen328 (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice, but I cannot help but feel your response comes off as very condescending. This is the first time I've written an article that has been scrutinized to this degree, so naturally I would expect a bit more detailed guidance on how to get it right, rather than taking shots in the dark on my own for longer than I should. And I do not appreciate a premature assumption of my English skills simply because I cannot tell the contextual difference between two very similar-meaning words. The boss 1904 (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe Cullen's making an assumption of your English skills, but is responding to your indication that English not being your first language left you unable to tell what the difference here. Cullen being rude would be extremely out of character; I think it's just a case of being direct, and suggesting to you a possibility if your English fluency makes you uncomfortable with some of the details. English is a patchwork language, with a lot of internally inconsistent rules, pronunciations, and spellings. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Because you have access to an unreleased video game, it is possible that you have some sort of paid relationship or a conflict of interest. I'll add that if you're being compensated in any way (you're an employee or an intern of the video game company, or it's your client), you entered into a legally binding obligation to declare your association when you created your account. As such, you are expected to learn all the relevant policies here, and know how to write good articles, without requiring help from overworked and unpaid volunteers. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

In every language, to understand a personal message, you have to understand their tone and how their message fits the context. When we're all reading words on a screen, we're forced to guess about some of that. It's not easy at all.

-

To me, Cullen's message seems friendly and genuinely helpful. He's not rejecting you, and to me he seems "the opposite of rude". He does say that if English is making it difficult for you to do these things by yourself, it would be better for you to find a Wikipedia that doesn't force you to use English. And he leaves it open, so that if your English really is enough for you to do these things by yourself, then that's good.

I've been in situations before when I thought "I can 'get by' with my skill level, it will be OK", and later discovered "I didn't expect these other requirements". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Once again, I appreciate all of you for helping me with this. I am not used to this level of bluntness so the explanation does help to make me understand better. The boss 1904 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I have created Malayalam translations of the following English articles:

1. Family Guy → ml:ഫാമിലി ഗായ്
2. Jeffrey Epstein → ml:ജെഫ്രി എപ്സ്റ്റീൻ
3. Dark humour → ml:ഇരുണ്ട നർമ്മം

I’m unable to add the interlanguage links because the articles or their related Wikidata items are protected, and I don’t yet have the required permissions.

Could someone please guide me or help add the Malayalam interlanguage links?

Thank you very much. Jaisonll799 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contributions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

When i try to nominated Module:Transcluder for discussion it shows up as Template:Module:Transcluder so how do i correclty nominate so that it shows up as its actual name? ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

What tool did you use to make the nomination? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I've been trying to put my live number of edits on my infobox. Is there any template/page for this? ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 14:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Carf EN, and welcome to the Teahouse

The full list of "magic words" you can use in this way is on WP:Magic words (for some of them there is a template that wraps them up, but I believe it usually expands to one of these).

You'll notice that there is nothing like "editcount", and I remember reading that this is intentional, as the amount of processing it would take if a lot of people put such a magic word on their user pages would be substantial. ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

And, in any case, someone who wants to see your edit count can just check your contribs page. No need to duplicate it on your userpage. Athanelar (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

but i want it that way ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 17:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I want a million dollars and a pink pony. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

-.- ---Carf--- Walkie-talkie The Editz 18:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

More advice would be appreciated. This BLP, Trovador Ramos Sr., was added to the cleanup list. I removed a significant amount of unsourced material that appeared to rely on personal knowledge. There was pushback, and most of the cleanup was subsequently reverted. I understand this is fairly common. I’ve started discussion on both the article talk page and the editor’s talk page, and I’m wondering what the usual next steps are to resolve situations like this before moving to dispute resolution.Coffeeurbanite (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Quote: "the personal life was removed but it should be added back because it's important." Nope. The claimed importance of unreferenced material about a living person is no reason to retain the material. See, and feel free to cite, WP:BLPRS. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Chlorurus frontalis is rated as Start class but it seems to meet all the B class criteria. Can anyone please reassess it? TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 16:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You can reassess it yourself if you believe that to be the case; there's no special permission needed to rate things on the content assessment scale, only for GA/FA. Athanelar (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the advice! TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 17:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:RATER is a useful tool for making and/ or applying ratings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:ASSESSREQ would be the forum for that. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

can you please tell me? Dedicated Volunteer PAK (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dedicated Volunteer PAK, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Since your account is more than four days old, and you have made more than 10 edits, you are autoconfirmed. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible to open a Wikipedia Tea House in Kot Addu, Punjab, Pakistan? Dedicated Volunteer PAK (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A Wikipedia Teahouse is not a physical location, but rather this online page for asking questions. If you want to create a physical Wikipedia Teahouse in your location, we do not help you with business or other non-Wikipedia-related matters, but if you want to use Wikipedia branding you might want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation for licensing. However, Wikipedia is censored in Pakistan, so you probably can't open a physical Wikipedia-related store there. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse exists only as a web-based community space? Dedicated Volunteer PAK (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Formally, yes. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I, in the United States, can answer questions in the Teahouse from people in Europe or elsewhere, which would be impossible if it were a physical space. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Totally agreed,

Thank you for the quick response Dedicated Volunteer PAK (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is "Wikipedia:Teahouse" highlighted in green? Is this part of birthday mode or something? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess it there because we are in a treehouse Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse, not Treehouse. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, it was all of a sudden. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

oh yeah i read it wrong Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it actually have been more surprising if it was a gradual fade-in? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I noticed this earlier. It was changed in this edit, apparently to make it look better in dark mode? Thought about changing it back but it seems fine to me. MediaKyle (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It fits the color scheme of the reader. I like it. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 20:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

We're just a very late entry to the matcha craze. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

i think you got to much finger Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks adorable! :) jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 14:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

your not wrong Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed that it's green now. Huh. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 23:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

ive been on some peoples users, and a lot of them have like, "this user is a proud native person of [country/city]" or "this person can speak [language]". I was wondering how i can get those on my account, as i feel it would help people have a better understanding of me than just my user page text. Thanks. Lunar Kitty174 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/alphabetical for more information. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 23:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lunar Kitty174, welcome to the teahouse! Userboxes are boxes that people put on their userpage. The link ArthurPlummer provides works, but Wikipedia:Userboxes allows you to directly search for them. To add them to your userpage, you need to add the template to your userpage. For instance, in order to add {{user en}} to your page, you should copy and paste {{user en}} onto your page. Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

In source mode, unless it also works in visual mode. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 23:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Based on some brief testing, pasting in {{user en}} works just fine for the visual editor. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the notice. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 00:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Alrighty thanks Yall! Lunar Kitty174 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries, you can always come again, as we have plenty of tea left. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 23:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

My years of reading AN/I in my spare time, as one would imagine, has not prepared me for properly citing...anything, really. I've been using EBSCO citations for some, well, citations; is this best practice, or should I stop doing this? The Rawring Knight (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The best (IMO) way to cite things are the WP:Citation templates that generate a citation in the proper format for you. This ensures they're consistent across all of Wikipedia. However, that's not a strict guideline - what matters the most is that a consistent citation style is used within an article. The templates just make it much easier.

The Wikipedia editor also has an automatic citation feature, so you can just paste in the URL/ISBN/DOI/whatever and it'll automatically create a proper citation template. It's available in the visual editor and in the new source editor (if you have that enabled in your settings), but the old source editor also has the WP:RefToolbar and there are tools like WP:ProveIt that help with this as well. 🍅 fx (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Roger roger. I tend to list dates in the number/month/year format; for instance, 6 February 2026. My only hangup with the citation generators is that they can be...finicky sometimes, which means I have to go back and fix 'em. Thanks for the editing tool tips, though! ^^ The Rawring Knight (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

How can I find and add info-boxes to my user page?

Thank you!!!

~AmericanIrishman AmericanIrishman (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You can always start at Template:WikiProject Userboxes navbox, or make your own, or steal one from someone else! GGOTCC 01:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You add a particular infobox to it in the same way that you see it successfully added to somebody else's user page. (Use of the source editor may be needed.) Be careful not to add an infobox only intended for articles: doing so may make your user page resemble an article, which is grounds for deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You may be confusing WP:INFOBOXes with WP:USERBOXes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

See the documentation for Template:Infobox Wikipedia user. OutsideNormality (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am considering drafting a Wikipedia article about Dr. Ananthu S, founder of Xylem Learning, and I would like advice on whether he meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for biographies.

There are independent news reports covering his company and mentioning him in contexts such as business partnerships and investments, including coverage in publications like Economic Times, Times of India, and Onmanorama.

However, most articles focus on the company rather than providing in-depth biographical coverage.

Would these sources be sufficient to establish notability for a biography, or would more direct coverage about him personally be required before creating an article?

Thank you for your guidance. ~2026-74964-5 (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

No, the subject does not. In this situation, WP:BOSS may help you, him, or both of you. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hoary. Notability is not inherited, so even if the company is notable, the founder themself won't necessarily be notable. Simply being mentioned is insufficient, and things like business partnerships and investments are simply the day to day business of anyone founding a company. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

with non-administrator mass-reverting IP/Temporary account edits without providing a reason why

hi! I am back from Yesterday, and I need help! If you look at the edit history of the user Zackmamm09, he is not an administrator of Wikipedia, but he constantly reverts edits of IPs/Temporary accounts without providing a reason why, and it has really become frustrating. If any administrators of Wikipedia are here, can you please help me? ~2026-81419-2 (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I want to add, Zackmann08 (not Zackmamm09) is not a Newish user, and is doing exactly the same stuff as the former user, Fukualofa (that is, reverting edits from IP/Temporary accounts without providing a reason) ~2026-81419-2 (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

If you think someone is using multiple accounts, then you can report it at WP:SPI. However, there is no Zackmamm09 or Zackmann09 registered on the English Wikipedia. Would you link to one of the reverts? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

That'd be user:Zackmann08. DS (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

In his last 2000 edits I count only 5 reverts of anonymous edits, using the rollback feature that he's entitled to use, although he does seem to be in a hurry with all the edits per day, so he could pause to make time to write an edit summary once in a while to explain reverts of edits that were made in good faith. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, Zackmann08 has been around for 14 years and has half a million edits. That editor doesn't have the time to mess with sockpuppet accounts. The Fukualofa account was created only 8 months ago, the sockmaster Abduvaitov Sherzod 2 was created 2 years ago, and neither ever got past autoconfirmed. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I never said that he was a sockpuppet like Fukualofa, the only thing I said is that he is doing the same things by reverting edits without providing a reason why ~2026-81419-2 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

All the anonymous edits I've seen reverted by Zackmann08 were edits that also failed to explain the reason why the edit was made in the first place. An anonymous editor who doesn't have the courtesy to provide an explanation in the edit summary shouldn't expect more in return when that edit is deemed unconstructive and reverted. Wikipedia's WP:ROLLBACK feature doesn't have a mechanism to customize the edit summary anyway, and rollback is to be used for obviously unconstructive edits.

That said, you still haven't shown a link to a diff of any objectionable revert. Until you do, there's nothing anyone here can investigate. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, none of your edits as ~2026-81419-2 have been reverted, so it's impossible to determine the basis of your complaint. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

he didn't Evert my edits specifically. He reverted the edits of other temporary accounts. Look, i don't know why.But every few days temporary accounts change.... I had a different one yesterday, and is really frustrating that he keeps reverting edits without providing a reason ~2026-81419-2 (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-81419-2. Can you provide a specific example of an edit that was reverted that you feel shouldn't have been reverted? This would help a Teahouse host better understand what might've happened. You can also, if you want, ask Zackmann08 for clarification as to why a particular edit was reverted. You can do this by posting a message on the relevant article's talk page, and then either WP:PINGing Zackmann08 in the message itself or let them know about the post by a separate message on their user talk page. FWIW, this type of thing has nothing really to do with anyone being an administrator or edits being made by unregistered accounts; edits made by anyone that are deemed to not be in accordance with relevant Wikpedia policies and guidelines can be undone by anyone at anytime. Of course, it helps to know why an edit was originally made and then why it was subsequently reverted, but an edit summary not being left in either case doesn't necessarily mean things were done in bad faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I just took a look at Zackmann08's recent contributions page, and nothing there seems unusual. In fact, it looks like Zackmann08 has been busy for the past day or so doing rudimentary cleanup related to WP:TFD discussions and other stuff. I did find this post added to the user talk page of an unregistered account, though. Could this, by chance, be the edit you're asking about? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The only reverts I make are those that are obvious vandalism. This anonymous user has not cited any specific reverts but instead throwing out baseless accusations and cannot even correctly cite or tag my username... If there is a specific diff in question, I am more than happy to explain exactly why I reverted it. But I'm not about to go over every revert I've made because one user claims I'm making mass reverts. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe there's some dishonesty involved in this supposedly innocent question. 81419, after saying they're back from yesterday, is using the same IP address (which I will not disclose, of course, but can confirmed by another other TAIV editor) as 78186, who did in fact post the same concern a day before here. 81419/78186 is nearly certainly the same user as 75971, who used a different IP address at the same IP, but posted the same edit summary in fighting reversions at Georges de La Trémoille .

