Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1287

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

Wonsan Kalma Coastal Tourist Area

India at the Deaflympics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'

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

'

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

'

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

'

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

'

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

'

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

'

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

All the best,

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft: Aaron Moore (basketball player)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Adrian Rocca

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Teahouse,

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

Please can you hep?

My article is: Draft:Radhakanta Rana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The search query:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Hv2567/sandbox

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

Hello, @Hv2567, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

Calling all pop music fans!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Courtesy link: Draft: Replika Software

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

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

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

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

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

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• BBC article
• Mobile Register
• Google Search/News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, @RiiffTower, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

All reference is hebrew

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

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

Hello, @Danoola2002, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

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

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

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

thank u

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On my contributions, my most recent one is undoing someones talk page on accident. I accidentally pressed their " [[vandalism]] button on their contributions " Could someone revert it, I don't know how to, I'm so sorry RoyalSilver 17:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @RoyalSilver. I've done this. Reverting yourself is done the same way anyone would revert a different edit. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 18:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you so much RoyalSilver 18:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Attempted to find that template to add that to the essay i've been cooking in my sandbox, but I can't find it. Which template is that, what is it called? Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 18:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Starlet147: We have {{Image requested}} for articles. I don't know something suited for an essay if you want an image for the essay itself. A Commons search of man cooling down starts with three possibilities for User:Starlet147/sandbox. I see you are female but "woman cooling down" didn't give anything relevant. There may be a bad joke somewhere in that. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

how do I do that Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Use ==This== on your page. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 19:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 19:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd like some help to learn about editing and working on templates. I've been around the block here on many areas, but templates would be somewhat newer for me. Can I get a mentor for just working on templates? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 17:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about mentoring, but I can point you towards WP:Magic words (specifically WP:Parser functions) which are super useful for making templates have conditional outcomes and that sort of thing. Athanelar (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I have declared a conflict of interest on my user page. A draft for Smile Foundation is ready at User:SocialTanwar/sandbox. I request an editor to review the draft and consider moving it to the main article space. SocialTanwar (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed (and declined) your draft. In the future, there is no need to request a review here at the Teahouse. When you click the 'submit' button, your article goes into a review pool and it will be reviewed eventually; be patient. Athanelar (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Help! I created a new Wiki page in word as a draft and need to know how to submit?

Thomasmcallahan (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You may use the Article Wizard to create and submit your draft. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thomasmcallahan Note that MS Word text doesn't always copy/paste well into Wikipedia, as WP:Wikimarkup uses some different conventions, such as using two consecutive ' characters to create italic text. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Thomasmcallahan, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Also, if your draft includes any quotation marks, Word may produce curly ones, which Wikitext doesn't like; but by far the most important point is that Word will not, as far as I know, generate citations in a form that Wikipedia can use. Since citations are fundamental to any Wikipedia article, this might be a problem.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am jumping in on some simple editing to get my bearings and work to introduce myself to the editor community. I am working from Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup and the guide for cleanup templates says the talk page should have some mention when the tag is added. However, it seems this is not always the case. If I feel I have sufficiently corrected the lead section issue, is it preferred to:

1. Add a topic on the article's talk page if there isn't one already
2. Add a topic on the requestor's talk page
3. Unilaterally delete the tag and mention in the change log that I have removed the tag post edit

Thank you for any advice in advance! Crims0nSamurai (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Crims0nSamurai, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for taking on a cleanup task.

All those are possible, though I think 1 is better than 2 (but ping the requestor there).

It really depends mostly one how confident you are that you have corrected the problem. There's no requirement that you consult anybody: if the requestor (or anybody else) disagrees with your removal, they can simply revert you, and then if you still think it is resolved, you can open a discussion (see WP:BRD). ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Crims0nSamurai (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

If I am citing a scholarly journal that does not provide a full date, that is just the month and the year, what is the proper way to cite that to avoid error codes? Auðumbla (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Auðumbla and welcome to the Teahouse. See Template:Cite journal#Examples. Using "|date=March 2026" for example works just fine. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I was receiving an error due to an errant comma, not, as I suspected the lack of the day of the month. Auðumbla (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thank you all for the assistance!

I proposed the deletion of the article for Nicholas Salamis and the instructions for doing so say to notify the creator and often contributors to the article, however there hasn't been an edit to the article in over a year and the earliest edits lead to a red link, what should I do? Whyareusernamessohard? (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Whyareusernamesso never mind, I can't do this, typing usernames is too hard ! You can create the talk page of the user with the earliest edit by clicking the red link. I assume that you wouldn't need to notify often contributors as there don't seem to be much of any. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 01:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

In future, the best way to PROD or AfD articles is with WP:TWINKLE, which performs all the notifying for you automatically. Athanelar (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Whyareusernamessohard?: Did you click "oldest" in the page history? User talk:Jimstam does exist and a bot has notified the user. User:Jimstam is a red link but that only means the user has not created a user page which is optional. The user account still exists but hasn't edited since 2018. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This is more general but do you add a reference after a period or after the letter right before the period? Darrrrmilk (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Darrrrmilk. This is covered in MOS:REFPUNC: Wikipedia's manual of style advises us tp put the citation after punctuation for the most part, but there are some exceptions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the preferred Wikipedia technique for providing a gloss of a non-English sentence? If there is already a Wikipedia:something page that provides this info, I would consider a link to that page to be an answer - no need to repeat it; I searched for such a page and was unable to find it.

I'm talking about where a non-English sentence is presented in multiple sequential lines of text.