• (75971) This is the english wikipedia , not the french wikipedia! In English, when writing "c." (Circa) we use a period "." Not a comma! His title was also in french , so I changed it to the english version because once again , this is the english wikipedia , not the french one
• (81419/78186) Stupid! This is the English wikipedia! Not the french wikipedia! In English, circa (c.) Is followed by a period "." Not a comma! How dare you revert that specific edit!

81419 has asserted that they are simply a bystander, watching Zackmann08 mass-reverting other temporary accounts in an abusive manner, and that Zackmann08 did not didn't Evert my edits specifically which is false . 81419, you should hopefully take away from this that you should have a much larger threshold of WP:AGF in another editor's actions, that you should ensure that the things you say are accurate, and that you shouldn't use an edit summary to call someone stupid. Luckily, you did not file this at ANI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that would likely end up as a WP:BOOMERANG. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

although using the word "stupid" is a violation of WP:NPA, i have to agree with 81419 that Zackmann08 needs to be careful with rollback or "undo" so that good edits don't get reverted like here. he also reverted me on my talk page and reverted with the categorical "unjustified" reasoning instead of replying to the discussion sections on the talk pages that i had started here and here. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

he also seemed to continue to WP:HOUND me by reverting here. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Logoshimpo: The Teahouse isn't really the best place to discuss specific user behavior issues beyond giving, perhaps, some general guidance. Since the issues you have with Zackmann08 (or Zackmann08 has with you) did end up being discussed at ANI and that discussion has been closed, there's no real point in continuing things here. I can tell from the time stamps of the various posts both here and at ANI that you did post the above before the ANI discussion was opened; however, I'm also guessing that you saw the notification about this particular discussion that was added to Zackmann08's user talk page and thought you'd bring up your own issues with Zackmann08 here, perhaps hoping to find a sympathetic ear or two. For future reference, that kind of thing isn't generally a good idea, and it's usually much better to seek assistance at one of the various administrator noticeboards instead when you find yourself unable to resolve disputes with other users on your own. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello hosts. I am editing as a paid contributor for Draft:Amey Pandya and have formally declared my COI on the draft's Talk page.

The draft was recently declined (for the 3rd time) under WP:NACTOR. The reviewer noted that the subject's roles in films like Vivah and Toonpur Ka Superrhero were supporting roles (nephew/son), not "lead/major roles" required by the actor guidelines.

My question is regarding General Notability (WP:GNG). Since the subject may not meet the strict "Lead Role" criteria of WP:NACTOR, does he stand a chance under WP:GNG based on the feature coverage he has received in major outlets like The Times of India and The New Indian Express? These articles discuss his career transition from child actor to software engineer in depth.

I want to respect the reviewers' time and avoid resubmitting if the consensus is that he simply isn't notable yet. Could an experienced editor please glance at the sources and advise if I should attempt to improve the sourcing further, or if this subject does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at this time? Thank you. Latishk1306 (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Latishk1306. Please read Paid news in India. Both the Times of India and the New Indian Express (and many other publications) have been implicated in unethical and dishonest reporting for money, especially regarding entertainment industry figures. Frankly, reviewers distrust use of these publications for establishing a person's notability because a source that is paid is by definition not independent. This actor is paying you to assist in getting coverage in Wikipedia. It seems plausible that they might also pay these publications for coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Please read the cautions at WP:TIMESOFINDIA. Here is what one experienced editor wrote in November, 2025: The Times of India spews out an overwhelming quantity of garbage every single day. The 'news desk' content is bad, but also, stuff written by individual named writers isn't any better, since they are often pumping out dozens of entertainment/gossip/lifestyle articles each, every day, for weeks or months. LLM or not, it's junk. If they put out any legit journalism, good luck finding it on any of their many busted, spammy websites. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328, for the honest insight regarding the reliability of those specific publications for entertainment figures. I was unaware of the strict stance on TOI/NIE in this context.

Since my primary sources fall into this category and I cannot locate a substantial critical review from a source like The Hindu or a peer-reviewed journal, I will respect the community's time and withdraw the draft. I appreciate you saving me from a futile resubmission. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latishk1306 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone help me create a page? Vs17pan3l (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Vs17pan3l. Please read and study the help page Your first article. If you then have a more specific question, feel free to ask it here at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Vs17pan3l, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Also please note that creating new articles is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia, and newcomers are strongly advised not to try that as the first thing they do.

If you have come here for the express purpose of creating an article about a particular something or someone, please be advised that not everybody (or every company, brand, band, product, school, artist, politician, political party, etc) meets Wikipedia's criteria for an article, and if you plunge into trying to create one before you have understood those criteria, you may be putting a lot of time and effort into something which is guaranteed to fail. Please don't try it until you have understood the relevant policies. ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Like i get it. 25 years, wow, woah! Best in the world and congrats but STOP(!) bloatware, every single second I go to an article "wikipedia is 25 years old" "Lets dance with wiki" this or that blah blah blah. I dont give an iota!

What is this nonsense anniversary if you are not even respecting what was wikipedia 25 years ago! Go and seel yourself to Zuck and sell ads! ~2026-87671-1 (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that you find Wikipedia to be the best in the world. If you wish it were even better, create a username, log in under that username, and set your "preferences" to avoid what you want to avoid. -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

What if I dont want to create one! I dont understand the way your fingers are pointing. I guess it means "We aint gonna change". Wellllllll....... ~2026-87671-1 (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If you choose not to create an account which would give you the ability to customize and personalize your reading experience, then you will continue to see what all unregistered readers see. How could it possibly be otherwise? Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The two options are either you make an account and customise your reading experience, or you expect Wikipedia to change its entire UI for unregistered users to accommodate your preferences. Athanelar (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

What’s your problem with Wikipedia, is it not just an encyclopaedia at the end of the day, if you don’t enjoy the articles perhaps don’t read them. 25 years is a quarter of a century and many people enjoyed the anniversary and have been invested for years and wanted to celebrate a milestone. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The original poster isn't complaining about the articles. They are complaining about the banners and such plastered over every page. I get their point. It comes across as our saying "If you want to be treated with respect and not have us bombarding you with these annoyances, you have to become one of us. Otherwise, screw you." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah I see my mistake, I still think I a bit far fetched, I barely see the banners and when I do I ignore them or close them Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Those banners are designed to target people who don't use Wikipedia regularly; that's why they're intrusive and attention-grabbing. They want someone who clicks one Wikipedia article per month to see what's going on.

It's not unreasonable at all to say that if you're using Wikipedia regularly enough to get annoyed then you should take 2 minutes to create a free and anonymous account (we don't even require email verification unlike literally every other site that demands a signup) to turn it off. Athanelar (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You can close those banners, there's an X on the top right. jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 14:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. The template Template:Infobox India university ranking is outdated. I mentioned and requested old editors of that template at Template talk:Infobox India university ranking#Request to add parameters. I added the requested parameters in Template:Infobox India university ranking/sandbox and also removed some old 2020 and 2021 parameters (since they are old and no more relevant). I showed that the new parameters are working in Template:Infobox India university ranking/testcases#Update (Feb 2026). But the editors who asked me to do so is not answering. So I am requesting here that some editor kindly add the parameters to the main template (the removing old ones are not necessary) since it needs immediate update. AnkurPl 15:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

How would I access the full text of this source? I can't find anywhere where it might be; it seems to be a presentation. ^EF⁵ 14:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

All I'm seeing is a 503 error. Is that what you see on your end? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@CabinetCavers: try this; I'm not sure why the above one is giving a 503. ^EF⁵ 14:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It works. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It does, but it's just an abstract - I am looking for the full text, which I'm assuming exists somewhere. ^EF⁵ 14:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the folks at WP:WEATHER can help? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 15:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I've searched for a while, but I can't find anything. I am so sorry. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 15:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Ask at WP:RX. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I mostly edit on Malayalam Wikipedia and I’ve been translating some English articles into Malayalam. I’m a bit stuck with language linking though. When I try to connect my Malayalam articles to their original English pages, I get a message saying I don’t have permission to do that. I’m not sure if I’m missing something obvious or if this is supposed to be done in a different way.

• Could someone help me understand:

Where language links are actually managed now Whether editors need special permissions for this And what the correct process is for linking a translated article to its English version I’d really appreciate any guidance. Thanks!Jaisonll799 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you do need permissions; I believe you need to become extended confirmed to do so. You can propose a translation and have another editor who is XC actually create and connect the page for you. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended confirmed is the requirement for using Special:ContentTranslation to translate articles from another language to English. The Malayalam Wikipedia does not have such a restriction for translations to their language. @Jaisonll799: Please always include an example when you have an issue. Most pages don't need permission to edit language links but I see you have translated some high-profile articles which have been semi-protected at Wikidata where language links are stored. Then you have to be autoconfirmed at Wikidata which requires the account to be four days old and have 50 edits there. You currently have 45. See wikidata:Template:Edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I’m connected to a UK electric motorcycle company but cannot edit its Wikipedia page myself due to conflict-of-interest rules. I have a draft with verifiable, third-party sources and would like advice on how a neutral editor could review it and publish it in line with Wikipedia’s standards.

I’m not asking anyone to act on my behalf or submit under a company-connected account, just looking for guidance on safe, neutral submission.

Any pointers to experienced editors or WikiProjects (Motorcycles, Electric Vehicles, Companies) who might help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! ~2026-88728-6 (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If you would, provide a link to the draft. Also, from what I've seen, AfC reviewers don't often take too kindly to review requests, so do what you will with that. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

They aren't asking for a review, they're asking how to submit. I don't think they've actually provided the draft yet. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. You are permitted to submit a draft for review via the Article Wizard. You will need to disclose your status as an employee(I assume that's the connection) per WP:PAID. It's actually easier to do that with an account, but it can also be done via the wizard when you submit.

I will caution you that the word "startup" is a clear indicator that it is too soon for an article about your company. "Startups" almost never merit Wikipedia articles, a company must become established and recognized in its field in order to draw the coverage in independent reliable sources to show that the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. I'd suggest that you read WP:BOSS and show it around your company, you aren't likely to succeed in this endeavor, especially as a new user with no experience. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

One of the main reasons that articles about startups often aren't successful: the company has had a hand in most of what's been written about them. When determining whether a company is notable, any source that appears to be based on a press release or an interview isn't counted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The first and most pressing question is; has anybody outside of your niche written anything about your company (so, no MotorbikesWeekly or whatever)? If the answer is 'no', then your company probably isn't notable enough for an article.

If the answer is "yes," then the followup question is; is any of that coverage not included in WP:CORPTRIV?

If "no" then, again, not notable. Athanelar (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, could you please let me know which of my changes were not considered constructive and why, and what I can do to make them constructive. Many thanks, Rob

St James' Priory, Bristol. Robhardingbristol (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Robhardingbristol. The reason for the reversion is in the edit summary of the edit by @Phuzion. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Robhardingbristol, apologies if your first edit being reverted was surprising or unexpected. As I mentioned in the edit summary of my revert, infoboxes (the box on the side of the page that includes little details like the year a church was built), tend to be for quickly explained tidbits or nuggets of information. If something requires more explanation, that should be done in the body of the article. I don't doubt that you have constructive additions to make to the article, so please don't be discouraged. Additionally, some quick research appears that you may have some association with the church in question. I would encourage you to read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies before editing those articles any further. Thanks for your contributions! phuzion (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

What's the recommended way to put apostrophes after italicized terms? (using the genus Homo as an example)

''Homo''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s

The above works, but it is quite cumbersome to have to type out nowiki constantly.

And yes, omitting the nowiki causes bolding:

''Homo''{{'s}} [...] ''Homo''{{'s}} whatever...