1. The original text, with words separated to line up with the grammatical breakdown
2. Literal translation or grammatical element of each element in the original text, lined up with the element it refers to
3. (optional) Transliteration of the original text
4. (optional) IPA of the original text
5. Plain English translation of the original text

Thisisnotatest (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Thisisnotatest, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I think Template:Interlinear will do most of what you want. ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine, yes! Thank you! Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Previously the domain that was shown on mobile was: en.m.wikipedia.org instead of en.wikipedia.org . I do appreciate keeping it similar across both phone and desktop. But, is the change permanent? Should I convert my mobile bookmarks into the desktop format? Greatder (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Greatder: It's permanent. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 224#Mobile domains unsetting. You can switch on "Desktop view" or "Mobile view" at the bottom of a page and your choice will be remembered in that browser. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example works, maybe forever, but it redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example and keeps you in desktop if you were already there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example?useformat=mobile forces the mobile version on that link but is not remembered if you click a link on that page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example?useformat=desktop forces the desktop version but is not remembered. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter this is a great change! Thanks for the information. Greatder (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

So, I set out to create an article for the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, Daniel Rosen. I evidently did not do my due diligence, or I would have discovered that the article already existed. My bad. The original article is at Daniel N. Rosen. I created an article at Daniel Rosen (lawyer). I redirected my article to Daniel N. Rosen. Was that an ok thing to do, or should I go about getting my article deleted? Marquardtika (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It is ok. Ruslik_Zero 20:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Marquardtika If your research for your version of the biography had led you to any well-sourced content that isn't in the existing article, then you should copy it over. Looking at what you had that doesn't appear to be the case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A bot will do the archiving.

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

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

@Emholt1, one more thought and I hope I'm not piling up too much information: You can always archive a thread early. You could just cut it from the live talk page and paste to the current talk page archive. The user script User:Elli/OneClickArchiver will automate this by putting a little "Archive" button next to each heading. It's really useful, but the downside is that I have accidentally archived a thread with it due to a unusually powerful sneeze. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I have a (nonpolitical) quibble with how naval losses are presented in the 2026 Iran War wikibox, and don't want to make a nonobvious edit request through the form without consensus, but even the talk page is fully locked down except for extended confirmed users. Is there any way for a longtime lurker but newish editor to contribute to improving these kinds of articles? Lychniis (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. As the Iran War is under extended-confirmed restrictions due to it relationship to the Arab-Israeli conflict(as Iran supports Hamas/Hezbollah) you can only make edit requests that do not require consensus- they need to be something that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. As a practical matter, that is mostly grammar/spelling fixes. If you need a consensus for your edit request, you can't make it until you are extended-confirmed.

Though you seem to be aware of the restrictions already, I will post a formal notification on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Lychniis. The answer to your specific question is, No, not until you have the required number of edits. ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, i am trying to add on to peoples wiki's but have got a error?? i don't know why would love some help if anybody could help me thanks! also this could be some of the reason if not the reason i don't know how to add on the pages at the very bottom for the info added to a persons wiki!! example (16) tells you about how it was done!!! Frederickishere (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Frederickishere, are you asking about this edit, or about some other edits? (Incidentally, no need for exclamation points.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

yes that edit! i don't know how to do it Frederickishere (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Frederick! Your edit was reverted -- this means that some account, either a person or a bot, edited the page to undo your edit. The bot that reverted your edit, ClueBot NG, did it because it assumed the edit was vandalism. Vandalism on Wikipedia is editing made to defeat or obstruct the project's purpose -- to be an encyclopedia and a source of accurate knowledge. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 00:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

so how do I stop that? Literally just want to add on stuff on people's wiki that isn't mentioned and have the articles to go with it thats the other thing I don't know how to list the articles / proof for them!? Frederickishere (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Frederickishere: The edit wasn't vandalism but it was inappropriate. Wikipedia content should have a reliable source, especially in biographies of living people. See Help:Referencing for beginners. You added "Axel is close friends with long time tag parter Damo!" immediately before a reference which does not mention Damo. I assume it wasn't intentional but it meant you made a false claim about what the source says. I guess "parter" should be partner. We almost never end sentences with an exclamation point (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Terminal punctuation) and there was no reason to do it here. It doesn't suit the formal tone of an encyclopedia. Friends should rarely be mentioned at all in Wikipedia biographies unless multiple reliable sources have emphasized the friendship. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I apologize for the incorrect spelling and i was just going to try to mention frienships in a few bios! i just realized i spelled parter instead of partner!! Frederickishere (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding what PrimeHunter said on reliable sources, and your question on how to list proof, this is called sourcing in Wikipedia. Sourcing your statement means attributing it to a reliable source -- an information outlet trusted for factuality and reliability, like a newspaper article, for example. An easy way to source a statement is by clicking the Cite button in the toolbar in Visual Editor. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 00:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok thank you!! Frederickishere (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Frederickishere, I'd phrase OmegaMantis's comment rather differently: Sourcing your statement means attributing it to a source that verifies it, that's independent of the subject (and thus is not an interview or similar), and that is published by an information outlet trusted for factuality and reliability, for example the news section (rather than the commentary section) within one of the better newspapers or news websites. (Note that plenty of newspapers and news websites, even well-known ones such as the Daily Mail and The Times of India, do not qualify.) Once you have a reliable source for the statement, an easy way to attach this source to your addition is by clicking the Cite button in the toolbar while using the "Visual Editor". (This explanation too is much simplified, but I hope that it gives the right idea.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand thanks again! id like to ask its not a good thing to put who people closest friends are?? or just not spammed in peoples bios in a row!? Can @PrimeHunter clarify more on that!? Thanks again. Frederickishere (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Frederickishere: It's rarely a good idea to mention friends. It seems too gossipy for an encyclopedia. 4% of biographies of living people contain the word "friends" and most of them probably aren't mentioning who their friends are but talking about a work with "friends" in the title or something else. It should always have a reliable source if it's mentioned but most sources aren't proper justification for mentioning it. It might be mentioned if sources indicate it has influenced what the person is known for. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

understood! Frederickishere (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Frederickishere, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Another consideration is privacy. If you were notable enough that Wikipedia had an article about you, would you want your personal information (your children's names, your friends, your favourite restaurants, for example) to be disclosed there?