A diehard editor (talk | edits) 04:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You can use {{'s}} for this. ScalarFactor (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

More generally, you can use {{'}}: "He'd be free tomorrow". -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

A diehard editor, I usually use the Html entity &apos;, like this: ''Homo&apos;s'', which renders as Homo's. Mathglot (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Wait, wouldn't that be semantically inaccurate? The apostrophe isn't part of the genus's name.. wait, what does WP:MOS say? A diehard editor (talk | edits) 19:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Then put it after it: ''Homo''&apos;s, which renders as Homo's. Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi :) I noticed that when i'm adding archived information, the cite menu doesn't have a specific option to imbed a pre defined archive page, is there a "propper" way to do it?

many thanks 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Happypenguins82: there's an 'Archive URL' field, which becomes visible by clicking on the 'Show/hide extra fields' button. (I hope we're talking about the same thing!) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Every thing helps, i'll try it out thanks 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I have written a wikipedia article which is a biography. but its getting rejected. it says:

Submission declined on 1 December 2025 by Smallangryplanet (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

article link : Draft:Sampath_Kumar. Rohansingh1010 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Especially if it is a biography of a living person, it will need reliable sources, as this is required by the BLP policy. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 20:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

When writing a biography for the first time, many people assume that facts directly given by the person who they're writing about will be accepted. Unfortunately, people giving facts about themselves are naturally biased, so those things are not going to be accepted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I submitted a draft for AfC review, it's almost a month now, but haven't received a feedback yet. Then today, I stumbled upon a page where articles for review can be found. Curious, I searched for my submitted draft, but I didn't see it there. Is it possible?

Thanks for the answer Jane1289 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Your question, "Is it possible?", is unclear. Could you please clarify? ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 00:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

is it possible that my submitted draft isn't in the list of articles for review? Jane1289 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Is the list Category:Pending AfC submissions and what is the name of your draft? ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 00:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

sorry for disturbing, I found it now...I was just curious because it's almost a month now ..this can deleted.. Jane1289 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Why do you want it deleted? Your draft could be an awesome Wikipedia article. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 00:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

not the draft .this question hehe Jane1289 (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

do you review new pages? Can you help me review it? Thanks

Draft:Tahlia Kokkinis Jane1289 (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, the question; no need to delete it as it will be archived within a few days. As for the draft, I am not an new pages reviewer but I can look over your draft to see if it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if you'd like. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 00:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you Jane1289 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I see no issues. I believe your draft will be approved and moved to namespace to become an article. Until then, good luck! ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 00:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you so much . Jane1289 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries! ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 00:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jane1289 Your draft has been submitted and will be reviewed. Please see the text at the top of the draft that says This may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,028 pending submissions waiting for review. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the response Jane1289 (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

hi Yiotro1 (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I find this incomprehensible, but in User talk:Nil NZ#How_to_creat_a_table you asked what was perhaps the same question (differently phrased), and have already got an answer. -- Hoary (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes and can you also help me with The specified revision is deleted or suppressed. Yiotro1 (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

If a specified revision of a page is deleted or suppressed, there's usually a good reason for this, and "I want to read it" isn't an adequate argument for having the revision undeleted. Which revision of what do you want to view, and for what reason? -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

What's revision? I mean, I don't understand what 'I want to read it' was and, I just want to create a page just so people can have more information about this person without researching in various pages Yiotro1 (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It isn't possible to 'just create an article'. You need to learn how to do it properly, and not make half-hearted attempts to do something-or-other, and then repeatedly ask incomprehensible questions when you get stuck. Frankly, given your poor spelling, grammar etc I doubt you have the necessarily skills to create an article, but if you insist, read Help:Your first article, 'after' reading Wikipedia:Notability - there is no point in creating anything that isn't going to meet our notability requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Please help me understand this >>Notification that File: AirBrush Company logo.png is orphaned and will be deleted in seven days per WP:CSD#F5. Can anyone help me understand this and guide me on how to upload the logo so it won't be deleted? DavidL678 (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@DavidL678 Non-free stuff on en-WP must be used in an actual WP-article. Wait until Draft:Airbrush (software) is approved, then you can upload the logo and put it in there. You may want to consider if Commons:Threshold of originality applies here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much, now it is clear. DavidL678 (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

While looking at WP:RA, I found a request on this person, who was the figurehead in a soft money (campaign finance) scandal involving the GOP during the 1990s. (references from Frontline, The Journal of Commerce, LATimes, AP, AP2, AP3, Seattle Times, LATimes2) Curiously, the scandal itself doesn't seem to have an article here. What would it's title be, the Kojima scandal or something else? Nighfidelity (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

What, there are people who look at WP:RA? That aside, do you hope to write about the soft money scandal in particular, or more broadly about Kojima's financial arrangements? (A "snippet" within Crotty, America's Choice suggests that Kojima raised the cash by stiffing his ex-wives.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The scandal itself, as I don't think Kojima is notable by himself. Nighfidelity (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I look occasionally at the history ones, I even wrote the article for Yam (Nubia) which I never heard about from the RA list. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have checked the criteria for academic notability and I believe the person that I wish to create an academic wikipedia page for meets the criteria. How do I confirm this BEFORE I start writing content for their page? Is there a process to confirm the person meets the criteria first, then I can draft the page content and get it approved before staging it and publishing. I'd like to have the content vetted before publishing rather than risk a page content getting deleted. Please advise. Thanks! ~2026-90335-3 (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Find at least three sources which meet the requirements at WP:42 and you'll be in a solid position. Athanelar (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You will be able to create a draft for the article, see information on drafts for Wikipedia here. Before working on an article about someone who is living or recently deceased, make sure to familiarise yourself with the Biographies of living persons policiy. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I've looked through many pages on if this (see subject) can be done and if it works as a valid source. I haven't really found anything, which is kinda an issue. For some background, I've been meaning to update pages on the city of Maple Valley's history and similar. The city has plenty of resources on its history, but many are unavailable online and can only be found at the physical location as informational plaques. Would it be possible to photograph these plaques and use them as sources (or something similar)? Elm (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

No, plaques cannot be used as sources, as Wikipedia's articles should be based on reliable, published sources. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 00:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This is incorrect. See Template:Cite plaque.

What makes you think such plaques are either unreliable, or unpublished? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I found this out the other day -- we do have a template for citing plaques and signs at Template:Cite sign, so I take this to mean it's permissible, so long as the sign or plaque is accessible to be viewed by the public. I imagine it would be preferable if there's a photograph of it somewhere, or better yet, if you uploaded a photograph of it to the commons. All that being said, if you want to write about local history, you may have better luck simply checking the library. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@MediaKyle Thank you for sharing this template, it is exactly what I've been looking for!

(Quick note: All signs and plaques I'd photograph and cite are of course available to the public and would count as reliable, published sources.) Elm (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Elm Mount@MediaKyle, you can see one example from Isaac Abarbanel at "Bones from the cemetery were reburied in 1955, and there is a tradition that the remains of Abarbanel and Minz are among them." Only time I used that template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Verifiability means that all of the information must be verifiable by anyone who wishes to do so. If I have the means to travel to Maple Valley, and can access the plaque and verify that what you are saying in the article is correct, it can be included in Wikipedia. I'm not sure though, if plaques can be used to prove notability on their own. However, in this matter it does not matter since the article already exists. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there nothing usable in resources such as this (within the American Guide Series)? -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I would just point out that anyone can erect a plaque. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You cannot upload pictures of plaques with more than a few words of text, due to copyright restrictions. You may cite them, if they are published by a reliable body, nonetheless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku Please do not remove the details I added to the movie, it adds more to the plot, you were being very rude to me earlier by saying that it maybe a lack of English proficiency. SlayerRoyce (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku the edits I added are important plot points regarding the movie and I explained to you on why they are important and must be added. I do not know how else to explain it to you on why they should not be removed. SlayerRoyce (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@SlayerRoyce, Revirvlkodlaku was not rude to you. It is perfectly reasonable for two people to disagree about what is important in a movie summary and what is not. If you can't reach consensus, you should work your way through dispute resolution.

I also think it would be a very good idea for you to read WP:BLUDGEON. By the end of the thread on the talk page, you had left six comments in a row in under half an hour and then another four in a row in the next eight minutes - ten comments in less than an hour compared to Revirvlkodlaku's two comments. You gave Revirvlkodlaku no time to respond, and left no time for anyone else to join the conversation. Discussions on Wikipedia can take weeks or even months, and when there is a content dispute WP:ONUS tells us the content should be removed until there is a consensus for it to be included. You knew Revirvlkodlaku disagreed with your additions, so you should not have added them again until there was agreement that it should be there. Slow down, there's no rush. Meadowlark (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

SlayerRoyce, if you want to address a particular editor about edits by that editor to a particular page, better to write on the article's talk page (Talk:Naanum Rowdy Dhaan) or possibly the editor's talk page (User talk:Revirvlkodlaku). -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary, I did talk to him on the editor's talk page but he was being very rude there, so I wanted to address the issue here. SlayerRoyce (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use the Teahouse to address another editor in this way—use their talk page or the talk page of the relevant article.

The Teahouse is not a court of appeal, and WP:CANVASS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Immediately above, I have used Template:Od, an underappreciated, underused template. By "the editor's talk page", it's clear that you mean the article's talk page, i.e. Talk:Naanum Rowdy Dhaan. I am not proposing to read that: attempting to do so would be too painful. If only at least one editor had used Template:Od! -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary I concur, I for one hate that talk page system where it keeps moving, it should automatically stop at a point where it isn’t one letter per line. Utterly grotesque as you stated. Thanks for being the Od template to light, as I’ve never heard of it but I’ll be certainly using it to avoid large ugly texts like that. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Found a bunch of temp accounts spamming WP:NOTHERE stuff in article talk pages. When I undo their edits they spammed my very own talk page instead. Where do I report this ? Jothefiredragon🐲talk🔥contributions🧨log✨mail🐉global 10:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: IP editors getting new temp accounts instead of having their IP shown in edit history is why I so much dislike this new temp account feature. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🔥contributions🧨log✨mail🐉global 10:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the best place for unambiguous vandalism to be reported. Athanelar (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Example of such spams:

• 1
• 2
• 3

Jothefiredragon🐲talk🔥contributions🧨log✨mail🐉global 10:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

As already advised, you need to report that at WP:AIV, not here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

User talk:~2026-46199-9 This user is the same as the one JoThefiredragon is describing, I can add it to the report they file. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I’m an editor from Malayalam Wikipedia. I created the article ബാഡ് ബണ്ണി as a translation of the English article Bad Bunny, but I’m unable to interlink them because the Wikidata item is protected. Could someone with access please add the Malayalam sitelink to the existing Wikidata item, or advise how I can request this properly?

Thank you. Jaisonll799 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello there is a supermarket chain in the philippines called dali can i make articles abourt it Dommer simpson (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

As long as you can find some reliable sources that prove the chain is notable, go ahead and make the article. Also, if you haven't already, read Your First Article before writing to get some information on how to write a good article. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

oh wait i relized theres an article about it called dalli everyday grocery Dommer simpson (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

If you have finished changing Jaaved Jaaferi and Govardhan Asrani profile. Then put the rest of the cast of bhooth Bangla 2026

profile changes and bhooth bangla 2026 cast additions ~2026-85927-4 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I would love to help, but I can't understand what you are trying to ask for. Could you please clarify? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

"If you have finished ... then..." reads as though it is an instruction given to the OP by someone else. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Judging by their other posts, it looks like they're trying to tell other editors what to do? I've given an explanation on their Talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi :) if i come across an article with one citation and no tags am i allowed to add the Maintenance tag? or is that action saved for a certain role in wikipedia? Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Happypenguins82! What tag are you referring to? If you mean the cleanup tag, that's more for wikification or typographical errors. I think the More citations needed template would be more appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, anyone can add such tags to articles. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 22:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, or you could use the more specific Template:One source. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 22:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's what i meant, i came across of an article that seriously lacked sources (with only 1 source,) i added a few, but i think it can use some more, so i'll add a "More citations needed" template.

thank you 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You may, and you can use WP:Twinkle to do so easily and quickly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh nice... i'd seen it before but didn't take the time to understand what it meant, thank's i'll look in to it 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Formal complaint and appeal regarding the "Lean Back" article – request for specific source evaluation

 Courtesy link: Draft talk:Lean Back (band)

Dear Reviewers and Help Desk Team,

I am writing to formally appeal the current status of the "Lean Back" article. I have implemented all technical corrections, standardized the citations, and provided a comprehensive set of verifiable sources. I request a detailed evaluation of the specific evidence provided rather than generic feedback.