Sometimes such information has already been published, in newspapers for example; and then we can use it in a Wikipedia article - though that doesn't mean we necessarily should - see the guideline page I linked to. But if it hasn't been published by a reliable source, then it certainly shouldn't be revealed in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand. & plus now I think about it no real need if its mentioned other places like you said! Frederickishere (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Would it be possible / appropriate for me to replace this image with a slightly higher resolution / larger version of the file? Compared to the pages for such films as Spider-Man, Avatar, Star Wars and The Amazing Spider-Man, the Wonder Woman poster image is far more blurry. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@OrdinaryOtter: Maybe slightly; see WP:IMAGERES. The other movie-poster images you cite were downsized by bots to about 260 × 380 pixels, so that resolution seems acceptable. Deor (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@OrdinaryOtter: This is only going to be part of the answer, but the image in the article is so blurry because something is wrong with the thumbnail. For Spider-Man, the thumbnailis almost the same size as the actual image. Same for Star Wars, and likely for the others. For Wonder Woman, the actual image is scaled down to a 120px thumbnail. This is scaling it down which increases blurriness and loses detail, and then scaling it back up which increases blurriness. You might want to ask at WP:VPT to find out why that happened before you upload a new image. Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Please forgive me for my English writing but I am seeking advic on how to correctyl include the resuluts of the 2023 genomic stud by brielle et al.and nature study in the Bajuni people article without getting flagged for original research or Synthessi policies.study analyze ancients dna from the lamu rachipelago Pate and Manda islnds. the paper uses the known braod term Swahili, the co senior author of the study, his name his Chapurukha Kusimba,he has has explicitl identified these specific medieval samples as the direct ancestors of modern bajuni descendants in his public summaries of the research e.g., in Science and The Conversation, 2023 the lead researcher himself has made the ethnits identification of these geographic samples, would it be acceptable to cite his professional identification to bridge the findings to the article? I want to ensure the article is scientifically up-to-date while strictly following Wikipedia's sourcing standard Saintusmojqy (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Note to Teahouse hosts: please see the existing discussions at Talk:Bajuni people and User talk:ColinFine --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lobster (restaurant)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks @Aesurias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lobster (restaurant) was:

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

Draft:The Lobster (restaurant) was:

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

Draft:The Lobster (Santa Monica) was:

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

So the chronology seems to be;

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

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

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

It's salted in mainspace. I see no problem with submitting a new draft for review. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not convinced that this is over though. Another attempt to recreate an article about this topic could very well occur soon imho.Toarin (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I feel really dumb asking this compared to all the other questions on here :p Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

On February 17th I opened a Move Request thinking it was the best way to go but apparently I didn't do it correctly and then it became uncivil and an editor used LLM arguments. I asked for help and nobody came.

I just ended up striking the request as nobody else was showing up to participate and nobody helped when I requested it multiple times. Now I'm not sure if I'll be in some kind of trouble for striking it but I have no idea what to do because nobody was willing to help me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dangrek_Incident#Requested_move_17_February_2026 MoonsMoon (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@MoonsMoon I closed it as no consensus, but you're not going to get into trouble for striking it, which is basically a withdrawal. I'd say the main issue there was the lack of a single proposed title, RMs like that tend to derail without a consensus. For future reference, clearly LLM-generated comments like this one can be hatted (collapsed and hidden) per WP:HATGPT. HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, you're definitely right that I should have proposed an alternative title. I just thought at the time that leaving it open was the best way to avoid conflict and make everyone happy. Sure wasn't the case. Thanks again. MoonsMoon (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have been working on the Later life section of the Tommy Prince. My earlier edit was reverted with the summary "Excessive weasel words and conceptual problems/Undid revision."

I took a step back and have now redrafted the section with closer attention to wording and sourcing. Before making any further moves, I'm looking for feedback from other editors.

The draft is here: User:FallingRocksAhead/sandbox/individual6

If anyone is willing to take a look and offer suggestions, I would be very grateful.

~~~~

FallingRocksAhead (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

May be better to avoid decentralized discussion and continue the existing discussion at User talk:FallingRocksAhead#Tommy Prince. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Greetings Fellow Wikipedians I am seeking help to improve the page Armorial of British universities. There are two universities without a 'free to use' ie available on Wiki Commons, ecutcheon. These are the University of Sunderland and Teesside University. Indeed ecutcheons are also lacking for the University of the Built Environment and University of the Arts London. Many of the ecutcheons in use in the article have been created within Wiki Commons by 'artists', based on the heraldic descriptions or using a template. I hope there may be a volunteer or volunteers with the skills and enthusiasm for this little project, able to assist ~~hjamesberglen~~ Hjamesberglen (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hjamesberglen Try the WP:Graphics Lab. They help with all sorts of graphics projects. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Hjamesberglen. You could also ask at the talk page of WP:WikiProject Heraldry and Vexillology. One of the tasks listed there is creating missing images of flags and coats of arms, so there may be people skilled in doing that. ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Hjamesberglen. For background (although you may already know this), the essential part of a grant of Arms is the written description (the 'blazon') in the 'grant' (document, a public record) of the granting body (in this case the College of Arms or the Court of the Lord Lyon). This allows considerable artistic scope for representing the arms' essential components – the shield may be of various shapes, for example. Any particular pictorial representation of the arms (such as the one painted in the grant, or one created by/for the grantee for their own official use) will be copyright, but anyone can produce their own version so long as they get the components correct, and anyone competent in heraldry (and art) should be capable of drawing a correct version of any arms from the written blazon alone. Hope this is of interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Would it be preferred to use WP:G6/Db-move or to submit a technical request at WP:RM

Thanksm Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jacksonvil Hello, and welcome to Teahouse. G6 is generally for uncontroversial maintenance, while moves that would need more debate or if you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, should go to WP:RMTR. Cheers! n.h.huit, 化けの花 08:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

My bad for not being clear in the first response. I had meant after closing a RM and having consensus to move, but the destination already has a redirect/page. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 09:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If you can't move the page, submit a technical request with a link to the RM discussion closure. Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

So, I've been setting up my account, and saw that signatures should not have transcluded templates. The thing is, my sig will most likely be complicated and will have to change. So, would I be able to avoid subst? ZNomadYT (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi ZNomadYT, welcome to the Teahouse. It's unclear what you want. The rules are at Wikipedia:Signatures. If you use subst then the result must be at most 255 characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

⟨ZNomadYT⟩ is very legible and easily understandable, and has an excellent signal-to-noise ratio. Why shovel in more bytes? -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Good point I'll just do this ZNomad talks 10:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

hello and my apologies for such unusual request. I live within iran, our internet completely offline, we don't have access to satellite TV, MTN-Irancell mobile network has only whitelisted wikipedia, but all media like photos, videos from wikimedia are blocked and we can only see texts of articles. Timeline of the 2026 Iran war

I frequently see this article for latest news about ongoing war. Can anybody update this article frequently with news from reliable sources? ~2026-16323-61 (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello; that article is receiving daily updates. Given the circumstances getting reliable sources out of Iran can be challenging, but volunteers are doing what they can. Please stay safe. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16323-61: Timeline of the 2026 Iran war has extended confirmed protection so it can only be edited by a user account which has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. Others can post requests to Talk:Timeline of the 2026 Iran war, e.g. after clicking the "View source" tab on the article and then "Submit an edit request". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think they want to necessarily edit it themselves; they seem to be an Iranian seeking up to date information about the war. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, although we are getting frequent requests to update the 2026 Iran war article from unconfirmed/temporary accounts at WP:RFED. The OP is welcome to participate there, although that page is for uncontroversial and obvious changes, not changes that require discussion. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, please bear with me since I'm an infrequent editor and don't know the policies and procedures of Wikipedia that well yet.

A few days ago I found a claim made on a couple articles which cited what I believe is an unreliable source. Since I could not find any other reliable source to back it up, I removed the claims. Shortly after, a new account was created which reverted those edits. In their edit summaries, they cited a different source which is usually reliable but I believe is not in this context. Not wanting to start a very lame edit war, I started discussion topics on the relevant articles' talk pages and invited the user to discuss from their user talk page. It's been a couple days with no reply, so now I'm wondering what to do next. Should I continue to assume good faith or not given the account appears to have been made to revert my edits? Schobbish (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Not only is Google Maps not a good source, it doesn't actually confirmed that the pond is named for him, only that it's named for someone with the same name.

• My first step would be to try to verify the information. If the pond is in fact named for him, I'd want to know. And I'd replace the reference. What is VL's link with Plano and why would they have named a pond after him. There must be some information somewhere about this pond and how it got its name. If you can't find any proof, then you can delete the sentence.
• Alternatively, you can replace the reference with a note that says Google Maps indicates that there is a pond there with that name. Or you can insert an independent-source-needed template after the source that the new account created.

However, I would also go to the new account's page and leave a message saying, for example, you noticed that they reverted these edits and they've inserted unreliable sources, explaining why it's important that information on WP be accurate and why WP prefers reliable secondary sources. (This is important so that other people in the future are able to make connections about their editing history.) MmeMaigret (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. That's a good point you make that Gmaps does not actually say which Vasil Levski the pond is named after. I've done some research and I am unable to find why the pond would be named after any Levski, Bulgarian revolutionary or not, so that's why I removed it in the first place. Schobbish (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there any policy on the books regarding something akin to fruit of the poisonous tree? In a recent deletion discussion, Ell22Moore (talk · contribs) makes a (generally convincing) argument that the nomination should be closed as Keep as it was proposed in an odd [and] illicit manner (I'm personally not convinced it is illicit, but I think it is a fair argument to make).

My question here though is whether this is actually Wikipedia policy or not. Should a nomination, which is otherwise valid but made (for example) by a sockpuppet or a paid editor or what have you, thereby be closed? I can see arguments both for and against this. wound theology◈ 08:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Originally, I described the nomination as “valid but illicit,” meaning the underlying argument seemed sound even though the process was done in apparent error. Later, and now, I viewed it as both invalid and illicit aa a result of the procedural issues combined with my reassessment of the argument itself. Ell22Moore (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

If a discussion is opened by a banned user, then it can be quickly deleted using the G5 criterion. But if others come in and edit, then we cannot do that. But if everyone opposes, then it can be snow closed early. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I have seen people use this as an argument to procedurally close discussions. In my opinion the discussion should be evaluated on its merits; if the article needs to be deleted then it needs to be deleted, whether a banned sockpuppet or a user in good standing points it out. Someone being a banned sock does not mean their judgement is bad in all matters. Athanelar (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