1. Printed and Archival Sources: I have provided details for the Encyclopedia of Popular Music: Blues in Poland (ISBN: 83-85414-92-4) and the journal Wiadomości Rudzkie (ISSN: 1232-0560). While these documents are not fully digitized, they are legitimate, indexed publications. Do these identifiers not qualify as credible sources for a historical Polish band?
2. Academic and Professional Verification: I have added a new high-quality reference (Position 7) from an American scientific journal, the Journal of Dentistry (https://www.jdentistry.com/editorial-board/tomasz-tomi-kupka), which verifies the professional background of member Tomasz "Tomi" Kupka. I have inserted this reference in the "Band History" section and the "Line up" section. Does this peer-reviewed source not establish the credibility of the individuals involved?
3. Artistic and Event Verification:

   I have provided links to actual music festivals (e.g., Student Song Festival at Jagiellonian University, Rawa Blues) where the band performed. Are these event archives not considered credible?

   I have provided a link to the band’s YouTube channel. Given that YouTube links are standard practice for musicians on Wikipedia, why is this source being dismissed here?

   I have archival recordings (including a world-standard cover of "Strawberry Fields Forever") to confirm the band's artistic profile.

4. Context and Translation: This is an English translation of a historical article about a Polish band. Other translations of this very article have been accepted on various language versions of Wikipedia.
5. Verification via Audiovisual Archive (YouTube): I have provided the link to the official YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/@LeanBackBand), which serves as a primary audiovisual archive for the band. It contains professional television recordings from national broadcasters (TVP Polonia, TVP2, TVP3) and live footage from major festivals mentioned in the article (e.g., Rawa Blues at the Spodek Arena, FAMA Festival).

These recordings provide direct visual and auditory evidence that corroborates the printed sources (Wiadomości Rudzkie, Encyclopedia of Popular Music). In the context of a band active in the 1980s and 1990s, such an archive is a crucial tool for verifying historical activities that were documented before the era of digital-only media. Why is this cross-referenced evidence being ignored?

Specific Questions:

What exactly is still missing? Please provide detailed comments on each individual source rather than general rules.

If this article continues to be blocked despite the presence of these verifiable, high-quality sources, what is the formal procedure for filing a complaint regarding the obstruction of a correctly prepared and sourced historical entry?

Best regards,

JonekX (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no formal complaint process, and if it did, this page would not be its venue. Nor is this page a court of appeal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow and that's it? What about the page "Lean Back" which is being blocked from publishing? I am not looking for a court, but for specific guidance. I have added high-quality academic sources (like the Journal of Dentistry) and provided archival IDs (ISBN/ISSN) for offline sources. Could someone please review if these specific references meet the notability criteria? JonekX (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not it.

Your draft was declined on 18 January, when you were told:

references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject

There are ample links to explanatory pages in the original copy of that text.

You have made a number of changes to your draft since then, but you have not resubmitted it for review, so no-one has looked at it again, and no one has declined, nor "blocked" it. It ls just sitting there, waiting for you to resubmit it as that text advises you to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and the technical tip. I have updated the draft with verified academic sources and archival IDs for the historical records. I have also officially clicked the "Resubmit" button as you suggested. I appreciate the guidance.

JonekX (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I am writing to inform you that your requests for help will be more successful if you write them concisely and in your own words instead of expecting people to use their time reading whatever ChatGPT spat out. Athanelar (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

No article is "blocked," your draft was declined. From what I see of the draft, it uses promotional language ("they played classics by artists," "many interesting line-up combinations," "a unique acid jazz sound" just to name a few) and reads like an LLM, just like your "formal complaint." Please use your own words when contributing here. jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 15:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm still learning working on wikipedia and english is not my first language. I've used some tools to help with translation, but I see now that it sounds too promotional. I'll go through the draft again and remove these words to make it neutral. Thanks for pointing that out. JonekX (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@JonekX You should read through the Wikipedia:Notability (music) policy, that's going to be your biggest hurdle. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

There are other language Wikipedias, if you'd like to try there while you build up your English skills? jiraijohnny˚₊‧꒰ა ♡ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚ (KISS ME GOOD-BYE.⋆˚꩜｡) 16:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

is their a way for me to let more people know if a article is in great disrepare/bad if I dont have time to fix it. maybe like putting it on my user page, or should I just do this on the talk page. a recent example is i put up a banner on Out of the Dust but I would like more to get done and sadly right now i dont have the time. :( Ducklan (Quack Back) 19:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! There are several maintenance templates to help with this, see Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup for a list of them. As a matter of fact, see WP:CLEANUP, a WikiProject for this, if you want wider coordination. However, there are many articles tagged with maintenance templates and not enough people who want to help remove them, so even with tagging, the article may not be picked up for ages. If you can, it'd be nice to leave a note on the talk page highlighting some issues the article has, which provides a nice foundation to work on, and thus, more people may feel inclined to help out. You can use specific templates for this like {{To do}} for this. Beyond this you may also want to leave messages about the article's poor shape in relevant WikiProjects (including the Cleanup one mentioned above). jolielover♥talk 19:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tagging the article was the right thing to do, Ducklan. You can, if you have more specific comments, add it to the article talk. Putting something on your userpage, personal sandbox, or other user subpage is less for communicating with others and more a note to yourself. If you think something absolutely needs attention, you can try asking at a relevant WikiProject like WikiProject Novels. Otherwise, you can just come back and fix the article yourself when you have more free time—usually, improving the 'pedia has no deadline. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You can put it under articles for improvement in the related WikiProject. People looking for tasks to do will find it there. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The article SocioFare is mostly llm generated , what to do? It's also very promotional. Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 23:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion; per WP:G15. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 23:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

PROD, or XFD? Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 23:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

CSD. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This might not be a G15 issue. Considering there is proper citations and formatting, I would say that this is a Wikipedia:NEWLLM issue, and not eligible for speedy deletion. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's NEWLLM Then what do I do?

(Deleting is NOT my area of expertise) Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Then PROD. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK Did that. Hopefully no drama kicks up.(reply button was blocked by the arrows, so I did this. Sorry.) Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, um. I just looked at the article and it could also be speedily deleted under G11 (super promotional). Where is the deletion discussion? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Just made it. (This is the longest teahouse thread I've made, wow)Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Still don't see it. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Check the talk page? I don't know, this is my 1st time deleting an article.(That's why I came here)Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I probably screwed up.Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I use Twinkle—a tool used by many Wikipedians. To get Twinkle, follow the instructions at WP:Twinkle#Getting Started. Once you have it, click the TW button next to the tools button. After you click the button, click XFD button. The XFD button will pull up an interface where you can input the reason for deletion—the relevant policies and/or guidelines that the article violates. After you have written your reason, hit submit. Twinkle will then create a page at Articles for Deletion. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Got twinkle already. Mainly use it to warn vandals.Starlet (What Now?) (My changes) 00:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Is there such a thing as a Wikipedia in a language that is dead as in no native speakers, but a select few people who choose to study it can speak it fluently? Latin, for example? Ancient Greek, Old Norse, et cetera? Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 10:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes we have them...here's a comprehensive list Wikipedia:List of Wikipedias; Latin is amongst them. Lectonar (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Awesome; thanks! Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 11:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a Latin-language Wikipedia, but that's the only one I'd call "dead". We have plenty of endangered languages, like Judeo-Spanish, and constructed languages, like Toki Pona, though. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There’s also Old English; I believe that would be considered dead. Those are kind of the only two, though. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 21:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I’d also count Old Church Slavonic. Katya (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia in Old Church Slavonic? I didn't see that when skimming through the list of wikipedias. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah! Here it is. Also Gothic, which is fun. Katya (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Put stamp photo in wrong category. It's an Ottoman stamp and should be moved from Egypt section to Ottoman stamps Tek monde (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the photo you are talking about? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Tek monde, welcome to the Teahouse. If this is about commons:File:Egyptian telegram receipt, M. Weldon, London, 35 words, April 24, 1887 with attached revenue stamp.jpg then there should be an "Edit" tab at the top where you can change [[Category:Revenue stamps of Egypt]]. You may also have a "±" sign at the category name at the bottom where you can change the name. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am Lutitium and I was wondering if I should make a list article about list of coat of arms containing non-avian dinosaurs. There are at least half a dozen or so places that have coat of arms containing non-avian dinosaurs like Louppy-le-Château but the idea seams a bit silly.

Anyways bye :D Lutitium (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Lutitium, and welcome to the Teahouse. List articles, like any other articles, are only acceptable if the subject is notable - which mostly means that there are multiple reliable independent sources about the subject specifically - so in this case it would mean articles or books about the subject of "dinosaurs in arms", not just about particular instances.

Having said that there is some unclarity about the criteria for lists, but I doubt that your example would satisfy anybody: see WP:NLIST. ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks :) Lutitium (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Please make a page for the nectar app, the nectar youtube channel, the nectar show dating show, swipe or swap the dating show, etc

https://www.youtube.com/@nectarcrush Kivi36 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome! But that isn't you offering to help, that's you asking to put up some advertising. Helping means improving the articles we already have about other things. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not advertising. This is a topic that should be on wikipedia. I have no association to it whatsoever. It's mentioned in the jubilee page. Kivi36 (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The citations for what's already in Jubilee (YouTube channel) are weak. Improve that first—no use even thinking about do a splitting it off without proper sourcing before that. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it notable enough to deserve an article? toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 19:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Here are some links talking about the channel:

https://news.thepublishpress.com/p/jubilee-plans-change-dating

Will place these in sources. Kivi36 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/3/26/young-nut-influencer-youtube-authenticity-fame-comedy-rizz-tiktok/ Kivi36 (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, an Article for the found of Jubilee, Jason Y. Lee should be createdi. Kivi36 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

If Jason Y. Lee is demonstrably notable, Kivi36, then you are free to create a draft, or perhaps an article, about him. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue is that I don’t know the right formatting (this kivi on my phone) ~2026-92108-3 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You could start with Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/1. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Irina Georgescu

Hi, I have recently submitted an article that in the end was rejected because 'it should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.' The article included numerous references and citations from reputable sources such as the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Independent, as well as appearances on BBC One and Channel 4 in the UK, among others. These are independent outlets that adhere to your guidelines. None of the material was created by me, the page’s author; they are all from independent media. Could you kindly clarify how to proceed with these sources? I thought these were exactly what you wanted. Thank you. Electra Electra188 (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Electra188! The problem with your sources is not, in this case, what publisher they are from, but when they are used and what they contain. The bulk of the article, especially the personal life and early life and education, has no sources -- and in a BLP (Biography of a living person) article like this, all statements must be sourced. And when you used the sources, you only used them to show that the subject of the article has written for them. Just because someone has done stuff for news media doesn't make them notable -- what makes them notable is when news media (or other RSs) independently (usually not in the case of an interview, which is dependent on the interviewee talking) cover them. Try reading WP:42 (not a policy, but a very useful essay) and see if it meets those requirements. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, OmegaMantis. I believed I did the right thing, but I now understand the points raised in WP:42. The sources I used were mainly journalist interviews with Irina G, not paid contributions—something they typically do not do—covering her work as the only Romanian-British writer promoting her country’s food culture, which is more complex than it appears. I referenced other Wikipedia pages to match the tone you approved and reviewed relevant guidelines. Therefore, I included awards like the James Beard Award, believing it was appropriate. The Washington Post featured Irina as a writer involved in a personal story, similar to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olia_Hercules. Not everything here is ‘someone else talking about Olia’; it also highlights her activities. Like Irina, Olia appeared on BBC One and Sunday Brunch, which I thought Wikipedia would accept. There are other sources, such as National Geographic’s coverage (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/mountains-flavour-irina-georgescu-romanian-cuisine), which discusses Irina’s work, not paid recipes. Does this Nat Geo link align with your policy? If so, then The Independent and the Daily Mail also covered Irina’s work, portraying Eastern European cuisine as mainly vegetarian, contrary to expectations. These were journalist-covered interviews, not press releases, even though they were not written by Irina herself. Is this viewpoint acceptable? Thank you for your time, Irina. Electra188 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

These items are her own work. Wikipedia requires articles that tell the story of "Irina the person", without any help from her. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Her work is who she is. No piece in the media can be written without her work. Her work is why the media writes about her. One of the examples I followed, already approved by you (I put the link in the reply above) describe the other author's work too, even include a link to her own website (citation 24). If I write about an actor, I need to put their movies and work in and so on. How can I make my contribution good enough for you to approve, please? Thank you. E Electra188 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Electra188, can you find multiple sources that discuss Irina that are not interviews with her or written by her? ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, it's hard because the style of food media is to include quotes/interviews with the person they talk about. Since I used this page for inspiration Olia Hercules, all the cited sources are interviews with OH, her awards, TV appearances (which Irina also has, exactly the same) and websites. So, in case of Irina, I already mentioned https://www.washingtonpost.com/recipes/musaca-de-cartofi-potato-moussaka/ which is more about her than an interview with her. Does this qualify? This https://adevarul.ro/stiri-locale/cluj-napoca/cum-a-ajuns-celebra-in-lume-cartea-de-bucate-a-2035960.html talks about her but also includes an interview. It's hard, as you can see from OH page, to separate the two. Thank you, Irina Electra188 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This as well https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/celebrate-with-a-feast-a-conversation-with-irina-georgescu/ about her but also an interview. Is this good? Thank you, Electra Electra188 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2024/jan/27/chefs-and-food-writers-pick-their-dream-meals-across-europe-for-2024 mentions Irina but also includes a quote. Electra. Electra188 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Electra188, part of the problem is not just the person's notability, but the fact that most of the article is not sourced -- please fix that first. But regarding your sources, the Nat Geo one seems to be mostly free-reign answering of questions, so I wouldn't call information gleaned from it "independent" and enough to establish notability. I would say a lot of the other interviews are more about her book, which perhaps could be an article. I am not very skilled in the Articles for Creation process, however, so I may not be the best judge of this. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 22:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, OmegaMantis. I'll try to fix it but even if I do, it doesn't look it will be successful. Electra188 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

"Independent" is what's missing from all of this. As soon as she's involved in creating the coverage of her, whether as an interview guest or in some other way, it's suddenly not independent anymore. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You can use sources that write about her work to establish notability; but not sources that reply< rely on her words to do so.