So to reiterate what you and Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) have said: there is not any actual policy for this? Not to be a WP:WIKILAWYER, I'm just curious and wouldn't even know how to begin to search for such a policy... wound theology◈ 15:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

There are policies that indirectly address this. For example, if a WP:SPI case closes with the mentioned accounts being sockpuppets of an already-banned editor, then their edits may be nuked, that is, any pages they created can be deleted, and their comments can be struck and not considered further. However, I don't really like this practice, because I have seen sockpuppets write excellent drafts and make clear convincing arguments. I think the content should be evaluated on its merits regardless of who wrote it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Tell ypur name?? ~2026-16279-44 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-16279-44. We each have a username. If you click a username then you often get a user page which says something about the user but usually not their real name. It's optional to give it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It's ironic for a random-number temporary anonymous account to be demanding names. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The OP may not have noticed that at the top of this page there is a link called "Meet your hosts" which goes to WP:Teahouse/Hosts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I wish to delete my current draft for an article called Draft:Bryce Crawford (preacher) and begin on another article. How can I do this?

- KneeHallHawk (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You can put the tag {{db-author}} at the top, or you can blank the page and put that tag on it, and an administrator will come along and delete it.

If you want to start a new draft under the same title, simply replace the content with the new content. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It's that simple? Thanks!

- KneeHallHawk (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's that simple. It's deleted. You can do this with any page where you are the only person who has made significant edits to it.

A page deleted this way can also be restored if you want to resume working on it; you just post a request at WP:REFUND. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. KneeHallHawk (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, you can simply not touch the draft for six months and it will be deleted automatically. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

An acquaintance of mine who knows that I sometimes edit Wikipedia told me that a friend of his wants to get his recently written bio deleted. Could someone give me general guidance on how to handle this? Proposing article deletion might or might not be the right solution. I don’t know yet if the subject of the new bio thinks that the bio doxxes him, or is inaccurate, or is accurate but biased, or what. Thiesen (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Thiesen, and welcome to the Teahouse.

We do not delete articles just because the subject wishes us to. Articles are deleted if they do not meet our standards, specifically about notability. If the notability of a subject is borderline, we sometimes allow the subject's wish for deletion to have weight. But if the person clearly meets our criteria for notability, then the article will not usually be deleted.

I suggest you show your friend WP:about you; but that doesn't specifically cover deletion. See Deletion policy for information about that. ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Generally articles are not deleted merely because the subject wishes it. If the subject wants to argue that they actually are not a notable person as Wikipedia defines one, that's something we can work with, and some consideration is given to the wishes of the subject(WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE).

If there is incorrect information in the article, we want to know what it is per policy(WP:BLP) articles about living people need to accurately summarize the provided sources. Being biased does not in and of itself prevent information from appearing on Wikipedia, as all sources of information have biases, but if the bias is so great that the source is making things up out of whole cloth, we want to know that, too. See the edit request process for subjects or their representatives to propose changes. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Which article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Avantgardey is a new article in English Wikipedia. However, there is a more detailed and older article in Japanese Wikipedia. In the English article, near the top right, there are links to other languages. How does one add the Japanese article to that?

ja:アバンギャルディ

Vanguard10 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

They are linked through the corresponding Wikidata item, in this case d:Q120000080. I have now done this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Vanguard10 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I edited the article on Frederick the Great to replace three en-dashes with em-dashes and correct the spelling of one word, but the version history says I added like 600 characters?? I'm confused because I looked at the article and I don't understand what was done...

Sentimental Dork (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Sentimental Dork, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Looking at the diff, I see that something has inserted a lot of spaces into the citations - before every time pipe ("|"), by the look of it.

I'm sure you didn't intend that - I guess it's something the Visual editor has decided to do. But it doesn't do any harm. ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for letting me know. Do I need to go in and try to fix it, or is it fine as-is?

Sentimental Dork (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It's fine as is, Sentimental Dork. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe Siam in World War I to be complaint with Wikipedia's Neutral point of view guideline. How do I add a banner to warn of this? DYC TY (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

DYC TY, various contenders for such a banner, or a banner saying something similar, are listed in WP:Template index/Disputes. But on the article's talk page, neither you nor anybody else has yet questioned the article's neutrality. (Indeed, nobody has uttered anything there for over ten years.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@DYC TY I don't see anything wrong with the tone, which seems fairly matter of fact. (The article does seem to lack sources - although it looks like it had end of paragraph sourcing and over time that has changed a bit.) What exactly do you think is wrong with the article? MmeMaigret (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m the subject of a potential biography (Professor Chris Hopkins, healthcare scientist and President of the Academy for Healthcare Science). I understand conflict-of-interest rules and would like advice or help from a neutral editor creating the article. ~2026-16476-42 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-16476-42, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The general advice is: Don't. Please see WP:autobiography for why not. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Biographies have a life of their own. Sometimes it's better not to have a Wikipedia article about yourself because hostile editors can quickly turn it to an attack piece and you will be outnumbered and cannot fight it. If someone defends you, both of you could be banned (Wikipedia lingo is "blocked"), falsely accused of sockpuppetry. I would not want a Wikipedia bio unless I was exceptionally well known, like an award winning actor. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @~2026-16476-42. I think @Vanguard10's reply is rather overstating the case, and painting Wikipedia as a lawless domain. While it's true that editors do sometimes edit articles to attack the subject, this is not acceptable behaviour, and it is usually caught pretty quickly and the perpetrator warned, and blocked if they persist.

Having said that, if it happened that reliable sources published material critical of you, then it would be appropriate for editors to summarise that material in a Wikipedia article about you, and you would not necessarily be able to challenge that. ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16476-42 Have you been featured in two articles in reliable sources (eg. national newspapers or Sunday magazines)? Are there any references to you already in Wikipedia articles? Have you gotten any national honours (eg MBE etc)? MmeMaigret (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Professor Hopkins, I notice in passing that the article on the Academy for Healthcare Science (United Kingdom) itself is rather paltry, and has not been edited (hence updated or improved) in any way for about 21 months. It also lacks an infobox, in which you could validly be entered as President. It would be useful if sourced information could be added to its Talk page, for evaluation and possible addition by disinterested editors (see WP:Conflict of interest). Specific Wikipedia:Edit requests could also be made by parties connected with the Academy, who should not, however, edit the article itself except for the most minor, uncontroversial matters, or to remove inaccurate and unsourced statements. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