I would urge you to continue, as on the face of it she seems likely to be notable, in Wikipedia terms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Andy Pigsonthewing

Thank you for your words of encouragement. Frankly, I’ve been considering giving up, having put a lot of effort into writing it and collecting all this information, only to be rejected. I should have written about a Romanian composer, dead but famous, and have an easier way to publish on WP. As you say, she has potential to be notable, but at the moment it is hard to find those particular articles that don’t involve her at all. Journalists like to include a quote or a recipe. Her appearances on TV, despite being on the most famous channels in the UK, disqualify her under the WP criteria because she is in them. But how else can someone become famous without being involved? To be invited on such programmes or to write for famous media outlets are proof of notability. I will try to dig deeper to find those links, because she is fighting the preconceptions that surround a nation with no good reputation in the UK or the US. That’s not easy, and change needs to start with someone or somewhere. Many thanks again, Electra. Electra188 (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia re-publishes information that independent reliable sources have already published. Whatever the news is, whatever the reputation is, Wikipedia always intentionally lags behind the other sources in writing about it. We can truly say "We never accept second place" - because when second place crosses the finish line, we start putting our boots on. "Getting the word out" is not our job; I guess we "gather up the word that was already out". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Very well said! And this is how and why I use WP as a reader. To me, independent means not the content that sits on the subject’s website or social media or was produced by the subject. Independent is a reputable third-party source. But usually, these sources include quotes for the personal touch, which automatically disqualifies the article from being independent in Wikipedia's eyes. However, I think I found something that fits this rule. Could you please tell me whether, in your opinion, this link about Irina is considered to be independent? https://www.ft.com/content/8a127cf6-68b4-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3 Thank you. Electra Electra188 (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't see it, because I'm not a subscriber. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

And ... above, I was trying to explain about this:

... she is fighting the preconceptions that surround a nation with no good reputation in the UK or the US. That’s not easy, and change needs to start with someone or somewhere

... by answering "Wikipedia is not here to help with that". Wikipedia waits until after she has already succeeded, when it has already been reported about. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It was a comment to justify to you why I decided to write about her on Wikipedia. Judging by how many media outlets have already talked about her (unfortunately with direct contributions from her) she has succeeded, even if she doesn't qualify for Wikipedia. I'm really very grateful for your advice and explanations, TooManyFingers. Thank you. Electra. Electra188 (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a common misconception or mistake. Someone succeeding in catching the public's attention by their own efforts is not the same as having their story told at length by independent others. If I went outside right now with no clothes on, it would certainly catch the public's attention, but it wouldn't make reporters tell the story of my career. NOT saying Georgescu is doing stunts for attention; just that her career hasn't been written up by independent sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not what she’s doing, and I don’t want to trivialise a career that spans more than ten years — one in which she has consistently attracted media attention despite challenging circumstances. The story of her career is often told with her in the “picture,” which is why WP doesn’t consider her notable. Yet her achievements clearly demonstrate that she is. I have clearly wasted my time in writing this post, not taking into consideration this rule. At the same time, I can send you many examples of approved pages that don't follow it. So, I guess 'it's subjective'. As always. Electra188 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept articles by achievement, but by notability. Her achievements demonstrate her achievements. They don't demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability in the slightest. I apologize for the fact that Wikipedia's definition of notability is non-standard ... but it is. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

When someone's story remains unwritten (other than through their own effort or influence), Wikipedia is firmly committed to also not writing it. Wikipedia pays no attention to what a person (or their supporters) wants written about them; we wait until after the independent reliable reporters have written their independent version of the person's story. Sometimes, perhaps often, that doesn't happen until the person's career has ended. There's nothing wrong or even mildly unfortunate about that; Wikipedia biographies are history, not a directory or a publicity platform. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

(And I do get the distinct impression from your last several messages you've moved pretty strongly in the direction of "but she deserves this publicity platform!") TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that throwing in a personalizing quote shouldn't damage the source's chance of counting something toward notability. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I need some help or instructions for how to nominate an article currently listed as a good article for GA Reassessment, specifically Sam Kerr. What are instructions with tools for opening one of these? Where do I need to be to do it from? What page? Could someone help me on this? Thank you to anyone willing to ask questions, help would be appreciated. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Servite et contribuere, try WP:Good article reassessment. If something in that is unclear, please ask at WT:Good article reassessment. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hoary I went there but I couldn't find the tools. What are the tools? Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

What I meant is like how do add a page to the list? Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I quote: To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Within which, "GAR-helper" links to User:SD0001/GAR-helper, a page that describes the installation procedure. -- Hoary (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey!

Is there any template that turns a number into a rank (e.g. 1 --> 1st, or 67 --> 67th)? Rockfighterz M (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rockfighterz M: {{Ordinal}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

TYM8! Rockfighterz M (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Just curious why this template would be particularly helpful … I can’t quite see why not simply make the change oneself. Now, if it could also look for all occurrences of numbers in an article and turn them into ordinals—which would sure be useful in some articles I’ve seen but likely a bit beyond the scope of what that template can do—I’d add it to my bookmarked templates right away! Augnablik (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

{{Ordinal}} can be used in other templates when the number isn't fixed, e.g. {{Day}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You mean, like turn 11 February into whatever ordinal number day it is in the year—I guess 42? Augnablik (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, 42nd? Augnablik (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That one is done like this:

{{Ordinal date|year=2026|month=02|day=11}} TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Then what does the one PrimeHunter mentioned do? Augnablik (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The other "ordinal" is to change 1 to 1st, 2 to 2nd, and so on. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Not {{Ordinal}} but {{Day}}. Augnablik (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Click on its link - a sample output is shown. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

So {{tl|Day}} would provide not just 42nd for today but also how many more days remain in the year. Interesting. Augnablik (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Along with accompanying text. Augnablik (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I was attempting to create a wiki page for a rapper/ hip-hop artist from my local town. When it comes to pointing or referencing out notable sources, what does this entail? USgayon25 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It's reliable sources, not notable sources. To cite sources, use <ref> and </ref> tags, with a {{Cite}} tag such as {{Cite book}}, {{Cite web}}, etc. with the required parameters at Template:Cite book, Template:Cite web, etc. Happy editing! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Sources should not be notable, the subject of the article should be, while sources themself should be reliable and independent of the subject. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 00:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:42 and WP:Referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey! I haven't been too active on Wikipedia recently, so I lost some of the links I used for assisting on articles. I recall there being a link—I believe via toolforge—that would show the top contributors to an article, as well as the percentage they contributed. Does anyone know where I can find this? Thank you!

P.S., This is likely phrased weirdly... I hope this makes enough sense so that people know what I'm talking about. :,) Ali Beary _(talk!) 13:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

xtools:articleinfo, @Ali Beary? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you so much, @Rotideypoc41352!! Ali Beary _(talk!) 17:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ali Beary If you use the "View history" tab for an article, that link and several others are immediately available at the top, with the article name already filled in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Shocked I didn't see that... thank you!! Ali Beary _(talk!) 17:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking for a specific person in Wikipedia The name is Dwight Lowaine McGee born in Tulsa Oklahoma November 7th 1977 can you help me find this person and information on this person thank you Dwight L McGee (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I did a brief search but there is no mention of him on Wikipedia, perhaps ask the local council of Tulsa, they might have an email you can reach out to and acquire a birth certificate, or checked sites like ancestry, myheritage, newspaper sites etc. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you searching for yourself? Cuz it seems like that based off your username. ູ (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That's what it looks like to me. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Or the user named themselves after the subject in question, I’m sure you aren’t actually a cabinet @CabinetCavers so perhaps Dwight L McGee isn’t actually Dwight. L McGee (although I highly doubt they are different individuals, just saying a possibility) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater By policy, Wikipedia usernames may not WP:IMPERSONATE other real people. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I figured, it would be weird if it wasn’t the same person. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

This could be some kind of promotion too. I found this legal case involving a Dwight L. McGee. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Good sleuth, perhaps the user wants to see if there is any negative press about themselves, we can only assume though The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Im drafting a company page and already made a lot of adjustments according to editor instructions. One of those was that the text reads too much like an advertisement, so I rewrote the text and it went through, which means that text was ok. Then I had to change some other things that had nothing to do with text, but now after the latest edit, it came back to "it reads too much like an advertisement" which makes no sense since I already fixed that issue and it went through. So now I dont know what else I can do because I already did everything that was asked and the page should be ready to publish. Thank you for your help in advance. Here is the page - Draft:Dateio. Mendelejev86 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The style is part of it, but advertising is also a kind of content. When you write the kinds of things that customers will want to know, that's already advertising. Most of the time, writing the things the boss requires is also advertising. When you write for only a history book, you get a different article - and a Wikipedia article is for a history book. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Is there anything specific I can focus on? Because as for now, all the text is a very simple and straightforward information about what the company does, with now "marketing" fluff. If I go see lets say Apple page, it will be the same. Thanks! Mendelejev86 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Athanelar that you should ask the reviewer, but here's an example: Do the independent sources really list every single service the company currently offers? Or is that list coming from the company? If the reliable sources fail to mention a product or a service, it can't be filled in by using company information; Wikipedia must also fail to mention it.

The article is not here to inform people about what the company does; it's here to gather what the reliable independent sources have written. Missing information needs to stay missing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mendelejev86 The fact that your edits to the text "went through" does not mean anything. When you edit the draft there is no check to see whether the draft is now acceptable before your edits are published. The only time a human reviews it is when you submit it for review.

The best person to ask about why the submission was declined would be @TheObsidianGriffon, the editor who declined it. Athanelar (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mendelejev86: The article is mostly about Dateio's products and uses, and seems more like an advertisement than like a normal encyclopedia article. If you can work on fixing those types of things before resubmitting, it will really help. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

There is something I’ve noticed on many user profiles—some editors have awards, thanks, or trophy-style achievement icons. I’ve been editing Wikipedia for more than seven months now, but I haven’t received any awards yet.

I wanted to ask if there are any specific tasks or types of contributions that lead to receiving these appreciation awards or trophies. If so, I would kindly appreciate your guidance on what kind of work I should focus on to earn them. Jameskida (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

None of them are official, so it's "oh, Jameskida did something cool! I think I'll give him one of those award icons!" DS (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Jameskida. Most of the awards have no official status. You can see the various kinds at WP:Awards. ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok i got it and thanks for your time. Jameskida (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Completely Understood.. Jameskida (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I know that BarnStars can be received and given by anyone. But like you… I’ve always wondered about the rest. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Trying to 'earn' anything through your editing is a bad road to start down. Expect no reward for your hard work and you can't go wrong. Athanelar (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

A simple “thank you” from another editor is always nice and been enough for me. ~2026-19602-0 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I honestly had no bad intention or beieng greedy. I was just curious because I saw tasks on some pages where the page creator or other people ask for help to fix things. I thought that by completing those tasks, people earn those award things. Thanks for clearing me out that these awards has no official status.