My article got declined why ?? Yousef Alzaabi (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yousef Alzaabi the declining reviewer left a comment at Draft:Yousef Alzaabi on why the draft was declined. Do you have any questions about the comment? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Yousef Alzaabi Because you haven't cited a single source. See WP:GNG and WP:42. MmeMaigret (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Yousef Alzaabi, and welcome to the Teahouse

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

This means that to successfully write an article about yourself you would first have to find places where people wholly unconnected with you have published material about you, and then effectively forget everything that you know about yourself and write a summary of what those people have said about you. Do you see why this is so amazingly difficult to achieve that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged? ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I am systematically editing anatomy articles rated as stubs. My hope is the work can move them to start class or higher. Do I need to take an action to signal I think these articles are ready to be assessed? You can see from my recent contributions all of the nerve stubs I have edited. Thank you! MikePascoe (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome! There is nothing stopping you from rating an article as a stub, start, C, or B class. The only exceptions are Good, A, and Featured articles which have a review process. If you think an article is no longer a stub, WP:BE BOLD and change the templates to what you see fit! GGOTCC 04:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You can use the tool Rater to make and/ or apply assessments to articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I was trying to flesh out the article for The Yellow Scale with some info from a book by a scholar whose area of expertise is Comparative Literature and German. However, the book treats the picture as if it were a portrait of Charles Baudelaire, rather than what's stated on the article (what seems to be the prevailing view among art historians, which is that it's a self-portrait). It doesn't directly contradict this view because it doesn't even acknowledge it. I found some info on an art history blog saying there's a faction of scholars who believe it to be a portrait of Baudelaire, but no primary evidence of this. What do you do when a single accredited source is on a totally different wavelength from the existing text but doesn't properly engage with it? Kaspar Hauser (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Mafarkafut (Kaspar Hauser), "the book treats the picture as if it were a portrait of Charles Baudelaire" is curiously indirect. Does the book treat the picture as a portrait of Baudelaire? If it does, and if the book gives some reasoning for this interpretation, then I'd mention it (but I'd skip talk of the "faction of scholars"); if the author fails to assert this directly or asserts it but provides no reasoning for it, then I wouldn't mention it. I can't cite any guideline to back me up here, and so may well be contradicted. -- Hoary (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Mafarkafut,

You could mention the possibility of The Yellow Scale being a portrait of Baudelaire within the article and note that it's not the consensus, a method opted for in a number of articles. As an example you could refer to this article, section "Conspiracy Theories", which demonstrates this way of acknowledging perspectives that don't agree with the consensus. For more information you can also refer to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE which provide guidelines to treat this kind of information.

Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

HELP ME FIND BABY GLOBE ;) I NEED SOME CUTE MODE ON I HAV BDAY MODE ON I NOT WANT JUST SETTINGS HELP PLEASES ~2026-16655-31 (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16655-31 I believe that mode was supposed to be removed today, but I may be wrong. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 17:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Per the RFC, it is disabled. It seems that people with accounts can still access (judging by the fact I still have the option to enable it in preferences), but per Special:CommunityConfiguration the feature will be gone on April 6th. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm having a particularly severe episode of mental distress, and I'm incredibly compiled to leave Wikipedia and remove my work at this point because of this very overwhelming sense of guilt.

I am a Teahouse host, so help from WP:RETENTION would be greatly appreciated. I currently don't have the ability to make independent judgements. nhals8 16:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @.nhals8. I'm sorry to read that you are in distress.

I don't know what help I can be, except to say that there is nothing that you need to do or not do. If it fits for you to leave WP for a while - do it! That doesn't mean that your contribution is not valued, but your own well-being is more important than Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Echoing Colin, a WP:WIKIBREAK is a perfectly valid (and advisable) way to handle this. There's no need to remove your work; just step away from Wikipedia as long as you need and come back when you're ready. Even if you want to request a courtesy vanishing and come back on a completely different account under a fresh start when you're ready, that's also fine. Do whatever you need. Athanelar (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

my draft on coffee by supersister got rejected twice because the sources were not independent since its my first time writing a wikipedia article could someone cross check all the references whether they are ok to be there or should be removed Draft:Coffee (SuperSister Song) Narventer (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

What we are looking for is explained at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I've found which I believe might be a copyright violation? I couldn't find a license to use it anywhere on the source (though I admit I'm not 100% sure what I'm looking for). Should it be removed, and if so how would it be done? Realtent (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The image is on Commons, so not something Wikipedia has any direct control over. That said, the supposed source is a 404, so I have tagged it and if no appropriate source is found in a week it'll be deleted. Thanks! CoconutOctopus talk 21:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Source is archived as . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Good find. Nothing at all on that about the license, though, so still one for deletion. CoconutOctopus talk 21:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I how can you people help me out ~2026-16732-86 (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

What help do you need? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is often at a crossroads. They have to maintain the wiki health for one, but also not make it hostile to new editors. Even experienced editors may feel unwelcome if other editors unilaterally reprimand them without any empathy. Furthermore, many Wikipedia policies are tucked away in policy articles and TL:DR issues also persist (Some editors assume that everyone had the time to read the policy, but that's not often the case. Or they look at a long-term editor and use the excuse of "You should know the rules by now." to be rude and blunt to them.). The other issue is zero-tolerance policies that have left many individuals with bad memories, causing them to be cautious and skeptical of further disciplinary action they feel is unjust, including potential Wikipedia editors reprimanding them for things they didn't realize (or threatening disciplinary action) because of the things I mentioned above, which may even cause experienced editors to leave out of fear.

I've been rambling on for a while now. How do I ensure I and many others with anxiety still feel welcome here long-term. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TheEternalOutsider!

First, good on you for bringing up these issues. I think this is a great place to talk about it.

To make yourself feel welcome, I'd advise you make sure to take breaks when things aren't working out and stand up for yourself when you are not being treated well.

To make sure others feel welcome, I guess try to make sure to assume good faith -- assume that people have good intentions and work from there to make things work better for them and the encyclopedia. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It's hard for me to stand up for myself, because I still remember authorities who abused their power to leave me unable to talk and feeling hopeless, none of which had any empathy. A moderator could threaten to drag me to the Arbitration Committee, get me blocked through a biased testimony of me, and get no repercussions for it. Furthermore, on my end, it's hard for me to assume good faith since my anxiety perceives any slight as a threat to my peace of mind. Other people may have similar problems in anxiety. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I almost forgot. I've heard stories of POV pushers, conflict of interest editors, tendentious LTAs, and those who game the system, including extremists who slyly game the policy and maliciously cherry-pick or misinterpret passages in NPOV to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox. I remember many who promised to protect me in the past chose not to protect me, were blindsided by tendentious abusers, were played by Machiavellian deception, or had higher ups who hurt me. I've been rambling on again, haven't I? I care about Wikipedia's long-term health and don't want anyone to get led astray by bad faith actors. While consensus is the main policy here, Machiavellian behavior to twist opinions is still something I am wary of. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, and admins absolutely do not have the power to unilaterally block you based only on their own testimony, nor is anybody going to 'threaten to drag you' to arbcom. All of the other things you've listed do indeed exist, but they simply aren't a problem for most editors on a day-to-day basis. If you're minding your business and editing in whatever area interests you, you're generally not going to run into issues with POV pushing or COI or LTAs or what have you. Participating with all of that sort of 'drama' is entirely optional, and you're fully welcome to (and encouraged to) just stay in your lane making edits to whatever articles interest you and never getting bogged down in inter-editor relations. Athanelar (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for listening to me. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia write-up says the 1968 Universal comedy DON'T JUST STAND THERE! was released 'May 1, 1968'. I deleted the part of the 'List of Universal Pictures films (1960-1969)' where the movie was listed as having been released in September '68 . . . then I realized I don't know how to ADD BACK to the list the proper release date of 'May 1'. Oops. Can someone either help me figure out how to do it /or/ add it back without my 'help' (I use the term loosely!). Kind regards, CARTER GORMAN ~2026-16472-70 (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-16472-70,

Looking through the edit history I don't notice the edit you're speaking about, at least if the article in question is Don't Just Stand There!.

You can always undo mistaken edits easily via the "View History" page and clicking "undo" on the corresponding edit. It happens to all of us sometimes!

If you are referring to the Trivia edits which have been done and undone multiple times, this might qualify as edit warring and should be avoided at all costs as per WP:EDITWAR. Conflicts should be resolved on the article's talk page through discussion with other editors. You could also leave a friendly message on the other editor's talk page.

Also, a friendly recommendation: sign up for an account. That way you won't be editing under a perpetually-changing IP address, and other editors can contact you.

All the best and happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Greetings, temporary user Gorman. I've done what you asked and added the film to List of Universal Pictures films (1960-1969) in the chronological position for May 1. I think, however, that some further investigation may be needed to confirm this date. The sources seem to indicate that what occurred on May 1 was a premiere in Providence, Rhode Island, and that the film didn't go into wide release until September 4. (And the archived TCM page inexplicably gives a "release date" of "Jan. 1968" while noting that the premiere was the May 1 showing in Providence.) Too confusing for my poor brain without sufficient morning coffee. Deor (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Some softwares automatically display "January 1968", "January 01 1968", "01-00-1968", etc., if only the year is entered (and "01 January . . ." etc. if the month but not day is entered). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I am attempting to correct some very simple and easily verifiable (via links already provided on the wiki page) information on Richard Benyon (gymnast) as his name is both spelled wrong and his names appear in the wrong order. It’s Beynon not Benyon and his middle name is Carl not Richard. Why are these changes being labelled ‘not constructive’? I’d like a response specific to mobile view if possible, thank you. ~2026-15861-40 (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Currently the only reference on the page links to a site which does indeed refer to him as 'Carl Richard Benyon'. Your changes are being reverted because you are not providing a reliable source which supports your change. Athanelar (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I see now that the Olympedia page refers to him as "Carl Richard Beynon" instead.

Frankly, the subject seems non-notable anyway, I'm pretty sure this article needs to be deleted; I think it's a holdover from when NATHLETE was much less strict. Athanelar (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I would say he was just about notable in terms of athletic achievement (two national-level gold medals – see WP:NGYMNASTICS).

I was drawn into this discussion over the name confusion, being aware that the writer John Wyndham's full name was John Wyndham Parkes Lucas Beynon Harris, which is often mis-spelled. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I'm currently working on improving a Wikipedia article related to kpop and parasocial relationships. User:Meiqi Jiao/Parasocial interaction

I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so any advice would mean a lot to me! Thanks! Meiqi Jiao (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You should use reliable sources and you should write in a neutral tone. Learn more at WP:NPOV Phong062474 (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, we are from the Cebu school administration. We would like to add a new entry for our school. Our school only opened to the public in 2021. LC2026Ma (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to add an entry to your school, you should refer to our "golden rule" regarding notability, significant coverage, and independent sources. Once you're confident enough, you can view our guide on writing your first Wikipedia article. Cheers! nhals8 06:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Please also see WP:BOSSToarin (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @LC2026Ma, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please note that most schools do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - I advise you to not write so much as a single word about your school before you have found the required independent reliable sources - particularly for a new school, it is likely that these sources do not exist. (Note in particular that any newspaper coverage of the new school is likely to be based on press releases, and so not independent).

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. And that is even without the editor having a conflict of interest (which it sounds as if you may have). ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Hypoponera

just wondering if the diveristy should be 156 (total species) or 154 (total living species) with an additional statement addressing the 2 extinct species FranticSpud (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I would be inclined to have the infobox read "Diversity: 154 (living), 2 (extinct). It might also be mentioned in the text that, (as the linked reference says) there are also 22 recognised subspecies.

By my count the actual list in the article runs to only 149 species (including 2 marked as extinct). Good luck with identifying and adding the missing 7. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

ill find a way, thanks FranticSpud (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm trying to publish an article about Over Spa, an Italian company that is a spin-off from Sapienza University of Rome with a 13-year history. I get the error "Wall Street" when I try to publish — can you help me understand the reason why this is happening? I also tried publishing a very simplified version of the article but with no success getting the same error. ErazzorOnWiki (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

That seems very unusual. Are you using any translation plugins on your browser that could be modifying the error statement? Are there any sources in the draft named "Wall Street"? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There are no translation plugins on my browser (Safari). There are no sources named "Wall Street" into the page I'm trying to create.

The error I got is the following (in Italian since I'm trying to publish on it.wikipedia.org): "Questa azione è stata ritenuta pericolosa e quindi impedita in base a una verifica automatica. Se si ritiene che l'azione in questione sia costruttiva, contattare un amministratore e informarlo su ciò che si stava tentando di fare. Questa è una breve descrizione della regola che è stata violata: Wall Street" ErazzorOnWiki (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

See below then. In general, different language Wikipedias are autonomous from each other, so editors here on en.wiki are unlikely to be familiar with practices on it.wiki. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