Thanks All i understood everything loud and clear. @~2026-19602-0 @ColinFine@Athanelar@DragonflySixtyseven Jameskida (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I was on Wikipedia for 3 years before anyone put an award icon or banner on my talk page. They don't mean anything except that someone noticed you and appreciated something you did. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jameskida,apparently your awardless days are over, as I see at your Talk page that someone gave you the Civility barnstar a few days ago. 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and I’m genuinely very happy to have received that award! 😊 Jameskida (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Various backlog drives award barnstars to participants who win "points": Guild of Copy Editors or Unreferenced Articles (both coming up in March) are easier places to start. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 06:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was looking for. I was searching for places on Wikipedia where I could work on those achievements. Thank you for your help, and I have registered for WikiProject Unreferenced Articles. Jameskida (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi :) I ran into an article in need of merging, just making sure with you guys before attempting this, for good advice on what needs to be considered in this case? thanks a milion 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Godspeaker#Merge proposal, if you feel up to it, you can just go ahead and do the merge according to the instructions at WP:PROMERGE. If someone else reverts, you all can return to the discussion and continue from there.

Make sure to, at minimum, document where the merged text is coming from. Adding {{merged from}} to the article talk is ideal. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, i'll try to merge the articles as suggested 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

How come plot summaries and basic album data are not considered original research? If Wikipedia:No original research is a policy and not a guideline, how can those be allowed without being specifically excepted? (Obviously I'm not complaining or wikilawyering, I'm just curious) 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 13:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The source for plot summaries is the work being summarised.

Likewise album track listings; but names of performers etc. should be sourced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 13:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the plot summary thing confuses people just because a little blue number isn't needed for them.

If I create a normal little blue number, it's because I've just given a summary of what a certain publication says. The blue number is to tell the reader which publication I summarized. The reason that plot summaries don't get a blue number is only the fact that "What publication are you summarizing here?" is a silly question in this case.

In other words, the only "exception" being given to people writing plot summaries is that if I summarize the plot of In Search of Lost Time by Proust, I'm not required to put a little blue number saying "I'll give you three guesses where these ideas come from". The process of summarizing a source is the exact same process done all the time by anyone writing an article about anything (though of course the plot of a book or film or whatever is normally a lot longer than other sources, and you're summarizing the whole thing). "What if someone fakes their summary?" is equally a concern in every article ever, not limited to plot summaries.

I guess if there was going to be a problem, it would be if I did use a separate source to help with my plot summary, and I didn't cite that; an uncited quote of the All-England Summarize Proust Competition would be trouble on several levels. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

("Ah yes, I remember it well.") {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Right, that makes sense, thank you. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 20:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

If there is a B-class article that I have reviewed and decided it doesn't adequately meet the B-class requirements, can I just replace "B" with "C" on the shell banner? Is there anything else I need to do? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems like that isn't a tightly regulated process. If your reasoning comes directly from the requirements (i.e. if challenged, you could defend your decision using only the text of the requirements themselves), then I think it's right to just leave it like that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

From my experience, the rating doesn't really matter unless the article is a GA, FA, or FL. If you believe the article doesn't meet the criteria of B-class, I would change it. Either way, ratings are only used for WikiProjects' internal quality assessments. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I second this. Additionally, @VidanaliK, I would recommend installing User:Evad37/rater.js to help with the process, as it makes adjusting ratings a whole lot easier. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 21:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

How do I use it? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It appears that the Record label article has been subject to persistent anonymous vandalism for the last few weeks, e.g. changing "Big Three" to "Big Four", changing "Big Four" to "Big Five", etc. I just happened on the article yesterday and don't feel knowledgeable enough on the subject to competently review or edit the details, but could there be some temporary protection until this disruption dies down? I'm hoping someone knowledgeable might also give it a quick review to see if any misinformation has been introduced and is still in the article. (I also don't know the best way to ask for page protection, so if this is not it, advice would be appreciated.) CAVincent (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You'll want to request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Probably PC or semi.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! CAVincent (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You can also install Twinkle, and then under TW you will find RPP. It makes it much easier to go through several WP. Twinkle is also useful for warning people, welcoming users, nominating a page for deletion or speedy deletion, starting a deletion discussion, telling someone their question was answered at the teahouse, inviting them to the teahouse, etc. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Wondering if this is the place to start--there is a link to here from John Cleese's wiki page, which has a "semi-protected" tag on it. In the section on his political views there is no mention of his public statements on transgender issues. He has been quite vocal about his views on transgender issues, defending Rowling, etc., a tweet about wanting to be a "Cambodian police woman." I don't see any mention of them; I get they are/can be controversial, but he has been vocal and restated them publicly, so I would think it would be appropriate to mention as a political view. What is the guidance on what political views are referenced and how to edit "semi-protected" pages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cleese#Activism_and_politics https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63103387/ Nyingpo (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You could submit a semi-protected edit request on the article's talk page. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 15:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Nyingpo That IMDb link is of no use as a citation: see WP:IMDB. You will need a reliable secondary source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, this seems kinda light to include. For Rowling, there's substantial coverage of her views, and she's clearly put herself forward as an advocate for those views. For Cleese, it's mostly churnalism about a social media incident in 2020 when he made those comments. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not an editor for wikipedia or anything. But I clicked on the campaign website link that was attach to Mike Petersen's wikipedia page and it definitely isn't a political website. So I don't really know what to do with that. ~2026-92414-6 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Checked the link, appearantly, it redirects to a website for the live draw in Macau? ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 01:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-92414-6: The link went to https://www.voteformikepetersen.com/ which was previously his campaign website. I guess he didn't renew the domain and somebody bought it. It has been removed from Mike Petersen (Utah politician). Thanks for notifying us. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

In such a context, I'd first check archive.org (and... yes, they do have a copy of Mr. Petersen's campaign site). DS (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: It was in the infobox "Website" field and I see you placed the archive there. That place is only for an official website and displays the url as part of the information about the subject. I don't think an archived website of a living active person should be there when it's no longer his website. There might be badly outdated information like former political positions. It could be in an external links section (without using {{official website}}) if it looks useful. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Amy Weaver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to make sure I'm doing this correctly. I thought this individual was very well-known or notable, but her page was moved into a draftspace soon after I published it. Can someone take a look to let me know what should be changed to improve it? Also, the draft has already been submitted, and I wasn't the one to submit it, but the most recent comment states feedback in a way that assumes it hasn't been submitted yet. Any guidance on what to do next would be helpful. Myrasdrabble (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• 1) Please provide the Draft
• 2) Presuming that you made the draft from "after I ("I" bolded for emphasis) published it", how comes you didn't submit it?

ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 23:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

ArthurPlummer, they did provide the link. And it was submitted by MightyRanger here. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh. I thought that pipe link was to the project page for drafts/the draftspace. ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 23:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Myrasdrabble, she has been in her job less than a year. I have my doubts whether that is enough time to establish her notability. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Help... I'm almost at the end of a merging proses for a book trilogy, when i realized i misswrote the name of the article in some (i think 2) cases, how can i edit the "edit summery"? worried Happypenguins82 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Happypenguins82. Saved edit summaries cannot be changed. You can make a dummy edit with the right name in the edit summary. If you copied content from another page then you have to link it in an edit summary to satisfy our license. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response, i'll fix it. Happypenguins82 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you think that this would be a good summary for the dummy edit discription? "dummy edit:correcting 2 previous summary edits, in both cases i spesified the name of the second book of this trilogy instead of the third. Here is the proper syntax: Merged content from Hammer of God (Miller novel). See Talk:Godspeaker#Merge proposal.

i rally appriciate it. Happypenguins82 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Happypenguins82: It's called edit summaries and not "summary edits". Make it more clear which edits copied content from Hammer of God (Miller novel), e.g. by time (use UTC), revision number, or just "my two most recent edits" if that's true. Identifying the edits and source is the only important thing. You don't need explanations beyond that. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I've come across Plot sections in articles for books or games or films, etc. Is there a policy guiding how they're supposed to be written? One of the newcomer suggestions I've had is for this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_Wall_of_Lucy_Wu). The plot looks like it's been copy-pasted from a publisher's blurb or something. How would I even begin to fix something like that? It's clearly unencyclopaedic but I'm not familiar with the story at all. Itsaclarinet (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Itsaclarinet. You can find guidance about writing plot summaries at MOS:PLOT. In this specific case, feel free to rewrite the summary to eliminate the gushing promotional tone and bring it into compliance with the Neutral point of view. There are several reviews cited that contain plot related information. Cullen328 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. That link was very useful. I gave it a go. It's better than it was (I think). Itsaclarinet (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Itsaclarinet, it is definitely better. Good work. Cullen328 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I saw an article in which an editor changed all mentions of 'African American' to 'Black American' while I was patrolling Recent Changes. I did not know if there was any preferred Manual of Style to describe people falling under that category. Please point me to a policy (if there is any) and thank you! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Which article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-92158-8, on a whole ton of articles, I let them know that they should probably seek consensus for a change like that and they stopped.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do this going forward. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I came across it in passing so I do not recall. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

African American is a real, if outdated, ethnic term. Black American is a synonym and probably a better descriptor. Given that neither is really ideal, I would probably say get rid of it entirely unless it's strictly necessary; but that of course depends on context. Athanelar (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Athanelar that unless it's absolutely needed to make sense of what's being said, the right thing is to use no term at all (and it's often worth rewriting the sentence to get rid of it, if necessary). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

uhhh i created this account...

PLS DON'T BAN ME FOR THIS

SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That's interesting...I thought it would be on the title blacklist

That's not bannable per se, just a really inaccessible username. HurricaneZeta^C 15:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I used a dot thingy in the Chaldean Neo-Aramaic script. It was '݂'

Well, THANK GOODNESS I WON'T BE BANNED SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Well... this has inspired me to make a gallery of weird names on my userpage. SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 16:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That’s genius, that’s one of the coolest usernames I’ve seen, it’s cool that you know about Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, as an ancient history enthusiast I don’t hear that everyday The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Testing one of SomnambulantFish's abomination accs. ູ (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Wait that’s another one, that’s cool too The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I cant even click on these links. ູ (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Nor can I The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The user name is clearly inappropriate, as it is unreadable and from a desktop, unclickable. I'd advise you to change it to something sensible. If you don't you will certainly find yourself blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That’s a shame, surely clicking on the talk page could remedy the issue The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no legitimate reason whatsoever to enable usernames that can't be read, require pixel-perfect clicking (if that is even possible at all - I couldn't do it), or otherwise hinder normal communication. This is an online encyclopaedia, not an exercise in seeing how difficult we can make things for each other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

They've both been softblocked...and yes, there are better encyclopedia building activities than making username abominations SomnambulantFish HurricaneZeta^C 21:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah well it was nice while it lasted The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I am a new user. I want to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Please guide me where to start. Thank you. Shahbaz.Ali41 (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I just "welcomed" you with a list of helpful links. You can access it here. Happy editing! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I am looking for an independent editor to present an application for a standalone page..the candidate is Jeffrey House Beverage Pioneer.. references can be supplied.. ~2026-95490-8 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Would this happen to be the same Jeffrey House as the subject of Draft:Jeffrey House (entrepreneur)? -- MediaKyle (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks to me that the cider company may possibly be notable, but I see little evidence that the company founder himself is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia doesn’t have “applications” you can make a draft using the AFC process if you would like, that would be the best because you probably won’t find another user to do it for you. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there

I’m an employee at the menswear site MR PORTER. There is a mention of the site in the YOOX Net-a-Porter Group page, but no page for MR PORTER itself. But I think it warrants its own page.

As an employee, I can’t set up a page, so I wanted to know how to suggest a page.

Thanks JIMMMRP (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

JIMMMRP Hello and welcome. The means to propose the creation of an article, Requested Articles, is so backlogged that it is essentially useless. As an employee, you would be a paid editor and have a conflict of interest. You would be permitted to create and submit a draft for an independent review via the Article Wizard- but diving right in to article creation is not recommended for new users. Furthermore, the vast majority of companies on Earth do not meet the criteria to merit a Wikipedia article(described at WP:ORG). Please see WP:BOSS, which explains this. My advice is to go on about the work of your company as if you had never heard of Wikipedia, and allow an article to organically develop the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of a topic and chooses on their own to write about it. That's the best indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I want to nominate Gigamachilis for Did you know as it is the largest apterygota (Did you know Gigamachilis is the largest apterygota with a wingspan of ~80mm). But as I am using a mobile phone, I am unable to do it. It would be really nice if I receive some help. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 07:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a request for Did you know, so I am also unable to do it. When you are editing from mobile, if you go down to the very bottom of the page (with the Privacy policy, About Wikipedia etc. links), there is a link for desktop view, which should allow you to access pages not available on mobile. Mitchsavl (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Instructions on how to nominate an article for "Did you know" can be found at Wikipedia:DYKNOM...main page is found at Wikipedia:Did you know. As far as I know one of the elibility criteria is that the article in case must be "new". Lectonar (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@TrueMoriarty The article was created on 10 February, so you will have until 17 February to nominate it. If you have previously nominated fewer than five articles for DYK then you won't have to do a WP:DYKQPQ. If you get really stuck with the nomination, let me know via my talk page as I can nominate it on your behalf. As far as I can tell, other criteria like length are fine and I assume you haven't infringed anyone's copyright. I've done nominations previously for newcomers to the process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I successfully nominated it, using a laptop instead of a mobile (from which I was unable to). Thank you again!