ok thanks, just wrote the question about it on the Italian Wikipedia. ErazzorOnWiki (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@ErazzorOnWiki: You are receiving this as a result of an edit filter on Italian Wikipedia. I believe the issue might be that they don't like new users publishing new articles about companies. You will need to inquire on Italian Wikipedia how to resolve the issue. Perhaps start at it:Aiuto:Sportello_informazioni. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I am seeking a second opinion on Draft:Dileepa Wickramasekara. It has been declined by two reviewers for notability and tone. I have provided three full-page health features in national newspapers (Lake House Publications) and two appearances on the state TV broadcaster (SLRC). The reviewers seem to view these as interviews or routine, but in Sri Lanka, these are significant editorial features. I have simplified the text to be completely factual. Could a volunteer please check the newspaper scans in my Google Drive link and let me know if I am truly not meeting GNG standards, or if the reviewers are being too strict on a South Asian medical professional? Hansi Weeragammana (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't speak Sinhala, but I machine translated the photos and it seems like the newspaper scans are medical articles written by the person, not articles about him, which are required to establish notability. Is that not the case? TV appearances are not suitable for the same reason, unless maybe they're documentaries about the person. 🍅 fx (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

User is now blocked as an undisclosed paid editor. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist the draft seems to contain a COI disclosure, no? 🍅 fx (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The editor failed to answer the paid editing question, which included an instruction not to edit until answering it. The question was ignored and the editor proceeded anyway. A COI disclosure is fine, but if there is compensation, paid editing disclosure is mandatory per the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of service. An editor isn't free to simply ignore the question when it is asked, and it was asked a couple of days ago with many edits since then. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

What does being a Teahouse host entail? It seems like hosts answer questions here just like everyone else, so what is the purpose of signing up as a host? 🍅 fx (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a relevant discussion at WT:Teahouse/Archive_28#Should we get rid of the featured hosts on the top right of the header and mark them as historical?. There is certainly no obligation to sign up but many regulars here have done so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know, being a Teahouse host simply means you have established a history of answering questions here. There is a list of Teahouse hosts, the existence of which I was unaware until someone added me to that list, so I went and updated the image on it. I think that list exists solely for the purpose of the rotation of hosts in the banner at the top of this page. According to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured I appeared once, in December. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello all! I have just created a Wikipedia page for the first time. I would appreciate all feedback for my new page, Home Base Program, as any and all feedback will help my Wikipedia experience! Donohue55 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The "Mission" section has some issues with unencyclopedic tone; the first two sentences are puffery that read like they were copied directly from the organisation's mission statement, and don't really tell us anything useful about the organisation's actual operations. Home Base aims to support those who served their countries, no matter their discharge status. The organization works with veterans, active service members, and their families to face the invisible wounds that remain after their service.

"Support" how? What "invisible wounds?" This kind of prose is appropriate for a charity's website trying to drum up sympathy and support, but not for an encyclopedia which should be neutrally summarising the details of this organisation. "Home Base provides medical and psychiatric care to veterans" or something to that effect would be more than suitable.

The program's care is offered across the country, as it aims to help, no matter the participant's location. Same thing here. You can just get rid of that whole second part, it serves no additional informational purpose.

The organization is expanding their clinical worker further, as Home Base Arizona is in the works. It's generally inappropriate for Wikipedia to report on future events. As that page says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." An expansion of an organisation's scope is routine operations and therefore is not 'notable' enough to warrant mentioning. We wouldn't expect the article for McDonalds to report that a new store is opening in Podunk. Athanelar (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I added a Tone cleanup template to the Mission section as per @Athanelar's advice. Happy editing! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You really should have submitted it for review via WP:AFC. This isn't ready for mainspace. You can move it to Draft:Home Base Program if you want and add {{subst:AFC draft}} at the top, which provides a button for you to submit it when you're ready. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not a reviewer, rather passing by user.

In my humble opinion Home Base Program associates with New York City and not with Boston.

Plenty of cities might have a home base program. Matjung (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, half of the articles are stubs - so what? Recently I tried adding an article - to find out, that its content quality is not yet in line with Wikipedia expectation. If half of the articles are considered to be Stub - maybe that is good enough for the audience? Is it possible to add a Draft to the Stub collection? Wikipedia:Stub.

Anyway, one of the Stub articles is: Investor Relations Society.

The rejected draft article is: Draft:Global Investor Relations Network.

I agree, it is stub or incomplete. Unless you find enough people with motivation to do it better - half of the articles will remain stub, and new content may not find its way into the platform. Anyway, I asked the Stub if they have volunteers to look into that. Matjung (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It can take years for a stub to be updated. I created a stub perineum sunning a few years ago, and only recently fleshed it out into a larger article based on news events that happened after I created the stub.

An even older stub I made (15 years ago!), Sayyid Baraka, is still a stub in spite of having many different editors make edits to it. It's likely to remain that way unless I or someone revisits it, because it already supplies sufficient information about the subject. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and a stub is fine if it provides adequate sourcing. You basically need two or three sources that meet all the WP:Golden Rule criteria. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to know how I could improve my draft because it was declined for lacking criteria for inclusion. I had used 18 references which included independent articles, research papers, recognised newspapers, and one official government notice. Out of these, I had used only 3 dependent sources to explain the organisation's founding date and internal structure because:

1. Members know their organisation better.
2. I could not find any exclusive coverage on the matter.

Other than these 3 particular sources, I had tried my best to find the most reliable sources. I would be extremely grateful if someone could identify the faults in my draft. Thank you. Unbreakablerodent (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Unbreakablerodent You’re right, members often do know their organization better, but you know what they also know as a consequence? What said organization wants the public to know about them. That’s why you can’t use dependent sources. See WP:INDEPENDENT for more info. Cheers, Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I know the consequences very well. But there are no disputes on founding date and internal structure either. It was the only source. I cannot leave an article bare because it lacks a date, can I? Also, I did not use any dependent source to articulate the organisation's contribution, which should be the primary subject of the topic.

Non-independent sources are allowed under certain circumstances but it seems to me that the reviewer only looked into the first few lines of the draft. WP:INDEPENDENT itself says:

However, uncontroversial statements for which the information logically comes from the subject, such as "Big Company has 15,000 employees", does not require WP:INTEXT attribution; in fact, in-text attribution in such cases could improperly cast undue doubt on the statement. Unbreakablerodent (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Unbreakablerodent, you are right that it is fine that to use the organization as a reference for facts. However, to have an article the organization must be already well-known as shown by having several references that are, at the some time, reliably published, in-depth, and completely independent of the organization. The message explaining the decline is not saying that all references must be independent, only those you are using to show that the organization is well-known enough to have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)