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 12:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

so im 80 years old im new and idk what to edit i like planes,war,jewish stuff and more so what can i edit

from:Yehuda ben Yitzhaq Elyada ~2026-82909-2 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't speak like an 80 year old. ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 18:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

bro you are DEF not a 80 year old Nerd-in-history (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey there! Ignore these folks above. It's really not decorum to accuse someone immediately of lying. To the original poster, I would check out the Wikipedia:Task_Center. You can immediately begin editing pages to fact check / proof and grammar / add citations. I recommend first reviewing the WP:WELCOME article, to understand the general goals of wikipedia and requirements when making edits. WP:NPOV and WP:Reliability are key! Good luck. Abs145 (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image related to ai generated art in the Mlp fandom.

I had the same image deleted a month ago because I thought it was unnecessary. I uploaded 3 or 4 selfies of myself there which is of course against policy on here, Wikipedia is not a personal blog post or instagram. I deleted them because I was legally still a minor ( I was 16) when I took them, I won’t go against the system again with photographs.

I hope you will consider not deleting them because Foggy Glen image, it does have educational value and can be used in the Artwork of the Brony fandom article as an example of the use of ai. I believe that is missing from the article and will bring it up to date with the mid ‘20s. Please consider all of this before deleting

Thank You Ajron Bach (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

how is this in any way related to the above discussion mghackerlady (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not know where else to put it. Ajron Bach (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, would you be able to let me know if this kind of page would be okay to be published? It is very neutral and has reliable and independent sources. I still need to cite the sources.

CashewFan2026 (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@CashewFan2026: Nope, it's a clear WP:PROMO. --CiaPan (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It’s always funny when someone says “it is very neutral” or something along those lines as if editors need to be told it’s neutral to determine that. If you are going to make an article I think saying all the good traits can be overkill and promotional of the article itself, The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I have uploaded an image related to ai generated art in the Mlp fandom.

I had the same image deleted a month ago because I thought it was unnecessary. I uploaded 3 or 4 selfies of myself there which is of course against policy on here, Wikipedia is not a personal blog post or instagram. I deleted them because I was legally still a minor ( I was 16) when I took them, I won’t go against the system again with photographs.

I hope you will consider not deleting them because Foggy Glen image, it does have educational value and can be used in the Artwork of the Brony fandom article as an example of the use of ai. I believe that is missing from the article and will bring it up to date with the mid ‘20s. Please consider all of this before deleting

Ajron Bach (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You meant to say I have uploaded an ai generated image in the Mlp fandom.

Please don't try to pretend it's something else. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn’t that be original research if you made it using an AI, as no other outlets or news sites or any website has used that’s exact same image. Shouldn’t only AI images which have been previously published be allowed per the rules of Original Research (personally I don’t think any AI images should be allowed in 99% of cases but that’s just my opinion) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's WP:OR too, so do what you will with that. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

So today i was doing a translation on a wikipedia page and found out that i aint a experience editor so i cant actually publish it, SO i want to ask how to become a "experience editor" Nerd-in-history (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You can use the Article Wizard to submit your draft for a review. Please know that translations are treated no differently than any other submission; the subject must meet our notability criteria- which may be different from the language Wikipedia you translated from. The English Wikipedia is usually stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You should meet the criteria to directly create an article, you only have to have 10 edits and be four days old. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

oh then im fine then thank you Nerd-in-history (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe @Nerd-in-history is referring to the automatic translation, which requires being extended confirmed; you need to have been on the site for 30 days and made 500 edits to use the translation tool. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 22:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If this is your first article, I recommend going through the Articles for Creation process. I did as well for my first article, and it's a great way to improve your writing and get feedback. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikidata

The instructions about interlanguage links are for the old skin, and there may be other changes too. I tried asking the talk page, wikiproject, and #wikidata but they aren't very active. Can anyone here check or is there a better place to ask? Wimwamble (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You made a decent attempt at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Updates needed, Wimwamble. How do I create an Interwiki link from an English Wikipedia article to its foreign-language counterpart? I'd say "How do I create an Interwiki link from an English Wikipedia article to its other-language counterpart(s)?" Go to the foreign-language article. On the right side pane, look for a link to the Wikidata item for that topic. How about "Go to any one of the other-language articles. Somewhere at the top or to one side, you should see a link corresponding to either '4 languages' or 'Add a language' -- but with the actual number rather than the '4' arbitrarily chosen here, and in the language of the page." But we shouldn't be discussing this here: instead, at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Updates needed. And not "we" but instead "you", plural; because I'm not good at this kind of work. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I work in a field of science/engineering that does not exist on Wikipedia, it's relatively new, but old enough there's a decent amount of literature around now. But everything I'm reading is suggesting that I shouldn't try and write an article because of conflict of interest. What's the best way to 'suggest an article' and potentially give any future writer/editor a leg up by providing relevant references? ~2026-98456-9 (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

When you say conflict of interest, are you referring to presenting your own research? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I've published a lot in the area yes, and I've written a review article on the topic which I suspect would be a good basis for a wiki article. I wouldn't of course be suggesting adding in technical details, more describing the general field of work.

It's called 'astrometallurgy' the closest I can find is an article on In_situ_resource_utilization, which is a very broad category. Unlikely metal (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Unlikely metal: Please take a look at WP:EXPERT because it might also apply to your situation in addition to WP:COI? FWIW, you're only going to be considered to have a COI if you start trying to add or create content about yourself or your work to Wikipedia or if you try to do the same for someone or something else who you're closely connected to too. If you just are planning to edit as a "content expert" about subject you're familiar with, then that does mean you've got a COI. You can, in principle, WP:CITESELF for content in articles if your work has been published in reliable sources (e.g., reputable peer-reviewed academic publications with an established history of editorial control), but you can't cite anything that might be considered original research by Wikipedia. If you want to create a new Wikipedia article about something you do have a COI with, I strongly suggest you do so via Wikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC). You should be OK working on a draft for an article as long as you don't stray too far outside the lines of what's considered to be OK for Wikipedia and the subject matter has at least a reasonable claim of Wikipedia:Notability; then, you can submit the draft for review once you think it's ready. You shouldn't expect, though, for the typical AfC reviewer or typical Wikipedia reader to be an expert on what you're trying to create an article about; so, please keep WP:JARGON in mind. You might also want to ask for pointers on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject on writing articles about techinical matters. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou, I'll take that route then! Unlikely metal (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey folks, a user recently removed my addition on this page. In the early Life section, I had added that this man was married to Kailashkamini who was a descendant of Manik Ram Basu and even cited he. The user after removing my edit, gave the reason- Article is not about spouse. Seriously? Adding a single line about marriage makes the article about her? BubbleRaechel (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

No, it does not. ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 01:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It appears that that person might have been trying to follow a rule that they misread or misunderstood. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Bring up the matter at Talk:Peary Charan Sarkar, BubbleRaechel. When you do so, be sure to ping Viewmont Viking. When you address Viewmont Viking, do not ask "Seriously?", as I have never seen doing so lead to a concession ("No, as you suspect, I was joking") or to any other advance in a discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I shall. Thanks! BubbleRaechel (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi , I am trying to create a wikipedia page for aliving person . i have created the draft in Sandbox can you check. TechEditorUAE (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@TechEditorUAE I moved the sandbox to Draft:Abdulla Al Nuaimi and Thank you for submitting it, now just take a cup of tea and wait for formal review usually takes days or weeks or months or a minute. Happy editing. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 07:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! This is a question that has popped in my mind dozens of times before but I've never actually taken the initiative to ask it. Is there a search bar or function that can be used for searching Wikipedia space instead of the default of searching article space? For instance, if I wanted to find to find the wiki policy on synthesis and I typed it into the main search bar I'd be taken to Synthesis when what I'm really looking for is WP:SYNTH. Same question goes for searching templates. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Search for "Synthesis" (no quotes necessary) | Take the lowermost option: "Search for pages containing Synthesis" | Search in: | deselect "Default" | Add namespaces... -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I never noticed the "Search for pages containing" at the bottom! Thank you for pointing that out.

As a bonus geeky side-note, I changed my default settings to include all spaces and tried typing in "WP:SY..." and the search bar autopopulated the policy page! This is exactly what I was looking for. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

You can also just put "WP:" or "Wikipedia:" at the start of your search. Searching "WP:SYNTH" will show the expected results. Athanelar (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:The Swaddle

How do I get this approved? I've stated all links about the company I could find. Tuggi79 (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

You cite at least three sources which meet the criteria at WP:42. If you cannot, then the organisation is not eligible for a Wikipedia article.

In terms of citations we are interested in quality, not quantity. There's more advice at WP:NCORP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Pour info, il y a une erreur de traduction dans l'article Syd Barrett anglais traduit en français : ".... Syd Barrett a eu comme élève la mère de Roger Waters ..." Non, Syd Barrett comme enseignante la mère de Roger Waters .... Puis-je corriger ce contresens ? Merci. Joisy78 (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oui, ou peut corriger les erreurs. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Mais il faudra faire ça dans l'article en langue française. Lectonar (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oui, c’est Vrai The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

OK Merci.

Mais je ne peux pas la corriger moi-même apparemment car la traduction en français est semi-protégée ... Joisy78 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

As others have said, you definitely can and should correct errors you find, that's one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. In the future, if you need help with the French edition of Wikipedia, you should ask at their fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux – each language edition of Wikipedia is autonomous and thus we here can't necessarily comment on the policies and practices of the French Wikipedia. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Comme d'autres l'ont dit, vous pouvez et devez absolument corriger les erreurs que vous trouvez ; c'est l'un des principes fondamentaux de Wikipédia. À l'avenir, si vous avez besoin d'aide concernant l'édition française de Wikipédia, vous devriez poser votre question sur le forum des nouveaux contributeurs français : fr:Wikipédia:Forum_des_nouveaux. Chaque édition linguistique de Wikipédia est autonome et nous ne pouvons donc pas nécessairement commenter les politiques et les pratiques de Wikipédia en français. (French translation of Maddy’s comment) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems that WikiWarMonitor has largely been inactive for at least a decade now, I can't seem to find any recent papers regarding it's purpose. Is there a page notice for an article with largely outdated/defunct information? Willing to move this to the talk page. ~2026-80637-8 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I've added it. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't aware it may or may not fall into speedy deletion criteria. Many thanks. ~2026-80637-8 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't think of "a page notice for an article with largely outdated/defunct information". Studebaker describes a car manufacturer/brand that has been defunct for over half a century, but carries no such warning. (Rather, this is done via categories, e.g. Category:Defunct motor vehicle manufacturers of the United States.)

"Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion." I'm not at all sure that this would be uncontroversial.

Among the "Top 100 controversial articles on English Wikipedia" was, we're told, List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos -- but WikiWarMonitor is of course not to blame for Wikipedia editor silliness.

I note the claim that "WikiWarMonitor is operated by a group of researchers from Oxford Internet Institute, Rutgers University, and Central European University" -- a short list that doesn't include Wikimedia. Yet the article's sole category is Category:Wikimedia community projects. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The problem I find with the article is that it was written as if the site was meant to be up to date with yearly findings, but it is clearly no longer the case. I wasn't originally advocating for it's deletion, alas, it may be so. ~2026-80637-8 (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I have a few images I want to insert into a recent re-writing of a topic in WikIpedia. When i attempted to do so, up popped standard questions about copyright, etc. None of what I want to insert is copyrighted. One is a naval message, sent to me by my boss when I was at sea in command of a submarine. The message is way, way, past its retention deadline and exists only in my personal file. Can I just post it as if it is a personal snapshot? SoonerCO (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Before getting into copyright I'm wondering what the purpose of putting an image of this communication would be. Wikipedia requires that information be publicly available in published reliable sources; documents in private hands aren't acceptable as sources. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The message tells the second half of the story I'm telling. SoonerCO (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You can upload it to Wikimedia commons, if you are going to use it as more of a visual image as opposed to a source (which is fine if it’s meant to show for example what a naval message looks like, or documentation of a notable event etc.) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Almost everything has copyright automatically attached to it, even if its creator wished it didn't. I don't know the copyright status of official Navy messages - maybe it's normal, maybe they fall under some rule about government publications (if your boss was [technically] a government employee), or something else.

In the normal case, the person who wrote something holds the copyright, and they can't escape being the copyright holder without jumping through legal hoops. (But this might not be the normal case.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Aren’t official navy and army documents Propety of the army, which (at least for the Uk) I don’t think they have copyright, but they can be classified or kept for at least 60 years if my knowledge is correct (please correct me if I am wrong) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the messages WERE the property of the U. S. Navy when being maintained by them. This one is more than 30 years old - well past its 8 year disposition / destruction date. This one will soon be in the hands of the U. S. Navy History and Heritage Command (alongside much other similar material) and will be part of the Navy's official history.

As for classified material, some can remain classified indefinitely.

Nothing of interest to me in telling the history of USS Oklahoma City (SSN 723) is or ever was classified. SoonerCO (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

"Property of ..." is a completely different issue. Copyright is its own can of worms. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure that the copyright status of old documents from the Navy is properly settled and defined, because there have been so many of them for so long. I just don't have a clue what it really is. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

My guess is that because they’re the product of a public entity they’re considered to have been, from creation, in the public forum.

which would then be why, if sensitive, they are protected by classification, distribution controls, etc., each and all established either by executive direction or law. ~2026-98357-9 (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

About property: it's the same reason that if I buy a novel, I don't get to act as if I wrote it. It's my property, but their copyright. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

To everyone here offering "answers" here, please verify accuracy before commenting. All written material and images produced by employees of the US Federal government when carring out their job duties is in the public domain and unrestricted by copyright in any way. Whether or not this particular document is appropriate for use on Wikipedia is another matter but there is no copyright issue. Trying to apply UK copyright law to US documents is not useful. Please do not speculate when answering questions at the Teahouse. If you do not know, let someone better informed answer the question. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I do appreciate the discussion, however. It was prompt and came to a logical conclusion. Asking this of the Navy would be fruitless. It has bigger fish to fry. The way it has maintained historical records - hit-and-miss or not at ball - is adequate testimony. ~2026-98258-4 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am working on a draft article for Wikipedia that has been rejected twice. I've worked to edit the language to not include "peacock language," but I would appreciate a second set of eyes to take a look and see if I've succeeded. I've also added more citations, but would appreciate any feedback on if I should cite others (or what to do if there is no way to cite the info!).

I joined the chat today to try to get live assistance, but no one responded after 30 minutes and I need to move on to another task. I'd appreciate any guidance you can offer.

Thank you! @JadeCanary87 ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You signed with a username, but that account doesn't exist. I assume we are talking about Draft:Financial Counseling Association of America.

If you cannot cite info, the info cannot be in the article.

You are telling us what you want the world to know about your organization, like its activities and offerings. That is the wrong approach. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary as to what independent sources view as important/significant/influential about the organization, not what it views as important about itself. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we are discussing the Financial Counseling Association of America. Thank you for this feedback. I'm running into the same issue that Electra/Irina Georgescu had above. While there are many articles discussing the FCAA, most have quotes from organizational leaders included, with the exception of a few.

I'll have to dig in to see if we can come up with other information. It's a challenge! ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-91327-0.

Yes, it is a challenge

Most organizations (most people, most companies, most schools, most neighbourhoods, most artists, most bands etc etc) in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and an acceptable article about them is not possible.

Editors who spend some time improving existing articles come to understand this, and don't waste their time trying to create impossible articles.

Many new editors come here with the specific purpose of creating an article about something in particular, and have no understanding of this, or of Wikipedia's strictures on promotion, and consequently have a miserable and frustrating experience.

(I have not looked at your draft or your sources, so I've no idea whether FCAA does or does not meet the criteria for notability: but clearly, even if it does, you have already spent considerable time and effort on an ineffective approach). ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

While that makes sense, I could also see the benefit in relinquishing some of the high standards to allow for more articles. However, I'm sure that comes along with it's own quandaries that I'm not aware of!

It is quite interesting that there are already articles about other organizations, schools, bands, etc. that do not meet the current criteria. Do you have any idea when the criteria changed to become more stringent about notability? (i.e. the page I'm writing about has a competitor, who has an article. Their article is flagged with notes from 2010, but it's still up!)

This is the frustrating aspect -- an existing article flagged as not meeting standards from 15 years ago remains life and active on WP. But a new article that has more, quality citations is repeatedly denied.

The approach now is to look for more secondary, independent articles that speak to the validity of the organization. It's a learning process! ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• remains LIVE and active ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

We even have a page about that: WP:OTHERSTUFF TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Helpful read and logically makes sense. Thank you!

One other question -- If I originally included citations that quote leaders from the organization the page is about, should I delete those citations from the page before resubmitting? Is it helpful for editors to review them or just a pain in the rear/waste of time? ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You are free to locate inappropriate articles and nominate them for deletion(WP:AFD). This is a volunteer project, and we are only as good as those who choose to help us. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I could, but the competitor offers services that help the general public (as does my client), so I do not feel it is appropriate for me to request their deletion just because my client's page is struggling to be approved.

Yes, good point. Sigh. It just took awhile to pull the sources and they're good sources, but they have quotes. It's the sadness of wasted time... ~2026-91327-0 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Certainly what you wish to do (or not do) on Wikipedia is up to you. I'm just saying that inappropriate articles can and do exist, and are only dealt with if someone wants to take action- which is why we judge each article or draft individually on their own merits. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

What purpose are those quotations now serving in the article? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm currently working on a film article that mentions Wētā FX multiple times. However, when the film was in production, the company was called Weta Digital. As of now, it is referred to as Wētā FX in every instance, but after the first instance (in the lead) it is followed by "then known as Weta Digital." Is this correct procedure, or should the old name be used more? Thanks in advance. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi OrdinaryOtter. I think it should be fine to refer to the company by its old name for encyclopedic accuracy without clarifying each and every time it's mentioned beyond the first mention. There might not even need to be any need for such clarification anyway because Weta Digital is a WP:REDIRECT to the current name of the company; so, even if you create a Wikilink for the old name it will automatically send readers to the correct article about the company. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Part of the reason for Marchjuly's answer is a kind of rule (maybe it's written or not, but important), that when you need to refer to something by both an old name and a new name, the main thing you have to do is make sure readers understand the real meaning behind what you wrote and are not confused. (That's why most of the other old name/new name rules exist.) Once you've made things clear and correct for the reader, you don't have to waste your time (and theirs) by restating it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I have been editing for some days now and I have gained knowledge about reliable sources and formatting. Can I start participating in AfD discussions, and? Also, how do I start the AfD process — what is the proper procedure?ButterflyCat (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Deletion for an overview of the deletion process (of which AfD is just one part). The easiest way to nominate an article at AfD is to use WP:TWINKLE.

You can participate in AfD discussions whenever you like. Athanelar (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ll review WP:Deletion and check Twinkle before starting any AfD. Appreciate the clarification. ButterflyCat (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I was filling the wikipedia pages of some UK artists-- one hadn't been updated since 2015 and an editor reverted my update due to it being too "CV-like". I'm not very good at wikipedia and I wasn't sure how to contact this AntiDionysus fellow, so I wished to ask here if there existed templates one could use to just add information to an artist's page without it sounding like a promotional campaign. Thanks in advance! ~2026-90791-1 (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

ah, forgot to mention said artist: Katerina Jebb. (btw, I think the edit log shows the edits being made by a different account because I made the initial edits from my laptop. I probably should make my own wikipedia account lol) ~2026-90791-1 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no such template, but you might like to read through WP:NPOV and MOS:WTW. Athanelar (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Ooh, that second one makes sense yes. I think I wrote the exact same thing as the Bob Dylan exemple: "xyz is a great [...]" rather than "this magazine called xyz a great [...]". I assume it'll pass once I change/remove all of these. Thanks! ~2026-90791-1 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

You're right. It also depends on who said these things. If someone is called "great" on the cover of a major trusted publication, it means a lot. If I call someone "great" on my blog, I'm just some guy, so it barely means anything. So if any of these compliments come from lower-quality sources, it might be better to just cut them out. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

{{Ping|AntiDionysius}} (renders as "@AntiDionysius:"; also note spelling) will usually reach them; to be sure leave a message on User talk:AntiDionysius. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Each article has an associated talk page where you can explain your edit when it is reverted (WP:BRD is good practice). In case you have a personal or professional relationship in relation to the subject of a biography, WP:COI may be useful. ~2026-64883-8 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I been trying to make an article about a motorbike that's missing one, I alredy found the brochure and technical specifications to post but I'm still refining it and getting more sources, but what do you think? (I still gotta submit an original photo of the bike which I still need to take but yeah, that's not a problem)

Draft:Kawasaki Kazer 110 (AN110) Madethistohelp (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The main thing you need for an article is not the brochure and specifications, but to show how much was independently written about it. Magazine articles and that type of thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If it was a less recognized model that didn't get much written about it, your information might be able to go into a bigger article about the company's whole bike production history, or something like that. I don't know much about it; hopefully someone sees this who knows a lot more than I do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I been upgrading the info and getting more reliable sources for Draft:Kawasaki Kazer 110 (AN110)

(I'm still missing the original image but it's not a problem, just need to take a photo)

What do you think now? I still want to get more info but I think I'm doing good Madethistohelp (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Your draft needs some changes to make it fit the way Wikipedia works.

First, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and if you have any sources that don't count as reliable, cut them out.

Then please read Help:Referencing for beginners and do your references the way they say to do it. You've made it sort of look right, but it isn't right yet. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The way you started this article is not really how it's done; it's not just you, this is a very common mistake. There's an essay that explains a much better way of starting, so you won't have to write articles that are Wikipedia:BACKWARD. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I used have modern skin enabled within preferences, but after I changed to another skin within appearance I no longer have the option to select Modern. I cannot remember how I originally set it up. Can anyone offer advice? Blethering Scot 19:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:SKIN has instructions, in the "deprecated" section. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

How do I make my edit to a page "constructive"?

Second Australian Imperial Force (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Below are some helpful resources:

-Help:Getting started

-Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia

-Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/1

-Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset

-Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style/1 MossOnALog^Talk 22:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Ndombrowski, your only edit to any article was to speed square. It deleted useful content without explanation - that was clearly not constructive. It also added an ® symbol, which against Wikipedia policy, though that is easily forgiven. Maproom (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Your edit to Speed square was probably reverted for contravening MOS:TMRULES which states;

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"; [e.g.,] use: Time, Kiss, Asus, Sony Mobile, avoid TIME, KISS, ASUS, SONY Mobile and Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context. Athanelar (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Happpy weekend to everyone :)

Is there a way to change the definition of a page from a stub to a start class article? I've been working on this article and i dont think its a stub anymore, is there a tool to check if i'm right? If the article is no longer a stub, and if so, how do i change the definitions inside the article? Thanks for being here 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Happypenguins82 Anyone can change the assessment of an article between Start to B class, though there are expected standards for these. To do this, WP:RATER is the easiest way (it's a user script). Otherwise, you can manually go into the talk page in the source editor, find something that says |class=, and change "Stub" there to "Start". HurricaneZeta^C 00:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, appriciate ths response 😊🐧🐧 Happypenguins82 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am asking the community's opinion on the article of a deity known as Africa (goddess), she is mentioned as a berber deity and her origins are traced to north africa and was worshiped by berbers, she has a cult center in north africa and temples of worship there, after Rome took over north africa they adopted some north african deities, among them is Africa, despite this she had no temples in italy and has no cult centre in italy only still in North africa.

The disagreement in the article occured over classifying her, in my opinion she must be classified as a berber deity who was adopted in the roman pantheon.

Another user disagrees and thinks she must be classified as a Roman deity.

what do you think is optimal in this scenario ? Deceptecon (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Academic consensus as stated by scholarly sources on the matter is optimal, @Deceptecon. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, your opinion is never part of the answer, even if you're legitimately an expert. And the same goes for community opinion, which can be important in how Wikipedia is run, but has zero authority over ancient goddesses. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk: Africa (goddess). Of course, the opinions of Wikipedia editors are part of the answer, if those opinions are based on what high quality reliable sources say, and on Wikipedia's core content policies, and its guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Other language link wikicode issue

Hello,
Regarding the Ion Dacian National Operetta and Musical Theatre, on the left hand column, where are displayed the wikilinks to other languages article versions (FR and RO), there is a mistake that I could not correct: The link to the Romanian version of the article is wrong. It directs to a non existing article: TVRM Educațional whereas it should direct to ro:Teatrul Național de Operetă și Musical „Ion Dacian”. I need help from a developper or someone that has the access rights to alter the code on this precise link.
Regards, Albacore60 (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)